war as a business and the peaceful arts and trades as a mere diversion between times, can make no such showing as this. The Anglo-Saxon is apparently on the borderland of decadence. He may soon cease to be the man of peace and the model of all the world, and may come instead to figure preeminently among races as a fighter, a killer, and a mutilator of his fellow beings. It would appear as if many persons were very much adrift. They have somehow lost their bearings on the shore and are headed backward as it were. They ought to pull their intellectual faculties together and make a final effort, if such a thing is possible, to find out exactly' where they are at.""— The Telegraph (Rep.), Philadelphia. The Country Itching for War.—“Ten, fifteen, or twenty years ago it was members of the Democratic Party who were constantly bringing forward some belligerent suggestion, were twisting the British lion's tail, and indulging in other buncombe proceedings; while, as the party responsible for the government of the country and the enforcement of its foreign policy, the Republican organization and the Republican leaders could be counted upon to view all issues of this kind in a dignified and conservative manner. "It is hard to say just when the change took place, but about the first term of Mr. Cleveland a large number of swashbucklers and fire-eaters, men apparently just itching for war and praying, as it were. for a provocation, have started up in the Republican Party, and in their efforts to attract attention have out-Heroded their Democratic competitors. "The Democratic Party is now at low ebb, and yet there is not the shadow of a doubt that it would be possible for it to sweep the country next November if the present Administration simply arranged that by next May or June we should be so involved in foreign complications that a declaration of war was a national necessity. There would probably be only one Presidential election in a foreign war, for long before another four years were over the people of the country would have become heartily disgusted with themselves for having been let into such an insane act of folly. But for the time being, with the war fever at its height, with the prospect of speedy victories and a great final triumph, the people would support in an irresistible manner the Administration and the party that made itself the exponent of this assertion of so-called American rights. "It may be said that war is an altogether impossible proceed. ing, and so, indeed, it should be; but if these jingoists do not mean war, but simply loud mouthings and blusterings, they are the most despicable crowd of individuals that a nation could possess, for the man who lays his hand on the hilt, but does not dare to draw the sword, is everywhere recognized as the worst species of a coward."-The Herald (Ind.), Boston. Misrepresenting the Patriotic Revival. “There are not many Americans now who do not feel deeply that this country ought to be more manfully and honorably represented in foreign relations. It does no good to rebuke this feeling as a species of Jingoism. Level-headed men know better, and they know, too, that practically all the American people share the feeling, excepting a few who have gone daft in idolatry of President Cleveland. Americans are far from aggressive in foreign relations. They refrain from resenting injuries which almost any other nation would for honor's sake instantly resent. Consciousness of vast power makes Americans willing to pass with indifference the slights or injuries which some other nations would feel that they could not afford to ignore. "Neither is there any strong desire with the average American, for further acquisition of territory. He feels that it is a large undertaking to govern and do justice to the country as it stands. Its territory is already so extensive, its variety of climate and of material interests so great, its diversity of race and nativity presents so many difficult problems, that the average American is not hungry to have the difficulty increased. He doubts, too, whether the addition of French Canadians, many of whom are fanatical Catholics, or of mixed races in Mexico, or turbulent and tropical antagonisms in Cuba, or of Japanese and Kanaka elements in Hawaii, would on the whole make the task of governing this great nation more easy or cafe. Not blind to the advantages of this or that territory, the average American feels that the burden and risk ought in each case to be carefully weighed; and we have about territory enough already and difficulties enough to overcome, and that it is generally safe to let well alone. "That this has been the actual temper of the American people everybody knows who has understood it in the least. The people, at home or abroad who have imagined that there was any greed for territorial acquisition, or any desire to shape foreign policy in order to command larger commerce, really know nothing about the people they misrepresent. The truth is that this growing indifference to all things foreign had gone so far, had become to such an extent a chronic disease of Americans. that Clevelandism became possible. But for that disease, no Executive dishonoring the Nation as President Cleveland has done would be tolerated by a patriotic Congress or people. But it seems to be his mission to be both poison and antidote; to embody in its most repulsive form the evil spirit of indifference to national interests and honor, and thereby to rekindle the flame of patriotic feeling. For there is unmistakably far more deep feeling than there was three years ago about the treatment of Americans abroad, about the maintenance of American rights in foreign lands, about the nation's interests in Asiatic or South American or European commerce. In short, President Cleveland has succeeded in embodying so distinctly the absence of patriotic feeling and interest that he has made Americans ashamed of it.” -The Tribune (Rep.), New York. Some Causes of the Militant Wave.-"What is the occasion for all this militant insanity we do not know. Some of it is probably due to the fact that a generation has elapsed since we have had a war, and its unspeakable horrors are largely forgotten. At the same time the survivors of the war and the historians never tire of fighting the battles over again on paper, and probably an itching for military glory has been aroused. The fraternizations between the Blue and the Gray upon the battlefields of the Civil War have contributed to that effect. Ostensibly these fraternizations have been victories of peace; they show the subsidence of the animosities of the war period. But in fact all of them have been glorifications of military prowess; they have been adorations of the Man on Horseback, and they never occur without eloquent descriptions of how the Blue and the Gray would unite to thrash the Red or the White or some other foreign uniform. Perhaps the epidemic of Napoleonic literature has done something to stimulate this craving for arms. "Undoubtedly the reconstruction of the navy has done much in this direction. It is a proper thing that the United States should have a navy, and that it should be an efficient one. There is no necessary connection between a reasonable naval policy and jingoism, but unquestionably the naval officers are impatient to use their new fighting-machines, and the people have been reading about the new ships and the new guns and the new armor until they have begun to catch the infection from the naval officers. "The artificial patriotism being carefully worked up at the present time has contributed to the same end. This rage for displaying the flag in season and out of season, this remarkable fashion of hanging the flag over every schoolhouse and of giving boys military drill, and this passion for tracing one's ancestry to somebody who fought in the Revolutionary War or the War of 1812, or at least against the French and Indians, all help to create a false spirit of militarism. . . . “And, finally, some of this war talk finds its basis in commercial competition. Patriotism is a controlling passion with Americans; it does not need hot-house cultivation; it has never been deficient in a willingness to fight when there was occasion for it. To create a spirit of belligerency, and to incite hatred to for. eigners, is about the worst service an American public man or newspaper can render to the people of the United States.”—The Journal of Commerce, New York. A Regular Jingo Campaign Probable.-"The campaign of 1896, it begins to scem likely, may be waged on neither the tariff nor the currency issue, but on the question of our foreign relations. It begins to look like a regular jingo campaign, in which patriotism will be on top, and war-clouds will darken the horizon. Every generation seems to hanker after a war experience of some kind. It has been thirty years since the Civil War ended, and the fever for fighting somebody begins to rise again. . . . Therefore, prepare for war-not war on the actual field of carnage perhaps, but on the hustings pitiless and vociferous war. There is no use in talking, we must fight somebody for some reason or other. Who it shall be, or what the reason may be, is of no consequence. Italy will do, or Spain will do, or England will do for an opponent. The main point is war; with the thunder of battle ... rolling (on the stump), and the blood flowing to the horses' bridle reins (in newspaper editorials), and the clash of steel (pens) upon steel (pens) heard afar. Watch the newspapers nowadays, especially the Republican papers, and you can almost see the warcloud advancing."- The Voice (Proh.), New York. D Eminent Statesmen vs. Swashbucklers.-"That is a happy coincidence by which two such eminent Republicans as ex-Senator Edmunds and Senator Sherman have, unknown to each other but almost at the same moment, solemnly warned the American people against the dangers into which the swashbuckling jingoes would lead the country, and especially against the sometimes strongly urged policy of territorial expansion. It is safe to say that their opinions in this matter are also those of the great majority of the sober and thoughtful people of the land; and it may be hoped that the active leaders of the Republican Party, who in a little more than two years seem likely to come into full control of the National Government, are not so self-sufficient and rash as to be indifferent to the restraining advice which these two venerable leaders of the older school unite to proffer."— The Journal (Ind.), Providence. A BISHOP DOANE ON THE SALOON. STRIKING view of the liquor question, which has awakened considerable comment, was taken by Bishop Doane, of Albany, in his recent address at the Episcopal diocesan convention. Insisting on the need of taking the saloon out of politics, Bishop Doane declared himself in favor of abandoning entirely the license system and the special features of excise ! legislation and placing the traffic on the same legal basis with other forms of traffic, subject as they are to the operation of the penal code. The State, according to the Bishop, ought to leave the sale of liquor to be governed by the ordinary laws of supply and demand, and refrain from exercising "any special control over the traffic other than that which it exercises over the sale of other things." The law should prohibit drunkenness, selling liquor to minors, violation of Sunday, etc.; but apart from such restrictions of a general nature, "beer and spirits and wines are articles of commerce in the same way that bread and butter and beef are," and should be left to the operation of trade laws. Bishop Doane believes that free trade in liquor would not lead to an increase in the number of saloons, while, on the other hand, saloons would cease to be centers of political influence, as liquor dealers would no longer need to exert political influence for their protection against special legislation. These ideas have been approved in some quarters, but a number of newspapers have severely attacked the Bishop for his "revolutionary position." A few comments are given below: Not a Solution of the Sunday Question.-"Of course, these views of Bishop Doane are not novel, but it is novel that they should be adopted by a high dignitary of the church and declared so conspicuously. They will excite the more attention and provoke the more discussion because they are uttered at a time when the liquor question is about to receive the special consideration of the whole Episcopal pulpit. "Undoubtedly the liquor trade enjoys special advantages under our present excise laws. The system of license tends to the restriction of competition. It is not a trade into which every one is free to enter. A liquor dealer must obtain the special privilege of a license and consequently he enjoys peculiar protection against competition in his business. In return, he subjects himself to special legal regulations. He is under the special guardianship of the law, and hence his interest is directly concerned in the character of the law relating to him. He becomes, perforce, a politician for self-protection. Inasmuch as the law surrounds him with special restrictions, he naturally seeks to obtain compensation for them in legislation extending his special privileges. He wants his peculiar business to be particularly exempted from the operation of the law forbidding trade generally on Sunday, and in this demand he is supported by the large part of the community who want to buy his beverages on that day. Accordingly, he becomes prominent in politics, and political parties may be tempted to gain his favor by conceding his demands. "So far as the liquor dealers themselves are concerned, the Sunday question would be settled finally by Bishop Doane's plan of treatment; but the demand for Sunday beer and spirits is not satisfied by it. It is not because the saloon-keepers want to open that the opposition to the Sunday-closing law is so powerful in politics; it is because so great a part of the people want the saloons open for their own convenience. They want the saloons open so that they can satisfy their appetite for drink, not in order that the saloon-keepers may make money. But if the church takes the ground held by Bishop Doane, it will occupy a strong position from which to attack the advocates of Sunday liquor. By conceding to the liquor trade a free field during the week as a proper and legitimate trade, it will have the more reason to demand that like other business it shall be made subject to the Sunday laws."-The Sun (Dem.), New York. Against the Consensus of Civilized Opinion. "There is remarkable unanimity of opinion throughout the entire country, and, for that matter, the entire civilized world, that the liquor traffic must not be left to the law of supply and demand, the same as ordinary articles of merchandise. The area of prohibition, except on the Local-Option plan, is narrowing, rather than widening, but in all countries where a regular governmental system prevails some sort of surveillance is maintained over the sale of intoxicating drinks. Such surveillance is a part of the general constabulary policy. Everybody nows that a great deal of crime is traceable to drink. The man who goes to a lunch counter and consumes too much bread and butter and beef may do himself a more serious injury, possibly, than he would if he drank too much whisky at a bar, but gluttony, unlike drunken- | ness, is not a menace to the peace of society. The man who puts an enemy in his stomach to steal away his digestion sins against himself; the man who puts an enemy in his brains to steal away his reason and make him temporarily insane is liable to commit almost any offense on the calendar of crime. Then, again, unless a special surveillance is maintained over saloons, some of them are liable to become dens of thieves and haunts of vice. But it is not necessary to dwell on the subject. Fortunately there is no real danger that the Bishop's advice will be followed in the legislation, or unlegislation, rather, of his own or any other Statę. The Legislature of New York will soon meet at Albany, but it will not put itself under the episcopate of William Crosswell Doane."-The Inter Ocean (Rep.), Chicago. Government Interference the Cause of the Mischief.-"It is a remarkable fact that all over the world the evils of the liquor traffic are manifest in proportion to the degree to which government interferes with its freedom. The only countries in which those evils are reduced to a minimum, or entirely absent, are those in which the trade in liquor is treated precisely as trades in other merchandise. In New York city, where the liquor trade had practically seized entire control of the government and had come to wield a potent influence at the state capital, an object-lesson on the subject has been taught which the dullest mind should be able to comprehend. . . . "Is it not obvious that where government imposes special burdens or regulations upon any class of citizens, that class will seek political power with more energy than any other, make more sacrifices to secure it, and come, therefore, in course of time to be more largely represented in office than any other? Is not this the real reason why, in this country, as well as in England, liquordealer and small politician are almost synonymous terms?. "It is also apparent that the legislative interference with the liquor traffic largely increases the number of saloons. In forcing the liquor-dealer to become an always active politician, it makes the saloon a political center and a source of political power. This, in turn, gives the saloon a value extraneous to the liquor business proper, and attracts the small politician to that trade for other reasons than the mere sale of drink. Hundreds of saloons would disappear if they were deprived of the trade which comes to them because of their character of small political centers, and hundreds of saloon-keepers would go out of the business if they were deprived of the political influence which enables them to eke out the profits derived directly from the liquor trade.”—The Tribune (Rep.), Detroit. Exceptions Fatal to the Argument.-"Bishop Doane has perceived the harmfulness of the Prohibitionist idea that the only preventive of drunkenress is to be found in the removal of temptation. But he is so flagrantly inconsistent in his own rec IMPORTANT DECISION AGAINST TRUSTS. ommendations for reform that even Miss Willard's scheme will A MOVEMENT against several trusts is anticipated by the stand the test of logic better than his. . . . You can not run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. If alcoholics are subject to the laws that govern bread and beef those laws are as effective in the neighborhood of schools and churches as in other places, and are not inoperative even on the 'Lord's day.' The exceptions give away the whole case. "The trouble with Bishop Doane is that he would do away with restrictive measures as applied to the preservation of the public peace and would retain them as applied to certain institutions in which he happens to be interested. Drunkenness is largely a matter of personal deficiency, and the classifiers of our State laws had the right idea in grouping together 'lunatics, idiots, drunkards, and spendthrifts.' The idea that any one of these unfortunate classes could be removed by prohibitive laws is utterly false. But even this idea is more tenable than Bishop Doane's. ripened opinion of even the most sordidly commercial thought of the age will no longer indorse the Bishop's idea that the saloon is in the same category with the store.”—The Journal (Rep.), Chicago. The "The same argument applies to vice, and yet the good Bishop would protest most energetically against an abrogation of the prohibition placed upon immoral traffic. The change which he suggests would necessitate the recasting of the whole revenue. system, and would relieve the liquor business of burdens without conferring corresponding advantages. The big profits will continue to be a strong inducement to engage in it, and the removal of restrictions would result in a multiplication of drinking estab. lishments."— The Herald (Ind.), Baltimore. "In a general way the liquor question is a moral question, and it will in the end be settled, if at all, by moral means. Making men virtuous by enactment has never succeeded yet. Even if abolishing the license system be a dangerous experiment, the plan of promoting temperance by conferring the right to sell wine and beer only at a small fee, while the right to sell liquors is dispensed more sparingly at a large fee, is an experiment full of promise, and one that real friends of temperance do ill to oppose."-The Journal (Ind.), Providence. press as the result of a decision made by Attorney-General Hancock of New York. It is reported that the attorney-generals of four States, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Iowa, are examining the case with the view of proceeding against combinations operating in their respective jurisdictions. The decision is against the American Tobacco Company, and was rendered upon the applications of a firm for permission to bring suit against the former in the name of the people of New York, the charge being that it is an unlawful trust organized under the laws of a foreign state (New Jersey) and doing business in a way contrary to the New York statutes. The attorney-general, in granting the application, holds that any foreign corporation doing business in New York is amenable to the laws of the State equally with a domestic corporation, and that its certificate may be withdrawn upon conviction of illegality. It appears that the Tobacco Company, which is said to control ninety per cent. of the cigarette trade in the country, does not permit dealers who handle its goods to sell the brands of any other company. Referring to this restriction and the bearing upon it of the New York anti-trust law, the attorney-general says: "In my judgment, a corporation doing business in this State and having substantial control of the market ought not to be permitted to impose as a general prerequisite upon the purchasers of its commodities, whether designated as agents or not, that they shall obtain goods from no other source. The enforcement of such a condition must necessarily operate as a restraint of trade and prevent competition. The purchaser who deals in the merchandise of the corporation enforcing the restriction is prevented from selling the wares of any other manufacturer, and, on the other hand, his customers must take the goods furnished by the party exacting obedience to the demand, or go elsewhere to make their purchases. To carry out such a rule to its logical sequence would enable the wealthy corporation which has obtained a monopoly of the market to continue the monopoly and to drive out of business poorer and less fortunate competitors. The purchaser under such an arrangement and contract has really been made a party to a scheme which has a tendency to give control of a market to the vendor to the exclusion of all competitors. "I think such a method of transacting business under the circumstances disclosed is against public policy, and would not receive the approval of the courts of the State in the case of a domestic corporation. Why, then, should it be permitted in a foreign corporation? Its certificate of authority to do business in this State is granted upon the understanding that the business shall be such as may be carried on by a company incorporated under our laws, and in accordance with the laws and public policy of the State; and the foreign corporation that has filed the proper papers and received its certificate is accorded the same but no greater rights than domestic corporation." It is believed that the attorney-general will promptly bring suit to deprive the Tobacco Company of the license to do business in New York. The New York Journal of Commerce, which is persistently fighting trusts, says of the decision: "It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the decision which has been reached by Attorney-General Hancock to begin an action in the name of the people of the State against the American Tobacco Company to restrain it from doing business in New York. The methods of the tobacco company, commonly known as the Cigarette Trust, are similar to those of the other, great monopolistic combinations organized in another State and doing business in this one under a certificate granted by the Secretary of State in virtue of the comity usually recognized in the case of foreign corporations. If the tobacco company's way of doing business in New York is in contravention of the laws of the State, so is that of the American Sugar Refining Company and other more or less despotic monopolies similarly organized and conducted. On the fate of the action against the tobacco company must depend the continued existence in this State of foreign corporations that abuse the protection of its laws to effect a restraint of trade which these laws forbid. If the certificate procured by one trust from the Secretary of State be 'vacated, RADICAL views of ANOTHER CHICAGO N EW evidence in regard to the much-discussed question of the "freedom of teaching" in the University of Chicago is found by many in a significant article contributed to the official organ of the University by Prof. Albion W. Small, the head of the department of sociology to which Professor Bemis belonged prior to his recent withdrawal. The article deals with the question of social reform and takes such radical ground that to many it appears as evidence that the University could not have taken exception to the milder views expressed by Professor Bemis. "Private business is a public trust," is the proposition laid down and defended by Professor Small, while the present order is condemned by him as violative of the “primal law of mutualism." The opening paragraphs are as follows: "There is strife in every civilized country to-day between men who declare that justice demands social reorganization, and men who maintain that the present order is essentially good. Neither of these parties is wholly right or wholly wrong. To a certain extent social order is deliberately invented as the expression of men's intelligence about social needs. Until human needs become stationary and invariable it can hardly be expected that knowledge about perfect methods will quite catch up with the demand. Assertions about perfect systems of social order are meanwhile largely gratuitous. We may nevertheless look in the direction of improvement by taking account of any neglected factor in the problem of social arrangement. 'Without inquiring now what further tests are necessary, I shall point out two principles which men must learn to apply more precisely before there can be approximately stable social order. The present social system, or the reorganizations that may follow each other in its place, will be justified or condemned according to their success in providing for at least these two postulates of human association." The first principle is "the essential similarity of all human beings in capacity for happiness." Is this principle realized at present? Professor Small answers: "Few people in a democratic country venture to-day to put a different doctrine in plain words; but democratic institutions are still so crude that it is impossible to analyze the social situation, and to conclude that democratic principles, as thus far realized, exhibit the final type of society, without basing the inference in part upon tacit denial of the similarity just claimed. We are getting familiar with differences of social conditions which can be contemplated tranquilly only on the implied presumption that some of us are made from finer clay than the rest. "We accuse ourselves of no fault when we decline to provide for our domestic animals the same kind of intellectual and moral or even physical advantages which we secure for our sons and daughters. We assume that the wants and capacities of puppies and kittens are radically different from those of children, and we act accordingly. But some of us are in conditions so different from those surrounding many of our fellows that equanimity in view of the situation can be justified only by resort to a similar presumption with reference to them. "Residents in every large city know that thousands of children are growing up in their vicinity in a physical environment unfit for cattle. These thousands see nothing of the ordinary refinements of family life. They are almost entire strangers to pri mary education. They remain outside the pale of moral and religious influence and they presently recruit the army of the unemployed. They prey peacefully or violently upon the industry and the morality of the community, and sooner or later they fill the workhouse, the jail, the charity hospital, and the potter's field. "It is not this large class alone which gives ocular proof that, whatever be the creed of men or of schools or of churches ourcivilization does not believe in the essential similarity of all normal human beings in potency of happiness. Millions of earnest and honest men are to-day doing their part of the world's work as well as they can, living within their income, trying to save something for a rainy day, but absolutely without guaranty of a chance to earn a living if others should take their present place." Professor Small does not believe that the rich are growing richer and the poor poorer. The social wrongs of which he complains are of a different character. We quote again : "We are passing through a social transition in which the power of a few men to control opportunities for employment is enormous, and the liberty of many men to defy the caprice of employers is correspondingly reduced. From the standpoint of a rightthinking and of a right-feeling man such contrast is intolerable. So far as it exists in any class of cases, it means nothing else than the subversion of the freedom of the dependent parties, and their retrogression intó a unique and refined order of servitude. It is possible to consider such relationship a permanent feature of human society only on the assumption that the exercise of freedom, which is necessary to some men, is no part of the natural function of other men. "The vulnerable point in our present society is not its permission of large wealth to some of its members, but its maintenance of institutions which, in the last analysis, make some men's opportunity to work for wealth under any conditions dependent upon the arbitrary will of other men. "In so far as agitators for social changes squint toward the notion of equal reward for unequal work, or equal division of the products of industry, they seem to me covetous not only of the impossible, but of the unjust, the unreasonable, and consequently of the altogether undesirable. So long as men contend for such extravagances the real vice of our civilization will be obscured. A social system which incorporates the assumption that a portion of society may righteously monopolize the productive forces of nature, so that other men must ask the permission of the monopolists to draw on the resources of nature, practically denies to the unprivileged class not merely a rightful share of goods, but an intrinsic claim to any share at all. In other words it establishes at least two castes among men, the caste of the propertied and the caste of the pauperized." Summing up his argument on this point, Professor Small defines the social problem as being "how to socialize ourselves to such degree that, without bankrupting all, each may have a secure lien upon a minimum share of nature's endowment for satisfying common human wants." Proceeding to discuss the second fundamental principle of right society, viz., that private business, like public office, is a public trust, Professor Small says: "The fundamental assumption upon which civilized society rests is that each member of society is doing something to make the general conditions of life easier for society as a whole. If there were no such thing as society this would not be the case. If the world were divided up among a population of hermits, each home would practically be a world by itself, having nothing to do with other homes. Since the world is the home of people who have complicated dealings with each other, it has come to pass that each gets tolerated by the other in seeking his own personal ends solely upon the implied condition that each will be an agent to do some sort of work for his fellows.' " But this principle is not fully carried out in our society. Successful and arrogant individualism, says Professor Small, defies this law of mutualism and claims the right to disregard the common welfare. He continues: "The fundamental grievance of classes against other classes in modern society is that the supposed offenders are violators of this primal law of reciprocity. Criticisms of institutions or of the persons operating them resolve themselves into charges that whereas the parties in question are presumed to be useful social agencies, they are in reality using their social office for the subordination of public weal to private gain. This is at bottom the charge of the dissatisfied proletarian of all classes against employers, capitalists, corporations, trusts, monopolies, legislators and administrators. This is also in large part the implied countercharge against organized labor. The most serious count in the wage-earner's indictment of other classes is not primarily that these classes draw too much pay, but that they are not doing the work that their revenues are supposed to represent. They are exploiting their fellows instead of serving them. The question of the amount of pay which the alleged delinquents should draw, if their presumed service were actually performed, is logically a secondary consideration. The just grievance of the poor man is not so much that another man's income is a thousand, or ten thousand, or a million a year, as that either figure is more than its possessor earns. Professor Small believes that organizers, capitalists, and all men who render service are entitled to rewards corresponding to the value of their work for society, but he believes that it is senseless to make ourselves "perpetually tributary to the unborn heirs" of original benefactors. He is confident that "the time will come when men will perceive that it is as monstrous for a father to bequeath to his son a controlling interest in a factory or a railroad, as it would now appear for a President of the United States to offer his daughter the city of New York as a dowry." Professor Small says that in order to expose existing evils it is not necessary to know the whole process by which the present order may be changed into a rational and equitable one, and he concludes as follows: "It is both weak and wrong to refuse recognition of a principle on the ground that we can not foresee the method of its application. Right thought and right feeling make right action easier. The most dismal and impotent pessimism is the hopelessness that dares not admit the need of change. Adoption of the principles just cited into commanding rank in our standards of social action will assure steady approach to more worthy conditions. details of progressive adjustment must come from experiments, just as in the case of improvements in printing-presses or in dynamos." address last month. backs and a bank currency. The Secretary Carlisle's New York Speech.-At the annual dinner of the New York Chamber of Commerce last week, Secretary Carlisle delivered an address on the currency question. He repeated and elaborated the arguments advanced in his Boston He advocated the retirement of the greenToward the end, the Secretary protested against any further "vague and indefinite declarations" on the currency by the great party organizations, and hoped that there would be no more ambiguous phrases and irreconcilable clauses in platforms and public utterances. A number of newspapers criticize Mr. Carlisle for neglecting to discuss more practical questions, such as the means of replenishing the gold reserve and increasing the revenues of the Treasury. The Sun (Dem.) says: "What the Chamber of Commerce and the rest of the country wanted to hear from Mr. Carlisle was a clear and definite statement of the means, if any, whereby the Administration proposes to fill the gaping holes made in the Treasury by a tariff for bunco only. How do Mr. Cleveland and Mr. Carlisle expect to make up the deficit? What devices for raising revenue have they got in their heads? Where and how are they going to get the money to pay the expenses of the Government, economically or otherwise administered? Mr. Carlisle sedulously avoided giving any information as to the points in regard to which information is needed. His speech was as timely and filling as a last year's almanac." "We demand such an amendment of the national Constitution as shall secure to each duly qualified voter in the United States the right to cast one ballot direct for the nomination and for the election of President of the United States, and that the person so elected shall be ineligible for reelection. "We demand that the office of Vice-President be abolished. "We demand a modification of the veto power as now conferred by the Constitution on the President. "This modification shall authorize him to return with his objections to the house in which it originated any bill or resolution passed by Congress. But if after its reconsideration it shall again be passed by a majority of all the members in each House (to which the Senate and House is entitled), it shall become a law, the President's objections to the contrary notwithstanding. We demand a modification of the President's power of appointment to civil office, and that said appointees shall not be removed without cause. 'We demand that the Constitution be so amended that United States Senators shall be nominated and elected by ballot by direct vote of the duly qualified electors in each State. "We demand that Representatives in Congress shall be nominated and elected by direct ballot, in all States having two or more members, in such manner as shall secure proportional representation to the duly qualified voters in such States." The results of the adoption of such changes are stated by Mr. Ashley as follows: "Congress becomes the sole law-making power, without Presidential intervention; and to the House of Representatives, chosen by the direct vote of the people, must be submitted for official action all questions of home government and all matters touching our foreign relations with the great governments of the world. "The Committee of Ways and Means would be the official organ of the House for the preparation and presenting to it of all bills on the tariff, and for internal revenue taxation. Other ap propriate committees would be duly organized and charged with the preparation of all subjects of legislation, whether that of coining money (gold and silver) and fixing the value thereof, or of continuing or discontinuing national banks, all questions in con |