toms in hysterical patients. The Nancy school put their pretensions higher; but any one who will analyze for himself, or who will study Babinski's analysis of the Nancy reputed cases of cure, will easily satisfy himself that such claims are not valid. Moreover, for drunkenness it is, as far as my inquiries go, a disappointing failure. "If a striking effect is to be produced by an apparatus destined to affect the imagination, the faith-curer of the grotto has this advantage over the endormeur of the platform. He does not intrude his own personality, and train his patient to subject his mental ego to that of his operator.' The mesmerizer' seeks to dominate his subject; he weakens the will-power, which it is desirable to strengthen. He aims at becoming the master of a slave. I do not need to emphasize further the dangers of this practice." THE COMMON SENSE OF HYPNOTISM. In an article bearing the above title, in the New Review (London) for March, Dr. Lloyd Storr-Best seeks to remove the mystery in which he says hypnotism to the general public seems to be wrapped, and to show that its phenomena not only harmonize with the best teaching of modern physiological psychology, but are rendered by it à priori probable. He admits that some hypnotic problems are not fully explainable, but says that "unsolved problems are inseparable from, and essential to, the life of any growing science." As to the hold obtained by hypnotism in therapeutics he says: "To detail minutely its multifarious applications in modern medicine would be tedious, seeing that the mere list of those diseases in which hypnotism has been found serviceable would be wearisomely long. The greatest success has been achieved in the relief of pain, and in the treatment of so-called functional neuroses, maladies whose organic concomitant has not yet been discovered, such as neuralgia, chorea, writer's cramp, etc., while more courageous practitioners have not hesitated to employ suggestion' in the case of genuine organic disease, and have obtained results altogether unanticipated.' As to the primary condition of hypnosis-so apparently abnormal-the writer says: "The 'pabulum' of thought is sensation; without the constant rain of sensorial stimuli intellectual activity must come to an end. Once cut the mind adrift from all impulses from the outer world, and of necessity all volitional and psychical processes soon cease. In illustration of this fact Michael Foster adduces the case of a patient whose almost only communication with the external world was by means of one eye, he being blind of the other eye, deaf of both ears, and suffering from general anesthesia. The moment the sound eye was closed he fell asleep. The general mental activity varies in the direct ratio of its external stimulus. Again, we are only conscious of that to which we attend, attention being a mental state, the spontaneous or voluntary adjustment of the mind to a particular part of its environment; and this adjustment may, as its intensity grows, become fixed, and so preclude the possibility of any but the most violent sensorial stimuli unconnected with the one group, passing the threshold of consciousness, although these unfelt stimuli may yet result in appropriate actions." After illustrating this statement by many familiar examples, which we have not space to repeat, the writer proceeds "Of the myriad impulses that ceaselessly impinge upon our brain, few rise to consciousness, those only to which we spontaneously or voluntarily attend. If the attention to one idea (or group of ideas) be strained to the point of fatigue, such attention may pass altogether beyond the control of the will, the whole mind may become filled with that idea, and all sensation unconnected with it pass unperceived-in other words, a 'cramp' of the attention ensues. "II. That general consciousness varies inversely with the intensity of attention upon one idea or set of ideas. "III. That attention may be so 'strained' as to pass beyond the control of the will and to destroy the general consciousness. "IV. That attention upon one idea or group of ideas may be so great as to prevent that group being remembered in the normal mental condition. For the synthesis of hypnosis let us add one other well-known and generally admitted law. "V. That an idea tends always to generate its actuality either to sensation or action. What is meant by this is that the idea of an action or of a sensation tends to result in that action or sensation, and would inevitably do so were it unchecked, uninhibited by other ideas. That the nervous processes attending the real and ideal phenomenon differ only in strength. Once let an idea obtain undisputed possession of the mind to the exclusion of others, and it inevitably generates its actuality. "Now let us treat the hypnosis synthetically, and attempt to develop it in an imaginary patient by the application of laws which govern all mental manifestations. First, we shut off as far as possible impulses from the outer world. We place the patient in a position of rest and comfort that auditory and tactile stimuli may be as small as possible, while we minimize ocular impressions by causing him to regard fixedly a single point of light or by closing the eyes. Thought, whose very essence is the recognition of differences, is no longer stimulated by ever-varying environment, the consciousness is diminished in extent, and the attention ready to leap forward to the operator's words or actions. We attract our patient's attention, and hold it riveted by the vivid verbal development of a mental picture of sleep. As our delineation increases in vividness and emphasis his attention becomes more and more 'cramped,' introspective criticism changes to intense conviction, as one by one suggested sensations become actual, as his limbs do become heavy and numb, his eyelids weary, and his brain drowsy and confused. The more the patient is struck by the transference of suggested idea into sensation the more is his attention engrossed, and, conversely, the more concentrated his attention upon the suggested idea, the more complete and rapid the transformation of that idea into its actuality. Finally, the patient's attention passes altogether beyond the power of his will. He cannot attend to anything but the operator's words, and is consequently unconscious of everything else." The writer next considers in some detail the condition of the patient, and explains briefly the operation of post-hypnotic suggestions. Passing to the consideration of hypnosis from a physiological point of view, and its application in the treatment of disease, he says: "In the first place it is patent that by means of hypnotism we can act directly upon morbid mental conditions, being able by reiterated suggestion to create or destroy any fixed idea or habit. Thus the dipsomaniac, thoroughly hypnotized and inoculated, so to speak, with the horror of intoxicants, positively loathes the sight of alcohol, and feels no longer the terrible craving which formerly overpowered his most determined resistance. In incipient melancholia, the persistently recurring ideas of suicide may be suggested' away. The hypnotist can directly 'minister to a mind diseased,' and break habits injurious to health. "In the case of the hypnotized patient we are enabled to turn the whole of the attention to any part of the body and bind it fast by creating there, through suggestion, a continuous sensation, of which the inevitable result will be an increased flow of blood through the arteries supplying that part. " 'In conclusion, does it not seem, in the light of these facts, that we should be able by means of hypnotic treatment to modify morbid processes, arrest structural degeneration, and awaken to more vigorous life the diseased part by improving its nutrition through an augmentation of its blood supply." *In a note the writer tells of the treatment hypnotically for enlarged glands of the neck. "The morbid condition was chronic, and had been. stationary for many years, obstinately resisting every variety of medical treatment. Cure was effected (two years ago), and I am assured by the patient that no relapse has occurred. It was impossi ble to attribute the result to a fortuitous coincidence, for on several occasions when hypnotic treatment was interrupted for a day or two an aggravation of the condition ensued." Among the forms which the movement assumes is one for the protection of women employed in factories. During the last few years laws intended for such protection have been psssed by the legislative power of several States of Europe. The measures enacted by these States consist in limiting the hours of work and forbidding work at night, as well as during a period of some weeks before and after childbirth. These are protective measures which have their good side, but are not without grave inconveniences, even for those who are the object of their care. In this way the quantity of work which a woman is allowed to do has been effectively diminished. By these Acts, however, the women who have been affected by the law have been placed artificially in a condition of manifest inferiority in the struggle for existence. It would appear that the State owes them, as a matter of justice, a pecuniary compensation proportionate to the diminution of work they are compelled to accept. To condemn to rest, for some weeks, a woman who is about to become a mother, or who has given birth to a child, is very well. If, however, this woman is allowed to die of hunger during those weeks, it can hardly be said that the protection proposed by the law has been secured. Moreover, protection, good or bad, is accorded to but a relatively small class of women; those who are employed in factories. As to isolated women and domestics, no one has yet taken any trouble about them. Ought not these, as a matter of consistency, to be protected by the law? Is it admissible, for example, that under pretext of respect for the "liberty of contracts" a house-servant should be kept at work, day after day, fifteen or sixteen hours out of the twenty-four; that she should be lodged in a room sometimes unhealthy, but a few steps from comfortable apartments reserved for the family of which she is considered a part; and that, if she fall ill as a result of the life she has to lead, she may be dismissed without indemnity? There is in this an inadmissible profit-making out of human labor, which, say what you may, should not be put on a par with simple merchandise. The situation of numerous girls in shops and as apprentices is often worse than that of domestics. Here, also, the law ought to interfere in order to reëstablish an equilibrium between the two sides of the scales, into one of which the power resulting from money has thrown its sword. If we had space to make a special study of woman's rights from an economic point of view, we should have to speak of many other things, notably, of the question of wages. On this subject let us only recall the principle: "For equal work, equal wages." Do the actual facts correspond with this principle? Ask the many women who toil from morning to night and who, for work identical with that of man, have to be content with one-half the wages received by the latter. It is the business of the State to set a good example, in this respect, by paying its servants and functionaries equal wages, without regard to sex, a principle which is that of equity itself. If women cannot do as much work as men and cannot do it as well, then, of course the principle does not apply. It is not for this reason, however, as everyone will admit, that women are not paid as much as men. It is solely because they are women. If the latter cannot stand competition with men, in such or such a career and prove decidedly inferior, then women will themselves give up the idea of taking part in such a career. They should be allowed, however, a fair chance to show what they can do, a chance which they have very rarely had. Before you can decide whether they can compete favorably with men in certain careers, you must give women the same training and preparation as men. To provide higher studies for women is well. Yet, to create and develop professional schools for women destined for trades more or less manual, and to regulate an apprenticeship which will supplement these schools, is a matter more urgent still. "When a river captain proposes to float his steamer down an unknown river, he does not ecstatically dance about, and say 'I will float her whether there is water or not; God will float her. She will float in some way.' He knows very well that he cannot float this craft unless there is sufficient depth and width of water; so, the first inquiry he makes is as to the amount of water, the current, and the draft of his vessel." I most certainly agree with Mr. Brown, but he makes the mistake in assuming that Prohibitionists have not made these inquiries. They have made explorations, and have found that the question has sufficient depth and width; that the political stream upon which they now ride is the proper route-the water of great depth; that the moral tide will assist in bearing them on; and that the great draft made by the liquor-traffic upon the finances of the country will help to carry them through. A thing that is morally, politically, and financially right, is almost certain to succeed in the end. That the Prohibition principle is morally right there can be no doubt. That it is financially right I proceed to show. Mr. Brown states that there is annually expended for liquor in this country $900,000,000. This was a true statement three or four years ago; but this amount is increasing at the alarming rate of almost $100,000,000 per annum. In 1891 it had increased to $1,200,000,000. To show how Prohibitionists figure this amount, I use some statistics for the year ending June, 1891, based chiefly on the Internal Revenue Report for that year: Total expenditure for liquors in the United States for 1891 Spent for same purpose in 1890.... Increase in the traffic for one year.... REVENUES FROM THE TRAFFIC. Total of revenue received from the United States and the various States in license, etc. Amount for industrial, artistical, mechanical, and medicinal purposes. Total POSSIBLE GOOD derived from the liquor-traffic. Subtract this amount from the total expenditure for liquor, and there is left..... $1,133,433,246 1,040,452,773 $92,980,473 $153,173,093 114,229,655 $267,402,748 $866,030,498 This last amount is what we actually waste every year by allowing the liquor traffic to exist. Take notice that no account has been taken of the cost to prosecute and support criminals or to support paupers caused by the traffic, or to pay the value of the 100,000 lives destroyed by it each year. The amount of money uselessly spent for liquors in the United States would pay all the expenses of the Government, all the collections made on account of tariff, and for all property destroyed by fire, and leave the nice little sum of $77,811,525 for "pin-money." Is it not, then, a financial question? It is almost four times greater than the great Tariff Question. I will show that it is especially a political question. Mr. Brown says: "The day is past when one man or a few men, assuming to themselves a divine superiority over all other men, can say that a principle is right, and must be law." Why men will insist that the success of Prohibition will result in a small minority ruling a large majority is a thing The Prohibi which I have never been able to understand. tionists are making a plain, open fight, and the only way in which the party can obtain control of this Government is to get more votes than any other party. According to Mr. Brown's statement in regard to the number of votes required to pass an amendment to the Federal Constitution, it cannot be properly said that the success of the Prohibition Party would result in the minority governing the majority, for he states that it not only requires a majority in the United States but a majority in three-fourths of all the States. He says: Slavery was local; it was confined to a minority of the States south of Mason and Dixon's line. The liquor-traffic is not local; like the grip-it is everywhere." The sentiment in the States where it existed was overwhelmingly in favor of it; but the United States Government said that it must cease, and it has ceased. If a local question, such as slavery, could be made a question of national politics, then why may we not make a national political question out of the liquor-traffic which exists throughout our whole country? This is one of the main elements which go to make the liquor-question a political one. The meaning of the word "political" is "affecting the whole body politic." Mr. Brown shows that the liquor-traffic has been increasing enormously "in spite of the most wonderful condemnation and opposition." He shows that moral suasion is an absolute failure; that Local Option is worse than nothing; that a State Amendment is of practically the same value as Local Option. Admitting that he is absolutely correct, what shall we do about it? Mr. Brown answers this question : "Just as long as society continues to regard the drinking of intoxicating liquors as respectable, I am in favor of a strong, clean excise-system, that makes the business pay into the treasury just as large a sum of money as possible, and, at the same time, controls and limits the traffic as much as possible." The great argument generally used in favor of High License is that it makes the business respectable. The Prohibitionist answers: If the traffic has grown to such enormous proportions "in spite of the wonderful condemnation and opposition," what will become of the country if these cease? Strange to say, the article referred to has not touched the radical idea of Prohibition-which is the suppression of the manufacture, as well as the sale, of liquor. I have yet to see the first case cited where a distillery or brewery has been run in full blast in a Prohibition State. A man may carry a small saloon in his pocket or his boot-leg, but a distillery or brewery is not so portable. Illicit distilleries are always in the mountain fastnesses, not in the cities or towns. High License is like pruning a tree; Moral Suasion is like killing it by plucking off its leaves; Local Option trims off a few branches; State Amendments cut off some of the larger limbs; but dig the tree up by the roots-that kills it, and that is National Prohibition. Prohibition in Kansas.-The curse and bane of frontier life is drunkenness. The literature of the mining-camp, the crossroads, and the cattle-ranch reeks with whiskey. In every new settlement the saloon precedes the school-house and the church, is the rendezvous of ruffians, the harbor of criminals, the recruiting-station of the murderer, the gambler, the harlot, and the thief; a perpetual menace to social order, intelligence, and morality. Agitation against the evils of intemperance was contemporary with the political organization of the Territory. The founders of Topeka and Lawrence forbade the sale of intoxicating beverages within their corporate limits, and the debate continued until 1881, when a Constitutional Amendment was adopted for ever prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors, except for medicinal, mechanical, and scientific purposes. This was enforced by appropriate legislation, and the validity of the Amendment and the Statutes was sustained by the Supreme Courts of the State and of the Nation. After futile and costly resistance, the dram-shoptraffic has disappeared from the State. Surreptitious sales continue, club-drinking and "joints" are not unknown, but the saloon has vanished, and the law has been better enforced than similar legislation elsewhere. In the larger towns prohibition is not so strictly observed as in the rural districts, where public opinion is more rigid; but in all localities the beneficent results are apparent in the diminution of crime, poverty, and disorder. Banned by law, the occupation is stigmatized, and becomes disreputable. If the offender avoids punishment, he does not escape contempt. Drinking being in secret, temptation is diminished, the weak are protected from their infirmities, and the young from their appetites and passions.-John Fames Ingalls, in Harper's Magazine, April. FRANCE AND THE EFFECTS OF THE PANAMA SCANDAL. BY A DANISH DIPLOMAT. Translated and Condensed for THE LITERARY DIGEST from a Paper in Tilskueren, Copenhagen, February. THE HE facts are these, that some of France's most prominent men have accepted bribes. What will the effects be? In France, the unexpected always happens. Many have, therefore, long ago believed that a sudden overturning of the Government would take place. I do not think that Socialism has any prospects in France. The five million owners of large estates can prevent that and the majority of Frenchmen are too philistine" and conservative to suffer a socialistic régime to last. On the other hand, I do not think the Royalists and the Right have any prospects. For the present, the Republic will stand. It is an elastic form of Government which will stand many abuses. There is a decided danger in the inroads the present Government makes upon the public life of the people. Few know what "liberty" is. Still, the people are not ready for a prince. The power will probably shift to a new Centre party, with strong leanings to the Left. Carnot will serve out his time and arrange for the new elections with a general for chief. The Right Centre will probably also develop to a strong party, somewhat like an English Conservative majority in Parliament. tem. It cannot be denied that the political situation at the present moment is very characteristic of France and her political sysA couple of years ago I asked Naquet, the Senator and originator of France's divorce laws, how it was possible that he could become a Boulangist. He explained France's misery by pointing to the Chambers. A few days after I visited the Chambers and understood the situation. I had seen the Chambers in 1863, during the Empire. The Duc de Morny presided in the Senate and Schneider in the legislative body. I do not say that I saw the cream of France's intelligence, but, nevertheless, the men before me had social standing. I saw the Chambers again in 1877 from the diplomat's loge. It was an assembly of France's most important men. But now! Now the Chambers are largely composed of men whom Gambetta called ces sous-vétérinaires," not even real veterinary doctors, but "small frys," men without any avocation or professional practice. A man named Jamais spoke, and was congratulated by his friends; but what ignorance! Decadence, and nothing but decadence, did I see. I spoke lately to a wellknown French author about France's politics, and uttered my surprise over France's impotence at home and abroad, her childish relations to England and the foolish Russian Alliance. His reply was: “Nous sommes une nation d'épiciers." "We are a nation of small tradesmen " (grocers). And this strikes at the root of the troubles in France. France is evidently not fit for self-government. FINLAND'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. E. SCHYBERGSON. Translated and Condensed for THE LITERARY DIGEST from a Paper in Finsk Tidskrift, Helsingfors, January. HE Russian and Finnish authorities differ on the subject THE of the basis for Finland's constitutional rights. On the one side it is maintained that Finland's union with Russia dates from the Borgo Landtdag, convened in March, 1809; Alexander I. convoked this Diet, and issued a manifesto undertaking to preserve the religion, laws, and liberties of the country. On the other side, the Russians say that Finland's political relation to Russia rests upon the conquest of the country and the conclusion of peace at Frederikshamn, September, 1809, when Sweden surrendered Finland to Russia. Lately, Professor Hermanson has reopened the discussion and taken a stand contrary to these two opinions. He does not see any treaty in the Borgo Acts; to him they do not represent treaties between Finland and Russia in the technical sense of the term. A treaty can only be concluded between two States, and the Finnish people could not conclude any treaty through the Borgo Diet for they were at that time still subject to Sweden. It was for Sweden, if for any, to conclude such a treaty. Professor Hermanson does not, however, deny the validity of the acts of the Diet. He holds that the Treaty of Peace concluded at Frederikshamn, Sept. 5th, 1809, was a treaty of international signification and that Russia can rest her claims upon it and on the strength of it refuse the interference of any other Power in Finland's affairs. Russian authors have always endeavored to minimize the importance of the Borgo manifesto. In it the Emperor recognized Finland's form of internal government of 1772, and the "Act of Safety" of 1789, which determines the interrelationship of the ruler and the people. These Russian endeavors ought now to cease. Danielson has published a collection of Russian documents, all secret imperial instructions to Finland's Governor, dated Sept. 14, 1810, in which it is explicitly stated that it was the Emperor's will that 'not only civil, but political laws (of Finland) shall be preserved." And it is international law that no monarch can recall his word or that of his predecessors. Professor Hermanson holds that Finland is a State, yet not a sovereign State, viz., not autonomous. The difference between a State and a State not sovereign is this, that the latter, though governing itself, cannot change its Constitution without the consent of the State with which it is in union. Russia is the supreme Power, though Finland controls its own internal administration. Finland cannot claim any right to influence Russia's foreign policy or its military organization. Russia can keep an army in Finland, yet it is in no way subject to Finnish law or authority; persons connected with such an army are subject to Russian courts. But because Russian troops may be quartered in Finland, they cannot, therefore, exercise any authority over the people of the country. Finland's union with Russia differs from that of vassal States in this, that the Emperor of Russia is Grand Duke of Finland. Professor Hermanson argues against the term "personal union" by saying that Finland is coördinated in the union and not "personally" united. Against the idea of incorporation he maintains a “unio realis inæqualis." THE HAWAIIAN ANNEXATION. JAMES O'MEARA. Condensed for THE LITERARY DIGEST from a Paper in HE first endeavor for the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States was made in 1854, the second year of President Pierce's administration. The project was vehemently opposed by the English residents, who were formidable in numbers and influence, and by nearly all the American merchants and others interested in whaling. The American missionaries held quite complete control of the native population, generally directing the industries of the Islands, and fixing the wages of labor. Annexation would much impair their influence, destroy their power, and reduce their revenue. Accordingly the whole missionary alliance opposed it. The British and French Consul-Generals strenuously attacked annexation, on national and general grounds. During the years, since 1854, the conditions of Hawaii have undergone material changes. Likewise have affairs in the United States and the European Powers. California, Oregon, and the whole Pacific Coast have been more and deeply interested in the progress and prosperity of the Islands. In 1854, the total population of 80,000 was composed of 70,000 Kanakas and 10,000 foreigners, the latter were chiefly Americans and subjects of Great Britain. The native population now is less than 35,000, and the aggregate is not above 80,000 inhabitants. Since 1854, the whaling-industry has been transferred quite exclusively to San Francisco. The missionary influence has been supplanted in the interest of the local trade, the sugar-production, and greatly increased commerce. This time, the proposition for annexation is made by the people of the Islands. Manifest destiny impels the people of the Hawaiian Islands-they simply anticipate the inevitable. The United States must possess or control the Hawaiian group and the near islands of the continent. The established doctrine of President Monroe, promulgated in 1823, is the ordination of the immediate situation. The Islands shall never become owned by, or tributary to, any nation of Europe; only the United States shall exercise such domination. Sufficient unto the day is the ripening of the fruit and the gathering thereof. Why the Hawaiians Favor Annexation.-Since the United States placed sugar on the free list in 1891, the Hawaiian Islands have had no advantage in our markets over other sugar-producing countries. As a result they have experienced a severe depression in business and a sharp decline in values. Many of the plantations which had been opened have proved unprofitable, since they were forced to compete with those of the Philippine Islands. Some have been abandoned, and a multitude of laborers are now out of work. For this deplorable state of affairs the Hawaiians naturally sought a remedy. They had once gained admission within the wall of Protection which the United States builds about itself. But now the part of the wall which protects sugar has been thrown down. Instead of protection, the United States now gives a bounty to its sugarproducers. Again, the Hawaiians seek for themselves the privilege possessed by the sugar-producers of the United States: they want to be annexed, so that they can draw the sugar-bounty. It may be that we ought to annex the Hawaiian Islands for political or diplomatic reasons, But let us first count the cost.-Frederic R. Clow, in Journal of Political Economy, March. PRIOR SOCIOLOGICAL. THE ORGANIZATION OF LABOR. Chautauquan, Meadville (Pa.), April. RIOR to the Civil War but little friction occurred between the employer and the employé in the United States. Hand-labor was the chief factor in production, and in its operation employer and employed often struggled on side by side. That condition of affairs, no doubt, gave rise to the impression that "the interests of capital and labor were identical." The employer understood the feelings and aspirations of "his men," for he mingled with them, and was not prevented by a false pride, or the fear of being ostracized by society, from placing himself upon the same level with them in arranging the details of workshop-discipline. The workman, on the other hand, knowing more of his employer's difficulties than he does to-day was willing to coöperate to render the approaches to prosperity easier for the man for whom he worked. The ending of the Civil War changed the whole conditions of industry in the United States. Hand-labor began to disappear, and the machine began to usurp the place of the man. Skill in the workman moved backward, for swift-moving belts and wheels, and corporations of immense proportions, took the place of the old-time employer. In those days and down to 1876, the trade-union was the only form of organization among working men, and only skilled mechanics belonged to it. There was nothing broad or liberal in its spirit; the only things the trades-unionist strove for were more pay and shorter hours. Labor is now organized in many different associations in the United States. That a bond of sympathy exits between them all is true, but the greater part of the industrialists of the Nation look beyond the trade-union for relief from the system which makes it impossible for the trade-unionist permanently to improve his condition by increasing his wages or shortening his hours of labor. In the United States the workman pays one-third more of his earnings for rent than the workman of Europe, but the causes which produce this result are never inquired into by the trade-unions. If wages are increased ten per cent. an increase of ten per cent. in house-rent immediately follows, and so, too, in the price of provisions. The cost of living keeps even pace with increase of wages. The interests of labor and capital are in no way identical under the present system; they are identical only in respect that each is trying to make the most money possible at the expense of the other. The trade-union will never solve the labor question. Many years ago the progressive members of the trade-unions realized this fact, and organized the institution of the Knights of Labor. Coöperation is the basis of the organization. The efforts to give effect to the system have been attended with many disappointments, and to-day the settled conviction among the members is that distributive coöperation can never be successful so long as the avenues of transportation-the railroads are in the hands of private individuals or corporations. All efforts in this direction have been unsuccessful, first for lack of business training, and, secondly, by reason of the opposition of great combinations of capital which crushed every effort at competition. Prison contract-labor is objected to by working-men, not that they would have the convict remain in idleness, but by reason of the unfair advantage which the contractor obtains over rivals and over honest labor. If the system were changed so that a fair price will be paid for the labor of the convict, and all earnings above the cost of maintenance turned over to his family, or set aside for him when liberated, there would be fewer criminals and more reformed convicts than at present. The price paid for the labor of women is lower, in many instances by half, than that paid to men; and with machinery so delicately arranged that the fingers of woman can manage it with ease, the necessity for strength is daily disappearing. The cheapest and most skillful labor is sought for, and, of course, woman-labor is vastly on the increase. The Knights of Labor demanded “equal pay for equal work" until the convention of 1890, when they changed the demand to read, "equal rights for both sexes." This not only contemplates the right to vote, but all other rights now enjoyed by men. The membership of the Knights of Labor is two hundred and fifty thousand. Their motto, " That is the most perfect government in which an injury to one is the concern of all," has a meaning which extends far beyond the limits of the organization. The organization excludes from its ranks all lawyers, bankers, liquor-makers or sellers, gamblers, and professional politicians, but admits all who follow useful callings in life. The Farmers' Alliance, with a membership of about fifteen hundred thousand in the various branches, works upon a platform which is almost identical with that of the Knights of Labor. In the declaration in favor of land-taxation, the Farmers' Alliance is not so radical as the Knights of Labor, but as the members of the various industrial organizations mingle with each other, they will understand that their interests are identical; but to make the connection between the urban and agricultural workmen perfect, the railroads and telegraph-lines must be owned by, and operated in the interest of, all the people. The various organizations of railway men number two hundred thousand. The era of strikes is passing away, and the organized working-men are inquiring into the causes of industrial depression for the purpose of applying the remedy to the root of the evil. M° MOLOCH IN ENGLAND, Westminster Review, London, March. ́OLOCH in North Africa and along the shores of the Mediterranean was the representative of a cult that produced much that was noble, much that appealed to the finer instincts of our nature. Moloch in England has nothing of his former nature, except, indeed, his cruelty; and his rites, as performed here, are devoid of tone and color. Our Moloch is associated essentially with the worst side of our nature; unconnected with anything of the æsthetic or beautiful, his cult embraces all that is most low and commonplace. His attributes are murder, deception, and sordid greed. He continually exacts his percentage of childlife, as his detestable presence fills the land, while, strange to say, his real power and nature are by most of us unrecognized and unknown. In short, throughout the country of cathedrals and churches, with a highly-paid hierarchy represented in the Legislature, in a land of Bible-teaching and Sunday-schools, amongst a thoughtful, prayer-loving people, or who, at all events, claim to be such, where life and property are supposed to be fenced round with the most elaborate safeguards, it is nevertheless a certain fact that Moloch stalks almost unchecked. A fertile cause of infant mortality, and of long-protracted suffering, is due to the system known as baby-farming, the sufferers being unwanted children, those of poor parents, but perhaps oftenest those who are illegitimate. Two parties appear distinctly as criminals in the above system, the procurer, who advertises for children "for adoption," and who appears to get from £5 to £200 with each child, and the babyfarmer, to whom they are passed on for a smaller sum, or with a stipulation for weekly payments, with a clear understanding on both sides that the children will not last long. There are subjects so intrinsically repulsive, that one would like to draw a veil over them. The details of baby |