Online Library of Liberty

A collection of scholarly works about individual liberty and free markets. A project of Liberty Fund, Inc.

Advanced Search

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]

0216 02 tp
Title Page
0216 02 toc
Original Table of Contents or First Page

Edition used:

John Joseph Lalor, 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

Available in the following formats:
Facsimile PDF 102 MB This is a facsimile or image-based PDF made from scans of the original book.
Facsimile PDF small 44 MB This is a compressed facsimile or image-based PDF made from scans of the original book.
Kindle 21.9 MB This is an E-book formatted for Amazon Kindle devices.
EBook PDF 29.6 MB This text-based PDF or EBook was created from the HTML version of this book and is part of the Portable Library of Liberty.
HTML 6.61 MB This version has been converted from the original text. Every effort has been taken to translate the unique features of the printed book into the HTML medium.
Simplified HTML 6.61 MB This is a simplifed HTML format, intended for screen readers and other limited-function browsers.

About this Title:

Vol. II of a massive 3 volume, 3,000 page compendium of nearly every aspect of 19th century American economics and political institutions. An additional bonus are the numerous translation of articles written for the French-language Dictionnaire de l’économie politique published in 1852.

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.

Table of Contents:


    East India Company - Nullification
  • E
  • F
  • FLAG
  • FRANKLIN, Benjamin
  • FRANKLIN, State of
  • G
  • GOLD
  • H
  • HALE
  • I
  • INDUSTRY, Agricultural.
  • INDUSTRY, Progress of.
  • IOWA
  • J
  • JAY
  • JOHNSON, Herschel V
  • JOHNSON, Reverdy
  • JOHNSON, Richard Mentor
  • JURY
  • JUSTICE, Department of
  • K
  • KING
  • KING
  • KING, William Rufus
  • L
  • LABOR, The Right to
  • LAND.
  • LANE
  • LAW
  • LAW, Common.
  • LAW, Criminal
  • LAW
  • LAW
  • LAW, Penal
  • LAW, Roman
  • LAW, Spoliation by
  • LAWS, Agrarian
  • LAWS
  • L8Uuml;BECK
  • M
  • MACE
  • McLEAN
  • N
  • NAVY
  • NAVY, Department of the
  • NOTE

VOLUME II: East India Company - Nullification



EAST INDIA COMPANY, a famous association, originally established for prosecuting the trade between England and India, which they acquired a right to carry on exclusively. Since the middle of the last century, however, the company's political became of more importance than their commercial concerns.

—The persevering efforts of the Portuguese to discover a route to India, by sailing round Africa, were crowned with success in 1497. And it may appear singular, that, notwithstanding the exaggerated accounts that had been prevalent in Europe, from the remotest antiquity. with respect to the wealth of India, and the importance to which the commerce with it had raised the Phœnicians and Egyptians in antiquity, the Venetians in the middle ages, and which it was then seen to confer on the Portuguese, the latter should have been allowed to monopolize it for nearly a century after it had been turned into a channel accessible to every nation. But the prejudices by which the people of most European states were actuated in the sixteenth century, and the peculiar circumstances under which they were placed, hindered them from embarking with the alacrity and ardor which might have been expected in this new commercial career. Soon after the Portuguese began to prosecute their discoveries along the coast of Africa, they applied to the pope for a bull, securing to them the exclusive right to and possession of all countries occupied by infidels which the Portuguese either had discovered, or might discover, to the south of Cape Non, on the west coast of Africa, in 27° 54' north latitude; and the pontiff, desirous to display, and at the same time to extend, his power, immediately issued a bull to this effect. Nor, preposterous as a proceeding of this sort would now appear, did any one then doubt that the pope had a right to issue such a bull and that all states and empires were bound to obey it. In consequence, the Portuguese were, for a lengthened period, allowed to prosecute their conquests in India without the interference of any other European power; and it was not till a considerable period after the beginning of the war which the blind and brutal bigotry of Philip II. kindled in the Low Countries, that the Dutch navigators began to display their flag on the eastern ocean, and laid the foundations of their Indian empire.

—The desire to comply with the injunctions in the pope's bull, and to avoid coming into collision, first with the Portuguese, and subsequently with the Spaniards, who had conquered Portugal in 1580, seems to have been the principal cause that led the English to make repeated attempts, in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., and the early part of the reign of Elizabeth, to discover a route to India by a northwest or northeast passage—channels from which the Portuguese would have had no pretense for excluding them. But these attempts having proved unsuccessful, and the pope's bull having ceased to be of any effect in England, the English merchants and navigators resolved to be no longer deterred by the imaginary rights of the Portuguese from directly entering upon what was then reckoned by far the most lucrative and advantageous branch of commerce. Captain Stephens, who performed the voyage in 1582, was the first Englishman who sailed to India by the cape of Good Hope. The voyage of the famous Sir Francis Drake contributed greatly to diffuse a spirit of naval enterprise, and to render the English better acquainted with the newly opened route to India. But the voyage of the Edition: current; Page: [2] celebrated Thomas Cavendish was, in the latter respect, the most important. Cavendish sailed from England in a little squadron, fitted out at his own expense, in July, 1586: and having explored the greater part of the Indian ocean, as far as the Philippine islands, and carefully observed the most important and characteristic features of the people and countries which he visited, returned to England, after a prosperous navigation, in September, 1588. But perhaps nothing contributed so much to inspire the English with a desire to embark in the Indian trade as the captures that were made about this period from the Spaniards. A Portuguese East India ship, or carrack, captured by Sir Francis Drake during his expedition to the coast of Spain, inflamed the capidity of the merchants by the richness of her cargo, at the same time that the papers found on board gave specific information respecting the traffic in which she had been engaged. A still more important capture of the same sort was made in 1593. An armament, fitted out for the East Indies by Sir Walter Raleigh, and commanded by Sir John Borroughs, fell in, near the Azores, with the largest of all the Portuguese carracks, a ship of 1,600 tons burden, carrying 700 men and 36 brass cannon; and, after an obstinate conflict, carried her into Dartmouth. She was the largest vessel that had been seen in England; and her cargo, consisting of gold, spices, calicoes, silks, pearls, drugs, porcelain, ivory, etc., excited the ardor of the English to engage in so opulent a commerce.

—In consequence of these and other concurring causes, an association was formed in London in 1599 for prosecuting the trade to India. The adventurers applied to the queen for a charter of incorporation, and also for power to exclude all other English subjects, who had not obtained a license from them, from carrying on any species of traffic beyond the cape of Good Hope or the straits of Magellan. As exclusive companies were then very generally looked upon as the best instruments for prosecuting most branches of commerce and industry, the adventurers seem to have had little difficulty in obtaining their charter, which was dated Dec. 31, 1600. The corporation was entitled: "The Governor and Company of Merchants of London trading into the East Indies." The first governor (Thomas Smythe, Esq.) and twenty-four directors were nominated in the charter, but power was given to the company to elect a deputy governor, and in future to elect their governor and directors, and such other office bearers as they might think fit to appoint. They were empowered to make by laws; to inflict punishments, either corporal or pecuniary, provided such punishments were in accordance with the laws of England; to export all sorts of goods free of duty for four years; and to export foreign coin or bullion to the amount of £30,000 a year, £6,000 of the same being previously coined at the mint; but they were obliged to import, within six months after the completion of every voyage except the first, the same quantity of silver, gold and foreign coin that they had exported. The duration of the charter was limited to a period of fifteen years; but with and under the condition that, if it were not found for the public advantage, it might be canceled at any time upon two years' notice being given. Such was the origin of the British East India company, the most celebrated commercial association of ancient or modern times, and which in course of time extended its sway over the whole of the Mogul empire.

—It might have been expected that, after the charter was obtained, considerable eagerness would have been manifested to engage in the trade. But such was not the case. Notwithstanding the earnest calls and threats of the directors, many of the adventurers could not be induced to come forward to pay their proportion of the charges incident to the fitting out of the first expedition. And as the directors seem either to have wanted power to enforce their resolutions, or thought it better not to exercise it, they formed a subordinate association, consisting of such members of the company as were really willing to defray the cost of the voyage, and to bear all the risks and losses attending it, on condition of their having the exclusive right to whatever profits might arise from it. It was by such subordinate associations that the trade was conducted during the first thirteen years of the company's existence.

—The first expedition to India, the cost of which amounted, ships and cargoes included, to £69.091, consisted of five ships, the largest being 600, and the smaller 130 tons burden. The goods put on board were principally bullion, iron, tin, broadcloths, cutlery, glass, etc. The chief command was intrusted to Capt. James Lancaster, who had already been in India. They set sail from Torbay on Feb. 13, 1601. Being very imperfectly acquainted with the seas and countries they were to visit, they did not arrive at their destination, Acheen in Sumatra, till June 5, 1602. But though tedious, the voyage was, on the whole, uncommonly prosperous. Lancaster entered into commercial treaties with the kings of Acheen and Bantam; and having taken on board a valuable cargo of pepper and other produce, he was fortunate enough, on his way home, to fall in with and capture, in concert with a Dutch vessel, a Portuguese carrack of 900 tons burden, richly laden. Lancaster returned to the Downs on Sept. 11, 1603. (Modern Universal History, vol. x. p. 16; Macpherson's Commerce of the European Powers with India, p. 81.)

—But notwithstanding the favorable result of this voyage, the expeditions fitted out in the years immediately following, though sometimes consisting of larger ships, were not, at an average, materially increased. In 1612 Capt. Best obtained from the court at Delhi several considerable privileges; and among others, that of establishing a factory at Surat, which city was henceforth looked upon as the principal British station in the west of India, till the acquisition of Bombay.

—In establishing factories in India, the English only followed the Edition: current; Page: [3] example of the Portuguese and Dutch. It was contended that they were necessary to serve as dépôts for the goods collected in the country for exportation to Europe, as well as for those imported into India, in the event of their not meeting with a ready market on the arrival of the ships. Such establishments, it was admitted, are not required in civilized countries; but the peculiar and unsettled state of India was said to render them indispensable there. Whatever weight may be attached to this statement, it is obvious that factories formed for such purposes could hardly fail of speedily degenerating into a species of forts. The security of the valuable property deposited in them furnished a specious pretext for putting them in a condition to withstand an attack; while the agents, clerks, warehousemen, etc., formed a sort of garrison. Possessing such strongholds, the Europeans were early emboldened to act in a manner quite inconsistent with their character as merchants, and but a very short time elapsed before they began to form schemes for monopolizing the commerce of particular districts, and acquiring territorial dominion.

—Though the company met with several heavy losses during the earlier part of their traffic with India, from shipwrecks and other unforeseen accidents, and still more from the hostility of the Dutch, yet, on the whole, the trade was decidedly profitable. There can, however, be little doubt that their gains at this early period have been very much exaggerated. During the first thirteen years they are said to have amounted to 132 per cent. But then it should be borne in mind, as Mr. Grant has justly stated, that the voyages were seldom accomplished in less than thirty months, and sometimes extended to three or four years; and it should further be remarked, that, on the arrival of the ships at home, the cargoes were disposed of at long credits of eighteen months or two years; and that it was frequently even six or seven years before the concerns of a single voyage were finally adjusted. (Sketch of the History of the Company, p. 13.) When these circumstances are taken into view, it will immediately be seen that the company's profits were not, really, by any means so great as has been represented. Still it may not be uninstructive to remark that the principal complaint that was then made against the company did not proceed so much on the circumstance of its charter excluding the public from any share in an advantageous traffic, as in its authorizing the company to export gold and silver of the value of £30,000 a year. It is true that the charter stipulated that the company should import an equal quantity of gold and silver within six months of the termination of every voyage; but the enemies of the company contended that this condition was not complied with, and that it was, besides, highly injurious to the public interest, and contrary to all principle, to allow gold and silver to be sent out of the kingdom. The merchants and others interested in the support of the company could not controvert the reasoning of their opponents without openly impugning the ancient policy of absolutely preventing the exportation of the precious metals. They did not, however, venture to contend, if the idea really occurred to them, that the exportation of bullion to the east was advantageous on the broad ground of the commodities purchased by it being of greater value in England; but they contended that the exportation of bullion to India was advantageous because the commodities thence imported were chiefly re-exported to other countries from which a much greater quantity of bullion was obtained than had been required to pay for them in India. Mr. Thomas Mun, a director of the East India company, and the ablest of its early advocates, ingeniously compares the operations of the merchant in conducting a trade carried on by the exportation of gold and silver, to the seed-time and harvest of agriculture. "If we only behold," says he, "the actions of the husbandman in the seed-time, when he casteth away much good corn into the ground, we shall account him rather a madman than a husbandman; but when we consider his labors in the harvest, which is the end of his endeavors, we find the worth and plentiful increase of his actions" (Treasure by Foreign Trade, p 50, ed. 1664)

—We may here remark that what has been called the mercantile system of political economy, or that system which measures the progress of a country in the career of wealth by the supposed balance of payments in its favor, or by the estimated excess of the value of its exports over that of its imports, appears to have originated in the excuses now set up for the exportation of bullion. Before this epoch the policy of prohibiting the exportation of bullion had been universally admitted; but it now began to be pretty generally allowed that its exportation might be productive of advantage, provided it occasioned the subsequent exportation of a greater amount of raw or manufactured products to countries whence bullion was obtained for them. This, when compared with the previously existing prejudice (for it hardly deserves the name of system) which wholly interdicted the exportation of gold and silver, must be allowed to be a considerable step in the progress to sounder opinions. The maxim ce n'est que le premier pas qui coute was strikingly verified on this occasion. The advocates of the East India company began gradually to assume a higher tone, and at length boldly contended that bullion was nothing but a commodity, and that its exportation should be rendered as free as that of anything else. Nor were these opinions confined to the partners of the East India company, they were gradually communicated to others; and many eminent merchants were taught to look with suspicion on several of the previously received dogmas with respect to commerce, and were, in consequence, led to acquire more correct and comprehensive views. The new ideas ultimately made their way into the house of commons; Edition: current; Page: [4] and in 1663 the statutes prohibiting the exportation of foreign coin and bullion were repealed, and full liberty given to the East India company and to private traders to export them in unlimited quantities.

—But the objection to the East India company, or rather the East India trade, on the ground of its causing the exportation of gold and silver, admitted of a more direct and conclusive, if not a more ingenious reply How compendious soever the ancient intercourse with India by the Red sea and the Mediterranean, it was unavoidably attended with a good deal of expense. The productions of the remote parts of Asia, brought to Ceylon, or the ports on the Malabar coast, by the natives, were there put on board the ships which arrived from the Arabian gulf. At Berenice they were landed, and carried by camels 250 miles to the banks of the Nile. They were there again embarked, and conveyed down the river to Alexandria, whence they were dispatched to different markets. The addition to the price of goods by such a multiplicity of operations must have been considerable. Pliny says that the cost of the Arabian and Indian products brought to Rome (A. D. 70) was increased a hundredfold by the expenses of transit (Hist. Nat, lib. vi., c. 23). but there can be little or no doubt that this is to be regarded as a rhetorical exaggeration. There are good grounds for thinking that the less bulky sorts of eastern products, such as silk, spices, balsams, precious stones, etc., which were those principally made use of at Rome, might, supposing there were no political obstacles in the way, be conveyed from most parts of India to the ports on the Mediterranean by way of Egypt, at a decidedly cheaper rate than they could be conveyed to them by the cape of Good Hope.

—But at the period when the latter route to India began to be frequented, Syria, Egypt, etc., were occupied by Turks and Mamelukes—barbarians who despised commerce and navigation, and were, at the same time, extremely jealous of strangers, especially of Christians or infidels. The price of the commodities obtained through the intervention of such persons was necessarily very much enhanced; and the discovery of the route by the cape of Good Hope was, consequently, of the utmost importance; for, by putting an end to the monopoly enjoyed by the Turks and Mamelukes, it introduced, for the first time, something like competition into the Indian trade, and enabled the western parts of Europe to obtain supplies of Indian products for about one-third of what they had previously cost. Mr. Mun, in a tract published in 1621, estimates the quantity of Indian commodities imported into Europe, and their cost when bought in Aleppo and India, as follows:

6,000,000 pepper cost, with charges, etc, at Aleppo, 2s. per lb...600,00000
450,000 cloves, at 4s. 9d...106,875100
150,000 mace, at 4s. 9d...35,62600
400,000 nutmegs, at 2s. 4d...46,66624
350,000 indigo, at 4s. 4d...75,83368
1,000,000 Persian raw silk, at 12s...600,00000

But the same quantities of the same commodities cost, when bought in the East Indies, according to Mr. Mun, as follows:

6,000,000 pepper, at 2½d. per lb...62,50000
450,000 cloves, at 9d...15,87500
150,000 mace, at 8d...5,00000
400,000 nutmegs, at 4d...6,666134
350,000 indigo, at ls. 2d...20,416124
1,000,000 raw silk, at 8s...400,00000

Which being deducted from the former, leaves a balance of £953,542 13s. 4d. And supposing that the statements made by Mr. Mun are correct, and that allowance is made for the difference between the freight from Aleppo and India, the result would indicate the saving which the discovery of the route by the cape of Good Hope occasioned in the purchase of the above-mentioned articles. (A Discourse of Trade from England to the East Indies, by T. M., original edition, p. 10. This tract which is very scarce, is reprinted in Purchas' Pilgrims.)

—In the same publication (p. 37) Mr. Mun informs us that, from the beginning of the company's trade to July, 1620, they had sent seventy-nine ships to India; of which thirty-four had come home safely and richly laden, four had been worn out by long service in India, two had been lost in careening, six had been lost by the perils of the sea, and twelve had been captured by the Dutch. Mr. Mun further states that the exports to India since the formation of the company had amounted to £840,376; that the produce brought from India had cost £356,288, and had produced in England the enormous sum of £1,914,600; that the quarrels with the Dutch had occasioned a loss of £84,088; and that the stock of the company, in ships, goods in India, etc., amounted to £400,000.

—The hostility of the Dutch to which Mr. Mun has here alluded, was long a very formidable obstacle to the company's success. The Dutch early endeavored to obtain the exclusive possession of the spice trade, and were not at all scrupulous as to the means by which they attempted to effect this their favorite object. The English, on their part, naturally exerted themselves to obtain a share of so valuable a commerce; and as neither party was disposed to abandon its views and pretensions, the most violent animosities grew up between them. In this state of things it would be ridiculous to suppose that unjustifiable acts were not committed by the one party as well as the other; though the worst act of the English appears venial when compared with the conduct of the Dutch in the massacre at Amboyna in 1622. While, however, the Dutch company was vigorously supported by the government at home, the English company met with no efficient assistance from the feeble and vacillating policy of James and Charles. The Dutch either despised their remonstrances, or defeated them by an apparent compliance; so that no real reparation was obtained for the outrages they had committed. During the civil war Indian affairs were necessarily Edition: current; Page: [5] lost sight of; and the Dutch continued, until the ascendency of the republican party had been established, to reign triumphant in the east, where the English commerce was nearly annihilated.

—But, notwithstanding their depressed condition, the company's servants in India laid the foundation, during the period in question, of the settlements at Madras and in Bengal. Permission to build Fort St. George was obtained from the native authorities in 1640. In 1658 Madras was raised to the station of presidency. In 1645 the company began to establish factories in Bengal, the principal of which was at Hooghly. These were, for a lengthened period, subordinate to the presidency at Madras.

—No sooner, however, had the civil war terminated than the arms and councils of Cromwell retrieved the situation of English affairs in India. The war which broke out between the long parliament and the Dutch in 1652 was eminently injurious to the latter. In the treaty of peace, concluded in 1654, it was stipulated that indemnification should be made by the Dutch for the losses and injuries sustained by the English merchants and factories in India. The 27th article bears, "that the lords, the states-general of the United Provinces, shall take care that justice be done upon those who were partakers or accomplices in the massacre of the English at Amboyna, as the republic of England is pleased to term that fact, provided any of them be living." A commission was at the same time appointed, conformably to another article of the treaty, to inquire into the reciprocal claims which the subjects of the contracting parties had upon each other for losses sustained in India, Brazil, etc.; and, upon their decision, the Dutch paid the sum of £85,000 to the East India company, and £3,615 to the heirs or executors of the sufferers at Amboyna. (Bruce's Annals, vol. i., p. 489)

—The charter under which the East India company prosecuted their exclusive trade to India, being merely a grant from the crown, and not ratified by any act of parliament, was understood by the merchants to be at an end when Charles I. was deposed. They were confirmed in this view of the matter from the circumstance of Charles having himself granted, in 1635, a charter to Sir William Courten and others, authorizing them to trade with those parts of India with which the company had not established any regular intercourse. The reasons alleged in justification of this measure, by the crown, were, that "the East India company had neglected to establish fortified factories, or seats of trade, to which the king's subjects could resort with safety; that they had consulted their own interests only, without any regard to the king's revenue; and in general that they had broken the condition on which their charter and exclusive privileges had been granted to them." (Rym. Fœdera, vol. xx, p. 146.)

—Courten's association, for the foundation of which such satisfactory reasons had been assigned, continued to trade with India during the remainder of Charles' reign; and no sooner had the arms of the commonwealth forced the Dutch to desist from their depredations, and to make reparation for the injuries they had inflicted on the English in India, than private adventurers engaged in great numbers in the Indian trade, and carried it on with a zeal, economy and success that monopoly can never expect to rival. It is stated in a little work, entitled Britannia Languens, published in 1680, the author of which has evidently been a well-informed and intelligent person, that during the years 1653, 1654, 1655, and 1656, when the trade to India was open, the private traders imported East India commodities in such large quantities, and sold them at such reduced prices, that they not only fully supplied the British markets, but had even come into successful competition with the Dutch in the market of Amsterdam, "and very much sunk the actions (shares) of the Dutch East India company." (P. 132.) This circumstance naturally excited the greatest apprehensions on the part of the Dutch company; for, besides the danger that they now ran of being deprived, by the active competition of the English merchants, of a considerable part of the trade which they had previously enjoyed, they could hardly expect that, if the trade were thrown open in England, the monopoly would be allowed to continue in Holland. A striking proof of what is now stated is to be found in a letter in the third volume of Thurlow's State Papers, dated at the Hague, Jan. 15, 1654, where it is said that "the merchants of Amsterdam have advice that the lord protector intends to dissolve, the East India company at London, and to declare the navigation and commerce of the East Indies free and open; which doth cause great jealousy at Amsterdam, as a thing that will very much prejudice the East India company in Holland."

—Feeling that it was impossible to contend with the private adventurers under a system of fair competition, the moment the treaty with the Dutch had been concluded the company began to solicit a renewal of their charter; but in this they were not only opposed by the free traders, but by a part of themselves. To understand how this happened, it may be proper to mention that Courten's association, the origin of which has been already noticed, had begun, in 1648, to found a colony in Assuda, an island near Madagascar. The company, alarmed at this project, applied to the council of state to prevent its being carried into effect: and the council, without entering on the question of either party's rights, recommended them to form a union, which was accordingly effected in 1649. But the union was, for a considerable time, rather nominal than real; and when the Dutch war had been put an end to, most of those holders of the company's stock who had belonged to Courten's association joined in petitioning the council of state that the trade might in future be carried on, not by a joint stock, but by a regulated company; so that each individual engaging in it might be allowed to employ his own stock, servants and shipping in whatever way he might conceive Edition: current; Page: [6] most for his own advantage. (Petition of Adventurers, Nov. 17, 1656; Bruce's Annals, vol. i., p. 518.)

—This proposal was obviously most reasonable. The company had always founded their claim to a monopoly of the trade on the alleged ground of its being necessary to maintain forts, factories and ships of war in India; and that as this was not done by government, it could only be done by a company. But, by forming the traders with India into a regulated company, they might have been subjected to whatever rules were considered most advisable; and such special duties might have been laid on the commodities they exported and imported as would have sufficed to defray the public expenses required for carrying on the trade, at the same time that the inestimable advantages of free competition would have been secured; each individual trader being left at liberty to conduct his enterprises, subject only to a few general regulations, in his own way and for his own advantage.

—But notwithstanding the efforts of the petitioners, and the success that was clearly proved to have attended the operations of the private traders, the company succeeded in obtaining a renewal of their charter from Cromwell in 1657. Charles II. confirmed this charter in 1661, and at the same time conferred on them the power of making peace or war with any power or people not of the Christian religion; of establishing fortifications, garrisons and colonies; of exporting ammunition and stores to their settlements duty free; of seizing and sending to England such British subjects as should be found trading to India without their leave; and of exercising civil and criminal jurisdiction in their settlements, according to the laws of England. Still, however, as this charter was not fully confirmed by any act of parliament, it did not prevent traders, or interlopers as they were termed, from appearing within the limits of the company's territories. The energy of private commerce, which, to use the words of Mr. Orme, "sees its drift with eagles' eyes," formed associations at the risk of trying the consequence at law, being safe at the outset and during the voyage, since the company were not authorized to stop or seize the ships of those who thus attempted to come into competition with them. Hence their monopoly was by no means complete; and it was not till after the revolution, and when a free system of government had been established at home, that by a singular contradiction, the authority of parliament was interposed to enable the company wholly to engross the trade with the east.

—In addition to the losses arising from this source, the company's trade suffered severely, during the reign of Charles II. from the hostilities that were then waged with the Dutch, and from the confusion and disorders caused by contests among the native princes; but in 1668 the company obtained a very valuable acquisition in the island of Bombay. Charles II. acquired this island as a part of the marriage portion of his wife, Catherine of Portugal; and it was now made over to the company, on condition of their not selling or alienating it to any persons whatever, except such as were subjects of the British crown. They were allowed to legislate for their new possession; but it was enjoined that their laws should be consonant to reason, and "as near as might be" agreeable to the practice of England. They were authorized to maintain their dominion by force of arms; and the natives of Bombay were declared to have the same liberties as natural born subjects. The company's western presidency was soon after transferred from Surat to Bombay.

—In 1664 the French East India company was formed, and ten years afterward they laid the foundation of their settlementsat Pondicherry.

—But the reign of Charles II. is chiefly memorable in the company's annals from its being the era of the commencement of the tea trade. The first notice of tea in the company's records is found in a dispatch addressed to their agent at Bantam, dated Jan. 24, 1667-8, in which he is desired to send home 100 lbs. of tea, "the best he can get" (Bruce's Annals, vol. ii., p. 210.) Such was the late and feeble beginning of the tea trade—a branch of commerce that has long been of vast importance to the British nation, and without which it is more than probable that the East India company would long since have ceased to exist, at least as a mercantile body.

—In 1677 the company obtained a fresh renewal of their charter; receiving at the same time an indemnity for all past misuse of their privileges, and authority to establish a mint at Bombay.

—During the greater part of the reigns of Charles II. and James II. the company's affairs at home were principally managed by the celebrated Sir Josiah Child, the ablest commercial writer of the time; and in India by his brother, Sir John Child. In 1681 Sir Josiah published an apology for the company, under the signature of —"A Treatise wherein is demonstrated that the East India Trade is the most National of all Foreign Trades;" in which, besides endeavoring to vindicate the company from the objections that had been made against it, he gives an account of its state at the time. From this account it appears that the company consisted of 556 partners; that they had from 35 to 36 ships of from 100 to 775 tons, employed in the trade between England and India, and from port to port in India (p. 23); that the customs duties upon the trade amounted to about £60,000 a year; and that the value of the exports, "in lead, tin, cloth, and stuffs, and other commodities of the production and manufacture of England," amounted to about £60,000 or £70,000 a year. Sir Josiah seems to have been struck, as he well might, by the inconsiderable amount of the trade; and he therefore dwells on the advantages of which it was indirectly productive in enabling the English to obtain supplies of raw silk, pepper, etc., at a much lower price than they would otherwise have fetched. But this, though true, proved nothing in favor of the company; it being an admitted fact that those articles were furnished at a still lower price by the Edition: current; Page: [7] interlopers or private traders.


—Sir Josiah Child was one of the first who projected the formation of a territorial empire in India. But the expedition fitted out in 1686, in the view of accomplishing this purpose, proved unsuccessful; and the company were glad to accept peace on the terms offered by the Mogul. Sir John Child, having died during the course of these transactions, was succeeded in the principal management of the company's affairs in India by Mr. Vaux. On the appointment of the latter, Sir Josiah Child, to whom he owed his advancement, exhorted him to act with vigor, and to carry whatever instructions he might receive from home into immediate effect. Mr. Vaux returned for answer, that he should endeavor to acquit himself with integrity and justice, and that he would make the laws of his country the rule of his conduct. Sir Josiah Child's answer to this letter is curious. "He told Mr. Vaux roundly that he expected his orders were to be his rules, and not the laws of England, which were a heap of nonsense, compiled by a few ignorant country gentlemen, who hardly knew how to make laws for the good government of their own private families, much less for the regulating of companies and foreign commerce." (Hamilton's New Account of the East Indies, vol. i., p. 232)

—During the latter part of the reign of Charles II. and that of his successor, the number of private adventurers, or interlopers, in the Indian trade, increased in an unusual degree. The company vigorously exerted themselves in defense of what they conceived to be their rights; and the question with respect to the validity of the powers conferred on them by their charter was at length brought to issue by a prosecution carried on at their instance against Mr. Thomas Sandys, for trading to the East Indies without their license. Judgment was given in favor of the company in 1685. But this decision was ascribed to corrupt influence; and instead of allaying only served to increase the clamor against them. The meeting of the convention parliament gave the company's opponents hopes of a successful issue to their efforts; and had they been united, they might probably have succeeded. Their opinions were, however, divided—part being for throwing the trade open, and part for the formation of a new company on a more liberal footing. The latter being formed into a body, and acting in unison, the struggle against the company was chiefly carried on by them. The proceedings that took place on this occasion are among the most disgraceful in the history of England. The most open and unblushing corruption was practiced by all parties. "It was, in fact, a trial which side should bribe the highest; public authority inclining to one or other as the irresistible force of gold directed." (Modern Universal History, vol. x., p. 127.) Government appears, on the whole, to have been favorable to the company, and they obtained a fresh charter from the crown in 1693. But in the following year the trade was virtually laid open by a vote of the house of commons, "that all the subjects of England had an equal right to trade to the East Indies unless prohibited by act of parliament." Matters continued on this footing till 1698. The pecuniary difficulties in which government was then involved induced them to apply to the company for a loan of £2,000,000, for which they offered 8 per cent. interest. The company offered to advance £700,000, at 4 per cent.; but the credit of government was at the time so low, that they preferred accepting an offer from the associated merchants, who had previously opposed the company, of the £2,000,000, at 8 per cent., on condition of their being formed into a new and exclusive company. While this project was in agitation, the advocates of free trade were not idle, but exerted themselves to show that, instead of establishing a new company, the old one ought to be abolished. But however conclusive, their arguments, having no adventitious recommendations in their favor, failed of making any impression. The new company was established by authority of the legislature; and as the charter of the old company was not yet expired, the novel spectacle was exhibited of two legally constituted bodies, each claiming an exclusive right to the trade of the same possessions!

—Notwithstanding all the pretensions set up by those who had obtained the new charter during their struggle with the old company, it was immediately seen that they were as anxious as the latter to suppress everything like free trade. They had not, it was obvious, been actuated by any enlarged views, but merely by a wish to grasp at the monopoly, which they believed would redound to their own individual interest. The public, in consequence, became equally disgusted with both parties; or if there were any difference, it is probable that the new company was looked upon with the greatest aversion, inasmuch as we are naturally more exasperated by what we conceive to be duplicity and bad faith than by fair, undisguised hostility.

—At first the mutual hatred of the rival associations knew no bounds. But they were not long in perceiving that such conduct would infallibly end in their ruin; and that while one was laboring to destroy the other, the friends of free trade might step in and procure the dissolution of both. In consequence they became gradually reconciled; and in 1702, having adjusted their differences, they resolved to form themselves into one company, entitled The United Company of Merchants of England trading to the East Indies.

—The authority of parliament was soon after interposed to give effect to this agreement.

—The united company engaged to advance £1,200,000 to government without interest, which, as a previous advance had been made of £2,000,000 at 8 per cent., made the total sum due to them by the public £3,200,000, bearing interest at 5 per cent., and government agreed to ratify the terms of their agreement, and to extend the charter to March 25, 1726, with three years' notice.

Edition: current; Page: [8] While these important matters were transacting at home, the company had acquired some additional possessions in India. In 1692 the Bengal agency was transferred from Hooghly to Calcutta. In 1698 the company acquired a grant, from one of the grandsons of Aurengzebe, of Calcutta and two adjoining villages: with leave to exercise judiciary powers over the inhabitants, and to erect fortifications. These were soon after constructed, and received, in compliment to William III., then king of England, the name of Fort William. The agency at Bengal, which had hitherto been subsidiary only, was now raised to the rank of a presidency.

—The vigorous competition that had been carried on, for some years before the coalition of the old and new companies, between them and the private traders, had occasioned a great additional importation of Indian silks, piece goods and other products, and a great reduction of their price. These circumstances occasioned the most vehement complaints among the home manufacturers, who resorted to the arguments invariably made use of on such occasions by those who wish to exclude foreign competition; affirming that manufactured Indian goods had been largely substituted for those of England; that the English manufacturers had been reduced to the cruel necessity either of selling nothing, or of selling their commodities at such a price as left them no profit; that great numbers of their workmen had been thrown out of employment; and, last of all, that Indian goods were not bought by British goods, but by gold and silver, the exportation of which had caused the general impoverishment of the kingdom! The merchants and others interested in the Indian trade could not, as had previously happened to them in the controversy with respect to the exportation of bullion, meet these statements without attacking the principles on which they rested, and maintaining, in opposition to them, that it was for the advantage of every people to buy the products they wanted in the cheapest market. This just and sound principle was, in consequence, enforced in several petitions presented to parliament by the importers of Indian goods; and it was also enforced in several able publications that appeared at the time. But these arguments, how unanswerable soever they may now appear, had then but little influence, and in 1701 an act was passed, prohibiting the importation of Indian manufactured goods for home consumption.

—For some years after the re-establishment of the company, it continued to prosecute its efforts to consolidate and extend its commerce. But the unsettled state of the Mogul empire, coupled with the determination of the company to establish factories in every convenient situation, exposed their affairs to perpetual vicissitudes. In 1715 it was resolved to send an embassy to Delhi, to solicit from Furucksur, an unworthy descendant of Aurengzebe, an extension and confirmation of the company's territory and privileges. Address, accident, and the proper application of presents conspired to insure the success of the embassy. The grants or patents solicited by the company were issued in 1717—thirty-four in all. The substance of the privileges they conferred was, that English vessels wrecked on the coast of the empire should be exempt from plunder; that the annual payment of a stipulated sum to the government of Surat should free the English trade at that port from all duties and exactions, that those villages contiguous to Madras, formerly granted and afterward refused by the government of Arcot, should be restored to the company; that the island of Dieu, near the port of Masulipatam, should belong to the company, paying for it a fixed rent; that in Bengal, all persons, whether European or native, indebted or accountable to the company, should be delivered up to the presidency on demand; that goods of export or import, belonging to the English, might, under a dustuck or passport from the president of Calcutta, be conveyed duty free through the Bengal provinces: and that the English should be at liberty to purchase the lordship of thirty-seven towns contiguous to Calcutta, and in fact commanding both banks of the river for ten miles south of that city. (Grant's Sketch of the History of the East India Company, p. 128.)

—The important privileges thus granted were long regarded as constituting the great charter of the English in India. Some of them, however, were not fully conceded, but were withheld, or modified by the influence of the emperor's lieutenants, or soubahdars.

—In 1717 the company found themselves in danger from a new competitor. In the course of that year some ships appeared in India, fitted out by private adventurers from Ostend. Their success encouraged others to engage in the same line, and in 1722 the adventurers were formed into a company under a charter from his imperial majesty. The Dutch and English companies, who had so long been hostile to each other, at once laid aside their animosities, and joined heartily in an attempt to crush their new competitors. Remonstrances being found ineffectual, force was resorted to; and the vessels of the Ostend company were captured under the most frivolous pretenses, in the open seas and on the coasts of Brazil. The British and Dutch governments abetted the selfish spirit of hostility displayed by their respective companies; and the emperor was, in the end, glad to purchase the support of Great Britain and Holland to the pragmatic sanction, by the sacrifice of the company at Ostend.

—Though the company's trade had increased, it was still inconsiderable; and it is very difficult, indeed, when one examines the accounts that have from time to time been published of the company's mercantile affairs, to imagine how the idea ever came to be entertained that their commerce was of any considerable, much less paramount, importance. At an average of the ten years ending with 1724, the total value of the British manufactures and other products annually exported to India amounted Edition: current; Page: [9] to only £92,410 12s. 6d. The average value of the bullion annually exported during the same period amounted to £518,102 11s.; making the total annual average exports £617,513 3s. 10d.—a truly pitiful sum, when we consider the wealth, population and industry of the countries between which the company's commerce was carried on, and affording by its smallness a strong presumptive proof of the effect of the monopoly in preventing the growth of the trade.

—In 1730, though there were three years still unexpired of the company's charter, a vigorous effort was made by the merchants of London, Bristol and Liverpool to prevent its removal. It has been said that the gains of the company, had they been exactly known, would not have excited any very envious feelings on the part of the merchants; but, being concealed, they were exaggerated; and the boasts of the company as to the importance of their trade contributed to spread the belief that their profits were enormous, and consequently stimulated the exertions of their opponents. Supposing, however, that the real state of the case had been known, there was still enough to justify the almost exertions on the part of the merchants; for the limited profits made by the company, notwithstanding their monopoly, were entirely owing to the misconduct of their agents, which they had vainly endeavored to restrain, and to the waste inseparable from such unwieldy establishments.

—The merchants on this occasion followed the example that had been set by the petitioners for free trade in 1656. They offered, in the first place, to advance the £3,200,000 lent by the company to the public, on more favorable terms; and, in the second place, they proposed that the subscribers to this loan should be formed into a regulated company, for opening the trade, under the most favorable circumstances, to all classes of their countrymen.

—It was not intended that the company should trade upon a joint stock, and in their corporate capacity, but that every individual who pleased should trade in the way of private adventure. The company were to have the charge of executing and maintaining the forts and establishments abroad; and for this, and for other expenses attending what was called the enlargement and preservation of the trade, it was proposed that they should receive a duty of 1 per cent. upon all exports to India, and of 5 per cent. upon all imports from it. For ensuring obedience to this and other regulations, it was to be enacted that no one should engage in trade to India without license from the company; and it was proposed that thirty-one years, with three years' notice, should be granted as the duration of their peculiar privilege.

—"It appears from this," says Mr. Mill, "that the end which was proposed to be answered by incorporating such a company was the preservation and erection of the forts, buildings and other fixed establishments required for the trade of India. This company promised to supply that demand which has always been held forth as peculiar to the Indian trade, as the grand exigency which, distinguishing the traffic with India from all other branches of trade, rendered monopoly advantageous in that peculiar case, how much soever it might be injurious in others. While it provided for this real or pretended want, it left the trade open to all the advantages of private enterprise, private vigilance, private skill and private economy—the virtues by which individuals thrive and nations prosper; and it gave the proposed company an interest in the careful discharge of its duty by making its profits increase in exact proportion with the increase of the trade, and, of course, with the facilities and accommodation by which the trade was promoted.

—Three petitions were presented to the house of commons in behalf of the proposed company, by the merchants of London, Bristol and Liverpool. It was urged that the proposed company would, through the competition of which it would be productive, cause a great extension of the trade; that it would produce a larger exportation of English produce and manufactures in India, and reduce the price of all Indian commodities to the people at home; that new channels of traffic would be opened in Asia and America as well as in Europe; that the duties of customs and excise would be increased; and that the waste and extravagance caused by the monopoly would be entirely avoided." (Mill's India, vol. iii., p. 37.)

—But these arguments did not prevail. The company magnified the importance of their trade, and contended that it would be unwise to risk advantages already realized for the sake of those that were prospective and contingent. They alleged that, if the trade to India were thrown open, the price of goods in India would be so much enhanced by the competition of different traders, and their price in England so much diminished, that the freedom of the trade would certainly end in the ruin of all who had been foolish enough to adventure in it. To enlarge on the fallacy of these statements would be worse than superfluous. It is obvious that nothing whatever could have been risked, and that a great deal would have been gained, by opening the trade in the way that was proposed. And if it were really true that the trade to India ought to be subjected to a monopoly, lest the traders by their competition should ruin each other, it would follow that the trade to America—and not that only, but every branch both of the foreign and home trade of the empire—should be surrendered to exclusive companies. But such as the company's arguments were, they seemed satisfactory to parliament. They, however, consented to reduce the interest on the debt due to them by the public from 5 to 4 per cent., and contributed a sum of £200,000 for the public service. On these conditions it was agreed to extend their exclusive privileges to Lady-day, 1766, with the customary addition of three years' notice.

—For about fifteen years from this period the company's affairs went on without any very prominent changes. But notwithstanding the Edition: current; Page: [10] increased importation of tea, the consumption of which now began rapidly to extend, their trade continued to be comparatively insignificant. At an average of the eight years ending with 1741, the value of the British goods and products of all sorts, exported by the company to India and China, amounted to only £157,944 4s. 7d. a year! During the seven years ending with 1748 they amounted to only $188,176 16s. 4d: When it is borne in mind that these exports included the military stores of all sorts forwarded to the company's settlements in India and at St. Helena, the amount of which was at all times very considerable, it does appear exceedingly doubtful whether the company really exported, during the entire period from 1730 to 1748, £150,000 worth of British produce as a legitimate mercantile adventure! Their trade, such as it was, was entirely carried on by shipments of bullion; and even its annual average export, during the seven years ending with 1748, only amounted to £548,711 19s. 2d. It would seem, indeed, that the company had derived no perceptible advantage from the important concessions obtained from the Mogul emperor in 1717. But the true conclusion is, not that these concessions were of little value, but that the deadening influence of monopoly had so paralyzed the company that they were unable to turn them to account; and that, though without competitors, and with opulent kingdoms for their customers, their commerce was hardly greater than that carried on by some single merchants.

—In 1732 the company were obliged to reduce their dividend from 8 to 7 per cent, at which rate it continued till 1744.

—The opposition the company had experienced from the merchants when the question as to the renewal of their charter was agitated in 1730 made them very desirous to obtain the next renewal in as quiet a manner as possible. They therefore proposed, in 1743, when twenty-three years of their charter were yet unexpired, to lead £1,000,000 to government, at 3 per cent., provided their exclusive privileges were extended to 1780, with the usual notice; and, as none were expecting such an application, or prepared to oppose it, the consent of the government was obtained without difficulty.

—But the period was now come when the mercantile character of the East India company—if, indeed, it could with propriety be at any time said to belong to them—was to be eclipsed by their achievements as a military power, and the magnitude of their conquests. For about two centuries after the European powers began their intercourse with India, the Mogul princes were regarded as among the most opulent and powerful of monarchs. Though of a foreign lineage—being descended from the famous Tamerlane, or Timur Beg, who overran India in 1400—and of a different religion from the great body of their subjects, their dominion was firmly established in every part of their extensive empire. The administration of the different provinces was committed to officers, denominated soubahdars, or nabobs, intrusted with powers, in their respective governments, similar to those enjoyed by the Roman prætors. So long as the emperors retained any considerable portion of the vigor and bravery of their hardy ancestors, the different parts of the government were held in due subordination, and the soubahdars yielded a ready obedience to the orders from Delhi. But the emperors were gradually debauched by the apparently prosperous condition of their affairs. Instead of being educated in the council or the camp, the heirs of almost unbounded power were brought up in the slothful luxury of the seraglio; ignorant of public affairs; benumbed by indolence; depraved by the flattery of women, of ennuchs and slaves; their minds contracted with their enjoyments; their inclinations were vilified by their habits; and their government grew as vicious, as corrupt and as worthless as themselves. When the famous Kouli Khan, the usurper of the Persian throne, invaded India, the effeminate successor of Tamerlane and Aurengzebe was too unprepared to oppose, and too dastardly to think of avenging, the attack. This was the signal for the dismemberment of the monarchy. No sooner had the invader withdrawn than the soubahdars either openly threw off their allegiance to the emperor, or paid only a species of nominal or mock deference to his orders. The independence of the soubahdars was very soon followed by wars among themselves; and, being well aware of the superiority of European troops and tactics, they anxiously courted the alliance and support of the French and English East India companies. These bodies, having espoused different sides, according as their interests or prejudices dictated, began very soon to turn the quarrels of the soubahdars to their own account. Instead of being contented, as hitherto, with the possession of factories and trading towns, they aspired to the dominion of provinces; and the struggle soon came to be, not which of the native princes should prevail, but whether the English or the French should become the umpires of India.

—But these transactions are altogether foreign to the subject of this work; nor could any intelligible account of them be given without entering into lengthened statements. We shall only, therefore, observe that the affairs of the French were ably conducted by La Bourdonnais, Dupleix and Lally, officers of distinguished merit, and not less celebrated for their great actions than for the base ingratitude of which they were the victims. But though victory seemed at first to incline to the French and their allies, the English affairs were effectually retrieved by the extraordinary talents and address of a single individual. Colonel (afterward Lord) Clive was equally brave, cautions and enterprising; not scrupulous in the use of means; fertile in expedients; endowed with wonderful sagacity and resolution; and capable of turning even the most apparently adverse circumstances to advantage. Having succeeded in humbling the French power in the vicinity of Madras. Clive landed at Calcutta in 1757, in order to chastise Edition: current; Page: [11] the soubdahdar, Surajah ul Dowlah, who had a short while before attacked the English factory at that place, and inhumanly shut up 146 Englishmen in a prison, where, owing to the excessive heat and want of water, 123 perished in a single night. Clive had only 700 European troops and 1,400 Sepoys with him when he landed; but with these, and 570 sailors furnished by the fleet, he did not hesitate to attack the immense army commanded by the soubahdar, and totally defeated him in the famous battle of Plassey. This victory threw the whole provinces of Bengal, Bahar and Orissa into the hands of the English, and they were finally confirmed to them by the treaty negotiated in 1765.

—Opinion has been long divided as to the policy of English military operations in India; and it has been strenuously contended that England should never have extended its conquests beyond the limits of Bengal. The legislature seems to have taken this view of the matter; the house of commons having resolved, in 1782, "that to pursue schemes of conquest and extent of dominion in India are measures repugnant to the wish, the honor and the policy of this nation." But others have argued, and apparently on pretty good grounds, that, having gone thus far, England was compelled to advance. The native powers, trembling at the increase of British dominion, endeavored, when too late, to make head against the growing evil. In this view they entered into combinations and wars against the English; and the latter having been uniformly victorious, their empire necessarily went on increasing, till all the native powers have been swallowed up in its vast extent.

—The magnitude of the acquisitions made by Lord Clive powerfully excited the attention of the British public. Their value was prodigiously exaggerated; and it was generally admitted that the company had no legal claim to enjoy, during the whole period of their charter, all the advantages resulting from conquests to which the fleets and armies of the state had largely contributed. In 1767 the subject was taken up by the house of commons; and a committee was appointed to investigate the whole circumstances of the case, and to calculate the entire expenditure incurred by the public on the company's account. During the agitation of this matter the right of the company to the new conquests was totally denied by several members. In the end, however, the question was compromised by the company agreeing to pay £400,000 a year for two years; and in 1769 this agreement, including the yearly payment, was further extended for five years more. The company at the same time increased their dividend, which had been fixed by the former agreement at 10, to 12½ per cent.

—But the company's anticipations of increased revenue proved entirely visionary. The rapidity of their conquests in India, the distance of the controlling authority at home, and the abuses in the government of the native princes, to whom the company had succeeded, conspired to foster a strong spirit of peculation among their servants. Abuses of every sort were multiplied to a frightful extent. The English, having obtained, or rather enforced, an exemption from those heavy transit duties to which the native traders were subject, engrossed the whole internal trade of the country. They even went so far as to decide what quantity of goods each manufacturer should deliver, and what he should receive for them. It is due to the directors to say that they exerted themselves to repress these abuses; but their resolutions were neither carried into effect by their servants in India, nor sanctioned by the proprietors at home; so that the abuses, instead of being repressed, went on acquiring fresh strength and virulence. The resources of the country were rapidly impaired; and while many of the company's servants returned to Europe with immense fortunes, the company itself was involved in debt and difficulties; and so far from being able to pay the stipulated sum of £400,000 a year to government, was compelled to apply in 1772 to the treasury for a loan!

—In this crisis of their affairs government interposed, and a considerable change was made in the constitution of the company. The dividend was restricted to 6 per cent, till the sum of £1,400,000, advanced to them by the public, should be paid. It was further enacted that the court of directors should be elected for four years, six members annually, but none to hold their seats for more than four years at a time; that no person was to vote at the courts of proprietors who had not possessed his stock for twelve months; and that the amount of stock required to qualify for a vote should be increased from £500 to £1,000. The jurisdiction of the mayor's court at Calcutta was in future confined to small mercantile cases; and, in lieu of it, a new court was appointed, consisting of a chief justice and three principal judges appointed by the crown. A superiority was also given to Bengal over the other presidencies. Mr. Warren Hastings being named in the act as governor general of India. The governor general, councilors and judges were prohibited from having any concern whatever in trade; and no person residing in the company's settlements was allowed to take more than 12 per cent. per annum for money. Though strenuously opposed, these measures were carried by a large majority.

—At this period (1773) the total number of proprietors of East India stock, with their qualifications as they stood in the company's book, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [12]

—Notwithstanding the vast extension of the company's territories, their trade continued to be apparently insignificant. During the three years ending with 1773 the value of the entire exports of British produce and manufactures, including military stores, sent out by the company to Ind a and China, amounted to £1,469,411, being at the rate of £489,803 a year; the annual exports of bullion during the same period being only £84,9334 During the same three years twenty-three ships sailed annually for India. The truth, indeed, seems to be, that, but for the increased consumption of tea in Great Britain, the company would have entirely ceased to carry on any branch of trade with the east, and that the monopoly would have excluded the English as effectually from the markets of India and China as if the trade had reverted to its ancient channels, and the route by the cape of Good Hope been relinquished.

—In 1781 the exclusive privileges of the company were extended to 1791, with three years' notice; the dividend on the company's stock was fixed at 8 per cent.; three-fourths of their surplus revenues, after paying the dividend and the sum of £400,000 payable to government, was to be applied to the public service, and the remaining fourth to the company's own use.

—In 1780 the value of British produce and manufactures exported by the company to India and China amounted to only £386,152; the bullion exported during the same year was £15,014. The total value of the exports during the same year was £12,648,616; showing that the East India trade formed only one thirty-second part of the entire foreign trade of the empire.

—The administration of Mr. Hastings was one continued scene of war, negotiation and intrigue. The state of the country, instead of being improved, became worse; so much so, that in a council minute by Marquis Cornwallis, dated Sept. 18, 1789, it is distinctly stated "that one-third part of the company's territory is now a jungle for wild beasts." Some abuses in the conduct of their servants were, indeed, rectified; but, notwithstanding, the net revenue of Bengal. Bahar and Orissa, which in 1772 had amounted to £2,126,766, declined in 1785 to £2,072,963. This exhaustion of the country, and the expenses incurred in the war with Hyder Ally and France, involved the company in fresh difficulties; and being unable to meet them, they were obliged in 1783 to present a petition to parliament, setting forth their inability to pay the stipulated sum of £400,000 a year to the public, and praying to be excused from that payment and to be supported by a loan of £900,000.

—All parties seemed now to be convinced that some further changes in the constitution of the company had become indispensable. In this crisis Mr. Fox brought forward his famous India bill, the grand object of which was to abolish the courts of directors and proprietors, and to vest the government of India in the hands of seven commissioners appointed by parliament. The coalition between Lord North and Mr. Fox having rendered the ministry exceedingly unpopular, advantage was taken of the circumstance to raise an extraordinary clamor against the bill. The East India company stigmatized it as an invasion of their chartered rights; though it is obvious that, from their inability to carry into effect the stipulations under which those rights were conceded to them, they necessarily reverted to the public; and it was as open to parliament to legislate upon them as upon any other question. The political opponent of the government represented the proposal for vesting the nomination of commissioners in the legislature as a daring invasion of the prerogative of the crown, and an insidious attempt of the minister to render himself all-powerful by adding the patronage of India to that already in his possession. The bill was, however, carried through the house of commons; but, in consequence of the ferment it had excited, and the avowed opposition of his majesty, it was thrown out in the house of lords. This event proved fatal to the coalition ministry. A new one was formed, with Mr Pitt at its head; and parliament being soon after dissolved, the new minister acquired a decisive majority in both houses. When thus secure of parliamentary support, Mr. Pitt brought forward his India bill, which was successfully carried through all its stages. By this bill a board of control was erected, consisting of six members of the privy council, who were "to check, superintend and control all acts, operations and concerns which in anywise relate to the civil or military government or revenues of the territories and possessions of the East India company." All communications to or from India, touching any of the above matters, were to be submitted to this board, the directors being ordered to yield obedience to its commands, and to alter or amend all instructions sent to India as directed by it. A secret committee of three directors was formed, with which the board of control might transact any business it did not choose to submit to the court of directors. Persons returning from India were to be obliged, under very severe penalties, to declare the amount of their fortunes; and a tribunal was appointed for the trial of all individuals accused of misconduct in India, consisting of a judge from each of the courts of king's bench, common pleas and exchequer; five members of the house of lords, and seven members of the house of commons; the last being chosen by lot at the commencement of each session. The superintendence of all commercial matters continued, as formerly, in the hands of the directors.

—During the administration of Marquis Cornwallis, who succeeded Mr. Hastings, Tippoo Saib, the son of Hyder Ally, was stripped of nearly half of his dominions; the company's territorial revenue was, in consequence, greatly increased; at the same time that the permanent settlement was carried into effect in Bengal, and other important changes accomplished. Opinion has been long divided as to the influence of these changes. On Edition: current; Page: [13] the whole, however, we are inclined to think that they have been decidedly advantageous. Lord Cornwallis was, beyond all question, a sincere friend to the people of India, and labored earnestly, if not always successfully, to promote their interests, which he well knew were identified with those of the British nation.

—During the three years ending with 1793 the value of the company's exports of British produce and manufactures fluctuated from £928,783 to £1,031,262. But this increase is wholly to be ascribed to the reduction of the duty on tea in 1784, and the vast increase that consequently took pace in its consumption. Had the consumption of tea continued stationary, there appear no grounds for thinking that the company's exports in 1793 would have been greater than in 1780, unless an increase had taken place in the quantity of military stores exported.

—In 1793 the company's charter was prolonged till March 1,1814. In the act for this purpose a species of provision was made for opening the trade to India to private individuals. All his majesty's subjects residing in any part of his European dominions were allowed to export to India any article of the produce or manufacture of the British dominions, except military stores, ammunition, masts, spars, cordage, pitch, tar and copper; and the company's civil servants in India, and the free merchants resident there, were allowed to ship, on their own account and risk, all kinds of Indian goods, except calicoes, dimities, muslins, and other piece goods. But neither the merchants in England, nor the company's servants and merchants in India, were allowed to export or import except in the company's ships. And in order to insure such conveyance, it was enacted that the company should annually appropriate 3,000 tons of shipping for the use of private traders; it being stipulated that they were to pay in time of peace £5 outwards, and £15 homewards, for every ton occupied by them in the company's ships; and that this freight might be raised in time of war with the approbation of the board of control.

—It might have been, and indeed most probably was, foreseen that very few British merchants or manufacturers would be inclined to avail themselves of the privilege of sending out goods in company's ships, or of engaging in a trade fettered on all sides by the jealousy of powerful monopolists, and where consequently their superior judgment and economy would have availed almost nothing. As far, therefore, as they were concerned, the relaxation was more apparent than real, and did not produce any useful results. (In a letter to the East India company, dated March 21, 1812, Lord Melville says: "It will not be denied that the facilities granted by that act [the act of 1793] have not been satisfactory, at least to the merchants either of this country or of India. They have been the source of constant dispute, and they have even entailed a heavy expense upon the company, without affording to the public any adequate benefit from such a sacrifice." Papers published by East India Company, 1813, p. 84.) It was, however, made use of to a considerable extent by private merchants in India, and also by the company's servants returning from India, many of whom invested a part and some the whole of their fortune in produce fit for the European markets.

—The financial difficulties of the East India company led to the revolution which took place in its government in 1784. But notwithstanding the superintendence of the board of control, its finances have continued nearly in the same unprosperous state as before. We have been favored from time to time with the most dazzling accounts of revenue that was to be immediately derived from India; and numberless acts of parliament have been passed for the appropriation of surpluses that never had any existence except in the imagination of their framers. The proceedings that took place at the renewal of the charter in 1793 afford a striking example of this. Lord Cornwallis had then concluded the war with Tippoo Saib, which had stripped him of half of his dominions; the perpetual settlement, from which so many benefits were expected to be derived, had been adopted in Bengal; and the company's receipts had been increased, in consequence of accessions to their territory, and subsidies from native princes, etc, to upwards of eight millions sterling a year, which it was calculated would afford a future annual surplus, after every description of charge had been deducted, of £1,240,000. Mr. Dundas (afterward Lord Melville), then president of the board of control, availed himself of these favorable appearances to give the most flattering representation of the company's affairs. There could, he said, be no question as to the permanent and regular increase of the company's surplus revenue; he assured the house that the estimates had been framed with the greatest care; that the company's possessions were in a state of prosperity till then unknown in India; that the abuses which had formerly insinuated themselves into some departments of the government had been rooted out, and that the period had at length arrived when India was to pour her golden treasures into the lap of England! Parliament participated in these brilliant anticipations, and in the act prolonging the charter it was enacted, 1. That £500,000 a year of the surplus revenue should be set aside for reducing the company's debt in India to £2,000,000; 2 That £500,000 a year should be paid into the exchequer, to be appropriated for the public service as parliament should think fit to order; 3. When the India debt should be reduced to £2,000,000, and the bond debt to £1,500,000, one-sixth part of the surplus was to be applied to augment the dividends, and the other five-sixths were to be paid into the bank, in the name of the commissioners of the national debt, to be accumulated as a guarantee fund, until it amounted to £12,000,000; and when it reached that sum, the dividends upon it were to be applied to make up the dividends on the capital stock of the company to 10 Edition: current; Page: [14] per cent., if at any time the funds appropriated to that purpose should prove deficient, etc.

—Not one of these anticipations was realized! Instead of being diminished, the company's debts began immediately to increase. In 1795 they were authorized to add to the amount of their floating debt. In 1796 a new device to obtain money was fallen upon. Mr. Dundas represented that as all competition had been destroyed in consequence of the war, the company's commerce had been greatly increased, and that their mercantile capital had become insufficient for the extent of their transactions. In consequence of this representation, leave was given to the company to add two millions to their capital stock by creating 20,000 new shares; but as these shares sold at the rate of £173 each, they produced £3,460,000. In 1797 the company issued additional bonds to the extent of £1,417,000; and notwithstanding all this, Mr. Dundas stated in the house of commons, March 13,1799, that there had been a deficit in the previous year of £1,319,000.

—During the administration of the Marquis Wellesley, which began in 1797-8 and terminated in 1805-6, the British empire in India was augmented by the conquest of Seringapatam and the whole territories of Tippoo Saib, the cession of large tracts by the Mahratta chiefs, the capture of Delhi, the ancient seat of the Mogul empire, and various other important acquisitions; so that the revenue, which had amounted to £8,039,000 in 1797, was increased to £15,403,000 in 1805. But the expenses of government and the interest of the debt increased in a still greater proportion than the revenue, having amounted in 1805 to £17,672,000, leaving a deficit of £2,269,000. In the following year the revenue fell off nearly £1,000,000, while the expenses continued nearly the same; and there was, at an average, a continued excess of expenditure, including commercial charges, and a contraction of fresh debt, down to 1811-12.

—Notwithstanding the vast additions made to their territories, the company's commerce with them continued to be very inconsiderable. During the five years ending with 1811 the exports to India by the company, exclusive of those made on account of individuals in their ships, were as follows; 1807, £952,416; 1808, £919,544; 1809, £866,153; 1810, £1,010,815; 1811, £1,033,816. The exports by the private trade, and the privilege trade, that is, the commanders and officers of the company's ships, during the above-mentioned years, were about as large. During the five years ending with 1807-8 the annual average imports into India by British private traders, only amounted to £305,496. (Papers, published by the East India company in 1813, 4to, p. 56.) The company's exports included the value of the military stores sent from Great Britain to India. The ships employed in the trade to India and China during the same five years varied from 44 to 53, and their burden from 36,671 to 45,342 tons.

—For some years before the termination of the company's charter in 1813, the conviction had been gaining ground among all classes that the trade to the cast was capable of being very greatly extended; and that it was solely owing to the want of enterprise and competition, occasioned by its being subjected to a monopoly, that it was confined within such narrow limits. Very great efforts were, consequently, made by the manufacturing and commercial interests to have the monopoly set aside, and the trade to the east thrown open. The company vigorously resisted these pretensions, and had interest enough to procure a prolongation of the privilege of carrying on an exclusive trade to China to April 10, 1831, with three years' notice; the government of India being continued in their hands for the same period. Fortunately, however, the trade to India was opened, under certain conditions, to the public. The principal of these conditions were, that private individuals should trade, directly only, with the presidencies of Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, and the port of Penang; that the vessels fitted out by them should not be under 350 tons burden; and that they should abstain, unless permitted by the company or the board of control, from engaging in the carrying trade of India, or in the trade between India and China. And yet, despite these disadvantages, such is the energy of individual enterprise as compared with monopoly, that the private traders gained an almost immediate ascendency over the East India company, and in a very short time more than trebled English trade with India! In the report of the committee of the house of lords on the foreign trade of the country, printed in May, 1821, it is stated that the greatly increased consumption of British goods in the east since the commencement of the free trade can not be accounted for by the demand of European residents, the number of whom does not materially vary; and it appears to have been much the greatest in articles calculated for the general use of the natives. That of the cotton manufactures of England alone is stated, since the first opening of the trade, to have been augmented from four to five-fold. The value of the merchandise exported from Great Britain to India, which amounted in 1814 to £870,177, amounted in 1819 to £3,052,741, [this is the amount of the company's exports only, and the sum is not quite accurate. Post]; and although the market appears to have been so far overstocked as to occasion a diminution of nearly one-half in the exports of the following year, that diminution appears to have taken place more in the articles intended for the consumption of Europeans than of natives; and the trade is now stated to the committee by the best informed persons to be reviving. When the amount of population, and the extent of the country over which the consumption of these articles is spread, are considered, it is obvious that any facility which can, consistently with the political interests and security of the company's dominions, be given to the private trader for the distribution of his exports, by increasing the number of ports at Edition: current; Page: [15] which he may have the option of touching in pursuit of a market, can not fail to promote a more ready and extensive demand."

—Besides the restraints imposed by the act of 1813 on the proceedings of the free traders (these restraints were a good deal modified by the act of 3 Geo. IV., c. 80, which was passed in pursuance of the recommendation of the committee quoted above), they frequently experienced very great loss and inconvenience from the commercial speculations of the East India company. The latter had commercial residents, with large establishments of servants, some of them intended for coercive purposes, stationed in all the considerable towns; and the Marquis Wellesley has stated "that the intimation of a wish from the company's resident is always received as a command by the native manufacturers and producers" The truth is, that it was not in the nature of things that the company's purchases could be fairly made; the natives could not deal with their servants as they would have dealt with private individuals; and it would be absurd to suppose that agents authorized to buy on account of government, and to draw on the public treasury for the means of payment, should generally evince the prudence and discretion of individuals directly responsible in their own private fortunes for their transactions. The interference of such persons would, under any circumstances, have rendered the East India trade peculiarly hazardous. But their influence in this respect was materially aggravated by the irregularity of their appearances. No individual, not belonging to the court of directors, could foresee whether the company's agents would be in the market at all; or, if there, to what extent they would either purchase or sell. So capricious were their proceedings that in some years they laid out £700,000 on indigo, while in others they did not lay out a single shilling; and so with other things. A fluctuating demand of this sort necessarily occasioned great and sudden variations of price, and was injurious alike to the producers and the private merchants.

—And besides being injurious to the private trader, and to the public generally, both in India and England, this trade was of no advantage to the East India company. How, indeed, could it be otherwise? A company that maintained armies and retailed tea, that carried a sword in one hand and a ledger in the other, was a contradiction; and, had she traded with success, would have been a prodigy. It was impossible for her to pay that attention to details which is indispensable to the carrying on of commerce with advantage. She may have gained something by the monopoly of the tea trade, though even that is questionable; but it is admitted on all hands that she lost heavily by her trade to India. When, therefore, the question as to the renewal of the charter came to be discussed in 1832 and 1833, the company had no reasonable objection to urge against their being deprived of the privilege of trading. And the act 3 8 4 Wm. IV., c. 85, for continuing the charter till 1854 terminated the company's commercial character, by enacting that the company's trade to China was to cease on April 22, 1834, and that the company was, as soon as possible after that date, to dispose of their stocks on hand and close their commercial business; and the wonderful increase that has since taken place in the trade with the east is the best proof of the sagacity and soundness of the opinions of those by whose efforts the incubus of monopoly was removed.

—From this period down to 1858, when the company was, as a governing body, finally abolished, its functions were wholly political, and the directors were, in truth, little more than a council to assist and advise the president of the board of control During the period now alluded to (from 1834 to 1858) some most important events have taken place in India. The British empire has been increased by the acquisition in 1845 of the territory of Scinde, at the mouths of the Indus; in 1849 of the extensive and fertile country of the Punjab (Five Rivers), in northwest India, between the Sutlej and the Indus; and in 1852 of Pegu and Martaban in Burmah. Being occupied by comparatively brave and hardy races, the subjagation of Scinde and the Punjab was not effected without much difficulty, and after the occurrence of several well-fought battles.

—The period referred to is also distinguished by the ill-advised invasion of Afghanistan in 1849. This unprovoked aggression led to the greatest reverse that has ever happened to the English in India. But the disastrous retreat from Caubul having been avenged, and the prestige of English arms restored, England finally withdrew from the country in 1842. And it is to be hoped that she may never again, unless from the most urgent necessity, attempt to extend her empire in that quarter beyond its present limits.

—A conviction had been for a lengthened period gaining ground that the company's intervention in the government of India had become inexpedient, and that it should be directly administered by the crown. In 1853 a step was taken in this direction by the act 16 8 17 Vict., c. 95, which reduced the number of directors from twenty-four to eighteen, part of which were to be nominated by the crown, and made other changes. It is not easy to say how long this modified system might have gone on, had it not been for the outbreak of the gigantic mutiny of 1857. It would be foreign to our object to introduce details with respect to the origin of this insurrection, its progress and suppression. These are known to all our readers. Here it is sufficient to mention that the incipient prejudice against the company having been strengthened, though without much reason, by the disasters in India, advantage was taken of their occurrence to introduce a bill into parliament for transferring its government from the company to the crown, which soon after (Aug. 2, 1858) became the act 21 and 23 Vict., c. 106. Its commercial had long been sunk in its military and political Edition: current; Page: [16] character. It had subjugated one of the most extensive empires in the world. And though its policy has been in many respects of a very questionable description, it is entitled to the high praise of having vigorously exerted itself to restrain abuses on the part of its servants, to protect the vast population within its dominion, and provide for their well-being.

—This once great and powerful corporation, having existed nearly 275 years, was, after the transfer of its remaining functions to the secretary of state for India in council, finally dissolved in 1873, by the 36 and 37 Vict., c. 17.



EAST INDIES, a popular geographical term not very well defined, but generally understood to signify the continents and islands to the east and south of the river Indus, as far as the borders of China, including Timur and the Moluccas, but excluding the Philippine islands, New Guinea and New Holland. China and the Philippine islands were, however, included within the limit of the East India company's peculiar privileges.

—1. Distinction of Castes in India. Inaccuracy of the Representations as to the Inhabitants being unalterably attached to ancient Customs and Practices. We have taken occasion in the preceding sketch of the history of the East India company, repeatedly to notice the small extent of the trade carried on by its agency. It was contended, however, that this was to be ascribed, not to the deadening influence of monopoly, but to the peculiar state of the people of India. A notion has long been prevalent that the Hindoos are a race unsusceptible of change or improvement of any sort; that every man is brought up to the profession of his father, and can engage in none else; and that, owing to the simplicity and unalterableness of their habits, they never can be consumers, at least to any considerable extent, of foreign commodities. "What is now in India has always been there, and is likely still to continue" (Robertson's Disquisition, p. 202.) The Hindoos of this day are said to be the same as the Hindoos of the age of Alexander the Great. The description of them given by Arrian has been quoted as applying to their actual situation. It is affirmed that they have neither improved nor retrograded, and we are referred to India as to a country in which the institutions and manners that prevailed 3,000 years ago may still be found in their pristine purity. The president de Goguet lays it down distinctly in his learned and invaluable work On the Origin of Laus, Arts and Sciences, that in India "every trade is confined to a particular caste, and can be exercised only by those whose parents professed it." (Origin of Laws, etc., English translation, vol. iii., p. 24.) Dr. Robertson says that the "station of every Hindoo is unalterably fixed; his destiny is irrevocable; and the walk of life is marked out from which he must never deviate." (Disquisition on India, p. 199.) The same opinions are maintained by later authorities. Dr. Tennant says that "the whole Indian community is divided into four great classes; and each class is stationed between certain walls of separation, which are impassable by the purest virtue and most conspicuous merit." (Quoted by Mr Rickards, p 6.) This unalterable destiny of individuals has been repeatedly assumed in the dispatches and official papers put forth by the East India company, and has been referred to on all occasions by them and their servants as a proof that the depressed and miserable condition of the natives is not owing to misgovernment, or to the weight of the burdens laid upon them; and that it is in vain to think of materially improving their condition, or of making them acquainted with new arts, or giving them new habits, so long as the institution of castes, and the prejudices to which it has given rise, preserve their ascendency unimpaired.

—But notwithstanding the universal currency which the opinions now referred to have obtained, and the high authority by which they are supported, they are, in all the most essential respects, entirely without foundation! The books and codes of the Hindoos themselves, and the minute and careful observations that have recently been made on Indian society, have shown that the influence ascribed to the institution of castes by the ancients, and by the more early modern travelers, has been prodigiously exaggerated. In the first part of his work on India, Mr. Rickards established, partly by references to the authoritative books of the Hindoos, and partly by his own observations, and those of Mr. Colebrooke, Dr. Heber, and other high authorities, that the vast majority of the Hindoo population may and in fact do, engage in all sorts of employments. It has been further shown that there is nothing in the structure of Indian society to oppose any serious obstacle to the introduction of new arts, or the spread of improvement; and that the causes of the poverty and misery of the people must be sought for in other circumstances than the institution of castes and the nature of Hindoo superstition.

—The early division of the population into the four great classes of priests (Brahmans), soldiers (Cshatryas), husbandmen and artificers (Vaisyas), and slaves (Sudras), was maintained only for a very short period. The Hindoo traditions record that a partial intermixture of these classes took place at a very remote epoch; and the mixed brood thence arising were divided into a vast variety of new tribes, or castes, to whom, speaking generally, no employments are forbidden.

—"The employments," says Mr. Rickards, "allowed to these mixed and impure castes may be said to be every description of handicraft and occupation for which the wants of human society have created a demand. Though many seem to take their names from their ordinary trade or profession, and some have duties assigned them too low and disgusting for any others to perform but from the direst necessity Edition: current; Page: [17] yet no employment, generally speaking, is forbidden to the mixed and impure tribes, excepting three of the prescribed duties of the sacerdotal class, viz., teaching the Vedas, officiating at a sacrifice, and receiving presents from a pure-handed giver: which three are exclusively Brahminical."

—Mr. Colebrooke, who is acknowledged on all hands to be one of the very highest authorities as to all that respects Indian affairs, has a paper in the fifth volume of the Asiatic Researches, on the subject of castes. In this paper Mr. Colebrooke states that the Jatimala, a Hindoo work, enumerates forty-two mixed classes springing from the intercourse of a man of inferior class with a woman of superior class, or in the inverse order of the classes. Now, if we add to these the number that must have sprung from intermixture in the direct order of the classes, and the hosts further arising from the continued intermixture of the mixed tribes among themselves, we shall not certainly be disposed to dissent from Mr. Colebrooke's conclusion "that the subdivisions of these classes have further multiplied distinctions to an endless variety"

—Mr. Colebrooke has given the following distinct and accurate account of the professions and employments of the several classes at the present day. It forms a curious commentary on the "irrevocable destiny" of Dr. Robertson, and the "impassable walls" of Dr. Tennant.—"A Brahman, unable to subsist by his duties, may live by the duty of a soldier; if he can not get a subsistence by either of these employments, he may apply to tillage and attendance on cattle, or gain a competence by traffic, avoiding certain commodities. A Cshatrya in distress may subsist by all these means; but he must not have recourse to the highest functions. In seasons of distress a further latitude is given. The practice of medicine and other learned professions, painting and other arts, work for wages, menial service, alms, and usury, are among the modes of subsistence allowed both to the Brahman and Cshatrya. A Vaisya, unable to subsist by his own duties, may descend to the servile acts of a Sudra; and a Sudra, not finding employment by waiting on men of the higher classes, may subsist by handicrafts; principally following those mechanical operations, as joinery and masonry, and practical arts, as painting and writing, by which he may serve men of superior classes, and although a man of a lower class is in general restricted from the acts of a higher class, the Sudra is expressly permitted to become a trader or a husbandman.

—Besides the particular occupation assigned to each of the mixed classes, they have the alternative of following that profession which regularly belongs to the class from which they derive their origin on the mother's side: those at least have such an option who are born in the direct order of the classes. The mixed classes are also permitted to subsist by any of the duties of a Sudra; that is, by menial service, by handicrafts, by commerce, and agriculture. Hence it appears that almost every occupation, though regularly it be the profession of a particular class, is open to most other classes; and that the limitations, far from being rigorous, do in fact reserve only the peculiar profession of the Brahman, which consists in teaching the Vida, and officiating at religious ceremonies." "We have thus," says Mr. Rickards, by whom this passage has been quoted, "the highest existing authority for rejecting the doctrine of the whole Hindoo community being divided into four castes,' and of their peculiar prerogatives being guarded inviolate by impassable walls of separation.' It is also clear that the intermixture of castes had taken place, to an indefinite extent, at the time when the Dherma Sastra was composed, which Sir William Jones computes to be about 880 years B. C.; for the mixed classes are specified in this work, and it also refers in many places to past times, and to events which a course of time only could have brought about. The origin of the intermixture is therefore lost in the remotest and obscurest antiquity; and having been carried on through a long course of ages, a heterogeneous mass is everywhere presented to us, in these latter times, without a single example, in any particular state, or kingdom, or separate portion of the Hindoo community, of that quadruple division of castes which has been so confidently insisted upon. I have myself seen carpenters of five or six different castes, and as many different bricklayers, employed on the same building. The same diversity of castes may be observed among the craftsmen in dockyards, and all other great works; and those who have resided for any time in the principal commercial cities of India must be sensible that every increasing demand for labor, in all its different branches and varieties of old and new arts, has been speedily and effectually supplied, in spite of the tremendous institution of castes, which we are taught to believe forms so impassable an obstruction to the advancement of Indian industry."

—2. Growing Demand for English Goods. It is difficult to suppose that the directors of the East India company should not have been early aware of the fallacy of the opinions as to the fixedness of Indian habits. So fat, however, as we know, they did not, in this instance, evince any acquaintance with the discoveries of their servants. On the contrary, in all the discussions that took place with respect to the opening of the trade in 1814, the company invariably contended that no increase of trade to India could be expected. In a letter of the chairman and deputy chairman to the Right Honorable Robert Dundas, dated Jan. 13, 1809, it is stated that the small demand for foreign commodities in India "results from the nature of the Indian people, their climate and their usages. The articles of first necessity their own country furnishes more abundantly and more cheaply than it is possible for Europe to supply them. The labor of the great body of the common people Edition: current; Page: [18] only enables them to subsist on rice, and to wear a slight covering of cotton cloth; they, therefore, can purchase none of the superfluities the English offer them. The comparatively few in better circumstances restricted, like the rest, by numerous religious and civil customs, of which all are remarkably tenacious, find few of English commodities to their taste; and their climate, so dissimilar to England, renders many of them unsuitable to their use; so that a commerce between them and England can not proceed far upon the principle of supplying mutual wants. Hence, except woolens in a very limited degree, for mantles in the cold season, and metals, on a scale also very limited, to be worked up by their own artisans for the few utensils they need, hardly any of English staple commodities find a vent among the Indians; the other exports which Europe sends to India being chiefly consumed by the European population there, and some of the descendants of the early Portuguese settlers; all of whom, taken collectively, form but a small body in view to any question of national commerce." (Papers published by authority of the East India Company, 1813, p. 21.)

—The volume from which we have made this extract, contains a variety of passages to the same effect. So confident, indeed, were the company that they had carried the trade to India to the utmost extent of which it was capable, that it was expressly stated, in resolutions passed in a general court held at the India house on Jan. 26. 1813, "that no large or sudden addition can be made to the amount of British exports to India or China," that the company had suffered a loss in attempting to extend this branch of their trade, that the warehouses at home were glutted with Indian commodities for which there was no demand, and that to open the outports to the trade would be no other than "a ruinous transfer of it into new channels, to the destruction of immense and costly establishments, and the beggary of many thousands of industrious individuals."

—Luckily, however, these representations were unable to prevent the opening of the trade, and the result has sufficiently demonstrated their fallacy. The enterprise and exertion of individuals have vastly increased English exports to India—to that very country which the company had so confidently pronounced was, and would necessarily continue to be, incapable of affording any additional outlet for English peculiar products!

—The commercial accounts for 1812 and 1813 were unfortunately destroyed by the fire at the custom house. The trade to India was opened on April 10, 1814; and in that year the declared or real value of the products exported from Great Britain to the countries eastward of the cape of Good Hope, excepting China, by the East India company, was £826,558, and by the private traders, £1,048,132 In 1817 the company's exports had declined to £638,382, while those of the private traders had increased to £2,750,333, and in 1828 the former had sunk to only £488,601, while the latter had increased to £3,979,072, being more than double the total exports to India, as well by the company as by private traders, in 1814! Since then the market has continued progressively to increase. At an average of the six years ending with 1849, the declared value of the exports of British goods amounted to no less than £6,313,668 a year; the declared value of those exported in 1849 being £6,803,274. In 1854, previously to the outbreak, the exports to India had reached the sum of £10,025,969.

—The company stated, and no doubt truly, that they lost a very large sum in attempting to extend the demand for British woolens in India and China, which, notwithstanding, continues very limited. But in their efforts to force the sale of woolens, they seem to have entirely forgotten that England had attained to great excellency in the manufacture of cotton stuffs, the article principally made use of as clothing in Hindostan; and that, notwithstanding the cheapness of labor in India, the advantage derived from England's superior machinery might enable her to offer cotton stuffs to the natives at a lower price than they could afford to manufacture them for. No sooner, however, had the trade been opened to private adventurers than this channel of enterprise was explored; and the result has been, that, instead of bringing cottons from India to England, the former has become one of the best and most extensive markets for the cottons of the latter. We question, indeed, whether, in the whole history of commerce, another equally striking example can be produced of the powerful influence of competition in opening new and almost boundless fields for the successful prosecution of commercial enterprise.

—In 1814, the first year of the free trade to India, the exports of cotton amounted to 817,000 yards, of which only about 170,000 yards, valued at £17,778, were exported by the company' The progress of the trade has since been such, that in 1866 England exported to India 544,699,474 yards of cotton stuffs, and 19,849,460 lbs. twist and yarn, ex. hosiery, lace and small wares, the aggregate declared value of the whole being £12,773,302.

—The demand for several other articles of British manufactures has increased with great rapidity. Notwithstanding all that has been said as to the immutability of Hindoo habits, the fact is not to be denied that a taste for European products and customs is rapidly spreading itself over India; and the fair presumption is, that it will continue to gain ground according as education is more generally diffused, and as the natives become better acquainted with English language, arts and habits. The authenticity of Dr. Heber's statements can not be called in question; and there are many passages in different parts of his journal that might be quoted corroborative of what has now been stated. Our limits, however, will only permit of our making a very few extracts.—"Nor have the religious prejudices and the unchangeableness Edition: current; Page: [19] of the Hindoo habits been less exaggerated. Some of the best informed of their nation, with whom I have conversed, assure me that half their most remarkable customs of civil and domestic life are borrowed from their Mohammedan conquerors; and at present there is an obvious and increasing disposition to imitate the English in everything, which has already led to very remarkable changes, and will, probably, to still more important. The wealthy natives now all affect to have their houses decorated with Corinthian pillars, and filled with English furniture, they drive the best horses and the most dashing carriages in Calcutta; many of them speak English fluently, and are tolerably read in English literature, and the children of one of our friends I saw one day dressed in jackets and trousers, with round hats, shoes and stockings. In the Bengalee newspapers, of which there are two or three, politics are canvassed with a bias, as I am told, inclined to Whiggism; and one of their leading men gave a great dinner, not long since, in honor of the Spanish revolution: among the lower orders the same feeling shows itself more beneficially in a growing neglect of caste." (Vol. ii., p. 306)—"To say that the Hindoos or Mussulmans are deficient in any essential feature of a civilized people, is an assertion which I can scarcely suppose to be made by any who have lived with them; their manners are at least as pleasing and courteous as those in the corresponding stations of late among ourselves; their houses are larger, and, according to their wants and climate, to the full as convenient as ours; their architecture is at least as elegant; nor is it true that in the mechanic arts they are inferior to the general run of European nations. Where they fall short of us (which is chiefly in agricultural implements, and the mechanics of common life), they are not, so far as I have understood of Italy and the south of France, surpassed in any degree by the people of those countries. Their goldsmiths and weavers produce as beautiful fabrics as our own; and it is so far from true that they are obstinately wedded to their old patterns, that they show an anxiety to imitate our models, and do imitate them very successfully. The ships built by native artists at Bombay are notoriously as good as any which sail from London or Liverpool. The carriages and gigs which they supply at Calcutta are as handsome, though not as durable, as those of Long Acre. In the little town of Monghyr, 300 miles from Calcutta, I had pistols, double barreled guns and different pieces of cabinet-work brought down to my boat for sale, which in outward form (for I know no further) nobody but perhaps Mr.——— could detect to be of Hindoo origin; and at Delhi, in the shop of a wealthy native jeweler, I found brooches, ear-rings, snuff-boxes, etc., of the latest models (so far as I am a judge), and ornamented with French devices and mottoes." (Vol. ii., p. 382.)

—As Bishop Heber penetrated into the interior of India, he found the same taste as in Calcutta, for European articles and for luxuries, prevalent everywhere among the natives. Of Benares he writes as follows: "But what surprised me still more, as I penetrated farther into it, were the large, lofty and handsome dwelling houses, the beauty and apparent richness of the goods exposed in the bazaars, and the evident hum of business. Benares is in fact a very industrious and wealthy as well as a very holy city. It is the great mart where the shawls of the north, the diamonds of the south, and the muslims of Dacca and the eastern provinces centre; and it has very considerable silk, cotton and fine woolen manufactories of its own, while English hardware, swords, shields and spears, from Lucknow and Monghyr, and those European luxuries and elegancies which are daily becoming more popular in India, circulate from hence through Bundelcund, Gorruckpoor, Nepaul, and other tracts which are removed from the main artery of the Ganges." (Vol. i., p. 289.)

—Proceeding still farther into the interior of the country, and when at Nusserabad, distant 1,051 miles from Calcutta, the bishop continues his journal in the same strain, viz.: "European articles are, at Nusserabad [near Ajmeer, in the heart of the Rajpoot country], as might be expected, very dear; the shops are kept by a Greek and two Parsees from Bombay; they had in their list all the usual items of a Calcutta warehouse. English cotton cloths, both white and printed, are to be met with commonly in wear among the people of the country, and many, I learned to my surprise, be bought best and cheapest, as well as all kinds of hardware, crockery, writing desks, etc., at Pallee, a large town and celebrated mart in Marwar, on the edge of the desert, several days' journey west of Joudpoor, where, till very lately, no European was known to have penetrated." (Vol. ii., p. 36.)

—As to the character of the Hindoos, their capacity, and even anxious desire, for improvement, the bishop's testimony is equally clear and decided; and as this is a point of pre-eminent importance, the reader's attention is requested to the following statements: "In the schools which have been lately established in this part of the empire, of which there are at present nine established by the Church Missionary, and eleven by the Christian Knowledge societies, some very unexpected facts have occurred. As all direct attempts to convert the children are disclaimed, the parents send them without scruple. But it is no less strange than true, that there is no objection made to the use of the Old and New Testament as a class book; that so long as the teachers do not urge them to eat what will make them lose their caste, or to be baptized, or to curse their country's gods, they readily consent to everything else; and not only Mussulmans, but Brahmans, stand by with perfect coolness, and listen sometimes with apparent interest and pleasure, while the scholars, by the roadside, are reading the stories of the creation and of Jesus Christ." (Vol. ii., p. 290.)—"Hearing all I had heard of the prejudices of the Edition: current; Page: [20] Hindoos and Mussalmans, I certainly did not at all expect to find that the common people would, not only without objection, but with the greatest thankfulness, send their children to schools on Bell's system; and they seem to be fully sensible of the advantages conferred by writing, arithmetic, and above all by a knowledge of English There are now in Calcutta, and the surrounding villages, 20 boys' schools, containing 60 to 120 each: and 23 girls', each of 25 or 30." (Vol. ii, p. 300.)—"In the same holy city [Benares] I visited another college, founded lately by a wealthy Hindoo banker, and intrusted by him to the management of the Church Missionary society, in which, besides a grammatical knowledge of the Hindoostanee language, as well as Persian and Arabic, the senior boys could pass a good examination in English grammar, in Hume's History of England, Joyce's Scientific Dialogues, the use of the globes, and the principal facts and moral precepts of the gospel; most of them writing beautifully in the Persian, and very tolerably in the English character, and excelling most boys I have met with in the accuracy and readiness of their arithmetic." (Vol. ii., p. 388)—"The different nations which I have seen in India (for it is a great mistake to suppose that all India is peopled by a single race, or that there is not as great a disparity between the inhabitants of Guzerat, Bengal, the Dooab, and the Deccan, both in language, manners and physiognomy, as between any four nations in Europe) have, of course, in a greater or less degree, the vices which must be expected to attend on arbitrary government, a demoralizing and absurd religion, and (in all the independent states, and in some of the districts which are partially subject to the British) a laxity of law, and an almost universal prevalence of intestine fends and habits of plunder. The general character, however, has much which is extremely pleasing to me: they are brave, courteous, intelligent, and most eager after knowledge and improvement, with a remarkable talent for the sciences of geometry, astronomy, etc., as well as for the arts of painting and sculpture In all these points they have had great difficulties to struggle with, both from the want of models, instruments and elementary instruction; the indisposition, or rather the horror entertained, till lately, by many among their European masters, for giving them instruction of any kind; and now from the real difficulty which exists of translating works of science into languages which have no corresponding terms" (Vol. ii., p. 409.)

—Even if our space permitted, it would be unnecessary to add to these extracts The facts and circumstances now mentioned, must, we think, satisfy every one that there is nothing in the nature of Indian society, in the institution of castes as at present existing, or in the habits and customs of the natives, to hinder them from advancing in the career of civilization, commerce and wealth. "It may safely be asserted," says Mr. Hamilton, "that with so vast an extent of fertile soil, peopled by so many millions of tractable and industrious inhabitants, Hindostan is capable of supplying the whole world with any species of tropical merchandise; the production, in fact, being only limited by the demand."

—3. Colonization of India. Considerable obstacles were long thrown in the way of Europeans establishing themselves in India, and particularly of their acquiring or holding land. This policy was dictated by various considerations; partly by a wish to prevent the extrusion of the natives from the soil which it was supposed would be eagerly bought up by Europeans, and partly by the fear lest the latter, when scattered over the country, and released from any effectual control, should offend the prejudices of the natives and get embroiled with them. Now, however, it seems to be the general opinion of those best acquainted with India, that but little danger is to be apprehended from these circumstances; that the few Europeans established in it as indigo planters, etc., have contributed very materially to its improvement; and that the increase and diffusion of the English population, and their permanent settlement in the country, are at once the most likely means of spreading a knowledge of English arts and sciences, and of widening and strengthening the foundations of English ascendency. It is obvious, indeed that the duration of the English power in India must depend on a very uncertain tenure unless they take root, as it were, in the soil and a considerable portion of the population be attached to them by the ties of kindred, and of common interests and sympathies. In this respect they should imitate the Roman in preference to the Lacedæmonian or Athenian policy. We formerly expressed the opinion that looking at the density of population in India, the low rate of wages, the nature of the climate, and other similar circumstances, it seemed very doubtful whether it would ever become the resort of any considerable number of English settlers, at least of such a number as would be sufficient, within any reasonable period, to form anything like a powerful native English interest; and we have now to state that these anticipations have been more than realized, and that though the restraints on the settlement of Englishmen in India have been practically at an end since 1834, very few have availed themselves of the privilege. There may no doubt, though we see little reason to anticipate such a result, be a greater emigration to India in time to come; and to whatever extent it may be carried, it promises to be highly advantageous. "We need not, I imagine," said Lord William Bentinck, "use any labored argument to prove that it would be infinitely advantageous for India to borrow largely in arts and knowledge from England. The legislature has expressly declared the truth; its acknowledgment has been implied in the daily acts and professions of government and in all the efforts of humane individuals and societies for the education of the people. Nor will it, I conceive, be doubted that the diffusion of useful Edition: current; Page: [21] knowledge, and its application to the arts and business of life, must be comparatively tardy unless we add to precept the example of Europeans, mingling familiarly with the natives in the course of their profession, and practically demonstrating by daily recurring evidence, the nature and the value of the principles we desire to inculcate, and of the plans we seek to have adopted. It seems to be almost equally plain, that independently of their influencing the native community in this way, various and important national advantages will result from there being a considerable body of our countrymen and their descendants settled in the country. To question it, is to deny the superiority which has gained us the dominion of India; it is to doubt whether national character has any effect on national wealth, strength and good government, it is to shut our eyes to all the perils and difficulties of our situation; it is to hold as nothing community of language, sentiment and interest between the government and the governed; it is to disregard the evidence afforded by every corner of the globe in which the British flag is hoisted; it is to tell our merchants and manufacturers that the habits of a people go for nothing in creating a market; and that enterprise, skill and capital, and the credit which creates capital, are of no avail in the production of commodities."

—In order to facilitate the development of agriculture and the employment of British capital in India, Lord Canning (being governor general) issued a series of ordinances in October, 1861, for the sale of waste lands, and the redemption of the land tax, the object being to effect "the sale of waste lands in perpetuity, discharged from all prospective demand on account of land revenue," and "permission to redeem the existing land revenue by the immediate payment of one sum equal in value to the revenue redeemed."

Advantage of India to England. The popular opinions in regard to the vast advantages derived by England from the government of India are as fallacious as can well be imagined. It is doubtful, indeed, whether its advantages compensate for its disadvantages India never has been, and never can be, a field for the resort of ordinary emigrants. It has, it is true, furnished an outlet for considerable numbers of well-educated young men of the middle classes, but the fortunes of those who return to spend the evening of their days in England are far short of compensating for the outlay on themselves and on those who die in the service. And there is but little ground to bank that the legitimate trade England carries on with India (we say legitimate, for a considerable portion of English trade with India is carried on upon account of the British troops serving in the peninsula) is greater than it would have been had it continued subject to its native rulers; neither is it by any means improbable that the large public debt of India will, in the end, have to be partially or wholly provided for by England.

—England may flatter her vanity by dwelling on the high destiny and glory of providing for the regeneration and well-being of 190 or 200 millions of human beings; but she has yet to learn whether this be not an undertaking that is greatly beyond her means, and whether, in attempting to elevate a debased and enervated race (supposing that she really make such an attempt) 12,000 miles from her shores, she may not be sapping the foundations of her own power and greatness.

—Nothing during the outbreak of 1857 was more extraordinary than the fact of its having failed to bring forward a single native chief of talent. In every contest the inferiority even of the best drilled sepoys, when brought face to face with Europeans, was most striking. No superiority of numbers gave them a chance of success. They continue to be precisely what they were at Plassey and Assaye.


Constitution and Government of the East Indies. The present form of government of the Indian empire is established by the act 21 and 22 Victoriæ, cap 106, called "An act for the better government of India," sanctioned Aug. 2, 1858. By the terms of this act, all the territories hereto-fore under the government of the East India company are vested in her majesty, and all its powers are exercised in her name; all territorial and other revenues and all tributes and other payments are likewise received in her name, and disposed of for the purposes of the government of India alone, subject to the provisions of this act. One of her majesty's principal secretaries of state, called the secretary of state for India, is invested with all the powers hitherto exercised by the company or by the board of control. By acts 39 and 40 Viet., cap. 10. proclaimed at Delhi, before all the princes and high dignitaries of India. Jan 1, 1877, the queen of Great Britain and Ireland assumed the additional title of Indiæ Imperatrix, or Empress of India.

—The executive authority in India is vested in a governor general, or viceroy, appointed by the crown, and acting under the orders of the secretary of state for India. By acts 24 and 25 Viet., cap. 67. amended by act 28 Viet., cap. 17, and by acts 32 and 33 Viet., cap. 98, the governor general in council has power to make laws for all persons, whether British or native, foreigners or others, within the Indian territories under the dominion of her majesty, and for all subjects of the crown within the dominions of Indian princes and states in alliance with her majesty.

—The government of the Indian empire is entrusted, by acts 21 and 22 Viet., cap. 97, to a secretary of state for India, aided by a council of fifteen members, of whom at first seven were elected by the court of directors from their own body, and eight were nominated by the crown. In future, vacancies in the council will be filled up by the secretary of state for India. But the major part of the council must be of persons who have served or resided ten, years in India, and not have left India more than ten years previous to the date of their appointment Edition: current; Page: [22] and no person not so qualified can be appointed unless nine of the continuing members be so qualified. The office is held for a term of ten years; but a member may be removed upon an address from both houses of parliament and the secretary of state for India may for special reasons reappoint a member of the council for a further term of five years. No member can sit in parliament.

—The duties of the council of state are, under the direction of the secretary of state, to conduct the business transacted in the United Kingdom in relation to the government of and the correspondence with India; but every order sent to India must be signed by the secretary, and all dispatches from the governments and presidencies in India must be addressed to the secretary. The secretary has to divide the council into committees, to direct what departments shall be under such committees respectively, and to regulate the transaction of business. The secretary is to be president of the council, and has to appoint from time to time a vice-president. The meetings of the council are to be held when and as the secretary shall direct; but at least one meeting must be held every week, at which not less than five members shall be present.

—The government in India is exercised by the "council of the governor general," consisting of five ordinary members, and one extraordinary member, the latter the commander in-chief. The ordinary members of the council preside over the departments of foreign affairs, finances, the interior, military administration, and public works, but do not form part, as such, of what is designated in European governments a "cabinet." The appointment of the ordinary members of the "council of the governor general," the governors of presidencies, and of the governors of provinces, is made by the crown. The lieutenant governors of the various provinces are appointed by the governor general, subject to the approbation of the secretary of state for India.

Revenue and Expenditure. According to the act of 1858 the revenue and expenditure of the Indian empire are subjected to the control of the secretary in council, and no grant or appropriation of any part of the revenue can be made without the concurrence of a majority of the council.

—The subjoined table gives the total gross amount of the actual revenue and expenditure of India, distinguishing Indian and home expenditure, in each of the ten fiscal years, ending March 31, 1871-80:


—The following table shows the distribution of the revenue and the expenditure over the various presidencies and provinces in each of the two financial years, ending March 31, 1879 and 1880:

Presidencies and Provinces1879.1880
India, under the governor general...£ 9,335,887£10,275,311
Bengal, with Assam...18,987,13119,282,693
Northwest provinces...
Central provinces...1,204,8511,299,130
British Burmah...2,039,2332,262,889
Bombay, including Sind...11,047,06312,164,215
Revenue in India...£64,958,517£68,160,893
Revenue in Great Britain...241,085328,773
Total Revenue...£65,199,602£69,484,666
India, under the governor general...£17,589,063£20,977,541
Bengal, with Assam...7,262,7357,814,562
Northwest provinces...
Central provinces...815,430800,396
British Burmah...1,126,3641,223,720
Bombay, including Sind...8,491,7459,919,867
Expenditure in India...£49,314,060£55,119,951
Expenditure in Great Britain...13,851,20614,547,664
Total Expenditure...£63,165,356£69,667,615.

—In the budget estimates for the financial year 1878-9, the revenue was assessed at £64,562,000, and the ordinary expenditure at £65,917,000, leaving a deficit of £1,355,000. Besides the ordinary expenditure, a sum of £3,500,000 was set down as probable extraordinary expenditure for public works, raising the total deficit to £4,855,000. The budget estimates for 1879-80 fixed the total revenue at £64,620,000, and the total expenditure at £65,930,000, including £2,000,000 for the expenses of the Afghan war. The excess of ordinary expenditure over revenue in the year 1879-80 was estimated at £1,395,000, and the capital expenditure on productive public works at £3,500,000.

—The following table, compiled from official documents, exhibits the growth of the three most important sources of the public revenue of India, namely, land, opium and salt, in the ten financial years, ending March 31, 1871-80:


—The following table shows the distribution of the three great sources of revenue over the different presidencies and provinces in the financial year ending March 31, 1879:

Edition: current; Page: [23]

—The most important source of public revenue to which rulers in India have, in all ages, looked for obtaining their income, is the land, the revenue from which, in the year before the mutiny, furnished more than one-half of the total receipts of the East India company's treasury. At present, when the necessities of the Indian exchequer require that government should resort more largely to the aid of duties levied on the continually increasing trade of the country, the revenue from land produces not quite so much in proportion, but it still forms two-fifths of the total receipts of the empire.

—The land revenue of India, as of all eastern countries, is generally regarded less as a tax on the landowners than as the result of a joint proprietorship in the soil, under which the produce is divided, in unequal and generally uncertain proportions, between the ostensible proprietors and the state. It would seem a matter of justice, therefore, as well as of security for the landowners, that the respective shares should, at a given period, or for specified terms, be strictly defined and limited. Nevertheless, the proportion which the assessment bears to the full value of the land varies greatly in the several provinces and districts of India. Under the old native system a fixed proportion of the gross produce was taken; but the British system ordinarily deals with the surplus or net produce which the land may yield after deducting the expenses of cultivation.

—In Bengal a permanent settlement was made by Lord Cornwallis, by which measure the government was debarred from any further direct participation in the cultivation of the country. The division of Benares was also permanently settled about the same time. In the northwestern provinces, a general settlement of the revenue was completed in 1840, fixing the amount to be paid by each village for a period of thirty years; and a similar course was adopted in the Punjab. Some of the districts of the Punjab were inadequately assessed at former settlements, and these have therefore been confirmed for a term of ten years only. In many cases these expired in 1874 and 1875, and the revised settlements which were subsequently made were generally for thirty years. It is estimated that in most cases the assessment is about two-thirds of the yearly value—that is, the surplus after deducting expenses of cultivation, profits of stock, and wages of labor. In the revised settlements more recently made it was reduced to one-half of the yearly value.

—In the Madras presidency there are three different revenue systems. The zemindary tenure exists in some districts, principally in the northern circars; the proprietors, of whom some possess old ancestral estates, and others were created land-holders in 1802, hold the land direct from the government, on payment of a fixed annual sum. In the second, the village renting system, the villages stand in the position of the zemindar, and hold the land jointly from the government, allotting the different portions for cultivation among themselves. Under the third, the ryotwar system, every registered holder of land is recognized as its proprietor, and pays direct to the government. He can sublet, transfer, sell or mortgage it; he can not be ejected by the government, and so long as he pays the fixed assessment he has the option of annually increasing or diminishing the cultivation on his holding, or he may entirely abandon it. In unfavorable seasons remissions of assessment are granted for loss of produce. The assessment is fixed in money, and does not vary from year to year, except when water is obtained from a government source of irrigation; nor is any addition made to the rent for improvements effected at the ryot's own expense. He has, therefore, all the benefits of a perpetual lease without its responsibilities, as he can at any time throw up his lands, but can not be ejected so long as he pays his dues, and receives assistance in difficult seasons. An annual settlement is made not to reassess the land, but to determine upon how much of his holding the ryot shall pay; when no change occurs in the holding, theory of is not affected by the annual settlement, and is not required to attend it. The ryotwar system may be said to essentially prevail throughout the presidency of Madras, as the zemindar and village renter equally deal with their tenants on this principle.

—In Bombay and the Berars the revenue management is generally ryotwar; that is, as a rule, the occupants of government lands settle for their land revenue, or rent, with the government officers direct, and not through the intervention of a middleman. Instances, however, occasionally occur in which the government revenues of entire villages are settled by individual superior holders, under various denominations, or by a copartnership of superior holders. The survey and assessment of the Bombay presidency has been almost completed on a system introduced and carefully elaborated about twenty years ago. The whole country is surveyed and mapped, and the fields distinguished by permanent boundary marks, which it is penal to remove; the soil of each field is classed according to its intrinsic qualities and to the climate; and the rate of assessment to be paid on fields of each class in each subdivision of a district is fixed on a careful consideration of the value of the crops they are capable of producing, as affected by the proximity to market towns, roads, canals, railways, and similar external incidents, but not by improvements Edition: current; Page: [24] made by the ryot himself. This rate was probably about one-half of the yearly value of the land, when fixed; but, owing to the general improvement of the country, it is not more than from a fourth to an eighth in the districts which have not been settled quite recently. The measurement and classification of the soil are made once for all; but the rate of assessment is open for revision at the end of every thirty years, in order that the ryot, on the one hand, may have the certainty of the long period as an inducement to lay out capital, and that the state, on the other, may secure that participation in the advantages accruing from the general progress of society to which its joint proprietorship of the land entitles it. In the thirty years revision, moreover, only public improvements and a general change of prices, but not improvements effected by the ryots themselves, are considered as grounds for enhancing the assessment. The ryot's tenure is permanent, provided he pays the assessment.

—The important questions of the propriety of settling in perpetuity the amount of revenue to be paid to the government by landholders, of permitting this revenue to be redeemed forever by the payment of a capital sum of money, and of selling the fee simple of waste lands not under assessment, have been within the last few years fully considered by the government of India. The expediency of allowing owners of land to redeem the revenue has long been advocated as likely to promote the settlement of European colonists; but experience seems to show that advantage is very rarely taken of the power which already exists in certain cases to redeem the rent by a quit payment; and it appears unlikely that such a permission would be acted upon to any great extent, while the rate of interest afforded by an investment in the purchase of the land assessment is as low as at present in India.

—Next in importance to the land revenue is the income derived from the opium monopoly. The cultivation of the poppy is prohibited in Bengal, except for the purpose of selling the juice to the officers of the government at a certain fixed price. It is manufactured into opium at the government factories at Patna and Ghazipore, and then sent to Calcutta, and sold by auction to merchants who export it to China. In the Bombay presidency, the revenue is derived from the opium which is manufactured in the native states of Malwa and Guzerat, on which passes are given, at the price of £60 per chest, weighing 140 lbs. net, to merchants who wish to send opium to the port of Bombay. The poppy is not cultivated in the presidency of Madras. The gross revenue derived from opium averaged, during the ten years, 1869 to 1878, the sum of £8,500,000.

—The largest branch of expenditure is that for the army, equal to the aggregate annual revenue from salt and opium. The maintenance of the armed force to uphold British rule in India cost £12,000,000 the year before the great mutiny, and subsequently rose to above £25,000,000; but after the year 1861 sank, for a short period, to less than £15,000,000. It was £16,793,306 in the financial year 1865-6; £16,329,739 in 1869-70; £15,228,429 in 1873-4; £15,308,460 in 1875-6; £16,639,761 in 1877-8: £17,092,488 in the financial year 1878-9, and £21,712,862 in the financial year 1879-80. The amount of the public debt in India, including that incurred in Great Britain, was £59,943,814 on April 30, 1837. In the course of the next five years the debt was largely increased, and on April 30, 1862, it had risen to £99,652,053. From 1862 to 1868 the government was enabled to pay off some portion, and at the end of the financial year 1868 the total had been reduced to £95,054,858. In the course of the eleven years, 1868 - 78, there was again an increase of nearly £39,000,000 in the total debt.

—The subjoined table shows the amount of the public debt of British India, both the interest bearing and not interest bearing, and distinguishing the debt in India and in Great Britain, in each of the financial years ending March 31, 1871-80:


The total debt in India and Great Britain amounted to £96,194,642 on March 31, 1869, and had increased to £131,728,065 on March 31, 1880. Not included in the latter total were "obligations"—including treasury notes and bills, service funds, and savings bank balances—to the amount of £1,406,620, bringing the entire liabilities up to £153,134,685. The total interest on debt and obligations amounted to £4,954,021 in the financial year 1879-80.

—The currency of India is chiefly silver, and the amount of money coined annually is large. In the ten financial years ending March 31, 1871-80, the value of the new coinage was as follows:


—On July 16, 1861, an act was passed by the government of India, providing for the issue of a paper currency through a government department of public issue, by means of promissory Edition: current; Page: [25] notes. Circles of issue were established from time to time, as found necessary, and the notes were made legal tender within the circle in which they were issued, and rendered payable at the place of issue, and also at the capital city of the presidency within which that place was situated. Under the provisions of further laws, consolidated by a statute known as Act III. of 1871, the issue was regulated in seven descriptions of notes, namely, for 10,000 rupees, or £1,000: for 1,000 rupees, or £100; for 500 rupees, or £50: for 100 rupees, or £10; for 50 rupees, or £5; for 20 rupees, or £2; for 10 rupees, or £1; and for 5 rupees, or 10s. There are ten currency circles, the headquarters of which are at Calcutta. Allahabad, Lahore, Nagpore, Madras, Calicut, Cocanada, Bombay, Kurrachee and Akolah. (Official Communication)

—The following were the total amounts of notes in circulation—calculated at 2s. the rupee—on March 31 in each year, since the introduction of the state paper currency in 1861:


—Nearly two-thirds of the total note circulation are in the currency circles of Calcutta and Bombay. The circulation in Calcutta was to the amount of £6,436,556, and in Bombay to the amount of £3,345,067, March 31, 1880.

Army. The act of parliament which transferred the government of India to the crown, in 1858, directed that the military forces of the East India company should be deemed to be Indian military forces of her majesty, and should be "entitled to the like pay, pensions, allowances and privileges, and the like advantages as regards promotion and otherwise, as if they had continued in the service of the said company." It was at the same time provided that the secretary of state for India should have "all such or the like powers over the officers appointed or continued under this act as might or could have been exercised or performed by the East India company."

—The following table gives the established strength of the European and native army in British India, exclusive of native officers and followers, March 31 1880:


—In the army estimates laid before parliament in the session of 1880, the strength of the British regular army in India for the year 1881-2 was given as follows:


Returns of the year 1879 reported the combined armies of the native chiefs of India to number 305,235 men, with an artillery of 5,252 large guns.

Area and Population. The first general census of British India was taken during the years 1868 to 1876. According to the revised returns of this census, the total population numbered 101,096,603, living on an area of 899,341 English square miles, being an average of 212 inhabitants to the square mile. The following table shows the area and population of each of the divisions of India under direct British administration:


—Besides the provinces of India under direct British administration, there are, more or less under the control of the Indian government, a number of feudatory or native states, covering an extent of 573,193 English square miles, with 49,674,827 inhabitants.

—According to the last Edition: current; Page: [26] official reports the native states exceed 450 in number. Various frontier countries, like Nepaul, merely acknowledge British superintendence; while others pay tribute or provide military contingents. New states are gradually drawn within the circle of British supremacy, either for the consolidation or the protection of the existing boundaries. The latest movement in this direction, toward the northwest, was the invasion of Afghanistan, a country of about the size of the United Kingdom, with an estimated population of four millions.

—Including the feudatory states, the total area and population of British India, according to the preliminary results of the census of 1881, are as follows:


—Enumerations to ascertain the religious creed of the inhabitants of India were taken in the various provinces during the years 1868 to 1876; in Berar and the Punjab, 1868; in Oudh, 1869; in Ajmere and Coorg, 1871; and in the remaining provinces from 1872 to 1876. A verification of all these returns with the results of the general census of India furnished the following classification of the leading creeds in the provinces under British administration:

Other creeds5,102,823
Religion not known1,977,400

—The British-born population in India, exclusive of the army, amounted, according to a census taken June 15, 1871, to 64,061 persons. Of these there were 38,946 of the male, and 25,115 of the female sex. The largest number, at the date of the census, was in the province of Lower Bengal, namely 16,402, comprising 10,625 males and 5,777 females; the next largest number in the provinces of Bombay, namely 10,921, comprising 6,786 males and 4,135 females; and the next largest number in the northwest provinces, namely 6,910, comprising 3,843 males and 3,067 females. In the central provinces there were, at the date of the census, only 276 British-born subjects, namely, 173 males and 103 females. In the three capital cities of India, the number of British subjects was as follows, at the census of June 15, 1871:


—The occupations of the British-born subjects in India were as follows, at the census of 1871, under the six classes adopted by the English registrar general:

I.Professional class, including civil service...14,822
II.Domestic class...12,708
III.Commercial class...7,993
IV.Agricultural class...614
V.Industrial class...2,595
VI.Indefinite and non-productive class, including women and children...25,329

—At the last enumerations there were in British India forty-four towns with a population of over 50,000 inhabitants. The occupations of the adult male population of British India, calculated to number 57,508,150, were classified as follows at the last enumerations:

Government service and professions...2,404,855
Domestic occupations...4,137,429
Industrial occupations...8,746,503
Independent and non-productive persons...2,264,858
Total adult male population...66,631,416

—In the northwest provinces and Madras the foundation has been laid of a national system of education; while public instruction throughout the whole of India has made great progress in recent years. Three universities, at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, were incorporated by acts of the government of India, in 1857. In the year ending March, 1880, there passed 787 candidates for admission at Calcutta, 1.094 at Madras, and 436 at Bombay.

Trade and Commerce. The total value of the imports and exports of the Indian empire, including bullion and specie, was as follows in each of the ten fiscal years, ending March 31, 1871-80:


The total imports, if divided into merchandise and "treasure," the latter term meaning bullion and specie, were as follows in each of the ten fiscal years 1871-80:

Edition: current; Page: [27]

—The exports in the same ten years classified as merchandise and treasure, were as follows:


—The amount of bullion and specie imported annually into India is very large; but though it has been greatly on the increase in recent years, it is, on the whole, very fluctuating, especially as regards silver. The following table gives the imports, distinguishing gold and silver, in each of the ten fiscal years, ending March 31, from 1871 to 1880, inclusive:


—The following table shows the exports of bullion and specie, distinguishing gold and silver, in each of the ten fiscal years, ending March 31, from 1871 to 1880, inclusive:


—The imports of bullion and specie into India are mainly from the United Kingdom and from China; while the exports are shipped principally to the United Kingdom, Ceylon, China and South Africa.

—The extent of the commercial intercourse between India and the United Kingdom is shown in the subjoined table which gives the total value of the exports from India to Great Britain and Ireland, and of the imports of British produce and manufactures into India in each of the ten years, 1871-80:


—The staple article of export from India to the United Kingdom is raw cotton; but the quantities, and still more the value of the exports, have been greatly on the decrease within the decennial period. The following table exhibits the quantities and value of the exports of raw cotton from India to Great Britain in each of the ten years from 1871 to 1880, inclusive:


—Next to cotton, the most important articles of export from India to the United Kingdom in the year 1880 were jute, 4,633,327 cwts., of the value of £4,014,699; rice, 6,563,849 cwts., of the value of £3,134,556; tea, 45,138,111 lbs. of the value of £3,072,922; and untanned hides, 463,764 cwts., of the value of £1,616,634.

—The chief articles of British produce imported into India are cotton goods and iron. The imports of cotton manufactures, averaging two-thirds of the total British imports into India, were of the value of £12,835,744 in 1870; of £13,101,645 in 1871; of £13,078,831 in 1872; of £15,020,646 in 1873; of £16,216,491 in 1874; of £15,699,731 in 1875; of £14,934,370 in 1876; of £16,692,865 in 1877; of £15,078,497 in 1878; of £14,415,456 in 1879; and of £22,099,267 in 1880. Of iron the imports amounted to £1,637,584 in 1876, to £1,923,820 in 1877, to £1,767,526 in 1878, to £1,535,901 in 1879, and to £2,415,309 in 1880.

—Next to the United Kingdom, the countries having the largest trade with India are China, the straits settlements, and Ceylon.

—The internal commerce of India has been vastly developed of late years by the construction of several great lines of railways, made under the guarantee of the government. In the year 1845 two great private associations were formed for the purpose of constructing lines of railroad in India; but the projectors found it impossible to raise the necessary funds for their proposed schemes, without the assistance of the state. It was, Edition: current; Page: [28] therefore, determined by the Indian government to guarantee to the railway companies for a term of ninety-nine years, a rate of interest of 5 per cent. upon the capital subscribed for their undertakings; and in order to guard against the evil effects of failure on the part of the companies, the power was reserved by the government to surpervise and control their proceedings by means of an official director. The lands are given by the government free of expense, and the stipulated rate of interest is guaranteed to the shareholders in every case, except that of the traffic receipts of the line being insufficient to cover the working expenses, in which event the deficiency is chargeable against the guaranteed interest. Should the net receipts be in excess of the sum required to pay the guaranty, the surplus is divided into equal parts between the government and the shareholders, until the charge to the government for interest in previous years with simple interest thereon, has been repaid, after which time the whole of the receipts are distributed among the shareholders. The government has the power, at the expiration of twenty-five or fifty years from the date of the contracts, of purchasing the railways at the mean value of the shares for the three previous years, or of paying a proportionate annuity until the end of the ninety-nine years, when all of the lands and works will revert from the companies to the government. In 1869 the government of India decided on carrying out all the new railway extensions by means of direct state agency, that is, without the intervention of guaranteed companies.

—The progress of the railway system in India since 1854 is here shown. Length of lines open for traffic Jan 1, 1854, 21; 1860, 624, 1867, 3,567; 1872, 5,072, 1878, 7,324, 1879, 7,994; 1880, 8,228.

—The number of passengers carried on the railways of India largely increased in the course of ten years, rising from 15,999,633 in 1869 to 43,144,608 in 1879.

—The gross receipts of all the railways during the year 1879 amounted to £11,231,108, while the gross expenses in the same year were £5,858,512, equal to 52.16 per cent of the earnings.

—The total amount of guaranteed capital raised for the construction of railways up to March 31, 1879, amounted to £96,444,666, while the total outlay upon railways, both state and guaranteed, amounted to £119,979,139 at the same date.

—For the year ending March 31, 1879, the number of miles of line of all the telegraphs in India amounted to 18,589; the total receipts were £353,741, and the working expenditure £305,381. At that time there were 250 telegraph offices.

—BIBLIOGRAPHY: Karl Ritter, Erdkunde von Asien, vols 3-5, Leipzig, 1834-7; Thornton, A Gazetteer of the Territories under the Government of the East India Company, 2d ed., London, 1857, Montgomery Martin, British India, its History, Topography, Government, etc., London, 1857; and The Progress and Present State of British India. London, 1862; Bell, The Empire in India, London, 1864; Lott and Hughes, A Manual of the Geography of India, London, 1863; Latham, Ethnology of India, London, 1859; II., A. and R. Schlagintweit, Results of a Scientific Mission to India and High Asia, undertaken between the years 1854 and 1858, etc., vols. 1-4, Leipzig, 1860-66, with Atlas: Zur Erinnerung an die Reise des Prinzen Waldemar von Preussen nach Indien in den J., 1844-6, 2 vols., Berlin, 1855; Von Otlich. Indien und seine Regierung. Leipzig, 1859-61, and Reise nach O., Leipzig, 1845: Andrassy, Reise in O., Ceyton, Java, etc., from the Hungarian, Pesth, 1859: Balbezen, Les A glais de l'Inde. Paris, 1875; Duncan, Geography of India Madras, 1876; The Guide Books of Murray, Bradshaw, etc. The best works on the early history of India are: Lassen, Ind. Alterthumskunde,. 4 vols., Bonn, 1844-62, 2d ed., 1 vol., Leipzig, 1866. Drucker, Geschichte des Alterthums, 3d ed., 2 vols., Leipzig, 1867; Wheeler, History of India during the Hindoo Period 2 vols., London, 1867; Elliott, The History of India, comprising the Massalman Period. 3 vols., London, 1867; Sullivan, The Conquerors, Warriors and Statesmen of India. London, 1867; Wheeler, The History of India from the Earliest Ages, vols. 1-4, London, 1867-75. The history of the Anglo-Indian empire is treated of in the works of Malcolm, 1784-1823, 3 vols., London, 1826; Mill, 5th ed., by Wilson, London, 1855; Elphinstone, 5th ed., 2 vols., London, 1866. Thornton, 6 vols., London, 1842-5; Neumann, Geschichte des engl Reichs in Asien, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1857, and Ostasiat Geschichte, Leipzig, 1861; Torrens, Empire in Asia. How we came by it, London, 1872, etc. The histories devoted to the earliest events are Trotter. The History of the British Empire in India, 1844 to 1862. London, 1865; Arnold. The Marquis of Dalhousie's Administration, 2 vols., London, 1862; Kaye. History of the Sepoy War in India, 2d ed., 3 vols., London, 1866-76; Rennie, Bhotan and the Story of the Dooar War. London, 1866; Markham. Statement Exhibiting the Moral and Material Progress and Condition of India, vols. 1-6, London, 1873.





ECUADOR. This state was formerly part of the immense colonial possessions of Spain, and afterward, till 1831, constituted, together with New Grenada and Venezuela, the republic of Colombia. Ecuador had to pass through many an ordeal of civil and foreign war before it was able to give itself a definite constitution. It has frequently modified its constitution of 1835, without ceasing, however, to be a republic. The attempts of Gen. Florés to establish a monarchy proved abortive. The legislative power is in the hands of an elective congress, and the executive power is in a president.

—The president exercises his functions through a cabinet of three ministers, who, together with himself and the vice-president, are Edition: current; Page: [29] responsible, individually and collectively, to the congress. There is no power of veto with the president, nor can he dissolve, shorten or prorogue the sittings of congress. By the terms of the constitution no citizen can enjoy titular or other distinctions, nor are hereditary rights or privileges of rank and race allowed within the territory of the republic.

—Ecuador forms a triangle, bounded by the lesser chain of the Cordilleras, which separates it from Colombia, by the Pacific ocean, and by the river Amazon. The area of Ecuador is estimated at 248,372 English square miles, and its population in 1875 was 1,066,137.

—The public revenue in the year 1876 was reported to have amounted to $1,655,000; and the expenditure to $2,400,000. About one half of the revenue is derived from customs duties on imports at the port of Guayaquil, which produced $838,615. At the commencement of 1877 the liabilities of the republic amounted, according to returns of that date, to about $16,370,000, made up of a foreign debt of $9,120,000, contracted in England in 1855, and internal liabilities, $7,250,000. The standing army is estimated to number 1,200 men, while the navy consisted in 1879 of three small steamers.

—The country is one of the most beautiful. Although situated under the equator, it has every variety of climate, the Cordilleras containing a large number of peaks covered with perpetual snow. Nowhere is the vegetation so luxuriant and so rich in valuable products; the country has minerals of various kinds, but as yet little attention has been paid to working them.

—The foreign commerce of Ecuador is mainly with the United Kingdom, and centres in Guayaquil. The total value of the exports of Ecuador to Great Britain, and of the imports of British produce into Ecuador, was as follows in the five years 1875-9:


The chief articles of export from Ecuador to Great Britain in the year 1879 consisted of Peruvian bark of the value of $1,008,045, and cocoa, of the value of $1,271,365. Of the imports of British produce into Ecuador, cotton goods, to the value of $958,505, formed the principal article in 1879. (See Statesman's Year Book, 1881.)


EDUCATION AND THE STATE. The legal right of any state to expend its revenues in the education of the children of its subjects or citizens must be governed by the terms of its constitution. In an absolute government it can have no limit. In a government, like that of Germany, which may be defined as that of absolutism, criticized and to some extent checked by a parliament, it must depend partly on the will of the ruler and to a less degree upon the purpose of the parliament. In a strictly parliamentary government, like that of Great Britain, and, with exceptions which need not here be noted, that of France, it is regulated by the majority in the legislature, or in the controlling house of the legislature. In a representative republican government, like that of the United States and of each state, it depends on the provisions of the constitution, and where these confer discretionary authority, as is the case in most of the state constitutions, upon the will of the legislature from time to time. The broader question of the proper limitations, arising from consideration of the greatest good to the greatest number, or from consideration of the nature of the trust imposed in governments, that should be observed in the establishment, regulation and scope of schools, can only arise in an imperative manner, under the more liberal governments, such as those of Great Britain, France and the United States, or the individual members of the American Union. As a matter of fact it is chiefly under these that the question of the function of the state as to education has been discussed with a direct view to practical results. The present article will be devoted mainly to the question as it presents itself in the United States. Upon that question, however, the principles and policy of foreign nations necessarily throw much light. The avowed purpose of the German system is to extend education up to a certain point, which would be a high one if taken upon any standard applied in the United States, compulsorily to the youth of both sexes, and beyond that point to offer opportunity at very small cost for the highest possible education to all who choose to seek it. All education is assumed to be a state affair, and is either directed by the officers of the state, or is immediately controlled by them. Entire singleness of purpose and practical uniformity of method are required. The state assumes at once the power and the obligation implied in this policy. Each of the smallest divisions—commune or parish—has its local board, above these is the regency, and above these the province; but over all is the central government with its extensive and minute system of inspection, its absolute veto over specific acts, and its strict enforcement of subordination. The necessary funds are provided from a very low rate of tuition from scholars able to pay, from civil appropriations, from endowments, or, in case of deficiency, from local taxation. Every child from seven to fourteen is obliged to attend school, and the neglect or refusal of parents to comply with this requirement is punished by an elaborate system of penalties, sustained by public opinion and sanctioned by long usage. Beyond the age of fourteen direct compulsion ceases, and powerful inducement takes its place. The learned professions are confined to the graduates of the universities; certain civil positions are limited in like Edition: current; Page: [30] manner; all teachers are required to have taken a university degree, and the university can only be reached through the intermediate schools. Up to the age of fourteen the instruction given may fairly be compared to that afforded in the "grammar" schools of the larger American cities. Beyond that the range is practically unlimited. The universities, which are the crowning stage of the general system, are kept within the vigilant general direction of the central government. Throughout the system the complete separation of the church from any authoritative share in education is now a fixed principle, though the comparatively recent date of its adoption—1870—and the conservative disposition of the government in dealing with so delicate a matter still leave considerable actual influence to the clergy.

—In France a principle, in effect the same as that of Germany, is adopted and is being gradually enforced: Compulsory primary education under entire control by the state, and the direct provision or the encouragement and subvention as well as general regulation of higher instruction. The theory of the secularization of education has been ardently advocated and widely favored, but is not completely adopted or applied as yet. Whether it will finally be established is a question too intimately involved in the changing phases of French politics to admit of positive determination. It is probable, however, that the curious tendency of French political leaders to follow almost literally the more striking features of the conduct of their conquerors in the memorable struggle of 1870-71, will be as marked in educational as it has been in military affairs. The temperament and mental qualities of the two nations will enforce some radical differences in methods and in results, but France is apparently moving steadily, and, for the time, very rapidly in the direction of universal, uniform, compulsory primary instruction, and of higher education more and more developed and maintained under the narrow supervision of the central government.

—One significant difference, however, is already to be remarked between the systems of the two nations and the manner in which they are being unfolded. The German system is modeled on that of Prussia, where it originated in the purpose of an enlightened and determined ruler to bring a relatively backward people, surrounded by powerful and jealous rivals, to a condition of general intelligence and practical efficiency that would enable them to take a higher rank both in peace and in war. This people, comparatively homogeneous, and holding, though unquestionably in a narrow and rather bigoted fashion, the doctrines of the Protestant religion, and submitted to its influence toward independent judgment and self-control, were not only permitted but encouraged to press their way in the world of thought, with marked freedom in whatever direction their leading minds should choose. The intervention of the clergy, though active and constant, was never peculiarly repressive, and intellectual enterprise, for its own sake, received a considerable degree of cordial recognition and encouragement. In France, the beginnings of intellectual and political freedom were made in open revolt against political and ecclesiastical despotism, and the revolution was followed by the restoration of both these reactionary forces. The progress that has been conquered since has been steadily and often violently opposed by the party of absolute monarchy and of the Roman Catholic church, and both have been constantly arrayed against the principle of general education. It thus happens that at this time the advocates of general education are forced to make secularization of the school system their objective point, and this necessity introduces elements of confusion, of difficulty and of passion into the problem which it would be very desirable to avoid, and which must retard and perhaps compromise the result. It will be several generations, with every possible success for the movement toward universal instruction, before the French people can furnish the intellectual material for a system as complete, vigorous, well organized and highly developed as the German system. In the meantime, the battle for education is, what it can never be in the United States, a battle with clericalism on the one hand, and with political reaction on the other.

—If now we turn to the American Union we find conditions entirely different from those either in Germany or France, and much more nearly those existing in Great Britain, though differing from these also, and, in all regards, presenting a problem far more easily solved, and the solution of which promises more immediately valuable results. In the first place, the work of popular education in the United States is not now and is not likely ever to be either directly in the hands of the general government or under its close control. Were the popular sentiment of the country less definitely formed or less firmly established for the promotion of education, this fact might be regarded with regret. As it is, it is a hopeful element in the future. If American education may lack something of the symmetry and precision that might be obtained from the initiative of a central government, it will have qualities far outweighing these in value. It will be more free, more varied, in closer harmony with the intellectual needs of different sections and different classes, and will draw its vigor from surer and more enduring sources. The task of imposing general instruction upon the citizens of the country is one which is not required in the United States. By a happy combination of circumstances the necessity for such instruction was early recognized here, and not only has it never been ignored, but the appreciation of it has steadily grown. The early settlers of New England were profoundly impressed by it. They came to found here a state in which every citizen should bear his part, and should be fitted to bear Edition: current; Page: [31] it. The conditions of citizenship were narrow and rigid. No heterogeneous community was intended or expected. The state was to be intimately bound up with the church, and the members of the one were to be the members of the other; but the church as well as the state was substantially democratic, and authority rested largely on the conscience and reason of those over whom it was exercised, but who, also, delegated it. Both religious and civil duties required a certain free exchange of opinion and the instruction that is a condition of such exchange. Schools were provided for at the start, and were carefully and devotedly sustained. The two great colleges of the Union at the present time, widely separated as they now are in methods and purpose, had their common origin in the conviction of the enlightened founders of New England commonwealths that education was, if not a function, a proper object of care for the state. In other states the sentiment in support of public education was not so strong or so general and active, but it existed, in various degrees, and it steadily advanced. The self-government in which every colony largely engaged, and which became complete after the revolution, brought to public life the most keenly intelligent and best instructed men of the comparatively small and homogeneous communities, and these early perceived that the condition precedent of the successful maintenance of representative government was general instruction. Neither the then current ideas, nor the resources then available, were consistent with any elaborate system. The most that could be hoped for or had, and all that was sought, was the widest possible extension of elementary knowledge. This placed those who received it on no very high intellectual plane, but upon a common plane, on which all were fairly equal, and comparatively few were essentially ignorant. The absence of any strong central government and the necessity in each community of providing for its own needs, kept alive the interest of each community, and tended to create that ineradicable and universal belief in the common school which has become traditional in the United States. This tendency, already strong while the population of the Union remained, in substance, native, was intensified when the volume of immigration became large. It was then seen not only that general education was more than ever necessary to bring the mass of voters up to a tolerable standard of intelligence, but that free public schools were the only instrumentality which could be relied on to promote the assimilation of the enormous additions to the population. The immigrants were of diverse nationalities. The two most important bodies were the Irish and the Germans, but there were considerable contingents from other sources. Left to themselves, these people would naturally keep and transmit to their children the ideas, the prejudices, the mental and social habits of the races from which they sprung, and these would ever tend to become more narrow and obstinate in the isolation caused by a surrounding population different and, to some extent, unfriendly. The free public school was not only the best, but the only, means of bringing the children of these parents of various races together and of imbuing all with the general ideas and sentiments that would enable them to act together, in mature life, as one people. Had there been no other raison d'êtrefor the free public school this would have been amply sufficient. Whatever defects or errors may exist in the system in the United States, and they are certainly many, it is not too much to say that the Union as it is to-day, with its vast possibilities of development, its rich promise to the hundred or more millions who are to occupy and possess the continent under its rule, would have been impossible without it. To be convinced of this fact one has only to consider what were the conditions under which the armies of the Union were recruited in the war of the rebellion, and what was the origin of that general, steadfast, potent sentiment of fidelity to the institutions of free government which made vain the gallant and passionate struggle of the southern states; but beyond this must be considered what it is that has so far rendered possible the adjustment of that momentous dispute, the reestablishment of a peaceful and effective Union on the ruins of the southern confederacy, the enfranchisement of a servile race on an equality with their former masters, the beginning throughout the south, of a career of sound industrial and commercial activity and of a rational political existence. Bitter and violent as have been some of the experiences of the Union since the war, the condition of affairs finally arrived at is a marvel in the history of civil struggles, and the forces which have brought it about could never have been called into play but for the free public school throughout the north and its steady progress in the south.

—We have, then, in the United States, the public school firmly established, sustained by an intelligent and ardent public sentiment, destined to extend the field of its influence and to become a constantly more important element in the national life. It may be regarded as secure from even any serious discussion of its right to exist. It has no enemies worthy of attention. Religious prejudice, which alone can be suspected of opposing any barrier to it, is sure, in the future, only to strengthen the popular sense of its value and necessity. The most excessive factional feeling has never dared to assail it. The questions, therefore, which remain to be discussed, are: in what way can the school be made most useful? within what limits can it be properly maintained at the general cost? and at what point should it turn its pupils over to the agencies provided by private educational enterprise? These questions must necessarily engage more and more the attention of our publicists and of our educators. At present, and for some time to come, they must concern only Edition: current; Page: [32] the more populous cities and the more advanced states. For a very large part of the country they can hardly be said to exist, because a very large proportion of the public schools are, and for a considerable period must remain, very crude and imperfect, far within the lowest limit which they should observe, and, from the condition of the population, the available resources and the direction of public sentiment, obliged to fulfill only the lowest functions of which they are capable In districts, for instance, where for eight weeks in the year a scanty attendance is secured for a single school, taught by an inexperienced girl or boy at a pay of $12 to $16 a month, it is quite absurd to suggest the discussions to which reference has been made. But in cities like Chicago, New York, Boston and Philadelphia, the system has reached a point where these questions become imperative; in many others they are important, while the rapid advance of every part of the country in population and wealth constantly extends the area in which they will present themselves for consideration. The tendency of opinion with reference to them among those engaged in the public schools themselves is undoubtedly toward extending the scope of public gratuitous instruction, developing the "high school" and the "college," giving every applicant access to the highest available education. The evidence of this tendency is to be found in the journals devoted to education, in the discussions of public school teachers in their "institutes," in the reports of city, county and state superintendents, and especially in the papers and debates of the annual meetings of superintendents under the auspices of the bureau of education, in the department of the interior at Washington. The tendency is entirely natural. It is the effect of the desire which has given rise to the well-known maxim in law that every court will extend its own jurisdiction as far as it can. But the time has come when the question must be treated from the standpoint of the statesman rather than that of the teacher. The public school in the United States has passed beyond the comparatively narrow field which it once occupied; its maintenance involves the expenditure of a vast sum every year. Its influence upon the political as well as the social life of the people must be more carefully regarded, and its regulation and development should proceed on reasonably defined and comprehensive principles—In a representative republican government, such as that of the United States and those of the several states, there is one simple general rule in regard to the use of the money raised by taxation from the community. It is that it should be employed for those purposes only which are of general necessity or of supreme utility, and which can be attained by the state only, or by the state to a degree or in a way very far superior to those of private effort. Obviously this rule, simple in itself, is not always easily defined or clearly applied. It is, in that regard, like nearly all the general principles which guide the course of government, and which, nevertheless, are of great value. It is the business of the publicist to make such use of them as can be made in the circumstances by which he finds himself surrounded. He has no right to abandon them or to violate them because they can not be reduced to the precision of a mathematical formula, or be adjusted to legislation as readily as an engineer's drawing to a piece of masonry. Between a measure which plainly accords with such a principle and one which does not accord with it at all there are many stages, and from one to the other of these the advance may well be regarded as involving an excusable variation, but it is the duty of the statesman to draw the line firmly at that medium which, though arbitrarily fixed, nevertheless secures a practical compliance with the principle, a substantial gain of its read advantages, and the avoidance of any serious evils arising from its violation. The principle which has been stated clearly justifies the free public school in the several states of the Union, the expenditure of the public revenue for its maintenance, and, under existing circumstances, the appropriation of a reasonable sum from federal taxation for the encouragement and support of schools in those states which are either unable or, for the time, indisposed to maintain them. General public instruction is a recognized need of the republic. As has been pointed out, it has been, so far as it has been carried, fully approved by public opinion. The question now is, how far it can rightly be carried, and how, within the limits set for it, it can be made most fruitful of the greatest good to the greatest number. The radical objection to what is called higher education by the state in the United States is, that it is a direct violation of the principle which has been above laid down. The education afforded in the high schools and public colleges now in existence, and that proposed in the like schools which have from time to time been advocated, is certainly not a work of general necessity, and its utility is very far from being of so elevated and certain a character as to approach very closely to necessity. Just as certainly it is not a work which can not be done by private agencies, and done equally well or very much better. It is not a work of necessity, because it is not requisite for any of the ordinary and essential functions of the citizen's life, as is shown by the fact that the majority of citizens in states where it is conferred at public expense have never enjoyed its advantages, and political life in these states is, nevertheless, above the average in wholesome activity and intelligence. It is further incidentally shown by the fact that many of our most efficient public men who have done service of no mean value, have never had schooling of this character. That it is desirable, no one, probably, will seriously deny, but it is no more desirable than many other things which the state is not, and should not be, Edition: current; Page: [33] called upon to supply. Moreover, however desirable it may be, it is not unattainable without state aid. In this country, and in almost every section of it, any young man or young woman, who values higher education enough to be willing to seek it with energy, patience and self-denial, and who has capacity enough to make a good use of it when obtained, can get it. Again, it is easily seen by any one who will examine any of the free schools for higher education now in existence that a very large proportion, probably much more than one-half, of those who attend them are the children of parents who are entirely able to provide such education at their own proper cost; very many of these would undoubtedly do so if they were forced to. If, then, it be conceded that the state can, as a rule, furnish higher education of a kind as valuable and as perfectly suited to the needs of the scholars as would be obtained from private agencies—a concession which is open to much question—it still remains true that this is not a proper object for the expenditure of the common fund derived from taxation. It benefits too small a class of the citizens, and it benefits a class who least require public aid to secure it. It is argued that those whose children reap the advantages of this sort of public education pay taxes in proportion to their means, which is roughly true, but they do not pay in proportion to what they get, while the poorer class, who get nothing whatever, pay what to them is a very much higher and more burden-some tax. By the operation of the laws which govern the incidence of taxation, and which the intimate intercommunication of modern life makes very certain and remorseless, taxes upon real estate tend to fall more heavily on the poor than on those who are not poor; it even happens in no small number of cases that the taxes of the wealthier are thrown off upon the poorer. There is, then, an obvious injustice in maintaining at public expense schools which those can rarely or never use who are compelled to make the greatest sacrifices in maintaining them.

—If it be conceded that high schools, and those schools which are not accessible to the children of persons of moderate means, may properly be maintained in communities where the tax payers shall have clearly expressed their desire for such use of the school funds, it must still be required that before any such use of the fund be made, the primary schools shall be of the best possible kind, and give ample opportunity for instruction to all children of the age, say from six to fourteen, at which instruction may fairly be made obligatory. It is so closely logical as hardly to need more than statement, that what the state may properly require the parents to submit to their children receiving at a direct loss of time and services, that, at least, the state should provide (1) of the highest practicable character, and (2) in a form entirely available. It is notorious that in no part of the United States is the first of these conditions completely complied with, while in far the greater part of the Union neither of them is complied with. The primary instruction which is supplied in the public schools, even the best equipped and the most carefully arranged, is essentially defective, while even in those communities where the most care has been taken, and the most money has been expended, there is still a very noticeable and much to be regretted want of accommodation for the primary scholars. In the major portion of the country not only is the primary instruction very much below what is known now to be the best, but the schools are wanting as to their number, their sittings, the force of teachers and the needed school equipment. The first work, therefore, to which the state is bound to direct its attention and its energies is, not the creation of so-called "high" schools, but the increase of the number of primary schools and the improvement of the instruction which they afford.

—In this connection the term "primary instruction" is applied, as above indicated, to that which may conveniently be given to the children of the age at which instruction may be made compulsory. What that age should be is an open question, but it may roughly be indicated as from six to fourteen years. These limits might, with profit, be changed in certain cases according to the circumstances of the various communities. Instruction might be begun at an age earlier than six, and it might be desirable to release the child from school at an age earlier than fourteen. It would be quite practicable to commence with the age of four, under a completely organized system, and to teach as much by the age of twelve as the child under the ordinary methods has learned at fifteen, and very much more and of more worth. These are details which would settle themselves, if the correct and fruitful principle were adopted; the important thing to observe is, that the duty of the state is to do all that can be done for the child at as early an age as possible, and that when this has been done, the child may and ought to be turned over to private agencies, which can do the work of further education fully as well, and even better than those that the state can provide. Nor is it a question simply of what preference shall be given to one of two kinds of instruction for either of which the means are easily provided. It is rather a question of what shall be done with a sharply limited sum. There are certain bounds beyond which the public can not be taxed, even for the support of free schools, highly as these are valued and cheerfully as they are usually supplied. The load of taxation is already very heavy in all the older parts of the United States, and its tendency is to grow heavier rather than lighter. We have no such struggle for existence as many of the older parts of Europe experience, but the difficulty of keeping up the standard of comfort to which the great mass of Americans have become habituated is getting to be greater and greater in all of our larger cities, and in very many of our towns and Edition: current; Page: [34] villages. The almost unbroken rise in rents and in the cost of many of the necessaries of daily life, together with the unfortunate but apparently inevitable tendency to extravagance, especially among persons of only moderate income, make the larger average annual earnings or profits of the American worker or American tradesman, go less far in the provision of essentials than a much more modest sum in older countries. In this curtailing of the real resources of the citizen, taxation necessarily bears a very large part. With our present very defective methods of getting public business done, with the lack of accountability and stability, of consistency and permanence, in the local public service, there is but little hope that the burden of taxation will be materially lightened, and the share of the revenue which can be counted on for the public schools is by no means indefinite. It is, therefore, absolutely required that it should be husbanded with great care, that it should be made to yield the greatest practicable results, and that these results should be, as far as possible, to the advantage of the greatest number. Already in some of the most advanced states, and in some of the largest and most liberal cities, there is a notable demand for economy in this direction, which is sure to grow stronger and more imperative. The answer to that demand certainly should not he a decrease in the salaries of teachers, or a general reduction in the cost of the schools, but a concentration of expenditure upon the more essential kind of instruction and the greatest possible development of that.

—The argument for this policy is very far from being a negative one. It is not merely that the state ought not to devote the funds derived from common taxation to a class of schools which are of necessity useful only to a minority of the tax payers; it is that the field of primary education is quite worthy of the utmost that the state can do. It is a common error, that the teaching of children under the age of twelve or fourteen is something which can be safely left to unskilled persons; that it is a comparatively simple work, that it is necessary mainly to enable the pupil to take that which is afterward offered, but that in itself it is drudgery at once to the teacher and to the taught, which may be got through with as best may be. This error is, happily, no longer current among those who have given any considerable study to the subject, or who are entitled to be heard in regard to it; but it exists to an extent which few writers on education know, among those who have the determination of the character of our schools, of the studies that shall be followed in them, and of the manner in which they shall be taught. A close acquaintance with the school officers, and even with the school teachers, of the various states, a direct study of the schools themselves, a knowledge, though but partial, of the views of the average local legislator and the tax payers, would reveal a prevalence of this gravely mistaken notion which is of the utmost consequence in forecasting the future of our public school system.

—The notion is not only mistaken but it is exceedingly mischievous. It tends directly to the neglect of the child at a period when, of all others, he can be most readily, most profitably and most completely taught, and this neglect can never be wholly made up to him. The condition of all valuable instruction is curiosity on the part of the learner, and curiosity is a natural, universal, persistent quality of the mind of the young child. The process of sane and useful education consists in very large part of the direction and satisfaction of this inherent curiosity, which, like every other quality, is developed and strengthened and rendered more active and efficient by legitimate exercise. If, at the age when this quality is strong in every healthy child, the work of learning is made hard or tedious, if the labor of acquisition is made too great for the obvious and appreciated results acquired, the faculty of curiosity is weakened, the instrument with which all future work must be done is blunted. The pupil may afterward reacquire it: his curiosity may be tardily awakened; he may be incited by other motives, such as fear, or emulation, to do the necessary labor of learning, but he will have lost much that he can never regain: his nature will have been crippled or stunted; he will never be so useful to himself or society as he might have been; he will do what he is capable of doing at a disadvantage, with greater effort and with less and less available result. Most of our primary schools ignore to a greater or less degree this most important fact. Children under ten or twelve years are crowded together, in the charge of teachers of immature age, little or no training, defective general education and undeveloped character. To each of these is given a number of scholars greater than the most skillful, alert and experienced teacher could deal with in a manner at all satisfactory. Much is done to benumb, almost nothing is done to awaken, direct or feed the desire of the child for learning. Arbitrary and conventional tasks are imposed. In the larger schools the necessities of the system adopted require rigid and minute uniformity of management. Each class is a part of a closely regulated and interconnected machinery. Individuality is repressed. The incitements of direct and intimate personal intercourse with the more highly developed mind of the teacher is nearly impossible. Classes follow each other in rapid succession; a series of hurried examinations or recitations leaves neither time nor chance for anything but the most monotonous and mechanical action of the pupil's faculties. The progress, such as it is, of each division, is measured by a standard based on that capacity for receiving instruction, thus faultily given, which exists not among the brightest, but among nearly the dullest of the members of the division. The more intelligent are held back; the weakest are driven forward; the progress of all is halting, unnatural and misdirected. That which is taught is necessarily confined to what can be Edition: current; Page: [35] taught under these conditions. The system imposes itself upon those who have the administration of it, whether they will or no. It is idle to think of teaching much that requires adaptation of means and methods by the teacher to the wants, the desires, the suggestions of the pupils' varying minds. The school is a mill which goes on day after day, grinding out as nearly a uniform grist as it can, with very little reference to the grain that is provided for it, or the uses to which its products may be devoted, or of which they may be capable. This is the condition of things in many of the larger schools in the larger cities. In the smaller towns or villages and rural districts, a like result is got by different means. Here the number of pupils is smaller, but the capacity of the teachers is even less. The supervision, which, to some extent, prevents the worst consequences of the bad methods in the larger schools, is generally wanting. The teachers, with little or no conception of the possibilities or requirements of their calling, imitate, as best they can, the model set up for them in the larger schools. The machine is smaller, but it is-still a machine, constructed on the same principle, run for the same ends, and accomplishing its limited purposes with a like hard, mechanical, but more defective regularity. The things taught are of substantially the same nature, but less in number, and usually even less adapted to what should be the object of the primary school. That the result is of considerable worth, and even of great worth, no one who knows the effect of the worst primary schools on the population to which they are directed will deny; what is obvious is, that the result is not nearly as great or as good as it might be, at the same cost of time, money and energy. This proposition is not easily proven by statistics, in the first place, because it is not easily susceptible of mathematical proof; in the next place because such statistics as would throw light upon it are not collected in this country. But it is quite susceptible of demonstration that our public schools turn out pupils very much less fitted for the common duties of life than they might, even after they have passed them through what are, with very doubtful accuracy, called the "upper" grades. Thus every school is supposed to be able to teach the "three R's," that is to say, to enable its pupils to read intelligibly, and to understand ordinary matter, to write legibly and correctly, and to go through with the elementary processes of dealing with numbers. During the last three years there have been competitive examinations for appointment in the New York custom house, based in part on questions in copying from dictation, in numeration and annotation, in addition, in fractions, in grammar, in letter writing and in penmanship. An official report of these examinations up to Feb. 21, 1881, gives the education of 731 competitors, and that of 471, or 64 per cent., is described as "common school." The mean standing of all the competitors; in the subjects named, fairly reflects the standing of these 471. It was, in copying, 74 02 (on a standard of 100); in numeration and notation, only 76.24; in addition, correctness only and not rapidity being regarded, it was but 72.03; in fractions, the problems being of the simplest character, it fell to 37.33; in grammar, it was 69.16; in letter writing, it was 65 66, and was decently high only in penmanship, where it was 80.91. Of the 731 competitors, 123 were appointed, with an average standing of 88.54. Of these, those having "common school education," were only 51 per cent., though they were 64 per cent. of the applicants, and the average age of the appointees was thirty-five years, which indicates that the more recent graduates of the common schools were at a marked disadvantage. These figures give a general idea unfavorable to the proficiency of the pupils in the public schools in the simpler and most valuable branches. A careful inspection of a large part of the papers with special reference to this question very strongly confirms that impression. It reveals, among those definitely traced to the schools, a variety of ignorance, a degree of failure on the part of the schools to fit them for the most common and necessary use of the knowledge pretended to have been imparted, which would be ludicrous if it were not disheartening. As has already been said, this evidence does not prove that the public schools, just as they are, do not do a great deal of good, or are not a great deal better than none, it does not prove that they are not a proper agency for the state to employ to secure the degree of instruction which is absolutely needed by its citizens; but it does prove, and conclusively, that they do not do the work for which they are specially intended, and for which they are specially fitted, as that work ought to be done. The causes for this relative failure are not far to seek. They may be fairly included in the statement that the schools seek to do too much, and do not seek to do that thoroughly which is the most important. And the remedy is plainly to confine their work within narrower limits, and to improve them, with reference to that work, to the greatest possible extent. This involves the surrender of the higher and more costly schools, the increase in number of the schools devoted to elementary instruction, the provision of a larger body of teachers, their better training and adequate supervision. Of these requirements the first is essential to the fulfillment of the others. The development of a complete system of elementary instruction is practically impossible while the present miscalled "higher" schools are maintained. These latter not only absorb a very large share of the money that is needed for the more essential schools, but they create a false standard; they turn the efforts of the teaching force in a wrong direction; they stimulate the desire both of teachers and pupils, not to the mastery of the substantial branches, but to "promotion" along the arbitrary line leading to these "upper" grades or schools. The whole energy of the system should be confined to complete and effective education Edition: current; Page: [36] in the branches really necessary, and progress should be made, not in quantity but in quality. It is true that abolition of the upper schools is called for now only in the system of the larger cities and more advanced towns, but it is the more imperatively called for there, because this system is the model to which the schools in the smaller towns and less important districts are now adapted as much as possible. It is in the larger cities that the more serious evils of the present system are most clearly shown and tend most strongly to increase, and it is from these that the mischievous influence proceeds which constantly tends to produce these evils throughout the country and to prevent a needed and fruitful reform. It is from these that a contrary influence can be extended throughout the rest of the land, and the general system be brought nearer to that which must be created, if we are to get from our schools the full measure of utility that we are entitled to expect. If the reform can be begun in the larger cities and towns by gradually limiting instruction to that of an elementary character, that measure of itself will tend to improve the quality of the instruction given. The false and mistaken goal being removed, the natural effect will be to push toward the goal which is set up with greater zeal and intelligence. The intellectual and moral force of the teaching class, great as it unquestionably is, will cease to be wasted in the vain pursuit of vague or arbitrary objects, and be turned with certain gain in efficiency toward the objects at once more valuable and more attainable lying much nearer. The already considerable number of educators who are weary of the unprofitable pursuit of the multiplied and multiform purposes that they are now required to keep in view, will be encouraged to devote themselves to the simpler, worthier and more practical task presented to them, and they will be steadily re-enforced by others who would gladly adopt a reformed system, but have not the courage or the independence to propose it.

—With the provision of a larger number of elementary schools, must necessarily come an increase in the number and a decided improvement in the character of the teachers employed in them. The schools being more numerous, the classes should be very much smaller, and a teacher should be required to take charge of only so many children as could be brought directly, easily and with benefit under his or her personal direction and influence. This involves an immediate, and, ultimately, a very large increase in the means for training teachers, and the provision of such means is one of the most obvious and proper functions of the state. If it can not be maintained that the state should provide what is now regarded as higher education for all applicants, gratuitously, it can not be denied that it should do all in its power to furnish an adequate supply of carefully chosen, highly trained teachers for the schools which it may establish and sustain. This is not only a legitimate but a necessary function of the state, in which any well-directed expenditure of care and money will be entirely justifiable. This principle has been rather vaguely but very generally recognized throughout the United States and is constantly gaining. Normal schools are already in existence in all but two or three of the states, and in some of them they are generously maintained and of high character. During the decade 1870-79 they increased in number and in attendance fully fourfold, and the tendency is fortunately still strong in the same direction. But there yet remain only too many sections of the country to which the quaint comment of Roger Ascham applies: "It is a pity, that commonly more care is had, yea and that among very wise men, to find out rather a cunning man for their Horse, than a cunning man for their Children. They say nay in word, but they do so in deed: For to the one they will gladly give a Stipetal of two hundred Crowns by the year, and loth to offer to the other two hundred Shillings. God that sitteth in Heaven laugheth their Choice to scorn, and rewardeth their Liberality as it should: For he suffereth them to have tame and well ordered Horse, but wild and unfortunate Children, and therefore in the end they find more. Pleasure in their horse, than Comfort in their children."

—The value of the normal schools varies greatly in the cities and states in which they are now established. The best of them, however, are inadequate to the end which should be kept in view. The average term of instruction is but one year. This, with the necessary allowance for vacations, is but little more than two-thirds of a year, or eight months of direct study. It must be conceded that even in this time much is accomplished, and the graduates of these schools are among the most useful of the teachers now engaged in active work. It must be added, also, that it is in these schools that the better notions of pedagogics have taken root most readily and most firmly, and it is among their pupils that we find the most effective and intelligent application of such notions. It is from these that many of the more thorough and ingenious of the primary teachers have sprung, who have at many widely separated points, established the nucleiof correct and profitable instruction. But no one familiar with the extent and delicacy and difficulty of the art of really good primary teaching, can for a moment suppose that any complete training, or even any satisfactory beginning of such training, can be had in the few months allowed to the ordinary normal school course. If we assume, what is very far from being the case, that the students admitted to the normal school are already fairly grounded in the elements of the studies which they are afterward to teach, the time is still very much too short. As a matter of fact the students are in great part very poorly prepared. At best they generally have only such preparation as can be got in what are called the grammar school grades, and can pass only routine examinations confined to the well defined limits within which they have been drilled. Edition: current; Page: [37] If they could be subjected to searching examinations to test their facile and familiar use of what they are supposed to have learned in the "three R's," it is probable that they would, in the words of Mr. Charles Francis Adams, Jun., to the Quincy scholars under like circumstances, "go to pieces." And it is the testimony of the managers of normal schools that it is often found necessary, not only to review, but to recommence the grammar school course. The material on which the normal schools have to work, though very ill-prepared, is in many respects otherwise exceedingly good. The spirit of the students is generally earnest; they are disposed and accustomed to patient industry, to self-denial, to discipline, and to the practical use of their opportunities. Though often too young, they are intent upon the end they have in view, and have, what is much more precious than mere mental brightness, the capacity for work. With proper means of instruction, sufficient time, the freedom from poverty which is their greatest drawback, and the incentive of a reasonable start in the profession that they have chosen, they are capable of becoming useful and admirable teachers.

—In this connection there is an ample and inviting field for the intervention of the government, and particularly of the federal government. The latter has already, in the military school at West Point and the naval school at Annapolis, given examples of the peculiar excellence of the instruction for special purposes which it can command when it seeks it. There is no reason why it should not undertake the establishment of some like system for the training of teachers. The military and naval schools take their pupils after careful examination; the pupils after supported during the time they are engaged in their studies, and they are at once required to give to the government a fixed time of practical service in the branches for which they have been trained, and are secured a position for life, if they choose to retain it. The justification for this system on the part of the government is that it is the best available for providing officers for the army and navy, which may at any time become absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of the republic. It is not too much to say that the defense and support afforded to the government by an efficient and universal system of public schools are as valuable and even as indispensable as those derived from the army and navy. The utility of the latter is indeed only exceptional and contingent, though entirely established; but the utility of the former is certain, constant, absolute, and will necessarily increase with the growth of the country. The constitutional power of the federal government to establish normal schools can be easily and amply maintained. It is but a specific branch of the power already used in the appropriation of public lands for the maintenance of technical schools, such as agricultural colleges, and for general purposes of education. The federal government would be entirely within its clearly established sphere in either establishing normal schools, or in encouraging their establishment by the states. It could properly and effectively work in both directions. It is hardly desirable, in the present condition of the civil service of the federal government, that it should undertake the direct management of the educational system in any of the states, even though this could be done with the consent of the latter. Nor is it desirable that it should assume at once the task of furnishing trained teachers for all state schools. But it is exceedingly desirable that a definite system should be begun, which should be capable of expansion. This system might with advantage be based on the general principles that govern the military academy. The federal government might undertake the training of a number of pupils, moderate at first, in the art of primary teaching. To render practicable the selection of the most capable and promising, without reference to previous circumstances in life, these students should be supported during the term of study, which should be sufficiently long to admit of the most thorough instruction. They should, of course, be admitted from any part of the Union, and considering the peculiar needs of the southern states, ample provision should be made for colored pupils. They should be held to the most careful and complete compliance with all the conditions of successful study, and should be promptly dismissed if they failed in this compliance or showed incapacity for a fixed degree of excellence in their profession. Upon graduation, they should be assured of employment at a fair salary for a determined period. As the federal government has no schools of its own in which to employ them, an arrangement would have to be made with the states for this purpose; but this would offer no practical difficulty. The best aid that the federal government could afford to education in the states would be in the shape of trained teachers, whose salaries should be paid either by the national, the state or the local governments according to conditions, which could be readily defined. In those states where application, based on the illiteracy of the population, should be made for assistance, the teachers might very wisely be paid wholly by the national government, and this would, of itself, be a field quite sufficient to furnish employment to all the federal teachers that could at first be supplied. When the system had once been fairly established, there would be no lack of demand for the graduates of the federal normal schools. It is now hardly doubtful, that before many years the federal government will take some definite and comprehensive action for the aid of public education in the states. This purpose has already been shown in the propositions submitted in congress, to devote a considerable portion of the revenue from public lands to the support of state schools. These propositions have received the support of leading representatives from all sections of the country, and of all shades of political opinion. They have been brought forward by the representatives of Edition: current; Page: [38] New England states, which would not at all share in their benefits, and which have shown entire willingness and capacity to maintain free public schools of the highest existing order at their own expense. They have been supported ardently by the representatives of southern states, which have been as completely revolutionized by the war for the Union in their ideas and purposes regarding education as in their political and social organization. And to these propositions have been added others, for the appropriation to the support of free schools of considerable amounts from the direct revenues of the treasury, and particularly from those derived from the tax on brewed and distilled liquors. While these measures are in themselves well-intended, and would, in a general way, further the advancement of education where it is most needed, they could not have as wide, as good or as permanent an influence as the system of federal normal schools above suggested. This latter might at least with great benefit be added to the others should they be adopted. The supply of teachers by the national government would relieve the states of an expense far greater than that incurred in training and paying the teachers, since a like number of equally good teachers could not be obtained by the individual action of the state or local authorities at even a much greater cost. On the other hand, the normal schools would enable the federal government to raise the character of the state schools, and to exercise a very desirable influence over them without the slightest direct or improper interference with them. The system would involve no departure from that wholesome principle of entire freedom on the part of the states which it is very important to preserve. For while the graduates of these schools would be trained under a generally uniform system, that system could and should be one which would rather develop their capacity than closely and narrowly direct their specific methods. They would retain the same liberty of personal activity which obtains among the graduates of West Point or Annapolis, who are indeed taught how battles may be fought and armies and ships managed, but who are also especially trained to the apt and ingenious application of all available resources to the various requirements of the situations in which they may be called upon to act. A peculiar advantage which would accrue from this system would be that it would enable the federal government to supply a sufficient body of highly educated and carefully trained persons specially fitted for the work of superintendence of schools, and it is precisely these for which there is now the greatest need throughout the Union. The great body of schools, in fact, are at present practically without skilled supervision, and much of the teaching force which they employ is nearly wholly wasted on this account. A careful, well-equipped and energetic superintendent can multiply the efficiency of even ordinary teachers many times, and his influence may readily make exceedingly valuable what without it would be nearly worthless. Such superintendents are not only rarely employed, but they are very rarely to be found, and when found the chances for their engagement under conditions that would give them all their usefulness is almost impracticable. But if such officers could be furnished by the federal government with little or no cost to the state or local authorities, and if their engagement were made the condition of the aid furnished by the federal government, it can readily be seem that they would soon become a force of great and increasing efficiency.

—In this connection, however, it would be important that the principle already defined regarding the legitimate limit of free public instruction should be carefully observed. The normal schools of the federal government should be devoted to the highest possible training of teachers of the elementary branches, and they should be confined to such training. The federal government, of all others, should faithfully observe and firmly enforce the rule that free public schools should give the best instruction, in those things which are essential to all future citizens, which are accessible to all, and that there they should stop. It can not only be no part of the duty of the central government to furnish "higher education" to a comparatively small proportion of its citizens at the expense of all, but it is clearly its duty to refrain from so doing and to exert all its influence to discouraging such a tendency on the part of the individual governments. Within the field thus limited it would find ample scope for its utmost energies, and it would be one of its most honor able functions to occupy that field worthily. If its influence were steadily and actively directed to providing complete instruction in the elements of education in those common, useful and necessary forms of knowledge and of mental activity for which children within the age, say, of fourteen are fitted, it would do as extensive work in shaping the future character of its people, and one most sorely needed. It can not be too often repeated or too clearly held, that within that age the child has at once the strongest claim upon the aid and guidance of the government, and the greatest aptitude in using them, and that beyond that, if the elementary work be even fairly done, all possible advancement lies within the reach of the great body of young Americans.

—Obviously the acceptance of this proposition bars the way to the entrance of the federal government upon the schemes so freely proposed for the foundation of a national university or for the establishment of a series of colleges throughout the Union. The arguments by which these schemes are supported rest upon a radically mistaken conception of the functions and constitutional powers as well as of the practical capacity of the federal government. Such institutions could not themselves carry out any of the defined purposes for which the constitution clothes the national government with authority, nor are they in any strict sense means necessary or proper to the exercise of the powers Edition: current; Page: [39] conferred. They differ radically and widely from schools intended and conducted to promote the common education needed by all, and they can only give that form of instruction which, on the one hand, the citizen has no right to claim at public expense, and which, on the other hand, the government neither has the right to give nor the means of giving in its best form. All the considerations that have been urged against the misdirection of public funds by states or municipalities in the support of high schools and colleges, apply with even greater force to the undertaking of still more advanced instruction by the federal government. In addition to these are others springing from the organization of the federal government. That organization aims neither at centralization nor permanence, and is opposed to both. The executive is submitted to popular election every four years. The more numerous and powerful branch of the congress is so submitted every two years, and at like periods one-third of the senate is passed upon by the state legislatures, under influences which are well known to be incompatible with consistency, much more with unity in the character of the senate. Under these circumstances, the difficulty of securing in the first instance an adequate plan for a national university would be very great, from the obvious lack of any considerable number of men engaged in the government capable of even understanding the requirements of such a plan, and from the fact that those who may at any one time happen to be so engaged are not secure of remaining long enough to enact the plan, or of exercising a controlling influence upon its character. Any university which can be regarded as possible would from the start be crude, empirical and defective in its character, and would tend gradually or perhaps rapidly to degenerate. Moreover a university is in its nature rather an organism than an organization. It is a thing of complicated purposes, of delicate instrumentalities, of constantly varying and developing needs. Its vital force must be within itself, and it depends for its efficiency, its adaptation to its work, upon the character of those who devote the energies of their life to its service. Such force could not be supplied by act of congress, and if in some measure it should chance to be provided at the outset, it would surely die out under the conditions that would attach to the administration of a government institution. It would be as difficult for congress to set up even the beginnings of a Harvard as for a chemist by uniting the elements disclosed to his analysis to reproduce the germ of a having plant. And in considering this fact, it must be borne in mind that Harvard is but an incomplete growth, the greatest value of which, even now, lies not so much in what it is as in what it has the power to be. Either as an instrumentality of higher education or as a means of promoting original investigation, on both of which grounds the plan has been advocated, a national university would be a singularly faulty contrivance, and destined rather to decay or perversion than to development and increase of usefulness. Similar institutions abroad are hardly models for the United States, since they exist under very different conditions. Those in Germany, which are most often cited, are maintained by a government which, on the one hand, is very nearly despotic and practically permanent, and which, on the other, accords to the universities, within certain broad lines, the greatest freedom. In other words, the government provides secure and uninterrupted means for the universities, to be used largely at the discretion of a permanent force of learned men, whose whole lives are given to the task. Such a scheme in the United States is almost "unthinkable." In France, where there has been far greater permanence and independence in its university than might have been expected from its frequently changing forms of government, the work of the university falls far short of that accomplished in Germany, while the most valuable and distinguished achievements of scholars and students have been due to men wholly unsupported and unaided by the government. In this connection may profitably be considered the history of England, which affords brilliant examples of the vigor and success with which the highest labors of science and scholarship have been pursued with little other encouragement than that supplied by the needs and aspirations of an intelligent people—It may be objected, and with some plausibility, that the obstacles to the successful foundation and maintenance of a national university in the United States arising from the organization of the government, would equally oppose themselves to the successful establishment of adequate normal schools. It is not to be hoped that the elements of instability and of demoralization which inhere in the constitution and in our present political methods could be kept entirely from influencing such schools. But two facts are to be borne in mind in this connection; one is, that the establishment of good normal schools is by far a less difficult task than the foundation of a university; the other is, that it is a task clearly within the constitutional authority and the field of duty of the federal government, and therefore to be undertaken with the best means that can be commanded. It is reasonable to suppose that the project of the supply by the federal government of teachers, thoroughly trained in the art of elementary instruction, would, if properly presented, commend itself strongly to the majority of those in congress who are now disposed to extend federal aid to the public schools of the states Once fairly started, the system would constantly strengthen itself in public opinion, because it would constantly respond to that universal demand for free and universal primary instruction, and it would not offend the principles of justice and of constitutional law as would a national university.

—By the brief outline, which the limits of this article permitted, of the systems of education existing in Germany and Edition: current; Page: [40] in France, it will be seen that the problem presented by the relations of the state to education in the United States is very different from that presented in the nations of which these may be taken as examples. The fact might be further illustrated by reference to the systems of the Scandinavian states, of Belgium and Holland, and of Italy, but this is neither convenient nor necessary. The specific question offered for study here, is how the children of the republic may be given, in the best manner and at the least cost either of the public revenue or of the time and energy of the pupils, the instruction which is needed by all as a condition to the reasonable performance of their duties as citizens. This is the problem, the solution of which has been undertaken by the states, by the municipalities, and by the lesser political bodies, in a more or less earnest manner, by various means, and with widely differing degrees of success. In the prosecution of this effort, the schools in most of the larger communities have extended, under complex influences and without consistent guidance, in directions quite wide of the mark to which they should have been contined. The needs and rights of the majority have been neglected and much money and force have been expended in an attempt to provide advantages by which only a minority, often very small, can profit. The result has been the general adoption of a false standard, the vicious multiplication of studies, the enforcement of arbitrary, conventional and barren methods of instruction, and a lamentable failure to turn out pupils fitted for those very duties which the schools are founded to aid the pupil in discharging. It has been shown that the proper and adequate performance of the function of the schools requires the abandonment of the elaborate, expensive and comparatively useless "upper grades" and "high schools," and the concentration of energy and expenditure upon ample provision for the very best form of elementary instruction, with direct and close attention to imparting practically useful knowledge, and to the training of the child's capacity for the intelligent employment and extension of such knowledge. It has been urged, that to this end the duty of the state—including in that term all the civil authorities having control of the common schools—is to provide a sufficient force of carefully trained teachers. In this important work the federal government is warranted by its constitution and bound by its general obligation as to the maintenance of free institutions, to engage, and it may with advantage establish normal schools for the free training of primary teachers, to be supported while under instruction, and to be employed by the federal government at fair salaries, for a fixed term. It has been suggested that in no other manner can the federal government do such great and valuable service in aid of general education in the states, or exercise so powerful and salutary an influence over the state schools, without in any degree interfering with that perfect freedom of action in the states which is at once demanded by the theory of the Union and required for the best development of education throughout the various states. It has been sought in this way to point out a line of development for the free public schools of the country which will, if steadily pursued, enable them to fulfill the high purpose for which they are meant, and by their success in attaining which they will ultimately be judged. What are believed to be the errors and defects in the system now in vogue have been pointed out in no spirit of depreciation, much less of hostility to the schools, but with a strong desire to aid, as far as may be, in giving them their greatest usefulness, and by directing them to what is thought the satisfaction of the most imperative and permanent needs of the people to secure for them a lasting and constantly strengthening affection and respect. The faults of the present are those of abounding energy misdirected and in danger of provoking unfortunate reaction. But a reform quite simple in its nature is capable of turning this energy into the most fruitful fields, where the harvest will be secure, of the richest, and continually increasing.



EDUCATION, Bureau of. The government of the United States, prior to 1867, had no concern with the education of the people, further than was evinced in several acts of congress giving public lands to the states for the promotion of school education. A summary of these land-grant provisions, with the amount of land thus located in each state and territory, will be found elsewhere.

—Numerous propositions to establish a national university by act of congress have been made, from the time of Washington to this day, but thus far without practical effect. A national bureau of education, however, was created in 1867, in pursuance of a bill reported by a select committee of the house through its chairman, James A. Garfield, who took a leading part in urging its passage. By act of March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. at Large, p. 434), a department of education, with a commissioner and three clerks, was organized. "to collect statistics and facts showing the condition and progress of education in the several states and territories, and to diffuse such information respecting the organization and management of schools and school systems, and methods of teaching, as shall aid the people of the United States in the establishment and maintenance of efficient school systems, and otherwise promote the cause of education throughout the country." The following year the office of education was converted from an independent department into a bureau, attached to the department of the interior (15 Stat. at Large, p. 92). The commissioner of education is appointed by the president and senate, with a salary of $3,000, and is required to make an annual report to congress of the results of his investigations and labors. These annual reports (of which thirteen Edition: current; Page: [41] bulky volumes have been issued from 1868 to 1881) cover a wide field, and, with the "circulars of information" occasionally issued in pamphlet form, embrace many subjects not directly connected with education. The annual reports, which have more recently assumed a systematic form, are in great part devoted to abstracts of the official reports of school officers of the various states and territories. These are followed by statistical tables in detail, summarizing, by states and territories, the numbers, attendance, instructors, expenditure, etc., in the primary schools, kindergärten, normal and higher schools, commercial colleges, universities, schools of science, theology, law, medicine, etc., throughout the United States. To these are added tabular statistics, also arranged by states, of institutions for the deaf, dumb and blind, charity schools, orphan asylums, industrial and reform schools, museums of art, natural history, etc., and (occasionally) of libraries. The commissioner of education also published in 1876 a valuable "Special Report on Public Libraries in the United States of America, their history, condition and management," a volume of over 1,200 pages. The circulars of information of the United States bureau of education have embodied much miscellaneous intelligence regarding education in foreign countries, with many monographs upon special topics.

—The functions of the bureau of education, though most largely concerned with the collection and diffusion of knowledge respecting educational methods, and the statistics of institutions of learning, have become quite diversified, and its annual expenditure has grown from the insignificant sum of $9,400 in 1868, to $50,000 in 1882 (exclusive of printing). Its special reports, of much extent, relating to education in the District of Columbia (1871), and to the public libraries of the United States (1876), have been highly valued, and the bureau has become a recognized and widely useful medium for the diffusion of intelligence respecting all the varied interests and business of education in this country, as well as in foreign lands. Among topics treated in its circulars of information have been rural school architecture, the teaching of chemistry and physics in the United States, instruction in the countries of Europe, Asia and South America, college commencements, the legal rights of children, foreign universities, compulsory education, the spelling reform, proceedings of the national educational association, etc.

—The commissioners of education since the creation of that office, have been Henry Barnard, March 16, 1867; John Eaton, March 16, 1870.

—There has been collected a valuable though not complete library of works on education, elementary text-books, catalogues, etc., and an extensive series of illustrations of school buildings, school apparatus, etc., forming an educational museum of great interest.



EDUCATION, Compulsory, a term used to denote the policy of requiring the parents of a state to furnish their children that degree and kind of education assumed as necessary for the citizen. Such a policy involves the liability of the state to provide opportunities for obtaining such an education, in case the parents are unable to do so. As a matter of fact, most civilized nations of modern times have gone very far toward providing such opportunities for all the children of the state, either free of cost (in the free school system), or at a nearly nominal price (in the rate-school system). The question then becomes merely one of compulsory attendance upon the schools so provided in case parents do not choose other schools.

—In its widest sense compulsory education is as old as civilization. Long before a literary education was considered necessary, the nations of the east, Egypt, India, etc., had been in the habit of requiring all parents to train their children in the duties and routine of their caste. Of the classical nations, Athens and Sparta were among the first to recognize in their legislation the right and duty of the state to superintend the education of the children. Sparta carried this principle to its utmost extremes in the system of laws commonly attributed to Lycurgus. The entire training of the male children, after they became seven years of age, was in the hands of the state. A most rigorous system of discipline was enforced during the childhood, youth and early manhood of all male citizens. At Athens, Solon is said to have incorporated the following provisions in his legislation: 1. The boys must be taught to swim and to read; those of the poorer classes must be further trained to agriculture, commerce or some handicraft, those of the richer classes, to music, skill in handling horses, hunting and philosophy. 2. No son is bound to support his father in old age, if the latter has failed to instruct him in some profitable art. At Rome the state undertook no general superintendence of education, but left it almost entirely to the family. The compulsory military service of the early republics had a certain educating force in it, though that, of course, was not its primary object. It was not till long after the downfall of the Roman empire that any traces are found of attempts to provide for the education of the masses. The candidates for the priesthood, and the children of the nobles and of the well-to-do classes of the laity, received a sort of education in the various classes of schools, supported or favored by the church, but the vast majority of the population remained in ignorance which no government even tried to lessen.

—With Charlemagne a new era begins. The idea of securing universal education by a system of compulsory attendance at school seems to have originated with him. At least he was the first to try it on a great scale. Not only did he found schools everywhere, but he expressly enjoined it upon all the bishops that they were to insist on the children of their dioceses all attending the primary Edition: current; Page: [42] schools, and that they were to be instructed not only in religion but also in science, i.e., in reading, writing, arithmetic, grammar and singing. The wreck of his great empire prevented the ultimate success of his plans as he had laid them. But the impulse he gave to the cause of universal education was great and lasting.

—The revival of learning in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries awakened a new interest in popular education. The spirit of Protestantism, which had begun to make itself felt in every department of life, was favorable to universal education as likely to break forever the power of the priest-hood over the masses. Eminent thinkers and educators began to insist upon compulsory education as necessary to any great advance in national prosperity. Luther was an outspoken advocate of such a policy. The logical conclusion of all his writings upon education is that it is the duty of the state to provide for the education of all its citizens, and then to compel them to take advantage of the opportunities offered. As early as 1528 the school law of Saxony made it the duty of clergymen to admonish their parishioners to send their children to school, "in order that persons might be educated so as to be competent to teach in the church and to govern." The most interesting school law of the sixteenth century was that issued by Duke Christopher in 1559 for the duchy of Würtemberg. It provided not only that the pastors should admonish their congregations twice each year of the necessity and duty of sending their children to school, but also that the schoolmasters should keep a register of all the boys in the district according to the classes to which they belonged, and that after every recitation the roll should be called, and if the absentees could not give satisfactory excuses they were to be fined according to desert. The enforcement of the law, however, was very negligent. Similar provisions were adopted by many other German states. Compulsory attendance upon religious instruction was nearly universal, and tolerably well enforced. In 1640 the general synod of Würtemberg recognized the necessity of requiring all children to go to school, and resolved that all parents should be fined whose children failed to attend. It was found quite as difficult to enforce this law, however, as the former one, and new rescripts were issued in 1670, 1672 and 1679, to remind parents of their duties. The first law defining the school age of children was given by the duke of Brunswick, who commanded all parents and guardians of children to send them to school from the sixth year of age.

—The thirty years war came near destroying the popular schools entirely, as it nearly put an end to all civilization in many parts of Germany. Duke Ernst. of Gotha, was among the first to resuscitate the public schools. The school law of Gotha, at first an object of ridicule, became later the model of nearly all school laws issued. It provided that all children, boys and girls, in the country as well as in the towns, should be sent to school as soon as they became six years of age, and that the pastor was to keep a register of all children from five to fourteen years of age. All parents who were so "debased, earthly and negligent" as to prevent their children from going to school, after being warned by the pastor should be fined one groschen for every hour the child was absent. The school should be kept the year round six days in the week except. Wednesday and Saturday afternoons.

—The movement in behalf of compulsory education now made steady though slow progress in all the German states. Prussia introduced it in 1732; Bavaria, which was one of the latest, in 1802. Compulsory education has, since the beginning of the nineteenth century, been the general rule in the German states; and it is a remarkable fact, that, in all the fierce conflicts which have been caused by educational legislation, no party has made any serious opposition to the principle, that the state government may and ought to demand that parents should provide some kind of instruction for their children. This kind of legislation in Austria began in the eighteenth century with laws providing that magistrates should send to school teachers twice a year lists of all children entering the sixth year of age, and that the teachers should return monthly lists of absence. Although the school attendance steadily increased, the number of children growing up without education was still very large. After the disastrous war with Prussia in 1866 the Austrian government hastened to introduce a new educational law similar to that of Prussia, providing for the rigorous enforcement of the principle of compulsory attendance. In some provinces it was found extremely difficult to provide for a sufficient number of teachers and schools and to compel the attendance of children. The statistics of school attendance, however, show a steady increase, and there is no systematic opposition to the principle which is now rapidly being carried into effect.

—The cantons of Switzerland, with four exceptions, and the Scandinavian kingdoms, have enacted laws similar to those of Germany; and Denmark, in particular, has had a stringent law on compulsory education in operation since 1814, and has thus effected a remarkably high average education of its entire population.

—In France the public school system was for the first time regulated by the educational law of 1833, which embodied the ideas of Guizot and Cousin. Neither this law, however, nor the subsequent regulations, recognized the principle of compulsory education; and the school attendance, especially in many of the rural districts, continued to be very small. Louis Napoleon favored the principle of compulsion and M. Duroy, his minister of public instruction from 1863 to 1869, was one of its most zealous advocates; but the attempts made to introduce it into the legislation of France had to be abandoned in consequence of the powerful opposition it met with. After the proclamation of the republic in 1870, one of the most enthusiastic champions of Edition: current; Page: [43] compulsory education, Jules Simon, was appointed minister of public instruction; and the new educational law proposed by him, embodied the principle; but the national assembly refused to adopt the law, thirteen of the fifteen bureaus voting against it. The principle is generally advocated in France by the liberals, and opposed by the Catholic party.

—In England public opinion, until very recently, has always been strongly adverse to a participation of the state government in school matters. An important advance toward the principle of compulsory education was, however, made in 1870, by the adoption of a bill brought in by Edward Forster, according to which, within one year, provision was to be made for the education of every child in England and Wales. The question of compulsory attendance was very earnestly discussed in parliament and was finally left to the separate school boards, which were to have a certain discretionary power of enforcing attendance. The policy of compulsion was finally adopted in the elementary education act of 1876, which went into operation Jan. 1, 1877, and which declares that it shall be the duty of the parent of every child between the ages of five and fourteen, to cause such child to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing and arithmetic; the duty to be enforced by the orders and penalties specified in the act. The employment of children under the age of ten, or over that age without a certificate of proficiency or of previous due attendance at a certified efficient school, is prohibited, with certain exceptions.

—The Italian parliament, in 1871, adopted a new school law, according to which elementary instruction is required to be given everywhere free of charge, and attendance at school is obligatory.

—In Belgium and the Netherlands every commune is compelled by law to make provision for a public school; and in Belgium indigent children receive, on application of their parents, gratuitous instruction; but neither of these two states has, as yet, recognized the principle of compulsory education.

—In Russia, Peter the Great desired to make education obligatory; but the obstinate resistance of his subjects who called education their destruction, prevented him from carrying out his design; and the consequence is that Russia is still among the least educated countries of Europe, there being, in 1875, one pupil for about every eighty-six inhabitants.

—Turkey, in 1869, promulgated a law providing for the establishment of a school in every locality, and requiring all children, both boys and girls, to attend it. It is hardly necessary to say that it was not enforced.

—Greece adopted the compulsory system nearly fifty years ago. Its success may be judged by the fact that in 1870, after it had been in operation for thirty-six years, only 33 per cent. of the grown-up men and only 7 per cent. of the grown-up women were able to read and write!

—Spain and Portugal followed the example of Greece, with about the same success.

—In America, twenty-two of the states and territories of the Union have compulsory education laws on their statute books. The right of state authorities to require the attendance of all children at school was asserted at an early date by some of the English colonies. B. G. Northrop, secretary of the Connecticut state board of education, in his annual report for 1871, says that Connecticut may justly claim to be one of the first states in the world that established the principle of compulsory education. Its code of laws adopted in 1650 contained stringent provisions for compulsory attendance; and these provisions, with unimportant modifications, remained in force until the revision of the code in 1810. With the changed conditions of society resulting from immigration, it was found impossible to enforce the law without important additions, amounting in reality to a set of factory laws forbidding the employment of children under fourteen years of age who have not attended school for at least three months in the year, and although a state agent was appointed to superintend the enforcement of the law, yet the success has only been partial.

—As early as 1642 Massachusetts enjoined the selectmen of every town to see that all parents or guardians or masters taught their children, wards or apprentices so much learning as would enable them to read the English tongue and the capital laws, upon penalty of twenty shillings for each neglect therein. A factory law, similar to that of Connecticut, was passed in 1834. The present law compels parents and guardians to send children in their charge between the ages of eight and fourteen, to school twenty weeks every year; and no person can be excluded from the public school on account of race, color or religion. Towns and cities are required to provide for the education of orphans and the children of drunken parents.

—In Maine the school law of the state authorizes towns to make by-laws for the enforcement of attendance of children between six and seventeen years of age, and to annex a suitable penalty, not exceeding $20 for any breach thereof. In New Hampshire an act of the legislature, approved in July, 1871, provides that all parents, guardians or masters of a child between the ages of eight and fourteen, residing within two miles of a public school, shall send such child to school at least twelve weeks each year. Similar acts were passed the same year by the legislature of Michigan and Texas. Nevada passed a compulsory law in 1873, containing the ordinary provisions and providing a penalty of not less than $50 nor more than $100 for the first offense, and not less than $100 nor more than $200 for each subsequent offense. The laws of the other states and of the territories are very similar to those already mentioned. The tendency seems to be very strongly in favor of compulsory school laws. Many educators and statesmen go so far as to demand a national system of compulsion administered directly by federal officers.

—The discussion as to the justification and expediency of compulsory education has been long and interesting. It Edition: current; Page: [44] is safe to say that it is easier to prove that the state has the right to compel the attendance of its children at school than to show that such a policy is generally successful, in the widest sense of the term, and therefore expedient. It has been urged by American opponents that compulsory education is monarchical in its origin and history. The short account given above is a complete answer to any such objection. "Before the peace of Westphalia, before Prussia existed as a kingdom, and while Frederick William was only 'elector of Brandenburg,' Massachusetts and Connecticut adopted coercive education." The Connecticut laws were so stringent that they went to the extreme of taking the child away from the parent altogether, if the latter could not be brought to comply with the laws by fines. The common people of New England demanded a compulsory law. The laboring classes advocated and welcomed it, and the trades unions were nearly unanimous in its favor. The republic of Switzerland has compulsory laws in all but four of its cantons. The present system of Prussia was made efficient by men who were aiming at a free government for that kingdom. The liberal party in nearly every European government is in favor of compulsory education. Such a policy can hardly be called monarchical in its origin, then, since it was first adopted by the colonies of North America; nor in its history, since it has increased in popularity and universality as liberty has advanced; nor in its influence, since it tends to make monarchy less necessary by making republicanism possible.

—A second argument has been advanced against it, that it arrogates new power for the government. This is of course clearly untrue, 1650 is an early date in American history, yet from that time this power has been exercised by the various state governments. And even if the precedent could not be quoted, the right to compel attendance at school might be in a republic subserved under the general head of self-protection, along with quarantine and hygienic regulations. Nor does the objection that it is un-American have any greater force than the one just mentioned. Besides, it begs the whole question. "American" everything must be, which the American people have adopted and retained as a permanent part of their institutions. It has also been urged that it interferes with the liberty of the parents. No more, it may be returned, than many other laws which command universal assent, such as laws punishing the parent for abusing the child, for depriving it of necessaries which he is able to provide, etc. On the other hand, it may be claimed that the child has a right to an education such as will fit it to play a proper part in society, and it is the duty of the parent to furnish this. The state in compelling him to send the child to school does nothing more than secure the latter in its rights. A very common objection is, that such a system inflicts hardship upon many a parent who can neither spare the labor of his child nor pay for decent clothing and books. Such cases can easily be provided for, as they are in all successful systems now in operation. The community can much better afford to pay for clothing and books than to let the child grow up in ignorance. The arguments against the justice and constitutionality of compulsory laws may be fairly considered as answered by the foregoing. A strong plea may be made in favor of their justice, as follows: The state assumes and exercises the right of taxing all classes for the support of the public schools whether they have children to send or not. The state owes it to these tax payers to see that the taxes collected shall be used for the purpose for which they are levied. This is not possible unless it compels the attendance of all children at school. The tax payer, then, has a right to insist on a compulsory law, on the ground that it is necessary in order to enable the state to perform its duty toward him. As a matter of fact in this discussion those who object to compulsory laws on the ground of justice and constitutionality have been left in the minority everywhere,—answered by the logic of events. But the expediency of such laws is by no means so clear. That must be determined for each country by a careful study of the conditions there prevailing. Such laws may be good for one country under one set of conditions, and of no advantage or even of harm to another country with different circumstances. We add a few considerations on compulsory education in our own country.

—Recent compulsory school laws in America have been chiefly remarkable for their utter failure to accomplish any of the results expected of them. Of the twenty-two American states and territories, which have compulsory laws on their statute books, not a single one has been able to report, "they are a success." The same thing is true of similar laws in many other countries. The fact seems to be that compulsory school laws on a large scale have been successful only under conditions which would have made a voluntary system of attendance a success. The whole history of education in civilized countries justifies the claim that wherever plenty of good free schools have been provided, and the parents prevented from employing their children in factories and mines, there the attendance under a purely voluntary system has been as good as the compulsory system has been able to show anywhere, and that wherever a compulsory system has existed without these conditions it has been a failure. Prussia, the classic land of compulsion, provides in its school laws for an abundance of school room, well-equipped school houses, and a high grade of teachers, and her compulsory system is a fair success. Turkey, Greece, Portugal, etc., copy the compulsory features, omitting the essential conditions of success, and their laws are failures. Aside from this, however, a glance at the necessary conditions of a successful system of compulsion from an administrative point of view, will reveal the secret of the failure of American compulsory laws. A compulsory school law can be Edition: current; Page: [45] made effective only on one of two conditions. There must either be such an over whelming public sentiment in its favor that any parent who tries to evade it or officer who refuses to enforce it will fall as it were, under public ban and be exposed to universal execration; or there must be a thorough system of administration which will remove its enforcement from local authorities and put it in the hands of a power able and willing to enforce it, regardless of local influences and prejudices. The latter condition has, indeed, ordinarily been the presupposition of the former. Both conditions are realized to a certain extent in Prussia. The man who attempts to escape complying with the law is looked upon in a certain sense as a criminal. He feels that he is condemned by public sentiment and opinion around him, and feels that he is rightly condemned too. Compulsory education has done in Prussia its perfect work—it has converted involuntary into voluntary attendance. It has been asserted by men of wide and accurate observation that if the question were left to popular suffrage to-day, not one vote in a thousand would be cast against the compulsory laws. And it is an interesting fact in this connection that in all the popular party platforms adopted during the revolutions of 1848, and in all the socialistic platforms adopted since, universal compulsory education forms a prominent plank. Public sentiment, then, in Prussia favors the enforcement of the law. But it must be kept in mind that this public sentiment was not of spontaneous growth, but is the product of the most rigorous administrative system existing in any civilized nation. Frederick William I. of Prussia introduced the compulsory system. He was one of the most despotic monarchs that ever lived. His will was law, and law enforced. The people must go to school, he said, and to school they went, because he introduced an administrative machine which extended from the capital to the remotest village of the kingdom, and of which he was the animating soul. Frederick the Great was too busy in the early years of his reign to devote much attention to school matters. His successor was of too light a turn of mind to appreciate their importance. But the Napoleonic wars, the greatest blessing that ever came to the German people, turned Prussia's attention to her schools, and the system was inaugurated which raised Prussia to the front rank of continental powers. Compulsory attendance was enforced, and has been ever since. It has blossomed and fruited into universal voluntary attendance. But it must not be forgotten, that it was only the thorough enforcement of the law through several generations that brought about the present state, and only the despotic measures of the government that made the enforcement possible.

—If these considerations are just, we have not far to seek to find the reason for the failure of all American compulsory school laws. Both conditions necessary for an efficient law have been everywhere lacking and no attempt made to realize them anywhere. There is not a single section of our country where the public sentiment in favor of such a law is strong enough to secure its enforcement by the local authorities, and there have been no measures taken, worth mentioning, looking toward vesting its enforcement in other hands. Local enforcement is generally a dead letter, and the most utterly dead exactly where it is most needed, viz., in illiterate communities. For the more ignorant the population the less it feels its need of education, and the feebler the efforts it will put forth to secure educational advantages. Our only hope of success by such a system, then, lies in adopting a system of administration in which the execution of the law shall be taken from the local authorities and intrusted to a body of officials depending immediately upon the state, if not upon the national government. There is no probability that such a system will be adopted within any very short period, if, indeed, it ever will be. Direct compulsion, then, will in all likelihood continue to be a failure in the future as it has been in the past.

—A system of indirect compulsion might, however, be very effective. Let the state or general government appropriate a large sum of money, say one dollar per capita, to be distributed among the school districts according to population. Let this money be paid over only on the following condition, viz., that every district shall have presented proofs that it furnishes plenty of school room for all its school population, and plenty of good teachers and a fair amount of apparatus, etc., to be prescribed by a general law; provided, that only such a proportion of the sum due each district shall be paid over to it, as its actual attendance is of its possible attendance, i.e., the attendance of all school children during the whole school year. Such a system will tend to beget that local sentiment in favor of enforcing attendance which is an absolutely necessary condition of success in our American society. For as the actual nears the perfect attendance it will become possible to lighten the local school taxes. It will thus be to the pecuniary interest of every tax payer to insist on the attendance of all school children. The essential elements of the plan have been tried under a variety of circumstances and always with marked success. The system of rewards is more powerful than the system of punishments. And it has been found true of communities as of individuals that they will put forth far greater efforts to secure a reward offered on condition of those efforts, than they will to avoid the fines and penalties (which after all may never be inflicted) for non-compliance with a law. The plan, then, is economical, and, politically, it is in complete harmony with our traditions and institutions—a claim which can not be substantiated for any recent system of successful direct compulsion.

—LITERATURE: Reports of U. S. Commissioner of Education; Reports of State Superintendents of Public Instruction: Special Report on Compulsory Education, by V. M. Rice, Edition: current; Page: [46] Albany, 1867; Report on Compulsory Education, by D. A. Hawkins, New York, 1874; Reports of National Educational Association; Geschichte der Paedagogik, by Dr. Karl Schmidt, 1873-7; Barnard's American Journal of Education; occasional articles in educational periodicals; Education Abroad, by B. G. Northrop, New York, 1873; articles in the various encyclopædias, particularly the one on "Compulsory Education" in Steiger's Cyclopœdia of Education, from which a portion of the historical account in this article is taken.



EGYPT, a country situated in the northeastern part of Africa, celebrated alike for the fertility of its soil and its commercial importance through the long lapse of ages.

—The primitive civilization of Egypt, the oldest known, was effected during a long succession of centuries, under kings called in history the Pharaohs, who were at the head of a social organization, founded entirely upon the system of castes. The sacerdotal caste, whose principal functions were performed by princes of the royal family, was the educated part of the nation; its privileges comprised worship, justice, the levying and collection of taxes, and the entire civil administration. The military caste was charged with the maintenance of order at home and with the defense of the country from foreign enemies. The agricultural caste was devoted to the cultivation of the soil, whose products were subjected to taxes in kind, for the support of the king and of the upper castes Artisans, workmen of all kinds and merchants constituted the fourth class of the nation, a class which by its labor contributed its share to the wealth and the burdens of the state. In each caste, according to historians, trades were hereditary in families, as was also the rank of the family; this was a powerful cause of perfection in the details of the arts, but at the same time it produced the immutability of character which has always distinguished Egyptian society, and which caused it to yield without resistance to the tyrannical rule of its masters and its invaders. This social state, which, after such a lapse of time, seems so extraordinary to us, does not perhaps greatly differ from the present state of the Arabian world, where we find, as in Egypt, a military aristocracy (caste of warriors), a religious aristocracy (caste of the Marabouts), and the fellahs. Although there is no natural or legal barrier between these different classes, almost all the members of the tribe live and die members of the caste into which they were born. India presents the same spectacle, but in a more striking manner; and all the East is imbued, in different degrees, with that principle of fatal inequality which yields only to the principles of liberty, of progress and of justice.

—Egypt tempted the ambition of the Persians (B. C. 526), then of the Greeks (B. C. 332), and, later still (B. C. 29), of the Romans. The latter, after six centuries of rule, made way for the Arabs (638). The Koran determined only its religious destiny; the political sceptre of Egypt passed successively from the caliphs of Bagdad (639), to the Thulunide Emirs (870), to the Ikchidites (934), to the Fatimites (972), then to the Ayoubites (1171), to the Turkoman Mamelukes (1250), to the Circassian Mamelukes (1382), and finally to the Ottomans (1517), whose sultan, Selim I., subjected to his rule the region of the Nile, and by the renunciation of his claims obtained from the last Abbassi caliph, united the spiritual to the temporal power. Since then the sultans of Constantinople have been the chiefs of Islamism. Selim and his successors confided the government of Egypt to a pasha and his beys. This was an age of anarchy and oppression, which lasted till the end of the eighteenth century, when the expedition of Gen. Bonaparte conquered Egypt (1798-1801). The united efforts of England and Turkey having taken Egypt from the French, the porte re-established his sovereignty there, which soon became personified in a Macedonian soldier, chief of the Albanians, afterward celebrated under the name of Mehemet Ali. This able and audacious captain founded his personal power less on the distant and vacillating support of the porte, than upon the extermination of the Mamelukes, his rivals, and upon his own military and administrative genius. His ambition increased with his power. He thought he might be able to achieve his independence and after having spread terror throughout Arabia, he attempted to add Syria to his domains. The victories of Konieh (1832), and of Nezib (1839), gained by his son Ibrahim, while enhancing his own successes, seemed to favor his designs; but immediately after each triumph, the will of Europe arrested the advance of the rebel conqueror. The great powers, devoted to the preservation of the Ottoman empire, as necessary to the equilibrium of Europe, refused to permit the detachment of Egypt, much less Syria, from it. After prolonged negotiations, the sultan Abd-ul-Medjid, who had succeeded his father Mahmoud at a very early age, in 1839, yielding to the counsels of Europe, delivered to Mehemet Ali a firman, dated June 1, 1841, which settled the political constitution of Egypt. The chief provisions of this firman are as follows: The sultan accorded to Mehemet the hereditary government of Egypt, with its old boundaries, as traced on a map annexed. It was provided that the line of succession should be from eldest son to eldest son in the direct male line, the nomination (or rather the investiture) to emanate invariably from the sublime porte. In case of the extinction of the male line, the sultan was to appoint a successor, to the exclusion of the male children of the daughters, who had no legal right or title to succession. Although the pashas of Egypt enjoy the hereditary exercise of government, they are ranked with the other viziers; they are treated as such by the sublime porte, from whom they receive the same titles as those given to any other governor of a province. (Since 1866 they bear Edition: current; Page: [47] the title of khedive.) The principles established by the hatti-scheriff of Gulhane (1839), as well as all the existing and future treaties between the sublime porte and the friendly powers, are to have full force in the province of Egypt. It was to be the same with all laws made and to be made by the sublime porte, due regard being shown to local circumstances and to equity. All taxes and all revenues levied in Egypt are to be raised in the imperial name, and in conformity with the system pursued by the Turkish government. Every year, according to custom, corn and vegetables are to be sent to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. The pasha, or rather the khedive, is to have the right to coin money in Egypt, but gold and silver pieces must bear the name of the sultan, and have the form and value of the coins struck at the mint in Constantinople. Four hundred Egyptian soldiers were to be sent annually to Constantinople. The decorations, flags, insignia and standards of the navy were to be the same as in Turkey. The khedive was empowered to appoint the officers of the army and navy up to the grade of colonel. Above that rank he had to follow the orders of the sultan. The khedive could build no vessel of war without the express and explicit authorization of the sublime porte. Finally it was made the duty of the khedive to follow orders of his suzerain upon all important questions which might be of interest to the country. Mehemet Ali, in his reply of June 25, 1841, accepted these conditions, which united his states, as a vassal fief, to the suzerainty of Turkey. The tribute, first fixed at a quarter of the gross receipts (hatti-scheriff of Feb. 13, 1841), was afterward reduced to 7,560,800 francs, but later on raised again to over twice that amount.

—It was undoubtedly in consideration of the increase of the tribute, that a firman of the sultan, in September, 1867, extended the powers of the viceroy or khedive. The following are the words of the firman: "To my illustrious vizier Ismail-Pasha, Kedervi-el-Masr (sovereign of Egypt), acting grand vizier, decorated with the orders of Osmania and Medjidia, in diamonds. May God continue your glory and augment your power and happiness. On receipt of this imperial firman, learn our decision. Our firman, which accorded the Kedervi-el-Mesr the privilege of inheritance, ordered that Egypt should be governed, in conformity with the character of its people with right and with equity, according to the fundamental laws in force in the other parts of the empire, and based upon the hatti-humayoum of Gulhane. However, the internal administration of Egypt, that is to say, all that concerns its financial and local interests, being within the jurisdiction of the Egyptian government, we empower you, for the preservation of its interests, to make special regulations in regard to this internal administration only, while continuing to observe in Egypt the treaties of our empire. You are authorized to enter into conventions in relation to customs duties, to European subjects, to the transportation of goods and the postal service, upon condition that these agreements do not assume the form of international or political treaties. In event of the contrary, if these agreements should not conform to the above conditions and to our fundamental rights of sovereignty, they shall be considered null and void. In case the Egyptian government should have any doubt concerning the conformity of a contract of this kind with the fundamental laws of our empire, he must refer the matter to our sublime porte before coming to any definite decision. Whenever a special customs regulation in proper form shall be made in Egypt, our government shall be advised thereof in due course concerning it; and in the same way, in order to protect the commercial interests of Egypt in the commercial treaties which may be entered into between our own and foreign governments, the Egyptian administration shall be consulted. And finally, that you may have full knowledge of our will as above expressed, we have ordered our imperial divan to draw up and address to you the present firman."

—In point of fact, save the personal homage, followed by investiture, and a tribute in money and the subsidy of troops in time of war, the khedive, or viceroy of Egypt, governs according to his pleasure. He has his ministers, organizes his administration, collects and dispenses his revenues without the control of the divan.

—The right of succession in the family of the khedive, from eldest son to eldest son, was at first interpreted in the sense of the Mussulman law, that is to say, in favor of the eldest of the surviving descendants, but an imperial decree of 1866 established the succession in the order of primogeniture, as in Christian Europe.


—The administration of Egypt is carried on at present [1882] under the supervision of the governments of France and Great Britain, represented each by a "Controller General" invested with great powers, indicated as follows in a decree of the khedive in seven articles, issued Nov. 10, 1879. Art. 1. The controllers general have full powers of investigation into every public service of the state, including that of the public debt. Ministers and all public officials of every rank are bound to furnish the controllers, or their agents, with all documents they may think fit to require. The minister of finance is bound to furnish them weekly with a statement of receipts and expenditures. Other administrations must furnish the same every month. Art. 2. The controllers general can only be removed from their posts by their own governments. Art. 3. The governments of England and France having agreed that, for the moment, the controllers general will not take the actual direction of the public service, their duties are limited at present to inquiry, control and surveillance. Art. 4. The controllers general take the rank of ministers, and will always have the right to assist and speak at the meetings of the council of ministers, but without the power to vote. Art. 5. Edition: current; Page: [48] When they deem it necessary the controllers may unite with the commissioners of public debt to take such measures as they may deem fit. Art. 6. Whenever they may deem it useful, and at least once a year, the controllers will draw up a report on all questions for the khedive and his ministers. Art. 7. The controllers have the power of naming and dismissing all officials whose assistance is of no use to them. They shall prepare a budget; and monthly statements of all salaries and all resources shall be rendered to them.

—The first controllers general of France and Great Britain were M. de Blignières and Major E. Baring, K. C M. G.: but changes were made subsequently.

—By another decree of the khedive, dated April 5, 1880, there was appointed an "International Commission of Liquidation," composed of seven members. The functions of the commission were defined in the decree as follows: After examining the whole financial situation of Egypt, and hearing the observations of the parties interested, the committee will draft a law of liquidation regulating the relations between Egypt and her creditors, and also between the daira khassa and their creditors. The conditions of the issue of the domain loan are excluded from the deliberations of the committee. The committee will work upon the basis furnished by the report of the committee of inquiry, and will sit for three months after the presentation of their own report, in order to watch, in concert with the English and French controllers general, the execution of the decisions arrived at. The law of liquidation will be binding upon all parties concerned. Representatives of the international tribunals and a delegate from the Egyptian government will attend the sittings of the committee. The preamble of the decree stated that England, France, Germany, Austria and Italy had already declared their acceptance of the law of liquidation, and will collectively request the adhesion of the other powers represented on the international tribunals.

—The English and French controllers general presented their first report, dated Jan. 16, 1880, and sanctioned by the khedive, containing their definite scheme for settling the Egyptian financial situation. They fixed the interest on the unified debt at 4 per cent. Should the revenue from the provinces specially set apart for the service of the debt be insufficient to pay 4 per cent, the deficiency is to be made up out of the general revenue. If, on the other hand, the taxes assigned yield more than 4 per cent., the surplus is to be paid to the holders of the unified debt up to a maximum of 5 per cent. Any further surplus beyond that, is to be applied to half yearly purchases of stock in the open market. Any surplus of general revenue is to be divided as follows: One moiety to the administration, and the other moiety to the service of the debt.

—The list of resources applied to the service of the general debt was settled by the controllers general as follows: Besides the revenues of the provinces Garbiah, Menoufieh, Béhéra and Siout, there are the octroi duties, set down as producing £248,000 for the year; customs, producing £623,000; the tobacco, salt and other direct revenues, calculated to more than cover the unified interest at 4 per cent.

—In the budget for 1880, the first adopted by the "International Commission of Liquidation," the main heads were as follows:

Total revenue...£8,561,622
Privileged coupon, at 5 per cent.,...£ 863,599
Unified coupon, at 4 per cent., including the small loans...2,308,537
Snez Canal shares, interest...193,858
Daira Khassa...34,000
Canal Ismailieh...14,000
Floating debt...324,598
   Total expenditure...£7,911,622

—The capital of the debt of Egypt was returned as follows at the end of 1880:

Unified 4 per cent. debt...£38,043,240
Privileged debt...22,609,800
Domain loans, at 5 per cent....8,500,000
Daira Sanieh loans, at 4 to 5 per cent...8,800,000

Not secured by any stipulations on the part of the government is the floating debt of Egypt, the exact amount of which is not known, but which is estimated to be over £5,000,000.

—The army of Egypt is raised by conscription. It consists, nominally, of eighteen infantry regiments of three batallions each, with four batallions of rifles, four regiments of cavalry, and 144 guns. But the number of men contained in the regiments and batteries varies continually, with the exigencies of the service and the state of the finances. At the close of the Russo-Turkish war, in which Egypt participated, the army was reduced to 15,000 men.

—The Egyptian navy comprised, at the end of June, 1880, two frigates, two corvettes, three large yachts for the use of the khedive—one of them, the "Mahroussa," of 4,000 tons, with 800 horse power—and four gunboats, the whole of a burden of 16,476 tons.

—The territories under the rule of the sovereign of Egypt, including those on the Upper Nile and Central Africa, conquered in 1875, are vaguely estimated to embrace an area of 1,406,250 English square miles, and to be inhabited by a population of 16,952,000, of whom about one-third are in Egypt proper. The following tabular statement gives the native population, distinguishing males and females, and inhabitants of rural and town districts, of Egypt proper, according to an official estimate of M. Amici, chief of the statistical department in the ministry of the interior, on Dec. 31, 1878:

Edition: current; Page: [49]

—The area of Egypt proper is estimated to comprise 175,130 English square miles, the annexed and conquered districts, including Nubia, the former kingdom of Ethiopia, and Darfur, being estimated at 1,231,120 English square miles, with 11,434,373 inhabitants.

—Egypt proper is divided from of old into three great districts, namely, "Masr-el-Bahri." or Lower Egypt; "El Wustani," or Middle Egypt; and "El Said," or Upper Egypt—designations drawn from the course of the river Nile, on which depends the existence of the country. These three great geographical districts are subdivided into eleven administrative provinces, and had, as shown in the preceding table, a rural population of 4,948,512, and an urban population of 569,115 at the end of 1878. There are only two considerable towns, namely, Cairo, with 349,883, and Alexandria, with 212,054 inhabitants.

—At the enumeration of 1878 there were in Egypt proper 79,696 foreigners. The foreign population consisted of 34,000 Greeks; 17,000 Frenchmen: 13,906 Italians; 6,300 Austrians; 6,000 Englishmen; 1,100 Germans; and 1,390 natives of other countries.

—The commerce of Egypt is very large, but consists to a great extent of goods carried in transit. In the year 1879 the total value of the imports amounted to 500,216,341 piastres, or £5,156,869, and of the exports to 1,343,905,858 piastres, or £13,854,699. In the year 1880 the total value of the imports amounted to £6,732,500, and of the exports to £13,390,000. To the entire foreign trade Great Britain contributed 53 per cent., and the rest was divided between France, Austria, Italy and Russia, in descending proportions.

—The subjoined tabular statement shows the total value of the exports from Egypt to Great Britain and Ireland, and of the imports of British and Irish produce and manufactures into Egypt, in each of the ten years 1870-79:


—The considerable amount of the exports from Egypt to the United Kingdom is owing, partly to large shipments of raw cotton, and partly to the transit trade flowing from India and other parts of Asia through Egypt, which latter, however, has greatly declined in recent years, owing to the opening of the Suez canal. The exports of raw cotton from Egypt to Great Britain were of the following quantities and value in each of the ten years 1870-79:


—Next to cotton the largest articles of exports from Egypt to the United Kingdom in the years 1870 - 79 were corn and flour. The total corn exports of 1879 were of the value of £1,730,137, comprising wheat, valued at £995,986; beans, £694,988; barley, £34,407; and flour, £4,669.

—The staple article of imports from the United Kingdom into Egypt consists of cotton goods, of the value of £4,290,953 in 1872, of £3,666,942 in 1873, of £1,922,505 in 1874, of £1,558,839 in 1875, of £1,436,232 in 1876, of £1,474,660 in 1877, of £1,255,938 in 1878, and of £1,416,615 in 1879. A part of these imports from the United Kingdom pass in transit through Egypt.

—BIBLIOGRAPHY. Description de l'Egypte, Paris, 1809-13, new edition, 26 vols., 1821-30, Lepsius. Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien nach Zeichnungen, etc., Berlin, 1849-59, 9 vols.; Denkmaler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien in photographischen Darstellungen ausgewahlt und mit kurzen Erläuterungen versehen von Lepsius, Berlin. 1874, Brugsch, Monuments de l'Egypte, Berlin. 1857, and Recueil des monuments égyptiens, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1862-3; Mariette, Choix des monuments et des dessins, Paris, 1856; Wilkinson, Handbook for Travelers in Egypt, London, 1847; Lane, An Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, 2 vols., London, 1836. 5th ed., 2 vols., 1871; Busch, Reisehandbuch fur Aegypten, Trieste, 1858; Clot-Bey, Aperçu général de l'Egypte, 2 vols., Paris, 1840; Schölcher, L'Egypte en 1845. Paris, 1846; Pruner, Aegyptens Naturgeschichte und Authropologie, Erlangen, 1847; Brugsch, Reiseberichte aus Aegypten, Leipzig, 1855; Von Kremer, Aegypten, Forschungen über Land und Volk, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1863; Hartmann, Naturgeschichte der Nill8amacr;nder, Leipzig. 1865; Billard, Les mocurs et le Gouvernement de l'Egypte, Milan, 1867-8; Fairhold, Up the Nile and home again, London, 1868; Millie, Alexandrie de l'Egypte et le Caire, Milan. 1869; Bernard, Notice géographique et historique sur l'Egypte. Paris, 1868; Rouchetti, L'Egypte et ses progrès sous Ismail - Pascha, Marseilles, 1867; Regny, Statistique de l'Egypte d'après des documents officiels, Alexandria, 1871; Dümichen, Resultate der auf Befehl des Königs Wilhelm I. von Preussen im Sommer 1868, nach Aegypten entsendeten archäolog.-photogr. Expedition, 1 vol., Berlin, 1869; Rossi, Geografia medica dell' Egitto, Livorno, 1870; Stephan, Das heutige Aegypten, Leipzig, 1872; Lüttke, Aegyptens neue Zeit, 2 vols., Leipzig, 1873; Edouard Dorr, L'instruction publique en Edition: current; Page: [50] Egypte, Paris, 1873; Prokesch - Osten, Nilfahrt bis eu den zuciten Katarakten, Leipzig, 1874, Brugsch, Histoire de l'Egypte, Leipzig, 1859, 2d ed., 1875; Paton, A History of the Egyptian Revolution, from the period of the Mamelukes to the death of Mehemed Ali, 2 vols., London, 1863, 2d ed., 1869; Well, Geschichte des Abbasidenkhalifats in Aegypten, 2 vols., Maunheim, 1860-62: Quatremère, Histoire des sultans mameloucks, from the Arabian of Makrizi, 2 vols., Paris, 1837-41; Mengin, Histoire de l'Egypte sous Mehemed Ali, 2 vols., Paris, 1823; Mouriez, Histoire de Mehemed Ali, Paris, 1823, 2 vols.: Jolourez, Bibliothecaegyptica. Leipzig, 1857, Supplement, 1861; De Leon, The Khedire's Egypt, London, 1877; Duff-Gordon (Lady), Last Letters from Egypt, London, 1875; Ebers, Aegypten in Bild und Wort, Stuttgart, 1879; Edwards, A Thousand Miles up the Nile, London, 1877; Smith, The Nile and its Banks, 2 vols., London, 1868; Zincke, Egypt of the Pharaohs and the Khedive, London, 1872; Loftie, A Ride in Egypt, London, 1879; McCoan, Egypt as it is, London, 1877.







ELECTORAL COLLEGE (IN U. S. HISTORY), the name commonly given to the electors (see ELECTORS) of a state, when met to vote for president and vice-president. The term itself is not used in the constitution, nor in the act of March 1, 1792, the "bill of 1800," or the act of March 26, 1804. Its first appearance in law is in the act of Jan 23, 1845, which purported to empower each state to provide by law for the filling of vacancies in its "college of electors"; but it had been used in formally since about 1821. Under the constitution and the laws the duties of the electors, or of the "electoral college," if the term be preferred, are as follows: 1. They are to meet on the day appointed by the act of 1845, at a place designated by the law of their state. No organization is required, though the electors do usually organize, and elect a chairman. 2. The electors are then to vote by ballot for president and vice-president, the ballots for each office being separate. Until the adoption of the 12th amendment, the electors were simply to vote for two persons, one at least an inhabitant of some other state than their own, without designating the office; and the candidate who obtained a majority of all the electoral votes of the country became president, the next highest becoming vice-president. 3. The original ballots are the property of the state, and, if its law has directed their preservation, they are to be so disposed of. The electors are (by the law of 1792) to make three lists, of the persons voted for, the respective offices they are to fill, and the number of votes cast for each. 4. They are to make and sign three certificates, one for each list, "certifying on each that a list of the votes of such state for president and vice-president is contained therein." 5. They are to add to each list of votes a list of the names of the electors of the state, made and certified by the "executive authority" (the governor) of the state. The name of the executive was left ambiguous, because several of the states in 1792 still retained the use of the title "president" of the state, instead of governor. 6. They are to seal the certificates, and certify upon each that it contains a list of all the electoral votes of the state. 7. They are to appoint by writing under their hands, or under the hands of a majority of them, a person to deliver one certificate to the president of the senate at the seat of government. 8. They are to forward another certificate by the postoffice to the president of the senate. 9. They are to cause the third certificate to be delivered to the (federal) judge of the district in which they assemble. The electoral college is then dead in law, whether it adjourns temporarily or permanently, or never adjourns.

—There is no penalty to be inflicted upon the electors for an improper performance of their duties, or even for a refusal to perform them at all. If a vacancy occurs among the electors, by death, refusal to serve, or any other reason, the state is empowered by the act of 1845 to pass laws for the filling of the vacancy, by the other electors, for example. If no such state law has been passed, the vote or votes are lost to the state, as with Nevada in 1864. If a general refusal of the electors of the country to serve should cause no election to result, the choice of president and vice-president would devolve on the house of representatives and the senate respectively.

—For authorities see those under ELECTORS.



ELECTORAL COMMISSION, The (IN U. S. HISTORY). The act which created this body, which had hitherto been unknown to the laws of the United States, but whose idea seems to have been borrowed from the extra-legislative commissions of Great Britain, was approved Jan. 29, 1877. It is only necessary here to give the first three paragraphs of section second, the rest being matter of detail. Section first provides for the joint meeting of the two houses, the opening of the electoral votes, the entrance upon the journals of the votes to which no objection should be made, and the separate vote by each house on single returns from any state to which objection should be made, with the proviso that no such single return should be rejected except by concurrent vote of both houses. For double or multiple returns the electoral commission was provided, as follows: "§2. That if more than one return, or paper purporting to be a return, from a state shall have been received by the president of the senate, purporting to be the certificates of electoral votes given at the last preceding election for president and vice-president in such state (unless they shall be duplicates of the same return), all Edition: current; Page: [51] such returns and papers shall be opened by him in the presence of the two houses, when met as aforesaid, and read by the tellers, and all such returns and papers shall thereupon be submitted to the judgment and decision, as to which is the true and lawful electoral vote of such state, of a commission constituted as follows, namely During the session of each house on the Tuesday next preceding the first Thursday in February, 1877, each house shall, by viva voce vote, appoint five of its members, who with the five associate justices of the supreme court of the United States, to be ascertained as hereinafter provided, shall constitute a commission for the decision of all questions upon or in respect of such double returns named in this section."

—The section proceeds to specify, though without directly naming them, four justices, those assigned to the 1st. 3d. 8th and 9th circuits, and directs them to select a fifth justice to complete the commission, which should proceed to consider the returns "with the same powers, if any, now possessed for that purpose by the two houses acting separately or together." It is concluded elsewhere (see ELECTORS) that the houses had no such powers, separately or together, and could delegate no such powers to a commission. The question of the legality of the commission itself will therefore not be revived in this article. The commission was to decide by a majority of votes, and its decisions were only to be reversed by concurrent action of both houses. As the senators appointed on the commission were three republicans to two democrats, the representatives three democrats to two republicans, and the justices were so selected as to be two democrats to two republicans, it is evident that the fifth justice was to be the decisive factor of the commission. The radically evil feature of the act was, therefore, that it shifted upon the shoulders of one man a burden which the two houses together were confessedly incompetent to dispose of. The fifth justice selected was Joseph P Bradley, of the fifth circuit, and the commission, when it met for the first time, Jan. 31, 1877, was constituted as follows (republicans in Roman, democrats in italics): JUSTICES, Nathan Clifford, 1st circuit, president; William Strong, 3d circuit; Samuel F. Miller, 8th circuit; Stephen J. Field, 9th circuit; Joseph P. Bradley, 5th circuit. SENATORS, George F. Edmunds, Vt.; Oliver P. Morton, Ind., Fred. T. Frelinghuysen, N. J.: Thos. F. Bayard, Del.; Allen G. Thurman, O REPRESENTATIVES, Henry B. Payne, O.; Eppa Hunton, Va; Josiah G. Abbott, Mass.; Jas. A Garfield, O; Geo. F. Hoar, Mass. Francis Kernan, N. Y., was substituted, Feb. 26, for senator Thurman, who had become ill. The bar, besides the ablest lawyers of both parties in both houses, who appeared as objectors to various returns, was composed of O'Conor, of New York, Black, of Pennsylvania; Trumbull, of Illinois; Merrick, of the District of Columbia; Green, of New Jersey; Carpenter, of Wisconsin; Hoadley, of Ohio; and Whitney, of New York, on the democratic side; and Evarts and Stoughton, of New York, and Matthews and Shellabarger, of Ohio, on the republican side. As the double returns from the four disputed states came to the commission, they were necessarily decided in alphabetical order: Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina: but the principle settled in the case of Florida practically decided all the cases, and longer space will be given to it.

—I. FLORIDA. (For the laws of the United States governing the voting of electoral colleges, and the certification of the result by the state governor, see ELECTORS. IV.) Three returns from Florida were sent to the commission, Feb. 2, by the joint meeting of the two houses: 1, the return of the votes of the Hayes electors, with the certificate of the governor. Stearns, annexed, under the decision of the state returning board, which had cast out the vote of certain polling places; 2, the return of the Tilden electors, with the certificate of the state attorney general, who was one of the returning board, annexed, given according to the popular vote as cast and filed in the office of the secretary of state: 3, the same return as the second, fortified by the certificate of the new democratic governor, Drew, according to a state law of Jan. 17, 1877, directing a recanvass of the votes.

—The line of attack of the democratic counsel upon the validity of the first (republican) return was twofold. 1. They offered to prove that the state returning board, on its own confession, had cast out the votes of rejected precincts without any pretense of proof of fraud or intimidation: that it had thus been itself guilty of conspiracy and fraud, which fraud and conspiracy they had a right to prove on the broad principle that fraud can always be inquired into by any court, with the exception of two specified cases, neither of which applied here, and that the supreme court of Florida had decided the action of the returning board to be ultra vires, illegal, and void. 2. They offered to prove that Humphreys, one of the Hayes electors, was a United States officer when elected, and therefore ineligible. The republican counsel argued that the first return was in due form according to the constitution and laws of the United States and the laws of Florida, that the second return, having been certified only by the electors and by an officer unknown to the laws as a certifying officer, was a certificate of unauthorized and uncertified persons, which could not be recognized or considered; and that the third return was entirely ex post facto, having been made and certified after the date on which the laws directed the votes of the electors to be cast, and when the electoral college was functus officio (see ELECTORAL COLLEGE). Holding that, it the first return was valid, it excluded the other two, they confined their argument to the capacity of the commission to invalidate it. This was denied on the ground that the question was not which set of Florida electors received a majority of the votes cast, for that was a matter which the state itself controlled, and its action could not be examined Edition: current; Page: [52] or reversed by any other state, or by all the other states together; but that the question was, which set of electors, by the actual declaration of the final authority of the state charged with that duty, had become clothed by the forms of law with actual possession of the office: in short, that the commission's only duty was to count the electoral vote, not the vote by which the electors had been chosen. To the general offer of evidence they replied that the consideration of such evidence was, 1, physically impossible, since the commission "could not stop at the first stage of the descent, but must go clean to the bottom," and investigate every charge of fraud and intimidation in all the disputed states, which would be a labor of years; 2, legally impossible, since the law (of 1792) itself prescribed the evidence (the governor's certificate) which was competent, and, when the commission had ascertained its correctness, its work was concluded; and 3, constitutionally impossible, since the commission was not a court and could not exercise judicial powers, which by the constitution were vested in the supreme court and in inferior courts to be established; that the commission was not one of these inferior courts, since an appeal lay to congress, not to the supreme court; and that its functions were ministerial, and confined to ascertaining the regularity of the certificates sent. To the special offer in Humphreys' case they asserted, as the general rule of American law, that votes for disqualified persons were not void unless the disqualification were public and notorious, that voters would never be presumed guilty of an intention to disfranchise themselves, and that the de facto acts of even a disqualified elector were valid. Feb. 7, the commission voted, 1, to reject the general offer of evidence aliunde the certificates, and 2, to receive evidence in the case of Humphreys. Both votes were 8 to 7, Justice Bradley, the "odd man," voting on the first issue with the republicans, and on the second with the democrats. Evidence was then submitted to prove that Humphreys was a shipping commissioner, and that he resigned in October, 1876, by letter to the judge who had appointed him, but who was then absent from Florida on a visit to Ohio. The democratic counsel argued that this was no resignation, since the judge, while absent in Ohio, was not a court capable of receiving a resignation in Florida. To this it was replied that the resignation depended on the will of the incumbent, and took effect from its offer without regard to its acceptance. Feb. 9, by the usual vote of 8 to 7, the commission sustained the validity of the Hayes electoral ticket entire, on the grounds, 1, that the commission was not competent to consider evidence aliunde the certificates, and 2, that Humphreys had properly, resigned his office when elected.

—II. LOUISLANA. Feb. 12, three certificates from Louisiana were submitted to the commission. The first and third returns were identical, and were those of the Hayes electors, with the certificate of Gov. W. P. Kellogg, claiming under the count of the vote as finally made by the returning board. The second return was that of the Tilden electors, with the certificate of John McEnery, who claimed to be governor; they claimed under the popular vote as cast. The democratic counsel offered to prove that the average popular majority for the Tilden electors was 7,639; that the returning board had fraudulently, corruptly, and without evidence of intimidation, cast out 13,236 democratic and 2,173 republican votes, in order to make an apparent majority for the Hayes electors; that two of the Hayes electors held United States offices, and three others state offices, which disqualified them under state laws; that the returning board had violated the state law by refusing to select one of its members from the democratic party, and by holding its sessions in secret and not allowing the presence of any democrat, or even of United States supervisors; that McEnery, and not Kellogg, was legally governor; and they argued that the state law creating the returning board was void, as it conflicted with the constitution by erecting a government which was anti-republican and oligarchical, since the returning board was perpetual and filled its own vacancies. The arguments of the republican counsel were practically the same as on the Florida case, and the commission, by 8 to 7, upheld their view, Feb. 16. Nine successive motions by democratic commissioners to admit various parts of the evidence had been first rejected, each by a vote of 8 to 7.

—III. ORECON. The facts in the case of this state were as follows: The three Hayes electors undoubtedly had a popular majority; one of them (Watts) was, when elected, a postmaster, and the democratic governor (Grover) declaring Watts ineligible, gave his certificate of election to the two eligible Hayes electors, and to Cronin, the highest Tilden elector. The two Hayes electors refused to recognize Cronin, accepted Watts' resignation, and at once appointed Watts to fill the resulting vacancy. Cronin therefore appointed two electors to fill the vacancies caused by the refusals to serve with him: these cast Hayes ballots, and Cronin a Tilden ballot. The result was two certificates from Oregon, submitted to the commission Feb. 21. The first return was that of the Hayes electors, with the tabulated vote of the state, and a certificate from the secretary of state. The second return was that of the Cronin electoral college, with the certificate of the governor, and the attest of the secretary of state. The democratic counsel held that the second return, with the governor's certificate, was legally the voice of Oregon, as the commission had decided in the case of Louisiana, and more exactly in the case of Florida; that it was strengthened by the attest of the secretary of state, who was the canvassing officer by the laws of Oregon; and that it necessarily excluded the first return. The reply of the republican counsel showed that, while they had avoided the Scylla of Florida, they had been equally successful in steering clear of the Charybdis Edition: current; Page: [53] of Oregon. They held that the Florida case did not apply; that there the basis of the decision was, that the commission could only inquire whether the governor had correctly certified the action of the canvassing board appointed by the state; that in Florida and Louisiana the governor had so correctly certified, while in Oregon he had not so certified, but should have done so; and that the commission was competent to make his action conform to the laws of his state. Feb. 23, the commission, by votes of 8 to 7 in each instance, rejected five successive, but various, resolutions to reject the vote of Watts; by a vote of 15 to 0, rejected the second return entirely; and, by a vote of 8 to 7, accepted the first return.

—IV. SOUTH CAROLINA. Feb. 26, two certificates from South Carolina were laid before the commission. The first return was that of the Hayes electors, with the certificate of Gov. Chamberlain. The second return was a certificate of the Tilden electors, claiming simply to have been chosen by the popular vote, to have been counted out by the returning board in contempt of the orders of the state supreme court, and to have met and voted for Tilden and Hendricks. The democratic counsel held that government by a returning board was not republican, and that under Pres. Grant's proclamation of Oct. 17, 1876, declaring part of the state to be in insurrection, military interference had made the election a nullity. No serious effort was made to establish the validity of the second return. Feb. 27, the commission, by a vote of 8 to 7, rejected the offer to prove military interference; by a vote of 15 to 0, rejected return No. 2; and, by a vote of 8 to 7, accepted return No. 1. March 2, 1877, the commission adjourned sine die. (For the successive actions taken by the joint meeting on the commission's decisions, see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, III)

—It would seem no more difficult to impeach the constitutionality of the commission than that of the "twenty-second joint rule," under which so many former counts were made (see ELECTORS); and in that case the legal title given to the new president, through the mediation of the commission, would seem to be on an exact equality with that of Lincoln, Johnson or Grant. The cruelly vicious feature in the scheme was the fact that fourteen members of the commission were practically irresponsible, while the fifteenth was secure in advance of a monopoly of the anger of one party or of the other. In the case of Mr. Justice Bradley the censure was totally undeserved. If the constitutionality of the commission be granted, as it was by both parties, the weight of law, in spite of the brilliant arguments of Messrs, Merrick, Carpenter, Green, and others of the democratic counsel, lay in the republican scale; and even in Louisiana, where the proceedings of the returning board were shamefully, or rather shamelessly, defenseless, the censure should fall not on the commission but on the laws of Louisiana.

—The Proceedings of the Electoral Commission, being Part IV., vol. V., of the Congressional Record, 1877, have been published in a single volume. It contains the arguments of counsel in full, the opinions of the commissioners, the journal of the commission, and all the certificates and objections.



ELECTORAL VOTES (IN U. S. HISTORY). I. 1789. The electoral votes, as counted Monday, April 6, 1789, for the first presidential term, were as follows:


"Whereby," says the official record of the proceedings, "it appeared that George Washington, Esq., was elected president, and John Adams. Esq., vice-president of the United States of America." (See ELECTORS, IV., I).

—II, 1793. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 13, 1793, for the second presidential term, were as follows:


"Whereupon the vice-president declared George Washington unanimously elected president of the United States for the period of four years, to commence with the fourth day of March next, and John Adams elected, by a plurality of votes, vice-president of the United States, for the same period, to commence with the fourth day of Edition: current; Page: [54] March."

—III. 1797. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 8, 1797, for the third presidential term, were as follows:


Whereupon John Adams, of Massachusetts, and Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia, were declared elected president and vice-president.

—IV. 1801. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 11, 1801, for the fourth presidential term, were as follows:


"The whole number of electors who had voted were one hundred and thirty-eight, of which number Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr had a majority; but, the number of those voting for them being equal, no choice was made by the people, and consequently the remaining duties devolved on the house of representatives. On which the house of representatives repaired to their own chamber and the senate adjourned." (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, I.)

—V. 1805. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 18, 1805, for the fifth presidential term, were as follows:


"The vice president said, 'Upon this report it becomes my duty to declare, agreeably to the constitution, that Thomas Jefferson is elected president of the United States, for the term of four years from the third day of March next, and that George Clinton is elected vice-president of the United States, for the term of four years from the third day of March next.' "

—VI. 1809. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 8, 1809, for the sixth presidential term, were as follows:


"By all which it appears that James Madison, of Virginia, has been duly elected president, and George Clinton, of New York, has been duly elected vice-president of the United States, agreeably to the constitution."

—VII. 1813. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 10, Edition: current; Page: [55] 1813, for the seventh presidential term, were as follows:


"Whereupon the president of the senate declared James Madison elected president of the United States for four years, commencing with the 4th day of March next, and Elbridge Gerry vice-president of the United States for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March next."

—VIII. 1817. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1817, for the eighth presidential term, were as follows:


"Whereupon the president of the senate declared James Monroe elected president of the United States for four years, commencing with the fourth day of March next; and Daniel D. Tompkins vice-president of the United States, commencing with the fourth day of March next."

—IX. 1821. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 14, 1821, for the ninth presidential term, were as follows:


"The whole number of electors appointed being 235, including those of Missouri, of which 118 make a majority; or excluding the electors of Missouri, the whole number would be 232, of which 117 make a majority; but in either event. James Monroe, of Virginia, is elected president, and Daniel D. Tompkins, of New York, is elected vice-president of the United States. Whereupon the president of the senate declared James Monroe, of Virginia, duly elected president of the United States, commencing with the 4th day of March next; and Daniel D Tompkins, vice-president of the United States, commencing with the 4th day of March next." (See ELECTORS, III., 2).

—X. 1825. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 9, 1825, for the tenth presidential term, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [56]

"The president of the senate then rose, and declared that no person had received a majority of the votes given for president of the United States; that Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, and William H. Crawford, were the three persons who had received the highest number of votes, and that the remaining duties in the choice of a president now devolved on the house of representatives. He further declared that John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, having received one hundred and eighty-two votes, was duly elected vice-president of the United States, to serve for four years from the 4th day of March next." (For the election of John Quincy Adams by the house see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, II.)

—XI. 1829. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 11, 1829, for the eleventh presidential term, were as follows:


"The result of the election was then again read by the vice-president, who thereupon said: 'I therefore declare that Andrew Jackson is duly elected president of the United States for four years, from the fourth of March next, and John C. Calhoun is duly elected vice-president for the same period.' "

—XII. 1833. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 13, 1833, for the twelfth presidential term, were as follows:


"Whereupon the president of the senate proclaimed that Andrew Jackson, of Tennessee, having a majority of the whole number of votes, was elected president of the United States for four years, from the fourth day of March next; and that Martin Van Buren, of New York, having a majority of votes therefore, was elected vice-president of the United States for the same term."

—XIII. 1837. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb, 8. 1837, for the thirteenth presidential term, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [57]

"It therefore appears that were the votes of Michigan to be counted, the result would be, for Martin Van Buren for president of the United States, 170 votes; if the votes of Michigan be not counted. Martin Van Buren then has 167 votes. In either event, Martin Van Buren, of New York, is elected president of the United States." (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, III.)

—XIV. 1841. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 10, 1841, for the fourteenth presidential term, were as follows:


"The president of the senate then * * * * declared that William Henry Harrison, of Ohio, having a majority of the whole number of electoral votes, is duly elected president of the United States, for four years, commencing with the fourth day of March next, 1841; and that John Tyler, of Virginia, having a majority of the whole number of electoral votes, is duly elected vice-president of the United States, for four years, commencing with the fourth day of March next, 1841."

—XV. 1845. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1845, for the fifteenth presidential term, were as follows:


The president of the senate then said: "I do, therefore, declare that James K. Polk, of Tennessee, having a majority of the whole number of electoral votes, is duly elected president of the United States for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1845; and that George M. Dallas, of Pennsylvania, having a majority of electoral votes, is duly elected vice-president of the United States for four years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1845."

—XVI. 1849. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 14, 1849, for the sixteenth presidential term, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [58]

"Thereupon the vice-president of the United States declared that Zachary Taylor, of the state of Louisiana, is duly elected president of the United States for the term of four years, to commence on the fourth day of March, 1849; and that Millard Fillmore, of the state of New York, is duly elected vice-president of the United States for the term of four years, to commerce on the fourth day of March, 1849."

—XVII. 1853. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 9, 1853, for the seventeenth presidential term, were as follows:


Whereupon Franklin Pierce and William R. King were declared elected president and vice-president.

—XVIII. 1857. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb 11, 1857, for the eighteenth presidential term, were as follows:


Whereupon James Buchanan and John C. Breckinridge were declared elected president and vice-president. (See ELECTORS, VII.)

—XIX. 1861. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 13. 1861, for the nineteenth presidential term, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [59]

Whereupon Abraham Lincoln and Hannibal Hamlin were declared elected president and vice-president.

—XX. 1865. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 8, 1865, for the twentieth presidential term, were as follows:


Whereupon Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson were declared elected president and vice-president of the United States.

—XXI. 1869. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 10, 1869, for the twenty-first presidential term, were as follows:


Whereupon U. S. Grant and Schuyler Colfax were declared elected president and vice-president of the United States.

—XXII. 1873. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 12, 1873, for the twenty-second presidential term, were as follows:

Edition: current; Page: [60]

Whereupon U. S. Grant and Henry Wilson were declared elected president and vice-president of the United States.

—XXIII. 1877. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 14, 1877, for the twenty-third presidential term, were as follows:


Whereupon Rutherford B. Hayes and William A. Wheeler were declared elected president and vice-president of the United States. (See ELECTORAL COMMISSION; DISPUTED ELECTIONS, IV.)

—XXIV. 1881. The electoral votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 9, 1881, for the twenty-fourth presidential term, were as follows:


Whereupon James A. Garfield and Chester A. Arthur were declared elected president and vice-president of the United States.



ELECTORS AND THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM (IN U. S. HISTORY). I. ORIGIN OF THE SYSTEM. On no subject was there such diversity of individual opinion and of action in the convention of 1787 as on that of the mode of election of the president, for the office of vice-president was never thought of until nearly the close of the convention's labors. The two plans, the "Virginia plan" and the "Jersey plan," submitted by the nationalizing and particularist elements of the convention at the opening of its work, agreed in giving the choice of the president to congress; and Chas. Pinckney's plan, which takes the medium between them, made no provisions as to the Edition: current; Page: [61] manner of the president's election. The debate had hardly opened when the diversity of opinion became apparent. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, wished to have a popular election by districts. Sherman, of Connecticut, wished to retain the choice by congress. Gerry, of Massachusetts, apparently at first wished to have electors chosen by the states in proportion to population, with the unit rule; but he afterward settled on a choice of the President by the governors of the states. Hamilton wished to have the president chosen by secondary electors, chosen by primary electors, chosen by the people. Gouverneur Morris wished to have the president chosen by general popular vote en masse. The Virginia plan, as amended and agreed to in committee of the whole, June 19, retained the election by congress. July 17, popular election and choice by electors were voted down, and the choice by congress was again approved, this time unanimously. Two days afterward, July 19, the choice by congress was reconsidered, and a choice by electors chosen by the state legislatures was adopted. Five days afterward, July 24, the choice by electors was reconsidered and lost, and the choice by congress revived. In this form it went to the committee of detail, was reported favourably by them Aug. 6, and again referred to them unchanged Aug. 31. In their report of Sept. 4, less than two weeks before the final adjournment of the convention, this committee reported the electoral system very nearly as it was finally adopted, Sept. 6. In this report of Sept. 4 the office of vice-president was first introduced; indeed, the creation of this office was an integral part of the electoral system. Several amendments offered on the last two days of the convention were rejected, as too late, and the electoral system was a part of the constitution as offered to the state conventions and ratified by them. It will appear from a reconsideration that a choice by congress was the steady determination of the convention for all but the last two weeks of its existence, excepting the five days during which it inclined toward a direct choice of electors by state legislatures; but that its final decision gave the choice of president and vice-president to electors, appointed "in such manner as the legislatures of the states might direct."

—II. DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM. In the inquiry as to what the system was designed to be by its framers, no more is necessary than to take the plain sense of the words used in the constitution, as cited under the fourth head of this article, supplemented in practice by the language of the Federalist, its authoritative exponent at the time, and by the action of the first two congresses, in which the framers of the constitution were numerously represented, fifteen of the thirty-eight signers being members of the first congress, and fourteen of the second.

—1. If any one thing is plain from the constitutional provisions on the subject, it is that the people, in adopting the constitution, voluntarily debarred themselves from the privilege of a popular election of president and vice-president, and all arguments from the aristocratic tendencies of the system are utterly irrelevant, so long as the people do not see fit to alter essentially the language of the constitution. The object was to avoid the very "heats and ferments" which their descendants to their sorrow experience every four years: and to this end the electors were even to meet and vote in their respective states, and not in any central location.

—2. It is also plain that absolute control of the "appointment" of the electors, with the exceptions hereafter noted, was given to the state legislatures. The people refused to exercise it themselves, either in their national or in their state capacity. The words "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct," are as plenary as the English language could well make them. In whatever manner the legislature may direct the appointment to be made, by its own election, by a popular vote of the whole state, by a popular vote in districts, by a popular vote scrutinized by canvassing officers or returning boards, or even by appointment of a returning board or a governor without any popular vote whatever, common sense shows that there is no other power than an amendment of the constitution's express language which can lawfully take away the control of the legislature over the manner of appointment. Any interference with the appointment by congress, in particular, either directly or under the subterfuge of an "electoral commission" is evidently a sheer impertinence and usurpation, however it may be condoned by popular acquiescence in the inevitable. Even the state court of last resort can only interfere so far as to compel obedience by state officers to the will of the legislature.

—3. One exception to the legislature's power, inserted to guard against executive influence, only makes the absoluteness of the rest of the grant more emphatic. The legislature is not to appoint any "senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States" an elector. Where the legislature directs the "appointment" to be made by popular vote, it must be evident that votes cast for the appointment of a person whom the constitution expressly bars from appointment have no existence in law: and the person for whom they were cast can not "appoint" himself anew by resigning his office after the election and thus reviving invalid votes. How the vacancy, if any, is to be filled, must be regulated by the legislature, for the electors themselves have no such power by virtue either of their office or of the constitution.

—4. In one respect congress could legitimately interfere for the purpose of preventing "intrigue and corruption," by naming the day on which the electors should meet and vote. Accordingly the 2d congress, by the act of March 1, 1792, fixed the day for their voting on the first Wednesday in December, and the day of their election "within thirty-four days" preceding it; and the act of Jan. 23, 1845, hereafter given, fixed the day for the appointment of electors. When Edition: current; Page: [62] congress had done this, it was functus officio, and had no more right than a private person to violate the constitution and its own laws, by forcing the admission of votes cast by electors on an unlawful day.

—5. Congress was further given, but for more caution indirectly (in Art. IV, §1, the power to declare the manner in which the action of the state appointing power should be authenticated, and for further caution this was only to be done "by general law". The act of 1792 provided that the votes of the electors should be authenticated by the certificate of the governor of the state. Evidently the courts of the state are the final tribunal to decide who is the governor of the state, and it would have been competent to the power of congress to require from the state court, "by general law", an authentication of the governor's certificate. This has never been done. For congress to omit this portion of its duty, and leave special cases to its own special law and arbitrary, partisan decision, is evidently in flat violation of the supreme law.

—6. The act of 1792 provides that the electors shall make three certificates of all their votes, two of which shall be sent to the president of the senate, one by mail and one by special messenger, and the third shall be deposited with the [federal] judge of the district in which they vote; that if neither of the first two shall reach its destination by the first Wednesday in January, the secretary of state shall send a special messenger for the third to the district judge; and that, if there be no president of the senate at the seat of government, the secretary of state shall receive and keep the certificates for the president of the senate. The transmission of the votes is thus very well provided for.

—7. The president of the senate is to open all the certificates in the presence of the senate and the house of representatives, and the act of 1792 specifies the second Wednesday of February succeeding the election as the day for the performance of this duty. In pursuance of its power to provide for the authentication of state acts and records, it would be perfectly competent for congress to so distinctly specify the necessary authentication of the electors' action and title that there could be no doubt in the mind of the president of the senate as to which papers were certificates, and which were not. In the absence of any such general law, the president of the senate is evidently left without any guide whatever, excepting that which must be the guide of every officer in like circumstances, his own best judgment. It was for this reason, because of the evident impossibility of the passage of a general law to meet the case in 1789, that the convention of 1787 passed the following resolution: "That the senators and representatives should convene at the time and place assigned [New York, March 4, 1789], and that the senators should appoint a president of the senate for the sole purpose of receiving, opening and counting the votes for president". This resolution was ratified with the constitution by the state conventions, and must be taken as expressing the contemporary intention to cover the real "casus omissus," viz, the neglect, refusal or inability of congress to pass a general law for the final authentication of certificates. The intention of the system was that the president of the senate should canvass the votes; in accordance with a general authenticating law, if congress would or could pass such a law; otherwise, according to his own best judgment. The members of the convention were not such bungling workmen as the modern idea of the "electoral count" would make them. They were not so foolish as to entrust the canvass to two independent agents, equal in rank, and without an arbiter in case of disagreement. They had a legislative power in congress and the president, capable of making "general laws" to govern the canvass; they had a single ministerial power, in the president of the senate, capable of carrying the general laws into effect; and they gave to each power its appropriate office. The system never contemplated the refusal of congress to pass a general law with the purpose of using its own laches to gain partisan control over special cases as they arose.

—8. Had congress done its plain duty in the premises, and carried out the system in its letter and spirit, as the convention of 1787 did, it is evident that that honorable body would have been reduced to its proper constitutional position as the official witness and register of the votes which have been declared by the president of the senate in accordance with general law. The constitution says, and need say, nothing of who shall count—only "and the votes shall then be counted"; for, if the orderly succession of steps has taken place according to the design of the system, the "count", in its legitimate and plain meaning, can be done by tellers appointed by the house, by individual members, by the newspaper reporters, or by any one who is able to do simple addition, though the journal of the official witnesses is the authoritative and permanent record of it. It is possible to imagine an unfair and illegal decision by the president of the senate, though no such case occurred while that officer (until 1821) maintained his proper place; and it is easy to see how hard it would be to punish him for such an offense. But it is absolutely impossible to punish congress for a partisan use of its usurped jurisdiction; and yet that body, since it has seized control of the canvass of the votes, has hardly ever, even in appearance, made any other than a partisan use of the power, no matter what party was in the majority. The constitution, by concentrating responsibility, found the safest place for the canvass of the votes, and if left the "count" unassigned and unguarded because there was no need of any other guard than the laws of arithmetic. All the abstruse debate as to the meaning of the simple word "count" has its origin in the determination of congress to give it the meaning of "canvass" and then to seize control of it. For this purpose, the extra-constitutional term "electoral Edition: current; Page: [63] count" has been coined.

—In the endeavor to ascertain the design of the system no attention has been paid to later congressional precedents or to the opinions of political leaders in and out of congress in the past. These may be found in great abundance in the volume called "Presidential Counts", cited below. They are misleading, for 1. congress has manufactured or been led into its own precedents for the purpose of overthrowing the position of the president of the senate, and 2. leaders of all parties have been interested in giving an illegitimate control of the system to congress, which they could influence, rather than to the proper official. But the safe guides, the plain words of the constitution itself, and the precedents of the convention of 1787 and the earlier congresses and presidents of the senate, are very easy of access, and no human ingenuity can extract from any of them a ground for any "objections", "withdrawal to consider objections", or final "voting upon disputed electoral votes" by the congress of the United States. The design of the system was to debar congress from all control over the electoral system, excepting its powers to provide for uniformity of voting, and, always by "general law," for the authentication of the state's appointment of electors for the guidance of the official canvasser; to place upon one man the responsibility which the convention well knew would be divided up and disregarded by congress; and for further safeguard, to allow congress to witness officially the execution of its own general law by the president of the senate. It was unfortunate that the constitution did not debar congress even from this last privilege, from which alone it has gained any foothold in the canvass, and have the count conducted in the presence of the supreme court; for the history of the system is only a long record of gradual usurpation of ungranted powers by congress, until at last the witness has climbed into the judge's seat, suspended the executive officer, and not only tries the law and the facts, but executes judgment as well.

—III. PERVERSION OF THE SYSTEM. (1. 1789-1821.) In this first period there is no instance of a declaration of the electoral canvass by any other power than the president of the senate, and the only open attempt to pervert the system was the federalist "bill of 1800". referred to hereafter. As the certificates which the president of the senate, in the absence of an authenticating law, decided to be valid were opened he passed them to the tellers appointed by the two houses, who "counted" them, in the proper meaning of the word. The certificates of election, which were made out by order of congress from 1797 until 1821, all contained the distinct affirmation that "the president of the senate did, in the presence of the said senate and house of representatives, open all the certificates and count all the votes of the electors" The idea had not yet been taken up that congress, in its capacity as a witness had the right to "object" to the reception of particular certificates. Indeed congress was formally petitioned to do so in 1809(in the case of Massachusetts), and refused. No case of double or contested returns occurred, but a number of informalities are noted in the record by the tellers, which the canvassing officer seems to have considered unimportant. Even when (in 1809) he saw fit to condone so important a defect as the absence of the governor's certificate, the witnesses had or took no power to interfere. In 1797 the legislature of Vermont had failed to pass any law prescribing the "manner of election" of the electors, and the rejection of Vermont's vote would have elected Jefferson and defeated Adams for the presidency. Nevertheless, Adams accepted Vermont's votes as equity demanded, and thus committed the "enormity" of counting himself in, without any apparent thought of objection from any quarter. Had this case of Vermont happened under the modern system of congressional control, only an "electoral commission" could have decided it, for the senate was federalist, and the house republican(democratic). In 1801 Jefferson, though in a case not so vital as that of Vermont, imitated Adams' example. An amendment to the constitution was introduced in congress in January and February. 1798, for the purpose, among others, of giving congress the very power of decision upon "contests" which it now exercises without such an amendment, but this was not adopted nor was it inserted in the 12th amendment.

—But although the forms of the exercise of canvassing power were kept up during this period, its spirit was growing weaker at every count. Its first, last and persistent foe has been the congress of the United States, which the convention strove so hard to shut out from any influence over the electors. The first principal inroad upon its essence came from the innocent and proper appointment of "tellers" by the two houses "to examine the votes". Though these tellers had only the arithmetical powers common to any or all examiners, their quadrennial appointment gradually brought into existence the idea that the "count" at least, whatever its nature might be, was an exclusive prerogative of congress; and the claim of power to "canvass" was only one step further. The second attack was the organization of congressmen of both parties into nominating bodies, whose decisions bound in advance the action of the electors, annulled their right of private judgment, and reduced them to ciphers. (SeeCAUCUS, CONGRESSIONAL.) When this had brought about, in 1801, its natural result of a tie between the two leading candidates (see DISPUTED ELECTIONS. I.), the 12th amendment was adopted requiring the electors to vote separately for president and vice-president, but not altering the system otherwise. This constitutional recognition of the existence of parties fixed the future nullity of the electors and their nullity gradually obscured the position of the president of the senate. Before 1801 no one knew positively what the vote of any elector was until the certificate was opened; after that year the Edition: current; Page: [64] votes of the electors were really known before they were cast, and several months before they were formally counted by the president of the senate. He, therefore, while he continued to follow precedents, did so in a careless and perfunctory way. In 1805 Burr merely broke the seals of the certificates, and handed them to the tellers to be read aloud by them. In 1809 the idea was first suggested openly, though not acted upon, that the houses were met "for a special purpose, to count out the votes", instead of "to witness the canvass of the votes". In 1817 the first "objection" to an electoral vote was offered. Indiana had been admitted as a state after the day fixed for the voting of the electors. John W. Taylor, of New York, objected to the counting of Indiana's votes, and the houses separated to discuss the objection, as they could not do while sitting in the same room. In both houses resolutions were offered, in the senate that Indiana "had a right to vote in December last", and in the house that Indiana's votes "ought to be counted;" but neither house adopted them, and the votes of Indiana were counted without any further interference by congress. But the precedent was remembered. The announcement of Indiana's vote, following the debate upon it by congress, was accepted as propter hoc, as well as post hoc; and from that time it was evident that the last vestige, even pro forma, of the constitutional function of the president of the senate was at the mercy of the first keen-witted or ignorant politician who should suggest that congress, having successfully established its exclusive power to "count" the votes, possessed thereby the power "to decide what were votes." The progressive changes of language in the messages from the two houses announcing their readiness to attend the count, are worthy of notice. They are as follows: (1793-1805) that they are ready to meet one another "to attend at the opening and counting of the votes"; (1809 and 1813) to attend in the opening and counting of the votes"; (1817) "to proceed in opening the certificates and counting the votes," or "to proceed to open and count the votes," the former being that of the senate, and the latter that of the house. These changes are landmarks.—(2. 1821-61.) In 1821 Missouri's votes were disputed (see MISSOURI), and for the first time in our history the power to canvass the votes was claimed for congress. Said Henry Clay in the house: "The two houses were called on to enumerate the votes, and of course they were called on to decide what are votes"; and again: "Would this house allow that officer [the president of the senate], singly and alone, to decide the question of the legality of the votes?" John Randolph, indeed, denounced the new idea of congressional control, and proclaimed the electors to be "as independent of this house as this house was of them"; but his voice was unheeded. Congress had found its opportunity, and seized it, to doubly violate the constitution, first, by usurping the control of the canvass, and second, by refusing to fulfill the charge that "the votes shall then be counted." The votes were not really counted. The houses ordered the president of the senate to declare that "if the vote of Missouri were to be counted, the result would be for A. B.———votes; if not counted, for A. B.———votes; but in either event A. B. was elected." This, with a fine irony, might be called "counting in the alternative" and this was the name which was thenceforward given to the process.

—Congress forgets no precedents in its own favour. It had now discovered that the president of the senate was entrusted with no higher or more responsible duty than that of "opening" the certificates; that its own duty was to count the votes; but that the canvass was under no one's constitutional care. At first congress contented itself with calling attention to the "casus omissus" which its own ingenuity had conjured up. But during all the rest of this period, while considering the various methods of providing for the casus omissus which are given hereafter, congress took care to practically cover the case by asserting and enforcing its control over the canvass.

—In 1837 the vote of Michigan was announced "in the alternative." (See MICHIGAN.) Objections were also made to the votes of six deputy postmasters who had been chosen electors, but congress agreed to receive them. In 1857 the vote of Wisconsin was objected to, (see WISCONSIN), but was counted. It is often asserted that the president of the senate counted it of his own constitutional authority. This is a mistake; his own statement is that he "disclaimed having assumed on himself any authority to determine whether that vote or any other vote was a good or a bad vote." He simply cut off debate while the two houses were together, as he was bound to do; the members of both houses lost their heads; no one moved for a separation of the houses; and the vote of Wisconsin was counted irrevocably in the midst of great disorder.

—At every election after 1821 the tellers assume more and more of the functions of the president of the senate. In 1829 he abandons to them the declaration of the result; in 1845 he transfers to them the breaking of the seals; and the climax, for this period, was reached in 1861, when the house actually appointed a committed to report a mode of "canvassing" the votes, inserting a new word instead of "examining," which had been used since 1793.—(3. 1861-81.) With the canvass of 1865 begins the period when congress, without pausing to debate, began the exercise of an absolute control over the votes of the electors. It did so by refusing to pass the general law which it was empowered to pass the general law which it was empowered to pass, leaving individual cases to be dealt with as party needs might demand. Feb. 6, 1865, the two houses, both under republican control, passed the twenty-second joint rule, which provided that any vote to which objection should be made should be rejected, unless accepted by concurrent vote of both houses. This did not require the president's signature, and seems to have been put into this Edition: current; Page: [65] shape for that reason. No previous American congress has ever been guilty of a more open and unnecessary usurpation than this. The act of Feb. 8 more fairly covered the case by providing that the seceding states named were in such condition on Nov. 8, 1864, that no valid election was held therein, and that no votes from them should be received. Even here the vicious propensity of congress to special legislation was apparent. Senator Collamer's substitute, giving no names of states, but referring in proper and general terms to "any state declared to be in insurrection by virtue of the act of July 13, 1861," was rejected.

—Under the continuing twenty-second joint rule the votes of Louisiana were counted in 1869, and by a further concurrent resolution the votes of Georgia were counted "in the alternative" In 1873, under the twenty-second rule, the vote of Louisiana was rejected by a concurrent vote, the vote of Arkansas and three votes of Georgia for Horace Greeley(dead) were rejected by a non-concurrence, and the votes of Texas and Mississippi were accepted. Jan. 20, 1876, the house having become democratic, the senate repealed the twenty second joint rule. The two houses were therefore left to meet the election of 1876 (see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, IV.) without any law on the subject.

—A very brief consideration of the facts under which the dispute as to the election of 1876 arose, will show that no such dispute could have arisen if the congress had fulfilled its plain duty under the constitution, 1, by passing a "general law," for the full authentication of the electoral votes from the state to the president of the senate, and 2, by keeping its own hands off the canvass. The "count," in its strict and proper meaning, might then have been left safely to the operations of the first rule of arithmetic. But this was not the time for a great constitutional reform; the fifty years' usurpation by congress of power to decide each case arbitrarily as it arose, had left the country with no law to rely upon; the passage of a general law by congress was then an impossibility; and it is matter for congratulation that the lottery which finally decided the presidential election was at least decently clothed in the forms of law. (See ELECTORAL COMMISION.) Of the utter illegality of the electoral commission, of the lack of power in congress to take the appointment of the electors away from the states, there can be no doubt; but there can be no more doubt, on the other hand, that congress committed no greater illegality in passing the electoral commission act that in assuming to "canvass" the votes in 1865, 1869 and 1873, under the twenty-second joint rule. President Hayes was just as illegally "counted in" as presidents Lincoln and Grant, and no more so than they.

—In 1880 congress again counted the vote of Georgia "in the alternative." It had not yet, nor has it yet in 1882, passed any general law to govern the president of the senate in his canvass of the votes and apparently intends still to persist in its traditional policy of waiting for disputed electoral votes, then claiming that there is no general law to cover the case and finally usurping the power to decide.

—IV. LEGAL LIMITATIONS. The constitutional provisions in regard to the electors will be found (see CONSTITUTION) under article II, §1, article IV., §1, and amendment XII. In pursuance of its powers to secure uniformity of voting and to provide for authentication of state records, congress has enacted various provisions to govern the action of the electors. The act of March 1, 1792, provided, 1, that the electors should be appointed in each state in 1792, and every four years thereafter, within thirty-four days preceding the first Wednesday in December; 2, that they should meet and vote on the first Wednesday in December and transmit their votes as heretofore described; 3, that the "executive authority" of each state should certify three lists of the electors, to be annexed by them to their certificates; 4, that the secretary of the state should send for the third list, if the first two were not received before the first Wednesday in January; 5, that congress should be in session on the second Wednesday in February, "that the certificates shall then be opened, the vote counted, and the persons who shall fill the offices of president and vice-president ascertained and declared agreeably to the constitution;" 6, that the certificates shall be delivered to the secretary of state in case there is no president of the senate at the capital. 7, that the electoral messengers shall receive twenty-five cents per mile by the most usual road; 8, that a fine of $1,000 shall be inflicted for neglect to deliver the lists; the remaining sections (9-12) relate to the succession to the presidency. The act of Jan. 23, 1845, fixed the day for the appointment of the electors as the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, and empowered each state to provide for filling vacancies in its "college" of electors, and to appoint a subsequent day for choice of electors when the first election has not resulted in a choice.

—V. SPECIAL ENACTMENTS 1. The act of March 26, 1804, was passed because of the doubt whether the proposed 12th amendment would be ratified in time to control the approaching presidential election. It permitted electors who, at their time of meeting, had not been notified of the ratification of the amendment, to vote twice, once according to the original mode of the constitution, and once according to the amendment, with the proviso that only those certificates should be finally valid which should be in accordance with the constitution as it should be in force on the day of voting. This, though it seems to have been legitimate, as a "general law," was made obsolete by the ratification of the amendment before the election.

—2. It has always been difficult for the upholders of congressional control over the canvass to give a name to their manner of action. They do not act as a legislative body, for the president's veto power is absent; nor as a joint meeting, for the separate existence and organization of the two houses is carefully preserved; and yet, if their independence is maintained, Edition: current; Page: [66] their control of the canvass is manifestly and absolutely dependent on the single chance of the political agreement of the two houses, for if they are controlled by different parties they can not agree in the canvass of disputed votes. No man can say, therefore, whether the two houses are to "agree" in accepting or in rejecting a disputed vote; and this one consideration is enough to stamp a congressional "canvass" as a hopeless absurdity. The strong probability (see RECONSTRUCTION, LOUISIANA, TENNESSEE) that two of the late seceding states would attempt to reorganize themselves without congressional control, caused the introduction and passage, Feb. 6, 1865, of a "joint rule," the twenty-second, which described the manner in which the two houses intended to canvass the votes. It provided, out side of the directions for organization, that "no vote objected to shall be counted except by the concurrent votes of the two houses," thus practically giving the power to reject a state's vote not even to "congress," but to either house—an absurdity which is only one of the least in the idea of a congressional canvass. Under this twenty-second joint rule the electoral votes were canvassed in 1869 and 1873, but it was abolished in 1876, as above stated, when the two houses had fallen to opposite parties.

—3. The act of Feb. 8, 1865, enacted that no electoral votes should be received or counted from the states of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas and Tennessee. The reason assigned in the preamble was, that these states had rebelled against the government and were in such condition on Nov. 8, 1864, that no valid election was held therein. President Lincoln signed it "in deference to the views of congress," disclaiming "any opinion on the recitals of the preamble."

—4. The count of 1877 brought the touchstone which, when applied, will always expose the inherent fallacy of a canvass by two independent bodies. The senate was republican and the house was democratic. The difficulty was evaded in this case by the passage of the electoral commission act. It passed the senate, Jan. 25, 1877, by a vote of 47 (26 dem., 21 rep.) to 17 (1 dem., 16 rep.); the house, Jan. 26, by a vote of 191 (159 dem., 32 rep.) to 86 (18 dem., 68 rep.); and was approved Jan. 29. The germ of its idea will be found in the "bill of 1800," hereafter referred to. Both laws are open to the same fatal objection. They are not the "general laws" which congress is empowered to pass touching the authentication of state records, including electoral appointments; they do not come directly or indirectly, under any power which congress is authorized to exercise; and they are simply refusals by congress to give up permanently its usurpation of the power to canvass, even under circumstances which show that the exercise of the power may at any moment become impossible. The fiction that congress was more trustworthy canvassing agent than the president of the senate was long ago exploded; the experience of 1877 shows that extra-congressional agents are no better than congress; and the lesson of experience would seem to be that the canvass should be restored to the only agent from whom a decision, and a prompt decision, is always certain—the president of the senate. Nevertheless, all the remedies now (1882) under consideration retain the the vice of permitting "objections" to electoral votes and decision, in one form or other, by congress. (For the important features of the act see ELECTORAL COMMISSION; for the action of congress under it, see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, IV.)

—VI. PROPOSED LEGISLATION. 1. The Bill of 1800. Jan. 23, 1800, while the federalists controlled both houses of congress senator James Ross, of Pennsylvania, introduced a bill to regulate the electoral count. It provided, in brief for the formation of a "grand committee" of six senators, six representatives, and the chief justice, with power to examine and decide finally, in secret session, all disputes and objections as to electoral votes. Of the four members of the convention which framed the constitution who were then senators, the bill was voted for by only one, Jonathan Dayton, who had taken no real part in the deliberations of the convention itself. The other three, Charles Pinckney, Langdon and Baldwin, denounced and opposed the bill to the end. Pinckney, in his very able speech of March 28, 1800, distinctly declared the design of the constitution to have been that "congress shall not themselves, even when in convention, have the smallest power to decide on a single vote." The bill passed the senate the same day, by a vote of 16 to 12. In the house, John Marshall, Bayard and other federalists united with the democrats in emasculating the bill by giving the "grand committee" power only to take testimony and report it to the two houses without expressing any opinion on it, the return was still to be accepted, unless both houses concurred in rejecting it; and no provision was made for double returns. May 8, the senate amended by providing that a return objected to should be rejected unless both houses concurred in admitting it. Both houses refused to recede the bill was lost.

—2. The Benton Amendment. Dec. 11, 1823, senator Thomas H. Benton introduced an amendment to the constitution providing that each legislature should divide its state into electoral districts; that the voters of each district should vote "in their own proper persons" for president and vice-president; that a majority in an electoral district should give a candidate the electoral vote of the district; that the returning officers should decide in case of a tie vote in any district; and that, if no candidate should have a majority of all the electoral votes, the house should choose the president, and the senate the vice-president, as at present. The amendment at this session was not acted upon.

—Benton subsequently changed it by providing for a second popular election in case of a tie, and in case of a further tie, for the choice of the person Edition: current; Page: [67] having the greatest number of votes in the greatest number of states. It was introduced in this form, June 15, 1844, but was not acted upon.

—3. The Van Buren and Dickerson Amendments. These were introduced in the senate, the latter Dec. 16, by Mahlon Dickerson, of New Jersey, and the former Dec. 24, 1823, by Martin Van Buren, of New York. Both aimed to change the 12th amendment mainly by requiring the electors to be chosen by districts, instead of by general ticket. In the case of a tie vote the Dickerson amendment left the choice of president to the two houses in joint meeting, and of vice-president to the senate; the Van Buren amendment required the electors to be immediately convened by proclamation of the president, and to choose between the candidates having an equal number of votes, the final choice, in case of another tie, being left as at present. Neither amendment provided for disputed or double returns; and neither was acted upon.

—4. The McDuffie Amendment. This was introduced in the house, Dec. 22, 1823, by George McDuffie, of South Carolina, as chairman of a select committee on the subject. It provided that electors should be chosen by districts assigned by the legislatures, or by congress in default of action by any legislature; that the votes should be opened and counted as at present; that in case of a tie the president of the senate by proclamation should reconvene the electors, that the electors should then choose between the tie candidates; that, in the event of another tie, the two houses of congress, voting individually and not by states, should choose the president; that, if no choice was made on the first ballot, the lowest candidate on the electoral list should be dropped at each ballot until but two remained; that, in case of a final tie, the candidate who had the highest vote at the first, or, if not at the first, at the second meeting of the electors, should be chosen; that, if neither of these provisions applied, the two houses should continue balloting until a president was chosen; and that the vice-president should be chosen by the senate, in case of a tie vote for that office. This amendment was debated during the session, but was not acted upon. April 1, 1826, in the house, McDuffie obtained a vote on his resolutions. The first, that the constitution ought to be so amended as to keep the election of president and vice-president from congress, was carried by a vote of 138 to 52; the second, in favor of the "district system" was lost by a vote of 90 to 102; and the subject was dropped.

—5. The Van Buren Bill. April 19, 1824, the senate passed Van Buren's bill, providing that, if objection were made to a return, the return should be counted unless the houses, voting separately, concurred in rejecting it. The bill was not acted on by the house.

—6. The Gilmer Amendment. In each of his messages Pres. Jackson recommended to congress the passage of an amendment giving the choice of president and vice-president to the people. Jan. 31, 1835, in the house, George R. Gilmer, of Georgia, chairman of a select committee on the subject, reported an amendment. It combined the direct choice by the people, and the second popular election in case of a tie, of the Benton amendment, with a provision that, in case of the death of the successful candidate at the second popular election, the vice-president "then in office" should be president. In case of a tie at the second popular election the president was to be chosen by the house and the vice-president by the senate as at present. This amendment was not acted upon.

—7. The Morton Amendment May 28, 1874, senator Oliver P. Morton, of Indiana, chairman of the committee on elections, reported an amendment in seven sections. It provided that the states should be divided into electoral districts, and that a majority of the popular vote of a district should give a candidate one "presidential vote"; that the highest number of presidential votes in a state should give a candidate two votes at large; that the highest number of presidential votes in the country should elect a candidate; that an equal division of the popular vote in a district should nullify the presidential vote of the district, an equal division of the presidential votes in a state should divide the two votes at large, or should nullify them, if there was an equal division between three candidates; that the vice-president should be chosen in the same manner; that congress should provide rules for the election, and tribunals for the decision of contests; and that districting should be done by state legislatures, but that congress might "make or alter the same." In debate it was understood that congress could either adopt the existing courts as tribunals, or create new ones for the purpose of deciding contests. The amendment was debated through the winter of 1875, but was not finally acted upon.

—8. The Morton Bill. Feb. 25, 1875, senator Morton introduced a bill to govern the electoral count. It followed the twenty-second joint rule, except that it provided that, if objection were made to any return, that return should be counted, unless rejected by a concurrent vote of both houses, and that, in case of a double return, that return should be counted which the two houses, acting separately, should decide to be the true one. This was the first provision in our history for double returns. In debate it was agreed that the vote of the state would be lost in case of a disagreement of the houses on a double return. The bill was passed by the senate, and not acted upon by the house. At the next session it was brought up again, Dec. 8, 1875, debated, until March 24, 1876, and then passed by a party vote of 32 to 26 democrats in the negative. The same day a motion to reconsider was entered by a democratic senator and carried April 19. It was then debated until Aug. 5, and dropped. Had it become a law it would have seated the democratic candidates at the following election.

—9. The Buckalew Amendment. This, drawn up by ex-senator Charles R. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, was introduced in the house Feb. 7, 1877, by Edition: current; Page: [68] Levi Malsh, of the same state. It provides for direct popular vote by electoral districts, and assigns to each candidate a proportion of the state's electoral vote corresponding to his proportion of the state's popular vote. It has never been acted upon.

—10. The McMillan System. This system contemplates the nomination of presidential candidates by state legislatures, each nomination to specify whether it shall be classed in "the first presidential canvass," or in "the second presidential canvass"; an election by a majority of the general popular vote; and, in default of a popular majority, a second general election, to be confined to the highest candidate in each "presidential canvass". This last term is another phrase for political party, and its introduction is intended to prevent the possible second election from being confined to two candidates of the same party. The system has only been unofficially proposed in Mr. McMillan's work cited below.

—11. The Edmunds Bill. This bill to regulate the electoral count, introduced in 1878 by senator George F. Edmunds, of Vermont, provided that the electors should be appointed on the first Tuesday of October and should meet and vote on the second Monday of the following January: that each state "may provide" by law for the trial of contests, and the decision shall be conclusive of the lawful title of the electors, that, if there is any dispute as to the lawfulness of the state tribunal, only that return shall be counted which the two houses, acting separately, shall concur in deciding to be supported by the lawful tribunal; that, if there are double returns from a state which has not decided the title of the electors, only that return shall be counted which the two houses, acting separately, shall decide to be legal; and that, if any objections are made to any single return, it shall not be rejected except by the affirmative vote of both houses. The bill was not passed. It was introduced again, Dec. 19, 1881, by senator George F. Hoar, of Massachusetts, but has not yet (1882) been passed. The bill would be perfectly in accord with the design of the electoral system if its code of rules had been still more carefully drawn and made obligatory upon the president of the senate alone; but, by reserving to the two houses, even concurrently, the power at their own partisan pleasure to adjudicate special cases, and even over-ride their own previous enactments, it retains the vicious principle which has been the source of all our difficulties. The difficulty lies, not in the electoral system, but in the determination of congressmen of both houses, and of all parties, to meddle with a duty which the constitution distinctly intended to free from their control.

—VII. INCIDENTAL FEATURES. In 1789 no electoral votes were cast by New York, Rhode Island or North Carolina. The two latter states had not yet ratified the constitution. In New York the anti-federalists of the assembly wished to choose electors by joint ballot; the federalists of the senate insisted upon having half the electors, and no electoral law was passed. Electors were generally chosen by the legislatures in all the states until about 1820-24. In Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia they were chosen by popular vote in electoral districts. In Massachusetts the people of each congressional district nominated three electors, of whom the legislature chose one, and the two electors at large. Occasionally the district system was adopted for a time by other states, but was altered as party interest demanded, as in 1812, when the democratic legislatures of Vermont and North Carolina and the federalist legislature of New Jersey repealed the law for the choice of electors by popular vote just before the day fixed for the election, and assumed the choice themselves. The following legislature of North Carolina re established the district system, and recommended the adoption of the amendment subsequently known as the "Benton Amendment."

—In 1800 the democratic assembly of Pennsylvania wished to choose electors by joint ballot, in order to secure the whole number, while the federalist senate insisted on having seven of the fifteen electors. A bill to that effect was passed, Dec. 1, 1800, just in time to enable the electors to vote, Dec. 3. The "bill of 1800," heretofore mentioned, was aimed at Pennsylvania's vote. In South Carolina, in 1800, the legislature which was to choose the electors was extremely doubtful, even after its meeting. The democrats offered to compromise on Jefferson and Pinckney, which would, as it proved, have made Pinckney vice-president; but the federalists stood to their whole ticket and lost it, 83 to 68. At the count of the votes in February, 1801, Jefferson, the president of the senate, counted the votes of Georgia for himself and Burr, as equity demanded, although the tellers called his attention to the absence of any certificate that the electors had voted for them. The votes of Georgia, however, were not essential to the result. (For the tie vote and its results see DISPUTED ELECTIONS, I.)

—In 1816 three electors in Maryland and one in Delaware, belonging to the almost extinct federal party, neglected to vote, and in 1820 Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Mississippi each lost an elector by death. (See ELECTORAL COLLEGE) One elector in New Hampshire voted for John Quincy Adams for president, so that Monroe did not have a unanimous vote. Missouri, whose final admission only dated from Aug. 10, 1821 (see MISSOURI), chose presidential electors in November, 1820, and their votes were "counted in the alternative," as before mentioned.

—In 1824 the electors made no choice. (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, II.) The electors were now chosen by poplar vote in all the states excepting Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, South Carolina and Vermont, where they were still chosen by the legislatures. In 1828 and subsequent years electors were chosen by popular vote in all the states excepting Edition: current; Page: [69] South Carolina, where the legislature chose them until 1868.

—Michigan, which was not admitted until Jan. 26, 1837, chose presidential electors in November, 1836, and their votes were "counted in the alternative." No choice of a vice-president was made by the electors. (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, III) In 1856 the Wisconsin electors were prevented by a violent snow storm from meeting and voting on the day fixed by law (Dec. 3), and met and voted Dec. 4. In counting the votes, Feb. 11, 1857, objection was made to Wisconsin's vote. The president of the senate, senator Mason, of Virginia, decided debate to be out of order; no motion to separate was made; and the vote of Wisconsin was counted. In 1865 the president of the senate, "in obedience to the law of the land" (the act of 1865), refused, when requested, to open the certificates sent by Louisiana and Tennessee.

—In 1869 the votes of Mississippi, Texas and Virginia, which had not been reconstructed, were not received, and the votes of Louisiana were counted. The votes of Nevada were objected to, but the president of the senate refused to entertain the objection, on the ground that it was too late. Georgia, which had been reconstructed, had proceeded to deny the eligibility of negroes to the legislature. Her electors had voted on the second Wednesday in December, as required by state law passed under the confederacy, instead of the first Wednesday, as required by law, and on this ground it was known that objections would be made to their votes. It was therefore arranged by joint resolution to "count them in the alternative." Nevertheless, objection was made to Georgia's vote. It was sustained by the house, and overruled by the senate, and the president of the senate decided that they must be counted in the alternative, decided debate out of order, and refused to allow an appeal from his decision. The vote was finally made up in the midst of disgraceful disorder.

—In 1873 double returns appeared for the first time, from Louisiana and Arkansas. The two houses concurred in counting the votes of Texas (objected to for want of the governor's certificate), and of Mississippi (objected to for want of a certificate that the electors had voted by ballot), and in rejecting the vote of Arkansas, for want of the governor's certificate. By disagreement of the two houses three votes of Georgia for Greeley (dead), and the entire vote of Louisiana were rejected.

—In 1877 the result of the electoral vote was disputed. The facts and mode of settlement are elsewhere given. (See ELECTORAL COMMISSION; DISPUTED ELECTIONS, IV.) In 1881 the electoral votes of Georgia, which were still cast on the wrong day, were "counted in the alternative."

—See (1.) 1 Elliot's Debates, 182, 208, 211, 222, 228, 283, 290, 302; 5 Elliot's Debates, 128, 131, 141, 192, 322, 334, 363, 507, 520, 586. (II.) McKnight's Electoral System; The Federalist, Ixviii,; Story's Commentaries, §1449; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, 169; Rawle's Commentaries, 58, 2 Wilson's Law Lectures, 187; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 262; Phocion's Letters (in 1824, copied in 24 Niles' Register, 373, 411); 5 Elliot's Debates, 541; the arguments and precedents in favor of the power of congress to canvass the votes will be found in Appleton's Presidential Counts, pp. xliv.-liv. (III.) See Annals of Congress for the year required; these are collected in a more easily accessible form in Appleton's Presidential Counts, and the volume entitled Counting the Electoral Votes, (H. of R Misc. Doc., 1877, No. 13). (IV.) 1 Stat at Large, 239 (act of March 1. 1792); 5 Stat. at Large, 721 (act of Jan. 23, 1845); U.S. Rev. Stat. §§ 131-142. (V.) 2 Stat. at Large, 295 (act of March 26, 1804; Counting the Electoral Votes, 224, 786 (the twenty-second joint rule); 13 Stat. at Large, 490 (act of Feb. 8, 1865); 19 Stat. at Large, 227 (electoral commission act). (VI.) Counting the Electoral Votes. 16 (bill of 1800); Annals of Congress (6th Cong.), 126 (Pinckney's speech); Appleton's Presidential Counts, 419 (Ibid.); 7 Benton's Debates of Congress. 472, 473, 480 (the Benton, Dickerson and Van Buren amendments respectively), Counting the Electoral Votes, 711 (the McDuffie amendment); 7 Benton's Debates, 603, (purports to give the amendment, but omits the amendment proper, as to the election of president, and gives only the provisions relating to the elections of vice-president); 12 Benton's Debates of Congress, 639 (the Gilmer amendment); Counting the Electoral Votes, 422 (the Morton amendment); Congressional Record, Feb. 25, 1875 (the Morton bill); North American Review, January, 1877 (the Buckalew amendment); McMillan's Elective Franchise; Congressional Record, Dec. 19, 1881 (the Edmunds-Hoar bill). (VII) Counting the Electoral Votes, and Appleton's Presidential Counts; for Jefferson and the Georgia votes in 1801 see, on the one side, 2 Davis' Life of Burr, 71, and on the other, 1 Democratic Review, 236.



EMANCIPATION, Political and Religious. To emancipate a class of persons is to deliver them from the inferior condition in which they were held and give them the equal rights of citizens. Equality is a natural right. Civil society was established for the purpose of acquiring and preserving it, by putting an end to the abuses of force, the cause of inequality. It is, therefore, a violation of the principle on which society is based to establish or recognize in a state different orders of persons, some of whom enjoy the full rights of citizenship, while others are reduced to a state of subjection. So long as they bear the same burdens, and perform the same duties, all should enjoy the same rights and political advantages.

—This truth is not a new one in the world. Christianity laid down the principle that every man, by the fact alone of his being a man, had the same dignity and the same right to justice and liberty. But how many ages were needed for the ideas introduced into the world by Christianity to germinate and bear fruit! For Edition: current; Page: [70] fully nineteen centuries, difference of religion, of class, color and nationality, continued to serve as pretexts to oppress and deprive of legal protection a more or less considerable part of the population of every country. Freedom of the individual, of conscience and civil equality, are of very recent date.

—It is not a hundred years since Rousseau could justly reproach Frenchmen with assuming the title of citizens without even knowing the meaning of the term, and remind them that the name of subjects was far better suited to most of them. In England the Catholics have enjoyed civil equality only since 1829. The Jews won the right to sit in parliament only in 1859. In France the traces of hate and prejudice of which they were victims have disappeared only since 1830, and the emancipation of Protestants in that country dates only from the revolution. There were serfs in France in 1789, and it required a second or rather a third revolution (1848) to solve the question of slavery. In another order much time was required to put the principles of liberty and social equality into practice with regard to French colonies, for France admitted them to the enjoyment of political rights only in 1870, and she still imposes restrictions on their commerce (though less than formerly), the results of which are injurious to them as they are of doubtful utility to the mother country;—The causes of civil inequality lie in the ignorance of misunderstanding of the natural rights of man. It was when it might be said that the human race had found its true title deeds that these causes lost their influence. The honor of this belongs to the philosophy of the eighteenth century. By preparing the triumph of philosophic reason over religious fanaticism and the final destruction of the feudal system, it became the most active agent of emancipation.

—But, as has been frequently remarked, the ideals of the eighteenth century have been surpassed in our time. As always happens, beyond the progress made, there were still other kinds of progress whose possibility was not at first suspected. Thus Voltaire did not even dream of putting Protestants in France, and still less the Jews, on the same footing with Catholics. He admitted that public offices and employments might be refused them. He found in this monstrous inequality merely a necessary fact, a condition inherent in the social state. In France, in his time, non-Catholics themselves did not dare to lay claim to a share in political life. When the constituent assembly declared, Aug. 21, 1789, that all citizens, being equal in its eyes, were equally eligible to all public places, employments and dignities, non-Catholics were implicitly excluded from the equality thus proclaimed, so that it was necessary, a few months later, to issue a special decree providing that non-Catholics were eligible for all civil and military employments as well as other citizens. The preamble announced, in addition, that the assembly did not decide anything relative to the Jews, the consideration of whose case it reserved. (Decree of Dec. 24, 1789.) So that in laying down the principle of absolute equality, it limited its action to freeing the non-Catholics from persecution.

—This inconsistency is explained easily enough. The chief object of the philosophical controversies of the eighteenth century had been freedom of conscience; but the question had not yet been considered from the purely political point of view. There still existed a state religion in France, and the majority of the constituent assembly wished to maintain it. But the existence of a dominant religion naturally excludes dissidents from offices and public employments.

—The French revolution, which, more than anything else, had the unity of the country in view, was not slow in comprehending that this unity, the source of national power, could not be effectually acquired unless civil equality were granted to all; and by according full and complete equality to dissidents it performed not merely an act of justice, but took a wise political measure.

—Historians have told us what the revocation of the edict of Nantes cost France; but no one, so far as we know, has calculated the material and moral gain to regenerated France, from its proclaiming the equality of religions before the law.

—English statesmen were not mistaken here. The duke of Wellington and the tories associated with him in power in 1829, were not inclined to yield exclusively to the influence of philosophical ideas. When, notwithstanding their antecedents and their personal dislikes, they decided to propose Catholic emancipation, it was because they felt that this was the price of the moral unity of Great Britain, that the sentiment of common liberty and civil equality was the only one in which Ireland could sympathize with England, and the agitation and continual strife would cease only through one of two means; the extermination of emancipation of Catholics. Subsequent events have shown that they were right. England, freed from one cause of internal dissension, regained a liberty of action which contributed to insure her preponderance in Europe, during the years which followed 1830.

—From this experiment and many others we may deduce the principle, that a nation grows in power, in activity, in fruitfulness, in proportion as the same law is in force for all in the broadest and most liberal manner. In France national power has increased in direct ratio to the progress of civil equality; the history of its growth is identical with that of the emancipation of the third estate and the abolition of serfdom. Here, again, humanity and policy were at one. Humanity demonstrated that serfdom—that is to say, to have men attached to the soil, identified with it, looked upon as feudal property, unable to dispose of their goods, unable to leave to their own children the fruit of their labor—was unworthy of a generous nation; and policy showed "that such arrangements are only fitted to enfeeble industry and deprive society of the effects of that energy in labour which the feeling of property is Edition: current; Page: [71] alone capable of inspiring.8quot—These motives, by which Turgot, in 1779, justified the abolition of serfdom in the domains of the king, are the same which were destined to lead to the emancipation of slaves. England had preceded France in this work of emancipation. After Aug. 1, 1838, there were no slaves in the English Antilles, when the provisional government in France decreed immediate and complete emancipation. Every one, beyond a doubt, was agreed on the principle; but on the eve of the resolution of February, the idea of gradual abolition still prevailed, and unconditional abolitionists, who placed humanity and justice before all things, were in a minority.

—EMANCIPATION OFCATHOLICS. In Great Britain. The term Catholic emancipation was given to the act by which the Catholics of the United Kingdom were freed from the political disabilities which excluded them from parliament and all high offices of state; but this act itself was only the completion and consequence of a series of measures intended to restore to the Catholics of England and Ireland the rights of property and individual liberty of which they had been deprived in consequence of the reformation in Great Britain, or rather of the struggles which followed it. Henry VIII., when he separated from the Catholic church, retained its dogmas and discipline. It was only under his successor, Edward VI., that the Anglican church decided in favor of the reformation, which finally triumphed during the reign of Elizabeth after a bloody reaction under Queen Mary. From this period the persecution of Catholics became regular, and assumed a legal form; the basis of all the penal laws which followed, are found in the acts of uniformity and supremacy. The act of uniformity prohibited the use of any liturgy but that of the official church, under pain of confiscation for the first offence, imprisonment for a year for the second, and imprisonment for life for the third. A fine of one shilling was imposed for absence from the state church on Sundays and holidays. By the act of supremacy every beneficed clergyman and every layman in the employment of the crown was obliged to abjure the spiritual sovereignty of the pope and recognize that of the queen, under penalty of high treason for a third offense.

—These penal laws soon became more severe. In 1593 the penalty of imprisonment was pronounced against all persons above the age of sixteen who should fail for one month to appear at church, unless they made an open act of submission and a declaration of uniformity. Catholics filled the prisons. They were ruined by fines or left the country. There were hunters of Catholics who tracked the fugitives.

—Under James I. new statutes deprived the Catholics of the control and education of their children; but while parliament imposed these penalties, the king, personally favorable to Catholics, procured them some tranquillity. This condition of the relative quiet continued under Charles I. and Cromwell, and the penal laws were not enforced till tge restoration of CharlesII. Under his reign, and notwithstanding his sympathies for the Catholics, the testact was passed. It declared all persons incapacitated to fill any public office who refused to renounce the doctrine of transubstantiation (1673).

—In 1679 the Catholics, already excluded from the house of commons, were also excluded from the house of lords. Finally, after the revolution of 1688, though William of Orange was disposed to toleration, Anglican fanaticism ruled without control. Priests were forbidden, under pain of imprisonment for life, to celebrate mass or exercise their functions in England, unless in the house of an ambassador. A priest in countries subject to the crown of England was considered guilty of high treason unless he had taken the oaths of supremacy and uniformity. All persons furnishing him an asylum were guilty of felony, without benefit of clergy.

—Laymen professing the Catholic religion and refusing to assist at the services of the established church, incurred, besides the pains and penalties mentioned above, the loss of their right of exercising any employment, of possessing landed property after the age of eighteen years, and of having arms in their houses. They were forbidden to come within eighteen miles of London, or to go farther than five miles from home without permission. Women might be detained in prison if their husbands did not ransom them; they lost a portion of their dowry. A catholic could not bring a case at law; and a wife could neither be the heir nor the testamentary executor of her husband. Marriages, burials, baptisms, could be officiated at only be a clergyman of the official church—The situation of the Catholics in Ireland was still more frightful. There also the acts of uniformity and supremacy had been forced on the people by the prison and the scaffold. But four-fifths of the population were and wished to remain Catholic. The struggle was prolonged into a war of extermination. Defeated at the battle of the Boyne(1690), the Catholics signed the treaty of Limerick. It was agreed that Roman Catholics should retain the exercise of their religion as under the reign of Charles II., and the king agreed to obtain the most ample guarantees for them. These were refused by parliament. The Anglican bishop of Meath justified this breach of faith by proving, in a sermon preached before the lords justices, that Protestants were not bound to observe the peace concluded with the papists.

—A new parliament, convened in 1695, undertook as its first work to ascertain the condition of the penal laws. A committee appointed for this purpose reported that the principal ones were: 1st, an act requiring the oath of supremacy for admission to all employments; 2nd, an act imposing fines for absence form the services of the established church; 3d, an act authorizing the chancellor to appoint a guardian to the child of every Catholic; 4th, an act prohibiting instruction to Catholics. This legislation served as a point of departure for other acts Edition: current; Page: [72] which expelled Catholic priests and prelates, deprived parents of the right to instruct their own children except through Protestant masters, ordered the general disarmament of Catholics, excluded them from public employments, and repealed the laws which confirmed them in the enjoyment of their property. All this was done at a time when England received the Protestants driven from France, and conferred on them the rights of citizenship. At this period there were three or four millions of Irish Catholics, but, as far as the law was concerned, they existed no longer. It did not recognize that there were, in Ireland, any citizens but Protestants. Things thus continued during the first two thirds of the eighteenth century, so that the earliest events which were the incentive to emancipation were purely political. These events were a consequence of the ideas of independence and national interests common to all the inhabitants of Ireland, propagated by the Protestant, Swift, and before him by Molyneux.

—In 1773 the Catholics esteemed as a great favor an act which, without changing the penal laws in any way, permitted them to take a new oath as a pledge of their loyalty. This act implicitly recognized their existence. About the same time a Catholic committee was formed.

—The spirit of the time had changed, George III., in his zeal for Anglicanism, upheld the penal laws, but parliament practiced toleration in spite of the king, as at a former time it had been intolerant in spite of William III. In 1778 it was provided, on motion of Sir George Saville, 1st, that Catholic priests discovered performing their functions should no longer be subject to the penalties of high treason; 2d, that a son, by accepting the Protestant religion, should no longer be able to despoil his father; 3d, that the power of acquitting property by purchase, inheritance or gift should be restored to Catholics. Nevertheless, at the end of the eighteenth century these just measures excited among English Protestants the most formidable insurrection. On May 30, 1780, 60,000 men, under the leadership of Lord George Gordon, a half-crazy fanatic, besieged the houses of parliament; repulsed by the military they wrecked the housed of the principal members of parliament, attacked and burnt the prisons, assassinated Catholics, and were the cause of a frightful conflagration in the city. When order was re-established, parliament limited itself to furnishing some explanations intended to satisfy public opinion on the interests of the Protestant religion. Things remained as they were before the insurrection.

—The example given in England was followed in Ireland. In 1778 a bill was passed which permitted Catholics to teach and exercise guardianship over their own children. The privilege of living in Limerick or Galway was restored to them. The prohibition of owning a horse worth more than five pounds sterling was done away with. From 1790 to 1793 several bills in succession permitted Catholics to engage in the profession of the law, to receive apprentices, to occupy positions in the army as high as colonel inclusive, to have arms on condition of possessing property of a certain value, to be members of a grand jury and justices of the peace, to hold subordinate civil positions, and, which was of great value, to vote at elections. These acts did away with the obligation of attending Protestant service, even authorised Catholic priests, under certain restrictions, to celebrate mass, and removed the remnant of the restraints on acquiring and holding property. The benefit of these laws was acquired by taking an oath, renouncing allegiance to the pretender, and disavowing the doctrine that contracts with heretics may be broken, and that princes excommunicated by the see of Rome may be deposed and put to death.

—When the pact of parliamentary union was established in 1798 between Ireland and England, the latter promised, as a compensation, to abolish all remaining political disabilities. George III, refused to keep the promise of his minister, and William Pitt resigned his office. Thus deceived, Ireland had the courage to employ only legal means to assert her rights. Under the direction of John Reogh, and soon after of O'Connell, the Catholic association was able to arouse and support one of those great movements of public opinion which, in enlightened and free countries, prepare and necessitate the regular change of institutions. A continually growing minority in parliament were in favour of emancipation. It might have been believed, in 1813, that the cause was about to triumph. The bigotry of George III. had become a characteristic folly, and his successor showed more generous tendencies—The condition of the Catholics of England was improved in the same degree as that of their co-religionists in Ireland. Instead of following, in all its details, the gradual abolition of the restrictions and penalties imposed on them, we shall describe the condition of both on the eve of Catholic emancipation. A Catholic could sit neither in the house of lords nor in the house of commons, he was excluded from every judicial office; the higher grades of service in the army and navy were opened to him by law only since 1816; he had no voice in the vestries, though these assemblies had the right of imposing heavy taxes; he could be neither governor nor director of a bank, nor occupy a number of other honorary or lucrative offices. If a Catholic in Ireland did not possess a freehold of a hundred pounds a year, or personal property to the amount of a thousand pounds, he had not the right to keep arms, he was subject to domiciliary visits, and in certain cases to imprisonment, to the pillory or to flogging; he was excluded from certain occupations, such as that of gamekeeper and gunsmith. If a Catholic died without having appointed a guardian to his children, the chancellor had the right of setting aside the nearest relatives and appointing a Protestant stranger. If a Catholic corresponded with the pope, he became guilty of high treason. Catholic endowments, either charitable or benevolent, Edition: current; Page: [73] were expressly forbidden. A Catholic priest who, even by mistake, should marry a Catholic and Protestant, incurred capital punishment. A Catholic priest was liable to imprisonment if he refused to make known the secrets of the confessional before a court of justice. Finally, to retain their property, to practice their religion, in one word, to profit by all the favorable acts passed since 1778, Catholics were obliged to take the oath of fidelity and renounce the temporal authority of the pope. This résumé does not include certain regulations more vexatious than important, such as the prohibition of pilgrimages, the duty imposed on magistrates of destroying Catholic crosses, paintings and inscriptions.

—Such was the legal position of four or five millions of citizens. We have stated, in the introduction to this article, how the duke of Wellington's government was led to put an end to this state of affairs. On March 5, 1829, Robert Peel laid before the house of commons the emancipation bill, entitled. An act for the relief of his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. Neither the rage of the Protestant party of 1780, nor the enthusiasm of the French revolution, were witnessed at the time, the measure was proposed and voted as a political expedient. The danger of internal dissension, the necessity of decreasing the influence of the priests, as well as of dissolving the Catholic association by granting what it asked for, and the impossibility of continuing the struggle longer, were the motives that the ministry brought to bear. The bill passed the house of lords, by 212 votes against 112, in spite of the opposition of certain bishops, and was finally adopted April 13, 1829. The act or bill of emancipation (Act 10, George IV., chap.vii.) formally abolished all preceding laws, not, however, without certain reservations. Thus, every Catholic could be a member of the house of lords or commons, on condition of his taking an oath of fidelity to the king and the Protestantdynasty, instead of the oath of supremacy and abjuration; of his declaring that he did not consider it an article of faith that princes excommunicated by the pope might be deposed and put to death by their subjects; of his recognizing that the pope had neither civil power nor jurisdiction in the kingdom, and promising to maintain the established church in its privileges and property. By taking the same oath Catholics were allowed to vote at elections for the house of commons, and were eligible to civil and military employments, with the exception of the office of lord chancellor of England or of Ireland, lord lieutenant of Ireland or high commissary to the general assembly of the church of Scotland. Roman Catholics might become members of lay corporations, on condition of taking the above oath and such other oaths as should be required of the members of these corporations, but without being able, while sitting in the same corporations, to cast a vote on questions of presenting an ecclesiastical benefice. No particular oath was required to enable Roman Catholics to possess personal property or real estate, nor for their admission to the army or the navy. The bill at the same time contained a clause directed against O'Connell, elected from the county of Clare. who generously sacrificed his interest to the success of the common cause. The property qualification for voters was raised, in Ireland, from forty shillings to ten pounds, which did not, however, prevent the great agitator from entering parliament.

—The emancipation act was justly considered a great boon. The London Timesremarked that hitherto the union of the three nations was merely nominal; there could be no harmony between the serf and his master, between the suspicious oppressor and his victim. Catholic emancipation was a victory whose consequences would be so many benefits for the remotest generation, for it brought peace and happiness to Ireland and was an element of strength and dignity for Great Britain. Experience has confirmed all this.-In Other Countries. We could not well think not well think of reproaching the pope, when still in possession of the temporal power, with depriving non-Catholics of all political and even civil rights. Civil equality was not compatible with the nature of his government. But we are astonished that in liberal Holland Catholics were so long excluded systematically from the employ of the government in spite of the law of 1798 which emancipated them; that in Sweden, a country where Protestantism is dominant, that is to say. where the right of each one to account only to himself for his faith is recognized dissidents are still excluded from public offices, and citizens professing the state religion are forbidden under penalty of perpetual banishment to embrace another religion.

—It is remarkable that the pretext for the first invasion of Poland in 1768 was the emancipation of the Ruthenians of the Greek rite whom the Catholics held in an inferior political condition. At present, Russia is endeavoring to impose on Polish Catholics the orthodox religion in order to attach them to the throne of the czar and make them forget their own nationality, but we know that every step taken in such a direction leads from the desired end. After similar acts of violence committed in France against the Protestants the only result was to obtain apparent conversions and make the two nations almost irreconcilable.

—In Russia proper, atrocious persecutions were carried on from 1832 and 1855, to favour the progress of the dominant religion. According to Dupretz(Revue des Deux Mondes, 1850, vol. i.) more than five millions of United Greeks, or Greek Catholics, were obliged to join the Russian church. In giving an account of the means employed to effect this end we do not find measures tending to abolish civil equality between the dissidents and the orthodox, and this is easily understood in a country in which the whole nation was subject to the machinery and the external forms of a military government. Resource was had, therefore, to other means; for instance, a ukase of Edition: current; Page: [74] Jan. 2, 1839, granted complete amnesty to persons condemned for robbery or murder, to the knout, to mines, or to the galleys, sa a reward for conversion. Another ukase of March 21, 1840, decreed that every person who should leave the orthodox religion would lose the administration of his own estates, that he could not hold orthodox serfs in his service, etc. The measures decreed under Nicholas I. had nothing of the generous ideas of emancipation which the Russian government applied under Alexander II. to forty millions of his subjects in the question of serfdom. Neither did it in any way resemble the toleration professed by Catherine II., which Voltaire, with a complaisance for which he has been blamed, praised too highly. The illustrious philosopher was scarcely more in the right when, to satirize the morals of Europe, he delighted in lauding the followers of Confucius. Better informed in our time he would, no doubt, have applauded article thirteen of the treaty of peace and alliance concluded at Pekin in 1860, which abolished all penalties and disqualifications affecting Christians in China. But perhaps he would have been less pleased with the clause binding the Chinese government to accord missionaries effectual protection, a protection which appears to be of another kind than that guaranteed to travelers and merchants. He would at least have observed that the conditions of just reciprocity would impose on the French government the obligation of extending a special and effectual protection to bonzes who should try to convert us to the most ancient religion of Asia. It is well to emancipate the members of Christian communities, but for them, as for all others, equality should be the rule.


—EMANCIPATION OF PROTESTANTS. In the general reaction in France which followed the death of Louis XIV., the regent thought of recalling the Huguenots. This inaccurate expression, which was frequently employed in the eighteenth century, was employed to mean the recalling of Protestant refugees to France, and the giving of a civil status to those who had remained in France. Saint-Simon boasted of having made the duke of Orleans abandon this project: he admitted, however, that the legislation of Louis XIV., so harsh toward Protestants, was confused and contradictory, and caused the government frequent embarrassments, especially in questions of marriage and wills. The traditions of the administration had more weight with the regent than the opinion of Saint-Simon. These traditions were represented and upheld especially by a family formerly protestant, that of Phelyppeux, which during almost two whole centuries furnished secretaries of state, under the names of Pontchartrain, Saint-Florentin, Maurepas, La Vrillière. The count of Saint-Florentin, in particular, during a ministry of fifty-two years devoted himself with a rare degree of bureaucratic stubbornness to keeping the protestants under the yoke.

—The honor of having given the first impulse in France belongs to Voltaire. Immediately after a renewal of persecution in the city of Toulouse, noted for the tortures of the pastor Rochette, of the three brothers Grenier, accused of wishing to liberate him, and of Jean Calas, Voltaire called attention to the condition of the Protestants of France, by the success of his efforts, continued during three years, to reverse the decision in the case of Calas, and during nine years in that of Sirven. With the aid of the Duke de Choiseul he endeavored to found at Versoix a manufacturing town whose clock making should rival that of Geneva, and where Protestant workmen should not only enjoy civil rights but even freedom of worship. Voltaire encouraged with all his power writers of his own school and certain tolerant magistrates to publish mémoireson the civil condition of the Protestants, and particularly on the necessity of recognizing their marriages. Rippert de Monclar, Turgot, Target, Condorcet, Gibert de Voisius, Robert de Saint-Vincent, and especially Malesherbes, pleaded the cause of tolerance. Several lawsuits added to the effects of the mémoires. By the law every marriage celebrated according to the reformed rite was null and void. The children born of such a marriage were illegitimate and incapable of inheriting. so that any collateral relation, no matter how distant, might lay claim to the estate of a Protestant provided the claimant was a Catholic or became one. At the end of a century this odious system had introduced inextricable confusion into the situation of 300,000 families, who were without any civil status. The government thus found itself more and more embarrassed from such a state of things. The advent to the ministry of certain tolerant men like Choiseul, and, later, Castries, Breteuil, and especially Turgot and Malesherbes, was calculated to improve the condition of things. Louis XVI. desired to put an end to the disorder by a spirit of kindness and justice. Turgot states that at the moment of his consecration the new king, instead of pronouncing the words obliging him to exterminate the heretics, muttered some confused words, which accords very well with the mixture of generous intentions and weakness which characterized this unfortunate prince.

—The end of persecution was brought about by a more resolute man whose name marks the advent of modern society in France. Lafayette, who had become intimately acquainted in America with Protestantism and the practice of religious liberty, wrote to Washington on May 11, 1785, that he was resolved to take up the cause of his Protestant countrymen, and his illustrious friend encouraged him in this design worthy of them both. Lafayette undertook to examine in person the principal centres of the Protestant population. For this purpose he went to Nimes and attended the Protestant worship in the open air, conducted by Rabant-Saint-Etienue. After the service Lafayette embraced the pastor and engaged him to come to Paris to labor in obtaining civil Edition: current; Page: [75] liberty for his co-religionists. This was the beginning of the political career of Rabaut-Saint-Etienne. His expenses were paid by a subscription, made by the Protestant churches of Nimes, Montpellier, Marseilles and Bordeaux. He came to Paris under the Pretext of publishing his Lettres à Bailly sur Vhintoire primitive de la Grèce. Introduced by Lafayette into Parisian society and to the ministers, the future president of the national assembly was received with curiosity and interest. It was something to get a close view of a man whose profession, which he openly acknowledged, condemned him to death, and who according to the expression of the time was a candidate for martyrdom. With Malesherbes Rabaut prepared the way for emancipation. This minister succeeded in gaining over public opinion through a work which he had written by an academician, Rulhières, more celebrated then than he is now, two volumes of Eclaircissements historiques sur les causes de la revocation de vedil'de Nantes, tirés des archives du gouvernement—The councilors Bretignière and Robert de Saint-Vincent had already laid before the parliament of Paris propositions favoring the Protestants. May 23, 1787, an assembly of notables, of which Lafayette was a member, presided over by Count d'Artois(Afterward Charles X), expressed a unanimous wish to restore their civil status to the Protestants. A petition was presented to Louis XVI., by his brother. At length the edict of reinstatement appeared (Nov. 1787). It was far from restoring to the Protestants the rights accorded them by the edict of Nantes, and to France the glory which she had had of being the first to proclaim liberty to conscience. The reformed religion continued to be prohibited; and, according to the terms of the preamble, the law accorded to the Protestants only "that which natural law forbids us to refuse them, the power to prove their births, their marriages and their deaths". The innovation consisted in this, that the officers of justice and their clerks were charged with registering the marriages, births and deaths in the absence of Catholic priests. This concession was an immense benefit; and the edict, incomplete as it was, does honor to the memory of Lafayette, Malesherbes and Louis XVI. The Protestants of France were no longer outside the pale of society. They appeared in crowds to legalize their condition, and in many places three generations of the same family were seen registering their marriages at the same time. The national assembly completed the work of Louis XVI., Aug 23, 1789, by the following decree: "No one shall be disturbed on account of opinions even on religion, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law." This liberty was at once confirmed, regulated and restrained by the organic law of the first consul (germinal, year X.), which was itself modified and amended by a decree of the president of the republic, dated March 26, 1852.


—Emancipation is not yet complete the world over. It may be considered complete in England and in all the countries inhabited by the Anglo-Saxon race or which are connected with Great Britain, as well as in nearly all Protestant countries. Holland, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden and Norway are almost the only exceptions. In these countries, the Lutheran being the state church, those who are separated from it, whether Catholic or Protestant dissenters are subject to exceptional laws, do not enjoy all the rights of other citizens, and are not admitted to public offices. It is proper to acknowledge that the efforts of government tend to put an end to such an abhorrent state of things, and that the laws voted in 1860 by Sweden show a notable progress.

—In Russia the Protestant population, grouped in compact masses in the Baltic provinces, appears to enjoy as many rights as the orthodox subjects of the czar; still a pressure is exercised to induce, if not to constrain, them to accept the orthodox church.

—In Switzerland, a mixed but a free country, the political emancipation of Protestants is complete even in the Catholic cantons. The cases of mixed marriages, however, still present difficulties of more than one kind, and have caused conflicts between the cantons—Four millions of Austrian Protestants have long been in a difficult and precarious condition, which at one time seemed on the point of becoming more serious on account of the concordat concluded in 1855 between the holy sec and the Vienna government. This act assured a complete preponderance to the Catholic church, with immunities and extensive privileges, created a clerical censorship over publications of every kind, and established ecclesiastical tribunals, which in the case of mixed marriages were able to interfere in a way the most contrary to the rights of Protestants. Happily this concordat was scarcely concluded when it fell into abeyance; if it has never been positively abolished, neither has it ever been completely executed; at present it is almost a dead letter. On the other hand, the imperial patent of Sept. 1, 1859, relating to the Reformed and Lutheran churches in Hungary and its dependent lands, and that of April 10, 1861, concerning Protestants of the rest of the empire, have completed both the civil and religious emancipation of the Austrian Protestants.

—In Italy the civil emancipation of Protestants is also of recent date. Before 1848 only one of the states of the peninsula contained a Protestant population. About 20,000 Waldenses inhabited a few wild valleys of the Alps of Piedmont above Pignerol. Long persecuted, they were at once put in possession of all their civil rights by the French administration, when Napoleon I. united Piedmont to his empire. Since 1814 they have endured an exceptional régime, which closed every liberal career to them and access to public offices. They were finally emancipated in 1848, and given the rights previously refused. At this epoch liberty of conscience existed nowhere else in Italy. Edition: current; Page: [76] The state recognized Protestants only far enough to bring them before tribunals, and there could be no question of civil rights for them. But since the revolutions which have conferred on Italy unity under the government of Victor Emmanuel, in several cities, Milan, Florence, Pisa, Naples, and even in Rome, Protestant communities have been organized, whose members enjoy all the civil and political rights or citizens.

—The situation in Spain is the same. There is a small number of native Protestants in that country, in addition to the congregations composed of foreigners. The law has long condemned their religions meetings and sentenced their members to the severest penalties, but the last revolution put an end to these shameful practices. The constitution of June 1, 1869, which did away with the state religion, declared simply (article 21) that the nation undertakes to maintain the church and the ministers of the Catholic religion, and this constitution establishes, though in indirect terms, the liberty and equality of churches. It guaranteed to strangers (same article) the public or private exercise of their religion, without any limitation but the universal rules of morality and legality, and adds that if a Spaniard professes another religion than the Catholic the preceding rules shall apply to him—Turkey is in advance of Spain. It is known tat in that country each religious community, each nation, Greeks, Armenians, Catholics, govern themselves and administer their own affairs. A considerable number of Armenians (3,000) having embraced Protestantism, found themselves in the most difficult position since 1830. Their former co-religionists rejected them, they were no longer connected with any religion recognized by the state, and were thus without a legal existence, without any rights, without that even of carrying on their occupations. In 1850 an imperial firman put an end to this state of things, and conferred on the Protestant church a legal existence. Since that time the members enjoy all the rights belonging to the other Christian communities of the empire. (See ABOLITION, EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION.)



EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, The (IN U. S. HISTORY)The war against the rebellion of 1861 was for nearly eighteen months confined carefully to operations against the armed forces in the field, not against slavery. (See ABOLITION, III.; REBELLION.) During most of this time Pres. Lincoln listened apparently unmoved to importunate demands from extreme abolitionists in all parts of the north for a declaration against slavery. He declared that his paramount object was the maintenance of the Union; that if he could save the Union without freeing any slave, he would do it; that if he could save it by freeing all the slaves, he would do it; and that if he could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, he would do that. It was not until the summer of 1862 that he finally decided that the time had come for striking at slavery. Sept. 22, 1862, without any previous general intimation of his purpose, he issued a preliminary proclamation, warning the inhabitants of the revolted states that, unless they should return to their allegiance before the first day of January following, he would declare their slaves free men and maintain their freedom by means of the armed forces of the United States. This proclamation had no effect, and indeed was hardly expected to have any effect, in bringing back individuals or states to the control of the federal government. A retaliatory proclamation was issued by Pres. Davis, Dec. 23, 1862 ordering the hanging of General Benjamin F. Butler, if captured and the transfer of negro federal soldiers and their white officers to the authorities of the states for punishment.

—The emancipation proclamation proper was issued Jan. 1, 1863. It recited the substance of the preliminary proclamation, in which he had promised to "designate the states and parts of states, if any, in which the people thereof should be in rebellion against the United States," and in which alone emancipation was to take effect; they included all the states which had seceded (see SECESSION). with the exception of the forty-eight counties of Virginia now known as West Virginia, seven other counties of Virginia (including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth) and thirteen parishes of Louisiana including the city of New Orleans). The excepted parts were, "for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued"; as to the district still in rebellion, the proclamation ordered and declared "that all persons held as slaves within said designated states and parts of states are and henceforward shall be free; and that the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons." It enjoined upon the freedmen the duty of abstaining from all violence except in self-defense, and declared that those of their number who were of suitable condition would be received into the military and naval service of the United States. It concluded as follows: "and upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God."

—The validity of such a proclamation is hardly to be seriously questioned, and never would have been questioned but for the natural revulsion from so searching an application of the laws of war in a country which had hitherto enjoyed an almost entire exemption from actual warfare. Its authority is well expressed in its preamble; it was issued by Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States; not by virtue of any powers directly entrusted by the constitution to the presidential office, but "by virtue of the power in him vested as commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and Edition: current; Page: [77] government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion." It must be remembered that the powers of the president as commander-in-chief, subject to the laws of war as recognized by all civilized nations, are distinctly recognized by the constitution; that these powers are brought to life and action by the existence of defensive war or by the exercise of congress of its power to declare war, and are controlled by congress through its action in furnishing or refusing troops and supplies to the commander-in-chief; and that the emancipation proclamation and other war measures are therefore as much the work of the representatives of the people in congress assembled as of their executive officer, the commander-in-chief. (See WAR POWERS.) Among the powers of a commander-in-chief, when governing conquered soil under military occupation, is that of freeing the slaves of the inhabitants. It may even be exercised, subject to the approval of the commander-in-chief, by subordinate commanders. (See ABOLITION, III.) So long, then, as the constitution vests the president in time of war with the powers of a "commander-in-chief," and permits congress to call those powers into life and activity by declaring war, it is hardly necessary to defend the validity of the emancipation proclamation.

—The effect of the proclamation, however, in the absolute abolition of slavery, is a different and more doubtful question; it has been warmly asserted that it had no effect whatever, and theoretically the case against it is very strong. The singular feature of the proclamation is that it purports to free the slaves, not of the soil which was then under military occupation, but of that which was not under occupation, and which, therefore, did not come under the jurisdiction of the president as commander-in-chief. Those portions of Virginia and Louisiana which had been conquered by the forces of the United States, and were under military occupation at the time, were expressly excepted from the operation of the proclamation; and in the states designated for the operation of the proclamation Mr. Lincoln had no constitutional power as president and no physical power as commander-in-chief, to free a single slave. It seems to be apparent, then, that the proclamation had, eo instante, no effect whatever, if we follow its own terms, and that the slaves in the designated states and parts of states were no more free Jan. 2, 1863, than Dec 31, 1862.

—The objection, however, may be obviated if we consider the proclamation as one whose accomplishment was to be effected progressively, not instantaneously, taking effect in future as rapidly as the federal lines advanced. It would then be, as its author doubtless designed it to be, a general rule of conduct for the guidance of subordinate officers in the armed forces of the United States, a conciliation of a large portion of the inhabitants of the hostile territory by interesting them in the success of the federal arms, and an announcement to the world that, without further formal notice, each fresh conquest by the federal armies would at once become free soil. The question whether slavery was abolished by the proclamation or by the 13th amendment has never been directly before the supreme court for decision, but instructive reference to it will be found in the cases in Wallace's Reports cited below. The only cases which hold that slavery was abolished by the proclamation, and instantly, are those in Louisiana and Alabama cited below. (See ABOLITION. III: SLAVERY.)

—The political results of the proclamation are almost beyond calculation and can only be summed up briefly. 1. Foreign mediation by armed force, which had been an important possible factor while the struggle was merely one between a federal union and its rebellious members, passed out of sight forever as soon as ultimate national success was authoritatively defined as necessarily involving the destruction of slavery: from that time any effort by the governments of France and Great Britain to force the government of the United States to recognize the confederate states as a separate slaveholding nation, would have excited the horror and active opposition of a very large and influential portion of their own subjects. 2. In the north it alienated all the weak or doubtful members of the republican party, and made it a compact, homogeneous organization, with well-defined objects, and with sinews toughened to meet the novel and important questions which followed final success. (See RECONSTRUCTION.) The defeats of the administration in the state elections of 1862-3 were the training school in which the party attained the extraordinary cohesiveness which carried it unbroken through the struggle between congress and Pres. Johnson. 3. In the south the fact that such a proclamation was possible, without exciting any greater opposition in the north, seems to have revealed to many thinking men the enormous extent of the political blunder of secession. But three years before, John Brown had been hanged by the state of Virginia, and the north had looked on with general indifference or approbation; now, the promulgation of this proclamation met either with the vehement approval of the dominant party in the north, or with such feeble symptoms of opposition as the resignations of a few subordinate army officers, or the falling off of a small percentage in the republican vote. From this time there was a steady increase in the number of those in the south who fought with the energy of despair, instead of the high self confidence with which they had entered the conflict, and who felt that the leaders, by prolonging the struggle, were only fanning to a hotter flame that most powerful, though sluggish, political force, the wrath of a republic. "See 2 Greeley's American Conflict, 249; Appleton's Annual Cyclopædia, 1863, 834; 2 A. H. Stephens' War between the States, 550; Harris' Political Conflict in America, 833; Pollard's Life of Davis, 477; Schucker's Life of S. P. Chase, 441. 453: McPherson's History of the Rebellion, 220, North American Review, Edition: current; Page: [78] February and August, 1880; authorities under ABOLITION, WAR POWERS, and REBELLION. The text of the two proclamations is in 12 Stat. at Large. 1267, 1268. See also 13 Wallace's Reports, 654; 16 Wallace's Reports, 68; 18 Wallace's Reports, 546; 92 U. S. Reports, 542; 20 La. Ann. Reports, 199; 43 Ala. Reports, 592.



EMBARGO, ANGARIA, ARRÊT DE PRINCE. These three terms designate three different measures which the government of a country may take toward merchant vessels, whether they belong to its own subjects or to the subjects of foreign nations. These measures have this in common, that they are impediments in the way of freedom of commerce. They present certain differences, which the best authorities, such as Vinnius ad Peckium, De Nav. non excus.; Stypmannus, Ad Jus maritimum, part v, chap. i., 4. 32: Loccenius, De Jure marit.; Targa, Dé Ponderazione maritimme; Galiani, De Doveri de Principi neutrali, have not sufficiently set forth—Embargo is the act of the sovereign power in a country of detaining in its ports in time of war, or even in peace in the anticipation of war, or as a reprisal measure, the ships of subjects, of friends or enemies, of natives or foreigners, together with their cargoes, and of preventing their departure for a longer or shorter time, but without exacting any active service from them.

—The usual object of an embargo is to throw an obstacle in the way of the divulgation of facts which it is to the interest of the power laying the embargo to keep secret, such as preparations for an expedition, a revolt, or the death of a prince or sovereign. Justice and the rights of nations, in accordance with which each is completely independent of all others, can not approve such measures. Hence, a great number of treaties contain stipulations guaranteeing the ships of the nations signing them from embargo. History show that these stipulations have not always been respected. In the wars of the Crimea, of Italy, of 1866, and of 1870-71, European governments did not have recourse to the measure of embargo. Far from laying an embargo upon the ships of the enemy, they allowed them all necessary time to return to their own country. An embargo is sometimes laid before the declaration of war; it is a forerunner of the rupture between two nations. If matters are amicably arranged between the parties, the embargo is raised.

—Embargo does not occasion neutral parties as much damage as does angaria; it causes detention, but does not force the ships on which it is laid into active service and the dangers which accompany it; hence it is not the custom to indemnify their owners.

—The two most recent examples of embargo are that laid by England, on Jan. 14, 1801, upon the Danish, Swedish and Russian ships which were in the ports of Great Britain, and which was only ended by the maritime convention of 1801; and that by France upon Dutch vessels, Nov.7, 1832, which was raised after the capture of the citadel of Antwerp.

—It is customary to stipulate in modern treaties for certain conditions to assure the subjects of the contracting powers established in the country of the other power sufficient time to enable them to leave and to remove the goods which belong to them.

—Angaria, service or labor exacted against one's will,) is the making of a requisition, by a belligerent, of the foreign vessels it its ports or roads, and imposing on them, paying them a remuneration, which detracts in no wise from the arbitrary character of the measure, certain services of war, such as transportation of troops, arms and ammunition, in spite of their rights of neutrality. Angaria imposes an active service upon the vessels on which it is laid; embargo, on the contrary, imposes no active service. Angaria affects all ships which happen to be in a port or road; embargo ordinarily only those of a single nation; it is often in the nature of a reprisal. Very like angaria is the act by which the Prussain government, in the war of 1870-71, scuttled six English merchantmen, which were stationed in the lower Seine. The Prussian government, however, soon took pains to acknowledge that an indemnity was due from it to the proprietors fo these vessels.


—Some modern authors, in the first rank of which may be cited Hautefeuille, Des Droits et des Devoirs des Nations neutres, 2d ed., vol. iii., p. 415, etc., justly inveigh against the doctrines of the publicists of the last century and the early part of the nineteenth, who wished to legitimatize embargo and angaris, by considering them as a law, or as a consequence of the law of legitimate defense, etc. Custom, it is true, has for a long time authorized the practice; but the illegality of such measures is too evident and too contrary to the ideas of justice and morality to survive. It is one of the incontestable rights of sovereignty either to permit or refuse entry to a port, and the power of carrying on commerce there; but the vessel once admitted to sojourn and trade there, it is an arbitrary act to impose any service upon it, such as is authorized by angaria. There does not exist a treaty, a single international act, by which belligerents are authorized to violate the neutrality of ships stationed in their ports. So far from that, in the case of angaria, as in that of embargo, many international conventions stipulate that the ships belonging to the contracting powers shall not be seized. Angaria "is less the exercise of a right than the abuse of power."

—Is the neutral ship impressed by angaria exempt from confiscation if it happens to be taken by the enemy? Hübner, De la Saisie des Bátiments neutres, vol. i., chap. vii., §2, decides this question in the affirmative; but his opinion can not be justified. The captor could not be expected to seek out the causes which have changed a neutral vessel into an enemy's vessel; and the ship taken under these conditions is evidently a fair prize.—"Arrêt de prince" must not be confounded with either embargo or angaria. It consists, Edition: current; Page: [79] although peace may be in no danger, in seizing on the plea of public necessity, a ship, whether it is still at anchor in port or has set out to sea and in the latter case interrupting a voyage already begun. It is a species of angaria in time of peace. An arrêt de prince may proceed from the government of the seized ships, or from a foreign government. In the case of arrêt de prince, the seized vessel is yielded up to its owners, or its value and that of its cargo is paid; whereas embargo terminates almost always in the confiscation of the enemy's property.



EMBARGO (IN U. S. HISTORY), a prohibition of commerce by nation al authority, which was laid in various forms and at various times from 1794 until 1815. In case of a general embargo American vessels were forbidden to leave port, foreign vessels were required to sail in ballast, or with only such cargo as they had on board at the passage of the act, and coasting vessels were required to give bonds to land their cargoes in American ports only. An embargo aimed at a particular nation was a modification known as a non-intercourse law.

—The possibility of such a suspension of commerce was certainly considered by the convention of 1787 in framing the constitution. Madison, in discussing the power to tax exports, Aug. 21, 1787, spoke as follows: "An embargo may be of absolute necessity, and can only be effectuated by the general authority."

—I. ORDERS IN COUNCIL. The opening of the French revolution, the abolition of all feudal taxes, honors and immunities, the emigration of those nobles not in sympathy with the new régime, and the practical dethronement of the king, were followed, in April, 1792 by a declaration of war by the French republic against Austria and Prussia, whose troops were drawing menacingly near the French boundaries, and whose soil was permitted to be a basis of operations for hostile emigrés. Nov. 15, 1792, the French national convention declared its hostility to any people which should maintain a prince or a privileged order, and four days afterward the same authority offered assistance to every people desirous of recovering liberty. Feb. 3, 1793, the French republic declared war against Great Britain and Holland, and before the end of the year France "had but one enemy, and that was Europe." By land the French arms were steadily successful; by sea, in spite of every public and private exertion in France, Great Britain maintained her accustomed superiority. The rule that "he who is not with us is against us" became the only international law thoroughly respected in Europe, and the steady determination of both the great belligerents, to enforce the rule upon the western continent also is the key to most of the difficulties of the United States during the next twenty years.

—A French agent (see GENET, CITIZEN.) was at once sent to the United States to rouse popular enthusiasm there, and thus compel the government to engage in the war as an active or passive ally of France. May 9, 1793, in direct violation of the treaty of 1778 between France and the United States, the national convention authorized French ships of war and privateers to stop and bring into French ports all neutral vessels loaded with "eatables" or with enemy's goods, which latter were declared good prize. The representations of Morris, the American minister, only obtained a temporary and delusive suspension of the order. June 8, 1793. Great Britain, by orders in council to her navy, directed neutral vessels bound for France with breadstuffs to be seized and brought into British ports, where the cargoes were to be paid for by the government or bonded to be landed in countries at peace with Great Britain.

—Another grievance, closely connected with the general embargo system, was the vexatious right of search and impressment claimed and exercised by British national vessels. American vessels were liable at any moment to be stopped, searched, and deprived of the services of any seamen whom a British lieutenant, backed by a file of marines, might decide to be Englishmen. Great Britain had always persistently denied the right of expatriation and change of allegiance by naturalization, and, now that she was engaged in a life or death struggle with France, she claimed the services on shipboard of all her maritime citizens, at home or abroad, no matter what ceremonies of naturalization, unrecognized by English laws, they might have undergone in any foreign country. Of course, under color of natural resemblance to Englishmen, many native-born Americans were thus forced into the British navy. The right of expatriation was at that time acknowledged by hardly any nation except the United States; but, even in the case of naturalized citizens, the right of search and impressment, vexatious enough in itself, was aggravated by the rigorous and merciless manner of its exercise by British officers of all grades, unrestrained by any probability of the disapprobation of their own government.

—Many of the American politicians who had taken part in the war of the revolution retained a firm faith in the efficacy of restrictions upon British commerce as a means of compelling justice from Great Britain (see REVOLUTION), and Madison introduced into congress, Jan. 4, 1794, a series of resolutions for the imposition of prohibitory duties upon importations from Great Britain. These resolutions, though not finally adopted, laid the foundations of the "restrictive system," which was steadily followed out by the republican party until at culminated in the war of 1812. The republican leaders in 1794, Madison, Nicholas and Giles, admitted that "our trade with Great Britain was one-half our whole commerce, while Great Britain's trade with us was but one-sixth of hers," but they insisted that the exports from the United States were essentials, while the imports were luxuries, and that an embargo, or temporary Edition: current; Page: [80] stoppage of trade, would bear but lightly upon the United States, while it would promptly bring Great Britain to hear reason. While the debates were in progress news was received of a supplementary order in council, which was dated Nov. 6, 1793, but had been kept so secret at first that the American minister was unable to obtain a copy until Dec. 25. By this order neutral ships trading with French colonies were to be seized and brought in for adjudication. The news of this order, which annihilated a profitable commerce at a blow, produced great excitement in the United States, and an embargo, the first of its kind, was laid, March 26, 1794, for thirty days, and soon afterward increased to sixty days. This had hardly been done when news was received of a modifying order in council, dated Jan. 8, 1794, restricting seizures to vessels bound directly for France from her colonies, or carrying goods belonging to Frenchmen. This modification could have had no possible connection with the embargo and yet the receipt of the news so soon after the laying of the embargo seems to have unreasonably strengthened the popular faith in the efficacy of this substitute for war with Great Britain. The embargo act was allowed to expire at the end of its limitation of sixty days, but, by the act of June 4, the president was empowered generally to lay an embargo at any time during the recess of congress until November.

—In the meantime (see JAY'S TREATY) the president had sent chief Justice Jay as minister to Great Britain to obtain redress of all the grievances alleged against that country, and, pending the results of his mission, debate on neutral rights was dropped during the next session of congress, 1794-5. Jay's treaty of Nov. 19, 1794, however objectionable in other points, as in its yielding the rights of search and impressment, at least secured some safeguards for neutral trade Claims for damages for illegal seizures by British cruisers were to be passed upon by commissioners of arbitration; the seizure of an enemy's goods in a neutral vessel was not to forfeit the whole cargo; and provisions, when taken under peculiar necessity, were to be paid for at their full value. These points in the treaty gave comparative security to American commerce while it remained in force, and for the next ten years the restrictive system was dropped. During the troubles with France (see X. Y. Z. MISSION), the act of June 12, 1798, prohibited commercial intercourse with France or her colonies. This, however, was not an embargo, in the Jeffersonian sense of the term, but a preparation for war.

—The articles in Jay's treaty, which related to neutral commerce, expired by limitation at the end of twelve years. The state of affairs at their expiration was even more unfortunate for the United States than in 1794. In 1805 almost the whole civilized world had been drawn into the whirlpool of the successive wars between Napoleon and Great Britain. Sweden, Denmark, the Hanse towns and the United States were the only neutral maritime powers, and were growing rich so rapidly by their almost complete absorption of the carrying trade that their prosperity was a constant eye-sore to British merchants and a temptation to belligerent cruisers. Commerce between France, Spain, Holland and their respective colonies, was carried on in great volume by American vessels, a landing having been formally made in the United States, in order to separate the voyages from the colony and to the mother country. The king's advocate general, in March, 1801, had acknowledged to Rufus King, the American minister to Great Britain, that "landing the goods and paying the duties in the neutral country breaks the continuity of the voyage and legalizes the trade between the mother country and the colony." This was a relaxation of the "rule of 1756," so called from its official promulgation in that year, though it had been practically enforced for twelve years previous. In its full vigor the rule of 1756 prohibited all trade by neutrals with the colonies of an enemy, and allowed British cruisers to capture all neutral vessels engaged in any such trade; the reasons for it were, in brief, that no mother country allowed such trade with its colonies in peace, and that in time of war such a trade was really an interposition in the war by the neutral, and the giving of aid to one of the belligerents.

—In May, 1805, the British court of appeals, in the case of the American vessel Essex, suddenly reversed the former line of decisions, and held that transhipment in a neutral country, if evidently fraudulent, did not break the continuity of the voyage, but left the neutral vessel liable to capture and condemnation. This decision was a signal for a general attack on neutral commerce by British armed vessels, public and private, and in the United States it at once brought the restrictive system to the surface again. April 18, 1806, after a debate of two months, a "non-importation act" was passed, which prohibited, after the following November, the importation of certain specified articles, the productions of Great Britain and her colonies. This measure seems to have been designed to strengthen the hands of William Pinkney and James Monroe, who were appointed in April joint ministers to Great Britain no negotiate a new treaty to succeed those parts of Jay's treaty which were to expire with this year. Dec. 19, 1806, the non-importation act was suspended until July 1, 1807.

—Monroe and Pinkney concluded a treaty Dec. 31, 1806, which confirmed the unexpired articles of Jay's treaty, secured the indirect neutral trade between a belligerent and its colonies by a landing in the neutral country, and exempted provisions from the list of contraband. It again yielded the rights of search and impressment, upon a verbal assurance that they would be exercised only under extraordinary circumstances; and for this reason President Jefferson declined to submit the treaty to the senate for confirmation, and ordered a continuance Edition: current; Page: [81] of the negotiation. This decision, not so much in itself as in the refusal to back it by the instant and industrious preparation of a strong naval force, laid the foundation for most of the difficulties of the following eight years. It confirmed the bent of the dominant party in the United States against the formation of a navy (see DEMOCRATIC PARTY, II., III.; GUNBOATSYSTEM), and it furnished fresh reasons and excuses for the growing anti-neutral disposition of the British government, which was not in the habit of paying any great attention to the remonstrances of arguments of a defenseless nation.

—May 16, 1806, the British government, by proclamation, declared a blockade of the coast of Germany, Holland and France, from Brest to the Elbe, a distance of about 800 miles. Against warfare of this kind Napoleon was powerless; the British islands were entirely beyond his reach, and there was no way to prevent the isolation of his European empire by the British fleets unless he could furnish those fleets with active occupation in some other quarter of the world. From this time, therefore, his consistent design seems to have been to irritate the British government into fresh exhibitions of anti-neutral temper by extraordinary reprisals of his own, in order thus to force the United States at last to assume the burden of a naval warfare against Great Britain, while he should monopolize the glory and profit of the campaigns on land. The game was entertaining to the toreador, and probably to the bull also, but the United States certainly paid the expenses of the entertainment.

—Nov. 21, 1806, after the battle of Jena, Napoleon issued his Berlin decree, in which he, who hardly possessed a vessel of war in blue water, assumed to blockade the British islands. The decree also ordered the seizure of all English property, persons and letters found on the continent. The whole decree, which began the so-called "continental system" of Napoleon, was alleged to be in retaliation for the English abuse of the right of blockade. During the ensuing year, according to Mr. Baring and the American minister to France, General Armstrong, no condemnations took place under the Berlin decree. It served its purpose better by drawing out the British orders in council of Nov. 11, 1807. This extraordinary document totally prohibited any direct trade from the United States to any port or country of Europe from which the British flag was excluded; it allowed direct trade, in American produce only, between the United States and Sweden; it ordered all articles of domestic or colonial production, exported by the United States to Europe, to be landed in England, whence their re-exportation, on paying duties, would be permitted and regulated; and it declared any vessel and cargo good prize if it carried a French consular certificate of the origin of the cargo. Napoleon retorted by the Milan decree, Dec. 7, 1807, in which he declared to be "denationalized" and good prize, whether found in continental ports or on the high seas, any vessel which should submit to search by a British vessel or should touch at or set sail for or from Great Britain or her colonies.

—With this, for a time, both parties paused, for neither could well do or say more. To quote Jefferson's subsequent expression. "England seemed to have become a den of pirates, and France a den of thieves." Both had helped to make neutrality ridiculous. By sea, a British fleet had lately, without declaring war, swooped on the Danish navy and carried it off to England, by land, a French army had lately converted Portugal from neutrality by arriving the royal family to Brazil. The United States and Sweden were the only civilized nations which were now permitted to enjoy a nominal neutrality; the latter was under the open protection of the fleets of Great Britain, and if the latest orders in council were to be submitted to, it was difficult to see, in the matter of foreign commerce, any great difference between the situation of the United States and that of any other British colony. Evidently, if the United States were to maintain rank as an independent nation, some measures of protection to their foreign commerce were imperatively demanded. The dominant party, however, was still opposed to a naval war, and Jefferson, who alone could have controlled his party, was silent; the result was a four years' effort to coerce Great Britain by the restrictive system, ending in the war of 1812.

—II.THE EMBARGO. When congress met in October, 1807, (see CONGRESS, SESSIONS OF). the exercise of the right of impressment by British officers had become almost intolerable. The number of Americans impressed was afterward officially reported by the state department as 4,579 for the period March 11, 1803 - Sept 30, 1810, omitting the time from Sept. 1, 1804, until March 31, 1806, for which the records did not account. Of this number of 1,361 were released. No estimate can be made of the number of impressments never reported to a state department where no redress could be hoped for; but the muster-books of H. B. M. ships Moselle and Sappho, captured in the packet Swallow by Commodore Rodgers in 1813, showed that one-eighth of their crews were Americans; and in another ship, the Ceres, the proportion was one-third, if we may trust the affidavits of released sailors. June 22, 1807, the British frigate Leopard had taken four men out of the United States frigate Chesapeake, after a shamefully feeble resistance. Oct. 19, 1807, the British government by proclamation had called upon all its maritime subjects serving in foreign ships to return to the service of their own country, and had directed its cruisers to enforce their return.

—The proclamation, and the retaliatory orders and decrees of the great belligerents, as far as they had been received, were communicated to congress by President Jefferson in a special message of Dec. 16, as indicating the great and increasing dangers to American commerce, with the suggestion that an "inhibition of foreign commerce" would be of Edition: current; Page: [82] advantage. The act known as "The Embargo" was at once introduced. It was passed after midnight of Dec. 21, after a consideration of four hours in the senate and three days in the house, and became law Dec. 22. A supplementary act of Jan. 9, 1808, provided that coasting vessels should not be allowed to go out without bonds to reland the cargo in some other port of the United States, and that foreign vessels should take out no specie or other cargo, except necessary sea stores. Another act, March 12, 1808, gave the executive authority to grant permission to send vessels to foreign ports to bring home American property, but this was repealed Jan.9, 1809.

—For a time the traditional belief in the efficacy of an embargo induced a sullen submission to it even by those upon whom it bore hardest, and it was formally approved by most of the state legislatures of the republican states. Within six months a great change had taken place. The suspension which the infant commerce of the United States had found tolerable for sixty days in 1794 was intolerable in 1808 to a commerce which had for fifteen years been fattening upon a dangerous but profitable neutrality. The exports, domestic and foreign, from the United States, which had risen from $20, 753, 098 in 1792 to $110,084,207 in 1807, fell in 1808 to $22,430,960. The change was too sudden; it injured not commerce alone, but every interest except domestic manufactures, and in May and June, 1808, Jefferson was constrained to admit that, unless Great Britain should speedily yield the principle of her orders in council, the embargo must be exchanged for open war. It was found that the embargo was quite satisfactory to both France and Great Britain. Napoleon praised it warmly, and even presumed to enforce it by the Bayonne decree, April 17, 1808, which ordered the seizure and sale of American vessels which should arrive in his ports in violation of it. Its surrender of the carrying trade to British merchants, and the consequent transfer of American Capital to Canada and Nova Scotia, were equally pleasing to great Britain.

—In the New England states, in which the remnants of the federal party were now concentrated, the embargo was believed to be unconstitutional, and was so decided by some of the state courts. The ground assigned was, that the unlimited suspension of the embargo was an annihilation of commerce; and was therefore a usurpation of power by congress, which was only authorized by the constitution to regulate commerce; the real reason was evidently the belief that the fundamental basis of the constitution had been violated by a factious and sectional combination of agricultural representatives for the passage of the embargo, which, though it ruined federalist New England, would save the rest of the Union the expense of war. It was therefore increasingly difficult to enforce the embargo in New England. The state legislatures, taking the ground of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions, "intervened" for the protection of their citizens by resolutions expressive of their emphatic condemnation of the embargo. Thus countenanced and emboldened, state judges took an attitude consistently hostile to the embargo, and the federal courts in New England seldom succeeded in finding juries which would convict even for the most flagrant violations of its provisions. Smugglers crossed and recrossed the Canada border almost in organized armies, and defied federal marshals; and, to encourage sea smuggling, an order in council of April 11, 1808, forbade interference by British cruisers with American vessels bound to British colonies, though without clearances. A supplementary embargo act of April 25, 1808, therefore, placed lake, river and bay commerce in the same category as sea-going vessels, and allowed the seizure of any merchandise which should in any way excite the suspicious of the collectors.

—The second session of the 10th congress, which met Nov. 7, 1808, was at first obstinate in its support of the restrictive system. Resolutions to repeal the embargo were voted down by heavier majorities than at the first session, and on Jan. 9, 1809, an enforcing act was passed. By its terms any act done with intent to evade the embargo in any way worked a forfeiture of ship, boat or vehicle and cargo or contents, besides a fine of four times the value of both: collectors were to seize all goods "apparently on their way" to a foreign country; bonds were increased to six times the value of vessel and cargo; and absolute authority to prohibit departure, even when full bonds should be filed, was given to the collectors or the president. The act was published in mourning columns by the federalist newspapers in New England, with the motto "Liberty is dead!" Many collectors resigned, and seizures by others were met by the owners of the goods with suits for damages in state courts. Even in the United States senate a federalist declaration was made that the people were not bound to submit to the embargo act and would not submit to it, and that blood would flow in the attempt to enforce it. In February, 1809, John Quincy Adams, who had resigned his seat in the senate because his support of the embargo was disapproved by his state legislature, gave Jefferson and the other republican leaders an alarming account of the feeling in New England. He stated that the Federalist leaders had now finally decided to break the embargo, that if the federal government should attempt to use force the New England states would temporarily or permanently withdraw from the Union, and that unofficial negotiations had already been opened for British assistance. A sudden panic, attributable either to the statements of Adams, to those of Joseph Story, then a republican congressman from Massachusetts, or to both, seized the majority in congress, and a house resolution was passed, Feb. 3. fixing March 4 for the termination of the embargo. (See KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS; SECESSION; STATE SOVEREIGNTY; ESSEX JUNTO, HENRY DOCUMENTS; CONVENTION, HARTFORD.)

—III. Edition: current; Page: [83] NON-INTERCOURSE SYSTEM. During the month of February the majority recovered in some measure from its panic, and passed, March 1, 1809, the so-called non-intercourse law, to take the place of both the non-importation act and the embargo. It was to continue until the end of the next session, but was revived and continued by the acts of June 28, 1809, May 1, 1810, and March 2, 1811. It forbade the entrance to American ports of public or private British or French vessels, all commercial intercourse with France or Great Britain, and the importation, after May 20, of goods grown or manufactured in France, Great Britain, or their colonies. Its eleventh section was as follows: "That the president of the United States be, and he hereby is authorized, in case either France or Great Britain shall so revoke or modify her edicts as that they shall cease to violate the neutral commerce of the United States, to declare the same by proclamation; after which the trade of the United States, suspended by this act, and by the act laying an embargo on all ships and vessels in the ports and harbors of the United States, and the several acts supplementary thereto, may be renewed with the nation so doing". The coasting trade was thus set free, and the trade to other countries than France and Great Britain was allowed, but any naval protection to it was still denied.

—From the end of November, 1808, D. M. Erskine, the British minister at Washington, had satisfied himself, by repeated interviews with Jefferson's cabinet, and particularly with Madison, that they were disposed to deal fairly with Great Britain. On his report, the British foreign office instructed him, Jan. 28, 1809, to withdraw the objectionable orders in council, on three conditions: 1, that all non-intercourse and non-importation acts should be revoked as to Great Britain, and left in force as to France until France should revoke her edicts; 2, that the United States should abandon the trade with French colonies, which was not lawful even in peace, according to the rule of 1756; and 3, that American vessels violating the last condition should be liable to seizure by British vessels. To the first point the American negotiators agreed; the second, they said, rested with congress, but would be completely covered by the non-intercourse law, as applied to France; and the third was unnecessary, as no American shipowner could complain of such a seizure without a confession that he had violated the non-intercourse law. Accepting these explanations, Erskine exchanged three pairs of formal notes, April 17, 18 and 19, withdrawing the orders in council; and President Madison, who had been inaugurated March 4, issued a proclamation, April 19, permitting the full renewal of trade with Great Britain after June 10. As this result placed the United States in just the same position as before the embargo, without any recall of the rights of search and imprisonment, and with the "rule of 1756" as to colonial trade still in force, the general satisfaction over the "Erskine arrangement" was a decided evidence of the lack of success of the restrictive system. But the satisfaction soon disappeared on the receipt of news that the British government had recalled Erskine in disgrace and repudiated his agreement as made in contravention of his express instructions. By proclamation of Aug. 9, 1809, the president therefore re-established the non-intercourse law as against Great Britain. The whole difficulty was ascribed by the federalists to the president's trickiness in taking advantage of the youth and inexperience of Erskine, and the same assertion was repeated in substance by Erskine's successor, Jackson, until the secretary of state refused to hold further communication with him.

—During the whole period from 1800 until 1812 there is an unusual dearth of private correspondence or other similar materials for forming a judgment of the motives of the democratic leaders. They have been charged with subservience to French policy, but their course with Erskine seems to go far to acquit them of a design to subserve any other interests than those of the United States. It is certain that the Erskine arrangement would not have received from accomplices of France the eager welcome which was given to it by Madison and his cabinet. Napoleon was so far from considering the non-intercourse law, even in its first form of application to both belligerents, as offensive to Great Britain or beneficial to France, that he made it the ground of his Rambouillet decree, March 23, 1810, by which 132 American vessels, valued at $8,000,000, which had entered the ports of France or her allies, that is, nearly all the continent, since May 20, 1809, were condemned and sold. The democratic leaders seem to have been the victims, principally, of their own ignorance, and Napoleon's perception, of the naval powers of the United States.

—IV FAILURE OF THE RESTRICTIVE SYSTEM. In January, 1810, Napoleon informed the American minister that the repeal of his various decrees was dependent on the withdrawal by Great Britain of her "paper blockade" of the continent. Toward the end of this session of congress, May 1, 1810, congress passed a new bill to take the place of the non-intercourse act, which was to expire with the session. This bill, while excluding both French and British ships of war from American harbors, left commerce entirely unrestricted, but with the proviso that, if at any time before March 3, 1811, either belligerent should withdraw its objectionable measures, and the other should fall to do so within three months, the president by proclamation should restore the non-intercourse act as to the delinquent power. This act was the first step to the war of 1812. In passing it congress had set a trap for itself, which Napoleon hastened to bait. Aug. 5,he informed the American minister that his decrees were revoked, and would cease to be in effect after Nov. 1, following, "it being understood that the English shall revoke their orders in council, or that the United States shall cause their rights to be respected by the English." The president, Nov. 2, issued a proclamation which accepted this as an absolute Edition: current; Page: [84] revocation, and Great Britain was summoned to imitate it. But, as the French emperor retained all the property confiscated under the Rambouillet decree, as the French prize courts refused to consider the decrees revoked, or to release vessels seized by virtue of them, and as Napoleon's continental system was enforced as rigidly as ever against both England and the United States, the British government refused to admit that any bona fide revocation and taken place. March 2, 1811, the non-intercourse act was revived, by statute, against Great Britain.

—Notwithstanding the long continuance of the restrictive system, the merchant marine under American colors was still large. Licenses to enter continental ports were freely sold by French consuls at high prices. In Great Britain 33,277 licenses to trade with the enemy were granted from 1802 until 1811, according to a statement in the house of commons, and the fraudulent assumption of American papers and colors was so common as to furnish one of the excuses for Napoleon's general seizures of American ships. In parliament Brougham read a circular from a Liverpool manufactory of forged American papers, the price of which was almost entitled to mention in the market reports. "Simulated papers and seals" were a matter of common newspaper advertisement, and in the courts of admiralty it was admitted that, "under present circumstances, it was necessary to wink at them."

—V. WAR. While the United States government had been endeavoring by diplomacy, by embargoes, by non-importation laws, and by non-intercourse laws, to obtain liberty for its commerce to exit; while its mendicant ambassadors had been besieging the French and British courts with expostulations and entreaties; while its merchantmen, unarmed and unprotected, had been seized with impunity to the number of over 1,500 (917 by England, 558 by France, 70 by Denmark, 47 by Naples, and an unreported number of Holland and Spain), the indignation of the people at large had been slowly gathering force until it was now past control. When the new congress met, Nov. 4, 1811, it was found that the federalists had but six senators and thirty-six representatives; that among the democrats most of the "submission men," who were anxious for peace at any price, had been defeated; and that the congress was emphatically a war congress. Its temper seems to have been equally a surprise to the democratic administration, which had grown gray in efforts to shift off war, and to the federalist leaders, who had declared that the government "could not be kicked into a war," and "had no more idea of declared that the government of the house committee on foreign relations sounded a note unusual in recent proceedings. It rehearsed the misdeeds of Great Britain in enslaving American seamen, and capturing every American vessel bound to or from any port at which her commerce was not favored; and declared that the time had come for choosing between tame submission, and resistance by all the means which God had placed within our reach. Preparations for war were at once begun. Between Dec. 24, 1811, and July 6, 1812, nineteen acts were passed, most of them for the increase of the army by the enlistment of 20,000 additional regulars and of 50,000 volunteers, and by drafting 1000,000 militia into the United States service. All this was for the invasion of Canada, which was the prime object of the war. The fact that the war was to be carried on by land rather than by sea was marked by the appropriations, which amounted to $12,000,000 for the army, and $3,000,000 for the navy. of the house committee on foreign relations sounded a note unusual in recent proceedings. It rehearsed the misdeeds of Great Britain in enslaving American seamen, and capturing every American vessel bound to or from any port at which her commerce was not favored; and declared that the time had come for choosing between tame submission, and resistance by all the means which God had placed within our reach. Preparations for war were at once begun. Between Dec. 24, 1811, and July 6, 1812, nineteen acts were passed, most of them for the increase of the army by the enlistment of 20,000 additional regulars and of 50,000 volunteers, and by drafting 1000,000 militia into the United States service. All this was for the invasion of Canada, which was the prime object of the war. The fact that the war was to be carried on by land rather than by sea was marked by the appropriations, which amounted to $12,000,000 for the army, and $3,000,000 for the navy. April 4, 1812, an embargo was laid for ninety days, an act announced by its supporters to be an act announced by its supporters to be an act preparatory to war. The president was brought to coincide with the majority (see CAUCUS, CONGRESSIONAL), and June 18, 1812, war was declared against Great Britain. (See CONVENTION, HART FORD.) June 23, the British orders in council were revoked, but the revocation was as delusive as the revocation of the French decrees had been, for it concluded with the proviso: "That nothing in this present order contained shall be understood to preclude H. R. H., the prince regent, if circumstances shall so require, from restoring, after reasonable notice, the orders of the seventh of January, 1807, and the twenty sixth of April 1809, or any part thereof, to their full effect, or from taking such other measures of retaliation against the enemy, as may appear to his royal highness to be just and necessary." On receipt of this news the British admiral, Warren, proposed a suspension of hostilities, but, as he refused to suspend the right of impressment, and as the revocation did not appear to be complete, the United States rejected the offer, and the war was prosecuted to an end (see WARS, III.) though the final peace did not secure any formal abandonment by Great Britain of the rights of search and impressment, of the "rule of 1756," or of the principle of the orders in council. At first American commerce suffered little more from actual war than it had done from the decrees and the orders in council. But the commerce from the New England states, which was encouraged by the British fleets as a means of obtaining fresh provisions, was irritating to the democratic leaders, who regarded it as an unpatriotic contribution to the support of the enemy. When it was found that the British blockade, as formally declared, May 27 and Nov. 4, 1813, extended only from Montauk point to the Mississippi, leaving the New England Coast free, the dominant party at once introduced a new embargo, Dec. 17, 1813, to continue until Jan. 1, 1815. It not only abolished foreign commerce, but imposed restrictions upon the consisting trade, which had, by collusive captures and ransoms, been made a means of commerce. April 14, 1814, this embargo was repealed, because of the downfall of Napoleon's "continental system" together with his empire.

—The restrictive system disappeared with the Edition: current; Page: [85] repeal of this last embargo. As a measure of offense the utility of an embargo was extremely doubtful at all times. Most historians have denied to it any utility whatever; but Brougham's speeches in parliament in 1812, and the affidavits and memorials of English merchants, ascribe to it, perhaps from motives of self-interest, a remarkable efficacy. Merchants and manufacturers of Manchester, Birmingham, Sheffield, Rochdale, and Leeds, in their testimony before the house of commons committee in 1812, pained a lively picture of the decrease of trade, the losses of owners, and the suffering of workmen, and charted the whole upon the American embargo. Their complaints extorted from an unwilling ministry the revocation of the orders in council before mentioned. The patent object of these order was to force the trade of the civilized world into British ports, that the duties paid upon them there might sustain the government in its long struggle with Napoleon, and only a real and general English distress could have forced a change in this policy.

—But, whatever may have been the success of the embargo in inflicting injury upon Great Britain, the American government, in enforcing it, was evidently bolding the blade of the sword and striking the enemy with the hilt. It had its origin in the unwillingness of the democratic members of congress, and their agricultural constituents of the south, west and western middle states, to endure the expense of a navy for the protection of foreign commerce. Its final abandonment was due to the discovery that foreign commerce was as necessary to agriculture as agriculture was to foreign commerce. One strong fleet would have been worth it dozen embargoes, but only experience could convince the non-commercial sections of the United States of the truth of this. As the market for breadstuffs, rice and cotton disappeared, the value of an embargo was less perceptible. But, even when it was repealed in 1809, the belief that Great Britain would "Copenhagenize" any American navy which might be formed was sufficient to deter the democratic leaders from anything bolder than non-intercourse laws, until the idea of invading Canada took root and blossomed into a declaration of war. The navy then approved its value at its first opportunity, and its victories put an end to the possibility of any future embargoes. (See UNITED STATES.)

—See, in general, 5 Elliot's Debates, 455; 5, 6 Hildreth's United States (and index); Dwigh's Hartford Convention; American Register, 1806-10; 3-5 Benton's Debates of Congress; 1, 4-6 Wait's American State Papers; 1 Statesman's Manual; 1,2 Stat. at Large. (1.) See 1 Fyffee's History of Modern Europe, 53; Hamilton's Letters of Pacificus, and other authorities under GENET, CITIZENS; 2 Sparks' Life of Gouverneur Morris, 319; 2 Pitkin's United States, 398; Baring's Orders in Council; W. B. Lawrence's Visitation and Search, 4: Trescott's Diplomatic History of the Administration of Washington and Adams, 91:1 Benton's Debates of Congress,458, 498; authorities under JAY's TREATY; 1 Lyman's Diplomacy of the United States, 224; Stephens' War in Disguise, 57;2 Tucker's Life of Jefferson, 2233; Dwight's Hartford Convention, 83: 4 Jefferson's Works (edit. 1829). 169. The act of March 26, 1764, is in 1 Stat. at Large, 400; the act of April 18, 1806, is in 2 Stat. at Large, 379. (II.) See authorities cited above, in general; 3 Benton's Debates of Congress, 640; 1 von Holst's United States, 200; 6 Hildreth's United States, 35; Carey's Olive Brach, 215; 1 Tucker's United States, 532, and 2: 307; Massachusetts Memorial and Remonstrance to Congress (1809); Memorial of W. E Channing; 2 Rives' Life of Madison, 383, 410;3 Randall's Life of Jefferson, 282; Quincy's Life of Quincy, 162; Clay's Private Correspondence, 46; 3 Webster's Works 327; Story's Life of J. Story, 185; 4 Benton's Debates of Congress, 9. The acts of Dec. 22, 1807, Jan. 9, March 12, and April 25, 1808, are in 2 Stat. at Large, 451, 453, 473, 499 respectively. (III) See (as to "Erskine arrangement") 6 Hildreth's United States, 168; Dwight's Hartford Convention, 101; Wait's American State Papers, (1808-9), 461. The acts of March 1 and June 28, 1809, May 1, 1810, and March 2, 1811, are in 2 Stat. at Large, 528, 550, 603, 651. (IV., V) See, of the works cited, under II. and III., Hildreth, von Holst, Benton, Rives, Quincy and Carey; 1 Ingersoll's Second War with Great Britain; 2 Calhoun's Works, 2; authorities under FEDERAL PARTY. II.; CONVENTION, HARTFORD; and CLINTON, DE WITT. The declaration of war is in 2 Stat. at Large,88.



EMIGRATION AND IMMIGRATION, converse expressions, denoting the act of removal from one country or state to another for the purpose of residence. The removal is called emigration with reference to the country left, and immigration with reference to the country entered. Migration, a more general term than either, implies simply a change of residence with regard to whence or whither. In this article, however, the term emigration will be used in its broadest sense as synonymous with either of the last, unless the context shows clearly that it is to be distinguished from them.

—HISTORY. Emigration has been the means by which the world has been populated and civilization extended. "It is the practical response which mankind have given in all ages to the command to 'multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it'; or, in other words, it is a necessary result of the increase of population within a limited though cherished space, and of the manifest destiny of our race to people and develop the world." The earliest and in many respects the most interesting emigrations were prehistoric. That in a period long antecedent to all written records, from some land in central Asia, horde after horde of emigrants issued forth in all directions, north, south, east and west, is amply proven by ethnological, archæcological Edition: current; Page: [86] and linguistic evidence. And whether we regard Asia as the original home of all the members of the human family or not, it is certain that the most important of those members, the Aryan stock, had its origin there. Issuing thence it had extended from the Ganges to Iceland long before we have any historic records. Its early history was that of all progressive nomadic peoples. Population soon outgrew the means of subsistence. Their immense herds demanded immense pastures, and forth they went, by hundreds and thousands and probably millions, to seek their fortunes elsewhere. The Celts swept over Europe, penetrating into every part of it, followed by the Germans, and these by the Slaves, while other families went in other directions.

—Of the Semitic nations the Jews particularly have wandered long and far. Their history begins with the command to Abram, "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will show thee." Abram took his nephew Lot with him, but even these two households were too large to dwell together in unity, and they soon separated. "This separation will always remain a strikingly natural and suggestive picture of the outward movement of society in its primitive elements. There was no want apparently of material resources. 'Is not the whole land before thee?' were the words of Abram; and Lot, lifting up his eyes, saw the plane of Jordan unoccupied and well watered. But there was strike among the servants, quarrels as to pasturings and waterings, with Canaanites and Perizzites dwelling in the land as an additional element of disorder. The kinsmen could not agree or adjust their rule; and separation would be judicious if not necessary. The narrative exhibits the influence of individualism on human affairs—on the affair of emigration as on others. In early times it was found difficult or impossible to make any important progress on the basis of social unity." From this time forward we have a connected and trustworthy account of the wanderings of the Jews. First to Egypt, then through the wilderness to Canaan, subsequently in the various captivities to Babylon and finally over the whole world, and through all time. For even now they are forced to emigrate from Russia or perish at the hands of raging mobs.

—The Greeks ascribed their civilization to immigrants from Phoenicia and Egypt, and it is tolerably certain that several distinct migrations into Greece had occurred before the nationalists took the form they had at the opening of the historic period. The Greeks in their migratory instincts resembled the modern Germanic races. Long before the historic era they had colonized the western coast of Asia Minor, and the islands of the Grecian archipelago. Trapezas on the farthest shores of the Black sea, Cyrene in Africa, and Massilia in Gaul, serve to show the vast extent of country throughout which they planted colonies. Greek emigration differed in many respects from modern emigration. It did not occur in straggling bands of adventurers who settled at different places along the coast, only uniting after a long time into a city or state. Nor was it toward highly civilized countries in whose population the Greeks disappeared, as the Germans in America. On the contrary, the Greek colonists formed from the beginning an organized political body. Their first care upon settling in their adopted country was to found a city and to erect in it those public buildings which were essential to the social and religious life of a Greek. Their colonies were established for the most part either in countries with a scanty population or whose inhabitants were in a decidedly lower state of civilization. The spot for the city was generally seized by force and the original inhabitants either driven out, made slaves, or reduced to the condition of subjects, sometimes, indeed, admitted to a share in the political rights of the new state. Civil dissensions and a redundant population were the two chief causes of the origin of the most Greek colonies. They were usually undertaken with the approbation of the cities from which they issued and under the direction of leaders appointed by them. Many of them became rich and powerful states within a short time, some of them far exceeding the mother states in wealth and power. The success of such colonies offered a constant inducement to the ambitious and energetic at home to follow the example of their predecessors, and thus Grecian institutions and civilization were carried to every part of the Mediterranean. The Phoenicians also were a colony planting people. They even dared to venture beyond the pillars of Hercules into the wide and open Atlantic, penetrating to Britain and the Baltic on the north and, it is supposed by some, around the cape of Good Hope on the south. Rome also planted colonies, but they were not colonies in the Grecian sense of the term. The Grecian colonist when he emigrated left home for good. He transferred his allegiance to the new state and made it the centre of his labor and hopes and aspirations. The colonists usually cherished a feeling of reverential respect for the mother country, which they evidenced by sending deputations to the principal festivals of the latter, and assigning to her ambassadors the places of honor on public occasions. They worshipped the same gods and kept the sacred fire burning which they had brought with them from the public hearth at home. But the colony was politically independent of the mother city and emancipated from its control, and although a war between them was looked upon as a violation of sacred ties, yet difficulties occasionally arose which resulted in bitter feuds and bloody contests. Very different was it with Roman colonies. These were rather military outposts, intended to strengthen Roman power and influence in conquered communities than colonies in the ordinary sense. The colonists retained generally their Roman citizenship, although they were obliged to go to Roman to Edition: current; Page: [87] exercise their right to vote. Rome adopted the plan of colonization at various times for the purpose of alleviating distress at home by removing large numbers of the proletary at once from the bounds of the city. The policy did not result in as permanent an improvement as was anticipated. The proletary increased in numbers more rapidly than the surplus could be absorbed by the foundation of new colonies.

—The last great wave of emigration which swept over western Europe was the one which buried forever the old Roman empire and its civilization. From the time of the invasion of the Cimbri and Teutons into Italy, Rome was constantly employed in keeping back the Germans who had begun to press in from the north along the whole boundary of the empire. Cæsar gives us a graphic description of the character and migratory habits of the Germans, which Tacitus repeats and enlarges in his "Germania." These barbarians poured in upon the Roman state from the north, sweeping all before them, and penetrated even into Africa, where they founded settlements. After the conquest of the ancient empire a new set of states grew up on its ruins, which were finally united into the Holy Roman empire of the German nation, out of which sprang up the modern nations of continental Europe. The later inroads of the Slavonic nations, of the Arabs, of the Hungarians, and of the Turks, respectively, were finally repulsed or checked and the last scene in that gigantic drama known as the "migration of nations" closed, if not forever at least for ages to come.

—The migration of modern nations assumed an entirely different character, though none the less interesting and important. The inroads of the Slavonic nations had lasted down to a late period. They had penetrated to the German ocean on the north and to central Germany on the south. The contest between the Slaves and the Germans lasted for generations, and resulted in favour of the Germans. They either subdued or forced back the Slavonic tribes up to the confines of Poland. Large numbers of Germans emigrated to these conquered districts and settled there as permanent colonists. The northern provinces of the present kingdom of Prussia were at one time almost entirely in the hands of the Slaves, and they became subsequently for generations the colonial lands of the German nation. The other emigrating movements on the continent were rather sporadic and insignificant as compared with the later ones toward the new world. Russia, Hungary and Prussia offered special inducements to immigrants, and consequently excited at times a considerable influx of foreigners. The religious persecutions, like that of the Huguenots in France, forced at times a large emigration from one country or another.

—But modern emigration, on an important scale dates from the time of the discovery of America, though it was not till more than three centuries after that event that it became very large. The discovery of gold and silver in Mexico and Peru excited the cupidity of avaricious Spanish adventurers, and prompted other nations to send out expeditions to explore the unknown regions with the hope of finding similar treasure. This emigration was at first confined to bold and ambitious spirits, animated with a thirst for riches. They had no idea of making permanent settlements, but hoped to acquire wealth in a short time and then return to enjoy it at home. During the seventeenth century, however, a new spirit became manifest. England, France, Holland and Spain vied with each other in their eagerness for colonization. From Canada to Florida a series of colonies was planted, all the above mentioned nations taking part in them. Spain and Portugal planted colonies also in Mexico and South America. We have no means of knowing how many people emigrated to America previous to the year 1820. But the number was by no means small. As early as 1700 large numbers of Germans emigrated from the Rhine districts to America, particularly to Pennsylvania. One of the officials of the last mentioned colony writes, in 1729, "It is clear that the crowds of Germans will soon found a German State" In 1755 another writes: "The Germans come pouring in such numbers(over 5,000 during the last year) that I do not see why they will not soon be in a condition to make our laws for us and determine our language." The outbreak of the revolution interposed a serious hindrance to all immigration of course for years. The European wars breaking out immediately after the close of the former and lasting almost continuously until 1815, absorbed nearly all the surplus population for nearly forty years. Various estimates have been made as to number coming to the United States prior to 1820. Mr. Blodget thought that the arrivals from 1789-94 did not exceed 4,000 year. Dr. Seybert estimated the number at 6,000 a year from 1790 to 1810. Prof Tucker estimated that 234,000 came in from 1790 to 1820 Dr. Loring, of the United States statistical bureau, figured out about 250,000 immigrants from 1775 to 1820. The following table of estimates has been complied from a similar one in the "Encyclopædia Britannica," and indicates by decades the numbers emigrating from Europe to America and Australia:


The figures in the above table are thought to be far below the truth, but they give some idea of the enormous proportions which emigration Edition: current; Page: [88] has assumed in recent times. The emigration during the last decade, 1870-79, far exceeds that of any previous decade, and the indications are that the number of emigrants will rather increase than diminish during the decade now passing. Later data as to the United States is given at the end of this article.

—MOTIVES OF EMIGRATION. It will be seen from the preceding sketch that a great variety of motives have been of influence in exciting and sustaining emigration. Perhaps the most powerful motive of all is the love of movement and adventure which seems innate in the great migrating races. The pressure of population upon the means of subsistence is undoubtedly a prime occasion, and yet it has but little effect on many nations. The population of India would seem to press very closely upon the means of subsistence, for with every failure in the harvests thousands and hundreds of thousands of deaths occur from starvation, and yet no emigration has set in. It is true that an immense tide of emigrating flowed out of Ireland immediately after the famine of 1847, but an almost equal number of Germans emigrated to the United States about the same time. Nor can the immense emigration from 1865 to 1873 be attributed to famine. Neither religious persecution nor civil despotism can explain the phenomenon. It is true, the failure of the revolutions of 1848 was followed by an immense efflux of German emigrants from Europe to America; but a similar efflux took place in the period 1865-73 immediately upon the triumph of nationalism and liberalism in Germany, when the elective franchise had been made as free as in America, and much easier to acquire. Nor will it do to attribute it to the grinding despotism of the military system, for from the very country in which it has been most oppressive there has been absolutely and relatively the least emigration. Prussia sent forth only 100,000 emigrants to America from 1820 to 1870, although it was one of the first of European states to acknowledge the right of unrestricted emigration. We have seen that the discovery of gold in California and Australia provoked a great emigration to those localities. The spirit of speculation drives not only capital but labor also, to all places where the prospect of profit is good. Special inducements held out to immigrants by various governments have been a great exciting cause; such as the exemption from taxation and the gifts of land and money by Peter the Great of Russia, and Frederick the Great of Prussia. The offers of free transportation and gifts of land by the Canadian, Australian and other governments have undoubtedly attracted some. The glowing pictures of emigration agents and of successful friends have been a spur to many. The rude pressure of physical want, then, as exhibited in famines, the love of conquest, religious persecution, civil wars, political despotism, discovery of gold and silver mines, the envy of brighter skies and a more fertile soil, have all acted as occasions of emigration, but nearly all of them have depended for their efficacy upon the migratory instinct, which, existing in a more or less developed state in all human kind, is peculiarly strong in the Aryan races, and especially marked in the Germanic family.

—THE EFFECTS OF EMIGRATION may be considered with reference to three parties, the country left, the country entered, and the migrating persons. As a rule, able-bodied men possessing some capital emigrate. The lowest classes of the people do not have either the inclination to go abroad, or the money to pay their expenses. Only those can be of use in colonies who would be useful at home. The country left, then, becomes poorer in productive classes and in capital, the relation between the rich and the poor more unfavourable, and the contrast between the classes sharper.(Roscher.) A person who emigrates just as he becomes of a productive age represents the investment of so much fixed capital which is transferred from one country to the other. Besides, he generally takes with him capital enough to get a fair start, which is also subtracted from the circulating capital of the country. He leaves behind him a gap which can not immediately be filled by as able a laborer. It is said, for instance, that in Mecklenburg agricultural labor has much deteriorated because the strong men emigrate and the old and children remain at home. As more men than women emigrate a surplus of the latter is left behind, which may have a bad influence on the morals of the community. According to Romelin the large emigration from Wortemberg during the years immediately following 1850 left such a preponderance of women that one-sixth of all the young women who had reached a marriageable age in 1865, would remain unmarried, even if all the marriageable young men were to engage in matrimony.

—The above remarks have reference to individual emigration. The dangers pointed out do not apply to what may be called colonizing emigration, i.e., the transporting of families to some distant part of the world to form colonies which are to remain economically connected with the mother country. In such cases emigration not only provides room at home by removing the surplus population, but there arises at the same time an increased demand for manufactured articles, an increased supply of raw material by means of which an absolute growth of population is made possible. By making provision for the transportation of men, women and children the equilibrium of the sexes at home and of the productive to the unproductive population need not be disturbed. The capital needed will be better employed than if invested at home, for it will bring in greater returns. As a very rare exception an emigration suddenly undertaken, well directed and on a very large scale, may be made to constitute the efficient means preparatory to the abolition of pauperism. Where, for instance, by reason of the subdivision of land into extremely small parcels, farming on a diminutive scale has come to preponderate; Edition: current; Page: [89] where the popular house-industries have been reduced to a miserable condition by the immoderate competition of great foreign manufactures and machinery, the hopelessness of the situation consists principally in this, that every improvement made must be preceded by a concentration of the forces of labor and their combination with the powers of capital, which for the moment renders a great number of those who have been laborers hitherto entirely superfluous. The superfluous laborers must starve enough quantity could be removed at once, the revolution in industry would at once take place. The proletary would disappear for a short time at least, and allow an opportunity to take measures for its permanent abolition.

—The country entered, if already settled, is affected in all directions by any large influx of foreigners. Economically, industry may be quickened and the material resources of the country rapidly developed by the new supply of cheap labour. Our own country affords an excellent instance of this. The immense immigration from 1847 to 1860 made possible the rail road and manufacturing extension of those years. From 1865 to 1873 the incoming tide of foreigners swept toward our machine shops and factories. The Chinese laborers made the Union Pacific railroad feasible. In a word, a large mass of foreigners whose standard of life is permanently lower than that of the natives may have the same effect on industry that improved machines do, i.e. may quicken and stimulate production. But this very advantage, if permanent, brings with it in a very serious danger, viz., a forcing down of the standard of life of the whole laboring class and a consequent deterioration in their character and efficiency. This point has not been sufficiently regarded by economists, The question is not merely regarded by economists. The question is not merely one of production, but also of distribution and of the interests of the masses of the labouring classes. The introduction of radically different elements may destroy the whole race by mixture with the natives; may injure the national life and commerce by the introduction of new economical customs, and debase the civilization of the whole people along with its economical system. The immigration of a different race not likely to amalgamate readily is peculiarly dangerous. It, if at all inferior, will be likely to be regarded with contempt as belonging exclusively to the inferior race. Labor acquires a stigma, and a great social injury is done. The agitation against Chinese immigration into the United States is based upon a blind feeling rather than upon economical and sociological considerations. But that it would bring grave evils with it if it should ever assume serious proportions can hardly be denied. seeCHINESE IMMIGRATION.) Even the emigration of Irish laborers to England and Scotland has been greatly deprecated by thoughtful men of all classes. the Irish laborers, bare-footed and ragged, restricting themselves to potatoes and whisky, have carried their disgusting habits of living in cellars, and of congregating several families together into one room even with pigs as companions, over to England. (Th. Carlyle, "On Chartism") Even John Stuart Mill would have no hesitation in prohibiting such an emigration to prevent the economic contagion spreading to English workmen. The Scottish census report of 1871 contains the most vigorous expressions as to the blasting effects of Irish immigration to Scotland on the condition, character and habits of the native laborers. "With the year 1829," says the report, "the invasion or immigration of the Irish race began, which gradually increased until it reached enormous dimensions in 1840, when railroad building began to assume extensive proportions. This Irish invasion can easily have more ruinous effects upon the Scotch population than even the inroads of the Saxons, Danes and Normans. Already the Irish-born immigrants form from 5 to 15 per cent, of the population of many of our cities, and, if we count their children born in Scotland, from 10 to 30 per cent. The immigration of such a multitude of laborers of the lowest class, with scarcely any education whatever, can have only the most injurious influence. Up to the present time the most of these Irish laborers have not improved in any respect, while it is certain that the Scotch connected with them have been degraded. It is painful to think what the ultimate consequences of this Irish immigration will be for the character and habits of our people and for the future prospects of the country." In another place it continues: "The large proportion of Irishmen in Scotland has undoubtedly had very unfavorable results, and wherever they have settled they have debauched the lower classes, and increased the necessity for forcible police and sanitary supervision." While the fears of the commissioners of the census may have been exaggerated, no thoughtful economist can deny that they had a substantial basis. The same thing has been found to be true in Russia, for instance, where the immigration of certain classes into certain districts has been forbidden on economical grounds. Australia has considered it necessary to protect herself against Chinese immigration, and the United States is preparing to follow her example. These are instances in which the conviction that unsuitable immigration may be dangerous to the public welfare has led to the practical measures of making it difficult or even prohibiting it. The settlement of the Mormons in the United States, and the trouble they have made, show clearly what may happen where the settlers are at the variance with the state entered on cardinal points of doctrine and policy; although they may belong to the same race and speak the same language. And when immigrants introduce heathen customs and observances which, though called religious and claiming toleration, can only be regarded as contrary to civil order, morality and decency, the problem is still further complicated. In all such cases it is easier to prevent the immigration Edition: current; Page: [90] than solve the difficulties it would create.

—Politically, the influence is also likely to make itself felt. A free government rests largely upon tradition. The unwritten constitution is quite as powerful as the written. Such a government is safe only so long as the population is homogeneous and has been born and brought up on the same political atmosphere. Let large foreign elements be introduced, the homogeneousness disappears, a class grows up to which the old watchwords have no significance, with whom the ancient precedents have no weight. A new constitution becomes necessary, if free institutions are to be preserved. But the character of the government has changed with the character of the people. Institutions which were successful with the well-trained and thoughtful New England community can not work with a mixed and ignorant population. A government may lay it down as a maxim that it will not interfere with the exercise of any religious faith. The rule may be observed as long as there is no religious sect which outrages public decency. Let Mormonism appear and the rule must be sacrificed and the religion stamped out, or at least its outward observance. But the principle of religious toleration, at least in its broadest statement, has suffered thereby a rude shock.

—The effect on the emigrant himself is generally good. There is little danger that one who knows how to work and pray will go to the bad in a young agricultural colony. In a wilderness which has not yet been cleared, the greater number of proletarian vices spontaneously disappear. There is here no opportunity for jealousy or theft; little for intemperance, the gaming table, licentiousness or quarrelsomeness. Here labor is a necessity, and the rewards of industry and saving soon take a palpable shape. As the emigrant in such a situation can scarcely help marrying, children far from being a burden soon become companions to their parents in their solitude, and later helpmates in business. The colonist belonging to the lower middle class is most certain of improving his condition. It may, indeed, require many toilsome years before he can feel comfortable himself; but his children, who would probably have led a proletarian life in the mother country, may calculate with certainty on future well-being. The father's small capital, which the outlay for education alone would have exhausted at home, here becomes the seed of a number of prosperous households, (Roscher, "On Population," §249.) It the emigrant goes to a country already tolerably well populated, where a different language from his own is spoken, he may meet with many discouragements, which may have, in isolated cases, a ruinous effect upon him. Having cut loose from all restraints at home, he has nothing except his own sturdy character to keep him in the right path, and it too often proves to be too weak. It is a significant fact that of the suicides in our large cities by far the largest proportion relatively occur among the foreigners. But this is true of individual cases only; the vast majority are able by industry and economy greatly to better their condition socially and economically. Another point is worth consideration. Life in a new and growing country is an education of itself. "It has been frequently observed that colonies are favorable to the development of a democracy. Ancient customs and usages can not be preserved in a colony as at home. Men are of necessity placed on a greater equality since they have to share the same hardships, to overcome the same difficulties and to face the same dangers." What is true of colonies is equally true of a great republic like the United States while it is in the nascent state with abundance of unoccupied land. The competition is keen in all departments, but so many opportunities present themselves at every turn that it can never become oppressive. A share in the government keeps alive political interest, or excites it where before lacking, while the independence of life and action affords the best training for citizenship. Hence we see a capacity for self-government developed even within one generation in emigrants whose ancestors to the farthest remove never possessed such a quality. Such an education must result in making the emigrant worth more to himself and to the world.

—EMIGRATION LAWS. "Every state which regards its members not as serfs but as freemen, who, under its protection, follow out their own purposes, acknowledges of course the right of emigration. Only by such acknowledgment can the rights of its subjects become true rights of freedom, while the prohibition or arbitrary limitation of removal prevents them possibly from the only ground on which they can flourish and bring forth fruit. If in spite of this, however, this or that particular state declares the relation of subject to be indissoluble, it will hardly be able to offer any satisfactory justification for it." The preceding quotation fairly represents the opinion of the authoritative writers on international and political science of the last three generations. And yet the practice has not been at all consistent with this theory. The question as to whether a citizen can expatriate himself, although not the same as to whether he may emigrate, is yet closely connected with it. Even in the United States (of all countries in the world the one where we should least expect it) there was formerly a great difference of opinion on this point. And it was not until 1868 that congress finally decided the question by an act declaring that expatriation was an inherent right of all men. In the same year the United States secured a treaty from the North German confederation acknowledging the right of its citizens to be naturalized in America. (SeeNATURALIZATION.)

—Prohibition of emigration has always been a common device of governments. The idea at the bottom of such prohibitions is different under different conditions. Cæsar forbade all persons of senatorial rank to emigrate out of Italy. In modern times nearly every European state has at Edition: current; Page: [91] one time or another prohibited emigration. Frederick William I. forbade the emigration of Prussian peasants under penalty of death. In Spiers, in 1765, persons of good conduct, good workmen, and of sufficient means, were forbidden to emigrate. The public opinion of modern times is very generally opposed to this compulsion, which would make the state a prison. It might, indeed, be urged with much force that a man who had been educated and protected until he had become of productive age ought not to be allowed to leave the country as soon as he became valuable. Russia and Turkey still keep a prohibition of emigration without permission from the czar and sultan. Most continental states do not permit emigration until the person wishing to go has performed all his obligations to the state and to his fellow citizens. To the former belongs his military service; to the latter the settlement of all his debts. These last provisions seem just and proper. But the statesman who undertakes to prevent persons leaving who are discontented with the political, religious or economical condition of things "should take care lest he act like the physician who prevents the discharge of diseased matter from the sick body and causes it to take its seat in some vital organ." Hence even where emigration is considered detrimental to the country, no governmental condition should be attached to it, except that the person desiring to emigrate should give timely notice of his intention, and receive his passport only after it has been shown that he has fulfilled all his obligations. The immense German emigration, of the last thirty years, though perhaps injurious in some respects to Germany, has in all probability prevented violent revolutions in that country.

—Emigration has, on the other hand, at various times and for various purposes, been favored or compelled by the state. The old Grecian cities used to favor or compel emigration whenever the population became too crowded. In modern times the Russian czars have often transported colonies from one portion to another of their empire, so as to settle up some desolate portion. Theorists and practical statesmen both have favored state aid to emigrants. After such great calamities as the famine of 1846 in Ireland, the cheapest form of assistance is often aid to those who are willing to depart for more favored localities. As a rule, however, positive provisions in favor of individual emigration have but little in their favor. Why should those who remain at home be compelled to pay tribute to those who turn their backs on the fatherland? Those who would have to pay the cost of such aid, viz., the wealthy, are just the ones who under the form of increased wages of the laborers must bear the loss incident upon emigration. Colonizing emigration may very properly be favoured by the state. It is not likely to be directly remunerative, otherwise it might be left to private corporations. But a colony well established and maintaining a connection with the mother country is continual source of advantage to the latter, as we have already pointed out. The principal modern governments have so far favored emigration as to provide for the proper accommodation of emigrants, taking care that they shall not be cheated or abused by the transporting companies. English and German legislation are instances in point. The legislation of Bremen is a model in this respect, and has contributed largely to make that port the chief outlet of German emigration. The minimum space to be allotted each passenger is fixed by law, as also the amount of provisions to be taken along on each passage. The transporting companies are also liable for damages arising from accidents. To prevent any undue exciting of the lower classes, emigration agents are not allowed to carry on their operations in the inland.

—Immigration also has been prohibited by various governments. The most important instances in modern times are those already mentioned. Australia. etc. The general dislike of foreigners characteristic of many nations in history has of course acted as a powerful check on emigration, while the positive laws of such countries as China and Japan kept them for centuries closed to all outside influences. The difficulty of securing protection and acknowledgement of political rights has been another powerful deterrent of immigration, which has disappeared even among civilized nations only within very recent times. The right of state to refuse admission to foreigners was vigorously maintained by oriental nations until they were compelled by force to admit them, and recently the same doctrine has been advocated and practiced by the powerful nations already referred to, Australia and the United States. The right of a state to refuse to accept the criminals, paupers, etc., of another state, must be granted by all right-thinking statesmen, and the right to prohibit all immigration, deemed dangerous or undesirable, can be based on the same principle, viz., self-protection.

—Immigration has however been quite as often encouraged by artificial means as it has been prohibited. According to the legendary account of the founding of Rome, Romulus offered special inducements to immigrants, and in consequence thereof the population increased very rapidly. Cæsar tells us that the Gauls incited the first immigration of the Germans under Ariovistus by offering them one third of their lands in return for aid against their enemies. We have numberless instances of immigration induced by direct offers during the period of the decadence of the Roman empire. In the strife of factions and parties, first one side and then the other appealed to the Germans for aid, offering them land for settlement, if they would respond. The result of the response was the overthrow of the empire. The Britons summoned the Saxons to their and against the Picts and Scots, promising them land for settlement, and the Saxons ultimately became the rulers of the country. In the twelfth century large numbers of the natives Edition: current; Page: [92] of the Netherlands were induced to emigrate to Germany and become farmers, and in the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries to England, and settled there as artisans. During the thirteenth century a multitude of German colonists established themselves in Poland on the domains of the crown and of the church. As a rule they obtained the land in consideration of moderate services and rents which, however, did not begin to run until after eight years nor until after thirty on uncleared lands. Large numbers also emigrated to Hungary and Transylvania, while the French Hugenots, driven from home, were invited to all the independent Protestant countries. Nearly all the remarkable Russian princes from Ivan III. have endeavored to induce Germans to settle in Russia. Peter the Great refused to give up his Swedish prisoners of war because he wanted them as colonists. Catherine planted colonies of foreigners on the Volga and in southern Russia. About 1830 the number of colonists was estimated at 130,009, mostly Germans. The great Prussian rulers have cultivated the policy of immigration on a most extensive scale, and thus maintained the original character of their parent provinces as the colonial land of the German people. It is estimated that Frederick William I. spent 5,000,000 thalers in establishing colonists. Up to 1728, 20,000 new families were received into Prussia alone. Frederick the Great endeavored to retain in the country the strangers who came there periodically. He is said to have settled 42,600 families in 539 villages and hamlets. The Population of Prussia between 1823 and 1840 increased by 751,749 immigrants, without any positive favors shown them, and the greater part of these were not very poor. In Russia, in 1803, the Emperor Alexander promised the colonists a full release from taxation for ten years, a reduction of taxation for ten more, and freedom from civil and military service for all time; besides sixty dessatines of land per family gratis, an advance of 300 roubles for house building, etc., and money to enable them to maintain themselves until the first harvest. Hungary, as long ago as 1723, accorded settlers freedom from taxation for six years and artisans for fifteen years. Nearly all modern states which possess large amounts of unoccupied lands have offered special inducements to immigrants. Australia, Canada and the United States have been particularly distinguished by their liberal offers of land or money, or both. The last named has given land only on condition that the persons taking it should actually occupy it. The great railroad corporations have also made liberal offers and provided exceptional advantages and rates to settlers, and taken special pains to attract immigrants by advertising throughout the world, so far as possible, the advantages of the new countries. Special precautions have also been taken to prevent the abuse of the immigrants on their arrival in this country, which removes of course one of the deterrents of immigration.

—IMMIGRATION INTO THE UNITED STATES. Of all modern nations the United States has received by far the largest number of immigrants. The statistics of immigration have of late years been kept with tolerable accuracy, and they afford a great number of interesting facts for comparison and discussion. We have selected the following for special mention as they serve to illustrate the points previously presented under the "effects of emigration." The vast majority of immigrants are at the most productive age. About 25 per cent. are under fifteen years of age, and less then 15 per cent over forty, leaving more than 60 per cent in the prime of life. The number of males is largely in excess of that of females, the ration varying with the nationality. Among the Chinese only about 7 per cent are females, while their ratio among the Irish is over 45 per cent... and in the total number of immigrants about 38 per cent. About 46 per cent of the whole number, after deducting women and children, were trained to various pursuits, nearly 10 per cent consist of merchants and traders. The extent of the immigration during given years or periods depends upon the business prosperity political quiet and crops on both sides of the ocean. The growth of immigration from 1820 to 1837 was continuous and rapid. It declined for two years following the crisis of 1837, and leaped up again in 1840 to the highest point it had ever reached. The year 1854 marked the culmination of a series of bad crops and political troubles in Europe which had given a powerful impetus to emigration, and the immigration fell off from 427,833 in 1854 to 200,877 in 1855. The crisis of 1857 led to another great falling off, and the early years of the war were marked by a still further decline. Beginning with the year 1863, however, the immigration began to increase again and reached in 1872 the highest point it had ever attained. The crisis of 1873 was followed by a steady decline in immigration until 1879, when it began to increase again, and in 1881 reached the enormous figures of 743,777, with good prospects for a large increase in 1882. The distribution of the immigrants among the states and territories is also interesting. The northern and western states and territories have received by far the largest proportion of these immigrants. The southern states have also begun to encourage immigration, but without any very marked results so far.

—The contribution made to the wealth and population of the United States by immigration has been the subject of interesting and valuable discussions. Ms. Schade estimated that of the 33,589,377 whites in the United States in 1870, more than 24,000,000 were of foreign extraction. Dr Jarvis has conclusively shown the error in Mr. Schede's computations and advanced good grounds for assuming that the foreign population in 1870 (including immigrants and their children to the third generation) did not exceed 10,813,430 while those of American descent amounted to 22,775,947. Their addition to the wealth of the Edition: current; Page: [93] country has also been variously estimated. The estimate as to the amount of money each immigrant brings with him varies from $80 to $150. Assuming the lowest estimate as the correct one, the money brought into the United States by the immigrants up to Jan. 1, 1882, amounted to over $900,000,000. But the economic value of the immigrant arising from the addition to the industrial and intellectual resources of the country is still greater. The estimates here vary also between wide extremes, viz., from $800 to $1.125. Taking the lowest estimate again, the contribution made to our wealth by immigration is increased by about $9,000,000,000. No allowance has been made in this estimate for paupers, criminals, etc., who are a positive loss to the community. Our gain in this immigration is considered by some to have been the loss of foreign countries, by others as so much added to the wealth of the world, owing to the transfer of labor and capital from unproductive to productive fields.

—The subjoined table indicates the total number of alien passengers arriving in the United States in each year since 1820, and the chief countries from which they emigrated. The "total" includes also the immigrants from all other countries besides those mentioned. To obtain the net immigration from the table, about 1 2/3; per cent. of the total aliens should be deducted for those not intending to remain in the United States, except that from 1871 to 1881 the net immigration, instead of alien passengers, is indicated in the table.

Edition: current; Page: [94]

—The preceding table is based on the special report on immigration made by Dr. Loring, in 1871, with subsequent additions from latter reports. The discrepancies which may appear between this table and others may be partly explained by the fact that in some tables the names of those who died on the passage are included in the enumeration, while in others they are not.

—LITERATURE. The literature of the subject is not very extensive. The reports of the bureau of statistics for the United States and of the corresponding departments in Australia, Canada, and the various continental powers, supply the facts of emigration so far as they are known. The reports of the New York commissioners of emigration contain important discussions of theoretical points connected with the subject. "Immigration," by Frederic Kapp, is replete with information, and full of interest. In an article in vol. xxix. of the Atlantic Monthly, Dr. Jarvis criticises some of the positions taken by Mr. Kapp. A summary of the discussion is to be found under the title "Emigration" in the New American Cyclopaedia. The other standard Cyclopaedias contain interesting and valuable articles under the appropriate heads. The principal works on Political Economy all contain valuable discussions of various phases of the subject. Worthy of special mention in this connection are Mill, Roscher and Rau-Wagner, all of which have been freely used in preparing this article.



EMINENT DOMAIN, an original ownership retained by the sovereign, or remaining in the state, whereby land or other private property can be taken for the public benefit. This is the most definite principle of fundamental power of the government with regard to property, and the most striking example of the sovereignty of the people as a corporate body to resume original possession of the soil, where its use is essential to their mutual advantage and the welfare of society.

—Whenever it becomes necessary for the public benefit to open a street, construct a canal, charter a railroad, lay out a park, or perform any other similar act in the interest of the public, and the owners of the property refuse to sell, or ask an exorbitant price for their lands, by the power of eminent domain the state has the right to condemn such property to that public use, and any court having due authority, by issuing its process, may compel the surrender of the property.

—In countries where by the theory of the law all property is held by tenure from the sovereign, the act is regarded merely as the resumption of an original grant, this inherent right of the sovereign having been embraced and carried with the grant as originally made. Under republican forms of government the right of eminent domain is founded on the welfare and prosperity of the people and the common benefit to be derived by the act. In our government this right is conferred by the constitution, and the security of the people confirmed by the fifth amendment to that instrument, to which further allusion will be made hereafter. The constitutions of many of the states likewise provide the right of exercise of this principle, and compensation in an adequate degree for all private property taken for the public benefit and use. This condition is also implied in law, and the custom is universal to pay for property taken from the individual, for the benefit of the public, although the constitution may not expressly provide for the same. The principle of a just compensation is recognized by all nations possessing a constitutional government and by many arbitrary governments in their acts of restitution, relief, etc. The civil code of France, as well as the constitution of the United States, and the constitutions of many, if not all, of the states of the federal Union, recognize the justice of this principle. In the absence of such constitutional provisions the courts have determined the principle to be so fundamental and imperative, that laws not recognizing, or those denying this right to the individual, are deemed void.

—There are, however, distinctions to be drawn between the principle of eminent domain and the exercise of other proscriptive powers by the government. The seizure by a sovereign of private property during a war on account of military necessity; damages to private property in time of war, either from occupation by the enemy or from wanton depredations by its own troops, (though in this last case compensation is sometimes made by special legislation); imposition upon the people of contributions for carrying on the war successfully, in the form of taxation, unless the quota of a single individual be greater than his share; taxation of private property for public use; sale of private property for taxes; destruction of crops or supplies in time of war, to prevent the enemy from obtaining such resources; destruction of property to build dams against great floods; destruction of houses to prevent the spreading of conflagrations; the condemnation of a cemetery or burial ground on the plea of an abatement of a nuisance; the demolishing of property to extirpate disease; the confiscation and consumption by fire of infected clothing or other personal property to aid in the extinction of infections disease; the taking of land for the purpose of straightening a river, and consequent injury to the owner by cutting the banks and removing the trees; the seizure and destruction of property forfeited by violation of law; the forfeiture to the state of the property of a corporation on account of the abuse of its charter powers; the destruction of tools and appliances for criminal purposes; and all such acts done and performed for the public good, safety Edition: current; Page: [95] of the government and security of the people as a community, do not partake of the principle of eminent domain, and do not carry with them the right of compensation.

—With regard to the question as to what constitutes a public use or the number of people that must be benefited to constitute a use as public, it may be stated that it is not necessary or essential that the whole community or any considerable portion of it should directly participate in the benefit to be derived from an improvement, to make the use public. The use to be public, however, must relate to the community, but not to every individual, or to each one equally. It has been laid down as a rule, that should the improvement enlarge the resources, extend the industrial energy or promote the productive power of a moderately large number of the community, the use is a public one. The legislature granting the franchise usually determines, by its act, the number of people to be benefited that constitutes the use public. Waterworks for a particular town, private ways essential to the public use, a public park established in a county where it could prove beneficial only to an adjacent city, are all public uses in strict accordance with the principle of eminent domain.

—It is not essential that the property thus taken should pass into the possession of the public. The government, in nearly all matters pertaining to the improvement of the country and the development of the nation's resources, must perform its administrative and executive work through its agents. Therefore, in strict accordance with this rule of law, the property thus taken may become the property of a private individual, but most generally falls into the possession of a corporation, such as railroad and canal companies. Under no circumstances can the private property of one individual be taken and granted to another; but it is sufficient for the purposes of eminent domain if the use is public, and the public have the privilege of using the same, whether the property taken be in the possession of one or many individuals.

—The most notable example of public use, and where the exercise of the power of eminent domain is most frequently displayed, is in the establishment of means of public conveyance and quick communication between remote points of the state and country. The rapid transportation of passengers and merchandise to different parts of the country forms one of the most essential public uses that could be devised. This is most effectually performed by the construction of railroads, which are compelled by law to transport as common carriers, at all reasonable times, passengers and freight upon all lines of road within the extent of their operation. This labor, therefore, forms a great public use, highly essential to the comfort, convenience and prosperity of each community within its reach; and while its corporation is of a private character, its work is as much for the public use and benefit as if it had been constructed by the authorities of a state, out of the funds of the public treasury. The courts have determined railroads to be public highways, and on this ground have bonds been issued and taxation imposed to aid in their construction, while the receipts collected are for their own use and are handled exclusively by themselves. In the same category are placed other means of transportation for men and goods, such as canals, turnpikes, highways, public roads, bridges and ferries, in aid of which the power of the state has been invoked through the right of eminent domain.

—Before the employment of steam, and when water power was exclusively used in operating mills, it was the practice to encourage the building of the same by delegating to individuals the power of eminent domain by condemning favorable sites for their construction, when the owners of such available locations refused obstinately to sell for that purpose. But this doctrine has undergone a great change, and many of the courts that formerly held the public character of mills and the justness of taking private property, through the exercise of eminent domain, for that purpose, now doubt the constitutionality of statutes providing for such action and with great reluctance enforce the provisions of statutes that appear to be the very extreme of legislative power. As a mill may now be run by steam instead of water, the question is no longer one of necessity but of the comparative cost between the two systems, and consequently is no longer one of necessity but of the comparative cost between the two systems, and consequently is not in the nature of a strict public use. The supreme court of the United States, in a case in error from the state of Massachusetts (Holyoke Co vs. Lyman, 15 Wall, 500), recognized to a limited extent the public use of mills, and the exercise of the right of eminent domain, where, by the nature of the country, mill sites sufficient in number for the public use could not otherwise be obtained.

—Among other uses considered public in connection with eminent domain is that of draining marshes and low lands, by means of which the public health is promoted, as well as valuable land reclaimed. Also the removal of a dam, which so obstructs a watercourse as to produce an overflow of adjacent valuable land, may be accomplished by the same process. Lands for public drains in aid of agricultural enterprises; lands for the construction of drainage sewers in towns, cities and villages; lands for the erection of school houses and for school yards, for necessary buildings, etc.; lands for the establishment of public parks for the promotion of the public health; lands for the building of public roads, for pleasure and recreation as well as for business purposes; lands for the conducting of pure water to the homes of people residing in towns and cities lands for widening and improving public streets; lands for the establishment of public burying grounds and for the suitable enlargement of the same, may all be condemned and taken for such purposes through the exercise Edition: current; Page: [96] of the powers of eminent domain.

—In thus condemning private property for public uses under the principle of eminent domain, the legislature can no so determine the question as to make it absolutely conclusive upon the courts Still the presumption is always in favor of the use declared by the legislature to be public, and if the use is surely a public one, the legislative authority can not be restrained by the courts. This can only be done when there is a well-defined attempt on the part of the legislature to evade the law and procure the condemnation of property to private uses. The rule stands that the legislature is the proper body to determine the necessity of the act, and likewise the extent to which the act can be carried; and the only restraint upon its power is that requiring compensation for the property taken by its mandatory.

—There are, however, restrictions in many of the states in granting special charters and privileges to corporations, and the condemnation of private property to public use is governed almost exclusively by generallaw. Under this system land having been granted to another public use can not be taken by general law, should the act tend to destroy a franchise. Abandoned property, though formerly owned and worked by a corporation, can be taken, but the taking of the portion of a horse railroad, constituting its most valuable possession, can not be taken under general law. A right of way taken and occupied by one road can not be taken by another, when essential to the vitality of a franchise used for the private individual for a public use by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, the assessment of a damages for all such property so taken must be made by a fair appraisement of its value by an impartial tribune. An arbitrary scale of prices can not be made the rule of appraisement. The corporation condemning, or for whom the property is condemned to be converted to a public use, amount of compensation can not be fixed by the sworn statement of the agent of the company and two disinterested freeholders, as provided in certain other property appraisements, because on of the parties is interested in the result, and it would be an evasion of the law. It must be done by a jury or commissioners, or a court without a jury, but the commissioners can not be directly appointed by the legislature without the consent of the owners, or due notice of their appointment having been sent to the owners and an opportunity given for the owners to be heard.

—A legislature can not declare a franchise forfeited and authorize a re-entry, because these interests are property, and can not be taken unless paid for by an amount of compensation established by judicial ascertainment.

—Under the rule prescribing the character of property to be taken, a dwelling house would not be exempt from condemnation more than any other property, but a statute may provide that improvements of a public character shall not take a dwelling house or other necessary buildings. The house, however, must be a bona fide dwelling house, and may include a court yard, office, outhouse and garden, whether attached or not to the main building. An unfinished house in course of erection would come under the rule of exemption. Some statutes exempt gardens, yards, orchards, warehouses and manufactories. A lumber yard would not be exempt, and a garden must be annually cultivated to be exempt. A field with a few fruit and could be condemned. Land used by an iron and tin plate manufactory for depositing rubbish would be exempt. Under the rule a workshop or manufactory would be exempt and a warehouse used in connection with manufactories would be included, though separated by a road.

—In determining the market value of all such property taken by right of eminent domain and for which compensation must be made, the value is not to be estimated at the sum the property might bring at a forced sale, but such a sum of money as the same character of property is worth in the market to parties desirous of purchasing for business purposes. The value must also be determined by the testimony and opinion of competent witnesses value of such property, to constitute them competent witnesses. Nor is the value of the property to be confined to its present use, but its value is to be estimated by the uses to which it may be put, and based on the uses to which men of ordinary business foresight, caution and prudence would usually assign it.

—In those states whose system of laws concedes the fee of public streets and roads to be vested in the adjoining owners and not in the public, or corporate towns and cities, the rule is, that the use of all such streets and highways by railroads is an additional burden and subject to compensation. If no remedy is provided by the act of a legislature authorizing the use of a street by a railroad, the remedy at common law still remains, and the payment of these damages may be enforced in advance. With regard to horse railroads it is held that the use of street by a horse railroad, when laid without disturbing the grade of a street by cutting or filling is a proper modification of an existing servitude as defined by common law, and that no new burden is enforced by reason of a change from a carriage of other vehicle to a car, especially as the horse railroad does not attempt to debar other vehicles from the use of its particular part of the road. However, should it impair access to buildings by changing the grades of streets, compensation under the rule must be made to adjoining owners.

—With regard to the power of the federal government to exercise the right of eminent domain, it is held that the federal government, being an independent sovereignty, possesses the power to condemn lands for public use, within the jurisdiction of states. This principle was clearly defined in Edition: current; Page: [97] the case of Kohel vs. the United States (91 U. S., 367) This decision declared the existence of "an independent power in the federal government to condemn lands of private persons in the several states, for its own public use. That the right is the offspring of public necessity and is inseparable from sovereignty, unless denied to it by its fundamental law."

—It is also held that the federal government and the state governments are each sovereign within their respective spheres, and neither compelled to obtain from the other permission to exercise its lawful powers; and that the right of eminent domain was one of the means employed to obtain lands for public use, and so recognised by the constitution. Judge Cooley, in the case of Trimbley vs. Humphrey (22 Mich., 471), held that the state could not condemn lands for the use of the United States so Hs to bind the United States in the payment of compensation. This of course implies the right of the United States to make its own condemnation in the states for public uses. In the Maryland case of Reddall vs. Bryan (14 Md., 444). the court held the uses of the general government to be co-ordinate with the public uses of the state wherein the land was condemned.

—The fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States provides for the exercise of the power of eminent domain, by providing for the compensation of private lands taken by the United States. This provision was also intended as a security to the states against the encroachments of federal power upon the rights of private citizens. Under the genius of our institutions the federal government can not interfere with the rights of the states in the exercise of their powers of eminent domain within their respective jurisdictions, as the states are separate communities. The constitution restricts this encroachment. The exercise of the right of eminent domain by the federal government to an unlimited degree was strongly objected to by the several states before the formation of the Union, and prevented, in part, some of the states from ratifying the great instrument for a considerable period of time, and a restraining safeguard was early adopted in the fifth constitutional amendment. With regard to the condemnation of lands within a state whose fee is vested in the United States, the rule is, that all such lands when held by the united States as a mere proprietor and not devoted to any special use, are liable to condemnation for public use, are liable to condemnation for public uses, such as streets, highways, railroads, etc. Should the lands the occupied as forts, arsenals, armories, navy yards or other public purposes, they can not be taken for any ordinary public use. This rule was established when the city of Chicago attempted to make streets through the grounds on which Fort Dearborn was located. The streets proposed by the Municipal authorities would cut through some of the public buildings and seriously impair the public use to which the land was devoted. The city was enjoined from opening the streets, and the supreme court of the United States sustained the injunction. (United States vs. Chicago. 7 How., 185.)

—The right of way granted by congress over public lands holds good as against pre-emptors who have failed to perfect their title by fully complying with the land laws of the United States, or against mere squatters. with regard to the right of eminent domain relating to lands owned by states or municipalities, the rule is, that states may be proprietors of lands, and when such lands are taken by the exercise of eminent domain, the state must be compensated like a private individual. When an authority is conferred by legislative act over lands belonging to the state, in the absence of a specific grant or the expression of a design to aid a corporation by the gift lf the land, the rule is generally maintained that such authority is merely a use of lands on payment of a compensation, and the state can recover compensation as an individual proprietor.

—There are however, exceptions to this rule in some of the states, and an authority by legislative enactment to enter upon state lands is presumed to be a devise by the state. In Indiana it has been held that the right granted to make a road between two fixed points, carried with it the right to take the intervening lands belonging to the state, without compensation. Such a privilege, however, could not be assumed over lands already devoted to another public use by the state, and the rule which might correctly apply to vacant lands owned by the states, could not apply to the taking of a franchise or a park, or a road owned by a city and which had been paid for.

—Foreign corporations may be authorized to condemn lands in the state while the improvements may be operated entirely out of the state, but the power must be conferred in express terms, as under a general act permitting condemnation for railroad purpose, a foreign corporation could not condemn land. Nor could the owner institute proceedings against such corporations to recover assessment of damages in accordance with state, but such a corporation occupying the right of way over home roads, could be enjoined from operating its road until the damages of original right of way should be paid. One state can not condemn property or franchises in another state, but a bridge across a river may be condemned by one state up to the line of another.



EMPEROR. The Sabine tribes gave the name of embratur to their leader in war or pillage. The Romans used the word imperator, and reserved the title for the victorious general, which was bestowed on him upon the field of battle, just as the French at Friedlinger proclaimed Villars marshal of France. It is well known that it was not allowed to bear this title of commander in Rome, and that there could be more than one imperator there at the same time. But after Cæsar had caused himself to be made Edition: current; Page: [98] perpetual dictator by the senate, he had himself saluted as imperator by the people, and permitted Cicero to be so saluted as well as himself. The military power of the imperator was distinct from the imperium with which all magisterial offices were invested by the senate.

—Octavius also declared himself imperator, though he had no fondness for commanding in war. He united the consular and proconsular power with the tribunitial authority; he was pontiff, prince of the senate, so that his was the leading voice, and be attributed to himself a censorship over the morals of others He and his successors favored the title of emperor but little; they preferred prince or Cæsar. It was in the following century that the name of emperor prevailed This title, which in itself only suggested the command of armies, called up as well the idea of all the judicial functions which had accumulated in the person of the prince, but it did not betoken absolute power. In the time of Alexander Severus the jurisconsults pretended that the prince was above the law; but the senatus consultum of investiture only exempted him from the lex Papia, the lex Vorouia, on legacies and inheritances. Trubouian says that the people had conferred their authority upon the prince by the lex Regia. But the people never made such a law. If Tribonian had in mind the law which named the kings of Rome, that law did not imply sovereign authority; and if the lex Regia is the senatus consultum of investiture granted to the emperor, neither does it imply any such authority.

—The senatus consultum which gave the investiture to Vespasian has fortunately been recovered. It only enumerated the magisterial functions of the emperor. The convocation of assemblies, the proposal, sanction and execution of laws, the command of armies, and inviolability, are none of them beyond the prerogative of constitutional sovereigns.

—The despotism of the Roman emperors did not exactly result from the accumulation of power in their hands, for there existed in the senate, in provincial representational and in the laws, enough controlling elements to guarantee liberty, if power had been then, as in modern times, a question of grant. But, the powers being the same, the thoroughly mechanical notion that the ancients had of authority did not give as much play to personal initiative as do modern governments. The despotism of the emperors was further aggravated by the situation which had made the empire a necessity, that is to say, the heterogeneous character of the civilizations and races brought into juxtaposition under the Roman rule, and of which the strongest in numbers were the least capable of self-government.

—The earlier Roman empire of the Flavian Caesars, and even of the first Antonines, was still a Roman magistracy, a dictatorship, but upholding the right of discussion. Otherwise it was military and judicial, and differed essentially from the aristocratic and dynastic royalty that existed among the barbarians. But the more the relations of the empire with the north and east were increased, the nearer did the empire approach that royalty whose name was no hateful to Rome. Adrian established a system of etiquette at his court; Diocletian imitated the eastern kings more and more, to the extent of requiring his feet to be kissed. He did away with public institutions, and thenceforward affairs were transacted secretly and in silence. The Byzantine historians call the emperor indifferently autocrator and basileus, and never call the kinds of Asia anything but basileus.

—The establishment of Christianity, and the addition of Germanic nations to the group of Latin nations already under the discipline of the Catholic church, was the occasion, in the ninth century, of a restoration of the western empire that profoundly modified the features of the first magistracy. The holy Roman empire was a very ingenious conception, of which Voltaire remarked that it was neither Roman nor holy. Whether it was holy or not is certainly open to controversy; but it was undoubtedly Roman, inasmuch as the object of its institution was to unite, in one federal system, all nations of Latin race, speech or education. The sovereignty of the empire among such a diversity of states soon became merely nominal; the kings of France freed themselves from it from the tenth century, although the German government persisted as late as the seventeenth, in treating all the kings of Europe as provincial kings. The empire was therefore limited to Germany and Italy, and even in these two countries the idea of this institution differed widely, while the Italians, attached to their municipal autonomy, only regarded the emperor as the nominal head of the temporal power, and as a mediator, without regal functions, between their domestic governments, the Germans, on the other hand, were disposed to endow the imperial authority with the usual attributes of a national royalty, in order a bring about unity of legislation. The empire had become elective. Moreover up to the sixteenth century the coronation of the emperor at Rome was necessary for his complete investiture. But at the end of the fourteenth century the emperors were hereditarily chosen in the reigning dynasties. Hence the distinction to be met with in authors of the last two centuries between the empire (the German princes and the Free Cities) and the emperor (the nation of which the emperor was hereditary king). The empire made war on the emperor; it was also supported by foreign nations as France, Sweden, etc. The holy Roman empire of the German nation, which came by degrees to be called the German empire, was abolished in 1806. On Jan. 17, 1871, the delegates from the states of the two confederations of Germany, in assembly at Versailles, re-established the "German empire" without alluding to either Rome or Italy, nor consequently to any suzerainty over the other states of Europe.

—How shall we distinguish between an emperor and a king? It is possible to be both at once. Napoleon was king of Italy; the emperor Edition: current; Page: [99] of Austria is king of Hungary; the emperor of Germany is king of Prussia (or rather the king of Prussia is emperor of Germany). At first sight, the choice of title seems arbitrary; by following the empire, however, through its various metamorphoses it will be understood that the adoption of the name of emperor or king is governed by sufficiently strict analogies. The conception of sovereignty in the two cases is not the same.

—In principle, there should only be one emperor, or two at most, one of the east and one of the west, since, according to the imperial idea, the whole civilized world is considered as one republic, governed by the same laws. But as, since the renaissance and the treaty of Westphalia, states are regarded as independent, each nation can give to its chief the title of emperor or of king, according as it approaches or withdraws from the political ideal, represented in pagan times by Cæsarism, and under Christianity by the holy empire.

—Is an empire more despotic than royalty? No, the parliamentary constitutions of contemporary empires and royalties are identical. But at empire is generally considered as a grant, and royalty as a right; a king represents himself, while an emperor represents the people; he is the embodiment of a quantity of collective power which extends to everything. A king is a great lord; an emperor is a functionary. A king may govern through the disposition of subjects by making appeal to their good-will, for he is a privileged person among other privileged persons, lords or commons. But the emperor must govern strictly, because he is a responsible agent. In fact the distinction disappears, because a change of constitution carries away in its rapidity the characteristics of supreme power; but it is plain why such and such a nation imposes upon its dynasty one of the two titles. A new dynasty, which has no ancestry and derives all its force from the law, is rather imperial than royal. A new nation, which has no aristocracy, arrives at a more positive conception of the law, and will demand a king in preference to an emperor.



ENCOURAGEMENT OF INDUSTRY BY THE STATE—Bounties, etc., General Principles. The word encouragement as here used includes the favors accorded by public administrations in the shape of bounties, money grants, loans or advances, freedom from taxation, etc., to foster any branch of industry, to facilitate any operation or encourage any work that may be considered particularly useful to a country. Bounties, then, are means of incitement used by government, or generally by public administration, in view of certain definite results. It would be a difficult matter to name them all, the more so that the shape they take is very variable, according to the object it is proposed to attain, the country and the times: but what we have to slay will suffice to give a general idea of the subject.

—Great confidence was formerly felt in the efficacy of bounties given by the public authorities. They were even believed in many cases to be a necessity, it might be to induce the commencement of industries altogether new, it might be to give others already existing greater development, it might finally be to give labor in general a salutary activity. Thus governments seldom hesitated when the interests of the country they guided were really the object of their solicitude, to lavish bounties indifferent shapes to the utmost extent of their financial ability. Colbert was a strong advocate of this course, and would have been stronger had he consulted only his love of the public weal and the advice given by some of the first minds of his age.

—People at that time did not sufficiently take into account the natural tendencies of industry and the potential energy of which it is possessed. It was thought necessary to encourage it to produce useful things, whereas the production of such is its natural tendency, its constant pre-occupation, its daily care. It was thought, at the very least, necessary to stimulate it in the paths it was following; and yet the stimulants it brings in its train are incomparably more powerful than those at the disposal of any government. Nor were the resources which it possesses thought of either, nor the magnificent recompense it bestows itself on whoever assists it in its progress. It is but just to add that the potential energies of industry and its internal resources were not as great formerly as they have become in our days, and that it might sometimes be necessary to supplement them.

—As industry and its tendencies have become better known, so has the confidence once felt in the beneficial effect of artificial inducements singularly diminished. It still exists, it is true, in many minds, but no longer with the same life, as generally or as absolutely as it did once. This may easily be seen by the conduct of most European governments. Although these governments are in general much more occupied with the interests of industry than were those which preceded them, because they much better understand their importance, they show themselves much less prodigal of material encouragement. We do not speak here, let it be understood, of that sort of indirect encouragement which they give, or believe they give, at the expense of consumers, by the increase of customs duties, but only of money bounties directly drawn from the public treasury. Bounties of this sort are to-day much less frequent than they have been at certain periods, regard being had to the relative interest displayed by governments in industry and the comparative extent of their resources. No government could be seen now-a-days, unless in exceptional cases, doing for industry what Colbert did with no little regularity: paying with state funds for the importation of certain products or certain industries; drawing by bounties foreign workmen to the country; subsidizing growing establishments; advancing money to silk manufacturers at the rate of 2,000 francs for every loom working, etc. No more could there be Edition: current; Page: [100] seen a government paying about 500,000 francs annually of a gratuity for the exportation of grain alone, with no other special object than then of encouraging agriculture, as for a long time during the last century the English government did1 More credit is given at the present time to that spontaneous activity of industry, whose energy and resources are much better understood than they were formerly. Except in certain special cases where action is taken in view of some great public interest, the direct assistance given to industry is limited to a few honorary rewards or insignificant pecuniary help.

—As for economists, it is scarcely necessary to say that they are for the most part but little in favor of bounties, even when they are not directly hostile to it. Knowing better than other men, because it is the object of their special study, the natural activity of industry, the soundness of its tendencies and the extent of its own resources, they believe that it is always best to leave it to itself, that is to say, to its inborn energy, limiting all help to securing for it freedom, order and security; and that there is often a risk of hindering its advance by interposing in its operations with untimely subsidies.

—However, although this belief is in a certain measure universal among economists, it must be confessed that they do not all possess it in the same degree, or at least that they are more or less absolute in the conclusions which they draw form it. Some seem to condemn subsidies utterly, as being invariably injurious except when they are totally ineffective and useless; others admit them as an exception in certain cases. Without discussing all the different opinions on this point, we shall try to sum up the principles, as they seem to us to result from economic works as a whole, and from the very nature of things.

—As a general rule it may be said, without hesitation, that the system of subsidies given by the state is a bad one. When any sort of work is really useful, that is to slay, demanded by the wants of society, general industry has no need of artificial stimulus to direct its attention to it, the natural stimulus which arises from the demand being sufficient. The encouragement to which it has a right springs, then, from its very source, that is to say, from the satisfaction of the demands to which it has come in answer. It consists in the recompense which it requires and obtains in return for the products which it delivers or the services it renders. The more valuable these services are, the more certain the reward. The more necessary the industry then, by so much the more effective is this natural encouragement. It is perfectly useless for a government to intervene to guarantee it or strengthen it.

—On the other hand, government intervention may sometimes have troublesome results. If the help is extended to an industry the produce of which has already been tried and accepted by consumers, it can only appear superfluous: but besides the impropriety of uselessly expending public money, there is also the risk of stimulating the industry beyond bounds, in such a manner as to drive it sometimes to exceed, in its production, the just limit of the demand. If, on the contrary, the help be given to a failing industry, the product of which seems to be abandoned by the public, it appears in every way to be merely sustaining, very unseasonably, a kind of labor which had better be given up; because it fails to return either to the country or to those who work at it what it costs them. In this case the damage done is twofold; and unproductive industry is being maintained at the expense of the public treasury, the extinction of which would be a benefit.

—We do not even admit that it would be ad advisable and good thing, in the present state of industrial relations, to favor, by money subsidies, the introduction into a country of a kind of work hitherto new to it. The resources of general industry are in our own times sufficiently extensive, and the facilities for communication between peoples sufficiently great, for it to be left to the care of private persons to introduce into their country any foreign industry capable of being acclimatized there. They are at least as interested in that as their government can be, and they are much better judges of the suitability of transplanting the new industry as well as of the fittest means of accomplishing it. As to the necessary resources, if they are wanting to some they will not be wanting to others. Their sum total is already a very sufficient one, and the tendency is still for it to increase from day to day.

—Is it then to be said on that account that official bounties ought to be prescribed in every case? Certainly not. Circumstances could be named in which it is scarcely permitted to doubt their necessity, and it which they have been productive of nothing but good. No writer known to us, for example, has pretended generally and absolutely to deny to the subsidies lavished by Colbert in France, all utility whatsoever. All are agreed, on the contrary, that France owes to them the birth or the development of some of the industries which have made its wealth. Very few will deny that it has been, if not absolutely necessary at least every useful, to subsidize the establishment and spread of savings banks.2 Deprived of all assistance from external sources at their commencement these banks would with difficulty have been established, and yet every one is eger to recognize the immense services they have rendered.

—The necessity or utility Edition: current; Page: [101] of bounties must then be admitted in certain cases. But what are these cases? It would be perfectly impossible to detail them all. All we shall attempt to do is to reduce them to certain principal ones.

—It seems to us at first proper to consider in this matter the country and the times. The necessity for official bounties is greater in a country the less advanced it is in civilization and wealth, and the more imperfect is its social or political organization. It is, to begin with, obvious that the greater the vigor and resources which local industry possesses they less need it has for external assistance, because it is able to undertake more for itself. This consideration would, however, be insufficient if it were not remembered that the countries where industry is least advanced and least rich, are also usually those in which it encounters the greatest obstacles from imperfect laws or vices in social order.

—If a state could be imagined in which freedom of industry was established in its entirety, without restriction or reserve; where the rights of all were, in addition, perfectly and completely guaranteed; we believe that it would be possible then without danger, nay, even with great advantage, to dispense altogether with official bounties of every description. Industry would always be equal to the task of supplying its own wants, it would launch without effort into every sort of useful labor, and would, besides, create for itself all the kindred institutions of which it stood in need. But this condition of perfect industrial liberty is not, unfortunately, that of any people on earth; on the contrary, nations are still, for the most part, far distant from it. Among almost all, the development of industry is retarded by trammels more or less strong; and often also the establishment of the appendant institutions of which industry may stand in need to second its efforts, is forbidden. If attention is paid to it, it will be seen that it is almost invariably some imperfection in social order which has rendered necessary, when it has been really necessary, the active intervention of public authority.

—The bounties lavished by Colbert were, we believe, very useful in some cases. Several very interesting branches of industry would not have been created without them, or, at all events, not till a much later period. But at the same time the utility of these bounties was only relative. It originated at first in the existence of privileged corporations which put in the way of a general development of industry, and particularly the starting of any new business, so many obstacles that private individuals scarcely dared face them, if dependent solely on their own resources, and would in any case have had the greatest difficulty in overcoming them. It sprang also from the absence of any institution of credit capable of aiding the efforts of the pioneers of industry by placing at their disposal the capital they lacked.

—In more recent times, if the savings banks could not be started in France without some special encouragement, it seems to us still to be the imperfections of social order which are to blame. They would not have needed those artificial stimulants if the establishment of companies generally, and joint stock companies in particular, had been less interfered with by the law; and if, on the other hand, there had existed in the country the vast net work of banking institutions which spring up so readily wherever men are free to establish them. In taking notice, then, of the majority of instances where official or external bounties have been necessary to industry, it will be seen that this need arose from an analogous if not an identical cause. It was perfectly just, to our thinking, and perhaps necessary, that in the times of Louis XIV, good writers, those whose works were an honor to their country, should have been rewarded or encouraged by pensions from the public treasury or the privy purse, because the right of property in their works held by those authors was then very little recognized and still less guaranteed them. This was another imperfection in the laws, different from those of which we have just spoken, but producing substantially the same effects. The exercise of their legitimate rights either could not be, or was not wished to be, secured to those authors, and it was more or less made good to them by pensions. Similarly it was but right during all the last century, as the rights of inventors were not secured to them by patents, and as in addition privileged corporations barred their advance at every step—it was but right, we say, nay, even necessary, that government should either grant those inventors some special privileges or subsidies, to assist them. In this latter case, as in the former, it was a sort of making good or indemnifying the wrong done. We do not say, however, that the government of those days reasoned thus, that it recognized the wrongs done and that its precise intention was to atone for them. Not so, but it realized that here had been services rendered which had not been paid for, and it paid for them in its own way when it was well inspired.

—It will be said that it would have been more logical to reform the abuses which were the obstacle to the normal development of industry, or which deprived certain private persons of the exercise of their legitimate rights. Doubtless it would have been more logical, but it would have been less simple and often more difficult to carry out. It is unhappily a matter of experience that in all countries the reform of abuses is slow, wearisome, and almost always bristling with the gravest difficulties, even for those who hold the power in their hands. Was it necessary, while awaiting the disappearance of all these abuses, to abstain from removing here and there, when it was possible, some of their most distressing consequences by bounties or subsidies properly given? We do not believe so. We will only say that official bounties scarcely appear to us to be useful except in similar circumstances, and that in all cases great circumspection should be used in their Edition: current; Page: [102] distribution to avoid interfering with the progress of the very industry which they are designed to assist. In our own days the British government has on several occasions made use of the system of bounties on a grand scale, to repair, as far as lay within its power, the injury caused by great errors formerly committed.

—When the negroes were emancipated in the British colonies there immediately arose there a great scarcity of manual labor. The freed negroes either refused to work, or turned to other employments than those they had formerly been engaged in, to such an extent that the workrooms of the colonists were almost deserted. To supply the want it became necessary to call in all haste free workmen from the countries nearest, and as the colonists had not perhaps all the means necessary to accelerate to the needful extent this movement of immigration, the British government undertook to help it on by powerful bounties. In a certain measure it succeeded. But the bounties it scattered broadcast did not fail to give rise to frightful abuses, which obliged it soon afterward to reconsider on short notice its former measures, to the great injury of all parties interested; so true is it that in following this path of official subsidies, even when the action is taken in view of a clear and pressing necessity, the evil is always found side by side with the good.

—More recently, English agriculture seeming to be hard pressed in its present interests, as it might be to a certain extent, on account of the sudden repeal of the corn laws, which had for so long assured it an artificial price for its production, it was resolved to lessen the damage done, if damage there were, by giving bounties here and there. This was done, notably, by voting a pretty considerable sum destined for distribution in the shape of bounties to aid draining operations.

—In France one of the last trials of the system which has been made on a large scale, was the vote of the constituent assembly, in 1848, of a sum of three million frames to aid the formation of workmen's associations. There was no question then of redressing an injury, the result of former legislative blunders, but a sacrifice to a then dominant prejudice, this sacrifice could not have and had not any but trifling results; therefore we merely remind the reader of it. More recently still, the state was at some expense, which it undertook, however, more circumspectly than it had formerly done, in aiding the establishment of superannuation funds for workmen.

—To sum up: the bounties given by government have rarely been productive of the good effects hoped for by their projectors; they have sometimes hindered the progress of industry and have seldom stimulated it efficiently. Their usefulness and expediency in certain exceptional cases may, however, be admitted. In equity they are only justifiable when they are a species of reparation for an injury formerly done; for otherwise they are a sacrifice unjustly imposed on the tax payers for the benefit of a few. In public economy they are equally unjustifiable except as a sort of makeshift to correct in certain cases the imperfections of the laws.



ENEMY.The ancient Romans had two words to express what we understand by the one word, enemy. They used the word hostis when speaking of a stranger, of a man belonging to a nation which formed no part of the Orbis Romanus. Inimicus was applied only to private hatreds, to enmities between citizen and citizen. Every stranger to the Roman universe was considered an enemy, hostis; and, added the legislation of Rome, may the authority of the laws be eternally against him. Wars, however, were preceded by solemn declarations, which show what persons become enemies in war. These were all individuals belonging to the nation against which war was declared, and even all persons to be met with on its territory.—"Quodque populus Romanus cum populo Hermundulo hominibusque Hermundulis bellum jussit ob eam rem ego populusque Romanus, etc." (Declaration of war from a lost work of Cincius, De Re Militari. Grotius.)

—Here is another declaration of war: "Philippo regi, Macedonibusque qui sub regno ejus essent." Thus war was declared not only against the nation and the king, but also against all the men of the nation and against all the subjects of the kingdom.

—We find the same principles of international law in Greece. Agesilaus spoke as follows, to a subject of the king of Persia: "While we were friends of your king, we acted also as friends in regard to all that belonged to him But now, O Pharnabazus, since we have become enemies, we act as enemies. Since then you wish to be considered as belonging to him. we have the right to injure him in your person." Yet morality sometimes asserted its rights. We meet with its happy influence in all ages and places. The very nations of antiquity, who admitted the right to kill all persons belonging to the nation of the enemy, wherever found, armed or not armed, able to defend themselves or not, allowed no attempts on the honor of wives and daughter—attempts which have thus been subjected, by way of an exception of which humanity may be proud, to the reprobation of the international law of all ages. "What brutality! O gods of Greece," exclaimed Diodorus Siculus; "so far as I can remember, the barbarians themselves did not approve such excesses!"

—We find at Rome a Torquatus transported to Corsica for having committed, in time of war, an attempt of this kind; and Chosro?s, a king of Persia, ordered a soldier to be crucified for the same crime. Hostages were not spared; to take their lives was considered right. Surrender was not sufficient to save life. The Romans were wont to put to death in their triumphs the enemy's chiefs, even although they had become prisoners by capitulation. The triumpher awaited at the capital the news of their execution.

—Were there no limits to the power of the victor over the Edition: current; Page: [103] person of the enemy? From the point of view of the laws of war there seem to have been but few restrictions. We have just called attention to the unanimous reprobation which was attached to certain acts, yet, in point of fact, women, though protected against violence in the beginning became captives, that is to say, the absolute property of a master. It was an admitted principle throughout all antiquity that the prisoner of war became a slave, and the very etymology of this work implied that the unhappy conquered being had been saved, preserved, when the laws of war authorized his destruction. This, according to the publicists of antiquity, was the origin of the word.

—To come down to Christian times. "If we keep before our eyes," says Montesquieu, "on the one hand the continual massacres of Greek and Roman chiefs and kings, and on the other the destruction of people and towns by Timur and Gengis Khan, who devastated Asia, we shall see that we owe to Christianity a certain political law in government and a certain international law in war, which humanity can not sufficiently acknowledge. It is this international law which brought it about that among us victory leaves to the vanquished life, liberty, laws, property." (Esprit des lois book xxiv., chap. iii) This international law did not prevail in a day. Christianity had to make many efforts during the centuries of strife and social transformation which constitute the middle ages, before it succeeded. "The influence of the church, which was so powerful in the middle ages, was not sufficient to stop the belligerents, and to prevent the violence and the cruelty of the acts to which they were addicted." (Vergé, Sur Martens, book viii.; Heffter, Droit International, 1855, p. 127)

—In the eleventh century, in England, at the time of its conquest by the Normans, nothing was respected, neither property nor person; men and women became the prey of the conqueror. The daughters of the noblest families passed into the hands of valets, who had become feudal lords by right of violence and rapine. The former lords were their serfs. Their property was almost entirely confiscated, and helped to establish those great aristocratic houses which to-day own the greater portion of the land in England. In the same century, in the wars between Philip Augustus and Richard Coeur de Lion, each blinded fifteen prisoners by way of reprisal, and sent them back in that state; in Palestine, Richard massacred 2,500 captives.

—Chivalry, that flower of Christianity, realized in and instant in practice the idea of generosity toward an enemy and of loyalty in combat. Ransom was introduced, and is still a boon to humanity. In 1179 Pope Alexander III., or rather the third council of Lateran, suppressed, by a decree, the enslavement and sale of prisoners. Finally, in 1315, appeared the maxim. "No slave in France." (Edicts of 1315, 1318 and 1553.)

—In the seventeenth century occurred the ravages of the Palatinate and the sacking of Magdeburg. However, ideas were progressing. There was always over all, dominating and judging events and actions, the evangelical law, the law of fraternity and humanity, which never permits tranquillity in evil doing.

—Who, to-day according to international law, are considered as enemies in case of declaration of war, and to what treatment are they subjected. A primary distinction and a great advance is this, that there are no enemies except those who take an active part in war, and then only during the progress of the struggle. Hence the following classes of persons should be spared: 1. children, women, old men, and in general all those who have not taken up arms or committed acts of hostility; 2. those who follow in the train of the army, but who are not intended to take part in hostilities, such as chaplains, doctors, surgeons, and vivandieres. To these custom has added quartermasters, drummers and fifers. As for officers and soldiers, "from the moment that they are to severely wounded or so surrounded by the enemy that they are no longer in a state to resist; or when they lay down their arms and ask quarter, the enemy is, as a rule, in duty bound to spare their lives. The only exceptions to this rule are: 1. in extraordinary cases when reasons of war forbid their being spared: 2, if it is necessary to use retaliation or reprisals, 3, if the vanquished is personally guilty of a capital crime, as, for example, of desertion, or if he has violated the laws of war. In all other cases we must consider as prisoners of war the soldiers who fall into the hands of the enemy; and in wars between nation and nation it would be a violation of faith and of the law of nature to put to death all prisoners of war." (Précis, book vii, chap. iv.) Hence there are no enemies except the combatants on both sides, and the quality of enemy, insofar as it authorizes to kill, vanishes the moment strife or resistance is no longer possible. Such is the positive, actual law of nations. It is for this reason that persons who take part in the struggle without making known from a distance their quality of enemy by wearing a uniform, are so severely treated.

—Are all means of destruction against the person of the enemy permitted? Martens states that "the civilized powers of Europe recognize it as absolutely contrary to the laws of war to make use of poison and assassination, or even to put a price upon the head of a legitimate enemy, the case of retaliation alone excepted. Custom and many treaties condemn any kind of arms or open violence which would unnecessarily increase the number of sufferers, (explosive balls, for instance).

—What are the laws of war in regard to the prisoner? "Just as little," says Martens (book viii., chap. iv.), "as natural law permits the killing of the legitimate enemy when he has been vanquished, does it authorize the reducing him to slavery. But it is right to force him to lay down his arms, and to detain him as a prisoner of war until the re-establishment Edition: current; Page: [104] of peace, unless it has been agreed to allow him to depart, wither immediately or at a fixed date. Officers are often released on their word of honor not to serve until they have been exchanged, or during a fixed period, or till peace is declared, and to repair to a given place when summoned to do so."

—Can the members of the nation at war, who are captured, be made prisoners or be considered as such? Evidently not, because, as has been stated, they are not enemies. Martens sums up international law at present as regards them in the following words: "It is contrary to the usages of civilized nations to deprive of their liberty the innocent subjects of the enemy, who have taken no part in hostilities, and to remove them against their will, but it is admissible to force them to give hostages, or to take such hostages by force, to serve as guarantees of an engagement or obligation." And again: "Those who are simply attached to the service of the army, and are not among the number of the combatants, are not received and treated as prisoners of war; on the contrary, it is the custom to send them back to the enemy."

—The taking by assault of towns and fortresses makes no change in the law. Life is due to the garrison. "But if there is no capitulation, and the place is taken by assault, the garrison has to surrender at discretion: then nothing can be asked but life."

—What is the treatment of prisoners of war? M. Verge thus deals with this question in his notes on our author: "Prisoners of war are deprived of their liberty in this sense, that they can not return to their own country, or take up arms again in the war then raging, but they are not subjected to violence or bad treatment, as long as they do not trouble the peace of the state. It is customary to allow officers a greater liberty than non-commissioned officers and soldiers. They are, in general, set at liberty on parol within the limits of a city, and provision is made for their maintenance. Non-commissioned officers and soldiers are placed under more direct surveillance, and their labor may be made to diminish the expense they occasion, but they can not be compelled to enter the army of the nation which made them prisoners." "The effects of captivity upon prisoners of war begin at the time of voluntary surrender, whether conditional or unconditional, and from the moment this surrender has been accepted by the promise of life being spared." "Captivity is terminated by a declaration of peace, by the voluntary submission accepted by the government which took the prisoners, by conditional or unconditional dismissal, or by ransom." (Notes sur Martens)

—What is the law as regards the property of the enemy? "Civilized nations have substituted for pillage and devastation the custom of exacting war contributions, wither in money or in kind under pain of military execution. The payment of these contributions should assure the preservation of property of all kinds, so that the enemy should then buy and pay for whatever he wishes delivered him thereafter, except the services he may demand from subjects, in their quality of temporary subjects." (Martens.) Respect for private property has to be established now only in naval warfare. This was almost effected in 1856, upon the initiative of the United States, which, almost a century ago, in 1785, sanctioned it in a treaty.

—Since the institution of regular armies war tends to become a simple duel between the armed belligerents. The consequence will be ever-increasing fair dealing between enemies. This latter appellation will pertain only to those who resist armed force; and it will not be applicable to these when defeated. Any outrage upon the property of the enemy, as well as an attack of any kind upon an unarmed person, women, children or old men, will still be regarded as a crime, will be subject to punishment, and will be checked, whether directed toward vanquished or victors. This will be the law of justice and civilization, until the word enemy itself shall disappear.





ENGLISH. Wm. H., was born in Scott county, Indiana, Aug. 27, 1822, was representative in congress (democratic) from Indiana, 1853-61, and was nominated for the vice-presidency in 1880 by the democratic party. (See DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, VI.)


ENTREPRENEUR.In taking account of the nature of the agents which co-operate in production, we distinguish, in any business enterprise, the entrepreneur and the workmen. The latter, according as they contribute to the industrial and ornamental art, or to scientific work, take the name of artisan, mechanic, artists, savants, etc. The workmen execute the orders of the entrepreneur, who conceives the enterprise or operation combines the scientific, moral and material elements which it requires, and directs the creation and sale of its products.

—The entrepreneur must then have in a certain measure, the knowledge of the artisan, the savant, the inventor, etc., at least so far as it is necessary for him to apply it: he must be familiar with the manual processes of the workman; must know how to procure the means required for production, to discern the best industrial processes, to choose the men who are to second him, and to procure, by way of credit or of association, the needful capital; and finally, he must direct all these elements of his enterprise with judgment, precision and energy.—"In the course of all these operations," says J. B. Say, "there are obstacles to surmount which demand a certain energy; there are inquietudes to bear which demand firmness; there are misfortunes to be repaired, for which a mind fertile in resources is needed."

—Dunoyer has well portrayed the numerous and important qualities necessary for an entrepreneur. "In the number of powers which exist in man, the first which strikes me," he says, "the one which naturally takes the place Edition: current; Page: [105] at the head of all the others, the one most indispensable to success in every kind of enterprise, and to free action in all the arts, is the talent for business, a talent in which are combined several very distinct faculties, such as a capacity for judging of the state of demand, or of knowing the wants of society; that of judging of the condition of supply, or of estimating the means of satisfying those wants; that of managing with ability enterprises wisely conceived; and finally, that of verifying the previsions of speculation by regular accounts intelligently kept. After this list of faculties relating to the conception and conduct of enterprises, of which the business talent is composed, come those faculties necessary for execution, from which the art talent arises. Such are, practical knowledge of the calling, theoretical ideas, talent for applying them, and skill in handicraft. All these faculties are industrial; * * * but I remark also a great number of moral qualities. Among these may be mentioned a whole class of habits which govern the conduct of persons with regard to themselves, and which in some sort concern only the individual. There may also be distinguished habits of another kind, which more particularly concern society. Power and free action in all kinds of occupations depend, as we shall see, on the perfection of both these classes of moral qualities."

—The entrepreneur is, then, the principal agent in production. He devotes to it his activity, he sacrifices to it his reputation and his honor; but, on the other hand, he may derive form it, with a high salary for his labor and profit on his capital, more or less important advantages which may augment his fortune, and which spring form the qualities with which he may be endowed, the activity he may display, and the risks he has to incur.

—It is because of a failure to take into account all these circumstances, and to have a definite idea of the laws of the variations of profits and wages, and the importance and the reciprocal rights of capital, labor and talent in the distribution of profits, that the working classes have often been led to look suspiciously on the success of the entrepreneurs, and to consider the profits and advantages of the latter as acquired at the expense of the workmen. A more general acquaintance with the principles of political economy would have the effect of correcting this false and dangerous manner of looking at things, and of showing those who live by their labor alone that it is decidedly for their interest that entrepreneurs should be numerous and prosperous; for in this case labor is more in demand and wages rise. We will not say that there is no prejudice on the part of the entrepreneurs, some of whom do indeed seem to think that it is they who maintain their workmen, and that the latter owe them something besides the labor they sell to them. The study of the laws of political economy would not be without use to these persons. By giving them sounder views on all matters, and of their rôle in society, it would serve to strengthen their judgment and intelligence in the conduct of affairs; and to overcome their prejudices, which contribute to alienate their workmen, their natural allies who, before the law of demand and supply, are neither their superiors nor their inferiors, but their equals.

—Carrying on business enterprises by association does not change the nature and the rôle of the entrepreneur, but it lessens them. The various partners share in fact more or less in the conception, the direction, the honor and the responsibility of the business. Nevertheless, whatever be the societary combination, there must be, under penalty of failure, a director or manager possessing most of the qualities we have recognized in the entrepreneur. The value of the business manager determines largely the value of the association.

—Lastly, we will say that every entrepreneur who does not work exclusively with his funds, is the pivot of an association, and that his workmen or those in his employ are partners, who, being bound only by temporary engagements and not being willing to participate in the bad chances, renounce the good ones and content themselves with a compensation regulated by the law of demand and supply.

E. J. L., Tr.



EQUITY, according to the definition given by Aristotle, is "the rectification of the law, when, by reason of its universality, it is deficient; for this is the reason that all things are not determined by law, because it is impossible that a law should be enacted concerning some things, so that there is need of a decree or decision; for of the indefinite, the rule also is indefinite; as among Lesbian builders the rule is leaden, for the rule is altered to suit the figure of the stone, and is not fixed, and so is a decree or decision to suit the circumstances." (Ethics, b. v., c. x., Oxford trans.) "Equity," says Blackstone, "in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of all law; positive law is construed and rational law is made by it. In this respect, equity it synonymous with justice; in that, to the true and sound interpretation of the rule." According to Grotius, equity is the correction of that wherein the law, by reason of its generally, is deficient.

—It is probable that the department of law called equity in England once deserved the humorous description given by Selden in his "Table Talk" "Equity in law is the same that spirit is in religion, what every one pleases to make it: sometimes they go according to conscience, sometimes they go according to conscience, sometimes according to law, sometimes according to the rule of court. Equity is a roguish thing: for law we have a measure, know what to trust to; equity is according to the conscience of him that is chancellor; and as that is larger or narrower, so is equity. It is all one as if they should make the standard for the measure we call a foot a chancellor's foot, what an uncertain measure would this be! One chancellor has a long foot, another a short foot, a third Edition: current; Page: [106] an indifferent foot: it is the same thing in the chancellor's conscience."

—This uncertainty has, however, long ceased in that branch of our law which is expressed by the term equity, and, from successive decisions, rules and principles almost as fixed have been framed and established in our courts of equity as in our courts of law. New cases do indeed arise, but they are decided according to these rules and principles, and not according to the notions of the judge as to what may be reasonable or just in the prticular case. Nothing in fact is more common than to hear the chancellor say, that whatever may be his own opinion, he is bound by the authorities, that is, by the decisions of his predecessors in office and those of the other judges in equity; that he will not shake any settled rule of equity, it being for the common good that these should be certain and known, however ill-founded the first resolution may have been.

—In its enlarged sense, equity answers precisely to the definition of justice, or natural law (as it is called), as given in the "Pandects" (i., tit. 1, s. 10, 11); and it is remarkable that subsequent writers on this so-called natural law, and also the authors of modern treatises on the doctrine of equity, as administered in the English courts, have, with scarcely any exception, cited the above passage from Aristotle as a definition of equity in our peculiar sense of a separate jurisdiction. But according to this general definition every court is a court of equity, of which a familiar instance occurs in the construction of statutes, which the judges of the courts of common law may, if they please, interpret according to the spirit, or, as it is called, the equity, not the strict letter.

—It is hardly possible to define equity as now administered, or to make at intelligible otherwise than by an enumeration of the matters cognizable in the courts in which it is administered in its restrained and qualified sense.

—The remedies for the redress of wrongs and for the enforcement of rights are distinguished into two classes, those which are administered in courts of law, and those which are administered in courts of equity. Accordingly, rights may be distributed into legal and equitable. Equity jurisdiction may, therefore, properly be defined as that department of law which is administered by a court of equity as distinguished from a court of law, from which a court of equity differs mainly in the subject matters of which it takes cognizance and in its mode of procedure and remedies.

—Courts of common law proceed by certain prescribed forms of action alone, and give relief only according to the kinds of actions, by a general and unqualified judgment for the plaintiff or the defendant. There are many cases, however, in which a simple judgment for either party, without qualifications or conditions, will not do entire justice. Some modifications of the rights of both parties may be required; some restraints on one side or the other, or perhaps on both; some qualifications or conditions, present or future, temporary or permanent, ought to be annexed to the exercise of rights or the redress of injuries. To accomplish such objects the courts of law have no machinery whatever according to their present constitution they can only adjudicate by a simple judgment between the parties. Courts of equity, however, are not so restrained; they adjudicate by decree pronounced upon a statement of his case by the plaintiff, which he makes by a writing called a bill, and the written answer of the defendant, which is given in upon oath, and the evidence of witnesses, together, if necessary with the evidence of all parties, also given in writing and upon oath. These decrees are so adjusted as to meet all the exigencies of the case, and they vary, qualify, restrain and model the remedy so as to suit it to mutual and adverse claims, and the real and substantial rights of all the parties, so far as such rights are acknowledged by the rules of equity.

—The courts of equity bring before them all the parties interested in the subject matter of the suit, and adjust the rights of all, however numerous; whereas courts of law are compelled by their constitution to limit their inquiry to the litigating parties, although other persons may be interested; that is, they give a complete remedy in damages or otherwise for the particular wrong in question as between the parties to the action, though such remedy is in many cases an incomplete adjudication upon the general rights of the parties to the action, and fails altogether as to other persons, not parties to the action who yet may be interested in the result or in the subject matter in dispute.

—The description of a court of equity, as given by Mr Justice Story, is this. A court of equity has jurisdiction in cases where a plain, adequate and complete remedy can not be had in the common law courts. The remedy must be plain, for if it be doubtful and obscure at law, equity will assert a jurisdiction. It must be adequate, for if at law it fall short of what the party is entitled to that founds a jurisdiction in equity; and it must be complete that is, it must attain the full end and justice of the case; it must reach the whole mischief and secure the whole right of the party present and future, otherwise equity will interpose and give relief. The jurisdiction of a court of equity is sometimes concurrent with the jurisdiction of a court of law, sometimes assistant to it, and sometimes exclusive. It exercises concurrent jurisdiction in cases where the rights are purely of a legal nature, but where other and more efficient aid is required than a court of law can afford. In some of these cases courts of law formerly refused all redress, but now will grant it. For strict law comprehending established rules, and the jurisdiction of equity being called into action when the purposes of justice rendered an exception to those rules necessary, successive exceptions on the same grounds became the foundation of a general principle, and could no longer be considered as a singular interposition. Thus law and equity are in continual progression, and the Edition: current; Page: [107] former is constantly gaining ground upon the latter. Every new and extraordinary interposition is by length of time converted into an old rule; a great part of what is now strict law was formerly considered as equity, and the equitable decisions of this age will unavoidably be ranked under the strict law of the next. (Prof. Millar. View of the English Government.) But the jurisdiction having been once acquired at a time when there was no such redress at law, it is still retained by the courts of equity.

—The most common exercise of the concurrent jurisdiction is in cases of account, accident, dower, fraud, mistake, partnership and partition. In many cases which fall under these heads, and especially in some cases of fraud, mistake and accident, courts of law can not and do not afford any redress; in others they do, but not in so complete a manner as a court of equity.

—A court of equity is also assistant to the jurisdiction of the courts of law in cases where the courts of law have no like authority. It will remove legal impediments to the fair decision of a question depending at law, as by restraining a party from improperly setting up, at a trial, some title or claim which would prevent the fair decision of the question in dispute; by compelling him to discover, upon his own oath facts which are material to the right of the other party, but which a court of law can not compel him to disclose; by perpetuating, that is, by taking in writing and keeping in its custody, the testimony of witnesses, which is in danger of being lost before the matter can be tried: and by providing for the safety of property in dispute pending litigation. It will a so counteract and control fraudulent judgments, by restraining the parties from insisting upon them.

—The exclusive jurisdiction of a court of equity is chiefly exercised in cases of merely equitable rights, that is, such rights as are not recognized in courts of law. Most cases of trust and confidence fall under this head. This exclusive jurisdiction is exercised in granting injunctions to prevent waste or irreparable injury; to secure a settled right, or to prevent vexatious litigation; in appointing receivers of property which is in danger of being misapplied; in compelling the surrender of securities improperly obtained; in preventing a party from leaving the country in order to avoid a suit; in restraining any undue exercise of a legal right; in enforcing specific performance of contracts; in supplying the defective execution of instruments, and reforming, that is, correcting and altering, them according to the real intention of the parties, when such intention can be satisfactorily proved; and in granting relief in cases where deeds and securities have been lost.

—Various opinions have been expressed upon the question whether it would or would not be best to administer justice altogether in one court or in one class of courts, without any separation or distinction of suits, or of the forms or modes of procedure and relief. Lord Bacon, upon more than one occasion, has expressed his decided opinion that a separation of the administration of equity from that of the common law is wise and convenient. "All nations," says he, "have equity, but some have law and equity mixed in the same court, which is worse, and some have it distinguished in several courts, which is better;" and again "In some states, that jurisdiction which decrees according to equity and moral right, and that which decrees according to strict right, is committed to the same court; in others, they are committed to different courts. We entirely opine for the separation of the courts; for the distinction of the cases will not long be attended to if the jurisdictions meet in the same person; and the will of the judge will then master the law."

—Lord Hardwicke held the same opinion. Lord Mansfield, it is to be presumed, though otherwise, for he endeavored to introduce equitable doctrines into courts of law His successor, Lord Kenyon, made use of these expressions. "If it had fallen to my lot to form a system of jurisprudence, whether or not I should have though it advisable to establish different courts, with different jurisdictions, and governed by different rules, it is not necessary to slay; but influenced as I am by certain prejudices that have become inveterate with those who comply with the systems they find established I find that in these courts proceeding by different rules a certain combined system of jurisprudence has been framed most beneficial to the people of this country, and which I hope I may be indulged in supposing has never yet been equaled in any other country on earth. Our courts of law only consider legal rights; our courts of equity have other rules, by which they sometimes supersede strict legal rules, and in so doing they act most beneficially for the subject." In England the principle of separating jurisdictions has been largely acted upon. She has her courts of equity and law, her bankrupt and insolvent courts, and courts of ecclesiastical and admiralty jurisdiction; indeed until lately her several courts of law had in principle, jurisdiction only over certain specified classes of suits. In countries governed by the civil law, the practice has in general been the other way. But whether the one opinion or the other be most correct in theory, the system adopted by every nation has been mainly influenced by the peculiarities of its own institutions, habits and circumstances, and the original forms of giving redress for wrongs.

—In some of the American states the administration of law and equity is distinct; in others the administration of equity is only partially committed to distinct courts; in a third class the two jurisdictions are vested in one and the same tribunal.

—The English equity has some resemblance to the Roman edictal law, or jus praetorium or honorarium, as it is often called. All the higher Roman magistrates (magistratus majores) had the jus edicendi or authority to promulgate edicta. These magistratus majores were consuls, praetors, curule aediles, and censors. By virtue of this power a magistrate made edicta or orders, either temporary and for particular occasions Edition: current; Page: [108] (edicta repentina); or upon entering on his office he promulgated rules or orders which he would observe in the exercise of his office (edicta perpetua). These edicta were written on a white tablet (album) in black letters; the headings or titles were in red: the alba were placed in the forum, in such a position that they could be read by a stander-by. Those edicta which related to the administration of justice had an important effect onthe Roman law; and especially the praetria edicta and those of the curule aediles. That branch of law which was founded on the praetorian edicta was designated jus praetorium, or honorarium, because the praetor held one of these offices to which the term honores was applied. The edicta were only in force during the term of office of the magistratus who promulgated them; but his successor adopted many or all of his predecessor's edicta, and hence arose the expression of "transferred edicts" (tralaticia edicta); and thus in the later republic the edicta which had been long established began to exercise an great influence on the law, and particularly the forms of procedure. About the time of Cicero many distinguished jurists began to write treatises on the edictum (libri ad edictum). Under the experors new edicta were rarer, and in the third century of our era they ceased. Under the empire we first find the edicta of the praefectus urbi mentioned; but these must be considered as founded on the imperial authority (majestas principis), and to have resembled the imperial constitutions. Under the reign of Hadrian, a compilation was made by his authority of the edictal rules by the distinguished jurist, Salvious Julianus, in conjunction with Servius Coraelius, which is spoken of under the name of edictum perpetuum. This edictum was arranged under various heads or titles, such at those relating to marriage, tutores, legata (legacies), and so on.

—By the term praetorian edict the Romans meant the edicts of praetor urbanus, who was the chief personage employed in the higher administration of justice under the republic. The edicta which related to peregrini (aliens) were so named after the praetor Peregrinus, and other edicta were called censoria, consularia, aedilicia, etc. Sometimes an edict of importance took its name from the praetor who promulgated it as carbonianum edictum. Sometimes the honorarise actiones, those which the praetor by his edict permitted were named in like manner from the praetor who introduced them. Sometimes an edict had its name from the matter to which it referred. The Romans generally cited the edicta by parts, titles, chapters or clauses of the edictum perpetuum, by naming the initial words, as unde legitimi, and so on; sometimes they are cited by a reference to their contents. Examples of these modes of citing the edictum occur in the titles of the forty-third book of the "Digest." In our own law we refer to certain forms of proceedings and to certain actions in a like way, as when we say quo warranto, quare impedit, and speak of qui tam actions.

—The jus praetorium is defined by Papinian (Dig. i., tit. i., 7) as the law which the praetors introduced for the purpose of aiding, supplying or correcting the law (jus cicile) with a view to the public interest. The edict is called by Marcianus "the living voice of the jus civile," that is, of the Roman law (Dig. i., tit. i., 8.) The praetorian law, as thus formed (jus prœtorium) was a body of law which was distinguished by this name from the jus civile, or the strict law; the opposition resembled that of the English terms equity and law. In its complete and large sense jus civile Romanorum or the law of the Romans, of course comprehended the jus prætorium; but in its narrower sense jus civile was contrasted, as already explained, with the jus prætorium.

—The origin of the Roman edictal law is plainly to be traced to the imperfections of the old jus civile, and to the necessity of gradually modifying law and procedure according to the changing circumstances of the times. It was an easier method of doing this than by direct legislation. Numerous modern treatises contain a view of the origin and nature of the Roman jus praetorium, though on some points there is not complete uniformity of opinion.

—Böcking. Institutionen. vol. i.; Puchta Cursus der Institutionen, vol. i., p. 293; Savigny Geschichte des Röm. Rechts vol. i; Heffter, Die Oeconomie des Edictes, Rhein Mus für Juris., i., p. 51; E. Schrader, Die Prätorischen Edicte der Römer, 1815.



ERA OF GOOD FEELING (IN U. S. HISTORY),a period (1817-23) when the contests of national parties were practically suspended, partly through the exhaustion of one party (the federal party) and partly through the extinction of the surface issues of the past. The termination of the war of 1812 had put an end to every question which had divided the parties since 1800; it left the democrats a triumphant majority, and the federalists a discredited minority; and the new policy of internal improvements and a protective tariff had not yet been developed so far as to form a party issue. Neither of these last projects was supported generally or with any interest by the federalists, but both found their warmest supporters in the northern section of the democratic party.

—The inaugural address of Monroe, in 1817, was exceedingly well calculated to soothe the feelings of the hopeless minority of federalists. It spoke warmly of their peculiar interests commerce and the fisheries; it congratulated the country on the restoration of "harmony"; and it promised the diligent efforts of the president to increase the harmony for the future. The inaugural was a harbinger of a tour which he made through New England during the year, and he was received with enthusiasm by a section which had not seen a president or heard such conciliatory language from a president, since Washington. Party feeling was laid aside, and the leaders of both parties joined in receiving the president and in announcing the arrival of an "era of good feeling." The Edition: current; Page: [109] "good feeling" lasted long enough to give Monroe an almost unanimous re-election in 1820, Plumer of New Hampshire being the only elector to vote against him; but it did not induce Monroe to take any federalists into his cabinet, as Jackson advised and urged him to do.

—The era of good feeling was terminated by the election of John Quincy Adams to the presidency in 1824, the opposition which was formed during his administration, and the development of two opposing national parties. (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, II.; DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLICAN PARTY, IV.; WHIG PARTY, I) During its existence no characteristic is more striking than the torpor which seemed to affect principle in politics, and the extent to which personal feeling seemed for the time to have superseded it. The several factions which supported Jackson, Adams, Crawford and Clay for the presidency, in 1824, hardly pretended to assign to their candidates any distinctive political principles, and one of the candidates, Jackson, was most earnestly supported for his supposed liking for internal improvements and a protective tariff, to which, as president, he proved to be a consistent opponent.

—The best medium for getting the spirit of the "era of good feeling" is 10-24 Niles' Weekly Register; see also 6 Hildreth's United States, 623; 3 Spencer's United States, 309.



ESSEX JUNTO, The (IN U. S. HISTORY)About 1781 this name was first applied by John Hancock to a group of leaders who were either residents of Essex county, Massachusetts, or were closely connected with it by ties of business or relationship. The great interests of the county were commercial, and the "Essex junto" was the personification of the commercial interest's desire for a stronger federal government. The ability and the ultraism of the junto made its members peculiarly objectionable to the conservatives and anti-federalists of the state, but the name temporarily died out after the successful establishment of the constitution.

—Upon the first development of the federal party the Essex junto naturally fell into it, and ranked as the most ultra of the federalists. They counted among their number such state leaders as Cabot, the Lowells, Pickering. Theophilus Parsons, Stephen Higginson, and Goodhue; and Fisher Ames, a federalist of national reputation was in warm sympathy with them until his retirement from politics. So long as the federal party was controlled by Washington and Hamilton, the junto's influence in it was very considerable; but when Adams succeeded Washington, its members followed Hamilton rather than the president. (See FEDERAL PARTY.) In his own state the president at once revived the old name of "Essex junto," threw upon its members most of the responsibility for the attempt to force a war upon France in 1798-9, and thus gave them a national notoriety as a "British faction," unworthy of recognition as an American party (See ADAMS, JOHN.) After his retirement from office, in 1801, President Adams was very steadily engaged, for about seven years, in newspaper warfare against the junto and its open or secret allies inhis own state—The beginning of the "restrictive system," and of the New England opposition to it (see EMBARGO), deprived the name almost entirely of its local limitation and made it a synonym for New England federalism. Throughout the rest of the Union, which was almost entirely republican in polities, it became convenient to attribute all the difficulties, in New England, the resistance to the embargo, the alleged intention to secede in 1808, the open councils and suspected designs of the Hartford convention, and the stubborn opposition to the war, to the vague spirit of evil inherent in the "Essex junto" (See CONVENTION, HARTFORD; SECESSION, EMBARGO; FEDERAL PARTY.) See 4 Hildreth's United States, 375, and 5:52, 81, 119:1 Schouler's United States. 469; Lodge's Life of Cabot. 17:4 Jefferson's Works (edit. 1829, letters of April 20. 1812. and Jan. 13. 1813), 172. 184:1 John Adams' Works, 286, and 9:618.



ESTATES, CASTES, CLASSES, ORDERS. Plato, in his "Republic," seeking, by the study of man, to acquire a knowledge of and attain to justice, analyzed the manifestations of the soul, and reduced them to three original faculties: intellect, sentiment and sensation. These three forces of our nature, though unequally developed in individuals, are considered by him to be the strict and complete expression of our being. He takes them, therefore, as the bases of a more general study, and, rising from the individual to society, he reduces all mankind to these three types, and he divides men into three classes, according as one or another of the three faculties predominates in the soul of the individual. These three classes he calls philosophers or magistrates, warriors or gymnasts, laborers or artisans, and gives them the following attributes. To the first, that of the intellect which presides and governs; to the second, sentiment, sympathetic and ardent, which obeys and combats; to the third, the common instinct which subjects external nature to our wants. "The history of human society seems to confirm the truth of this metaphysical analysis. Everywhere the existence has been shown of these three classes, the necessity of which Plato undertook to prove: and experience, in accord with theory, shows us the human race instinctively accepting this natural law, from the remotest epoch in India down to modern times, each nation dividing itself into three branches, we might say into three peoples, superimposed the one on the other, and reserving to each one of these branches a distinct part in the general labor of mankind.

—But this hierarchy in the social body, enduring for centuries or reconstructed after revolution, modifies its character with the progress of civilization, in the lapse of time. The earliest nations looked on this hierarchy as a creation of the Deity, as something Edition: current; Page: [110] providential. At a later period philosophers and legislators thought they detected in it a tendency inherent in man, and they upheld it no longer in the name of an immutable God, but in the name of wisdom and justice to which the personal rights of the individual should yield. Still later, when society had become more mature, this hierarchy was accepted only as a system more or less proper and useful in preserving order and directing nations, till at last equality was proclaimed as a principle by the French revolution.

—Although in ordinary language, the terms castes, classes, estates and orders are frequently used as synonyms, their meanings are different, and relatle to the different origins of these hierarchies. Castes are unchangeable divisions fixed by religious belief, and which have not really existed except in India. The general name of classes is given to all those political divisions founded on conquest or on civil legislation. Estates are merely a modern modification of classes, a more liberal and more philosophical way of calling and looking at them.

—The transformations of which we have just spoken were not successive, and the progress of nations and civilization has not been continuous. Nations have advanced to the realization of what appears to us not to be justice and truth through many vicissitudes. Some succumbed to invasion and conquest, but no change was wrought in their institutions; others grew weak in proportion as equality overcame their social hierarchy, and new races, founding new empires, restored the classes, which had disappeared for a moment; still others preserve their social organization as it is described by the most ancient monuments of their history. Whatever science may say as to their historic origin, the castes of India have always had their roots in the supernatural order. Earthly life, in accordance with the laws of Manu, was nothing to the Hindoo but the inevitable consequence of a previous life, the recompense accorded or the punishment inflicted by God—an unchangeable destiny, against which revolt was either useless or impious. Brahma did not create man: he created three different men, who emanated respectively from his head, his arms and his feet—the Brahman, the Cshatrya and the Vaisya, who alone compose humanity. The stranger, the primitive inhabitant of India, the Sudra or Chandala, was lower than a man, lower than certain animals, reverence for which was enjoined by the law. The contact of this impure creature, the Sudra, his look, even his shadow, defile regenerated men (Dwidjas) who might put him to death with impunity, or use him as a lifeless thing. Only the races issued from Brahma have a right to life here and hereafter, and the world is divided among them. To the Brahman belong science, wisdom and virtue; he is king of the earth; all its products belong to him of right and to the other classes only through his liberality: he prays, he contemplates, is the incarnation of Brahma; he is God himself, obeyed and honored as such, for his words express the divine will. The Cshatrya, under the supreme direction of the Brahman, govern, dispense justice, frame the laws, make war and peace, levy taxes, maintain social order, and the division of castes. Under the term Vaisyas are comprehended the cultivators of the soil, and artisans charged with the feeding of animals, the carrying on of commerce, of acquiring and increasing wealth, etc.

—Could Buddha, by his milder doctrine, have in the long run overcome the rigidity of the dogma of castes? His system of morals which tended to equality would beyond doubt have been powerless to do away with the Brahmanic hierarchy (see BRAHMANISM and BUDDHISM) since the Buddhist considered that the unity and equality of men were to be realized only beyond the tomb and through annihilation. However this may be, the followers of Buddha, conquered and driven from India, were able to gain over to their new religion only the people of China, of the highlands of Asia, Japan, and some other islands. Persia, Judea and Egypt had also their sacerdotal order; but the Magi, the Levites and the priests of Memphis differed profoundly from the Brahmans. They occupied the first rank in society, as intermediaries between man and God, but they were not its predestined sovereigns. All power did not emanate from them; the kings and warriors enjoyed real independence; even laborers had rights which belonged to them personally. The Levite gave council to the chiefs of Israel, but he had no personal authority over them; the priests of Egypt studied the laws and guarded their perpetuity, but they could not encroach on the attributes and the privileges of the two other classes. The historians of Greece admired this priestly organization in which the present reproduced the past, and which was a guarantee of lasting peace.

—Greek society made greater progress than the theocracies of the east. On Hellenic soil, as later at Rome, the city was the origin and the basis of the republic, and within such narrow limits the subordination of class to class could not endure very long. The difference between the conquering and the conquered nation was not very apparent. The Dorians and the Ionians belonged to the same family, spoke the same language, professed the same religion, but neither was able to master the other. The first and most important result of this coexistence of independent and hostile states, in the same region, was to destroy all uniformity of legislation, and to render the formation of a sacerdotal class impossible. The Greek genius, so far removed from the contemplative mysticism of the east, far more occupied with the present condition of man, with his relations to other men, than with his future destiny and his relations to the universe and God, simplified and humanized worship as well as religion. The sacerdotal order became useless in Greece.

—The sacrifices were simply one of the privileges of the aristocratic and warrior class, in whose Lands sovereignty for a long time remained. In Sparta and some other Doric cities, Edition: current; Page: [111] where the influence of Crete and Egypt were considerable, this domination rested on characteristic institutions. The Spartans alone constituted the city, the government and the army; they owned a part of the lands and had a suzerainty over the rest. They guaranteed the integral preservation in each family of its property; they avoided all change in legislation and endeavored to preserve intact the traditions of conquest and of their establishment in the Peloponnesus. The conquered Laconians, scattered around them became the laboring class, who cultivated the lands which were ceded to them on condition of their paying tribute. Thus they provided for the material wants of the Spartans, served as artisans, sailors and auxiliary troops, but had no political existence and were scarcely recognized or protected by the law.

—It was different at Athens: from the earlier centuries the races of Attica mingled, revolutions followed, systems of laws succeeded each other; and a multiplicity of laws, says Vico, soon leads to a democracy. In the seventh century Solon, in his effort to reconstruct society, was unable to take, as a basis and criterion of his division of classes, origin or birth, but simply wealth. Such an arbitrary hierarchy, and one so easy to modify became illusory in a short time. Every citizen had equal rights, was a member of the popular assembly, and could attain to official position in the state. The form of the government never allowed authority to continue in a given group of families, nor privileges to become general. The offices themselves belonged, without distinction, to all, each one might become in turn a soldier, a judge, a legislator, a magistrate; for labor, instead of being a cause of inferiority, was imposed on all citizens. Thus was formed that Athenian democracy whose excesses were censured by the greatest minds of the ages of Pericles and Alexander, by Xenophon, Aristotle, Socrates, Aristophanes, and which excited the irony of Plato.

—The hierarchy of the Roman classes, founded on more absolute principles and sustained by more powerful institutions, resisted for four centuries the most persistent and energetic efforts of the people. Under the kings, and during the earlier period of the republic, the patricians, who without doubt derived their origin from learned Etruria and warlike Sabina, were the active part of the republic.

—After the ancient world had become one, it crumbled to pieces. From the Euphrates to the river Tweed, the provinces, attached to the capital only by bonds which grew weaker every day, and by an administration at once oppressive and powerless, were isolated from each other, and lost by degrees their collective and national life. Abandoned at last to themselves, they opposed no effort to the invasions of the Germanic tribes.

—From this contact of opposing peoples and civilizations a restoration of social classes necessarily resulted. The barbarians, who were warriors impatient of discipline, with no occupation but that of arms, united by their federative tendencies and by interest, found in the provinces of the empire only a sparse population, enfeebled and impoverished, devoted to continuous labor, unaccustomed either to independence or authority. This insured not only the domination of the conquering race, but the union of its chiefs in a body politic, into a superior class, who owned the land, exercised sovereignty over its inhabitants, and reduced to the labors of tillage or of daily industry the dwellers in the country and in the towns.

—One authority alone stood erect amid the ruins of the empire, that of the ecclesiastical order. After the official recognition of Christianity by Constantine, the chiefs of the Christian church had been invested with a temporal jurisdiction which increased continuously through the weakness of the imperial administration Entrusted at first with the government of the faithful and the material interests of their churches, the bishops, by slow degrees, had changed this altogether special authority, and when the barbarians came, they were the protectors and masters of cities, the only municipal and provincial authority capable of resisting the violence of invasion.

—The rapid conversion of the barbarians to Christianity, and the need they had of making use of agents to subject the conquered population to the new organization of society, further increased the political influence of the clergy. Possessing in the name of the church, considerable landed property which they lost but for a moment, the bishops entered easily into a hierarchy which had as a basis and measure property in its different forms. If it be true that feudalism was completely established only in the tenth century, it is none the less true that the principal elements of the feudal regime existed in the west in the beginning of the seventh and eighth centuries, that the spirit of individualism of the Germanic peoples made them look on property from the first as the essential attribute of personality as the first condition of sovereignty and independence: and they graduated the rank, the duties and the privileges of each person according to the origin and the more or less complete control of the property he possessed. The bishops and the abbots were admitted, therefore, into the feudal hierarchy, with the rank of "leudes" and barons, by reason of being great proprietors.

—After the beginning of the fourth century, although the Roman law was universal, the clergy obtained the establishment of special ecclesiastical tribunals, before which alone they appeared. This privilege they preserved after the invasion. The clergy besides demanded and enjoyed new privileges, such as exemption from taxes on their own property, and the establishment of tithes on all other property, tithes imposed and collected by themselves and for their own exclusive benefit.

—Legislation, tribunals and resources of their own could not but put the clergy in a situation independent of and in many respects superior to, the secular aristocratic class. At a certain period of history, Edition: current; Page: [112] when the Germans, having entered orders, occupied all the dignities of the church, when these dignities ceased to be conferred by election in order to be given by the suzerain lords of territory, just like secular emoluments, when bishopries and the papacy itself were transmitted in certain families like a sort of hereditary fief, it was to be feared that a real sacerdotal caste might arise in the bosom of Christianity as in the religions of the east. Certain popes in the twelfth century, and, later, the French kings, raised an obstacle to such a movement. In his struggles against the empire, Gregory VII. endeavored above all things to submit the clergy under the orders of the holy see to discipline, and prevent them from forming a sort of sovereign sacerdotal college in each nation. By the strict enforcement of celibacy, by vindicating the supremacy of the holy see and;the separation of the two investitures, he made the clergy a regular militia, distinct no doubt from the rest of society and invested with numerous privileges, but with access to its ranks for all. The creation of the mendicant orders continued this work and rendered impossible a return to those sacerdotal castes, to the theocratic oligarchies of Asia, composed of a small number of members equal among each other, and sharing in perpetuity the government of the people. "The secular powers on their part, and among them especially the kings of France, when they observed the efforts of the papacy to form, not a caste, but a particular society within a general one, used all their adroitness and all their care to put themselves in the place of the holy see, assume the direction of this great ecclesiastical body, and transform the representatives of the church into spiritual functionaries of the state. While guaranteeing to them the greater part of their privileges, the sovereigns restrained and limited the authority of the clergy, by the granting only of special functions to them, and by the interference and permanent supervision of lay authority, so that it may be said, if the mode of recruiting the clergy and their position, privileged, as regards other classes and subordinate as regards the state, be considered, that they form in modern times a simple corporation rather than a class.

—Is it necessary to add that, among the nations in which the reformation triumphed, the independence of the clergy as a social and political body was enfeebled and disappeared rapidly? The reformers have often been accused of having merely withdrawn their churches from the supremacy of Rome, to subject them more completely to the temporal power of kings; but no other result was possible in the sixteenth century. Royalty had then grown too strong, nationalities had become too matured, the civil power too firmly established. Deprived of the external support of the papacy, the members of the Protestant clerical body became almost immediately magistrates in the spiritual order, and the abolition of celibacy, which at any other time would have produced altogether opposite consequences, only served to cause the clergy to mingle more completely with the rest of society.

—The profound difference existing between the Christian clergy and the sacerdotal castes of antiquity, separate modern aristocracies also from those of Rome and Sparta. Even in countries where the hierarchy of classes was most deeply rooted, another civilization and different beliefs directed societies. Amid social and political diversities there appeared a sincere faith in the unity of the human race and an aspiration toward equality. Sometimes even, as in France and a great part of Italy, the nobility scarcely formed a body politic, a real aristocratic class In Italy, in fact, commerce and maritime republics, the industry of Lombard and Tuscan communes, obtained at an early day a considerable superiority of wealth for the bourgeoisie, and enabled it to attain power, to exercise an extended civil and military jurisdiction and to play a great political role. There existed in France during centuries several classes of nobility foreign to each other; the nobility of the south quasi-Spanish, that of the east, dependent on the empire, that of the great vassals of Burgundy and Brittany, and that of the king: but it was only very late that there was a real French nobility. This want of union, this absence of collective force enabled the third estate, the commercial and industrial class, to rise form material occupations and interests to the liberal professions and public functions. While French chivalry was fighting on all the battle fields of Europe and Asia, careless of the place which it might have retained in the government, the third estate had gradually taken possession of all power of municipal, financial and judicial offices and held so to speak, the monopoly of them. Its ideal was that of the empire.

—For different reasons the nobility of Germany, Spain and England preserved their supremacy longer than that of France. The federal form of the German empire, the division of the territory into a great number of principalities and independent lordships, the organization of diets and the weakness of the central power, enabled the German nobility not only to preserve a large jurisdiction within the more or less narrow limits of their domains, but to preserve also a majority of the attributes of sovereignty, and to leave existing a deep dividing line between the aristocratic and the lower classes of the nation. The long continued national wars which the nobles of Castile and Arragon waged against the Moors, gave them an esprit de corps, a spirit of independence and pride, which long made them the real sovereigns of the kingdom. It required nothing less than the stubborn genius of Ferdinand and of Charles V., aided by the resources of a vast empire and the power of the inquisition, to disorganize and bend to absolute power the haughty descendants of the Goths.

—The Norman barons whom William the Conqueror led into and established in England, had need of mutual assistance of union and organization, in order to overcome Edition: current; Page: [113] the energetic resistance of the conquered population. Being almost equal among themselves, having no power above them but the royal power, in order to preserve their privileges, they were obliged to act collectively to obtain a part of the public authority, to stipulate for general guarantees of permanent and exclusive rights. The English aristocracy sought for and occupied all the public offices, from lieutenancies of counties up to the great dignities of the state; it wrested from royalty supervision and control, by the definite establishment of parliament in the thirteenth century; it obtained the support of the commons by defending the general liberties of the nation, and in according to them rights inferior to its privileges, it is true, but real and practical. Neither the arbitrary attempts of the Tudors and the Stuarts, nor the two revolutions of the seventeenth century, could destroy a social condition founded on the character and origin of the nation; but in England, as on the continent, the increase of wealth, the importance of labor, and the progress of public opinion, left nothing else of value to the hierarchy of classes than what is attached to the external forms of a respected tradition.

—If we wish to find an aristocracy in modern times which recalls the patricians of Rome, we can mention only the Swedish aristocracy. To the material privileges which the nobility of Europe enjoyed, the most absolute monopoly of all the dignities and all the offices of the kingdom, the Swedish nobility added extraordinary personal privileges; every plebeian was prohibited from marrying a noble woman, under pain of confiscation of the property of both parties: some ordinances went so far as to decree capital punishment for inter marriage of classes. (Fryxell, Gustaxus Adolphus.) But such legislation existed only in theory. The kings of Sweden, aided from time to time by peasants and citizens, struggled energetically against the nobles. The last two centuries witnessed despotism succeeding revolt, and political equality was finally established only by the constitution of 1866.

—Thus at all times and in all places, in India, in Egypt, in Greece, in Rome, and in modern Europe, society, obeying a universal instinct, has been composed of three classes, to which it has attributed the rank and role of one of the human faculties mentioned at the beginning of this article. The mistake of the eastern world was in considering these three classes as three races of beings essentially different in origin, nature and destiny; the error of the Pagan world was in sacrificing the most precious rights of man to the general order of an hierarchical society. The humanity of Christianity and the individualism of the Germanic races vindicated the dignity of man, and led the human conscience to proclaim the equality of the rights of man. Such was and such will be progress of humanity.



EUROPE.Though the smallest of the continents. Europe now aways the sceptre of the world. Asia precedes it in the annals of mankind, but the daughter has eclipsed the mother, not because she is younger, but because she has surpassed her in civilization Europe has raised man to his true dignity by developing in him a horror of despotism, her people have spiritualized religion, purified morals, and broken the bonds of mankind. Her sons have freed the sciences from the superstitions which loaded them down and they have widened and deepened them. It is they who have carried art to its sublimest heights. In fine, Europeans conceived the idea of unlimited, indefinite progress, which even if it be not an illusion in part, is the most solid basis of the civilization upon which we so justly pride ourselves. Why is it that Europe has enjoyed and still enjoys such distinction? Let us put aside the explanation of this question which traces everything to a Providence whose motives our intelligence can not comprehend. Let us put aside also that which attributes the government of all things here below to chance as blind as it is capricious, and adhering to that plain method of reasoning which finds everywhere the relation of cause and effect, let us seek out the causes which have produced the superiority of Europe over other parts of the world.

—We do not by any means pretend to discover all of these causes, but there are some which we can not fail to recognize. The first of these is climate. We are not of the number of those who attribute to this agent a power so great that everything must yield to its action: but man is subjected to the influence of the climate in which he lives, excessive heat enervates him: piercing cold weather weakens him. The moderate temperature of the greater part of Europe and especially of that part which first received the benefits of civilization, Greece, Italy, Spain and the central portion of France, has helped the development of the intellectual and moral germs of its inhabitants. At a later period the climatic differences between the north and the south of Europe led to commercial intercourse and to the exchange of the products of one country for the products of another.

—The configuration of the continent of Europe has exerted an equally beneficent influence. No part of it is very far removed from the sea. The Baltic, by means of the gulf of Bothnia and the gulf of Finland, penetrates far into the interior of the northern countries and communicates through three straits and large canals with the North sea, which washes the British and many smaller islands. On the west the Atlantic and the gulf of Gascony bathes a long line on coast from the strait of Gibraltar to the extremity of Norway. On the south the Mediterranean cuts up the land into numerous fertile and picturesque islands, peninsulas and bays, and through the canal of the Dardanelles puts forth the sea of Marmora and the Bosphorus as an arm that afterward enlarges into the Black sea with the sea of Azov as an annex. Numerous routes lead to these seas, rivers accompanied by a cortege of streams which flow much more Edition: current; Page: [114] regularly than most watercourses of other continents. The two kinds of labor which have most contributed to civilization are the cultivation of the soil and navigation.

—Upon this land so highly favored the best endowed races of mankind intermingled. This intermingling has been one of the most potent causes of European progress. We shall not here relate the history of the populating of Europe, nor of the migrations of its inhabitants; but the consideration of the political aspect of the continent of Europe during the different epochs of its history is not without interest.

—The earliest is that of the yellow race of men who were probably of the same origin as the Laplanders. All that we know of this people has been learned from the ruins of their habitations discovered in the lakes of Switzerland and elsewhere. They did not know how to work in the metals, and their age is called the stone age.

—The years 440 to 450 before the Christian era are memorable in the history of Europe. Pericles ruled in Athens, which had just been subdued by Rome under the dictatorship of Cincinnatus. The Etruscans still existed, although more or less enslaved. The Gauls followed the religion of the druids and their sacrifices were defiled with human blood. Spain worked her minds, and began to feel the yoke of Carthage. The rest of Europe was overrun by nomads where it was not covered with forests and swamps.

—Eight or nine centuries later, about the year 476, at the time of the downfall of the last successor of Romulus (Augustulus), German races had taken possession of almost all the entire south and west of Europe. Odoacer had just founded a new empire in Italy. The Visigoths held Spain and France as far as the Loire. The Ostrogoths were in possession of Dalmatia, Servia and a part of what is now Turkey. The north of France was in the possession of Franks. Germany was divided among several Teutonic tribes. The Slaves dwelt to the east of river Oder, and the Celts retained only the peninsula of Brittany and British isles. All was chaos, from which order was not to be drawn for several centuries. And what was the order it produced even then? Feudalism.

—We pass over the centuries that witnessed the formation and development of the middle ages, to consider the picture presented to our view in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, when medieval made place for modern times, when Christopher Columbus, Guttenberg, Luther, Calvin, Descartes and Bacon renewed the face of Europe and created our civilization. The Iberian peninsula was divided into Portugal, Castile, Arragon and Navarre. France had not yet absorbed Burgundy and some other territories. England had conquered Ireland, but Scotland still retained its political independence. Germany constituted the "holy Roman empire," whose powerful ruler then possessed but a limited number of those "states of the crown" which in our day form such an imposing whole, and one possessed of greater unity than the adversaries of Austria are willing to concede. Italy was divided into small states. Genoa, Florence, Milan, Venice, Rome, Naples, Parma and some other places, were capital cities, and were as proud of their independence as the Swiss, the Eidgenosses, their neighbors. Neither Scandinavia nor Russia had played any important part in the affiars of Europe, but Poland was flourishing, and the united provinces of the Low Countries, Which had won their liberty at the cost of rivers of blood, were on the point of astonishing the world by their prosperity.

—Since the end of the middle ages the physiognomy of modern Europe has been clearly enough defined for us to recognize its principle features. When the French revolution broke out in 1789, Spain had acquired Castile, Arragon and Navarre; France had enlarges its boundaries; England and Scotland had become Great Britain; Prussia Austria and Russia had acquired very extensive territory. Poland had already been divided and was soon to disappear, like to holy empire Let us pass over the ephemeral changes which the wars of Europe wrought upon its geographical boundaries; let us pass over the famous treaties of 1815. so often assailed and now perhaps regretted, and endeavor to present a view of the continent (of Europe) as it is.

—The European republic is composed of a considerable number of large and small states. During about half a century, five of the number formed a sort of areopagus which ruled the destinies of the continent by the law of might. This power seems so natural that authors were found to justify this oligarchical domination, to establish the right of the "give great powers." One of their arguments, and, unfortunately, the best they had to offer, was that there would be no more wars, the pentarchy would be able to prevent them.

—It could not even prevent the creation of a sixth great power. Nor do we at all regret this; we only ask that by degrees every state may have a seat in the areopagus of Europe. Meantime we should not attempt to deny this self-evident fact, that France, England, Russia, Austria, Hungary, Germany and Italy are preponderating powers in Europe.

—France is undoubtedly one of the most powerful among them. Her 128,000,000 acres afford ample accommodation for her 36,000,000 inhabitant. Her nationality is firmly established, or, at least, it is strong enough in assimilate the small number of foreigners to be found within her territory. Thus her unity is assured. Her geographical position is excellent, she has a long line of coast, and her frontiers washed by the sea, have scarcely and need of an army to defend them. Finally, her people are warlike, although she nevertheless loves peace and cultivates the arts of peace with sufficient success to secure her a prosperity which a disastrous war aided by revolution and formidable insurrection (1870-71) had not power enough to impair.

—England is the richest country in Europe, Edition: current; Page: [115] and as money is the sinew of war (whatever Machiavelli may say to the contrary), she is much more powerful than the number of her inhabitants would seem to indicate. But little centralized and having no law of compulsory military service, she is not adapted for aggressive warfare, while her insular position, on the other hand, renders it quite easy for her to defend her own. Moreover the ambition of Great Britain is being more and more closely restricted to the domination of the sea—even which she may some day be deprived of. Since all power has completely been absorbed by Parliament, England has abstained as much as possible from taking part in European wars. Her influence also had become merely one of opinion, for just as in private life a man is more frequently esteemed according to the capital he possesses, or the generosity which he displays, so also in politics, a state is reckoned according to the military force it can command.

—Russia's power lies in her immense population, which is said to exceed eighty millions, but her strength has been greatly exaggerated by those who forget that the lever, money, is needed to move this mass. And Russia has not money enough to mobilize all the soldiers she could muster, and so a portion of this mass of population remains inert. It is fortunate that such is the case, for if her power were greater, she would the less easily resist the temptation to abuse it. Will this colossus of the north ever become strong enough to balance the strength of the rest of Europe?

—Austria-Hungary has more than once seemed "on the very verge of dissolution," but fortunately this state is had to kill. It is to be hoped that the dualism introduced in 1867 will consolidate this empire, for it is a necessary member of the European republic. The Hungarians would have very little political wisdom if they were not willing to make every effort and every sacrifice necessary to preserve it, for it is they who profit most by the existence of Austria. As to the Tchechs, who are a little too jealous of Hungary, they can only injure themselves unless they consider themselves, above all things else, As Austrians.

—Germany, into which Prussia shows a tendency to be dissolved, has again tightened the bounds of it stats, and while it has, in certain respects, undergone unification, it still remains a confederation from a political point of view; that is, the right to declare war belongs to a committee in which all the German governments are represented. The new empire is not, therefore, organized for aggression, but inasmuch as it exhibits a much closer union of its various parts than before, it will be stronger for defense. Germany has need of strength, for she has enemies both external and internal; she required great wisdom indeed to avoid the onslaughts of the one and the troubles caused by the other.

—Italy is considered the sixth great power. She numbers between twenty-six and twenty-seven million inhabitants. She has Rome. Her organization has been consolidated. Her opinion is constantly gaining weight in the councils of Europe. Her geographical positions between Austria and France might under certain circumstances, give her a decisive influence, but there is reason to believe that she will not intermeddle in what does not concern her. Let Italy be content to remain mistress of Italy, and encourage her agriculture, industry and commerce, in order that she may safely carry the burden of her debt.

—Let us now pass to those nations that have less pretensions to preponderance in Europe.

—Spain and Portugal are situated at the very extremely of Europe, and although Spain numbers sixteen million inhabitants and is comparatively prosperous despite her so frequent revolutions, it is rather beyond the seas than beyond the Pyrences that she seeks, and with reason too, to exercise her influence over Prussia for instance, where distance renders it impossible for her to enforce her demands.

—Switzerland and Belgium are nearer to the scene of whatever important events may happen in Euroupe; but if their relative weakness did not compel them to abstain, the neutrality, which the public law of Europe imposes upon them, would forbid them to intermingle in the quarrels of other nations. And they have no desire to do so. We have couples them together here, because they are, to all appearances, the two freest states in Europe, despite the difference of their forms of government. By comparing the constitutional Kingdom of Belgium with the federal republic of Switzerland, we become convinced that liberty may reign in countries which are governed by constitutions that have very few points of resemblance.

—The Low Countries also have a liberal, government. This state perhaps even preceded all others in this respect, for it had already given civil equality to all its citizens without distinction, when England was still proscribing Catholics, France Protestants, and Germany the Jews. No matter what certain publicists may say, Holland has nothing to fear for her liberty, no one threatens it, and in case of need she would have powerful supporters. However, we know that she has too pacific a spirit to enter without reason into any aggressive combinations whatever.

—The Scandinavian states, Sweden, Norway and Denmark occupy the north of Europe. Scandinavianism makes a great noise, but is it not after all "much ado about nothing"? So long as Sweden and Norway, united under the same king, remain separated by laws, by customs barriers imposed, and above all by prejudices, we can not consider as serious the advances they seek to make to Denmark. This little country would do well to devote all its energies to the cultivation of the arts of peace, education and industry. Denmark would thus acquire a moral influence far superior to her material power.

—From the northern peninsula we pass to the peninsula at the southeast of Europe. Here Turkey and Greece, however, no longer has anything Edition: current; Page: [116] to fear from her old master. (See Turkey.)

—We have now considered in their order the various states which compose Europe. We should like to submit to our readers some conjectures, regarding the future, but we dare not attempt it; time alone can solve the many questions suggested by the present position of European nations.



EVERETT, Edward, was born at Dorchester, Mass., April 11, 1794, and died at Boston, Jan. 15, 1865. He was graduated at Harvard in 1811, became pastor of a Unitarian church in Boston in 1814, served as representative in congress (whig) 1825-35, was governor of Massachusetts 1835-40, minister to Great Britain 1841-5, secretary of state under Fillmore (see ADMINISTRATIONS, and United States senator, 1853-4. In 1860 he was the constitutional union party's candidate for vice-president.

—See Boston Memorial of Everett; 15 Atlantic Monthly; 100 North American Review; Everett's Works.

A. J.


EXCHANGE, An, may be described briefly as a localized merchants' traders' or dealers' market. Those who do not make buying and selling their occupation do not, for the most part, have direct dealings in any exchange market. As a rule, producers of such articles as are bought and sold on the exchanges sell to dealers who have more or less intimate relations with those markets; and consumers, on the other hand buy of dealers, and do not deal in person "on change." Hence an exchange is almost wholly a traders' market, or a market in which the buying and selling is done by those who make trading their business. It is a great intermediary market, receiving products from producers and advancing them on their way to consumers. It is also a localized market. In every considerable commercial centre are many markets which are not localized. All who make a practice of buying any article that is from time to time offered for sale, and who are accessible to the body of sellers, constitute the market for that article, though their places of business may be remote from one another, and though they may never deal in that article among themselves. An exchange differs from such a market as this in that is localized. The body of dealers find it convenient, not to say necessary, to have a place where they may meet to transact business among themselves. It is this localization which, as much as any other one thing, goes to make an exchange as near an approach as possible to a perfect market. It affords an opportunity to put the entire trading body in possession of the latest intelligence from all kindred markets, and from all other sources, touching the conditions of supply and demand, and it affords the most free scope for the prompt actions of all the forces of competition.

—An exchange may be organized for the purpose of facilitating dealings in any one commodity, or any number of commodities. We have cotton exchanges, sugar exchanges, coffee exchanges, and others, in each of which only one product or commodity is the subject of dealings; and we have produce exchanges where nearly all staple farm products are bought and sold, and stock exchanges where government bonds, railway shares, and stocks of all kinds that have secured recognition in market, are dealt in. Only such commodities as are the considerable commercial importance are made the subject of dealings on change. The number of such commodities is continually increasing as commerce is extended, and the dealings throughout the list come to be so numerous and large as to demand more exclusive attention, and give employment to an increased aggregate of capital. Hence there is a tendency here, as in other fields of human activity to differentiate functions. What began as a produce exchange may become divided into a breadstuffs exchange, a butchers' exchange and a number of other separate organizations. And where there may be no formal dissolutions of the original exchange and no organization of new ones occupying more restricted fields, individuals will confine themselves more and more to selected branches, with the result that a number of really distinct markets will come to exist under one roof and one name, the dealers in each being different from those in any other And this may, in some fields be preferable to the lopping off of branches from the original organization and establishment of separate exchanges. The most signal example of this multiplication of markets in a single exchange is afforded by the London stock exchange. Here there are many groups, in each of which only a limited number of securities are bought and sold and the dealers in any group confine their attention to that one exclusively as a rule and when any one of them removes to another group, it is with the intention of making the removal permanent. Where securities in such great numbers, representing credits, properties and enterprises in all parts of the world, are dealt in this subdivision of one great market into many markets become necessary. No man can become so familiar with all securities as to be deal in all with the requisite intelligence and promptitude. And even if every man could do this, there would still remain the necessity of localizing markets for the different kinds of securities, so that a person wishing to buy or sell a particular stock could know just where to find others wishing to deal in the same stock. The broker may, and generally does, deal in a considerable number of securities, but he does not himself operate on the exchange. When he wishes to buy or sell shares of any particular kind he goes at once to the group in which these shares are embraced, and concludes his bargain with a "jobber." or "dealer," in that group, who has no business relations at all with the public, but only with brokers and other dealers. As a rule, the broker asks the price without saying whether he wishes to but or sell. Accordingly the jobber states his buying price and Edition: current; Page: [117] his selling price, and about half the difference is his margin for profit. So sharp is the competition among jobbers that, if the shares concerned have a pretty firm footing in the market, the difference named is small, affording a margin, usually, of not more than one-sixteenth of 1 percent for profit. Thus the broker may enter any group and, for a moderate compensation, secure the services of a jobber thoroughly familiar with that group, and always at the very heart of the market, ready for action.

—The economic advantages of this differentiation of functions have perhaps, been sufficiently suggested already Dealers or jobbers, on the one hand, can perfect themselves in their several specialties, each having a limited range. Brokers, on the other hand, whose dealings necessarily extend over a broader range, have always at their command the services of trained specialties. What is even more important, perhaps, the formation and localization of special groups enables an investor or vendor to reach, through his broker, the very heart of the market, for any particular security he may with to buy or sell. Demand and supply are thus promptly focalized, and prices as promptly adjusted. So great is the advantage resulting from this arrangement that a comparatively small number of brokers and jobbers transact with case a business which could not otherwise be transacted at all. Exchanges in general afford like economic advantages in their relations to the producing and consuming public. Trained dealers, skilled in estimating supplies and their relations to demand, are brought into direct and sharp competition. Some of these dealers are either agents for the producers of the commodities offered for sale on the exchange—agents compensated by commissions—or speculators who have bought with a view to selling at an advance. These dealers seek to obtain the highest prices possible, and are known in the language of the market as "bulls" Other dealers are agents for consumers, or speculators on the consumers' side of the market, and therefore seek to buy at the lowest prices, and are known as "bears." These opposing forces are always present on every exchange. They bring to the contests in which they engage, superior and highly trained faculties, and the advantage of the earliest intelligence, secured for the most part through the instrumentality of the exchanges themselves, from all the leading markets of the same kind in the world. The result is that prices are promptly adjusted to existing conditions of supply and demand, the wide fluctuations which are especially injurious to original producers and final consumers are in a great measure prevented, and those differences in the price of a commodity at the same time and in the same neighborhood, which indicate the existence of a very imperfect market, become impossible. Their great function is to receive and diffuse with the greatest celerity all those complex influences affecting prices of stable commodities, and thus not only maintain equable markets, but also supply producers with timely and trustworthy evidence of either general excess or deficiency in the supply of any product, so that they may apply the needed corrective in either direction. This function may be, and no doubt it, sometimes perverted. Speculators may produce artificial scarcity and force prices above the level which would be reached under the influence of the ordinary forces of competition alone. But it does not follow because this sometimes happens that exchanges are, on the whole, economically injurious: that they make prices to producers lower and to consumers higher than they would otherwise be: that they afford special facilities for gambling in the necessaries of life, and or levying tribute upon both producers and consumers for which no just equivalent is rendered. It would be as reasonable to infer that railroads are on the whole, economically injurious because those who control them sometimes practice extortion. It would probably be quite as easy to monopolize or "corner" wheat, or corn, or pork, if there were no such thing as a produce exchange. The exchanges, so far from encouraging such operations, afford every possible opportunity to thwart them by giving them early publicity. "Cornering," under the name of engrossing or forestalling, was practiced long before there was a regularly organized produce exchange. The worst that can be said of the exchanges in this regard is, that so long as they perform their legitimate function of supplying the best facilities for buying and selling, they must necessarily afford the best facilities for monopolizing any commodity for which they afford a market. But let that be granted, and it does not follow that exchanges are to be condemned as injurious. A sufficient proof that they are useful institutions is to be found in the fact of their survival and multiplication. Old ones would not survive and new one would not be organized if they were economically more injurious than beneficial, any more than steam engines would be used in greater and greater numbers if there was found to be an economic balance against their use—Exchanges may be incorporated bodies, sometimes under their proper name, and sometimes under the name of chamber of commerce, or board of trade. They are not, however, incorporated for the purpose of enabling them to discharge their chief functions. They do not deal in produce, stocks, etc., in their corporate capacity. Their individual members deal with one another, and for this purpose no charter is necessary. The act of incorporation is serviceable to them only in that it enables them in their collective capacity to own and buy and sell the real and personal property required by the members in the transaction of business, such as grounds and buildings, and to sue and Edition: current; Page: [118] be sued, to the end that they may collect by lawful process the means requisite to the maintenance of their organic character and the discharge of their limited organic functions, and that they may be liable at law for any obligations incurred by them.

—There is no reason to believe that markets answering more or less completely to the description of exchanges have existed wherever any considerable commercial progress has been made. The modern institution, however, involving the deliberate appropriation of a locality or building to the use of an exchange, is believed to have originated about the beginning of the sixteenth century, under the name of "bourse." This name, which is still applied on the continent of Europe to bill and security exchanges, originated, according to one tradition, in the belief that the first gathering of the kind took place in the house of a man named Van der Bourse at Bruges, Flanders. According to another tradition it originated in the belief that the first exchange assembled in a house in Amsterdam, which had three purses hewn in stone over the door. One of the oldest exchange buildings was erected in Antwerp, and was selected by Sir Thomas Gresham as the model of the building in London which, on Jan. 3, 1570, was proclaimed by Queen Elizabeth "The Royal Exchange." This latter exchange has been twice destroyed by fire and rebuilt. The present Royal exchange was opened by Queen Victoria Oct. 29, 1944. It is the most important theatre of bill and security transactions in the world. The most celebrated of the exchanges of continental Europe is the Paris bourse, which was established in 1824. There are now fine exchange buildings in Amsterdam, St. Petersburg, and other European cities. The Merchants' exchange in New York was founded in 1817. Its first building was destroyed in the great fire of 1835. The second was sold to the government of the United States for a custom house. The third is still in use by the exchange. At the present time exchange markets of different kinds of exist in all the important commercial centres of the world.



EXCHANGE AND "FOREIGN EXCHANGES". Exchange is a term that makes a great figure in political economy. In the view of one school of economists, indeed, it covers the whole domain of economic science; but at least a severe strain is put on the word by including under it the laws of production as well as of the distribution of wealth. No theory of population can well be brought within the limits of exchange; hence some authors who define political economy as the science of exchanges, or of value, are disposed to relegate to another department of sociology of all inquiry into the laws of population. Yet almost all text books of economics do, as a matter of fact, include some theory of population. It may throw some light on the part played by exchange, as distinguished from production in the economy of society, to point to the errors committed by writers who, like Mr. II. D. Macleod, treat bills of exchange, promissory notes, and other instruments of credit and acknowledgements of debt, as themselves constituting wealth—adding pro tanto to the sum of a nation's valuable possessions. There is in this doctrine a confusion between production and exchange. The argument in support of it is, that such instruments have an exchangeable value and must therefore be wealth. The answer is, that when a man borrows say £100 on his promissory note or bill for £105, all that takes place is an exchange between borrower and lender. There is no production of new wealth; £100 in hand is exchanged for £105 at a future time; and the note or bill is only evidence of the claim to the £105. An instrument of credit resembles the title deed to an estate. When a person buys a landed estate, all that is visibly transferred in the first instance, in exchange for the purchase money, is the conveyance or title deed: but what it really bought is the estate, and nothing but an exchange is effected. Doubtless bills of exchange and other instruments of credit may add indirectly to the wealth of a country in two ways: 1. by enabling persons engaged in production to borrow funds which would otherwise have been unemployed and unproductive; 2. by taking the place of coin as media of exchange, and saving the cost of metallic currency. But there are unproductive as well as productive borrowers, and instruments of credit may transfer to prodigals sums that might have been productively employed.

—A large and increasing number of writers in England, Germany, France, Italy, and Belgium refuse to restrict the field even of distribution to the partition of wealth by exchange, which, like J.S. Mill, they regard as only a particular mode of distribution. Adam Smith, in the First Book of the Wealth of Nations, under the head of "natural distribution," treated only, it is true, of the division of the annual produce of a country effected by the exchanges consequent on the appropriation of land, the accumulation of capital, and the division of labor; but in the Third Book he has referred to the distribution effected by laws of property and succession; and both in England and on the continent of Europe there is a growing tendency on the part of economists to extend their investigations to the effects of positive laws and political institutions upon both production and distribution. Nevertheless the topics which have hitherto covered the greatest part of the ground in almost every systematic treatise on political economy, fall under the head of exchange, and in any view of the limits of the science, the importance of the subject can hardly be overestimated.

—It is characteristic of the method of the purely deductive school of economists founded by David Ricardo, that his theory of exchange and value was deduced from the assumption, in his own words, that in the early stages of society the Edition: current; Page: [119] exchangeable value of commodities depends almost exclusively upon the comparative quantity of labor expended on each. If, for example, he said, among a nation of hunters it usually costs twice the labor to kill a beaver that it does to kill a deer one beaver should exchange for two deer. And on this principle he inferred that the value of all things, except those which cannot be increased by industry, depends. But the assumption is plainly an untenable one Labor is too abstract a measure for the minds of uncivilized men to conceive; there is indeed, no regular labor among them, and the produce of the chase is in a great degree governed by chance. The earlier stages of society are regarded by most modern investigators as having been more or less communistic, with little or no individual property; in which case few, if any, exchanges could take place. And if any, they would probably follow the principle of the exchange between Esau and Jacob, of a birthright for a disk of pottage; being determined by the relative urgency of the needs of the parties. Even at a more advanced social stage, at the beginning of settled agricultural life, each family would probably provide for its own wants, and few exchanges would take place within each little community. Regular exchange or traffic seems to have begun, not within the community, whether of hunters, shepherds or farmers, but between different communities, exchanging the special produce of different localities. Such exchanges could not be governed by estimates of labor or cost of production; they would partake of the nature of international exchanges, and fall under the principle which Mr. Mill applies to international commerce and values, namely, demand and supply. Nor would it be difficult to show that in a great modern and industrial society the relative cost of an infinite multitude of commodities in incalculable, and that the hard and fast line drawn by Mr. Mill between international values and the values of things produced in the same country, is untenable. The best general formula for the conditions determining values is, in short, demand and supply. Cost of production, even within the same country, can act on value only by roughly adjusting the supply to the demand, and its action is uncertain and irregular.

—A grave error in both Ricardo's and J.S. Mill's exposition of the principles governing both internal and international exchanges and values seems to have escaped detection. According to the two great writers referred to, the introduction of money makes no difference in the terms on which exchanges are conducted, or in the values of the commodities exchanged. Things, says Mr. Mill that would have been barter, are worth equal sums of money. And he quotes with emphatic approval the words of Ricardo, that "gold and silver, being chosen for the general medium of circulation, are by the competition of commerce distributed in such proportions among the different countries of the world as to accommodate themselves to the natural traffic which would take place if no such metals existed and the trade between them were a trade of barter" An example will show at once the fallacy of this doctrine. Were the precious metals not in circulation in China, and the barter of English cottons, woolens and hardware for Chinese tea, the system of trade between the two countries the demand of China for the manufactures of England might be so small that tea could only be procured by the latter country on the most onerous terms of exchange. But let silver become current as money in China, and the demand of the Chinese for that metal, both for circulation and hoarding, might become so intense that with a given quantity of manufactures England might buy in America enough silver to pay for twenty times as much tea as she got for the same amount of goods by direct barter. Mr. Mill forgot his own doctrine that money differs from all other things in the property that it is the object of a demand to which there is no limit. His reasoning confounds also two very different propositions. It is true, as he argues, that both under a money system and a system of barter the equation of international demand is the fundamental principle of international trade But it does not follow that the reciprocal demand is the same under the two systems; the exchange may be conducted on very different terms, and very different equations may exist under money and barter respectively.

—The transactions, however, which mercantile men generally have in view when they speak of the exchange between different countries, are those technically called the foreign exchanges, in which the balance of international dealings, the prices for foreign bills of exchange and the movements of bullion are the chief objects of consideration. The balance of international dealings and claims, it is now well known, is no mere balance of international trade. In the middle ages the balance of exports and imports between England and the continent was generally in favor of England, for whose wool the continental demand was intense. Yet the balance of international payments was often against England; and that country, though possessing, down to the fifteenth century, mines of precious metal, with difficulty maintained a scanty stock of coin for circulation. The reason was, that the exactions of the pope, the revenues drawn from English benefices by foreign incumbents, and the sums wasted by English kings in continental wars, caused a constant draw on the English currency. On the other hand, in our own age England has maintained a generally favorable balance of dealings with the world, although her demand for foreign commodities has often exceeded that of her foreign customers for her manufacturers, because many other items besides purely commercial exports and imports go to determine the claims of England on the rest of the globe. She receives vast sums in payment on interest on capital invested abroad; she has an Edition: current; Page: [120] immense carrying trade, and her earnings for freight make a large figure inher imports; and she receives, in addition, large payments in commodities from India for the government of that great dependency. Were the United States or France by superior ship building and navigation to deprive England of her carrying trade, the amount of her imports would fall off, the country cutting her out of the business would get the imports she now receives in payment of freight; the exchanges would turn heavily against her, and a drain of the precious metals from her shores would infallibly follow. The case of the United States is different. America is able, in spite of the loss of no small part of her former share of the carrying trade, to maintain a favorable balance of exchange with foreign countries because of their immense demand for her exports.

—The chief rule laid down in treatises on foreign exchanges is, that the premium on a bill of exchange in a foreign country can not in ordinary cases exceed the cost, in freight, insurance and brokers' charges, of sending the sum in actual bullion; and that the discount, in like manner, on a foreign bill can not exceed the cost of transmitting the required amount in gold or silver. Under peculiar circumstances, however, the premium or the discount, it is now well ascertained, may exceed the expense of transmitting the precious metals. Thus at the beginning of the American civil war there was a great anxiety in the United States for gold, and at the same time a very large amount was due from Europe, for which Americans held bills. Had they been willing to wait until the money could be brought over, the discount on the bills could not have exceeded the cost of its transmission. But in their eagerness to realize at once and to get cash, the holders of the bills parted with them on much less favorable terms. The cause of the great rise in England in the premium on bills on the continent, when the news of Napoleon's escape from Elba arrived, was of a different nature. The premium could not have exceeded the cost of sending bullion had the notes of the bank of England been convertible, for any one could have presented notes at the bank demanded cash, and sent it to the continent. But at that time the payment in cash of bank of England notes was suspended, and the notes were depreciated. Hence to the expense of remitting bullion was added a charge proportionate to the depreciation of the notes with which the bills were bought. Again, the discount on foreign bills of exchange may descend below "specie point," as it is called, from distrust. Uncertainty respecting the solvency of the parties bound to meet the bills at maturity or respecting the state of credit in the country on which they are drawn, may lower their price in a degree to which there is no assignable limit.

—It will be seen from what has been said, that the topics coming under the head of Exchange are wide enough without treating it as co-extensive with the entire field of economic science.



EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS.The conventions entered into sometimes between belligerent powers, to regulate the methods of carrying on war and to determine the hostilities from which the respective armies are to abstain, are generally called cartels. Thus certain parts of territory are declared neutral ground, and contributions to be levied, the repression of marauders, the continuation or the stoppage of commerce and postal service, etc., are agreed upon.

—One of the most important cartels is that relating to prisoners of wr. Engagements are made on both sides to treat prisoners according to their rank and fortune; the bases of this treatment and the price of their maintenance are fixed; finally, arrangements are made for exchanging them. In times long passed not to speak of antiquity proper, it was the rule, with few exceptions, that the prisoner belonged to his captor. The latter gave him his liberty in consideration of a ransom, the amount of which was agreed upon between the interested parties. At that time the exchange of prisoners was very rare, for it could only happen by the merest chance that the man who had made a prisoner of another man had a personal interest to redeem another prisoner, whose fate was at the disposition of his prisoner. But by degrees sovereigns or governments came to form regular armies, and soldiers in their pay captured prisoners only on the account of the state. It was the affair of the state, then, to pay the ransom to redeem its own men, and treat with the enemy in order to fix the price for which it would free those which it had taken itself. Then, by the nature of things, exchanges became easy and frequent.

—It must be observed that two belligerent armies are interested in the mutual liberation of prisoners. Each army is glad to recover the troops which are useful to it and each glad to find itself freed from caring for hostile prisoners and from conducting them to their final destination.

—The first cartels were chiefly cartels of ransom. On both sides, lists of officers of every grade were drawn up, and even of simple soldiers, and the amount of ransom for each grade in the ranks was fixed. Thus in glancing over some of the most ancient cartels mentioned in diplomatic collections, we find that at the end of the seventeenth century there was an enormous disproportion between the prices of men of different grades. A marshal of France, commander-in-chief, or vice-admiral, was generally valued at 50,000 livres tournois; a soldier or sailor at five or seven livres. The price of men being determined, the exchange of prisoners was easily effected at their money value.

—A century later, the development of civilization and philosophic ideas had accustomed governments to consider men as having a personal value independent of their social position. In a cartel of 1780 between France and England, a marshal of France, an admiral, etc., were valued at 1,500 livres; simple soldiers and sailors at twenty five livres. The idea of ransom was no longer uppermost, Edition: current; Page: [121] but that of exchange. Exchange was made as far as possible for men of equal or nearly equal grade. In 1690 a marshal of France would have been exchanged for 10,000 soldiers; in 1780 no one would have thought of offering sixty soldiers for a marshal.

—At the period of the great wars of the French republic, another step in advance was made. The principles of equality which ruled in France caused the rejection of every estimate of a man at a money rate.

—Cartels for the exchange of prisoners are usually concluded directly by the government, that is to say, by commissioners with the plenary powers of the sovereign. Still, commanders-in-chief being always authorized to make military conventions in the name of the state with hostile generals so far as their own command is concerned, it frequently happens that cartels of exchange are concluded between general and general. Even an exchange of prisoners is often made without a count, except of officers who have a greater importance on account of their rank.

—Finally, it has become an invariable custom, as soon as peace is concluded, for the prisoners remaining in the hands of their enemies, to be sent by both sides in complete liberty to their respective countries, without exchange or ransom.





EXCHANGE OF WEALTH. Human society was organized originally in accordance with the restricted principle of the community. The community whose essential characteristics are labor in common and the division of its fruits, is, in fact, the simplest and most elementary form of human society. It is a suitable form so long as the men who compose the same group are engaged exclusively in one and the same kind of labor. This is the case with the savage tribes whose only labor is the chase. Animals which work in common, such as the bee, the ant, the beaver, etc., also adopt or conform to this form of society. But it ceases to be sufficient for man the moment he extends his sphere of action, and employs his labor in different ways. Thus it gradually disappeared, as communities enlarged and civilization began; it reappeared afterward only accidentally, and remained always and necessarily confined to small groups of individuals engaged in some one kind of labor.

—This first form of society was succeeded by another, in which men divided among themselves the different kinds of labor, the result of the wants of a growing civilization. In this new system, the germ of which was contained in the primitive communities, production was not in common. Each person chose for himself the kind of work which suited him, and devoted his energies to that alone. He may indeed have associated himself with a few others when the work which he proposed to undertake exceeded the powers of a single man; but all the different kinds of labor in the production of wealth were none the less performed separately. Does this mean that men hereby renounced society and social ties? On the contrary, man became in consequence more than ever a social animal; but the association of men changed in character; it assumed a form at once freer, more varied, and skillful. Instead of working in common, as they could and should have done when the work of production was one and simple, they divided the different kinds of the labor of production which had become more complex, among them. This was a new and more extensive mode of associating and combining their different kinds of labor; then they exchanged the results of these different kinds of labor, which served to complete one another. To the rudimentary system of laboring in common, and sharing the fruits of the common labor, succeeded the superior system of separate kinds of labor, and of the exchange of the products of that labor.

—The adoption of this system, gradually supplanting that of the primitive community, is the true source of man's greatness and power. So long as man is obliged to labor in a community, like the bee, the ant and the beaver, and to share the fruit of this common labor, he does not rise much above these animals, which have, like him—and perhaps in a higher degree than he possessed them in his state of primitive ignorance—the gifts of order and foresight. The savage tribes would perhaps be lower than the troops of beavers and swarms of bees, were it not for the fact that they bore within them, even in the community, the germs of the higher organization which humanity was afterward to attain. From that time onward we find men manifesting a propensity for bartering, trading, and exchanging one thing for another; a propensity which, as Adam Smith justly remarks, is not observable in other animals, and which by degrees produced the division of labor with all its consequences.

—But the disappearance of the system of the community, and the establishment of the system of divided labor which succeeded it, together with the exchange of products, which is at once its point of departure and its necessary complement, were not effected all at once. The change has been slow and gradual.

—We have just seen that the propensity of man for bartering and trading appears even among the savage tribes. The community subsists to divide among its members the much greater part of production and consumption, but exchange takes place in the case of things which are only accessory. The chase is engaged in in common, and is the great industry of the tribe; and the flesh, skin, horns, etc., of the animals killed are divided among the members of the tribe. War, which is at times another branch of industry, is waged in common, and the booty taken from the enemy is divided; but barter is carried on, elsewhere, in the objects of which the separate members of the tribe have acquired exclusive possession. One warrior, who is skilled in making bows and arrows, exchanges the Edition: current; Page: [122] weapons he has made for the skin of a wild beast, which another warrior offers him. A third gives his share of the booty for an ornament, which he intends for his wife. And owing to these exceptional cases of exchange, which become more and more frequent in proportion as the tribe becomes richer and its products more varied, there was some attempt at that division of labor which in time became general.

—Among nations which are simply barbarous, that is to say, which are no longer savage and yet not civilized, the community of production and its fruits is not so absolute as among the primitive tribes, but it is still very great. Whether it be a pastoral and nomadic people, or a people who have already begun to cultivate the soil, the chief wealth is always in common, and their chief labor collective labor. They possess a common herd, which furnishes wool and milk for all; they cultivate the soil in common, and divide the fruits it produces. And this must necessarily be so, for, in this stage of civilization, man is so weak in the presence of the obstacles of all kinds which brute nature puts in his way, that divided labor is impossible.

—"Wherever it has been possible," says Charles Comte, "to observe nations when they began to emerge from barbarism, it has been noticed that they cultivated the soil in common; that its products were placed in public storehouses, and that each family then received a part of them proportionate to its wants. This community of labor and of goods the Romans found in practice among several of the German nations; it was likewise observed among the tribes of North America by the first explorers who visited them; the English who founded the state of Virginia were obliged to have recourse to the same means to bring the soil under cultivation, * * * *," a fact which Charles Comte rightly explains by the powerlessness of man at such a time to subdue the earth, except by the united and energetic efforts of all.

—But even in this barbarous state the system of exchange, which embraces all products of secondary importance, is more extended than it was among the savage tribes, because production is more varied. It afterward extends by degrees, according as civilization progresses and the power of man increases, itself contributing largely to the increase of that power. The system of the community becomes restricted and contracted in the same proportion, without, however, disappearing entirely, even in the most advanced state of civilization. Some primary attempts at exchange are observed in the nascent societies which we see organized into close communities, and some remnants of the primitive community are found even in the most civilized nations.

—It is not, as Adam Smith remarks, a blind instinct that determines men to barter, trade and exchange, but a clear conception of the actual advantages which result from it. In fact, it is no very difficult matter to perceive that it is an advantage for each one to be able to part with his surplus, or that of which he has no present need, and receive in return what he is wanting in. This is what even the most untutored savage can understand. Exchange in early times scarcely extended beyond the things which each had in greater quantity than he needed; it was not until later, that, after having produced the division of labor, it embraced in most cases the sum total of production. The smallest intellect can understand the idea of exchange within these narrow limits. Nor could we understand why the practice of exchange did not spread more rapidly from the very first, did we not reflect that in primitive society it met with many obstacles which impeded its course.

—The practice of exchange as Skarbek well says, in his Théorie des richesses sociales, is subject to three essential conditions: the appropriation, the transmissibility and the diversity of things. To these three conditions we may add a fourth, the liberty and security of trade transactions. But let us first consider the three given by Skarbek.

—If when exchange takes place, "there is always one thing given by one party as compensation for another thing or equivalent value, these values must be previously possessed by the two parties who enter into a contract of exchange. This same principle of equity, which is the basis of exchange, does not admit as legal the exchange of a thing which the party exchanging does not possess by virtue of the right of property: the existence of this right, therefore, forms the first indispensable condition to the introduction and existence of exchange, for if all values were common to all men, if all had the same right to enjoy them, and no person could be excluded from their possession and their enjoyment, there would be no exchange, as ad would have the same right to the values capable of satisfying our wants. The existence of the exclusive right to property is, therefore, indispensable to the establishment of exchange among men."

—The transmissibility of things is no less necessary than their appropriation, and this quality all values do not possess. "A man's talents, intellectual faculties, or his ability to perform some special task, are goods, are real values, which can not be parted with to any one else, giving to the latter the right of ownership in them, for it is impossible for their possessor to divest himself of these goods in favor of another. The light and heat diffused through the atmosphere are also real goods and values indispensable to our existence, but they can not be appropriated by any one because they can not become the exclusive property of any one. This line of reasoning and these examples lead us to the conviction that even the values most precious to man can not become objects of exchange if not transmissible, if they can not be transferred by one man to another in virtue of the right of ownership. The second condition of exchange is the property inherent in things of passing from hand to hand, and of being transmissible, with the right of property."

—Finally, there must be diversity of values, or of exchangeable objects, without which exchange Edition: current; Page: [123] change itself would have no object. "If all the individuals who compose society were equally provided with the things able to satisfy their wants, if all possessed the same values, no one would desire to possess what belonged to others, being sufficiently provided with all things necessary to his existence. There must, therefore, be a diversity of exchangeable things, and men must possess different values, in order that exchange may be practiced among them. This diversity constitutes the third condition indispensable to the existence of all exchange.

—The idea of appropriation, even of individual appropriation, is so natural to man that it is found in all stages of civilization, even among savage tribes. But if private property exists in the earliest society, at least in the case of a certain number of objects, it is, as a general thing, very little respected. The stronger violates the private property of the weaker, even in the same tribe; and à fortiori is it thus outside the limits of the tribe. Under such conditions it is evident that exchange can not easily extend very far. As to transmissibility, although, strictly speaking, it exists in the case of all material values, it is in fact limited, among savage nations, by the general insecurity of circulation and of transportation. War being almost the permanent condition of primitive nations, it is only within their respective limits that the transmission of products can take place. What is true of savage tribes, is also true, though in a less degree, of barbarous nations. In this state of things, there may be a virtual but there can hardly be an effective transmissibility of products, since transmission is impossible except within a very small circle. For the same reason, there is no great diversity. So far as natural products are concerned, diversity can be great only when the nation extends over a large surface, for it is only then that the fruits of the earth are varied; and in the case of the products of human industry great diversity supposes a rather extensive division of labor, which can scarcely be realized within such narrow limits. Thus is exchange limited on all sides in this first stage of civilization. The spirit of violence, hostility and war reigns everywhere, and the general insecurity that results from this hostile spirit is the chief obstacle to the progress of exchange.

—But as soon as security begins to be established among men, the practice of exchange spreads rapidly. It is generally understood, however, that its development may be either favored or impeded by certain advantages or inconveniences of position. The particular circumstances which favor it among certain peoples are well indicated by Adam Smith in the passage which follows. After having shown, by several examples, the advantages of transportation by water over transportation by water over transportation by land, he thus continues: "Since such, therefore, are the advantages of water carriage, it is natural that the first improvements of art and industry should be made where this conveniency opens the whole world for a market to the produce of every sort of labor, and that they should always be much later in extending themselves into the inland parts of the country. The inland parts of the country can for a long time have no other market for the greater part of their goods but the country which lies about them and separates them from the seacoast and the great navigable rivers. The extent of this market, therefore, must for a long time be in proportion to the riches and populousness of that country, and consequently their improvement must always be posterior to the improvement of that country. In our North American colonies the plantations have constantly followed either the seacoast or the banks of the navigable rivers, and have scarce anywhere extended themselves to any considerable distance from both. The nations that, according to the best authenticated history, appear to have been first civilized, were those that dwelt round the coast of the Mediterranean sea. That sea, by far the greatest inlet that is known in the world, having no tides, nor consequently any waves, except such as are caused by the wind only, was, by the smoothness of its surface, as well as by the multitude of its islands and the proximity of its neighboring shores, extremely favorable to the infant navigation of the world, when, from their ignorance of the compass, men were afraid to quit the view of the coast, and from the imperfection of the art of ship building, to abandon themselves to the boisterous waves of the ocean. * * * *." "Of all the countries on the coast of the Mediterranean sea, Egypt seems to have been the first in which either agriculture or manufactures were cultivated and improved to any considerable degree. Upper Egypt extends itself nowhere above a few miles from the Nile, and in lower Egypt that great river breaks itself into many different canals, which, with the assistance of a little art, seem to have afforded communication by water carriage not only between all the great towns, but between all the considerable villages, and even to many farm houses in the country; nearly in the same manner as the Rhine and the Meuse do in Holland at present. The extent and easiness of this inland navigation was probably one of the principal causes of the early improvement of Egypt."

—These natural advantages lose, however, something of their original value, now that human industry has discovered so many means of supplying their place.

—However this may be, with the progress of time and civilization exchange has grown to be almost universally practiced among men. It has, in turn, introduced the division of labor, which is at once its consequence and complement, and which takes place more or less in all branches of industry. These two phenomena, which are intimately connected, constitute the fundamental basis of the industrial order existing in the world to-day. We shall not enlarge upon the advantages which result therefrom with regard to the relative productivity of labor, for these advantages have been sufficiently explained Edition: current; Page: [124] already while treating of the division of labor; but it remains for us here to show some general consequences that particularly belong to this part of the subject.

—Exchange, and the division of labor which flows from it, create between men relations as necessary, and ties as strong and as numerous, to say nothing more, as those which existed between them under the primitive system of the community. It is sometimes said that in society as it now is, man isolates himself—that he separates himself from his fellow-men, to with draw himself into his own individuality. But is he not, on the contrary, because of this division of labor, and of the law of exchange which is connected with it, in a constant and very restricted dependence upon everything that surrounds him? He works for his fellow-men, and they work for him; when the work of production is terminated by each, they exchange its products among themselves. Is there any closer bond of dependence than this? The difference between this new bond and the primitive one is, that the new one is more complex, and incomparably more favorable to the increase of production. There is, however, still another difference in its favor; it is much more susceptible of extension.

—In society in its primitive state production in common and the division of its fruits were necessarily confined within a very restricted circle. By its very nature, which was opposed to expansion, such a system could not extend beyond the limits of one tribe. Thus all social relations of man with his fellows ended here. Everything outside this limit was foreign to him, if not hostile. But from the moment that industry felt the influence of the division of labor and of exchange, the social bonds which it created among men were susceptible of indefinite increase. Provided peace reigns between different nations, exchange may take place from one to the other, just as it takes place within each one of them, and the division of labor may follow the same line of progress. Thus human sociability extends, it does not even stop now at the conventional limits of states; it crosses, if we may say so, mountains and seas, and aims at forming, little by little, upon the earth one immense society, varied in its forms, but always one, embracing the whole human race. Exchange could never have reached the point to which it has come, without the fulfillment of certain necessary conditions. (See CIRCULATION, DIVISION of LABOR, and MONEY; see also COMMERCE, and FREE TRADE.)



EXCISE, a term employed to designate a great variety of taxes. In its more limited and more correct sense it is applied only to taxes imposed on the sale and production of commodities produced and consumed within the country levying the tax. Excise duties are distinguished from customs duties by the fact that the latter are imposed upon commodities when imported into or exported from a country. They are further distinguished from such taxes on consumption as a tax on dogs, on horses and carriages kept for private use, etc., in that the latter are direct, while the excise duties are indirect. (See TAXATION.)

—The excise has been a very important element in all modern systems of finance. It has indeed been by far the most fruitful source of revenue for many nations. It has also been employed as a means of restraining luxury or intemperance by being made so exorbitantly high as to diminish the consumption of the article taxed. The nations of antiquity do not seem to have made very extensive use of this method of taxation. Augustus, it is true, introduced a universal excise duty on whatever was sold in the markets or by public auction. But it did not amount to more than 1 per cent., and was but inefficiently collected. It was exceedingly unpopular, and even Augustus, in order to maintain it, was obliged to declare by a public edict that the support of the army depended in great measure on the produce of the excise. Tiberius reduced it one half and promised to abolish it altogether, although he did not keep his promise. Some of the later emperors availed themselves of the excise to a greater or less extent. But it was reserved for modern times and for industrial states to discover how large a revenue could be derived from this method of taxation.

—When the payments in kind, which in the old agricultural and feudal state had proved amply sufficient to defray all public expenses, were no longer adequate to the demand, the need of some standard of taxation for movable property began to be keenly felt. In the country, under the simple conditions there prevailing, it was not unfair to distribute taxation according to the amount of land held by each individual. But in the cities it was evidently impracticable to concentrate all taxation on real estate. Consumable commodities seemed the most available subjects of taxation. By shifting the burden upon them the city authorities could gain two things. They could prevent the tax collector from interfering in the internal administration of the city, and could also save themselves the trouble of fixing a definite amount for each individual citizen to pay. This last was considered a great saving, especially as these taxes were everywhere regarded as temporary on their first introduction. They became permanent when wars began to be carried on largely by money, and began to leave behind them national debts which demanded a constant source of income for their liquidation. Thus the Netherlands adopted the excise in their was for independence against Spain; Saxony, after the thirty years' war; Brandenburg, under the great elector. Spain had a similar tax in the Alcavala at the time of the Moorish wars.

—It is usual to assign 1643 as the date at which the excise was introduced into England. This is in so far correct as the term excise then appears for the first time, and as the imposts then levied remained a permanent feature of the English revenue system. But excise duties had been in existence long before. There are evidences which prove the Edition: current; Page: [125] existence of an excise on meat as early as the time of Richard I. In the time of John and of Henry III, there was a tax on bread, which was nothing but an excise, in which the price of bread was regulated according to that of grain. Later, in the time of Edward VI., a tax of eight pence in the pound was levied on all woolen goods manufactured in England for sale. But it became so unpopular that the king was obliged to give it up within a year after it was first imposed. From that time on no attempt seems to have been made to introduce an excise until the time of James I., when this monarch imposed a tax of one shilling per chaldron on all coal shipped by water. This was not a customs duty, for it was levied on English coal shipped from one English town to another. Soon after, (1626), Charles I. attempted to introduce an excise on provisions, but was thwarted in his design by the obstinate resistance of parliament.

—In 1643 the revolutionary parliament at Westminster established the first excise. The tax was laid on the manufacture and sale of ale, beer, cider and perry. The king and his parliament at Oxford soon followed the Westminster example. Both parties promised that the excise should be abolished at the close of the war. But when the time came it had proved to be too fruitful a source of revenue to be given up, and it has remained ever since a part of the financial system of Great Britain. In 1647 the excise was extended to meat, bread, salt, wine, sugar, tobacco, and other less important articles. Some of these articles (as wine and sugar) were shortly afterward relieved of taxation. In 1650 the excise yielded about £500,000. At the restoration, the produce of the excise was granted to Charles II. No essential change was made in the excise during the reigns of Charles II. and James II., although the amount realized from it constantly increased. When William III., however, ascended the throne and undertook the costly wars against France, not only was the excise on ale, beer, cider and perry increased, but malt, sugar and wine were added to the taxable articles. The sum realized from it now exceeded £1,000,000, and in Queen Anne's reign reached the sum of £1,600,000. The development of these indirect taxes was exactly similar to that of the customs duties. (See CUSTOMS DUTIES.) Every addition formed a special tax for a special purpose, so that at Anne's death there were twenty-seven branches. Among other objects taxed during Anne's reign, the following may be mentioned; leather, candles, parchment, hops, paper, pasteboard, soap, printed cotton, linen and silk goods, starch, gold and silver wire—During the peaceful reign of George I. war, of course, could no longer pass as an excuse for increasing the taxes, but the government and the aristocracy had so fallen in love with these indirect taxes which fell principally upon the shoulders of the common people and were comparatively easy to collect, that they advanced still farther along the course upon which the long parliament had entered. The number of branches rose to twenty-nine, and the average yield to £2,600,000 per year. The increase in the yield is to be attributed mainly to the increase of population and prosperity. The people, however, hated the tax bitterly; not merely because it made the necessaries of life dearer, but also because the administration was hateful and oppressive. Aside from the restrictions upon production and commerce which can not be separated from any tax on consumption, the needless complexity of the tax, the vast number of laws, the collection by farming, and the decision of disputes by dependent officers, caused wide spread hatred. It can easily be seen how these various influences worked hand in hand to excite public bitterness against the excise; how the obscurity, which necessarily followed from taxing the same object at several different rates and from the number of complicated and ambiguous laws, led to constant violations; how the avarice of the tax-farmers detected these; how these farmers sought to overstep the necessary restraints and to use them if possible to vex and oppress the public, and what an impression condemnations must produce that were made on account of unintentional or ignorant violations. The loud complaints made about this time produced such an effect that the system of farming the taxes was given up. The collection passed into the hands of government officials.

—But the government was not persuaded to limit the sphere of the excise at all; on the contrary, it was constantly enlarged. It was even allowed to encroach upon the field of the customs; without any other effect, however, than simply to increase the labor of the collectors and the vexations to which the public were exposed. In order to diminish smuggling which the high customs had greatly encouraged, certain duties were lowered and an excise also collected upon the articles. The duties on tea were lowered four shillings, on coffee two shillings, and an excise equal in amount to these items imposed. The importation of chocolate and manufactured cacao was at the same time forbidden, and an excise laid on their domestic manufacture. This separation of the imposts, after having been extended to tobacco and spirits, was finally given up in the year 1825.

—Of far greater importance than this event, so far as administration is concerned, was a plan which the famous Walpole proposed in 1733. It was no less than such an extension of the excise system as to do away with the necessity of all other taxes. The hope was expressed that by diminishing the number of taxes simplicity and economy could be obtained in the administration; that by abolishing the customs duties, particularly those on raw materials, and by introducing a régime of free trade, a new impetus could be given to commerce and industry, the necessaries of life could be cheapened, England could be converted into a vast free port, and finally, smuggling could be destroyed and the public revenues increased.

—This plan was not laid before parliament in its completeness at once, but Edition: current; Page: [126] the minister merely attempted to extend the excise to a new commodity; but the knowledge of his intention had gotten abroad, and excited a storm of opposition throughout the whole kingdom. The most exciting scenes occurred in parliament, and the house itself was fairly besieged by the people. The bitterness increased constantly. Walpole himself was in danger of violence. After an exciting contest the minister declared, that, as the law could not be executed without an army, even if parliament should pass it, he would rather give it up than insist on a tax which would endanger England's peace. The joy at the withdrawal of the bill was boundless. The victory of the people, as it was then considered, was celebrated throughout the kingdom with bonfires, illuminations and excesses of all kinds.

—The authorities are not even yet agreed as to the merit of the scheme. One party praises the grandeur of the plan to accomplish free trade, alleviation of industry, and simplicity of administration; the other party condemns the idea of shifting the burden of taxation entirely to the shoulders of the poor. We can not deny that the plan had an element of grandeur in it. It could only have been devised by an able man. But it is hard to see how the excise was to yield so much, if the rates were to be kept low and were not to be imposed on the necessaries of life. Nor is it clear that anything would have been gained if the smuggling had been simply transferred to the excise, and if the cost of living had been increased by increasing the taxes on the necessaries of life—With the rejection of Walpole's plan the English people had shown its reluctance to follow out the excise system to its utmost consequences. But the system was still retained and developed in such a way that it was certainly no better in its results than Walpole's plan would have been. For the advantages which his plan would undoubtedly have offered, namely, simplicity of administration and destruction of smuggling, were given up entirely, while they allowed the disadvantages of indirect taxation to develop themselves in their most objectionable forms. The great wars during the reigns of George II. and George III. compelled them to seek new sources of income, and driven by necessity they picked out the most productive, which were indirect taxes on consumption. At the same time instead of developing the direct taxes simultaneously, they even abolished the most important of all, the general land tax.

—Among the additions to the excise under George III. the most important were a tax on auctions and one on bricks. The rates were in the meantime constantly increased, so that the yield grew regularly from decade to decade, in 1792 to ten millions, in 1800 to fourteen millions, in 1810 to twenty-five millions, and even approached in subsequent years the sum of thirty millions sterling. The excise had now become the most important source of public revenue. This period, the last years of war and the first of the succeeding peace in the early part of this century, was the time when the excise flourished most. But it was also the time when the height of the excise began to be unbearable and in which men began to recognize its defects. Now also, as formerly, it shared the lot of the customs. Both imposts are indeed, aside from the economical effects of the customs, nothing but two branches of the same tree. At the same time with the reform of the customs, Canning began to reform the excise with the aim of producing lower prices for the necessaries of life, and thereby contentment among the laboring classes, and of establishing normal wages and thus cheapening production, and causing a revival of industry and commerce.

—The first commodities upon which the taxes were diminished were malt and salt (1822, 1823 and 1825), then followed glass (1825), cider and perry and brandy (1826), beer from which the tax was entirely removed (1830), printed cloths (1831), candles (1832), soap (1833), starch (1834), paper (1836). It will be seen that after 1830 their zeal in diminishing the taxes abated somewhat, and that it entirely ceased with the year 1836. In 1840, indeed, a general increase of 5 per cent. was resolved upon to cover the deficit in the budget. But the old system was no longer tenable, and with Sir Robert Peel the reform movement began again. The excise was diminished upon glass (1844 and 1845), on auctions (1845), bricks (1850), soap (1853). The war years 1854 and 1855 occasioned an increase in the malt tax, which was again reduced in 1857, and upon brandy which has never been reduced since, though the tax on brandy has been retained from other than financial considerations.

—The number of articles subject to the excise decreased gradually, so that in the year 1850 only malt, hops, paper, soap, brandy and sugar remained, of which the last is hardly worth mentioning as it produced next to nothing. Of these, soap, hops and paper have been freed from the excise.

—It is natural that the produce of the excise should sink under these reductions, and especially on account of the administrative reforms of 1825. It sank in 1830 to less than nineteen millions, and in 1840 to thirteen millions. But the practical rule that reasonable reductions in high taxes on consumption increase the revenue, verified itself here also. The income from the excise rose in 1850 to over fifteen millions, and in 1866 to over twenty millions. Of late years a new excise has been introduced, viz., that on substitutes for coffee. It was introduced, however, to counterbalance a duty laid upon coffee, so that the latter might not act as a protective duty. The taxes now classed under the head of excise include those on chicory, coaches, licenses, malt, race horses, railroads, brandy, and sugar. Some of these, of course, ought not to be classed under that head in a scientific classification, but the income from such articles is so small that it may be practically disregarded. The taxes on brandy and malt and the licenses to persons dealing in those articles amounted in 1866 to Edition: current; Page: [127] nineteen-twentieths of the produce of the excise.

—It would be interesting to consider the part that the tax on each particular commodity made of the whole amount, but the investigation would lead us too far. Worthy of note it is, however, that the excise, after a devious course of two hundred years, has at last become essentially what it was at first, viz., a tax on beer and brandy. We have given this somewhat lengthy sketch of the English excise, because it was the origin of our American excise. The statesmen of the time immediately following the revolution, when they introduced our first excise law, copied the English excise laws almost word for word so far as they dared, and English legislation and English history have been the sources from which all our legislation has drawn its inspiration.

—To show clearly the relative importance of the excise as a financial device, the produce of the English excise has been compared in the following table with that of the customs duties for a series of years, beginning with 1701:


The years printed to the left of the figures and in parentheses in the customs column show the year for which that item is given. The excise has even yielded a larger proportion of the net income than the above table would seem to show; for the customs items of each year contain large sums which were returned as rebates, paid out as premiums, etc., amounting, in some cases, to as much as £2,500,000. It will be seen that the produce from the excise generally exceeded that from the customs from 1780 down to 1825, though it will be remembered that for a hundred years preceding 1825, several items had been counted under the head of excise which belonged properly under the head of customs.

—The history of the excise in the United States is brief. The colonists had inherited from their English ancestors a hatred of this tax in any form. Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Connecticut, however, had been forced from financial considerations to adopt an excise on spirits, and the latter state had even imposed a general excise upon the consumption of all foreign articles. But there was a great reluctance to allowing the national government to levy such an impost.

—Several states had joined in the first congress in recommending an amendment to the constitution, prohibiting the federal government from ever resorting to the excise. But in 1790, in spite of the repugnance exhibited by congress to such a measure, Secretary Hamilton, in an elaborate report, insisted upon the necessity of an excise. He proposed that it be limited to spirits, and aside from financial considerations, he urged the great injury inflicted upon the country by such enormous consumption of intoxicating liquors, and the great advantage it would be to diminish such consumption by high taxes. After a series of exciting debates the law was passed. A tax varying from nine to twenty-five cents per gallon, according to the proof, was imposed on spirits distilled from articles grown or produced in the United States, and a higher tax upon imported spirits. The law was modified in 1792 in the direction of lower rates. In subsequent years the scope of the tax was enlarged under the direction of Hamilton until it included carriages, refined sugars, snuff, auction sales, stamp duties on various instruments of exchange, and some other objects. The opposition to the law, which from the first had been powerful enough to prevent its execution in many portions of the country, finally broke out into open war in the so-called whisky insurrection in western Pennsylvania. After this disturbance was quieted, the country seems to have acquiesced in the payment of the tax. When Jefferson came to the presidency, however, he recommended that the whole system be abolished, and as the revenue from the customs was constantly and rapidly increasing, congress willingly voted for its abolition.

—When the war of 1812 broke out, it again became necessary to resort to the excise. In June, 1813, a bill was passed imposing a tax on distilled spirits in the shape of license money, an excise of four cents a pound on domestic refined sugar, twenty cents on each half-hundred weight of salt, $2 to $20 on carriages, 1 per cent. on auction sales, and a stamp duty of 1 per cent. on all instruments of exchange. These duties were all repeated in December, 1817, and no excise duty was levied by the United States government until the war of the rebellion necessitated a recourse to this measure.

—The present system of internal taxes was inaugurated July 1, 1862. It has embraced, since its origin, taxation upon occupations and trades; upon sales, gross receipts and dividends; upon incomes of individuals, firms and corporations; upon specific articles not consumed in the use: stamp duties, taxes upon various classes of manufacture, upon legacies, distributive shares and successions. It will be seen that the internal revenue system has included many different kinds of taxes. It furnished for a time the greater portion of the national revenue. In the article INTERNAL REVENUE will be found the receipts from Edition: current; Page: [128] 1792 to 1880 from the sources included under the head of internal revenue in the finance report for 1879. In the report above mentioned returns are made for the years 1804-13 and 1821-48. But in no one of these years did the produce amount to as much as $100,000, and that was not raised by means of an excise. Although the system adopted in 1813 was abolished as a system in 1817, yet some of the taxes were retained for a few years longer, but their yield was insignificant after 1820. As we have already said, the returns given in the table in the article INTERNAL REVENUE include also the produce of taxes which can not be classed under the head of excise. At present, however, nearly the whole of the internal revenue is raised by an excise duty on spirits and tobacco. These two articles yielded in 1875, for instance, over 89 per cent. of the total produce of the internal revenue system.

—It will be seen from the preceding sketch that the United States government has been forced to adopt a system of excise during or after each of the three great wars it has waged, and also that it gave up this system in the first two instances as soon as its financial necessities would permit. One reason for this policy of giving up the excise as soon as possible has been mentioned already, viz., the prejudice against such a tax inherited from the colonial period. Another strong reason lies in the fact that the protectionists have always worked earnestly for the abolition of every such tax, as they desire all national revenue to be raised by an impost on imported goods. It is perhaps too early to predict the fate of our present excise. As now constituted it is free from many of the objections which are urged against such taxes. But our revenue is now in excess of the legitimate demands of government, and the various parties opposed to the excise are planning to demand its abolition. Political tradition and prejudice, combined with the active influence of protectionism, will probably ultimately effect its overthrow in the United States.

—The other prominent nations of modern times all derive a large income from the excise. Nor in any of them does there seem to be any inclination to give up this fruitful source of revenue. The new German empire, which resembles our own government in many respects, is tending more and more toward raising all its revenue by indirect taxation, and the greater part of it by the excise. The following table shows the relation between the produce of the excise and the total revenue of four European nations:


—The economical effects of the excise are great and lasting. Like all indirect taxes on commodities, the excise will raise the price of the commodity in the long run by at least the amount of the tax. In most cases it will raise it by more than that amount. Adam Smith, and subsequently, John Stuart Mill, have described clearly the characteristics of an excise. Such a tax makes it necessary to impose restrictive regulations on the manufacturers or dealers in order to check evasions. These regulations are always sources of trouble and annoyance and generally of expense, for all of which, being peculiar disadvantages, the producers or dealers must have compensation in the price of their commodity. These restrictions also frequently interfere with the processes of manufacture, requiring the producer to carry on his operations in the way most convenient to the revenue, though not the cheapest or most efficient for purposes of production. Any regulation whatever enforced by law makes it difficult for the producer to adopt new and improved processes. Further, the necessity of advancing the tax obliges producers and dealers to carry on their business with larger capitals than would otherwise be necessary, on the whole of which they must receive the ordinary rate of profit, though a part only is employed in defraying the real expenses of production. The consumers, of course, must give an indemnity to the sellers equal to the profit they could have made on the same capital if really employed in production. In addition to this, it must be remembered that whatever renders a large capital necessary in a business really limits competition in that branch, and by giving something like a monopoly to a few dealers may enable them to keep up the price beyond what would afford the ordinary rate of profit. Finally, whatever raises the price of a commodity. ceteris paribus checks the demand for it; and since there are many improvements in production, which, to make them practicable, require a certain extent of demand, such improvements are obstructed and many of them prevented altogether. In all these different ways indirect taxes on consumption cost the public much more than the government realizes. Excise duties are, however, in some respects less objectionable in this regard than customs duties. Customs are levied ordinarily on the elements of a commodity before it is manufactured, as well as on the finished product; the excise, generally, only on the commodity ready for market. The latter, therefore, does not require such a long advance of capital as the former.

—The excise, levied on the necessaries of life, produces great and injurious effects on the whole national economy. It may lead to a permanent deterioration of the condition of the laboring classes or to a peculiar burdening of profits, which must be injurious to the increase of national wealth. Many authorities attribute the difference in prices between England and the continent to the high prices of the necessaries of life, brought about by the long-continued system of indirect taxation. Edition: current; Page: [129] And in spite of England's greatness there is little doubt that its middle classes to-day would be more numerous, and the chasm between the rich and the poor less deep, if it had not been for the peculiar form of the excise which for over a century shifted the burden of taxation to the shoulders of the poorer classes.

—The objections to the excise lose their force largely when it is imposed on only a few objects, and those articles of luxury. Of such a character is our present system of excise. Its opponents greatly exaggerate its defects. The hardship it inflicts, when confined to luxuries, as at present, is reduced to a minimum. It has been more economically collected than the customs, and its political and economical effects on the country are far less injurious than those of the former. Our own experience and that of other nations prove that a low excise on articles of luxury which are widely consumed is one of the most productive and one of the least objectionable of all indirect taxes. The history of America, as well as that of England, proves also that low rates are more productive than high rates, as the latter lead to evasion and fraud.

—The excise has often been fixed at a high rate from a desire to use it as a sort of sumptuary device. Adam Smith says that taxes upon luxuries act as sumptuary laws on the sober and industrious poor, and dispose them to moderate or to refrain altogether from the use of superfluities which they can no longer afford. He mentions, among other commodities, intoxicating liquors and tobacco as liable to be consumed in smaller quantities on account of high taxes. This question has been keenly debated in the United States. The prohibitionists, i.e., those in favor of forbidding the sale and manufacture of intoxicating beverages, have uniformly thrown their influence in favor of high duties. One thing is indisputable, that a low duty has been more productive than a high one. One party claims that this is proof that consumption increased under the low duty; the other, that fraud and evasion ran riot under the high duty. It may still be an undecided question whether sumptuary laws are ever of any value, but it would seem less disputable that financial schemes should stand or fall on their own merits instead of on their tendency to act as sumptuary devices—Compare INTERNAL REVENUE.

—LITERATURE. The standard works on political economy and finance all furnish more or less elaborate discussions of the excise. The general encyclopædias offer some valuable considerations upon the subject. W. Vocke's Geschichte der Steuern des Britischen Reichs contains a vast fund of information in reference to British taxation. The above sketch of the excise in England is based largely upon Vocke. McCulloch's Taxation and The Funding System, Tennant's The People's Blue Book, and Baxter's Taxation of the United Kingdom, are all valuable for the study of this question. The reports of the secretaries of the treasury, and, in late years, of the commissioners of internal revenue, are the most valuable contributions to this subject by Americans. The Germans have produced some valuable monographs on the subject during the last ten or fifteen years. Consult files of Conrad's Jahrbücher far Nationalœkonomie, 1867-81.





EXCOMMUNICATION, ecclesiastical censure, by which a member of a religious community is excluded therefrom until he has mended his ways. Excommunication, in its essence, therefore, is intended less as a punishment than as a means of improvement. Its origin is lost in the night of time; pagan and Jewish antiquity were acquainted with it, and we must admit that the practice has its foundation in justice. Society does not exceed its right when, seeking to protect itself against those of its members who fail to fulfill the obligations imposed on them, it excludes those who show themselves, after admission to it, unworthy of membership.

—We can not, therefore, reproach the Christian church for having borrowed excommunication, as well as the greater part of its primitive organization, from the synagogue. The synagogue excluded from its meetings those whom, rightly or wrongly, it judged unworthy to take part in them: this was called, being driven from the synagogue, and this disciplinary measure was applied more than once to the early preachers of the Gospel.

—When the first Christian congregations were organized they assumed the same power: but at this time the conditions of admission to the church were in great part moral. It was especially in cases of notorious immorality, easily proven in a small community, that excommunication was pronounced. Thus the Christians of Corinth, on the advice and at the command of Paul, excluded from among them one guilty of incest, who, however, on repenting, subsequently obtained pardon. It must be remarked that the first Christians lived almost in common, and celebrated the holy supper at their frequent brotherly feasts. In case of excommunication this intimate relation with the guilty person ceased. The faithful no longer received him. They avoided speaking to him or meeting him, and would not sit at the same table with him. When, later the Christian church—its members having become very numerous—was persecuted; when, especially after the time of Constantine, violent dogmatic controversies arose, excommunication was resorted to, particularly in cases of apostacy and heresy. The clergy, whose power increased daily, reserved to themselves the right to pronounce sentence of excommunication, a right which in the beginning belonged to the assembly of the faithful, and it became a powerful weapon in their hands. The belief that the church alone could grant pardon, that outside of it no salvation was possible, became more and more prevalent, and led men to Edition: current; Page: [130] regard the excommunicated person as one damned forever unless restored to the fold. Thus excommunication, which in principle was a censure intended to warn the sinner and favor his reformation, while protecting Christian society against corruption, became a punishment, and the most severe of all punishments. Afterward different degrees of excommunication were introduced, the first traces of which are found in the time of St. Augustine, and which have been preserved and precisely distinguished from one another. A distinction is made between the major excommunication which cuts one off absolutely from the communion of the Catholic church and carries damnation with it as a consequence, and the minor excommunication whose only effect is to deprive him of participation in the sacraments. It must be added that the sentence of excommunication may be fulminated against a person, naming him, or in a general manner against all those who have taken part in any act reprehensible in the eyes of the clergy. It may even be incurred ipso facto; that is to say, a believer who commits an act forbidden by the church, under pain of excommunication, should consider himself excommunicated even when no general sentence of excommunication has been pronounced, and he has not been excommunicated by name. The canon law enumerates more than two hundred cases of excommunication ipso facto, and determines, by minute rules, what members of the clergy have the right to excommunicate or to free from excommunication.

—The clergy made frequent and formidable use of the sentence of excommunication in the middle ages more than in any other period of history. The church, which was united to the state in the time of Constantine, finally became confused with civil society, which it not unfrequently controlled. Wielding immense moral power, it made its censure feared, even by the mightiest. The unfortunate man whom it struck with the sentence of major excommunication became an object of terror and contempt to all. All intercourse with him was forbidden. Cut off from the society of his fellows, he met with neither aid nor pity. The hell to which he was doomed began for him here on earth. He recoiled before no penance, no matter how rigorous it might be, to obtain pardon and to be reconciled to Christian society. Thus in those times of dissolute life, feudal tyranny and universal disorder, excommunication often served as a protection to the weak and a powerful curb on the cruel and gross passions of the descendants of the barbarians. Unfortunately the church employed this formidable weapon in defense of its earthly interests, and the extension of its temporal power. From the right which belonged to him of excommunicating all baptized believers, even princes, Gregory VII. pretended to deduce that of disposing of kingly crowns. Believers were bound to avoid all commerce with an excommunicated person, not to greet him, not to talk to nor eat with him. In case of a king they were no longer obliged to obey him; he had no longer the right of requiring the obedience of Christians, for he was no longer a member of Christian society, and his power crumbled the moment the church cut him off from her communion. The conclusion that Christians were not obliged to obey an excommunicated king, which the stubborn genius of Gregory VII carried into practice, was reasoned out so logically that his adversaries were reduced to maintaining that a sovereign could never be excommunicated: while Gallicanism, by a compromise difficult to reconcile with the canon law, maintained that excommunication, a punishment purely spiritual, could not have civil consequences, and that thus the subjects of an excommunicated sovereign could not be absolved from obeying him.

—The church had abused the powerful weapon which it held, and saw it broken in its own hands. Philip the Fair, supported by the states general, twice braved the excommunication launched against him by Boniface VIII., and in proportion as, in all Europe, civil society severed its connection with religious society, it became more difficult to make men respect the sentence of excommunication and its consequences, which soon ceased to inspire terror. The bulls of excommunication launched against the reformers did not sensibly hinder the spread of their doctrines, and this weapon, once so terrible, became less feared every day, and was therefore less and less employed. At present the church seems to fear the use of it, especially in grave cases relating to politics. When its traditions or the rules of its constitution force it to have recourse to excommunication, it carefully omits the mention of names. After the decree by which Napoleon I., May 17, 1809, suppressed the temporal power of the pope and united the states of the church to the French empire. Pius VII. confined himself to excommunicating, in a general manner, the authors of the deed, without even naming the signer of the decree. More recently Pius IX., when he saw his provinces taken away one by one, imitated this example, and, without naming any one, excommunicated all who had contributed to bring about that result. Thenceforth it was for each one to know how far the decree concerned him. Count Cavour, and after him many others, were able to obtain priests to minister to them in their last moments.

—It must not be supposed, however, that the Catholic church has entirely given up excommunication. Thus the Jansenists have organized a church in Holland at the head of which is an archbishop who resides at Utrecht. Whenever the see is vacant the church nominates a bishop, and the newly elected writes to Rome asking the pope to approve his election and bless it. A little later the pope answers him and all those who have contributed to his election by a sentence of excommunication. If, however, excommunication is a thing almost unknown today in some countries, it is not in certain countries where Catholicism has retained more of its ascendency and is Edition: current; Page: [131] still able to execute, at least in part, such a sentence. Thus in Austria, at the end of the year 1862, a person was excommunicated by name on account of heresy.

—This is a fact far from unique. In 1857 M. Braun, an ecclesiastic of the diocese of Passau, was subjected to the major excommunication for refusing to read from the pulpit the bull relating to the dogma of the immaculate conception; in 1856 the pastor of Thonex, canton of Geneva, excommunicated several of his parishioners for having joined an aid society in Geneva which admits as members Catholics and Protestants without distinction. The following year a shoemaker of Budweis, afterward confined as insane in consequence of a medical examination, was excommunicated by his bishop for having maintained that he and he only possessed the power of casting out devils.

—More recently the church has again used excommunication against some of its rebellious children. The council of the Vatican having proclaimed the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope, attempts to resist the decree were made in different countries, notably in Germany, and sentence of ex-communication was passed in very many cases against the Old Catholics, but the sentence could not stop the movement. On the other hand, since the major excommunication may have, if not a civil, at least a social effect, governments have thought of interdicting it. (German law of March, 1873.) In the different Protestant churches the use of excommunication, preserved in the beginning, soon disappeared. The reformers maintained it, and the confessions of faith drawn up in the sixteenth century and the rules of the reformed church made mention of it, but it was maintained only with important restrictions. Thus major excommunication and excommunication ipso jacto were rejected by the Protestants; they preserved only the minor excommunication, which is reduced to non-participation in the sacraments, and which, as it never involved civil disabilities, could be pronounced only by the body of believers. A little later, it is true, in Germany and at Geneva, the right of excluding unworthy members from the Lord's supper was given to the ecclesiastical authorities, but soon fell into disuse. In many places excommunication was replaced by public penance, which was abolished in Pomerania in 1744, and in Prussia in 1746. Würtemberg preserved it, at least in its laws, till 1806. Notwithstanding some attempts made in various parts of Germany to establish a stricter discipline, it may be said that excommunication is unknown to Protestant churches in our day.

—It is not so in the Greek church, where it has always existed. Nevertheless, the orthodox clergy, who never attained the summit of power to which the Catholic clergy formerly rose, have never, like the latter, made a formidable use of excommunication, and it is scarcely ever used at present by them. (See ABOLITION, EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, SLAVERY, ETC.)



EXECUTIVE, The (IN U. S. HISTORY), the officer whose function it is to see to the execution of the laws which have been made by the legislative. Properly speaking, the whole body of officials, high or low, charged with this function, make up the executive department; but usually the highest in rank is named as "the executive." Thus, in a state, the governor is "the executive," in common phrase, but every officer, whether elected or appointed, down to sheriff or constable, whose office is the execution of the laws, is a part of the executive department. The president for the time being is "the executive" of the federal government. The power of all executive officers is limited and defined by law, generally by the organic law, the state or federal constitution, but in the case of some subordinate offices by statute or common law. This article is confined to the executive of the United States.

—I. THE COLONIAL EXECUTIVE. In considering the executive power of the British colonies which afterward became the United States, it is primarily necessary to forget the present constitution altogether, and to remember that the colonies, as they were a part of the British empire, were under the unwritten. British constitution, and that their common executive, the king, enjoyed far larger powers than any which are ever entrusted to an American executive. His prerogative really comprised all that residuum of originally absolute power of which the growing power of nobles and commons had not yet deprived him, or of which he had not voluntarily divested himself by charters; and, though it by no means equaled the powers of our entire federal government, it compared more nearly with them than with those of the president alone. Thus, the powers to make peace and war, to contract treaties and alliances, to send and receive ambassadors, were all in the king alone, and the king's American assemblies had no more claim to a share in them than his British parliament. The governors of the various colonies were not principal executive officers, but viceroys, representing the king's person and the king's will, though in some of the colonies the governor's power was limited by the charter granted by the king. In Connecticut and Rhode Island the choice of the governor was given to the people.

—The fundamental grievance which led to the American revolution was the effort of this executive, the king, to ignore the legislative in America, the colonial assemblies, as he would not have ventured to do in Great Britain. It is true that the effort came disguised as an assertion of the power of parliament to legislate in all cases for the colonies; but, as there was hardly any attempt to disguise the power of the king to control absolutely, by patronage or direct purchase, the legislation of parliament, the animus of the king's new-born zeal for the privileges and dignity of parliament is easily apparent. It was not so apparent at first to the mass of the colonists, who were ignorant of the corruption of parliament, accustomed to reverence its authority in Great Britain, Edition: current; Page: [132] or not directly affected by the new legislation; and for a long time they and their legislative assemblies were nearly unanimous in acknowledging the general power of parliament over foreign commerce, while denying its power over the domestic affairs of individual colonies. Reflection, however, necessarily showed that there was no logical ground for such a distinction, and that it was impossible to locate and maintain it in practice; and, while the first continental congress acknowledged it explicitly, the second repudiated it altogether. The earlier struggles of the revolution were against the power of parliament to legislate for the colonies, and it was not until July 4, 1776, that the continental congress, by renouncing allegiance to the king, put a formal end to his authority as the executive of the united colonies. (See CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, REVOLUTION, DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.)

—For the next thirteen years the country was practically without an executive. The continental congress, which, by the will of the whole people, had already assumed most of the king's prerogatives, soon passed under the dominion of the state legislatures. The scheme of government which it contrived for the country was subordinated to the likings of the leaders of the legislatures, to whom it was ultimately submitted for ratification. (See CONTINENTAL CONGRESS.) Under the articles of confederation there was no distinct executive (see ADMINISTRATIONS), and congress itself was only an inefficient substitute for it. Its introduction into the new constitution was an evident necessity, and met very little opposition from any quarter.

—II. ORIGIN OF THE PRESIDENTIAL OFFICE. When the convention of 1787 met, there was a general agreement among the delegates that a distinct executive must be provided for, and the only difference of opinion was in regard to its form. Many delegates supposed the feelings of the people to be opposed to even "the semblance of monarchy," and preferred a plural executive, to be composed of one member from each of two or more divisions of the Union. Accordingly, while the "Virginia plan" and the "Jersey plan" agreed in making provision for "an executive," the latter proposed a plural executive, "to consist of—persons," and the former carefully used language applicable to either a singular or a plural executive, without undertaking to settle upon either. Charles Pinckney's plan proposes a single executive, to be called "the president," but this was probably an emendation at a late day of the convention's existence. Hamilton's plan, which was not considered, proposes a single executive, to be chosen by electors, to serve during good behavior, and to be called "the governor" June 4, by a vote of seven states to three: the committee of the whole decided upon a single executive, to be elected by congress for a term of seven years, to be ineligible for a second term, and to have a qualified veto; and in this form the resolution went, with the others, July 26, to the committee for reporting a constitution.

—In the report of the committee, Aug. 6, the resolution was changed only in giving the executive "the style of the president." and "the title of his excellency." The name of president was familiar to the delegates. It had been proposed in 1754 (see ALBANY PLAN OF UNION), and had already been given to the executives (now called governors) of most of the states which had formed constitutions. It was therefore adopted without hesitation. The title of "his excellency" was a different matter, and the delegates struck out a provision so certain to awaken the strongest prejudices of their constituents. The term of office was also shortened to four years, and the disqualification for a re-election was struck out. These latter changes, though made by a vote of ten states to one, have been found to be of very doubtful utility. The manner of the election of the president gave rise to a separate series of difficulties, which are treated elsewhere. (See CONVENTION of 1787; ELECTORS, I.)

—III. POWERS OF THE EXECUTIVE. The powers of the executive are given in full in article II. of the constitution (See CONSTITUTION) They may be divided into three classes, those relating to foreign affairs, those relating to home affairs, and those relating to war. 1. The direction of the foreign policy of the United States is left very much to the discretion of the president, limited by the approval of two-thirds of the senate, which is required for the ratification of a treaty. His appointments of ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls must also be approved by the senate, a majority vote only being requisite. Foreign governments can legitimately have no official knowledge of the intentions or proceedings of the government of the United States, except through the executive; and the executive, as in Jackson's case in 1834, referred to below, has always refused to allow foreign ministers or governments to criticise, or claim any official knowledge of, the president's language to congress in his messages, or the interior workings of the government. The house of representatives has asserted, but never yet established and enforced, its power to refuse appropriations for the execution of a treaty of which it has disapproved. (See JAY'S TREATY.) It has also approved or disapproved, by resolution, of particular points of the president's foreign policy; but such resolutions are always treated by the executive as mere expressions of the opinion of a transient majority of the members, and without any force of law. This trust of power to the executive can hardly be said to have been abused; the foreign policy of the successive presidents has almost invariably been pacific. The general line of neutrality, marked out by Washington in 1793, and followed by Adams in 1798-9, was finally elaborated by Monroe in 1823 into a form which all his successors have closely followed. (See these names, and GENET, CITIZEN; X. Y. Z. MISSION; and MONROE DOCTRINE) In 1834 President Jackson's recommendation to congress of reprisals Edition: current; Page: [133] on the commerce of France, as a "pacific means" of obtaining redress of grievances from that country, nearly involved the two nations in war; but in this case the conduct of France gave abundant excuse for the recommendation. (See also ANNEXATIONS, and paragraph 3, below.)

—2. In domestic affairs the powers of the executive fall into two great classes: the appointment, with the concurrence of the senate, of officers whose appointments are not provided for in the constitution (see CONFIRMATION BY THE SENATE); and the execution of the laws. In the appointing power is included also the power of removal (but see TENURE OF OFFICE); and in case of vacancies during the recess of the senate the president is empowered to grant commissions which shall expire at the end of the next session. Supplementary powers are those of granting reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment; of receiving ambassadors; of convening both houses, or either of them, on extraordinary occasions; and of adjourning congress to such time as he shall think proper, when the two houses can not agree on a time of adjournment. The last-named power has never been exercised.

—3. Closely connected with the duty of seeing that the laws are faithfully executed, is the war power of the president. In peace the execution of the laws is usually a matter of routine and clerical work, and the great mass of the people of the United States live and die without any personal and practical contact with the workings of the executive. Behind this simplicity of execution, however, sleeps the power of the president as commander-in-chief of the army and navy, a power which is roused by the first symptom of organized resistance to the laws, and grows with the extent and possibilities of the resistance (see INSURRECTION, DOMESTIC), bounded, however, by the limitations hereafter specified.

—In foreign affairs the first draft of the constitution, as presented Aug. 6. gave congress the power "to make war," and this was afterward changed into a power "to declare war." The distinction was well understood by the delegates, and is undoubtedly well founded. A state of war does not necessarily include a declaration of war, and where war is made upon the United States with or without a declaration, it is evidently the duty of the executive, as commander-in-chief, to repel force by force, and to use all the means at his command for prompt and effectual resistance. Of course, an ambitious or unprincipled executive would be able to gradually force a foreign country into acts of aggression which would enable him to commit congress to the support of a war which the executive had really begun; but the rapid increase of the population and domestic wealth and interests of the country will probably give all future executives abundant occupation at home, and compel the maintenance of the traditional policy of peace abroad. The dangerous point in our history was from 1830 until 1860, when the country's war power had become very considerable, while its executive was not fully occupied with domestic concerns; and it was just in the heart of this period that President Polk forced Mexico into an attitude of aggression which resulted in the Mexican war and the dismemberment of Mexico. (See ANNEXATIONS, IV.; WARS, V.) In this instance the result was eminently fortunate for the territory which was annexed—Enormous as is the war power of the president, it is entirely the creature of law, even in its highest development. The great limitation upon it is the war power of congress, particularly the absolute power of congress to grant or refuse troops and money to the president. There is no obligation upon congress to vote any supplies whatever beyond what it considers requisite for the government of the country, and in many instances congress has coupled its appropriations for the army with limitations upon the use of the army. (See RIDERS, RECONSTRUCTION.) In time of peace, when the army is reduced to the level of a police force, this war power of congress ceases to apply; in war it is in full vigor, and must of necessity be final and decisive upon the president. The constitution has not made, and could not make, other provision than impeachment for such an unimaginable contingency as the refusal of the executive to make peace when a majority of both houses had pronounced against the war. (See WAR POWERS)

—IV. RELATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE TO THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIARY. 1. The constitution requires the president, from time to time, to "give to the congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." This clause has occasioned the annual messages of the presidents at the beginning of each session of congress, and their special messages on other occasions. During the first three administrations the annual message was always delivered in person by the president, after the manner of the king's "speech from the throne" to the British parliament. Thus the main body of the message was addressed to the president's "fellow-citizens of the senate and of the house of representatives," the part relating to revenue and appropriations to the "gentlemen of the house of representatives," and the conclusion to the "gentlemen of the senate and of the house of representatives." At its conclusion the president retired, and the two houses addressed themselves to the composition of an answer, an affair which always gave rise to a long debate upon the intricate shades of meaning in its various sentences. Special messages were sent in writing, though Washington at first occasionally met the senate in person to confer upon executive business. In 1801 Jefferson substituted a written annual message, as more consonant with republican simplicity; but the reason assigned by his political opponents was his consciousness of his inability Edition: current; Page: [134] to speak in public with effect. In 1813 the senate endeavored to revive the early practice by requesting the attendance of the president to consult upon foreign affairs, but Madison declined the invitation.

—In addressing the president, some of the federalists, in 1791, wished to give him the "style" of "His highness, the president of the United States, and protector of their liberties." A burlesque motion was offered from the democratic side that the "style" of the vice-president should be "His superfluous excellency"; and it was finally agreed that communications should be addressed simply to "The president of the United States." In 1792 a clause in the bill passed by the senate for establishing a mint, to place upon the coins "a representation of the head of the president of the United States for the time being," was defeated by a vote of only 26 to 22 in the house. The act of Sept. 24, 1789, fixed the president's salary at $25,000 per annum. This amount was increased to $30,000 by the act of March 3, 1872. An attempt to repeal the act in the following session was vetoed, and failed to pass.

—Direct intercourse between congress and the heads of the executive departments has been the rule since Washington's presidency. His cabinet, except Hamilton, were of the opinion that congress could only communicate with the heads of departments through the president, but the obvious tendency of the opposite plan to facilitate the business of the departments almost immediately compelled the adoption of it. In practice, however, it has been found open to the objection that it leads to informal and uncontrolled intercourse between secretaries and individual members or heads of committees, for the purpose of influencing legislation. To obviate this it has been proposed in congress to vote eats, without votes, in each house, to the heads of departments, in order that they may be in attendance on specified days and explain of defend publicly the legislation which they desire. A provision to this effect was inserted in the confederate constitution in 1861 (see CONFEDERATE STATES), and its chances for adoption by congress seem fair. If adopted, its ultimate influences upon the practical constitution of both the executive and the legislative are as yet beyond calculation.

—For the results of the necessity for obtaining a confirmation of the president's nominations by the senate, see CONFIRMATION BY THE SENATE, TENURE OF OFFICE.

—For the veto power and its influences, see VETO.

—2. After the appointment and confirmation of the judiciary there are no direct official relations between that branch of the government and the executive. Various efforts have been made to bring about such relations, with the view of establishing some power in the judiciary to revise or control the action of the president: but the courts have steadily refused to encourage anything tending to a collision between the judiciary and the executive. Soon after Jefferson's inauguration, suit was brought against the secretary of state to compel the delivery of a commission signed and sealed by the preceding administration; but the supreme court, while it considered livery to be already complete, refused to interfere. In 1807 the counsel for Burr endeavored to compel the president's personal attendance as a witness, but did not succeed. In 1861 the chief justice ordered an attachment for contempt to issue against an army officer for disregarding the writ of habeus corpus, which had been suspended; but when the attachment was returned unsatisfied, the chief justice abandoned further proceedings. In October, 1865, and until martial law had ceased in the south, the supreme court refused to hold sessions in that section. In 1867 the state of Mississippi applied to the supreme court for an injunction forbidding the president to execute the reconstruction acts, but the injunction was refused. (See BURR. AARON; HABEAS CORPUS; RECONSTRUCTION.)

—The general principle in this connection is well stated by Chief Justice Chase in the last case referred to: "The congress is the legislative department of the government; the president is the executive department; neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department, though the acts of both, when performed, are in proper cases subject to its cognizance." The "proper cases" there referred to are such as are not political in their nature.

—President Jackson has been much censured for vetoing the bill to recharter the national bank in 1832, on the ground of its unconstitutionality, after the supreme court had decided that such a bank was constitutional. His position, as stated in his veto message, was that "each public officer, who takes an oath to support the constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others." The high political excitement of the time obviously carried both parties to extremes. The position of the bank advocates, in its results, would imply that, when the supreme court had once decided that the general idea of a national bank was constitutional, the president would be bound to approve any bank bill which congress might see fit to frame; and the position of the president would equally imply a power in the executive, for instance, to persist in the execution of a law which had been judicially, and finally, pronounced unconstitutional and void. In his political acts the president is responsible only to his own conscience, to the people, and to the representatives of the people under a trial of an impeachment, but his conscience, like that of any other citizen, is bound by the final decision of the constitutional tribunal. The distinction between the official free will and necessity of the executive is extremely difficult to define in theory, but very simple in practice, since the judiciary and executive have always studiously avoided any conflict. (See CONGRESS, JUDICIARY.)

—V SUCCESSION TO THE PRESIDENCY. In the regular course of events the president is succeeded at the end of his term of office by his successor already Edition: current; Page: [135] chosen. The selection of March 4, 1789, by the congress of the confederacy, as the day for the inauguration of the new government, has fixed that day as the beginning of the four years' terms of succeeding presidents; in case of an entirely new election, as hereafter specified, the new president would serve for four years, and "inauguration day" would be changed. In case of the "removal, death, resignation or inability" of the president, his office devolves upon the vice president, and when the disability extends to the vice-president also, congress is empowered to regulate the succession. "declaring what officer shall then act as president until the disability be removed, or a president shall be elected." The act of March 1, 1792, has therefore declared the president pro tempore of the senate, or, if there is no president pro tempore, the speaker of the house, to be the officer upon whom the succession should devolve.—"Removal" can only be effected by impeachment. The act last cited has provided that "resignation" must be in writing, signed by the party, and deposited in the office of the secretary of state. The question of "inability to discharge the duties" of the office presents more possible difficulties. The "inability" of the president may be patent. He may be made a prisoner by an enemy: President Madison was in danger of capture at Washington in 1814, and the capture of President Lincoln was Booth's original plan in 1865. He may visit or retire to a foreign country during his term of office. But who is to decide when lunacy, paralysis or illness of any kind has gone so far as to result in "inability"? How long would the subordinates and party friends of the president be allowed to discharge the duties of the president for him, as the subordinates of Secretary Crawford did during his paralysis in 1823-4, before the vice-president would be entitled to assume the place of the president? No rule can be given until a precedent has actually been made, but as the provision of the constitution is mandatory and addressed to the vice-president, the decision would seem to rest mainly with that officer.

—In order that an officer may be in readiness to take the place of the vice-president, if necessary, it has been customary for the vice-president to retire from the senate a few days before adjournment, and a president pro tempore has then been elected. In 1881 the vice-president declined to retire and permit the election of a president pro tempore, and as the new house had not yet met or chosen a speaker, there was no lawful successor in case of the death of both president and vice-president. The shooting of the president, July 2, 1881, and his possible death, gave some prominence to considerations of the complications which might be involved in the death of both president and vice-president under such circumstances. The administration of the government would probably go on, under direction of the cabinet, until the meeting of congress and the election of a president pro tempore. In extraordinary circumstances, requiring the authority of an executive at once, there seems to be no good reason why the cabinet should not summon an extra session of congress, for, though such a summons would have no authority upon congress, congress would undoubtedly respect it, and the first exercise of the legislative powers would cure all defects of form.

—The greatest danger in the matter of the presidential succession lies in the possibility of a failure to elect, or to settle the result of a disputed election, before the end of a presidential term. The country has twice, in 1801 and 1877, come to the verge of such a possibility. (See DISPUTED ELECTIONS, I, IV.) In 1801 it was proposed by the federalists that a bill should be passed to designate some officer, as the chief justice or the secretary of state, to act as president and order a new election; and by the democrats that the new congress should be convened by proclamation to be signed by Jefferson and Burr jointly, as one of them was president elect. Both programmes were evidently unwarranted by the constitution, but the latter was infinitely less objectionable than the former. It would be no misdemeanor for even a private person to summon congress to an extra session; and if an undisputed majority of both houses chose to obey any summons, however irregular, it is difficult to imagine a decision by the judiciary against the legitimacy of acts of such a congress, because of defects in the form of the summons.

—The 12th amendment to the constitution, which was soon after passed, provided that "the vice-president" should act as president in case of a failure by the house to exercise its right of choice between two or more equal candidates before March 4. In case of a failure to choose both president and vice-president, the senate is evidently to choose the vice-president at once, and that officer is to act as president in case of the house's failure to choose. If the senate also fails to choose a vice-president in time, the whole scheme of the executive is again adrift. In such a case the act of March 1, 1792, has assumed the doubtful power to order a new election, which would probably be submitted to by the country as the easiest escape from the difficulty.

—There are, however, other difficulties unguarded against. In case of a failure to choose by the electors, the house is to choose a president from the three highest on the list. Suppose that in some general break up of party lines, as in 1824, the four highest on the list should be a tie, or, as is much more possible, that the third and fourth candidates on the list should be a tie: who is to decide which of the tie candidates is to resign his pretensions in order to enable the house to choose between the three highest? The case of a closely contested presidential election, in which the few decisive electoral votes are claimed by both parties, as in 1876-7, offers still greater dangers. It was avoided, at that election, by the creation of an electoral commission, but it is highly improbable that this remedy will ever be Edition: current; Page: [136] available again. Apparently, the methods of the presidential election and succession are now the only points in the constitution which can seriously threaten the perpetuity of the Union; in them, if anywhere, lie concealed the germs of disintegration and destruction. They deserve prompt consideration, for, in a country whose population doubles in each quarter of a century, every year increases the difficulty of making amendments to the constitution. (See ELECTORS, ELECTORAL COMMISSION.)


—See, in general, Story's Commentaries, § 1404; 2 Bancroft's History of the Constitution, 163; de Chambrun's Executive Power; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 235; The Federalist, xlvii.-ii., lxvii.-lxxvii.; Rawle's Commentaries, 147; 2 Wilson's Law Lectures, 187; A. Conkling's Powers of the Executive Department. (I) 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 262, 408; Marshall's History of the Colonies; Lodge's English Colonies in America; Frothingham's Rise of the Republic, 419; 4 Franklin's Works, 282. (II.) 5 Elliot's Debates, 127. 131, 205, 376, 380, and authorities under ELECTORS, 1 Tucker's Blackstone (Appendix), 349. (III.: 1. 2) Hunt's Life of Livingston, 395; 3 Parton's Life of Jackson, 569; and authorities under articles referred to; (3) 1 Elliot's Debates, 226; The Federalist, lxxiv.; Tiffany's Constitutional Law, § 517; Whiting's War Power, 82; 2 B. R. Curtis' Works, 306; Story's Commentaries, § 1485; 1 Kent's Commentaries, 264; and authorities under WAR POWER. (IV.: 1, 2) 3 Jefferson's Works (edit. 1829), 470; 5 Niles' Register, 243, 340; 1 Benton's Debates of Congress, 14, 17, 117, 267, 371; 1 Stat. at Large, 72, and 17: 486 (acts of Sept. 24, 1789, and March 3, 1873); 4 Jefferson's Works (edit. 1829), 463; Rawle's Commentaries, 171; 2 Pitkin's United States, 285; 1 Lloyd's Debates, 511; (8) 1 Cranch's Reports, 137; Tyler's Life of Taney, 420; Schuckers' Life of Chase, 535; and authorities under articles referred to. (V) Story's Commentaries, § 1476. The act of March 1, 1792, is in 1 Stat. at Large, 239.



EXEQUATUR, a Latin word, which means let this be done. It is a decree by which a sovereign authorizes a foreign consul to exercise within his jurisdiction the functions of his office; a decree which is generally attached to the consul's commission, or written on the back of that document. In most countries there are two kinds of consuls: salaried agents, who are forbidden to engage in trade; and others who are merchants, do not always belong to the country which they represent, and who receive no pay. On this account governments generally have a double formula for their exequaturs, the first for consuls who are officials, the second for consuls who are merchants.

—The form of the exequatur varies with the country; most frequently, as in France, England, Spain, Italy, the United States, and Brazil, it is a letter patent, signed by the chief of the executive power, and countersigned by the minister of foreign affairs. In other countries, such as Denmark, for example, the consul simply receives notice that he has been recognized, and that the necessary orders have been given to the authorities where he resides. In Austria only the word exequatur is written on the original commission.

—The government from which the exequatur is asked has the right to refuse it: the refusal may be based on purely political reasons or on personal motives. The government may also withdraw it if it thinks proper. Whatever be the motives which a government may have for depriving a consul of his exequatur, the consul can only conform exactly to the orders given him by the representative of his country. According to circumstances, he will have to retire with his records, or delegate his powers to another acting ad interim, so that his countrymen may not lose the protection to which they have a right.

—The exequaturs of consuls are generally delivered without charge; there are, however, some exceptions.

—A state of war, or a renewal of diplomatic relations, brings the withdrawal or may bring the renewal of the exequaturs of the belligerent powers; some treaties specify the cases in which the exequatur may be withdrawn.



EXPORTS AND IMPORTS. By imports is meant all the merchandise brought into a country from other countries; by exports, all the merchandise which leaves a country for other countries. The imports and exports together constitute the foreign trade, a statement of which is annually made out by those in charge of the customs.

—Formerly, when commercial policy was still more influenced by the ideas of the mercantile doctrine than it is to-day, tables of the exports and imports were drawn up for the especial purpose of showing the difference between these two branches of foreign commerce, a difference which was called the balance of trade. To-day, these tables, which are made public in most countries, and notably in England, France, the United States, and Belgium, where they have been brought to a good degree of perfection, are no longer considered by the administrative authorities as anything but statistical information on commerce, navigation, the course of trade between ports, transit, etc.

—The reader is referred to the article BALANCE OF TRADE for anything which pertains to the false theory which so long induced the legislator to encourage exportation by artificial measures and to hinder importation by innumerable political, diplomatic, administrative, financial and commercial restrictions. We shall confine ourselves here to a few considerations.

—One who studies the nature of exchanges is not slow in perceiving that it is only in exceptional cases, such as where there is trickery, fraud or ignorance, that one of the contracting parties can be injured. In general, in exchange transactions, Edition: current; Page: [137] interests counterbalance each other, the values exchanged are equal. It is consequently difficult to admit that a nation, which is a collection of a great number of individuals, parts with the mass of its products for products of inferior value; hence the official reports which acquaint us with the exports and imports of a country should present no noteworthy difference between the exports of that nation to all other countries and the imports from all other countries to that nation. It would even seem that the difference, if there is any, must of necessity be in favor of the imports, for the reason which leads to an exchange is that one has greater need of the products he receives than of those he parts with, and consequently he must attribute more value to the former than to the latter. In fact, the amount of the imports must necessarily exceed, among all nations, that of the exports. [An apparent exception to this rule occurs in the case of a debtor nation, which, until its foreign debt is paid, sends abroad, besides its other exports, merchandise to pay the interest and principal of its indebtedness to other countries. If, however, we take into account the period from the time of contracting the debt until its final discharge, this case will be found to be no exception to the rule. —E. J. L.] J. B. Say admitted this proposition, and an explanation of it is found in Necker's work on the administration of the finances. "If we estimate," said Necker, "the merchandise we take from foreigners at the prices current within our kingdom, we shall overrate the debt contracted by the state; for the price current is composed not only of the sum paid to the nation which has sold the merchandise, but also of the profit and the interest on the advances of the merchants, and the expenses of transportation and freight which may have been earned by our merchant marine; whence it results that the true balance always inclines in favor of the people under consideration." This has been completely established in the article on BALANCE OF TRADE.

—In the second place, it should be observed that the custom house records only show those exchanges which are manifested by the payment of duties; that they say nothing of the contraband trade so considerable in all countries where there are prohibitions and high tariffs; nothing of the various securities and titles to property which are exchanged between citizens of different nations; nothing, or at least nothing accurate, concerning the daily importation or exportation of specie, especially between countries which border on each other. Now this clandestine movement of merchandise which escapes the eye of the customs officials, this transmission of securities of various kinds, and this constant filtration of specie, must be taken into account in any comparison of imports and exports; and it is another error of the partisans of the doctrine of balance of trade that they fail to do this.

—If, then, we should find in the official statements a notable difference arising either from excess of imports or excess of exports, we must simply conclude, admitting the accounts to be free from any systematic error or any material error in the calculations, that they are not the complete expression of what takes place in the commerce of the nation under consideration, whether because the officials who prepare them must of necessity omit a notable part of the imports and exports, or because their bases of valuation are incorrect, or because they do not include sufficiently long periods in their totals. System and base of valuation have been mentioned under the article CUSTOMS DUTIES. As to extent of the periods of observation, we must consider that the statistical tables are made out yearly for inspection, that the commercial transactions are neither completed nor balanced in the course of these periods, which are artificial in this respect, and that it is necessary to extend the calculations to periods which would include the whole of the reciprocal movements of this commerce between two countries—movements which are influenced by various circumstances, climatic, political and economic. (See BALANCE OF TRADE, SMUGGLING, CUSTOMS DUTIES, COMMERCE, FREE TRADE, VALUE.)

E. J. L., Tr.


EXPOSITIONS, Industrial. These began in a very humble way. The first in Europe was opened at the end of the last century, and continued not more than one week. The world was far from anticipating, in that age, the consequences of these great industrial strifes between nations. All their ideas were turned toward war, and in the thoughts even of the originators of the first exhibition, the character of this contest, apparently peaceful, was warlike to the last degree. The French minister of the interior wrote to the departmental authorities: "The exhibition has not been very numerously attended, but it is a first campaign, and that campaign is disastrous to English industry. Our manufactures are the arsenals destined to furnish the most deadly weapons against the power of Britain." Who could then have told that minister that sixty years later England would open to the industry of the whole world in London itself the forever famous crystal palace, and that there, under the auspices of universal peace, France would obtain, without ruin to any one, the greatest of her victories?

—What was at first but a simple contest between individuals engaged in industrial pursuits, tends to become a general periodic assemblage of all the productive forces of the entire world. It is proper, then, to render to the French nation, which was the first to give so many great ideas to Europe, the honor which is its due for the successive organization and development of industrial exhibitions. These great occasions have contributed in no less degree than the genius of that nation itself, to the progress of all industries, and it is probable that they will exercise a considerable influence on the solution of the most important economic questions of the day, by furnishing Edition: current; Page: [138] new elements of comparison which have hitherto been wanting.

—Nevertheless, the first exhibition, that of 1798 in France, was not very successful. France had barely emerged from the intestine and foreign troubles of the first republic; and Frenchmen during that fitful period had fought more than they had worked. Ten or twelve exhibitors only obtained medals; and about twenty honorable mention. Most of the great manufacturing cities of France were not even represented. However, some products worthy of note were exhibited, and the dawn of a better future was perceptible, for the government promised twenty silver medals and one gold medal for the next exhibition. A feeling of war invariably pervaded their councils, this gold medal was to be the reward of the manufacturer who should give the most disastrous blow to English industry.

—The two French exhibitions of 1801 and 1802, following too close upon the first, were not less remarkable as being the date of the appearance of names celebrated in the annals of French industry. Then it was that Jacquard was crowned, for his weaving-loom; Carcel, the ingenious inventor of the well-known lamp; Ternaux, for his woolen stuffs; Montgolfier d'Annonay, for his paper; Fauler, for his morocco leather; Utschneider of Sarreguemines, for his beautiful pottery. In 1802, owing to the peace of Amiens, the exhibition assumed a less bellicose character, and was visited by some eminent English statesmen. The most remarkable feature of it was the appearance of the first cashmere shawls in imitation of those of India, and copied from samples brought home by some officers of the Egyptian expedition. Twenty-two gold medals were then given to the most successful, and from that moment it was easy to foresee that the impetus given would not stop there. That was proved by the exhibition of 1806, which only lasted ten days, but where the number of exhibitors was ten times greater than in 1802.

—Many departments and industries of France which had not contributed anything to former exhibitions, figured creditably in this one. Lyons, Nimes, Avignon and Tarare shone there with a brilliancy, which since indeed has been greatly surpassed, but which created at the time an immense sensation on account of the prolonged absence of the representatives of those cities during the whole of the revolutionary period. Manufactories of cloth suddenly rose again from a long depression. Merino sheep began to be acclimatized in France; Elbeuf, Louviers, Sedan, again soared upward. Mulhouse sent some products. Thomire and Ravrio inaugurated bronze working. Cotton spinning was not yet represented, and it may be said that notwithstanding the encouragements of every kind lavished by the emperor on French industry, it was as yet only a period of learning and of incubation.

—France was quietly preparing, in the laboratories of her savants, the magnificent appliances which have since then raised her manufactures to such a height. Chaptal, Berthollet, Conté, Vauquelin, Thénard, d'Arcet, were all at work endeavoring to extract from science the secret of the new industries which burst upon the world almost simultaneously, when peace restored capital and security to labor; and thus is to be explained the great movement which began with the restoration and which still continues. The first of the three French exhibitions of the restoration took place in 1819, the second in 1823, and the third in 1827. That of 1819 aroused so much interest that the public demanded its prolongation for a month. It seemed as though France divined her new destiny. Progress manifested itself in everything. The number of exhibitors was more considerable than at previous exhibitions; machines, simple and original, bore witness to the genius of the French nation. Collier's shearing machines, Ternaux's cashmere shawls, some beautiful looking-glasses and magnificent samples of silk, marked the advance of the national industry. In 1823 there were renewed efforts; woolens were improved, silks multiplied and gained in quality; muslins, both plain and embroidered in the most tasteful way, appeared for the first time, but woven of fine imported thread. Parisian manufactures, such as paper hangings, bronzes, lamps, furniture, articles of luxury and of taste, shone everywhere. More than sixty-six departments contributed.

—But, of the three exhibitions of the restoration, the last, that of 1827, greatly excelled the preceding two, and it may be said that it was this one which chiefly contributed to the maintenance of the periodic character of exhibitions. It greatly surpassed all the others. Shawls commenced to rank among the most original products of French industry, the manufacture of cloth entered upon that new career in which it was destined later on to achieve such marvelous results; the prints of Mulhouse and of Ronen surpassed the most brilliant that had as yet been seen. The city of Lyons exhibited church ornaments and stuffs for tapestry of the rarest magnificence. The cambrics of Cambrai, the table linen of St. Quentin (Aisne), the manufactures of Roubaix, elicited universal admiration. Flax spinning now first appeared. Lithographing, Parisian cabinet making, and typography, introduced new and original designs. Attention was specially directed to very beautiful steam engines, the monopoly of which it was supposed had up till then belonged to England.

—But it was reserved for the reign of Louis Philippe to present the most brilliant series of exhibitions which have ever done credit to French industries, and to render those memorable shows popular throughout Europe. That of 1834, in grandeur and extent as much surpassed that of 1827, as did the latter all preceding ones. French industry evidently felt itself on a firm footing; new workshops were everywhere established; the spirit of emulation developed under a system of legislation which government investigations tended to render more liberal; new arts sprang into existence, and manufacturing seemed Edition: current; Page: [139] to proceed step by step toward reduction of prices, as being the most assured stimulant to increased consumption. The official reports, which were summaries by the president of the central jury on each of those great occasions, must be read as an exact statement of the progress achieved. That of Baron Thénard was particularly noticeable by reason of the deep research displayed, by the simplicity and sobriety of its style, and by the impartiality of its judgments. The king and the royal family were accustomed from that time to visit repeatedly, and with the most minute attention, all the galleries of the exhibition, lavishing encouragement on all exhibitors, and causing it to be well understood that the tendency of the new reign was pre-eminently pacific and industrial.

—It may be confidently affirmed that from this date industrial exhibitions had indisputably an economically useful character, due to the novelty of the information and to the variety of the facts which they furnished to scientists. These exhibitions would have been mere tournaments without importance, if political economy had not in time educed from them instructive comparisons on the prices of raw materials, on the rates of wages, on the effects of machinery, on the means of communication, and the customs laws of different countries. The proof of it soon came in 1839, when delighted Europe was able to appreciate the master pieces of industry in shawls, cloths, silks, crystal ware and printed goods; when the commissioners awarded prizes to the hydraulic wheel of Fourneyron, to the printing cylinders of Grimpé, to the steels of Jackson, to the pianos of Erard, to the cashmeres of Hindenlang, to Bréguet's chronometers, etc. The number of exhibitors had increased from 110 in 1798 to 3,381 in 1839, and the number of medals awarded, from 26 to 805.

—From this time forward industrial exhibitions counted whole armies of adherents. The limited space allotted them in the court of the Louvre, in the Invalides, in the Place de la Concorde, was no longer sufficient for their purposes. It became necessary, in 1844, to open to them the immense arena of the Champs Elysées, and to accord them a duration of three months. From this time on no one man could suffice to fill the office of judge; every commissioned judge became responsible for his own decisions, and these combined constitute to-day the annals of French manufacture. It is in these valuable collections that some day we shall have to study the history of the development of the different industries of France.

—From 1844 rivalry became general throughout Europe. Exhibitions were instituted in Belgium, in Prussia, in Austria, and in Spain. Every nation in turn manifested a desire to master its forces and to compute the resources at command for representation in these contests now everywhere opened throughout the civilized world. It is just this period between 1844 and the unlucky epoch of 1848 which presents the most varied and the most captivating interest. However imperfect the first attempts of the nations of which we have just spoken, as may be seen from the reports of the commissioners delegated by the French government, it was possible to judge, with a full knowledge of the matter, of the particular character of the chief European industries.

—In spite of the mystery everywhere accompanying the analysis of net cost, it was easy to discover in what the relative superiority of the great manufacturing centres consisted. Thus every country became better acquainted with itself and its neighbors. It was everywhere a complete revclation, and it may be boldly asserted that it was this example of Europe which succeeded at last in arousing England, and gave birth to the idea of a world's fair. This exhibition, as is known, was to have taken place at Paris in 1849. The French government took the initiative, and even hoped, after the violent convulsions of 1848, that France would worthily resume the rank from which she had for the time fallen. But anarchy then prevailed not less in the highest than in the lowest ranks of society. Scarcely was the government's project made known than the protectionist crowd affected to see in it danger to French national interests. Thus was the government thwarted, and, owing to this hostile element, was obliged to abandon the only productive idea which those troublous times had given birth to. The French exhibition of 1849, thus restricted, was nevertheless very remarkable by reason of the manifest progress in all the various branches of industry, and this notwithstanding the calamities which had overtaken them.

—Economists had a very difficult part to play in those critical times. They had to oppose, on the one hand, a herd of ignorant utopists who had swooped down upon society and clamored to make it the vile subject of their experiments; and, on the other hand, the great manufacturers who claimed to have a right of taxation as laborers did to have a right to work. All the laws of political economy seemed to be overthrown: under the pretense of affording protection, each man laid his hand on his neighbor's goods, some to demand bounties, others increased wages, and it soon became impossible to estimate the true value of things in the midst of this confusion of tongues and of these absurd pretensions of various interests. England did not miss the chance of realizing the great idea which the prohibitionists had thus caused to miscarry in France.

—It is from this time, properly speaking, that the new and complete character of exhibitions dates and although that of London left some things to be desired, it will not the less on that account continue to be one of the most important events in the history of political economy. Till then each local exposition had been only a more or less complete inventory of the productive powers of each nation.3 The English, in inviting the whole Edition: current; Page: [140] world to this memorable gathering, afforded all studious men an opportunity of satisfactorily observing the collected products of the world, and of noting the conditions and necessities of production among the different nations. We shall not speak here of the purely technical part of this vast subject, nor of the wonders of the crystal palace, nor of the immense concourse of sightseers who flocked to it from all points, all these interesting details will be found in special works. The capital fact of the universal exhibition was, that it afforded a synoptical view of all the products of the globe, furnished for the first time an opportunity of comparing fabrics of such different origins and natures, and of studying the productive genius of nations in their most elaborate as in their least important works. It was evident that there were no longer any industrial secrets in the world; that mechanical methods were about the same everywhere, and that everywhere also the tendency was to substitute machine power for manual labor. It was shown that wages were higher in the countries where machinery was employed than where hand labor prevailed, and that the surest way of stimulating consumption was to reduce prices by means of improved processes of manufacture.

—The London exhibition proved irresistibly the advantage of low prices in raw materials, and consequently the disadvantage of a customs system which loads them with taxes; it proved at the same time beyond all question what profit would accrue to nations from freedom to exchange such a rich variety of products. Thus, little by little, died away the prejudices held by the adherents of the prohibitory system, who would fain have drawn a line of demarcation between nations never to be crossed. These last, represented by their most skilled manufacturers, distributed the awards with perfect impartiality, honestly recognizing any superiority gained, and with steady hand holding up the veil of the future, no longer regarding labor from the narrow view-point of nationality, but from the height of the principle of freedom of trade.

—It was hoped to obtain on this occasion the secret so much desired of the net cost in all industries; but private interests were aroused, notably those of the middlemen, and this precious element of information was not obtained. Perhaps this is the less to be regretted as net cost prices are essentially variable; but it would have been interesting to have settled them officially for one given time, if for no other purpose than as data for future comparison. However, the most incontestable result of that memorable contest is the progressive tendency to render prices uniform in all the markets of the world, and to their reduction when free trade shall prevail. The exhibition established this also, viz., the futility of dreading competition, that is to say, of industrial rivalry. When industry was confined within the family circle there was a dearth of almost everything, and the result was poor manufactures, at a high cost. In proportion as the field of labor enlarged and as industry extended from the family to the town, division of labor took place and began to supply more completely all wants. And when production had spread from the town to the province, and, after the collapse of all internal obstacles, from the province to the whole state, an immense advance was again made. The only thing left to be desired, but the chiefest of all, is to extend to the whole world that contest too long confined within the narrow limits of the home market. Each nation of to-day has so much the greater need of expansion as it has become more powerful and wealthier, and it would be simply protracting its infancy to confine it within the limits of its boundaries, when the whole human race is standing before it with outstretched arms.

—The universal exposition proved that the greatest nations were the first called upon to take the initiative in effecting that commercial reform which took place in England, and of which the great gathering at the crystal palace was the natural consequence. It is in fact the part of the most advanced nations to overthrow the barriers which separate them from other nations, for they have the most need to do so. What would English industry be without the cotton of the United States, the copper of Russia, or the iron of Sweden? Does not all Europe get its lead from Spain, its beautiful wools from Saxony or Australia, and its silks from France or Italy? What country can to-day lay claim to producing everything? What heaven-favored land would try to reproduce the wines of France or of Spain? If fevers rage in Europe, quinine is brought from America. India rubber, gutta percha, to day essential materials in so many industries, are not indigenous to all shores; the coffee, the cocoa, the tea of our breakfast tables, and nearly all the Edition: current; Page: [141] medicines of all dispensaries, come from the most distant climes. Even for sulphur and salt-petre for making gunpowder France has to go to search in India and Sicily. The peasantry of most European countries scarcely ever eat meat and very seldom white bread, while the plains of Buenos Ayres teem with cattle, and New Zealand, the United States and Russia abound in corn.

—What do all these contrasts mean? That Providence has spread over the whole face of the earth with boundless liberality all that is necessary to the existence and comfort of man. The London exhibition has well shown that there is not a single corner of the world, however despised it may be, that has not its useful tribute to offer, our task is to exchange from pole to pole the bounties of nature. The home of the Esquimaux sends furs, the Sahara furnishes dates and ostrich feathers, some islets lost in the Pacific off the coast of Peru are covered with guano, used as a fertilizer of the reluctant soil of our northern hemisphere. The banks of Newfoundland have their cod, the coasts of Japan their whales. When olive oil and colza fail us, the East offers us sesame and Africa the earth nut; the opium of India pays for the tea of China, and so on of the rest.

—This is the moral of exhibitions: an inexpressible need of peace, reciprocal dependence of nations, abundance of all goods under the rule of liberty, and comparative dearth under the rule of restriction—what the great exhibition of London, the glorious daughter of all preceding and the mother of all subsequent ones, has revealed. We believe that exhibitions have greatly aided the cause of humanity.



EX POST FACTO LAWS. An ex post facto law is one which operates by after-enactment. These words are usually applied to any law, civil or criminal, which is enacted with a retrospective effect, and with the object in view of producing that effect. In its true application, however, as employed in American law, it relates only to crimes, and signifies a law which retroacts by way of criminal punishment upon that which was not a crime before its enactment; or which raises the grade of an offense or renders an act punishable in a more severe manner than it was when the crime was committed; or that alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. Such laws are held to be contrary to the fundamental principles of a free government, and the restrictions of the constitution that the legislatures of the several states shall not pass such laws, secures the person of the subject from injury or punishment in consequence of such law. Every law that takes away or impairs vested rights agreeable to existing law, is retrospective and in most cases oppressive. Still there are laws which are just and for the common benefit, relating to a period of time ante-dating their commencement, such as statutes of oblivion and pardon. It is, however, the general rule that no law which mitigates the rigor of the criminal law can be considered an ex post facto law within the prohibition. All laws which are to operate before their making, or to save time from the statute of limitations, or to exempt unlawful acts before their commission, are retrospective. Still such acts may be just and necessary. A broad difference exists between making an unlawful act lawful and an innocent act criminal and inflicting a punishment for it as a crime—The construction of the constitutional provisions prohibiting ex post facto laws as recited in the foregoing comments, has been accepted and adopted by the courts as correct, from an early period in the history of the government. Of the laws which come within the prohibition, it may be said that it is not essential to render them invalid that they should expressly assume the act to which they relate to be criminal or provide for its punishment on that pretext. If a person be subjected to a criminal penalty for the commission of an act, which when committed involved no responsibility, or if it deprived one of any valuable right, such as the pursuit of a lawful business, for the commission of acts which by law were not punishable when committed, the law which so operates will be, in the constitutional sense, ex post facto, although it does not expressly provide that the acts to which the penalty is applied are criminal. To what extent, however, a law may alter the penalty for a criminal offense and apply the alteration to past offenses, is very difficult to determine from the decisions of the courts which have been made concerning it. As the prohibition was enacted for the protection of the accused against arbitrary and unjust legislation, any alteration of the law which tends toward the mitigation of the punishment does not enter within the objection. (Strong vs. State, 1 Blackf., 193; Keen vs. State, 3 Chandler, 109.) The question, however, to determine is, what is to be construed as in mitigation of punishment. Upon this point Cooley on Const Lim, says. "If the law makes a fine less in amount or imprisonment shorter in point of duration, or relieves it from some oppressive incident, or if it dispenses with some severable portion of the legal penalty, no embarrassment would be experienced in reaching a conclusion that the law was favorable to the accused, and therefore not ex post facto. But who shall say, when the nature of the punishment is altogether changed, and a fine is substituted for the pillory, or imprisonment for whipping, or imprisonment at hard labor for life for the death penalty, that the punishment is diminished, or at best not increased by the change made? In State vs. Arlin, the respondent was charged with a robbery which under the law as it existed at the time it was committed was subject to be punished by solitary imprisonment not exceeding six months, and confinement for life at hard labor in the state prison. By the same law he was entitled to have counsel assigned him by the government, to process to Edition: current; Page: [142] compel the attendance of witnesses, to a copy of his indictment and a list of jurors who were to try him. Before he was brought to trial the punishment of the offense had been reduced to six months solitary imprisonment, and confinement at hard labor in the state prison for not less than seven nor more than thirty years. Under the terms of the new act, if the courts thought proper they were to assign counsel and furnish him with process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf. The court assigned the respondent counsel, but declined to do more; the respondent insisted that he was entitled to all the privileges which the old law granted before its change. The court held the claim to be unfounded in law. * * * That the position was wholly untenable, the privileges the respondent claimed having been created solely as incidents of the severe punishment to which his offense formerly subjected him, and not as incidents of the offense. That when the punishment was abolished, its incidents fell with it, and that he might as well claim the right to be punished under the former law as to be entitled to the privileges connected with a trial under it." But in commenting on this opinion, Cooley asks if it may not be suggested whether this case "does not overlook the important circumstance that the new law by taking from the accused that absolute right to defense by counsel, and to the other privileges by which the old law surrounded the trial—all of which were designed as securities against unjust conviction—was directly calculated to increase the party's peril, and was in consequence brought within the reason of the rule which holds a law ex post facto which changes the rules of evidence after the fact, so as to make a less amount or degree sufficient. Could a law be void as ex post facto which made a party liable to conviction for perjury in a previous oath on the testimony of a single witness, and another law unobjectionable on this score which deprived a party when put on trial for a previous act, of all the usual opportunities of exhibiting the facts and establishing his innocence? Undoubtedly if the party accused was always guilty, and certain to be convicted, the new law must be regarded as mitigating the offense; but assuming every man to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty, could such a law be looked upon as 'mollifying the rigor' of the prior law or as favorable to the accused, when its mollifying circumstance is more than counterbalanced by others of a contrary character?"

—In Strong vs. State, the plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted of perjury, which act at the time of its commission was punished by the infliction of not exceeding one hundred stripes. Before the trial the punishment was changed to imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding seven years. The court held this amendment "not to be in the nature of ex post facto law, as applied to the case, as it did not punish that which was innocent when done, or add to the punishment of that which was criminal, or increase the malignity of a crime, or retrench the rules of evidence so as to make convictions more easy." (1 Blackf., 193.)

—With respect to the character of punishment inflicted, in the case of Herber vs, State, 7 Texas, 69, the court held that "among all nations of civilized man from the earliest ages the infliction of stripes has been considered more degrading than death itself." On the contrary, in South Carolina, (State vs. Williams, 2 Rich., 418), a case of forgery, the penalty being death, was changed before final judgment to fine, whipping and imprisonment, and the new law was applied to the case by the court in passing sentence. It thus seems impossible to establish a rule by which the legal mind will abide in determining the question as to what truly constitutes mitigation of punishment where the character of the penalty is changed. And this arises from the diversity of opinion as to the severity and dis grace of punishments as a class.

—With respect to the decision of the court in the case of Hartling vs. People, 22 New York, 105, Cooley (329 Const. Lim.) says: "The law providing for the infliction of capital punishment had been so changed as to require the party liable to this penalty to be sentenced to confinement at hard labor in the state prison until the punishment of death should be inflicted; and it further provided that such punishment should not be inflicted under one year, nor until the governor should issue his warrant for the purpose. The act was evidently designed for the benefit of parties convicted, and among other things, to enable advantage to be taken, for their benefit, of any circumstances subsequently coming to light, which might show the injustice of the judgment or throw any more favorable light on the action of the accused. Nevertheless the court held this act imperative as to offenses before committed. In delivering the opinion the court said 'It would be perfectly competent for the legislature by a general law to remit any separable portion of the prescribed punishment. For instance, if the punishment were fine and imprisonment, a law which should dispense with either the fine or the imprisonment might be lawfully applied to existing offenses; and so the time of imprisonment might be reduced or the number of stripes diminished in cases punishable in that manner. Anything which if applied to an individual sentence would fairly fall within the idea of a remission of a part of the sentence, would not be liable to objection. And any change which should be referable to prison discipline or penal administration as its primary object, might also be made to take effect upon past as well as future offenses, as changes in the manner or kind of employment of convicts sentenced to hard labor, the system of supervision, the means of restraint, or the like. Changes of this sort might operate to increase or mitigate the severity of the punishment of the convict, but would not raise any question under the constitutional provision. The Edition: current; Page: [143] change wrought by the act in the punishment of existing offenses of murder, does not fall within either of these exceptions. If the governor is vested with the discretion to determine whether the criminal should be executed or remain a perpetual prisoner at hard labor, this would only be equivalent to what he might do under the authority to commute a sentence. The act in question places the convict at the mercy of the governor in office at the expiration of one year from the time of the conviction, and of all his successors during the lifetime of the convict. The sword is indefinitely suspended over his head, ready to fall at any time. * * * It is enough to bring the law within the condemnation of the constitution, that it changes the punishment after the commission of the offense by substituting for the prescribed penalty a different one. * * * The law, moreover, prescribes one year's imprisonment at hard labor in the state prison in addition to the punishment of death. As the convict under the law is exposed to the double infliction, it is, within both the definitions which have been mentioned, an ex post facto law. It changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than that which the law annexed to the crime when committed.' This decision is now regarded as the settled law of the state of New York, that a law changing the punishment for offenses committed before its passage, is ex post facto and void under the constitution, unless the change consists in the remission of some separable part of the punishment before prescribed, or is referable to prison discipline or penal administration as its primary object." Cooley holds this rule to be sound and sensible, with the single qualification, that the substitution of any other punishment for that of death, must be regarded as a mitigation of the penalty.

—With respect to mere modes of procedure, a criminal has no more right to insist that his offense shall be disposed of under the law in force at the time it is charged to have been committed, than a party in a civil action has the right to demand the application of the same rule in a civil case.

—The constitution of a state confers upon its legislature the control of legal remedies, and the law-making power exercises that prerogative in adopting and changing legal remedies and penalties for the punishment of crime, according to the demands which appear to arise in the wants and necessities of the public. These changes continuously occur, and therefore all legal proceedings would be thrown in wide confusion if each case should imperatively be conducted in accordance with the rules of practice and before those courts which were in existence when its facts arise. By legislative enactments old courts are abolished and new ones spring into existence. Judicial forms vanish; legal remedies dissolve, while others appear in their stead; new rules of evidence and practice are admitted, and older ones are blotted out; and penalties for crimes committed change frequently in the vast domain of the Union. Nevertheless amid all these changes, under the shield and protection of the national and state constitutions the personal rights of the citizens remain secure, and no act can become a law in fact which dispenses with any of the safeguards with which existing law surrounds the person accused of crime.

—Now with regard to ex post facto laws, it may be remarked that there have been statutes sustained giving the government additional challenges, (Warren vs Commonwealth, 37 Penn. St., 45), and others which empowered the amendment of indictments and applied them to past transactions the same as any similar statute intended merely to improve the remedy, and working no injustice to the defendant, and depriving him of no substantial right. Other than these exceptions the decisions are uniform in upholding the principle that an ex post facto law is imperative when relating to a criminal prosecution.

—With respect to the principle that a trial can not be had under the law in force at the time it is charged that the crime was committed, when a change has been subsequently made, the court, in State vs. Williams, 2 Rich., 418, held that the defendant in any case must be proceeded against and punished under the law in force when the proceeding is had. Commonwealth vs. Hall, 97 Mass., 570, held that a law is not unconstitutional which precludes a defendant in a criminal case from taking advantage of variances which do not prejudice him. In the case of Lasure vs. State, 19 Ohio N. S., 43, it was held that a law was not unconstitutional which reduces the prisoner's peremptory challenges. Gut vs. State, 9 Wall., 35, held the act constitutional which though passed after the commission of the offense, authorizes a change of venue to another county of the judicial district. State vs. Leamand, 47 Me., 426, held the act constitutional which merely modifies, simplifies and reduces the essential allegations in criminal indictments, retaining the charge of a distinct offense. Blair vs. Ridgely, 41 Mo., 63, held an act to be constitutional which required an oath of past loyalty of voters.

Ex post facto laws are not objectionable, as such, which take into consideration a criminal's past conduct while framing a punishment for future offenses, and graduate the punishment accordingly. The law very frequently provides heavier punishment for a second or third offense than for a first; and in providing such heavier penalties it has been determined as not unreasonable that the previous conviction to be taken into account may have taken place before the law was passed. In all such cases it is not the first offense that is punished, but the one subsequently committed. The statute itself would be void if the offense to be punished had been committed before it had gone into effect, although it may have been committed after its passage.

—With respect to providing heavier penalties for subsequent offenses, Bishop on Criminal Law says: "The rule, however, which forbids an increase of the penalty Edition: current; Page: [144] after the act is performed, does not render void a statute providing a heavier punishment for the second commission of the offense than for the first, though the first took place before its passage, yes when both had occurred before, the consequence is otherwise."





EXTERRITORIALITY. By this word is understood the right which representatives of foreign powers have of living in the countries to which they are accredited under the laws of the nation which they represent. Foreign sovereigns in person, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, in short, all diplomatic persons who represent their sovereign, or the state whose envoys they are near a foreign government, enjoy the privilege of exterritoriality. A sovereign, though he be temporarily on the territory of another power, is nevertheless considered, by a fiction of the modern law of the nations of Europe, to be always on his own territory, and he enjoys all the prerogatives inherent in sovereignty. This privilege does not extend to the princes and princesses of reigning houses.

—Exterritoriality is extended to ambassadors, and certain diplomatic agents, because they represent, to a certain extent, the person of the sovereign whose agents they are: they are considered, during the whole time of their mission, as not having left the state whose envoys they are, and as filling their offices outside of the territory of the power to which they are accredited. This fiction extends also to the families of the ambassador and diplomatic agent, to the members of their suite, and even to their movable property.

—One of the most important prerogatives of exterritoriality is inviolability. It commences the moment the minister puts his foot on the territory of the sovereign to whom he is sent, and makes known his official character. Inviolability brings with it exemption from the jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, and this exemption is founded, not simply on propriety or decorum, but on necessity. Indeed, if ambassadors and diplomatic agents were not protected by the principle of inviolability, their dignity, even their independence, might be compromised; we must not, however, infer impunity from inviolability. "In the practice of nations," says Martens, in case of crime committed or attempted by a foreign minister, the government generally limits itself to asking his recall; if the danger is urgent, it allows itself to seize the person of the minister till the danger is past; if not, it is satisfied with asking for his recall or removal." According to circumstances, when there is violence, or conspiracy against the safety of the state, the sovereign of the country threatened may take any measure required by the necessity of legitimate defense.

—During the exercise of his functions abroad the ambassador or minister does not cease to belong to his country; he preserves his domicile in it as if he were present.

—In France, before 1789, the prerogatives of ambassadors and foreign ministers had not been sanctioned by any written law, but were recognized by custom. The constituent assembly in France, by a decree of Dec. 11, 1789, issued in consequence of a demand addressed by the diplomatic corps to the minister of foreign affairs, declared that it desired in no case to attack by its decrees any immunity of ambassadors and foreign ministers. A decree of the convention declared subsequently that all complaints which might be made against foreign ambassadors should be brought to the committee of public safety; at present, complaints of this kind in France must be addressed to the minister of foreign affairs.

—Certain foreign codes have express provisions on this matter. The code of civil procedure in Bavaria provides that all who enjoy the right of ambassador are exempt from ordinary jurisdiction. The general code of Prussia contains also various regulations on this subject. The civil code of Austria provides that ambassadors, chargés d'affaires and persons in their employ, enjoy all the privileges established by the law of nations and public treaties. According to No. 2, chap. x., of the civil laws of Russia, no judgment can be executed in the residences of ambassadors and diplomatic envoys unless by the agency of these ministers. Most of the codes of the other countries of Europe contain similar provisions.

—BIBLIOGRAPHY. Bynkershoek, De foro legatorum, Lugd. Batav. 1730; Miruss, Europ. Gesandtschaftsrecht, 1847; Berner, Wirkungskreis des Strafges, 1853. pp. 206, etc.; von Bar, Das internationale Prie. und Strof R.: "das Recht der Exterritorialen"; Marquardsen, see words Exterritorialitat in Rotteck's Staatslexikan and Kaltenborn in Bruntschli's Staatsiorterbuch; Oppenheim, Handbuck d Konsulate aller Lander, 1854, chaps xiv. and xv., Jochmus. Handbuch fur Konsula. 1852. pp. 111, etc.



EXTRADITION, the delivering up to justice of fugitive criminals by the authorities of one country or state to those of another. The term is modern, for Billot says that it was never used in France in a public act before the decree of Feb. 19, 1791; and Lawrence is unable to find it in the English version of any British treaty or in any law before the extradition act of 1870. The principles on which extradition is based are also of very recent origin. They are not found in the civil law, because they do not apply to the transfer of an accused person from one state to another having a common supreme government, and under the Roman empire there was but one supreme ruler, and the authority, whether at the place where the accused was found, or where the crime had been committed, was the same, namely, the paramount authority of the emperor. Nor does the surrender by a country of its citizens, or even of foreigners who have sought a refuge in it, relying on the right of asylum, find a place in the common law. In the collection of treaties of Edition: current; Page: [145] Barbeyrac, which extends from 1496 B. C. to Charlemagne, treaties of surrender are met with, but they relate to political matters as affecting the safety of the state, and involve high treason and sometimes other felonious crimes; but no treaties for the administration of ordinary criminal jurisprudence are mentioned. Persons who were obnoxious, or banished, or outlawed, could be surrendered under these treaties, and even up to a very recent period offenses of a political nature formed the grounds for demanding the surrender of fugitives. Treaties for the surrender of the regicides were entered into by Charles II. with Denmark (1661) and the States General (1662): and as late as 1849 the refusal on the part of Turkey to deliver up to Russia and Austria, Poles and Hungarians who had escaped into the sultan's territory, broke off all diplomatic intercourse between the porte and those nations. At the present day extradition is an instrument of justice, and not only renders punishment of crime more certain by depriving criminals of a right of asylum in a foreign country and under a different government, but indirectly prevents the commission of crime. "The necessity for extradition grows out of the fact that, except in cases specially provided for by treaty, the penal laws of one country can not operate within the jurisdiction of another," and the advantage of such arrangements is the greater and closer are the relations between two countries. Thus the policy of extradition becomes more apparent when applied to contiguous territories, such as Canada and the United States, than when applied to the United States and Turkey.

—As applied to the United States, extradition may be examined, 1, as between the different states of the Union, and 2, as between the United States and foreign nations.

—Extradition, as provided for in the constitution, is a transaction between separate and independent states, for these states are sovereign within their respective boundaries, save that portion of power which they have granted to the federal government, and are foreign to each other for all but federal purposes. (Rhode Island vs. Massachusetts, 12 Pet., 657.) The constitution says (Art. IV., §2), "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime;" and a statute passed by congress in 1793 imposes the duty of surrender upon the executive of the state in which the accused is found, and prescribes the form in which demand shall be made for such fugitive. In the interpretation of the constitutional provision, question has arisen on the exact meaning of the words "treason, felony, or other crime." Some jurists hold that such acts only are meant as were criminal either at common law, or by the common consent of civilized nations, at the time the constitution went into effect; others include only offenses of a serious nature; while still a third view extends its operation so as to include any offense against the laws of the state or territory making the demand; and this last view is supported by the weight of judicial decisions. (See citations in Spear, Law of Extrad., p. 267.) Felonies and misdemeanors, offenses by statute and at common law, are alike within the constitutional provision, and the obligation to surrender the fugitive for an act which is made criminal by the law of the demanding state, but which is not criminal in the state upon which the demand is made, is the same as if the alleged act was a crime by the laws of both." (People vs Brady, 56 N. Y. Rep., 182, 187.) Some notable cases arose over the interpretation of this section while slavery was still in existence, Mr. Seward, when governor of New York, against the precedents of the state, refused to surrender persons charged with having stolen slaves, on the ground that the offense charged was not one recognized by common law, by the common consent of civilized nations, or by the laws of the state of New York. Nor has this difficulty passed away with the abolition of slavery; for a large proportion of the cases in which requisition for the surrender of fugitives is made, are cases of statutory offenses, and it is always possible that public opinion in one state may lead to statutes providing for crimes that would not be so regarded in another state.

—Should any doubt arise on this matter the practice of the courts differ. In some states it has been decided that it should be left to the courts of the state making the demand, and a case is cited in Delaware in which a fugitive was surrendered although the courts declared that the offense was only a civil trespass. (State vs. Schlemm. 4 Harrington's Rep., 577.) In New York the courts have passed upon the sufficiency of demands made upon the executive by other states, without regard to the laws of those states. But in either case such proceedings are subject to the final action of the executive, by whom alone surrender can be made.

—Another mooted question is, whether the executive upon whom demand is made may obey it or refuse to obey it, whether his power is discretionary or imperative. In Kentucky the federal courts have decided that the governor has no discretion in the matter, and this would seem to be the general legal opinion. In one case, however, an exception is presented. If the person demanded is in confinement or under prosecution for a breach of the laws of the state to which he has gone, the state may satisfy the demands of her own laws first. Should the executive, under any other conditions, refuse for any reason to issue a warrant for the arrest of a fugitive, there is no power that can compel him to do it.

—The necessary forms to secure the surrender of fugitive criminals are prescribed in the act of 1793. The accused must be indicted in the state in which the crime was committed, or a charge must be brought against him before a magistrate, who, if satisfied that the charge is true, issues a warrant for the arrest of the criminal. Edition: current; Page: [146] A copy of the indictment or affidavit is forwarded to the executive of the state, and he issues to the executive of the state to which the fugitive has gone, a requisition for his surrender. If the executive upon whom requisition is made is satisfied that the papers are regular and the proof of crime sufficient, he is required to issue a warrant for the arrest and delivery of the accused to the agent of the state making the demand. But this action of the executive is not final, for judicial proceedings may be instituted under a writ of habeas corpus, for the purpose of obtaining the discharge of the accused. "The judicial duty to release any person unlawfully arrested, on proper application made for that purpose, is imperative, no matter by what direction or command the arrest was made." The expense attending the surrender of fugitives is borne by the state making the demand.

International Extradition. If a person has committed a crime and escaped to another country, what is the duty of that country? Should the person be tried by the laws of the country to which he has come, or should he be delivered up to the country whose laws he has broken? The question of the right to demand the surrender of a fugitive criminal has never been definitely determined. Grotius considered that a state is bound to make such surrender; but, on the other hand, Lord Coke contended strongly against the exercise of such power. He shows that the feeling both in England and on the continent at the time he wrote his Institutes, was that "all kingdoms were free to fugitives, and that it was the duty of kings to defend every one of the liberties of their own kingdoms, and therefore to protect them." But the greater number of jurists do not consider it as a matter of right, but prefer to base it on the ground of comity or convenience, and the universal practice now is to surrender fugitive criminals only where there is some special treaty which demands it between the two nations; and in this country power to make such a surrender is conferred upon the executive only where the United States are bound by treaty, and have a reciprocal right to claim similar surrender from the other power. But one exception to this practice has occurred in this country. In 1864, although there was no extradition treaty with Spain, Arguelles, a governor of Cuba, was delivered up to the Spanish minister under authority assumed by Mr. Seward, then secretary of state.

—In practice extradition treaties present two difficulties. Among different nations with different environment and temperaments, there will be found very different conceptions as to what constitutes a crime; and what is regarded as a crime under the laws of one country may not be so regarded by the laws of another. Thus, in Mohammedan countries, up to within recent times, to kill a Christian was no crime; and in Spain to distribute the Bible was until recently a capital offense. Owing to this difference in the morals and consequent legislation among nations, it is usual to enumerate in the treaty the crimes for which extradition may be demanded, and as such offenses must be recognized as crimes by the laws of both contracting nations, the enumeration differs somewhat in different treaties. In general it is mala in se and not merely mala prohibita that are so included, and extradition should apply only to every act which it is the interest of every nation to prevent or punish, and should not be extended to offenses of a local or political character. And while in practice it is customary to follow strictly such an enumeration of crimes as is contained in the treaty, and to limit extradition only to such as are named, it will be seen that some very important questions have arisen over the interpretation of such treaties. The following crimes are mentioned in the treaties between the United States and other nations: arson, assassination, assault with intent to commit murder, burglary, circulation or fabrication of counterfeit moneys, counterfeiting public bonds, stamps, marks of state and administrative authority, etc., embezzlement of the public money, embezzlement by public officers, embezzlement by persons hired or salaried, utterances of forged paper, forgery, infanticide, kidnapping, larceny of cattle or other goods and chattels of the value of twenty-five dollars (found only in the treaty with Mexico), mutiny, murder, mutilation, parricide, piracy, poisoning, rape and robbery. To this list the treaty with Peru adds bigjamy, fraudulent bankruptcy, fraudulent barratry, and severe injuries intentionally caused on rail roads, to telegraph lines, or to persons by means of explosions of mines or steam boilers.

—A second practical difficulty is, that the extraditing power is open to abuse, and an accused person may be wanted to answer, not for a real crime, which might be made the pretext for his surrender, but for another offense, such as one of a political nature, which the laws of the country on which demand is made may not recognize as a crime. It is a generally recognized principle among civilized nations that there can be no extradition for a political crime, though very few treaties contain an express prohibition of such a surrender. And as opinions differ in different countries on what constitutes a political crime, the surrendering nation is very properly made the judge of this question. Of the extradition treaties entered into by the United States, nineteen guard by express provision against their application to political crimes, five are silent on the matter, and one, that with the Two Sicilies, provides that "it shall not apply to offenses of a political character, unless the political offender shall also have been guilty of one of the crimes enumerated in Art. 22;" a very remarkable provision, and, says Mr. Lawrence, one the existence of which with such a state as the Two Sicilies was at that time (1855), is a sufficient condemnation of the whole system of extradition. If, then, extradition may not be had for a political offense, it would stand to reason that to prevent any abuse of the extraditing power, the accused person can be tried only on the charge on which Edition: current; Page: [147] he was surrendered, and on no other. To suppose that he can be tried for any other crime than that for which he was extradited, is to render nugatory all the provisions which confine the treaty, by naming them, to specified offenses; for under any other interpretation one government could claim a prisoner of another, for an extradition crime, and having once obtained possession of him, might try him for an offense of a political nature, for which he could not have been in the first instance extradited. It has been clearly recognized in France that any such proceedings would render extradition an instrument of injustice, and would make it operate against the general law of nations, which does not place political offenses in the category of crimes. And since 1830, a Frenchman guilty of an ordinary crime and also of a political offense, and surrendered by a foreign power, can be tried only for the ordinary crime. But if, after a reasonable length of time after acquittal, or the expiration of the penalty, he is found in the territory, he may then be brought to answer for the political offense. "As acts of extradition are not only personal to the individual who is surrendered, but state besides the fact which gives occasion to the extradition, the individual who is surrendered can be tried only on this fact. If, while the examination for the crime for which the surrender is asked is going on, proofs of a new crime for which extradition might equally be accorded appear, it is necessary that a new demand should be made." Billot, in his Traité de l'Extradition, the best work on the subject, says of this principle: "Here is a rule established as firmly as possible. It is incontestable that the tribunals can try the accused only on the facts for which the extradition has been accorded. This rule is an immediate corollary from the principle, which imposes on the judiciary power an obligation to apply the treaties of extradition—a principle which itself is a direct consequence of the higher principle of the separation of powers. The rule and the principle belong to the very organization of political societies, and must have precedence over every internal law. It is, besides, a necessary condition of the very principle of extradition. Moreover this rule and this principle have always been observed in France." (P. 308.) In no American treaty, however, is it expressly provided that the extradited individual shall not be tried for any offense other than that on which he was extradited. This omission may be due to the fact that it was supposed to be covered by the law of nations, or the dictates of common sense; or, as Mr. Lawrence suggests, because a cession of one privilege does not carry with it universal jurisdiction, nor require that such jurisdiction be expressly negatived as to everything else. But in some treaties, as we have seen, political crimes are excluded, while others declare that the accused shall not be held to answer for acts committed anterior to that for which extradition has been granted, and these provisions act as an indirect check to any abuse under the treaties. It may be added that the principle that an extradited criminal can be tried only for the crime for which he is surrendered, has been generally recognized among the states, and there have occurred cases in which the executive of a state has refused such surrender, on the ground that the crime charged was only a pretext to obtain possession of the accused, who would really be held to answer for another offense not covered by the general rules governing the surrender of fugitives. The English act of extradition (1870) has an article to the same effect.

—In case any complications arise under extradition treaties there can be no question as to what authority is to decide. The federal government alone is the judge of the validity of an extradition treaty, for no state has any treaty power, or any authority to enact or execute laws for the delivery of fugitive criminals to foreign governments. Treaties are international arrangements, and are subject to diplomatic or political and not judicial interpretation: and the provisions in the constitution which declare that treaties have the force of law, and which bring them within judicial cognizance, can only apply to their internal operation and can not affect foreign powers. Congress is, however, competent to make from time to time new provisions for the execution of a treaty, (acts of June 30, 1860, March 3, 1869, and June 19, 1876), and both the United States and Great Britain have been in the habit of passing laws to carry international compacts into effect; but no act of congress or of parliament could with impunity alter the terms or conditions of a treaty that had been entered into in good faith by two sovereign states. Only so far as it operates as a municipal law can it be so altered, or even repealed, as in 1798 our treaties with France were abrogated by congress. Still, the judicial function in executing the conditions of an extradition treaty are important, and act as a check upon the executive department of the government. The executive can not make a delivery until the proper magistrate has considered and acted upon the case, and over these judicial functions the president has no control. On the other hand, the judiciary can not surrender the accused, for that lies within the power of the president alone. Nor can the judiciary bind the action of the president by its judgment. In the famous Vogt case, the president disregarded the decision of the courts, and refused to surrender the prisoner; and his refusal was based upon a construction of the treaty showing that the extent to which extradition treaties apply is a question to be settled by the political department of the government. (12 Blatchford's C. C. Rep., 516.) The judge acts only for individual protection, while the executive passes judgment on the international obligation.

—Some other points of interest must be passed over. Such are the surrender by a nation of its own citizens; what subsequent legislation is required to make effective an extradition treaty that is not self-executing; the surrender of Edition: current; Page: [148] fugitives already convicted of crime, etc. The means of executing extradition, as prescribed by the act of 1848, require a brief notice. Application for arrest may be made before any of the justices of the supreme court, judges of the district courts of the United States, the judges of the several state courts, and the commissioners authorized to act by any of the courts of the United States. Testimony is taken before such judge or commissioner, and, if sufficient, a certified copy is sent to the secretary of state, so that a warrant may issue on the requisition of the proper authorities of the foreign government according to the stipulations of the treaty. But this evidence, to be sufficient, must be such as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive is found, would have justified his apprehension and commitment had the offense been committed there.

History. There are traces of extradition measures among the colonial governments (Winthrop's Hist. of Mass., II., 121, 126), and an extradition article was embodied in the articles of confederation, but the law of 1798 finally provided for inter state extradition, and placed the responsibility of executing it upon the executives of the states. In 1792 Mr. Jefferson, in drawing up a project to regulate the relations between the United States and the adjoining English and Spanish possessions, limited extradition to cases of murder only. This project was, however, never carried out, and two years later, in 1794, by the Jay treaty contracted between the United States and Great Britain, persons charged with murder or forgery, at that time capital crimes, might be extradited. (Art. XXVII.) But this article, besides being limited to twelve years, so as to expire in 1806, was not self-executing, and required an act of congress to be effective—which was never passed. But one case arose under that treaty, that of Jonathan Robbins, alias Nash, who was in 1799 delivered up to the English on a charge of murder, on a requisition issued by the president while the judicial proceedings were in progress (Wharton's State Trials, pp. 392-457.) The justice of such a surrender has never been conceded. But apart from some treaties providing for the surrender of deserters from foreign vessels in our ports, the United States was a party to no extradition treaty previous to that with Great Britain in 1843. In this treaty the United States and Great Britain, for the furtherance of justice and the repression of crime, agreed mutually to deliver up to each other, on proper demand and evidence, persons charged with murder or attempt to murder, piracy, arson, robbery, or forgery, committed within the jurisdiction of either, and who, having sought an asylum, may be found within the territory of the other. From 1842 to 1875 the administration of this treaty between the two countries worked smoothly. In 1874-5 it was ascertained, however, that one Lawrence, by himself and others—one of the others having been a United States official, occupying a most responsible position—had been engaged in smuggling silks on a large scale (tempted thereto, undoubtedly, by the enormous duty imposed on the importation of such merchandise); and apprehending detection and punishment, had fled the country and taken refuge in Great Britain. A deep interest was taken in this matter by certain revenue officials of the government, who had previously and disreputably been connected with certain cases of alleged violation of the revenue laws of the country, and which, under certain provisions of the so-called "moiety laws" passed in 1863 and 1867, had brought to them in the form of shares of fines and forfeitures, very considerable profits. With appetites whetted, therefore, by what they had already received, and with the expectation that, as the case developed, a sufficient number of merchant importers worth plundering would be found implicated, extraordinary efforts were instituted to arrest and convict the alleged offenders. The first steps in the furtherance of these objects were to arrest Lawrence as principal and to indict the merchants supposed to be implicated. The latter was easy, and indictments were found against some of the largest and most respectable New York merchants; but the arrest of the principal, who had fled to England, was not so easy: inasmuch as smuggling was not mentioned in the extradition treaty between Great Britain and the United States as an extraditable offense: and furthermore, as a violation of American law, it is not an offense at common law or by statute in any other or foreign country. His extradition was therefore demanded on the charge of forgery—forgery of a custom house bond and affidavit—although, as was afterward proved in court, there was no forgery, in the usual sense of the term, actually committed, the names signed being the names of purely fictitious persons. Nevertheless the pretense fully served the purpose, and Lawrence was delivered up by the British officials, who clearly had not a suspicion that anything other than forgery was involved in the demand for extradition. The whole proceeding was, however, in the nature of a trick, and as such was mean and dishonorable: for it was not forgery for which Lawrence was wanted, or for which there was originally any intent of punishing him, but for smuggling, for which he would not have been extradited by any country. Accordingly, the moment that Lawrence came into the custody of the United States authorities at New York, the United States district attorney in that city, dropping any further pretense about forgery, proposed to put him at once on trial for smuggling; or, more correctly, to proceed against him in a civil action for the recovery of $1,386,400, alleged to he unpaid duties on goods imported. Up to this point, and for months subsequent, the proceedings in reference to this extradited person do not seem to have been made the occasion of any diplomatic consideration; but on May 21, 1875, the president of the United States ordered a reference of the case to the solicitor general for Edition: current; Page: [149] examination, and, pending his report, a stay of all proceedings "except upon the charges" (i.e., forgery) "upon which the said Lawrence was extradited," was ordered. On the 16th of June following, the solicitor general submitted a report to the effect that there was nothing in the extradition treaty of 1842 which inhibited the United States from proceeding against Lawrence for offenses other than for what he had been demanded and surrendered.

—The next step in these proceedings was the arraignment of Lawrence by the United States district attorney of New York, before the United States circuit court, on charges of forgery, not specified in the extradition papers, and also in effect for smuggling. The counsel of Lawrence made answer for him substantially that he was not legally before the court for any such offense, inasmuch as he was not arraigned for the offense for which he had been extradited, and that an extradited offender could not be tried for an offense other than the one for which he was surrendered. The court (Benedict), however, ruled, that this question was not before it: and that it had already been made the subject of an adverse decision; and that even if such a decision had not been made, the court was not precluded from trying Lawrence for any offenses preferred by proper officers against him. "An offender," it said, "can acquire no rights by defrauding justice." "No rights accrue to the offender by flight; he remains at all times and everywhere liable to answer to the law, provided he comes within the reach of its arm."

—There is also another incident worth noticing in this connection. In the account of the decision transmitted by cable to the London press by the New York news agents, the court, referring to the question of its right to try Lawrence for an offense other than that for which he was extradited, is reported as saying: "The court can not regard the order of the president to the contrary, or take notice of any agreement between the English and American governments to that effect:" and this language Lord Derby, in his dispatch of April 11, 1876, quotes, as if he regarded it as authoritative. In the extradition papers pertaining to this matter, subsequently transmitted by the executive to the house of representatives, extracts only were given from the decision of Judge Benedict, and therefore the public had not the opportunity of judging whether the language above referred to and which the British government evidently accepted, was or was not used, as reported. The circumstance, however, that the state department did not transmit to congress the entire document is somewhat suggestive, and naturally prompts to an inquiry whether the then secretary of state (Mr. Fish) did not regard the publication of certain portions of Judge Benedict's opinion as a matter of doubtful expediency, and not calculated to strengthen the position of the Washington cabinet either before the country or the British government.

—The case here rested for nearly a year, when the United States demanded the extradition from Great Britain of one Ezra D. Winslow, a fugitive from the United States, charged with extensive forgeries and the utterance of forged paper. In answer to this demand, Lord Derby, then the British foreign secretary, in turn asked of the United States a simple guarantee, as a prerequisite to a surrender of the fugitive, that he should not, when surrendered, be tried for any offense other than the one specified in the extradition request, and for which extradition was granted; at the same time taking occasion to point out that he was restrained from making the surrender except under such conditions, in virtue of an act of parliament passed August, 1870, of which the following is the substance. "A fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered to a foreign state, unless provision is made by the law of that state, or by arrangement, that the fugitive criminal, until be has been restored, or had an opportunity of returning to her majesty's dominions, shall not be detained or tried in that foreign state for any offense committed prior to his surrender, other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is grounded." To this answer of Lord Derby to the American demand for the extradition of Winslow, the American secretary of state replied, that there was nothing in the original treaty which precluded the United States from trying a criminal once surrendered "for any offense other than the particular offense for which he was extradited;" but that, on the contrary, the right to do so under the treaty was fully sustained "by judicial decisions, by the practice of both governments, and by the understanding of persons most familiar with proceedings in such cases;" and finally, that Great Britain, by the act of 1870, had changed the spirit and terms of the original treaty of 1842, and without the assent of the United States had attached to it new conditions. The right to thus modify the treaty, he added, the president can not recognize.

—Although much correspondence on this subject subsequently passed between the two governments (see message of the president of the United States, June 10, 1876, Ex. Doc. No. 173, 1st session 44th congress), no further progress was made; neither party receding from its position. Winslow was not delivered up by the British government, and escaped prosecution, and Lawrence, after having been released on bail, was never again arraigned for prosecution. But as fugitives from justice from the United States have since been delivered up to the latter by Great Britain, and as the British law of extradition stipulates that a criminal surrendered on demand of a foreign state shall not be tried for any other than the extradition crime proved by the facts on which the surrender is granted, the inference is that the claims made by the United States in 1875-6 growing out of the Lawrence case, have been quietly abandoned as untenable.

—The following are the extradition treaties and stipulations entered into by the United States and Edition: current; Page: [150] in force in 1879: Great Britain, Aug. 9, 1842; France, Nov 9, 1843, with a supplementary article Feb. 24, 1845, and another article, Feb. 10, 1858; Hawaiian islands, Dec. 20, 1849; Swiss confederation, Nov. 25, 1850; Prussia and other states, June 16, 1852; Bremen, Sept. 6, 1853; Bavaria, Sept. 12, 1853; Wurtemberg, Oct. 13, 1853; Mecklenburg-Schwerin, Nov. 26, 1853; Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Dec. 2, 1853; Oldenburg, Dec. 30, 1853; Schaumburg Lippe, June 7, 1854; Hanover, Jan. 18, 1855; Two Sicilies, Oct. 1, 1855, Austria, July 3, 1856; Baden, Jan. 30, 1857; Sweden and Norway, March 21, 1860; Venezuela, Aug. 27, 1860; Mexico, Dec. 11, 1861; Hayti, Nov. 3, 1864; Dominican republic, Feb. 8, 1867; Italy, March 23, 1868, with an additional article, Jan. 21, 1869; Nicaragua, June 25, 1870; Orange Free States, Dec. 22, 1871; and Ecuador, June 28, 1872. In addition there are extradition stipulations with the republic of Salvador, May 23, 1870; Peru, Sept. 12, 1870; Belgium, March 19, 1874; Ottoman empire, Aug. 11, 1874; and Spain, Jan. 5, 1877.

English Extradition. In England extradition is regulated by treaties which are made by an order in council under the extradition act of 1870. The chief provisions of this act are: 1. That a fugitive criminal shall not be surrendered for a political offense, or if he prove that his surrender has in fact been required with a view of trying him for a political offense; 2. Provision must be made that a surrendered criminal shall not be tried for any but the extradition crime, 3. Criminals accused or convicted of offenses in England shall not be surrendered in extradition until they are discharged; 4. There must be an interval of fifteen days between the committal to prison and the surrender.

—AUTHORITIES Spear, Law of Extradition, treats mainly of the American law on the subject; Clarke, Law of Extradition is English; Billot, Traité de l'Extradition, Fiore, L'Extradizione. See Lawrence's Wheaton, and his letters in the Albany Law Journal, 1878. A parliamentary committee made a report on extradition in 1879.




FACTION. This word has, unfortunately, formed a part of the political vocabulary in every period of history. Taken in its most rigorous sense it is merely a synonym of party, and reminds us of the groups of competitors who, in the games of the Roman circus, arrayed themselves in different colors and contended with one another for the prize in running, or in trials of strength. But the word also calls to mind the great parties which have agitated political society ever since its foundation.

—At Rome people adopted the color of the victor in the circus; in the combats of public life they soon adopt the passions of the hardiest combatant. And just as the games had their streamers, so also personal ambitions have their standards. It was thus that the first faction was formed under the leadership of Cæsar, which, overcoming its weakness in point of numbers by the boldness of its enterprises, soon became the powerful party which was one day to overrun and rule the empire.

—In the present condition of society can factions, properly so called, be formed? We would like to believe they could not; something extremely odious attaches to-day to the secret machinations which disturb the common peace, and place in power a minority of energetic men whose boldness surpasses their intelligence and knowledge. Public opinion may still perhaps excuse, in history, the bold attempts of the duke de Guise and of Cardinal de Retz; it can make allowance for circumstances in the conflicts of the past, when the leaders of the minority prepared the way for the formation of their parties by a hazardous coup de main. But they now highly disapprove of this substitution of force for reason, of violence for persuasion, even in extreme cases.

—Such, then, is a faction in its generally accepted sense; it is in politics what pirates are to seafaring men. It has been correctly enough defined grammatically as "an opposing league made up of conspirators"; while of parties, on the contrary, we may say that they are groups whose members seek, by the diffusion of their ideas and the success of their doctrines, a triumph which factions demand through their personal audacity or the terror of their victims. In a word, real statesmen are the leaders of parties; factions are made up only of conspirators. In our time this word ought to be expunged, and together with it the idea which it represents. No matter how imperfect our political education may be, and no matter how divided society may appear to be, enduring success, now as in the past, can be achieved only by men of thought. When by reason of the character and temperament of the people of any country authority seems more or less exposed to the attacks of impatient minorities, the victories obtained by factions are always ephemeral. The reaction will be as sudden as the triumph; and opinion, which has too often and too quickly honored these coups de main with the name of "revolution," will inflict upon their authors the penalty of general reprobation.

—A word about "sovereign factions." Power itself may possess the allurements and weaknesses of ambitious minorities. If it feel its strength diminishing, at endeavors with all its powers to Edition: current; Page: [151] affect what by a license of speech has been called a coup d'état—But factious revolutions of either kind should be tolerated, approved or allowed to bear fruit no longer, neither because of the prestige which power gives, nor because of the popularity which courage and talent enjoy.



FACTORY LAWS. The doctrine so long current in political economy and expressed in the motto, laissez faire, laissez passer, has been thoroughly exploded by the logic of circumstances. No better proof of this could be desired than the factory laws of modern industrial nations, laws which have been of late warmly defended by economists of every school. The reaction begun by Adam Smith against the paternal theory and practice of contemporary governments resulted in an illogical and untenable theory of the state and its functions. "Free competition" was the panacea for all economical ills of society. Every one was to be free to sell his own labor and that of his family where he could obtain most for it, and free to make such contracts as he would or could. As England was the first great industrial state of modern times, so in England the results of such a policy first showed themselves in all their nakedness. The most merciless exploitation of the weaker elements of society by the stronger became the rule. The manufacturers, in their thirst for wealth, paid as little attention to the health of their operatives as they chose. The laborers, in their necessity, were compelled to accept what terms were offered. The labor of the father soon became insufficient to support the family. The mother had to go into the coal mine or factory. It was not enough; the children were sent into the mines and factories. They were compelled to work ten or fifteen hours a day for seven days in the week, in narrow, illy ventilated and dirty factory rooms or in still more un-healthful mines. The result of such work was, of course, the moral and physical deterioration of the children and a steady degeneration of the laborers from decade to decade. The conditions prevailing in Great Britain during the latter part of the last century and the early part of the present century would be entirely incredible were they not well attested by the testimony of unimpeachable witnesses. So crying did the evil become that in 1802 an act was passed "for the preservation of the health and morals of apprentices and others employed in cotton and other mills, and cotton and other factories." This bill owed its passage to the ravages of epidemic diseases in the factory districts of Manchester. The illy fed and over-worked children in the factories formed the very best field for the development and spread of epidemic and contagious diseases. Pauper children were sent in crowds from the agricultural districts of the southern counties to the manufacturing regions of the northern counties. They were apprenticed to the mill owners and mercilessly over-worked and under-fed. The act mentioned subjected all mills employing three or more apprentices or twenty other persons to its provisions. The walls were to be whitewashed, windows enough were to be provided, and the apprentices were always to have two suits of clothing, one to be new each year. Twelve hours were declared to be a day's work, and work was altogether prohibited from 9 P. M. to 6 A. M. These provisions applied only to apprentices, and not to the work of children residing in the neighborhood of the factories. In 1819 children before the age of nine were excluded from the cotton mills, and those from nine to sixteen were not to be employed more than twelve hours a day. In 1825 a bill was passed providing for a partial holiday on Saturday. In 1831 night work in the cotton factories was prohibited for persons between nine and twenty-one years of age; the working day for persons under eighteen was to be twelve hours, and on Saturday nine. In 1833 these provisions were extended to various other kinds of factories. These acts diminished the number of children employed in factories very materially. In 1835 (before the factory acts went into full operation) there were 56,455 children employed in 3,164 factories; in 1838, 29,283 were employed in 4,217 factories, i.e., from an average of over seventeen per factory to less than seven. The movement did not stop here. A mining act was passed which prohibited underground work to children under ten, and to women. In 1844 a new act was passed, providing that children between eight and thirteen should not be employed in textile industries for more than six and a half hours per day. In 1847 ten hours was declared a working day for women and "young persons," i.e., persons between thirteen and eighteen, and they were allowed to work only between 6 A. M. and 6 P. M., one hour and a half to be allowed for meal time. No protected person was to work on Saturday after 2 P. M. Subsequent laws extended these provisions, with some modifications, to nearly every branch of manufacturing industry. In 1874 the minimum age of children was raised to ten years.

—In 1878 a consolidating act was passed, which included in one bill the substance of all previous laws. We can not illustrate the present state of the subject in any better way than by giving this bill in outline. Part I. contains the general law relating to factories and workshops, under the following heads: 1. Sanitary provisions; 2, Safety; 3, Employment and meal hours; 4. Holidays: 5, Education: 6. Certificates of fitness for employment. 7, Accidents. 1. Under the first head, the buildings must be kept in a clean state, and free from effluvia arising from any drain, privy or other nuisance. 2. The second contains provisions for the fencing of dangerous machinery, and restrictions on the employment of children and young persons in cleaning, etc., machinery in motion. 3. A child, young person or woman shall not be employed except during the period of employment fixed as Edition: current; Page: [152] follows: 1st. In textile factories. For young persons and women the period shall be from 6 A. M. to 6 P. M or 7 A. M. to 7 P. M.: on Saturdays, from 6 A. M. till 1 P. M. for manufacturing processes, and 1.30 for all employment, if one hour is allowed for meals; otherwise at 12.30 and 1. Or if the work begins at 7 A. M., it shall end on Saturdays at 1. 30 and 2 P. M. respectively. For meal times two hours at least on week days, and on Saturdays half an hour, must be allowed. Continuous employment without a meal time of at least half an hour not to exceed four and a half hours. For children: employment to be for half time only (in morning or afternoon sets, or alternate days). The work day is the same as above A child must not be employed for two successive periods of seven days in the same set, whether morning or afternoon, nor on two successive Saturdays, nor on Saturday in any week if he has already on one day been employed more than five and a half hours. Nor shall a child be employed on two successive days, nor on the same day in two successive weeks, 2d. In non-textile factories. For young persons and women: period of employment same as before, ending at 2 P. M. on Saturdays; meal times not less than an hour and a half, and on Saturdays half an hour; continuous employment without a meal not to exceed five hours. These regulations also apply to young persons in workshops. For children: half-time arrangements generally the same as before; continuous employment without a meal not to exceed five hours. Women in workshops are subject to the same regulations as young persons, if young persons or children are employed; if not, the period of employment for a woman in a workshop shall be from 6 A. M. to 9 P. M. (on Saturday, 4 P. M.). Absent time for meals, etc., must be allowed to the extent of four and a half hours (on Saturdays two and a half hours). The employment of young persons or children at home, when the work is the same as in a factory or workshop, but no machine power is used, is also regulated, the day being fixed at 6 A. M. to 9 P. M.; for children, 6 A. M. to 1 P. M.; or 1 P. M. to 8 P. M. Meal times in factories or workshops must be simultaneous, and employment during such meal times is forbidden. The occupier of a factory or workshop must issue a notice of the times of employment, etc. No children under ten shall be employed. 4. The following holidays shall be allowed to all protected persons: Christmas day, Good Friday (or the next public holiday), and eight half-holidays, two of which may he commuted for one entire holiday. 5. Occupiers must obtain a weekly certificate of school attendance for every child in their employment 6. Medical certificates of fitness for employment are required in the case of children and young persons under sixteen. When a child becomes a young person a fresh certificate is necessary. 7. Notice of accidents causing loss of life or bodily injury must be sent to the inspector and certifying surgeon of the district.

—Part II. contains special provisions for particular classes of factories and workshops, such as bake houses, print works, bleaching and dyeing works. The third schedule to the act contains a list of special exceptions too numerous to be given in detail.

—Part III. provides for the administration of the law. Two classes of officers are to be appointed by the secretary of state, viz.: 1, inspectors, charged with the duty of inspecting and examining factories and workshops at all reasonable times, and of exercising such other powers as may be necessary to the carrying out of the act: and 2, certifying surgeons, to grant certificates of fitness under the act. Numerous other sections relate to penalties and legal proceedings.

—Part IV. defines the principal terms used in the act. "Child" means a person under fourteen years of age, a "young person" is between fourteen and eighteen; a "woman" means a woman over eighteen. Other sections apply the act to Scot land and Ireland, with a temporary saving for the employment of children under ten and children over thirteen (lawfully employed at the time of the passage of the act). Previous enactments are repealed—It will be seen that the government has taken under its protection the whole class of women, children and youth employed in manufacturing industries. England has not progressed very far in protecting male laborers over twenty-one years of age, although the general provisions relating to the situation, cleaning, ventilation, etc., of factories, and the legal definition of a day's labor, should be considered as the first steps in such a policy. The liberty of combination allowed the laborers is also to be regarded as a negative protection at least.

—Other countries have followed the example of England in protecting the interests of wage laborers. Switzerland, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, and several states of the American Union, have more or less developed systems of factory laws. The federal law of Switzerland provides that children under fifteen years of age shall not be employed in factories, and those under seventeen shall not be so employed as to hinder their school and religious instruction. Sunday and night labor is forbidden to persons under eighteen years of age. Pennsylvania fixes the legal day's labor at eight hours in the absence of a special contract, and prohibits the employment of children under thirteen years of age in factories. Minors between the ages of thirteen and sixteen shall not be employed in factories for more than nine months in any one year, nor shall any minors between said ages be employed who have not attended school for at least three consecutive months within the same year. Operatives under twenty-one years of age shall not be employed for more than sixty hours in any one week. Detailed provisions are also contained in the law as to the means of safety to be provided in all branches of industry where they are needed. Massachusetts prohibits the employment of children under ten years of age in manufacturing, Edition: current; Page: [153] mechanical or mercantile establishments. No child under fourteen years of age shall be so employed, except during the vacations of the public schools, unless during the year next preceding such employment he has for at least twenty weeks attended some public or private day school under teachers approved according to law, nor shall such employment continue, unless such child in each and every year attends school for twenty weeks, which time may be divided into two terms of ten consecutive weeks each. Nor shall any child under fourteen years of age who can not read and write be employed in such establishments while the public schools of the town are in session. Minors under eighteen and women may not be employed in factories for more than ten hours per day, nor sixty hours per week. A law, approved April 12, 1882, provides that every person or corporation employing females in any manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishment shall provide suitable seats for the use of the females so employed, and shall permit the use of such seats by them when they are not necessarily engaged in the active duties for which they are employed. The provisions in reference to ventilation, cleaning, etc., of factories are similar to those in the English law. It will be seen that Massachusetts has gone farther than any other commonwealth in the classes of protected persons. In addition to factories, mercantile and mechanical establishments are included in the law. Other states allow also many more exceptions than Massachusetts does.

—It is evident from the preceding sketch that the meaning of the term "factory legislation" can not be ascertained by a mere putting together of the meanings of the two words which compose it, but can be understood only by a study of its history (Cohn.) The origin and development of factory legislation point to a limited field which as very far from being coincident with legislation concerning factories. This limited field has in general as its object the protection of wage laborers from those injurious influences which they can not themselves ward off, and, in a narrower sense, from those agencies which most deeply affect the existence of the laborer, especially the protection of those persons who stand most in need of protection, particularly of children; and finally, protection in those branches of industry in which such influences have revealed themselves in the most palpable way. It is characteristic of the empirical course of such legislation that, where it was anything more than a mere pretense, it began in the narrowest sense of the term and approached its logical consequences only after the lapse of generations. Out of the protection of apprentices in cotton factories grew the protection of all children in those factories; out of this grew their protection in other kinds of factories, and out of this last their protection in all mercantile and mechanical establishments as well. (Mass.) The protection of children developed into a protection for women and even for adult men. Protection against the danger of excessive duration of labor developed into a detailed oversight directed not only to the limitation and division of the day, but also to the kind of wages and to provisions against mechanical and chemical dangers of the factories.

—The discussion as to the wisdom of such legislation has been long and excited. Factory laws have been opposed at every stage as being an unwarranted case of interference with the liberty of the individual. Many political economists have protested that the principles of economics forbid any such interference with the freedom of contract. Manufacturers objected that the cost of manufactured goods would be so increased that they could not compete in foreign markets. The laboring classes themselves were opposed to the movement, maintaining that, so far from raising their standard of life, it tended to lower it. Nor can it be denied that each and all these objections have a certain force. Laws which prescribe the age at which labor may be begun, the duration of labor, the conditions under which labor may be carried on, and compulsory attendance at school, need special justification. They interfere with the liberty of the individual, which seems to be contrary to the course of modern political development. In their endeavor to protect him they limit his power over the very agency by which he becomes independent, viz., his own labor, and so they seem to come in conflict with the principles of a sound economy. In their attempt to raise the standard of comfort of the laboring classes they deprive them of certain sources of income, and so their first result is a lowering of the standard of comfort, and they are felt to be oppressive. They interfere, in a word, immediately in the life of the laboring classes, and undertake to counteract by force their tendency to degeneration. And yet they do nothing more than simply apply this force, letting the results take care of themselves. However weighty these arguments are allowed to be, they are overcome by other considerations. In the first place, so far as those provisions relating to the labor of children are concerned, it may be maintained even by those who would limit the functions of the state to the simple one of protection, that such legislation is nothing more than a much needed interference of the state in behalf of the most helpless and oppressed portion of the community. If fathers and mothers become so deadened to every feeling of the obligation of parents to their offspring, as to place their children under such conditions as make their normal development as human beings impossible. If they deprive them of all opportunities for mental, moral and physical education; if they employ them habitually in such branches of industry as lead to their mental, moral and physical deterioration and ruin; surely no more sacred duty rests upon the state than to interfere to protect these children—to protect them not only against their employers, but against their parents as well. The Edition: current; Page: [154] state, then, may undertake to protect minors from the abuse of their parents or guardians. But the principle which justifies interference to protect one helpless and exploited class, justifies interference to protect all helpless and exploited classes. For a long time women were minors in the eyes of the law, and are in reality so yet in all the great manufacturing centres of the world. Their labor was and is exploited as mercilessly by their husbands and lovers as ever that of children was by their parents. Legislation has interfered to protect them from this abuse, fixing the maximum period of labor within any one day and any one week. Such measures can be justified on essentially the same principles as those in behalf of children. The case of adult men is some-what different. To those, however, who maintain that factory laws interfere to an unwarrantable extent with the right of contract, and that adult men and women know what is to their interest better than any set of lawgivers, it may be rejoined that it makes no difference how clearly a man knows what is for his interest if circumstances compel him to close with any contract offered him, which is the case of the ordinary laborer in our modern industry. A laborer in search of work, and needing it in order to earn his next meal, is in no position to require his employer to see that the workshop is healthy or safe, or to dictate any other terms on which he will or will not work. The employer is economically the stronger, and he can exploit the laborer at his will. Here is still another case, then, where the simple theory of protection demands the interference of the state. The conditions of modern industry tend constantly to make the laboring class as a whole more dependent and helpless, and every added year of industrial development makes protection of this class more necessary.

—Factory legislation may be justified not only as a fair response to a demand for protection on the part of helpless classes of the community, but as an essential movement in the interests of society as a whole. Looked at from this standpoint, we may formulate the object of factory laws somewhat as follows: the establishment or restoration of normal conditions of life for the laboring classes, in opposition to those destructive influences by which modern industry especially, although that by no means alone, has destroyed the unity of family, home and education. (Cohn.) It goes without the saying that in a state of society in which the children from the age of five or six years are sent into the mines and factories from daylight till dark, in which the mothers from the time of delivery work all day and half the night in the same places, in which the fathers either do the same or idle away their time living on the proceeds of the labor of their wives and children—it goes without the saying, we repeat, that in such a society there can be no home life, no care and nurture of children, no education, no morality, no health; in a word, none of the conditions necessary to the development of intelligent citizens and to the welfare of free states. Practical statesmen and philanthropists of two generations ago saw clearly that something must be done to counteract the agencies which were sapping rapidly and surely the foundations of family life, reversing the relations of parent and child, of husband and wife, and reducing whole classes of the population to a condition but little, if any, removed from barbarism. They began the work, and it has made good progress. But it is clear that much remains to be done. The next step to be taken is to prohibit the employment of mothers of young children in the factories. Exactly what legislation on this point is practicable does not appear as yet by any means clear, though that something must be done in this direction, and that right early, no one can doubt who knows anything of the conditions prevailing in the great manufacturing centres of the world. In such cases we interfere with the liberty of the laboring classes against their will in the interests of society as a whole. And their objection that their income is thus abridged and their standard of comfort thus lowered, although undoubtedly true of the immediate results, will probably lose its force in course of time, and even if it does not, it ought not to avail against the interest of the commonwealth as a whole—In answer to the manufacturers who urge that such legislation, by raising the price of labor, makes a country unable to compete in the world market with nations which have no such laws, three points may be made: First, it can not be shown, either in theory or practice, that those nations with the lowest wages are best able to compete in international industry. On the contrary, as America has the highest rate of agricultural wages in the world and is yet able to underbid all the world with her agricultural productions, and as England has the highest rate of wages of all the nations which manufacture largely for foreign countries and yet underbids all her competitors with her manufactures, it would seem that supremacy in the world's market and the highest rate of wages are perfectly compatible. Second, the endeavor of the laborers is now directed toward securing an international factory legislation which will place all nations on the same footing in this respect. The federal legislature of the Swiss republic took the first official step toward securing an international system in 1881. Foreign governments were invited to unite with Switzerland in such an attempt. No decisive result has as yet been attained by this step, but it is significant of the progress of events, and marks a decided advance in this subject. Third, a state has other and nobler ends to follow than the accumulation of mere material wealth. The advance of its citizens in intelligence and happiness, in all that distinguishes civilization from barbarism, is of far more importance than supremacy in the world market. Moderate wealth and happy homes are better than a degraded proletary and ability to underbid Edition: current; Page: [155] all competitors in the industrial world.

—Whatever one may think of the arguments on either side, it is certain that factory legislation will not rest where it is, but will advance to new fields and new restrictions. The laborers themselves have taken the matter into their own hands, and by their local, national and international combinations are exercising, whether for weal or woe, a marked influence on the legislation of all civilized nations.

—LITERATURE. Among the sources of information on this topic we may mention: Artisans and Machinery, by P. Gaskell, London, 1836; Die Lage der arbeitenden Klassen in England, by Engel, Leipzig, 1848; Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft aus dem geschicht. Standpunkte, by Wilhelm Roscher; Moral and Physical Condition of the Working Classes, by Dr. Kay, 1832; various Reports of Commissioners appointed to inquire into the working of the factory act by the British parliament; various Reports of English Factory Inspectors; various Reports of Children Employment's Commission to Parliament; yearly Reports of Statistical Bureaus of all civilized nations; Ueber internationale Fabrikgesetzgebung, by Gustav Cohn, in Conrad's Juhrbücher für Nationalokonomie, vol. xxxvii., p. 313, to which reference is made in the body of the above article; Le travail des femmes au xix. siecle, by Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, Paris. 1873; La législation sur le travail des enfants dans les manufactures, by Tallou-Maurice, Paris, 1875.



FAIR TRADE. During the remarkable period of industrial and commercial depression and disturbance that prevailed in Europe and the United States from 1873 to 1878-9, the idea became somewhat popular in England that the special economic troubles which Great Britain then experienced, i.e., a diminution of exports and a consequent depression of her manufacturing industries, were due mainly to the unfair conditions which characterized British international exchanges; or to the lack of anything like reciprocal fairness and liberality, on the part of foreign nations, in respect to matters of trade and commerce in dealing with Great Britain. Thus, it was affirmed, and without the possibility of contradiction, that while Great Britain permitted the free importation into her own ports of nearly all the products of all foreign nations, these same nations at the same time not only imposed heavy and often prohibitory duties on the importation into their territories of the products of British industry, but also, in some instances—as in the case of the beet-root sugar of France—subsidized competition, and even made the underselling of British products in their home market possible by the granting of bounties on exports. It was, therefore, claimed that while the policy of commercial liberality in free trade adopted by Great Britain had been magnanimous, it had proved disastrous, because it was one-sided, and not reciprocated, and that the commercially wise and proper course for Great Britain to take, under such circumstances was to institute and enforce "fair trade," by applying to each foreign country a tariff of duties which would correspond as nearly as possible to the tariff which such country enforced against its imports of British products. The programme of the so-called "fair traders," so far as it was definitely formulated, appears to have embodied the following as its principal features 1. Raw materials of manufacture to be admitted free. 2. Food to be taxed when coming from foreign countries: to be admitted free when coming from British colonies: this taxation to be maintained for a considerable term, in order to give the colonies time to develop their products. 3. Tea. coffee, fruit, tobacco, wines and spirits to be taxed 10 per cent. higher when coming from foreign countries than from British colonies. 4 Duties to be levied upon the importation into Great Britain of the manufactures of such foreign countries as impose prohibitory or protective duties on British manufactures; such duties to be removed or abated in the case of any nation which might agree to remove or abate its restrictions on British imports.

—Nothing, however, resulted from the presentation of these ideas and propositions, except discussion, and this in fact was all that was needed: for discussion soon satisfied the British people generally, that while commercial reciprocity on the part of foreign nations would undoubtedly greatly augment their international exchanges, and while ample warrant and occasion existed for the enactment of such retaliatory tariffs as the "fair traders" proposed, yet such enactments would be far from expedient, and not likely to result in any substantial benefit to British trade, industry or commerce. It was shown, in the first place, that a retaliatory commercial policy on the part of Great Britain against foreign nations, would be more likely to induce further retaliation on the part of the latter, rather than greater commercial liberality; as it was the genial warmth of the sun rather than the piercing blasts of the wind that induced the traveler to take off his coat. Second. That it would not be easy to draw the line between raw material and manufactures, and that any, even indirect, enhancement of the raw materials of British industries, would work to their detriment. Third. That to enhance the cost of food by imposing discriminating duties on food imports, would tend to reduce the size of the loaf to the British workman, and, by increasing the expenses of his living, practically reduce his wages. Fourth. That the so-called luxuries, tea, coffee, tobacco, wines and spirits, were already taxed for purposes of revenue in Great Britain to as great a degree as was expedient Fifth. That government can not create trade, and can not divert it without diminishing it. "When people talk of its being the duty of the government to find markets for their people, what they mean is, that the government shall deprive Edition: current; Page: [156] their people of the markets which they find for themselves." One argument put forth by the "fair traders" in support of their policy, which at first sight appeared rather more plausible than most of the others advanced by them, was that British manufacturers should be in some way compensated for "restricted hours of labor and for exceptional taxation" imposed upon them by home legislation; and that if the legislature choose to place disabilities on particular industries, the country at large should bear the cost, and not the particular industries. To this it was replied, that any such disabilities as cited were not imposed intentionally by the legislature: that the assumption has always been that cheap labor is not necessarily efficient labor; and that any system which tends to the degradation of the working chasses, and prevents them from attaining a certain moral, intellectual and physical standard, directly impairs their physical energy. Hence legislation repressive of such systems was, on the whole, beneficial. But if it could be shown that any statute restrictions on labor or any special disabilities really diminish the efficiency of the industries they affect, it should be the object of reformers to address themselves to the legitimate task of obtaining relief from unwise or unjust laws, and not to extend their operation.

—But the most efficient of all arguments, preferred against the views of the "fair traders," was the record of the progress of Great Britain since it began to relax and finally abandon the protective system. Thus in 1829, soon after the removals of restrictions on commerce instituted by Mr. Hankinson and Poulett Thomson, the declared value of British and Irish exports was $179,000,000; in 1839, it was $266,000,000; in 1849, just after the repeal of the corn laws, it was $317,000,000; in 1859, the year before the French commercial treaty, it was $652,000.000, in 1869, after nine years of the treaty and before the Franco-German war, it was $949,000,000; and in 1880, $1,115,000,000. It was also shown that during the periods when the liberal commercial policy of Great Britain was claimed to have specially acted to her great disadvantage, or from 1870 to 1880, the per capita consumption of staple articles of food—the best barometer of the condition of the people—had greatly increased: tea, from 3.18 lb. to 4.59; butter, from 4.15 to 7.52; bacon, from 1.98 to 15.96; sugar, from 41.4 to 59; and tobacco, from 1.30 to 1.49 Pauperism and convictions for crime had also during the same period materially decreased, and the deposits in the savings banks materially increased. The theory and plans of the fair traders accordingly made little permanent impression on the British public; the government gave no attention to them; and with the revival of domestic industries and foreign trade, the whole subject has ceased to attract interest in Great Britain, or be regarded as of any practical importance.

—Among the more important publications which have appeared in Great Britain on this subject, reference may be made to the following. In favor of fair trade: A Plea for Limited Protection or Reciprocity, by Lord Bateman, pamphlet; an article by Richard Wallace, in the Contemporary Review, March, 1879; an article by Farrer Ecroyd, in the Nineteenth Century, for October, 1880. In opposition to or in refutation of the theory of fair trade reciprocity A Letter by Sir Louis Mallet to Mr. Thom. Bayley Potter, of the Cobden Club, 1879; Free Trade versus Fair Trade, by T H. Farier, 1882; and The Recent Depression of Trade, its causes, and the remedies that hate been suggested for it, by Walter E Smith, Oxford, Cobden prize essay, 1879.



FAITS ACCOMPLIS. These words have become a usual phrase in political language, and require no explanation. By faits accomplis are meant questions decided by events, and which are or may or should be considered as ended. There is nothing so indestructible, nothing so immutable, as the past. But when it is said that a thing is a fait accompli, it is ordinarily meant that it is of such a character as to be accepted or submitted to, and that the idea is abandoned of doing away with its immediate results, or effacing its most direct consequences. It is believed that the expression began to have this precise sense in practice, after having been employed by Odilon Barrot in a circumstance of considerable importance in the parliamentary history of the French monarchy of 1830. In the session of March 24, 1836, the cabinet formed by Molé, the month be fore, having announced a policy of conciliation, Barrot said: "I was glad to make note of the words of the new ministry, which invited us to take thought only for the future of the country without wrangling over the past. We have accepted faits accomplis, that is to say, that without renouncing our convictions, without abandoning our political religion, in the presence of a majority whose honor and whose dignity itself were pledged to the measures which have been adopted, we consented not to renew in vain, and at the great risk of endangering the peace of the country, questions for which we could not expect, at present, a solution in accordance with our convictions." These words have become the commentary which on almost any occasion may be given on the doctrine of faits accomplis. Since that time the expression has passed into use to describe facts the discussion of which is abandoned, at least temporarily, and concerning which it is considered sufficient to appeal to history or the future. We see that the idea expressed by these two words is analogous in politics to what is known in law as prescription. Both suppose that time, by its influence alone, legalizes certain acts or certain results to such a degree that it may become allowable, wise or prudent to admit them as beyond question, whatever, in other regards, be the judgment which should be passed on them. This is sometimes a concession Edition: current; Page: [157] demanded by necessity, and sometimes a sacrifice made in the interest of the public good.

—Is it possible to determine, in a general manner, the cases and conditions in which the doctrine of faits accomplis is legitimately applicable? The solution of this question depends on the circumstances. This doctrine is indeed appealed to, according to circumstances, either to sanction obedience to necessity, the surrender of one's claims in the interest of all, or the yielding to force and coming to terms with tyranny. It may serve as an argument to reason or as a pretext to weakness. Like prescription in law it may either support a right or shield its violation It may be the expression of a clever policy which distinguishes in time the possible from the impossible, or a cowardly egotism which prostrates itself before fortune. Sometimes destined to bring peace to a divided nation, it may authorize it to grant what Tacitus calls grande patientiœ documentum. It may in turn be the shame or the salvation of a country.

—In times when the frequent recurrence of revolutions tests the energy and faithfulness of men's characters too severely, the doctrine of faits accomplis should be held rather in distrust than made an habitual rule of conduct. At these times the power of events is such that acquiescence is more common and more to be feared than resistance. Men are but too ready to accept the irrevocable, and this even when there are no calculations of personal interest; the indifference and scepticism, produced by the frequent destruction of hopes, opinions and systems, induce us only too frequently to accept the despotism of facts, that is to say, the idolatry of success. Therefore it is perhaps from the nature of the sentiments which determine us to bend before facts, rather than from the nature of the facts themselves, that we must judge whether we are right or wrong in submitting to them. Conscience is more capable of distinguishing whether we yield through weakness of heart or mind than is reason to pronounce whether the results of events are finally decisive or not; and it is easier to recognize what is worthier than what is more certain. It is nevertheless true that a proper appreciation of circumstances, no matter how difficult it may be, is necessary in order wisely to apply the doctrine of faits accomplis in practice. It can not even be laid down as a principle that the mistakes of the past should never be sanctioned, and that all rights are forever imprescriptible. It is an absolute rule that no injustice should be committed, no right violated. But when the evil is really irreparable, the impossible should not be attempted. There should be no struggle against necessity, when one is intrusted with public interests. The simplest and clearest example is that of war; if victory has pronounced against the right in a just war, it is heroic to resist to the death; but it is not criminal in the conquered to acknowledge his own helplessness, and conclude a peace with the conqueror which will secure the triumph of iniquity. There are circumstances under which the state and the country can not be sacrificed even to right. The last resort of a Brutus and a Cato is no more permitted to nations than to individuals. But civilized nations, devoted to the enjoyments of art and industry, have to guard themselves rather against the inclination to tolerate than the desire to repress injustice. We see, therefore, that the question of the possible and the impossible is always involved in such affairs with the question of right, and that before undertaking to act against injustice itself we must know certainly whether it can be repaired. And still it may be beautiful to ignore this. It is the glory of Poland never to have accepted faits accomplis.

—Of principles of which certain facts may be the violation, examination will unable us to decide which are really sacred, since they are eternal, and which are not essentially inviolable, since they are conventional, and concerning which compromise may be admitted. Thus the persons called legitimists in France consider that in a monarchy the right of the dynasty is of such a character that it should be exempt from the attack of events and remain unmoved in the midst of revolutions. Nevertheless if the countess of Albany had not died without posterity, would there still be a Jacobite party? Without any doubt, the rights of the Stuarts would be buried in oblivion, and no one would dream of reacting against the event of 1688. The right of dynasties therefore, is not proof against time. Suppose, on the other hand, that the edict which revoked the edict of Nantes was still in force in France with the legislation consequent on it, no prescription would have been sufficient to shield this attack on the liberty of conscience, and it would be the duty of citizens to force governments to decree the abolition of these laws condemned by an eternal truth. In such a case submission to the faits accomplis would be a continual complicity.

—When Great Britain, under the influence of a celebrated ministry, abolished the corn laws in 1845 and at the same time effected a great economic revolution, one of its best guarantees against all political revolutions, the cabinet which was the author of these important measures was not able to stand long. Its successors, who followed the same course, soon saw the end of their power; the parliamentary movement restored the enemies of reform to office in 1852. The ministry formed by Lord Derby announced, soon after, the dissolution of parliament. It had not ceased to oppose the recent changes in all commercial legislation, and this question continued to be agitated during the elections But after the votes of the nation had decided it once more, the reforms being thus definitely sanctioned by public opinion, the ministry and its party submitted; they looked on the reforms as faits accomplis, and said no more about them. And while they profited by this, their adversaries had no idea of reproaching them for it. It was reasonable and politic to abandon a cause lost beyond recovery, and which was not one of Edition: current; Page: [158] those which deserved an eternal protest.

—Of all faits accomplis. the most important, and those which give rise to the most difficult questions of this century, are the changes of government. Setting aside the merits of a new government, the forms which it receives, and the principles which it professes, it appears that its existence, when the national consent is not refused to it, is a fact forced on good citizens, and that they have not the right to separate themselves from their country and deny what it recognizes. The more frequent the changes of government are, the more the identity and perpetuity of the state and the country become the only objects of civic duty, and alone command an unchanging fidelity. But this doctrine of a government de facto which is very similar to that of faits accomplis,