The Chicago Ice Pool, which lately advanced prices on ice to the dismay of butchers, icecream manufacturers, etc., has suffered from the treachery of its own members. It has been discovered that certain butchers, contracting for ice at thirty-five cents per hundredweight, received fifty pounds free. Investigation disclosed many other cases of similar reductions, and the members of the pool are divided against themselves with a fair prospect of early dissolution.

Secretary Windom has sent to the Collector of Customs at St. Paul an order to the effect that the practice of sending sealed packages through from a point in the United States to other points on the Pacific coast over a railway which terminates on foreign territory, i. e., the Canadian Pacific, must be discontinued. This is a palpable hit at opium smugglers, the indications being that this is a favorite method of crossing the line.

The recent exposure of the conduct and methods of the Board of Aldermen of New York City, has inspired some person of more faith than sense, to suggest that the name of this illustrious body be changed to Council. Changing the names of things has not often proved very efficacious in changing their nature; but I suppose New York may renew the attempt if she likes. But before building many hopes on the success of this process, she may profitably recall the experience of the colony of Rhode Island, and of France, with their issues of paper money.

The little colony of Rhode Island began its experiment with paper money in 1710. After that she made successive issues at irregular intervals, averaging however about two "Banks" to the decade, until 1743, when the eighth bank was floated, of the nominal value of £40,000. This, with the outstanding notes of previous banks, enriched the colony to the extent of £210,000. These notes perversely, but successively and persistently, depreciated and refused to circulate at par, although issued for the patriotic purpose of "encouraging manufactures and the growth of flax"-(is Mr. Stanford listening)? As often as the notes fell due there was trouble-and a new bank. The money was in constant disrepute; although some issues kept a better name than others. In 1741 they were divided into two classes, Old and New Tenor. Both lots were made by the same authority-the colonial Assembly, issued origi

nally with the same promises, and surrounded by the same securities. Nevertheless the New Tenors were worth four and a half times as much as the Old. The people had begun to lose faith in the whole scheme, when, in 1751, the Assembly decided to issue the ninth bank, the notes of which were to be equal to about two of New Tenors, and about nine of Old. But objections were raised; some members were distrustful. They were triumphantly silenced by being assured that the new notes should be printed from immaculate plates! In 1769 the notes had fallen to one fourth-perhaps because the plates had become old in the meanwhile.

In France, the Assignats were first issued in 1789. The next installment came in 1790, then in '94, '95, and so on till February 1796. The Assignats behaved very badly indeed-just like the New York Aldermen. And the longer they lived, the worse became their character,or shall we say their reputation, for character they seem to have had none? Thus in April, 1795, it took 238 livres in Assignats to buy 24 livres in gold. In August of the same year it needed 807 livres in Assignats to buy 24 in gold, in October 1,205, in November 2,588, in January of 1796, 4,658, and in February 5,337. As the people were then giving 222 for 1, it may be said without exaggeration that they had lost faith in Assignats. It may be said that the people did not want any more Assignats; realizing this fact, therefore, when it was no longer possible to ignore it, the Government resolved. . what did the Government resolve? To issue Territorial Mandates-(I trust Mr. Stanford is not by). This was in February. In June Territorial Mandates could be exchanged for gold occasionally, -at 1,000 to 1.

But I fear that it will be more difficult to get rid of a Board of Aldermen than of Assignats, Mandats and Tenors all combined.

The Illinois Woman's Alliance is one of the most original associations in the country. The Alliance held a meeting in Chicago, on February 8th, at which cigarette smoking in general, and the indulgence of youths in that vice in particular, was emphatically condemned. But -mirabile dictu!-the Alliance adjourned without calling on the Legislature to prohibit the sale of cigarettes, or to interfere with their use in any way. In fact, it appears that the Legislature was not appealed to at all. The women merely sent a protest to the cigarette manufacturers, begging them to quit selling to dealers who persisted in supplying boys. Something must surely be out of joint if the time has

come when American citizens can meet together with a practical end in view without proposing to accomplish the end by means of legislation.

66

A dispatch from Baltimore, on the same day, announces the introduction in the Maryland Legislature of a new bill, as a substitute for several others having the same object," to suppress cigarette smoking. These bills were drafted at the instigation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

The women of the Alliance deserve, and have, our sincere congratulations for their independent and enlightened course.

The New York Senate passed the Linson Bill, which prohibits the smoking of cigarettes by children under sixteen years of age.

The now chronic efforts of legislatures to pre- . vent children from smoking cigarettes may be viewed in a variety of lights. The sterner moralist, if he shares the general faith in the efficacy of legislation to reform the world, cannot help suffering from a more or less acute sense of disproportion. He will naturally wonder why, when the habits of children need reform in so many respects, this particular vice should be dealt with singly. Even those most disturbed by the sight-or is it by the odor?— of cigarettes, will admit that the act of smoking them belongs in the category of minor morals. And if the effect upon the health of the adolescent is considered, it must still be admitted that many other habits are much more injurious, and yet are neglected by the legislatures. So the sterner moralist will not fail to condemn the heedlessness of legislators in attending to matters of such secondary importance to health and morality, when the whole vast field of juvenile conduct stretches unfenced about them.

On the other hand, one who happens to be a little versed in the history of similar legislation, may explain the present attitude of our legislatures by reference to the fact that nearly every department of conduct has been tried first and last, but have all proved recalcitrant to legislative control. Cigarette smoking being a habit of recent growth in this country, is a species of conduct which legislatures have not yet tried to regulate, and therefore have not yet failed to regulate; hence it offers a fair field for a new experiment at regulation. The criticism that it is narrow-minded and foolish on the part of the legislatures to restrict their beneficent interference to the special act of smoking cigarettes, when it is well known that youths under sixteen indulge in worse pastimes, is most unjust; for the legislatures have tried every other regulation they could think of, so nothing was left them to try but smoking.

Or, again, if one happens to have a distrust of every scheme for transferring the control of the minds and morals of children from the care of parents to the care of legislators, he will regard this and all other pseudo-parental acts as absurd, inadequate, foolish, and injurious.

The conception of extending the range of government interference with the banking business may not be startlingly original, but as embodied in the bill introduced by Mr. Ingall's the scheme does not lack attractive features. Already the interference with the natural course of the business is so considerable, that the establishment of a cabinet department of banking would be only a short step. There is certainly no reason why the Government should not be banker and broker, which is not at the same time equally good against the Government's being lettercarrier.

The idea is for the Government to loan money to citizens in need of pecuniary assistance, on such security as they may be able to offer, the interest (rate not stated) to be paid the 31st of December; and in default of payment of interest, the security to be sold, and the loan to be paid from the proceeds. The excess over the loan "if any," is to be returned to the borrower. What is to be done with the deficit, "if any," does not appear, but it might be well to levy a tax on all incomes of $5,000 or over, to take care of this possibility.

It is provided in another section of the bill, that the capital necessary to conduct this business shall be furnished by the Treasurer, in a special issue of money, "printed by hand on silkthreaded paper, by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing," which shall be a legal tender for all debts and dues within the United States. The denominations of this issue are to consist of "one, two, three, and five mills, one, two, three, and five cents," and so on, in dimes, dollars, eagles, and condos ($100), ending with one, two, three, and five talents ($1,000). This last denomination gives the bill a spiritual flavor, which should alone commend it to the votes of all good men. This avuncular care of the poor on the part of the Government is a noble thing, and we would suggest as candidates for the chief secretary and his four assistants, Mr. Solomon Levi and his four sous. The headquarters are to be in Washington, and every post-office is to be a branch; and as a distinguishing mark of the department and its branches, there might be placed over the doors neat insignia, composed of one, two, three, and five gilt balls, according to the class of the post-office.

It appears that the friends of the World's Fair base their expectations of success and their estimates of the scale and general magnitude of their intended exploit, very much ou what has been accomplished in Paris on two recent occasions. There is reason for fearing that they may be altogether too sanguine. Thus, they speak of fifty countries having been represented in Paris, and they regard that number as the least which may be expected to respond to the invitation to appear in Chicago in 1892. It seems that the Argentine Republic appropriated $1,000,000 for its exposition in Paris, and Mexico spent $1,200,000 for the same purpose. But what these countries could hope to gain from an exhibition in Chicago, is far from evident.

In the first place, both these and other American States set great store by immigration, and may stand some chance of benefiting in this respect by attracting attention at a European exposition. Next to immigration, investments of foreign capital are the object of South American solicitude, and here again it is European capital which they hope to attract.

In the second place, it is difficult to see how even their foreign trade can be greatly improved by exhibiting at Chicago. Europe is the market where they both buy and sell, and it does not seem probable that the United States can hold out any prospects to them for either of these purposes. A prohibitory tariff on many articles, and a sufficiently high rate to be a severe handicap on almost all articles of South American export, does not seem devised to encourage international trade. A ten per cent custom on hides is certainly not adapted to encouraging the Argentine Republic to send samples of their products of this kind in the hope of inducing us to deal with them. If this country should spend $100,000 instead of $1,000,000 for its exhibit at Chicago, it would be a rather wasteful investment at that. And if lead ores are to be classified and rated as silver for the supposed benefit of Colorado, the less Mexicans spend for shipping their ores to Chicago, the better for them.

The least South Americans could be expected to do, would be to consider the relative importance to them of the United States and Europe as markets for their own goods. What it is proposed to have-and, it may be added, the only thing Chicago can get-is a great industrial exhibition. According to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, the proportion of South American exports which comes to this country is only thirty-six per cent of the whole. So the most these countries could be expected to spend at Chicago would only be a

half of what they spent at Paris-if trade were the sole, or even the chief consideration. But seeing that immigration and foreign capital are with them more important considerations than with us, even, they may be expected to spend not more than a fifth as much at Chicago as at Paris.

It is reported on good authority that the removals from office by the President in the first year of his administration have reached the grand total of 35,800. This is exactly 800 more than there would be offices to fill if the Post-office were abolished. Think of that! If the Postoffice were subtracted from the Government, the number of the "places" to be changed every four years would be reduced at one blow from 114,000 to 35,000. This is the secret of Civil Service reform. The grand scramble is for the post-offices; 79,000 of these are the spoils of quadrennial victory. Yet at this moment a committee of Congress is sitting in Washington to consider the proposition to add the telegraph offices to the list. The Western Union has over 17,000 offices, and probably 25,000 employees-17,000 centres of political corruption, 25,000 new chances for demagogues. Were Civil Service reform actually accomplished the worst part of the business would remain,governmental control. But so long as the Postoffice continues to be so obviously the source of corruption in the service, there is always a chance of the experiment being tried of cutting it adrift from the Government altogether.

There is an association of persons in Chicago calling itself the "Personal Rights League." The League proposes a variety of changes in municipal administration, all which it naturally calls "reforms." The means by which the League hopes to aid the cause of personal rights are exceedingly devious,-such as might appear to a simple-minded person specially designed to defeat the cause. Here are some of the measures which are supposed by these gentlemen to conduce to personal liberty of action. They demand "that equal public school education shall be afforded every child in this city; that the city authorities shall rigidly enforce the statute that no child under fourteen years of age shall be employed in any factory, store, or office; . . . that the work on the World's Fair buildings shall be performed by Union men; that eight hours shall constitute a day's work; . . . that six days shall constitute a week's work," etc., etc.

...

This programme cannot fail to remind us of that which the Republican party has carried out on a larger stage. In order that farmers may have a market for their goods, manufac

turers have been enabled to collect from 50 to 100 per cent profit in excess of what their goods would otherwise fetch; or, as Mr. Allison, one of the founders of the tariff, now suggests, in order that farmers may get their products to market at a cheaper rate, let steamships be subsidized by the Government. Then the owners of the ships can evidently afford to carry farm products to Liverpool cheaper. So the idea of the League is, that a good way to set about encouraging the respect for personal rights, is to begin by curtailing these rights as much as lies within the easy range of contemporary politics. The circuitousness of the means by which the Republicans and the Leaguers propose to reach their ends, makes a very striking parallel between the two parties. I shall not be far wrong in supposing that there is a real connection between them; for since the League really means something so very different from what it says, what is simpler than to invent a gloss for the last paragraph of its platform?

"The Chicago Personal Rights League emphatically declares that it is not and never will be identified with, nor will it support, either of the existing political parties, nor indorse any candidate as such of either of said parties."

The colony of Victoria has asserted her independence of the "mother country" in what the inhabitants of the latter regard as a very emphatic manner. Yet it appears that Victoria has only made and insisted upon a divorce law to govern the decisions of her own courts. It is difficult for a person whose fortunes have not been cast on an island, to understand how this action strikes a blow at the integrity of the empire.

While the Tories-and a great many who are not Tories, though Heaven only knows what the difference is nowadays- spend the chief part of their time in glowing praises of the Union and the Empire, and in the denunciation of those who demand a limited independence for Ireland, these same men debate the secession of the colonies with the utmost calmness. If Mr. Davitt speaks of making a nation of Ireland, he reminds the Times to remind him that a hundred years ago he might have been hung for his pains. To suggest the independence of Ireland, is treason-that happens to be viewed with too great leniency; but Victoria and other Australian colonies have already the degree of independence wanted by Ireland, and hold the prospect of secession over the heads of English secretaries as a sword that may fall at any minute. What a difference it makes to have oppressed Ireland with success, but to

have oppressed a colony-well, with indifferent fortune! The experiment of oppressing Australia would suggest unpleasant comparisons, and it is found more agreeable to discuss the status of the colonies as a constitutional question. Sir Julius Vogel writes an article in the Nineteenth Century on the leading question itself: "Is it open to the colonies to secede ?"

The relative favor with which Tory England regards Mr. Michael Davitt, was noticeable from the beginning of the investigation conducted by the Special Commission. At first glance, the personality of Mr. Davitt would seem sufficient to explain the leniency with which he was undoubtedly visited, in contrast with the censure of Mr. Parnell and other members of Parliament. But the cause lies deeper, and the fact needed only to be plainly stated, as in the Spectator, to reveal the true explanation of the Tory preference.

Mr. Davitt is somewhat of a visionary; and no visionary has the capacity for making the Englishman, whether Philistine or barbarian, so uncomfortable as a more matter-of-fact schemer has. Now Mr. Davitt has always, and does to this day, keep before his eyes as the real goal for Irish endeavor, the national independence of his country; and this project seems to the Englishman, whether Liberal or Tory, visionary, and nothing but visionary. But this is not to say that visionary schemes have no attraction for Englishmen. On the contrary, if the scheme is one whose accomplishment will disturb their present state-what they call orderthe more visionary the affair seems the better they like it.

It is instructive to notice how easy it is for men to find good reasons for their unconscious predilections. The Spectator is really ingenious on the subject of treason:

"Much is permissible in defense of life; the life of a nation is as sacred as that of an individual, and we are not prepared to say that if Alsace-Lorraine were kindly governed by Germany, yet could break away from Germany or defeat Germany, the Alsatians would be guilty of the treason which is immoral. In such a case it is the method of treason, not the treason itself, which involves, or may involve, breach of the moral law. That is the reason why we have always held, to the surprise of some our readers, that the old Nationalists of Ireland who demanded independence and looked to insurrection as their means, and who pleaded not an imaginary oppression but a right to be independent, were better men than the Parnellites, who commit treason only in order to be governed by themselves uncontrolled, instead

of by themselves and a nation whose joint right they acknowledged when they entered her Parliament. And that is the reason why, if we could forget his approval of Patrick Ford, we should agree with the body of Englishmen in holding Mr. Davitt to be a better man altogether than Mr. Parnell."

But the rest of us may be pardoned for suspecting that the real reason why Mr. Davitt and the Nationalists attract the Tory sympathy, is the remoteness of their success. Mr. Davitt may be a "better man altogether than Mr. Parnell," but even the Spectator, in the fullness of its candor-oh, so candid about Alsace-Lorraine!-must admit that Parnell is a little more of a stern reality just at present. What stands between him and success? A small adverse majority in Parliament, that grows beautifully less with every election. Yes; he must be a bad man, altogether bad, to spend his time on such practical and present trifles, instead of devoting it to the consideration of the moral right of nations to rebel.

The Rt. Hon. Sir John Lambert, in the Nineteenth Century for December, related the wonderful changes which have taken place during the century in Great Britain and Ireland in the nature of the parliamentary franchise. Leaving to one side curiosities in the way of voting privileges-such as "potwallers" and "scot and lot"-the most striking fact about the changes of franchise has been its extension.

The three great extensions-"Reforms," as it has become the custom to call them, although the reform elements were rather accessory than inherent in the mere extensions-took place in 1832, 1866, and 1884.

In 1831, before the Reform Act, there were, in England and Wales, about 435,391 voters; in 1833 there were 656,337,-an increase of 220,946. The most extraordinary increase, however, was that in Scotland, consequent upon the same Act, when the number of voters in 1831 was about 4,570, and in 1833 the number was 64,447, the electorate being multiplied by 14 at once. The Act of 1867 enfranchised more than 900,000 voters throughout the United Kingdoms, while the number enfranchised by Mr. Gladstone's Act of 1884 exceeded 2,500,000. In the year 1886 there were, therefore, in Great Britain and England, 5,679,129 voters, of whom 4,380,000 voted in England and Wales. The population of these countries having been in that year 36,707,000 for the whole and 27,870,000 for England and Wales, it is easy to see at a glance that the voters are about one in six. Hence Great Britain and Ireland are as much a democracy as is the United States.

Mr. Gladstone said that it passes the wit of man to draw the line of distinction between imperial and local affairs. The diversity of conditions presented within the United States is not so great as that prevailing in the British Empire, but the statement is just as true when Federal and State are substituted for imperial and local.

Whether it occurred to Mr. Gladstone in that light or not I will not undertake to say, but it is nevertheless true, that the reason why it passes the wit of man to draw this line, is that the line has no objective existence. An acute man refuses to be deceived into thinking that he has found the place to draw the line, simply because an acute man will have observed that no such place exists, and he will therefore have ceased to look for it. It also passes the wit of man to discover the (quantitative) difference between the whole and the sum of all its parts. Other impossible feats of imagination or reason might be mentioned, but this one is enough, I think, to illustrate the source from which Mr. Gladstone's remark draws its plausibility.

Unhappily, though quite naturally, this observation is not only a psychological proposition, but, like most others from the same authority, it is a political proposition. I say unhappily, because regarded as a purely scientific remark, the statement could not cease to exercise that fascination which truth is always found to possess for rightly constituted minds; whereas the introduction of politics exerts the baneful influence commonly observed to issue from things political. In a word, the statement becomes false.

If government, whether local or general, were restricted to the administration of justice between individuals, along the lines marked out, but imperfectly filled in, by what is known as common law and equity, then the political line between local and general affairs could not be mistaken. It is the false assumption that the business of government is to be always contriving something new that will serve the "interests" of the people: it is this which makes the absence of demarcation between local and general affairs a matter of practical consequence. For the fact is, that nothing that government can accomplish will serve the interests of the people but simple justice-in the ordinary legal sense. The fact that the conception of justice may be figuratively applied to the relations between classes of people, is immaterial. Ex