common people, that luxury and liberty will be granted to each of these; that all the shops will be open, and every one can take from them what they wish, and you will perceive the effect that these words must produce on the imagination of our credulous and simple-minded peasants. At the same time they have before their eyes the example of the prosperity of these opulent colonists, and that appears to confirm the promises held out.

Not only does our moujik cease to go to church, to be Orthodox, but he shaves off his beard and his moustache, adopts the dress, the characteristic short pipe, the manners of the colonists, his children learn the German language, and he himself speaks a curious hybrid Russo-German.

The hatred of the Russian people for the Germans is explained by the part the latter play in the interior life of our country. The great popularity which our reigning Emperor enjoys with his subjects arises from stories about him before his accession, stories widely spread among the peasants, to the effect that he declared that he detested the Germans, that his reign would begin with an implacable war with the Germans, that all the Germans would be expelled from Russia, that the speaking of the German language should be prohibited under penalty of a fine.

Thus have I set forth, as clearly as I could, the reasons that all Russians, who love their country and their Emperor, are delighted by an alliance with the French, especially if that alliance shall be the means of wounding Germany.

LAW-MAKING BY POPULAR VOTE; OR, THE AMERICAN REFERENDUM.

THE

ELLIS PAXSON OBERHOLTZER.

Annals of the American Academy, Philadelphia, November. HE Referendum is commonly thought of as a political institution peculiar to Switzerland.* It seems, however, to have been very generally overlooked that here in the United States, in every State of the Union, and also in the municipality, we employ, and, in New England, have employed since the Revolution, this same popular political principle. The Referendum may be defined as the submission of laws, whether in the form of statute or constitution, to the voting citizens for their ratification or rejection, these laws having first been passed upon by the people's representatives, assembled in legis

lature or convention.

In general, the people of the States composing the Union are conceded to have by the development of over a century certain rights to direct consultation by the Legislatures in the making of constitution and statute laws. The people in practically every State are competent and they alone are competent, to decide whether they shall have a new form of government. This is the Convention Referendum, when the vote is upon "Convention" or No Convention." If they decide upon a new form, it rests with them to determine what that form shall be-when the people vote " For the Constitution" or "Against the Constitution as submitted by their representatives. It rests with them also to say at all times how this form of government shall be altered or amended-when they vote for or against proposed amendments.

"

The following matters, in many of the States, are also submitted to the decision of the popular vote: the location of the seat of government, or State Capital; the collection and expenditure of the public money, banking, etc.; questions upon which there are vigorous and violent differences of opinion, and which the Legislatures decline to take the responsibility for, as prohibition of intoxicants, woman suffrage, and, in Louisiana, the chartering of a lottery.

Perhaps it is not fair to assume that the New England townmeeting has had any direct influence upon the development of the Referendum in this country, as the Landsgemeinde had in Switzerland. It is, however, a coincidence that of the thirteen original States, only two submitted their first Constitution to popular vote,-Massachusetts and New Hampshirewhere the people had long made their local laws in town meet ings. It has been asserted that in other States the propriety of submitting the first Constitutions was not denied, but the Tories forming so uncertain a quantity, it was thought dangerous to call for a popular vote. Perhaps one reason on the part of other States for non-submission may have been that they did not have, like Massachusetts and New Hampshire, an easy or economical method of getting an expression of the popular judgment. Connecticut and Rhode Island remaining under their old charters until 1818 and 1842, respectively, furnish no confirmatory evidence as to the relations between the town-meeting and the Referendum, for when their Constitutions were submitted to popular vote, the custom had taken deep root throughout the country. Vermont accepted her first Constitution from a Convention without Referendum. There was a general feeling that it was not the correct procedure, but the boundary contests in which she had been engaged with Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York made it seem unwise to take the risk of consulting the people.

In 1778, the Constitution prepared by the General Court of Massachusetts was rejected in the town meeting. A Convention was called and, after long labors, a Constitution (embracing a provision of re-submission to the people after fifteen years) was submitted in 1780, and ratified by more than twothirds of those who voted.

There was still greater difficulty in getting a Constitution in New Hampshire. One submitted in 1779 was rejected, and another submitted in 1781 was so much amended in the townmeetings that the Convention began work all over again, and finally completed a document which was approved by the people in 1784. Here, in these two New England States, the Referendum first appears in America, and in a very vigorous form, the people fully appreciating and asserting the right to direct consultation by their representatives.

But none of the thirteen original States followed the example of Massachusetts and New Hampshire until New York led the way in 1821. From this time on, most of the new States came in with Constitutions which had received the direct sanction of the people, and the old States, as new Constitutions were deemed necessary, adopted the same process. The townmeeting principle had developed into the Referendum and it was a firmly established institution the country over. To-day the people of not more than one or two States of the Union would be likely to be denied the right to pass upon the form and frame of their government. It is a significant fact that the Constitution of Mississippi, adopted last fall, was not submitted to the people at the polls.

From the use of the Referendum in the case of new Constitutions naturally grew up the Convention Referendum and the Amendment Referendum, now in general use. When it is remembered that, in these days, the State Constitutions are codes of laws limiting the Legislature to short annual or biennial sessions, defining in detail what it may and may not do in that short session, there will be a better comprehension of the great direct force exerted by the people in the enactment of laws. Matters that were once left to the Legislature are now dealt with in the Constitution.

To-day, in the West especially, the Referendum is becoming extensively used in local matters. There are County, City, Township, and School District Referendums, the use of which in two States, goes to the extent of charter-making for cities by their own people. This latest office of the Referendum is likely to grow in popularity and usefulness.

IN

MACHINE POLITICS.

Social Economist, New York, November.

'N all quarters where reform and political purity are desired there has been a prolonged and persistent revolt against the machine. Smash the machine" has been the motto of every sort of Mugwump, and every citizens' ticket, clergyman's ticket, reformer's ticket, honest-ballot ticket, has had the political machine in its eye as the great antagonist of all that is excellent and beautiful in affairs. The dog has been given a bad name, and no one is bold enough to stand up for him lest he get the stones intended for the dog.

Really, a machine in politics, or anywhere else, is simply an organization to reach certain ends. Being an organization, it is certainly better than disorganization, since no political action in communities is possible in a state of anarchy. In a State like ours the political machines are two large organizations, for the purpose of carrying the party's principles and measures forward to success. It is as legitimate to organize for that purpose as for building a railroad or establishing a bank. In fact, nothing could be done without it; men and measures alike would be lost in one utter chaos of inefficiency. The various Mugwumps and anti-machine men of our time should do a little thinking, and consider how things would be if our country were left denuded of our great political organizations the prey and open field of every man with a nostrum, and the arena of contention for a hundred different parties in every State. Of course, they know no such condition is possible and, therefore, are not afraid of it. Is it worth while, then, for an intelligent citizen to contend for a condition which, if attained, would even in his own view be the climax of disaster? They seem to cry at every election season "Smash the machine," because they know of nothing better to say. And so they repeat it at each crisis their ineffective shibboleths of good men, good measures, honest administration, political purity-cries in which Tammany Hall will join in overwhelming chorus, and with an unction far surpassing their own. Indeed, was not a recent Presidential ticket headed "Tilden and Reform" by a humorous Democracy?

It is better to say what specially should be done than to stand up and cry out for political purity and against the machine-as if the first were a novelty, and the destruction of the second would of itself start things on the right track. But, as a rule, our reformers do not know what they want done. They wish to stop fraud and corruption and the spoils system," and to put the sinners out and the saints in. By all means, say we; but that can never be done except by an organization, and the new organization would also be a machine, and without such a machine no purpose would be effected. What our reformers first need is a new machine.

It cannot be denied that various new machineries have been brought forward to supplant the old ones at various timesCounty Democracies, Farmers' Alliances, Prohibitionists, and others, and submitted to the people for their approval. These have not so far shown their capacity for doing their work better than the old organizations, and so they remain, like many beautiful models in the Patent Office, simply on show. They look well in the cases, and are valuable as examples of how not to do it. The total effect is discouraging to anti-machinists, but they are usually stout-hearted, quixotic, and ready to try again after every defeat. They seek reform by sonnet with our innocent poet, Mr. Gilder, or by sermon with Dr. Rainsford, or by lecture with the Nineteeth Century Club, or by essays with Mr. Dorman B. Eaton, or by editorial with The Evening Post. But none of these efforts are successful against the machinery of the great parties. One might as well put a hand-loom against a cotton-mill, or a horse-car against the elevated trains.

The great machine has its members all in order, pours out pamphlets by the million, and speakers by the thousand, keeps its lists of how everybody thinks and votes, of what men's interest

demands, and what their principles; has them tabulated, characterized, and so discharges its duties with speed, accuracy, and force to every nook and corner of its precincts. It goes everywhere, hears everything, befriends everybody, and so knits to its allegiance the doubtful, the ignorant, the independent, and comes to the polls with its millions of voters. It refuses no man's aid because he is a scoundrel-like the merchant, it takes money from rogues and honest men alike-as the church also does. Taking it for all in all, it represents the best ideas of its party and its best practical men. It has this immense advantage over the idealists who kick against it-it can get its objects accomplished, its principles carried out, while they remain like the voice of one crying in the wilderness. It can maintain itself in the struggle for existence.

But what shall a reformer or patriot do? may be asked. Why, if one is going to govern men, the first thing is to have the government. Then put in practice your views. Instead of useless efforts to smash the machine, try to improve the material it uses by disseminating among the voters the new ideas that are needed in public policy. Keep near the ranks, doing always the best that can be done, and be patient with party. Keep the machine up to its best form, and improve it as occasion offers. The man of advanced views and noble aims who

stays in his own party ranks, exhorting, pleading, insisting always on his principles, will accomplish more there than can be accomplished by the organization of any new parties or move

ments.

THE ECONOMICAL CONDITION OF MOROCCO. GUSTAV DIERCKS.

Unsere Zeit, Leipzig, November.

HE present English Premier, Lord Salisbury, in an address

Tepivered at Glasgow, on the 20th of May, 1891, expressed

the opinion that Morocco would some day cause the great Powers of Europe more concern, and create greater difficulties than the Oriental question, which has so long disquieted diplomatists and governments.

There was nothing new in this view of the distinguished English statesman; it is the view held by everyone familiar with the subject and capable of forming an opinion on it, but the open expression of this view by a man in Lord Salisbury's position stamps it with an authority which the most emphatically expressed opinions of a thousand less distinguished men could not impart to it. For years past the Morocco question has been a burning one, countless numbers have occupied themselves in attempting its solution, and a trifling circumstance may, at any moment, provoke the struggle for the possession of the coveted country. An influential party in Spain takes every opportunity to stimulate a popular sentiment for the annexation of Morocco to Spain, and to harass the Government for its want of courage to engage in the enterprise.

In France, and especially in Algiers, there are great numbers whose desire for conquest is suppressed with the greatest difficulty, and who only wait a convenient opportunity to annex at least the southeast portion, and, if possible, the whole country, and thereby realize the dream of a great North African kingdom.

Of late, too, many circumstances have tended to awaken a general interest in Morocco among the European nations, and especially in Germany, and it will not be without interest to take a glance at the existing conditions of the country.

Morocco is not a country of statistics, and if it were, the policy of the Government is opposed to affording the "unbeliever" the smallest insight into the conditions of the country. The most reliable statistics of Morocco concern its export trade, for which the figures are derived from the importers, and even these are only approximate, but they afford the only reliable figures we have for estimating the economic condition of the country.

What we do know with certainty of the country is that its

political and economic administration is opposed to the principles of all civilized countries. The condition of the country is most sorrowful, and unworthy of our age; an impression which forces itself still more strongly upon us when we contrast the Morocco of to-day with Morocco in the flourishing period when it was the chief seat of Moorish culture.

What is it, then, which renders all the Great Powers so covetous of this land, that the fear of a general war for its possession is its only protection? It is not only its geographical position which renders its possession so desirable. The Sherifate has a glorious climate and unbounded natural resources.

What the capabilities of the country are we know from Mauritanian and from Romish times when it was the granary of the world.

Why, then, it may be asked do not its present inhabitants avail themselves of its resources? To this the answer may be given in one word-bad government. Any display of wealth renders its possessor a mark for the tax gatherer, and so the Berber scratches the rich soil with a stick and gets sufficient for his subsistence; the Moors, the mixed races of the city, pursue their various hand industries and earn only a subsistence, the Arab roams with his herds from plain to plain, the Jew has the trade in his hands, and all who have money bury it in the earth. The soil brings forth its fruit with little aid from man. But everywhere one witnesses an indifference, a want of energy, a dislike of innovation, which is not inherent in the Berber race. It is only that centuries of bad government have taught them the vanity of putting forth their energies. Moreover, the country is absolutely without roads fit for traffic. The waterways might be rendered navigable, but the Government is not concerned about such matters.

Nevertheless, in spite of its low industrial condition Morocco has laid the foundations of an export trade of which the following are some of the items for 1888:

The rivers of Morocco, as well as its coast waters, are extremely rich in fish, especially of those sorts prized for delicatessen. The bee-industry is widely spread, and the export of honey is considerable; cochineal is indigenous, but its cultivation is neglected.

The mineral wealth of the country has never been explored. All attempts on the part of foreigners to open it up have been strenuously opposed, and every obstacle is placed in the way of the scientific explorer.

The industries of the country are in a low state, presenting a sad contrast with the Moorish industries of the Middle Ages. Morocco still maintains its old reputation in the leather industry, and exports annually about $200,000 worth of shoes and slippers.

At present labor is so cheap that European manufactures can hardly compete with the home-products; but the Italians have obtained permission to erect a large factory for small arms, and are exerting themselves to monopolize other branches of industry. This is the small end of the wedge which will ruin the unorganized hand-industries of the country.

This state of things cannot last long. France, England, Spain, Belgium, Italy, and Germany are all attempting to break down the opposition to European intercourse, and force their trade upon the country, and each is exerting itself to prevent any of the others from securing a preponderating influence. England, France, and Spain, too, are undoubtedly seeking to acquire political supremacy. Muley Hassan, the present Sultan, is by no means an unenlightened man. strenuously opposes all efforts to open the country to European trade, but only because he knows that to concede the European demands would be to provoke a popular uprising of his fanatic subjects.

He

SOCIOLOGICAL.

SILK DRESSES AND EIGHT HOURS' WORK. J. B. MANN.

THE

Popular Science Monthly, New York, December.

HE remark occurs in a recent editorial article in a prominent religious newspaper commending the eight-hour movement, that if all the women who want silk dresses could have work, all the silk factories in the country could be set in motion, and would furnish employment to the many thousands of people then idle; or words of that import. The proposition at first sight seems philosophical, but is it not reasoning in a circle? Having work, people will buy silks. If they buy silks, the factories will run. If the factories run, the people will have work.

When we look at the matter with care we find, sorrowfully,that the women who have no silks are the very ones who do the hardest work; and hence, as they are working clear up to the limit of human endurance to get bread, they have no time left over to put into silk dresses.

The imagining of philosophers in regard to the remedies is of small account, because want of work is not in this country one of the leading causes of poverty, as every careful observer knows. There are at least a dozen things which are more potent causes of the evil, and too much work, by which constitutions are broken and health ruined, is one of them. Is the remedy, therefore, not to be found in the eight-hour movement? I answer, No. The belief is founded upon a long experience as a mechanic, farm-laborer, employer, and observer.

In twenty years of labor in a shop, I never saw the time when I could do twelve hours' work in eight hours. I never saw the man that could do it, and I never heard of one that could do it. I never met one that said he thought it could be done for any length of time. It is a well-established fact that most men that pretend to work will have a working gait of their own, and cannot be hurried beyond that advantageously. If they are, they do poor work or break

down.

This is so obvious that any pretense that as much will be accomplished in the shorter hours in farming or physical labor of any kind borders on the ridiculous. So obvious is it, that the principal advocates of the eight-hour movement have ceased to put their case on this ground, and rely upon the other theory, that less work will be done, and consequently more work will be left to be given to the laborers seeking for something to do.

If this latter view be adopted, it follows that the eight-hour men are philanthropists, who have sacrificed, or propose to sacrifice, one-third of their possible earrings for the good of their fellow-men who have no work. This is incredible. The laborers themselves do not act from any such principle. They think that, instead of the work they could do in the four hours they have abandoned being done by the poor fellows who need help, it is not done at all, and, not being done at all, wages have risen, and thus they get twelve hours' pay for eight hours' work.

In other words, they propose to increase the wealth of the community by lessening the amount produced by the community, thinking that, with a smaller amount to be divided as wages by one-third, they can get the bigger share.

I think the most stupid are now able to see that one's ability to provide for his wants depends primarily upon his labor, and that time is the principal element in the case. He must have it and he must use it, and his prosperity, other things being equal, will be much or little as time is wisely used or neglected. The law of prosperity has not been repealed by any of the edicts of the leagues and unions. An hour lost is the loss of the product of labor that might have been per

formed in that hour, and it falls on the man who owned the hour, and not on another man or set of men.

The community is made the poorer to the same extent. It misses just the amount of wealth that the laborer has failed to produce in his idle hours. It finds on its hands a large body of men advanced in years who might now be comfortable, but are still struggling to meet the cost of increase in the style of living consequent on the increase of wealth, when they are more than one-sixth short in possible resources.

The trouble with the eight-hour plan, however, is not here so much as in the fact that so many men who cannot get a decent living on eight hours of labor are taught that they can earn as much in that time as in twelve hours, and are made to believe it, or else denounced as scabs and nobodies. The idea encouraged that labor is an evil to be shunned like vice, and that there is a way to enjoy the fruits of labor without its exercise.

That this is a remarkable age in which we live is the general belief, but of all things that go to make up this belief nothing is stranger than the fact that when all mankind were devoting their best thoughts to the discovery of ways to increase resources and add to the general and individual wealth of society, when schemes of all sorts were being devised to save time in transportation of goods, and mails, and persons, in planting corn and making hay, in pumping water and feeding cattle, in tanning leather and making whiskey, in mounting flights of stairs, and raising broods of chickens-the workingmen, as a body, should band themselves together and contrive a scheme to compel all hands to throw away absolutely onefourth of their chances to earn and lay up money, and provide for that period sure to come to all who live out the allotted years of man, when leisure will be not merely a luxury but a necessity; yet this is exactly what they have done.

Time lost is money lost to the one to whom the time belonged, whether he be rich or poor. The rich can lose some without feeling it, but the poor, alas! have none to spare. When this truth is fully appreciated by the destitute, a long stride will have been made toward the extinction of poverty.

WHY THE SOUTH WAS DEFEATED IN THE CIVIL WAR.

ALBERT BUSHNELL HART.

New England Magazine, Boston, November. ILITARY men have a saying that there comes a time in a

Mcampaign when to obtain victory it is necessary to put

into service the last officer, the last man, the last camp follower, and the last army mule; and the complete success of the North in the Civil War is due to the fact that when the final test of strength came, in 1865, the North had, at every point more of these than the South.

At the beginning of the struggle the Southern leaders, even those who best understood the fighting spirit of the North, were entirely confident of success. Jefferson Davis, in his message of July 20, 1861, declared that "to speak of subjugating such a people, so united and determined, is to speak in a language incomprehensible to them." Toward the close of 1862 Mr. Gladstone made his famous declaration-which he has lived to repent-that "Mr. Jefferson Davis has made an army, he has made a navy, and, more than that, he has made a nation." No Southerner and few foreigners believed that the North possessed a military superiority over the South. It is true that John Bright asserted the rightfulness of the principles of the North, and predicted its success: and Cairnes, in his book upon the slave-power, showed reasons that must assure our success; but most other observers, knowing that for seventy years the South had been predominant in internal parties and in foreign policy, saw no reason to believe that the South would prove inferior. It was known that the South had the smaller population, but the experience of the world seemed to

show that a people determined to resist could not be conquered by four times their number.

The secession of the Southern States and their acceptance of the issue of war was, therefore, not a foolhardy enterprise : the experience of mankind made it probable that it would succeed. Nor did the Confederacy expect to depend wholly upon its own resources. One of the first acts of its government was to send envoys to foreign Powers. The South, believed that its cotton was so essential to England and France, that they must interfere, if necessary, to assist the infant nation; and great was the jubilation when, on December 3, 1863, Pope Pius IX, addressed a letter to that illustris et honorabilis vir, Jefferson Davis, which was construed by the Confederacy as a recognition by a foreign potentate-the only recognition which it ever received.

[The author here proceeds to set forth that the early results of the war were not such as to discourage the South; arguing that the first and second battles of Bull Run, that of Pittsburgh Landing, Chickamauga, Chancellorsville, and even that of Gettysburg, in 1863, tended to give hope that the South might maintain itself in the field until dissensions in the North, foreign complications, or the intervention of foreign Powers should end the war. He says that to the last the Northern armies were fully employed, and that, in 1864, Grant lost more than the entire army of Lee, while at the end of the campaign Lee's army was intact.]

The military collapse of the Confederacy was caused by the steady, unremitting pressure of an adversary superior in forces, in resources, in morale. Nowhere in history is there an example of more undiscouraged attack or more stubborn resistance than in the Civil War.

In the resources of the soil, in variety of natural production, the South was fully equal to the North. Cotton, its great staple, was easily raised, easily handled, had considerable value in small bulk, and commanded a good cash price in the markets of the world. The crop of 1860 was 4,700,000 bales, valued at $230,000,000. With the proceeds of cotton the South was able to buy clothing, supplies, and food. One of the early acts of the Confederacy was to prohibit the exportation of cotton except from Confederate seaports, hoping thereby to bring foreign powers to interfere, The result was that a considerable part of the crop of 1860, and almost the whole of the crops of 1862-3-4, were shut in by the blockade. Great pressure was brought to bear upon the planters by the Confederate Government to induce them to plant corn. They did this largely in 1864, and a bountiful crop in Georgia ripened just in time to furnish subsistence to Sherman's army on its march to the sea. While the chief industry of the South was paralyzed for want of a market, the Northern staples, especially breadstuffs, were freely exported, and thus turned into goods and munitions of war.

By its control of the mouth of the Mississippi, the Confederacy expected to compel the friendship, if not the adhesion, of the upper Mississippi States. But the Erie canal and the four lines of trans-Alleghany railways united the West still more strongly to the East. The Northwestern States realized, aside from all moral questions involved, that the success of the Union meant that both the Eastern and the Southern highways would be open to them.

The Confederacy, at the very beginning, encountered a fatal disappointment in failing to carry with it four of the slave-holding States, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and Kentucky, and part of a fifth, West Virginia. The population of the eleven seceding States was 8,700,000; that of the twenty-one nonseceding States (from Kansas to Maine) was 21,950,000. When the secession of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri was prevented, it did not remove the war from their borders; but their strength was lost to the weaker party; if not wholly transferred to the stronger.

In wealth the South was greatly inferior to the North, and had few manufactures of any kind. Nor was the credit of the South at all comparable with that of the North. The true military reason for the collapse of the Confederacy is to be found not so much in the fearful blows struck by Thomas,

Sherman, and Grant, as in the efforts of an unseen enemy, the ships of the blockading squadron. The ports of the South were sealed, and the struggle could not be prolonged because the army could neither be fed nor supplied from the cotton bales, and the only merchantable wealth of the country went to

waste.

The bases of the white population of the two contending sections were originally the same. The great and fundamental difference between them was that in one the presence of a dependent race, and still more the existence of human slavery, had affected the social and economic life of the people; that the productive energies of the North were employed, while those of the South were dormant. The iron, coal, lumber, and grain of the North were drawn out by the intelligent combination of the labor of the whole people; while in the South they remained undeveloped because it seemed to the interest of the larger landowners to perpetuate a system of agriculture founded on African slavery. For this mistake, for this preference of a system which had been abandoned by all other nations of the Teutonic race, the South paid a fearful penalty in the Civil War. Slavery had enfeebled the defenders of slavery, and they and the institution they fought for fell together.

"M MON

SUNDAY CLOSING OF SALOONS.

THE REVEREND WILBUR F. CRAFTS.
Our Day, Boston, November.

ONDAY closing of workshops, or Sunday closing of saloons, which shall it be? One firm in England, with 7,000 employés, does not find it worth while to start its works on Monday, because so many of its employés have spent the preceding Sabbath in the open liquor-shops of England in the enjoyment of the "rational freedom" which the London Times defends. The lost Mondays cost that one firm $175,000 annually; not to mention the fifty-two days' wages lost by each of the sober workmen. This "rational freedom" seems to be rather costly to everybody except the liquor-seller. It is reported that Sunday closing in Scotland caused a decided increase in the attendance of workmen at the shops on Monday.

But the Monday work suffers from the Sunday saloons, not only in quantity but also in quality. The workman's hands are unsteady with "Monday shakings." In many cases the "holiday Sunday " is followed not only by a deep-blue Monday but by a pale-blue Tuesday. The Sunday saloons of Louisiana, by thus cutting down the week's work to four days, provoked even a French Catholic State to enact a Sabbath law a few years since. The manufacturers should labor for Sunday closing of saloons to defend their right to sober workmen on Monday, as well as the merchants to defend their right to a

fair chance at the Saturday night's wages. There are enough purely commercial reasons for Sunday closing of saloons to warrant every commercial organization in officially demanding it, as did the Real Estate Exchange of Denver in the recent victorious movement in that city. At Denver, at Los Angeles, at Cincinnati, it was urged that Sunday closing was for "the material and moral welfare of the city." When an attempt is made to boom a Western city, Sunday saloons and Sunday base-ball are not put down as attractions. The cheapest effective advertising is an Associated Press dispatch that the Sunday saloons have been suppressed.

As a sample utterance of saloon-keeprs, one of them very frankly says in the Voice: “ A saloon, if conducted aright, is just as good a place to spend Sunday in as a church. I most certainly agree with Mr. Scharmann when he advises the saloonists of Brooklyn to keep open on Sunday in spite of the law." As to a saloon being "as good as a church," if conducted aright, it might also be added that hell would be as good as heaven if conducted aright." The sooner it is understood

that to do anything "in spite of the law" is rebellion and anarchy, the better for all concerned. Anarchist Sunday Schools are reported in Chicago, but in reality every Sunday saloon in that city is such a school. Here are samples of their teaching:

[The writer states that every saloon-keeper is required by the Liquor Dealers' Association to violate the law against Sunday closing on penalty of $10 fine. Photographs of jurymen finding a saloon-keeper guilty of violation of law are displayed in saloons as a signal for boycotting. The arrest of saloonists is to be caricatured in public processions in the street. In case of a trial, saloon-keepers are to march to the police court with a band of music. Any speaker who dares condemn them is to be shot, or mobbed, or driven from town.]

A New York policeman, upon having his attention called to the liquor-selling that was openly going on near the illegal Sunday concert in Central Park, and to the fact that both were against the law, remarked: “Well, some laws are very arbittery.” What is the use of wasting money on legislators, judges, and juries when we have all combined in a cheap policeman loafing at the open door of a Sunday saloon?

Sunday closing reduces Sunday crime. Scotch statistics show that by it the liquor-sales and crime have alike been cut down one-quarter. In Minneapolis, from April to December, 1888, the last nine months of the wide-open régime, there were 720 Sunday arrests, and for the same time 1889, 408, giving a margin of 312 in favor of Sunday closing. Many believe in the Sabbath who are not yet up to prohibition. With these the Prohibitionists should join forces to secure one-fourth prohibition by Sunday closing. Let the people taste this quarter loaf-there is no license poison in it—and they will soon want the whole loaf.

HIPPOPHAGY IN FRANCE AND ON THE
CONTINENT.
CH. MOROT.

Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, London, September-
November.

PLENT

LENTY of people condemn horseflesh merely from heresay, and refuse to eat it simply because they do not know what it is like.

Madame Astié de Valsayre, in an election speech at Montmartre, said:

We make two great mistakes in France: one is that we exclude horseflesh from our tables, and the other that we exclude women absolutely from Parliament. Hippophagy and women's suffrage are two excellent things which we discountenance merely because we are not accustomed to them.

Contrary to what the audience of the fair orator may have belived, a considerable number of Frenchmen and French women have for a long time been eating horseflesh, as food which suited their palate as well as their purse. But these buyers of cheap meat are in favor of a hippophagy which is rational, and of horseflesh which is carefully inspected. They would all have quickly abandoned their favorite stalls if, instead of horses from proper slaughter-houses, they had been supplied with horses which were emaciated and cachectic. So great has been the recent increase in the number of consumers of solipeds (horses, asses, and mules), that in many places the price of horseflesh has materially risen. Hippophagy has been during recent years largely on the increase in Denmark, Sweden, and some parts of Germany. In Toulouse, where more horses are consumed in proportion to population than in any other town in France, the butchers' guild has formed itself into a kind of union against the sale of horseflesh. To judge from M. Sain-Agué, as the mouthpiece of the anti-hippophagists of Languedoc, hippophagy, generally speakng, is Scourge which threatens to ruin and completely destroy commerce, industry, and agriculture." He proposes to withdraw horseflesh from general consumption, or to impose upon it a tax like that imposed upon the products of an ordinary slaughter-house.

The statement of the Toulouse guild is preceded by rather