1887 by forcing a new constitution more favorable to itself upon the crown. The queen, recently deposed, attempted the abolition of this constitution, but drew back before the storm which her action created. Distrusting her, and adverse to certain government measures relating to the opium traffic and the Louisiana lottery, the American element overthrew the Queen, and set up a government of its own, with the avowed object of annexation to the United States. The annexation idea was acceptable to President Harrison, and a treaty to secure that object was signed. Before it was ratified by the Senate, however, came the change of administration and recall of the treaty.

Now it is noteworthy that neither party in Hawaii seems hostile to the interests of this country. The recent Queen referred her cause to this government; the revolutionary party desired the closest possible connection with it. Moreover, both parties seem to promise reasonably well to observe the obligations of state towards the United States. The monarchy can show the education and peaceful temper of its native population, together with its fifty years' record of creditable national life and treaty observance. The provisional government represents, it is said, probably with truth, the wealth, intelligence, and enterprise of the foreign element. Whichever faction holds the mastery of affairs, there seems no menace to this country's interests. If those interests are threatened, we have the treaty of 1875 to fall back upon. If that treaty should be abrogated, we have a settled policy, in line with the Monroe doctrine, to appeal to. The conclusion is irresistible, that the trade relations between Hawaii and this country are so strong, the established policy of this country so well understood, that its interests are in no danger whatever.

Nor does the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands seem to promise great material advantage. Annexation of territory beyond sea is not looked upon with favor by our people. This was shown in the cases of Cuba and San Domingo. Already we have free commercial intercourse with Hawaii; nine-tenths of its exports come to the United States; eighttenths of its imports are from our shores. What profit

would this country reap from annexation, commensurate with the responsibilities and burdens which it must assume? The real and only advantage from annexation would be gained by the Islands themselves. In a question of state policy we must consider our own interests, not those of others.

If then our rights are not menaced, our self-interest not specially appealed to, why should we go counter to our established policy? There exists no sufficient reason. While fostering our trade relations in every legitimate way, both law and policy demand that we keep our hands off Hawaii.

Yale University.

THEODORE S. WOOLSEY.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL TREATMENT OF USURY.

I'

N considering the history of usury, it is necessary to bear in mind that the word in its ecclesiastical sense does not mean exorbitant usance for the forbearance of money, but any charge or profit whatsoever arising from the loan of money or other article of value, however moderate may be such charge or profit.

There is ample scriptural warrant for the prohibition of all such gains. The Hebrew lawgivers strictly commanded that all loans should be made without the exaction of increase. In the New Law there is less insistance on this, evidently because it was accepted as a matter of course in the precepts which inculcated the brotherhood of mankind and the principles of universal kindliness.' Naturally the early Fathers condemned it with a unanimity which renders special reference superfluous, while it is significant as showing how ineradicable was the practice, and how fruitless the efforts of repression. The earliest codes of discipline tell the same story. The so-called Apostolic Canons decree deposition for bishop, priest or deacon who will not abandon it. The council of Elvira permits a single warning to a layman, when, if he repeats the offence, he is to be expelled from the Church. The council of Nicæa deplores the fact that many clerics lend money at one per cent. a month, and corn to be returned with fifty per cent. increase, wherefore all who seek such gains are to be deposed from their grades.* Of course the usurer was deemed ineligible to ordination, but Basil the Great tells us that if he will abandon his avarice, and give all his gains to the poor, he may be admitted to the priesthood.' Successive popes and councils of the follow

1 Exod. XXII, 25.-Levit. xxv, 35-7.-Deut. XXIII, 19-20.-Ps. XIV, 5.—Prov. XXVIII, 8.—II. Esdras v, 11.-Matt. v, 42.—Luke VI, 35.

Canon. Apostolor. xliij.

3 Concil. Eliberitan. ann. 313, C. XX.

4 Concil. Nicæn. I, ann. 325, c. xvij. Cf. C. Laodicens. c. ann. 350 c. iv; C. Carthag. III, ann. 397 c. xvj.

'S. Basil. Epist. Canon. I. can. xiv.

ing centuries repeat these and similar injunctions with an iteration which shows how steadfastly the Church carried on the endless and fruitless struggle. Their utterances were embodied in the collections of disciplinary canons and in the penitentials, and furnished ample material to guide the priest in dealing with his penitents.'

When in the twelfth century canon law began to take a definite shape, Gratian collected a store of extracts from the Fathers and councils to show how impious is usury, that the profits of usurers are not to be accepted as alms, and that usurers are not to be received to penance without making restitution of their gains.' Alexander III was unremitting in his efforts to suppress the evil, and in 1179, under his impulsion, the third council of Lateran deplored that it was increasing everywhere, and that men devoted themselves to it exclusively, as though it were lawful; wherefore all such offenders are to be deprived of communion and of Christian burial, and their money is not to be accepted in oblations, while priests not enforcing these rules are to be suspended until they repay what they may have received, and render satisfaction at the discretion of the bishop. As this council

'Reginon. de Discipl. Eccles. Lib. I, c. 221-5; Lib. II. c. 435.-Burchardi Decret. Lib. II, c. 119-27.-Ivon. Decret. P. vi, c. 65-6. The penance for usury was of three years' duration, the first of which comprised fasting on bread and water.-Pœnitentiale Pseudo-Bedæ c. xxxix, § 2. Poenit. Pseudo-Roman. vij, § 3.

C.

2 Gratian. Decret. Caus. XIV, Q. 3-6.

Concil. Lateran. III, ann. 1179, C. XXV.

However ineffective may have been the efforts to suppress usury, the prohibition of sepulture was at least sometimes enforced. A case referred to the Papal Penitentiary in the first half of the thirteenth century shows that the Archbishop of Genoa forbade burial to the corpse of a usurer. The Benedictines of the Abbey of St. Syrus, however, secretly interred it, and then, becoming frightened, removed it from their cemetery. Disregarding the suspension thus incurred under the Lateran canon, they continued to perform divine service until the abbot applied to the Penitentiary for relief, and was told in reply that, if the matter was public, it should be referred to the archbishop to inflict the punishment due to the offence. If it was secret, the Dominican prior of Genoa was ordered to prescribe for them a salutary penance, and, when they should restore to the victims of the usurer whatever money they might have received for the burial, the suspension could be removed. In another case, the Abbot of St. Alban's applied for permission to bury the body of a usurer who on his death

was œcumenic, its utterances were accepted as the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, but they accomplished little. Towards the close of the century Bernard of Pavia, in his commentary on Gratian, affords us a view of the current legal state of the questions involved. Usury was purely an ecclesiastical offence; the secular laws had no provisions prohibiting usurious contracts; if the borrower had sworn, as was customary, to pay interest, he must do so, and then bring suit to recover in a spiritual court, for the lay courts had no jurisdiction.' If the borrower chose freely to give something over and above the principal, it could be accepted without sin; if no interest was specified in the contract, and yet the lender exacted or extorted something, this was not usury legally, but it was spiritually a sin for which he must answer in the confessional and be subjected to penance2which of course would imply restitution as a condition precedent. Superabundantia—a term borrowed from St. Jerome -was usury; it meant obtaining some profit in addition to the principal, as when a field was hypothecated as security, and the lender enjoyed its fruits during the existence of the loan; all such fruits were to be computed as partial payments, though already there had commenced exceptions in favor of the Church, for, if a layman held a piece of Church property, clerics lending money on it could enjoy the fruits, which Bernard says seems strange, but that it is not for gain, but to enable them to redeem the property from the layman.' Usury could lawfully be exacted from an enemy, one whom you might slay, like a Saracen, nor was it usurious to obtain hire for a horse or rent for a house. A penalty for default in payment at the appointed time was not usury if it was

bed promised to make restitution. His widow and heirs have now engaged to do so, and the Penitentiary permits the rites to be performed, provided he had given security before he died, and the survivors have fulfilled their promises.— Formulary of the Papal Penitentiary, Philadelphia, 1892, pp. 172, 174.

1 Cum hoc crimen sit ecclesiasticum semper est in hujusmodi ad ecclesiasticum judicem recurrendum.- Bernardi Papiensis Summæ, Lib. v. Tit. xv. §§