not easy to settle, for no decision was rendered until January 31, 1831, when the King, in very vague terms, declared that the proofs furnished by both sides were insufficient; that the terms of the Treaty of 1783, as well as the topographical maps made after that date, did not allow an exact line of demarcation to be established. Thereupon, he proposed to establish a new frontier line, following the forty-fifth degree of North latitude, from the Connecticut River to the St. Lawrence.

The King of the Netherlands, then, did not confine himself to deciding the point which had been intrusted to him as arbitrator, which point was simply to fix the limits of the Treaty of 1783. He went beyond that point, and arbitrarily proposed a base of a new arrangement which might be more or less acceptable to the parties concerned. To have the right to act thus it was necessary for the agreement to give him the subsidiary power of fixing some other boundary than the river St. Croix.

This power was given to the Emperor of Russia when he was appointed arbitrator of the differences between French and Dutch Guiana, which differences were settled by a decision of the Emperor on the 25th of May, 1890. William I., however, was not arbitrator and arranger of the differences between the two parties; he was only an arbitrator-judge, and obliged to conform strictly to the terms of the agreement. The decision he rendered, being outside of the terms of the agreement, was absolutely null. The United States then proposed the appointment of a new commission, but the proposition came to nothing. Finally the matter was settled by the Treaty of August 9, 1842, which fixed definitively the northeast boundary line between Canada and the United States.

The change in the situation of the King of the Netherlands could work no alteration in his position as arbitrator. He had lost Belgium alone, but remained a sovereign prince. In order that the loss of a portion of his States could be taken into consideration, it was necessary to have specified that he was appointed arbitrator, in his quality of both King of Holland and King of Belgium. Assuredly, nothing of that kind was in the mind of the parties. Mr. Dreyfus was right, then, in calling such an objection to the King's decision a "quibble." Nevertheless, it is certain that for a brief period they thought in the United States of objecting to the decision on that ground; and what is also certain is that because they thought of doing so Mr. Dreyfus speaks of it. What is more serious, however, and what seems to me interesting to point out, is the fact that the King of the Netherlands had exceeded the power which the agreement gave him, and in that way rendered a decision which was a nullity.

THE FRANCO-RUSSIAN ALLIANCE FROM THE RUSSIAN POINT OF VIEW.

FRA

BY A HERMIT OF THE URAL MOUNTAINS.
La Nouvelle Revue, Paris, March 15.

RANCE will have to choose between Russia and England. Let us state the relations of England and Russia, and those of England and France, and then cast a glance on the past and present of Russia.

At the end of the seventeenth and the beginning of the eighteenth centuries England, in a manner, dominated Europe. Spain had fallen into decay; France had been completely ruined by the wars of Louis XIV.; Germany, Hungary, and Bohemia had been enfeebled by internal wars and the invasions of the Turks; Italy was of no account; the Scandinavian States had been weakened by the struggles under Gustavus Adolphus and Charles X.

England had no rivals to trouble her in Europe and the other parts of the world. Towards the West, she saw, besides her immense possessions in America, vast countries reserved for her to develop. In the East, beyond Moscow, England had a glimpse of a region about five thousand miles in length, containing fertile lands, forests on the borders of rivers, unexplored

mines of metals and precious minerals. This region was not unknown to England, for already her hand of iron weighed on the White Sea, on which a Russian vessel had never floated. England beheld this enormous extent of country, destined to be developed for her own profit, and was satisfied.

At the same time, however, in this savage Muscovy, appeared a boy who, when fifteen years old, built a skiff with his own hands, and learned how to manoeuvre it. When he was twenty-one, on the shores of the White Sea this boy studied the construction of vessels and how to sail them, had his port of Archangel built, and ordered' ships to be made for him, not in England, but in Holland. When he was twenty-four, he already had one fleet in the White Sea, and another which sailed down the Don to the Sea of Azoff, beat the Turkish fleet and took the port, the fortress, and the town of Azoff. Six years later, in 1703, he had 150 vessels of war on a third sea, where he founded the capital of his empire.

England thrilled with rage, conceived a hatred for Russia, and for two hundred years has employed all imaginable means to weaken, ruin, and humble the Muscovite Empire, trying in every way to fetter her and bar her road to the oceans.

The relations of England with France have been much more violent, and had sadder consequences. For four centuries before Joan of Arc, those relations were stained with blood. The three centuries which followed Joan were less bloody, it is true, but more ruinous for France. The war for the United States, the Seven Years War, the struggle with Napoleon I., gave to England the larger portion of the French colonies. Napoleon III., on the other hand, put himself at the service of England, for an alliance with which the French Emperor poured out the blood and the millions of France. Did England hold out her hand to him in 1870? No; she extended her hand to those who crushed France, and if ever again France is conquered by any Power or Powers whatever, the English will be the first to endeavor to get hold of a slice of French territory. The servile position which all the States in the south of the continent occupy towards England renders her so arrogant, that Lord Salisbury does not hesitate to speak, in the tone of a master, of the statu quo in the Mediterranean. France endures this affront, and has allowed England to appropriate the Suez Canal, created by French genius.

A glance at the past and present of Russia shows that she has never been conquered; she has never had an Austerlitz, a Waterloo, a Sadowa. Moscow and other towns have been pillaged and burnt. The Tartars of the Caucasus and the Crimea, the Poles, and the Swedes, have many times invaded and laid waste Russia, but after these misfortunes she has always been, in a short time, stronger and greater than ever. Her immense growth has been due, under Providence, to herself alone. No foreign nation has shed a drop of blood or expended a franc for the benefit of Russia.

The Russian nation is perfectly sure of its future, as long as it has for allies its Church and its sovereign. There are dangers which threaten us. The Poles fill the most profitable places on the railways of the Government, and hold other important and lucrative positions. The Jews have invaded all the towns of Great Russia, where, legally, they have no right to dwell. The Prussians have already acquired more than twelve million acres of the most fertile land. These three parasite elements, which demoralize the Russian peasant and citizen, are a great evil, but the Franco-Russian alliance cannot affect them in the least.

An alliance of Russia with France was desired by Peter the Great, by Alexander I., and is desired by Alexander III. Such an alliance, however, cannot be temporary or for the purpose of obtaining a particular end. The Russian people would never accept an alliance of that kind. What Peter and Alexander I. wanted, and what Alexander III. as well as the whole Russian people, want, is an alliance, of which the object will be peace on the continent, and consequently the well-being,

the happiness of the peoples of Europe, and that the alliance shall last until that end be reached.

Permanent peace there cannot be as long as the causes of war shall not be destroyed or, at least, enfeebled in such a way that they can produce naught save the least possible evil. The causes of war are:

1. Moral. Wars undertaken for the sake of a principle, like the Crusades, the war for the deliverance of the United States from the English yoke, and the like.

2. Intellectual. Wars brought about by some strong power like England, which incites one small nation to make war on another, upon a calculation that without any expenditure of blood or treasure, the strong power will reap the benefit of the

war.

3. Material. Wars waged by one nation to enrich itself by despoiling another.

It is the third cause which is the most important to extinguish. The causes of material wars are three :

I. The incomplete formation of States, their structure being unfinished. This is the case with France, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Greece, and Russia.

II. The small nations and little States, the insignificant remains of the barbarous hordes of the first centuries or of the feudal system, or bits detached from other great nations.

III. The instability of frontiers, although this is but an accessory cause.

We have seen that England has always tried to injure Russia, and that Russia treats England with disdain, always keeping her in check. Russia is the only State of the Continent independent of England, and that condition of things can never be changed. Russia will never submit to the English yoke. Consequently, if France wishes to be an ally of Russia, France must put herself in the same position towards England that Russia now occupies.

When that condition of things has been reached, France and Russia can unite to extinguish or at least enfeeble the causes of material wars, aid the other States to organize themselves so as to possess what is indispensable to their existence, their well-being, and their development, bring about a junction of small States so as to form States completely independent, or join the small States to great ones, and make it possible for all States to have, so far as is possible, natural frontiers. This is the final object of the Franco-Russian alliance.

"GE Ꮐ

SOCIOLOGICAL.

PROFIT-SHARING.

MAURICE BLOCK, MEMBER OF THE INSTITUTE. Journal des Economistes, Paris, February. ENTLEMEN, in profit-sharing is the solution of the social question; in this point we are all of one mind." In these words a recent proposition of law, signed by ninetyone Deputies, announces the solution of the social question. Here is something which ought to give me great joy, for the "social question," which is threatening, has always been considered a very difficult question. I am not, however, in a hurry to rejoice, because, in regard to important things, one should not be content with a simple assertion, but examine the matter closely, without allowing one's self to be convinced or intimidated by ninety-one signatures; for, if men are subject to error, their signatures-that is, their shadows-are, at least equally so.

On what is based the assertion I have just quoted? The authors of the proposition say:

cloud which is always increasing, and which justly makes us unquiet; we mean the claims of the classes without property. It is very certain that, on the day when the workman shall have not only his wages, but his share of the profits, his share of the capital, on the day when he will be sure, not of daily bread alone, but of security for his family, on that day the social question will be solved, and our world, rejuvenated, may hope for a new era of harmony and progress."

If the authors of this passage tell the truth, we must despair of humanity. In the civilized world—which is more and more a unit in economic and social matters-there are millions of employers. Profit-sharing has been preached for thirty or forty years; the doctrine has ardent apostles, an entire library has been written for its propagation, lectures have been given, congresses have met; and yet, after the drums have beaten the call to arms over the entire universe, there cannot be found more than 222 business firms and companies that share profits. When it is a question of millions of what consequence are 222 units?

Can it be supposed, as the authors of the law maintain, that these millions of employers are lacking in good will, and are unable to comprehend their own interests? Does it appear probable that these 91 Deputies understand the interests of the millions of employers better than the employers themselves? I do not see how this question can be answered in the affirm.

ative.

In the century which is near the termination of its agitated career, there has been an attempt to propagate Communism among us, under the soothing name of Socialism. Karl Marx and his disciples have formally declared that they wish to establish Communism. Now, the object of Communism, alias Socialism, is twofold: first, to multiply (if it can be done) material pleasures; second, to reduce all superior natures to the level of inferior faculties and qualities. These are not noble and elevated ends; there is nothing to boast of in the pursuit of them. If Socialism represents an evolution, it is not one towards progress, but quite the contrary. Moreover, Socialism would have fewer protectors and supporters, if people would take the trouble to read the books which formulate its doctrines. Many people speak of it without knowing anything about it, and attribute to it virtues which it is far from possessing.

In the passage cited, the authors of the proposed law fall into many grave errors. One of these may be noted as a specimen of all. These authors of the law seem to think that if the workman who earns from 2,000 to 3,000 francs a year by his wages, obtains besides from 200 to 300 francs as his share of the profits, he will have "security for his family." What security can the family of the workman derive from such a petty thing? Suppose the workman is not economical! One may have inherited a revenue of 100,000 francs, or even 500,000 francs a year, and yet die without a bed to lie on. Gentlemen, you can never solve the social question if you do not know how to give men good dispositions, if you cannot compel them to acquire qualities which will assure them a satisfactory lot, instead of contributing to excite their covetousness. How can you hope for success with such means? I will point out to you another method which, at least, will do no harm. It is, moreover, very simple. Above the political legend, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," painted in black on all our public walls, add, in letters of gold, this economic legend: "Economy, Foresight, Responsibility." I am well acquainted with people whom the practice of these things has placed in comfortable circumstances. So far as that goes, the legend is infallible.

I have spoken at length of the so-called arguments of the authors of the proposed law, because these arguments are a portion of the foundation on which Socialism aims to build a lasting structure. There is a great deal more which could be said, but I must limit myself to pointing out that, in regard to profit-sharing, the game is not worth the candle, for the work

man at least. For politicians it is, perhaps, a means, though by no means the best one, of fishing for popularity. In the Economic Journal for June, 1891, Mr. Schloss has published some very instructive tables. Of the forty-nine English establishments, other than coöperative societies, which share their profits with their workmen and those employed by them, thirty-five have given Mr. Schloss information about their affairs. Of these, six had just been started. Among the twentynine others, ten have not had any profits to divide, nineteen have added to the wages a bonus of 1⁄2, 1, 2, or 3 per cent. on the wages; one of them has reached 7% per cent., and two have divided 10 per cent. The table of coöperative societies includes seventy establishments, of which twenty-nine have made no profits to divide; for thirteen establishments information is lacking or "defective" (a bad sign). There remain twenty-eight establishments with 1, 2, 3 per cent. profit, several with 6 per cent., one with 8 per cent., and another with 9. When a workman earns 2,000 francs a year, one per cent. is twenty francs (about four dollars, United States money). Is that worth moving heaven and earth for? Is not a Social Question" which can be solved by such means a case of Much Ado about Nothing"?

A

THE UNIVERSAL STRIKE IN RUSSIA.
H. VON SAMSON HIMMELSTJERNA (VICTOR FRANK).
Die Gegenwart, Berlin, March.

REMARKABLE phenomenon of Russian social life which has manifested itself during the visitation of the present famine is the almost universal idleness, or indisposition of the peasantry to labor-an indisposition so deep-seated and widespread, that it would hardly be improper to characterize it as a national strike. The Pan-Slavists are disposed to regard it as a visitation of God threatening the disorganization of the whole social fabric, as a punishment for the adoption of Western liberal ideas; but however varied opinions may be as to the cause, there is no queston as to the fact: The Government organs are the most active in arraying the evidences and indulging in forebodings as to the consequences. The Russian peasant has folded his hands and apparently given up the struggle. "The Czar," he says, "must provide."

As an instance of the general apathy of the peasantry in the famine districts we quote the following from the Moskauer Nachrichten. In August last, Mr. Nedokhódowsky of the Kalúga'schen Government caused it to be notified to the Rjasanj'schen Government, that at least 500 men could find remunerative work in his district, as all the farm laborers there had set off for the Moscow factories, according to custom. As a result of this notification a number of Rjasnj'schen laborers reached Kalúga in October, but none of them from the famine districts. They were all from localities in which the harvest had been good. The wages offered there were from 3 to 3% rubles a month, with food and lodging; but notwithstanding the high price of living, the offer was rejected. The explanation given by one of Mr. Nedothódowski's workmen was, "The people have money in their pockets and will not be tempted by any wages, however good, until the last kopek is gone." "I have had the same experience myself," he said, the railway fares are so low, and one likes to travel around as long as he can." The fact is, the Russian is constitutionally a nomad.

44

Commenting on this circumstance, the correspondent of the Moskauer Nachrichten attributes the evil to unsystematic private benevolence which he says should be suppressed.

The same paper in a leading article in its issue of 10th January last says: The evil result of distributing alms gratuitously soon makes itself felt. The Government is concerned to guard against paralyzing the industrial activity of the necessitous, and is exerting itself for the inauguration of a comprehensive system of public works; meantime it has given

sanction to the establishment of Special Relief Committees; but their operation is most pernicious, and tends to prejudice the best laid plans of the authorities. No famine, no usury could so utterly ruin the peasant as dependence on alms. They have already come to regard the free table as a matter of right to which anyone is entitled to sit down. Moreover it is better supplied than the ordinary peasant's table; there are even confections for the children. Is it then any wonder that at the other end of the circle people murmur because they cannot get bread without work? It is,' they say, 'an imposition, a tyranny.' Money has been provided for us; how else could the free tables be established.'Why should we work,' they say, 'money has been allotted for our necessities and the officials have misappropriated it.'

And the free table by no means exhausts the peasant's conceptions of his rights. He demands as of right that he be furnished in spring with cattle and horses from the public purse; and many who have provender have slaughtered their own cattle and horses that there may be no mistake about it. In the official correspondence, the Government was strongly urged to take charge of all cattle, during the winter, lest on the return of spring there should not be a horse left.

From the aforequoted Government organ, we gather, further, that the antipathy to labor has affected not only the cultivators. but laborers of all classes. "The wages are too low," they say, "Who can support himself by work?" They, too, assert a claim upon the public purse.

A great many speculations have been indulged in to account for this epidemic of revolt against labor, but none of them suffice to explain the suddenness of its appearance and the rapidity of its spread. The general run of famine diseases are, of course, infectious, but this epidemic of idleness asserts itself in non-famine districts. There is here no question of infection, but what about a bacillus ?

Of the presence and energy of such a social bacillus we have no doubt; we are here face to face, not with an apathy born of misfortune and suffering, but of a cleverly designed, provoked, and guided Universal Strike Movement.

Who can doubt the justice of this conclusion after weighing the following, easily ascertained, facts? Up to last autumn, Switzerland was crowded with enemies of the Russian Government. Since then they have every one vanished-no one knows where. But where else should they have gone but home to " the people "-to "the work "-that is to say, to the reorganization of Russian society, Church, and State.

Most of our earlier information about Siberia was unreliable. In 1799, a young girl traveled from Siberia to St. Petersburg to implore pardon for her father. She told many of her experiences to Mme. de Cottin, and that lady incorporated them in her Elizabeth, or, the Exiles of Siberia." Many later so-called reports, were founded upon that book. In 1855 Alexander Hertzen wrote "My Exile in Siberia," but he was never there. More reliable was Baron Rosen's "Russian Conspirators in Siberia," a narrative of his exile.

Interesting, but not reliable are also S. Maximoff's "Siberia and Prisons," and Dostojewski's Notes from the Dead House." In our own day, Lansdell (1879) and Kennan (1885) have written extensively on Siberia. Of these, Kennan is most to be suspected, and that mainly on account of his highly colored pictures. It would be difficult to form a correct opinion

about Siberia, were we to rely on these data alone. Fortunately we possess official statistics. The Secretary of the Russian Prison Society, A. Solomon, delivered before the International Prison Association, in Rome (1885), an historical review of Russian prison reform. Last year the DirectorGeneral of the Russian prisons, Galkine-Wraskoy, gave a review of Russian prison reforms from 1879 to 1889, and in January last, the Inspector-General of the Russian prisons, Kormorsky, gave further information on that subject before the French Prison Society. These official reports are given in perfect honesty and appear to be truthful.

Russia's prison!" The significance of that name appears from these figures: Lansdell reports that of late years about 20,000 persons have been banished to Siberia annually. Kennan states that 772,979 persons were sent there from 1823 to 1887. Solomon tells us that in 1883 the daily average of transports was 18,863 persons, including women and children. The same author states elsewhere that the total number of exiles from 1843 to 1872 was 317,383. The reason for the enormous number must be sought in the law of 1853.

To understand the Russian exile-system it is necessary to give a review of the Russian penal-system since Peter the Great.

Russia's Great Emperor was a man of the intensest activity. To accomplish all his designs he used prisoners as workmen on public buildings. After the Transbaikal had been conquered in 1689, Russia wanted to work its rich mines. To do so, convicted criminals and a few peasants were sent there. That was the beginning of the terrible exile-system. Under Catharine II., the Russian laws for the first time mention deprivation of personal freedom as a punishment. Deportation soon became an established institution, and thousands perished on the way to Lake Baikal. When Speransky, the Governor-General of Siberia, in 1819, undertook a journey of inspection he placed 680 persons, among them several provincial governors, under arrest for misconduct. The same Speransky caused a regulation to be issued, in 1822, insuring humane and rational treatment of the deported prisioners, but it had no effect, because a regulation of 1823 neutralized it by over-filling the colonized districts of Siberia with vagabonds.

Russia did not begin a rational treatment of criminals till after 1845-47, when Russian delegates had visited the meetings of the European Prison Association at Brussels and Frankfurt. Laws of 1845 and 1853 modified the crimimal codes of the empire. Of the condition of affairs in 1853, Salomon reports the following: "When you meet a man on the road, and you see him half-naked, emaciated from hunger, with downcast eyes and a desperate resignation on his face-you have seen a colonist." A Governor-General writes: "The deported are an ever-shifting population, which subsists by begging and stealing. At one time, the people had pity on them, and called them the unhappy ones. That time is no more; frauds, robbery, murder, and all kinds of "deviltry have extinguished the feeling of sympathy. In the spring and summer, when many exiles escape the communal police, they hide in the forests, and no village is safe against their depredations. The authorities are unable to stop these evils." The present chief of the Russian prisons, Galkine-Wraskoy, states that, in 1881-82, upon a tour of inspection, he found that of 20,199 deported, who were interred in four districts under the governments of Tomsk and Yenisseisk, only 2,643 were peasants; 10, 181 had temporary leave of absence, and 7,375 had run away. The number of vagabonds is at present estimated to be 40,000. They are the heaviest burden to the people of the country; not only because of their depredations, but the native population must pay large sums for prisons, keepers, hospitals. They are driven, as wild beasts, from place to place, having no mercy for anybody, nor getting any mercy from anybody. The colonists do not consider it a crime to kill them. "Such is the condition of affairs, and that is the reason why no progress can be made anywhere in Siberia." These are the words of Russia's official report to the Congress at Rome in 1885.

(To be continued.)

THE RAIFFEISEN LOAN-ASSOCIATIONS. PRACTICAL ATTEMPT TO SOLVE THE SOCIAL PROBLEM..

Christliche Welt, Leipzig, 1892, No. 9.

ECENT volumes have again called public attention to the

Loan-Associations. These aim at a solution of a serious social problem on the basis of Christian brotherly love. They have been established chiefly in the country districts of Germany, and their primary aim originally was to afford financial relief to the peasantry suffering under the consequences of the usury of moneyed men, and from the spirit of Christian love to the brethren to help the worthy needy to better their circumstances. The idea, forty-one years ago sprang from the fertile brain of F. W. Raiffeisen, a remarkably gifted man in head and heart, who was Mayor of the district Flammersfeld in Westerweld, embracing thirty-three villages, and who died in 1888. In these districts the harvest failures of 1847-48 had made the peasants the helpless and hopeless victims of usurers, and in 1849 the first association was formed. Since then the grain of mustard seed has become a mighty tree. In July, 1891, a convention of the representatives of the Raiffeisen society was held in Erfurt, and more than six hundred delegates from all the four corners of Germany put in their appearance. The total number of societies reported is 855. In Thuringia alone fully eighty societies were organized within the last two or three years. The movement has also spread to foreign lands, and societies have been organized in Tyrol and other Austrian States, in Switzerland, Italy, France, and elsewhere. Nenwied is the central society in Germany.

The central idea of these associations is that the social problem cannot be solved on any other principle than that of Christianity. They are unions of peasants chiefly, in which not the cold " mine and thine”—the principle of selfishness— prevails, but the conviction that in money affairs, too, the self-sacrificing love of one's neighbor, together with a wise application of this spirit, should prevail. Wuttig, the latest writer on this social movement, counts among the pillars of the organization of these societies the following:

1. The management of these societies is entirely voluntary and without pay. The Trustees and others receive no remuneration; only the Secretary has a nominal salary.

2. The restriction of the society to a limited locality, not too large to be well managed by the Trustees. As a rule the societies are Parochial associations. The managers are generally the clergy, the teachers, and the congregational officials. In general the movement is in close touch and tone with the Church.

3. Money is loaned out for a long period with the proviso of repayment, in small sums at stated periods, on personal security. The rate of interest is little more than nominal. In case the wealthier members have not paid in the sums asked as loans, the central treasury at Neuwied usually is able to supply the demand.

4. The aim is to establish a permanent fund to be managed and used without any effort to increase the same through interest on loans. Not only the poor and needy, but also the well-to-do, who hope rather to do good to others than to profit by their connection, join the association. It is one method by which Christian men of means hope to use their wealth for the good of others in such a way as to produce the greatest permanent results.

The success of the movement has been signal. In the forty and more years since these societies have existed, not a single society has made an assignment or become bankrupt, and not one member has, as yet, lost a penny of what he has entrusted to them: A singular testimony as to the standing of these societies is the fact that in the war periods of 1864, 1866, and 1870-71, not only no member of the societies, even in the threatened districts, demanded back his money, but just in

these districts a larger number than ever before offered great sums to the Associations at a nominal rate of interest, or without any interest at all. The work of the Associations has attracted the attention and won the warm commendation of many prominent persons in State and finance. Ludovic de Besse, the President of the People's Banks, has been at Neuwied to study the method and through him the idea has won warm friends in France. M. Ettcheverry, member of the French Parliament, has been there for the same purpose. In recent months, warm advocates of the method have been heard among the students of social problems in England, Holland, Roumania, Poland, and Russia. In 1882, the venerable Emperor Wilhelm I., of Germany, addressed a warm-hearted communication to Raiffeisen in which he acknowledged with gratitude the efforts and success of the social reformer to ameliorate the condition of the poor on the basis of a practical Christianity. In this, its central thought, lies the great mission of the Associations. It is a practical social reform on a Christian and not a commercial basis. The Institutes are not merely money societies, but associations on the basis of Christian ethics and morals. Money matters, both loaning and borrowing, are conducted on Christian principles, and money is placed in the service of the Kingdom of God on earth. The abyss between the rich and the poor is bridged over by Christian love. Not to be underestimated are the blessings resulting from congregational and individual life. To all intents and purposes, it is congregational work of brotherly love, and through them many a man, who saw financial ruin staring him in the face, has been saved, and through the moral influences connected with the agitation, has been able to make a man of himself again in every respect. At this time, when Social Democracy is making such dangerous headway, it can be counteracted in no more efficient way than by the spread of Christian principles and practices in the relations of man to man. And this is what the Raiffeisen Associations have been and are doing.

WE

DIVORCE: A SYMPOSIUM. Methodist Review, New York, April. EVILS OF DIVORCE.

C. W. SMITH, D.D.

E shall the more readily understand the evils of divorce if we recall the relation it dissolves, what is included in the relation, and the results of its dissolution. Marriage, Christian marriage, the union of one man and one woman in holy wedlock for life is the basis of the family, and the indispensable condition of its perpetuity. The family is the unit of the State; and a study of the character of the family in any age will reveal the condition of the race at that time, in all that is good and pure and elevating. The family is indispensable to the life, in any proper sense, of the individual, of society, and of the State, and marriage is essential to the very existence of the family. Anything, therefore, which prevents marriage or leads persons to lightly esteem it, or robs it of its sacredness, or weakens its obligations, or limits its duration, strikes at the very heart of the institution.

Some of the dangers which beset marriage seem to be inherent in human nature. These things, infirmities of our nature, or outgrowths of our surroundings, or fruits of our evil hearts, put many and heavy strains on the marriage relation; and the serious problem of every lover of his race is the reduction of these evils to the lowest possible degree, that marriage may reach the highest possible measure of its strength and perma

nence.

Just at this point we meet the evils of our unfortunate divorce system. Instead of resisting the erroneous and sinful inclinations of human nature, the State, through this system, surrenders to them almost without condition. It has adopted laws which, taken as a whole, come perilously near throwing off all restraint, and to giving to human nature, in its worst forms

almost unlimited license to deal at will with the most important earthly relation.

For, view it as we will, or apologize for it as we will, legal divorce, except for adultery, is a scheme of government by which it deliberately allies itself with the infirmities, passions, and vices of human nature, for the destruction of the divine institution of the family.

THE GROUNDS OF DIVORCE.

HON. HIRAM L. SIBLEY.

The force of a powerful appetite, and divine command, impel the race to propagate its kind. To this end, congress of the sexes is necessary. Marriage alone gives the conditions under which that may righteously take place. Hence, excepting special cases, needless to specify, God and nature have made the relations of marriage a universal right of mature men and women. This manifestly includes the right of each party in the union to all its essential benefits. What these are appears in the objects of marriage. Consideration of them will show that what is covered by the divine right to the relation is its very substance and life, compared with which its naked bond is but a shadow. Yet this cardinal truth has so far been lost sight of, in discussing divorce, that good and able men seem willing, in certain cases, to sacrifice all that is substantial in the objects of the union, to continuance of its mere form, upon the assumption that, in some incomprehensible way, morality will be thereby promoted.

I hold that adultery, desertion, and other acts which, like the first, destroy the sexual purity of marriage, or, like the second, operate to deny to an innocent partner, and to society, the substantial benefits of, and so, what is essential in, the right to marriage, if its bond be held indissoluble, are in morals as on sociological grounds, valid causes for annulling it. THE REMEDY.

H. W. ROGERS, LL.D.

It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the question whether divorce can rightfully be permitted, but, assuming that it is sometimes a "sorrowful and imperative necessity," the question I propose to consider is how the remedy can best be applied.

On this question I hold (1) that the remedy should not be dependent solely on the will of the parties concerned. Neither (2) is it desirable that the remedy should be dependent in each particular case on the will of the legislature. (3) The remedy should be sought as now in the State and not in the Federal Courts. (4) The remedy should be obtainable only in the State where the domicile is. (5) The law of divorce should place both parties on terms of perfect equality. And (6) The remedy as a general rule, should be granted on such terms as to leave both parties free to marry.

DIVORCE "A VINCULO."-It is difficult to point to any one cause as the source of the practice in the Schismatic churches. It is not likely that a false interpretation of that hypothetical clause in St. Matthew's Gospel, "excepting the cause of fornication," Chap. V., v. 32; and " except it be for fornication," Chap. XIX., v. 9, had any influence upon the Greek discipline, because no such interpretation has ever been authorized in the Christian Church, even though the preference given in case of adultery to the husband might seem to point that way. It was also admitted by the Greeks that the sense in which the Fathers generally accepted the clause by no means set adultery apart as reason for divorce a vinculo. Matrimonial bonds they held to be indissoluble. Whatever the views of theologians are as to the reason the doctrine itself remains unimpeached. Since the infallible declaration of Trent, there can be no room for misapprehending that clause. Theologians and canonists have been most assiduous in searching out every case of divorce a vinculo on record. They have given much attention to the explanation of dubious passages in the writings of the Fathers. Decisions of local synods bearing upon this subject have been minutely scrutinized. The effect of it all has been to strengthen the persuasion of universal concurrence as to the indissolubility of Christian marriage from the beginning of Christianity. The Rev. Joseph Selinger, D.D., American Ecclesiastical Review, Philadelphia April.