PART II.

BY PROF. JOSEPH RODES BUCHANAN.

If we agree that all men are born free and equal, with certain

inalienable rights,--life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,--let

us legislate to enforce our belief. All men are _not_ born equal, if

one is born with power to live without toil; power to control the

movements of a hundred thousand of his _unequal_ fellow-citizens;

power to bribe legislatures; power to hire a pretorian guard of

laborers, writers, editors, clergymen, and even soldiers or police to

do his bidding and to sing his praise, and to threaten those who wish

to establish a real republic. It was thought we had abolished

hereditary inequality; but in a land where our democratic lords can

each hire fifty thousand men and equip an army if need be,--where a

democratic American lord can buy a dozen of the puny lords of

Europe,--the social equality dreamed of in '76 does not exist. We have

abolished the useless title but not the lord.

We should not object to that inequality which is natural--to the

superior ability and superior virtue which place one man far above his

fellows; but we should object to an immense inequality, _which is not

natural_, and which sometimes places the superior man at the mercy and

in the service of one who has no ability whatever,--who is simply born

to rule by means of _hereditary wealth_. This is just as great a

social inequality as that which Jefferson saw in Europe, and which he

thought was to be excluded from America.

It is a condition that is demoralizing in a hundred ways, and is

fraught with peril to the republic, peril to society, and peril to all

the interests of humanity; and therefore as I would assert,--and _who

would deny_ the supreme right and power of the people to protect the

republic from any impending calamity by any just means, _but not by

any unjust means_--I would claim that it is our right and duty to say

that this grand hereditary inequality shall not be perpetual, and that

_the past shall not rule the present--the graveyard shall not contain

our legislature_,--but that each generation shall be a law unto

itself, and shall establish the conditions of justice and safety

without regard to the follies of the dead and the ancient laws of

inheritance when they conflict with justice.

Justice and safety to the republic demand that men shall _not be born

as rulers, nor born as serfs_. The serf is the person who is born in

poverty, with no right to a standing place, and whom society has left

to the education of the street or of the coal mine, growing up without

knowledge, without industrial skill--knowing nothing but to sell

unskilled labor in a market crowded by a million others like himself

or herself, and thus forced into that wretched life seen in all the

great cities of America and Europe, the description of which is enough

to make us cry out in despair, How long, O Lord, how long? Wherein

does this white slavery differ from African slavery, except that the

master cares nothing for the slave, is not bound by self-interest to

take care of him, and cannot flog him though he can punish him in

other ways, and on shipboard he can flog him also, and the horrors of

nautical brutality have not even produced a society for its abolition?

Such is the serf, which our democracy allows its citizens to

become,--men to whom the right of suffrage sometimes seems a worthless

rag which they would gladly sell,--men on whose weak shoulders the

republic cannot stand.

To abolish that class, every boy and girl should be guaranteed a solid

intellectual and industrial education, making a permanent guarantee

against pauperism and serfdom, a permanent guarantee that women shall

not be enslaved by lust, but shall be enabled to rear an offspring of

manly citizens. These are the most important things that a true

nationalism should accomplish at present, and mainly by the gospel of

industrial education, which the writer has long been urging with all

his power.

Public sentiment has advanced so far on this question, that there will

be very little opposition to abolishing the serf by industrial

education; out with all our industrial education, our disorganized

competition makes employment terribly uncertain, and impoverishes the

industrious by enforced idleness, because there is no science, no

social system to regulate the demand and supply of labor in different

pursuits.

Hence, until we can do better, there must be at all times a vast

number of idle men walking about in search of work, losing all their

savings in times of enforced idleness, their days of gloom and

despair.

They are our brothers, and we cannot say with Cain, "Am I my brother's

keeper?" _We are_ our brothers' keepers, for they are partners in this

republic, and brothers in the family of God, and they help to make the

social atmosphere in which we live, and they help the republic to sink

or swim. We simply cannot afford to deny our brotherhood, and if we do

we are the devil's own fools.

Action on this matter is demanded now as it never was before, for we

are advancing blindly to a crisis which our political economists and

statesmen have not foreseen, and do not yet recognize. The genius that

increases by invention the productive power of labor ought to increase

the rewards of labor, but it does not. Labor is demanded only to

supply what is consumed; and if at present a million laborers are

employed to produce the food, clothing, fuel, furniture, and houses

required, but in a few years invention enables half a million to

produce the same, what is to become of the half million no longer

needed? Will wages advance so that the million may still be employed,

working for half a day instead of a day. That would be just, but

instead, it produces a glut in the labor market, which by competition

puts down wages, and starts a fierce contest between laborers and

employers, and among laborers themselves. The fall in prices produced

by competition in a crowded market makes the employer unwilling to

advance wages, and an angry contest is inevitable. The multitude

dislodged by invention is increased by the inevitable multitude

arising from irregular demand and supply in fluctuating markets, and

thus families by the hundred thousand are driven to the verge of

immediate starvation, and this becomes our chronic condition, which

must be rectified,--a chronic condition which bears most heavily on

woman, and through her debases future generations.

We are bound to see that every honest citizen, male or female, has a

fair chance in the battle of life, has a fair preparation at the

start, and a fair field. To insure this,--to insure that the

productive power of the nation is not wasted,--is a larger question

than our statesmen have ever yet considered. It requires that the

government shall have a DEPARTMENT OF PRODUCTIVE LABOR, in which

honest men and women, when jostled out of their industrial positions,

may enlist.[2] This department should be managed by the ablest and

most benevolent business men of the Peter Cooper class, who understand

all productive industries, and who, seeing what is permanently and

largely needed for human consumption and not abundantly supplied, or

what new industries can be started which will benefit the nation, what

new productions can be acclimatized, shall take charge of all the

laborers who wish to enlist in governmental employ for eight hours a

day, with such pay and rations as will be satisfactory and fair; and

if rightly managed, not only will their labor pay all costs of the

department, but it may be made to teach the country great industrial

lessons in agriculture and manufactures, by improvements which

scientific combined labor on a large scale may introduce; and if we

are anxious to make our country independent in all things, and

superior in manufactures, this is the very method in which it can be

done, by the instruction in the national establishments, which may be

the means of starting all manufactures that we need, far better than

the protective tariff which forces an unnatural growth _at an enormous

cost to the people_.

[2] Thousands of the women toiling in the cities on

starving wages, might be given in the Southern States

pleasant employment in fruit culture, and other light

agricultural labors.

There will then be no tramps, no paupers, no women compelled to sell

their persons; and as poverty, gloom, and hardship are the chief

sources of intemperance, we may anticipate, as another consequence, an

immense diminution of the liquor traffic, when the Department of

Productive Labor shall have gotten into full operation. Moral gloom

and the bad passions impel men to intemperance, and when they acquire

the happy and gentle temperament of woman they will also acquire her

temperance.

Mr. Bellamy's idea of the nation as the employer may not be

practicable, but the Department of Productive Labor is an obvious

method of initiating the principle of national co-operation, which an

urgent necessity has compelled the British government to initiate in

Ireland. But we cannot safely wait, like England, until famine is

threatening.

The pauperization of labor depends on the monopoly of land combined

with the monopoly of machinery. It cannot occur in a new country, but

must develop when all the land is monopolized and worth a hundred

dollars an acre. The independence of the laborer owing to cheap vacant

land is more than restored by a Department of Productive Labor which

establishes a minimum of wages below which they cannot be forced, and

gives a standing ground on which exaction can be resisted permanently

by the laborer.

The Department of Productive Labor may be made a charming feature of

the government, on which philanthropists may expend their skill; and

its beautiful plantations, especially in the highlands of the

Carolinas and Georgia, and in California, may be looked to as a haven

of repose by all who are disappointed in life, who may find in these

rural homes something more attractive than the co-operative societies

to which some are rushing now. The voice of the red flag anarchist

will be quieted, and the agitators who endeavor to stir up dissension

will find most of their grievances redressed when the laborer has an

assured home.

There is no obstructive limit to the achievements of the army of

labor. Aside from agriculture and manufactures, there are roads to be

built, buildings to be erected, improvements of many kinds, and there

are about a thousand million acres of arid land, needing irrigation,

the necessary works for which could employ more than would probably

apply, for the wages should not be such as to attract men from

profitable employments. The army of labor may not at first be wisely

managed, but anything is better than the vast national losses by

_enforced idleness_. It is not extravagant to anticipate an _ultimate_

governmental administration of railroads, mines, manufactures, and

government farms that may employ many hundred thousands. There is no

apparent hindrance to the extension of the Department of Productive

Labor until it shall embrace all who desire the comfort and security

it gives, while those who prefer the strife of competition can remain

outside of the experiment, and thus the governmental and the

individual systems be fairly tried in competition with each other.

Thus far no formidable difficulty appears in abolishing pauperism, but

we find a more difficult task when we propose the abolition of

Plutocracy, by what may be called a REVOLUTIONARY MEASURE.

Having thus gotten rid of the increasing army of paupers and tramps,

providing, as it seems, a sound basis for a republic, we have the

other problem of getting rid of the growing aristocracy--the

plutocratic princes, the syndicates and trusts, who constitute the

other great danger,--of whom we may say we must either master them or

they will master us by managing our senators, governors, and

presidents. They have already swallowed some such legislatures as we

have been able to elect, with such facility as to show that it will

not be long before they can swallow the entire government, and when it

has been swallowed it may not be as fortunate as Jonah in getting out

again, for there is some very important legislation necessary to this

republic which the plutocracy may be expected to resist with all its

power, and when the conflict comes it will be a grand one.

They will probably combat with all their might the doctrine which must

sometime be presented, that the nation must rule itself on democratic

principles, and that the dead shall not rule the living by entail,

mortmain, or will. When a child is born it must become a member of the

republic on conditions compatible with the safety of that republic. It

cannot be allowed to come in as the born master of a hundred thousand

fellow-citizens equally competent to serve the republic. Our young

citizens approach us from a generation that has passed away.

It sleeps in the graveyard, or it leads a better life in the better

world. It has left vast masses of wealth, surrounded by wretched areas

of desolate poverty. Was it wise or just to do so,--to ignore

brotherhood of man, and to perpetuate all possible inequality? No, a

thousand times no. There is not one, perhaps, of the millionnaire

dwellers in the better world who does not regret and mourn his earthly

selfishness, and who would not order a more just and generous

distribution of his estate if his voice could be heard.

But we need not ask them. _We know what is just_ and we will correct

the mistakes of the departed. We know that this hoarding in families

is unjust to the republic and unjust to the Brotherhood of

Humanity,--an injury to all, a benefit to none. Therefore it must not

be permitted.

Already the law is beginning to recognize this principle, which is

destined to revolutionize all the world; but we are not the leaders in

this democracy, because our plutocracy is too strong. Switzerland in

its mountain homes carries the banner of democracy, and has gone

farther than any other country in asserting the rights of the

commonwealth over inherited wealth. New York has ordained a little

infinitesimal inheritance tax which, according to the _Herald_, in

1886 produced $60,000, in 1887 $500,000, in 1888 over a million. That

will be enough to build schoolhouses for the 20,000 children kept out

of school in the city of New York for want of room. The proposition is

under discussion in Massachusetts, and if we do our duty Massachusetts

may set the example of the greatest social revolution ever

accomplished by law. If Boston received the benefit of such a tax on

its own population, it might be adjusted to raise from one million to

more than ten millions a year; at any rate a succession tax might

produce more than all other taxes produce at present, and it would

bring about such radical changes that it would be expedient to make

the change gradual, and gradual it must be, for it will meet

determined opposition, and we must enforce our principle by every

argument of justice and expediency, for it is both just and expedient.

_What right have the millionnaires to say how the world shall be

managed after they have left it?_ What right to say that when they

have established a dangerous inequality, posterity shall be compelled

to make it perpetual. The robber barons established inequality by the

sword, and by the same power made it perpetual. The posterity of kings

and barons, however worthless, corrupt, criminal, or imbecile,

continue to occupy the saddle upon the public donkey. But inherited

royalty is going, and inherited aristocracy must also go. We who

survive are the responsible parties, and (as the Romans charged their

rulers in times of danger) we must see that the republic does not

suffer, and that aristocracy shall not be its permanent master.

What right has the millionnaire to direct from the grave, that the

wealth which he has left shall be used in the manner most dangerous

and most injurious to society. He has no such right. He has no right

in the matter, but what we in our justice or in our good-nature may

give him. If these views are just, they must in time rule the world,

but they are not yet asserted by those to whom the world looks for

counsel.[3]

[3] A year after this was written, the following

advanced sentiment was uttered by Rabbi Schindler:

"Have the dead the right of imposing laws upon the

living, of making contracts of which future generations

ought to bear the burden?"

The sacred right of the living citizen in that which his industry has

created, has no application here. It is a totally different case. It

is the question what right has he to rule the world after he has

enjoyed his full share and more, and gone away. We do not ask whether

he got his wealth by fraud, or robbery, or industry. _He has left it;

he is done with it; he is dead in fact and ought to be dead in law!_

The law has no jurisdiction over him now, and he has no possible

interest in what is done, nor any power to rectify his mistakes. To

perpetuate his fictitious personality, and make the opinions which he

has left in writing an authority like the acts of a living man, is a

tremendous stretch of the imagination, much like the old superstitions

which made a law by the preface "thus saith the Lord."

I know the claim will be made that the wealth which the millionnaires

could not carry away was truly theirs, and therefore that while they

lived they had a right to dispose of it. But I deny it. In the highest

sense of justice, _it was not theirs_, and even if it was, it was

justly forfeited by their treason to humanity; for I hold that neither

genius nor the business capacity that produces wealth ever releases a

man from his obligations to society. In time of war to defend the city

or State, we take every man's property, so far as needed, and require

him, in addition, to offer his life in battle to protect the

community; and surely in the grand battle which every republic has to

meet against its foes,--on the one hand oligarchy and despotism, and

on the other social disorder and convulsions between capital and

impoverished labor,--in this battle, I say, every man may be required

to defend the republic with his money, his honor, and his life, if

need be, and he should think himself very lightly released if society

demands only to become his legatee, after he has provided for his

family. He thus relinquishes what is nothing to him but everything to

society.

Wealth is the product of the nation--of all its work of brain and

muscle. No one man by himself ever accumulated wealth. But in the

entangled social co-operation, struggle, and battle, wealth is

scattered strangely and gathered in heaps like the money at a gaming

table. One man seizes a gold mine, another seizes for a trifle a piece

of parchment giving the title to land where a million are going to

settle, and both become millionnaire princes at the expense of the

commonwealth. There would be very few rich men if the real production

of each was all that he could hold. To seize by a legal fiction a mine

that yields a million annually is simply a robbery of the

commonwealth. The robbery of the commonwealth and the toiler is our

chronic condition. The urban population, strong in capital and skilful

in combination and chicanery, has drained the agricultural regions,

until agriculture,[4] toil, and poverty, are closely associated,

while urban wealth displays its ostentatious ease, and farmers are

driven by the million into a desperate political struggle for

self-protection.

[4] It is necessary to illustrate this by a few decisive

facts which have not been made familiar to the

majority of readers, as farmers' interests have

received very little consideration in the East. The

financial policy of the general government ever

controlled by capital against labor, has been the most

gigantic imposition by financial jugglery that history

has recorded, and has been effected chiefly by

manipulation and contraction of the currency to make

debts more oppressive, and during the war by

depreciating the people's money. After the war when

$500,000,000 were needed to compensate the destruction

of confederate money, a criminal contraction of

$500,000,000 dealt a crushing blow to the South, and to

the whole country. Let us look at it from the

standpoint of the largest body of laborers, the

farmers. A very intelligent Illinois farmer, Bert

Stewart, presents the case as follows, and if his data

are all correct, he has demonstrated a wholesale

robbery: The national debt at the end of the war was

about $2,800,000,000. What would it then have cost the

farmers to pay this debt? He estimates that it could

have been paid by 996,000,000 bushels of wheat; or

1,380,000,000 bushels of corn; or 10,000,000 bales of

cotton. But financial legislation has increased the

value of money (magnifying the debt), and decreased the

value of the products of labor, so that practically,

the debt has been increasing faster than it has been

paid; and, after paying nearly $2,000,000,000 of the

principal, and over $2,000,000,000 of interest, it will

cost more to pay the remaining third of the debt than

to have paid the whole at first. It would require

to-day, instead of 1,380,000,000, over 4,000,000,000

bushels of corn to pay the remaining third. This being

the case, it would seem that the payment of about four

thousand millions during the last twenty-six years,

leaving the debt substantially unpaid, was virtually a

_robbery of the commonwealth_ by corrupt or ignorant

legislation. Mr. Stewart mentions also, that in one

year the binding twine trust, by raising prices, drew

$21,000,000 "from the farmers of the West to the

sharpers of the East." The reports of the State Board

of Agriculture of Illinois show (what is a fair

statement for the whole country) that during the last

thirty years the corn crops of Illinois have for more

than half the time brought less than the cost of their

production; and taking the entire thirty years

together, the losses so nearly balanced the profits

that the average net profit of the thirty years has not

exceeded seventeen cents an acre for each year, in the

cultivation of over six millions of acres of corn. In

the official report of Iowa also, it is stated "the

general range of farm products have sold below cost of

production, since 1885." The official "Farm Statistics

of Michigan," just issued, tell the same sad story. It

shows that the wheat crop of 1889 cost more than it

sold for, the loss being $1,471,515. The entire loss on

wheat, corn, and oats amounted to $9,226,510. Thus is

agricultural labor crushed that millionnaires may grow.

Hence it is that farmers are sinking under their

burdens of mortgage indebtedness, paying seven per

cent. or more, losing their farms, and often compelled

to mortgage crops, tools, and stock. In the single

year, 1887, 35,334 farm mortgages were recorded in

Illinois, amounting to $37,040,770, and "nine million

mortgaged homes" is the war-cry of the Farmers'

Alliance.

Thus the independent farmer is disappearing, and

although there was scarcely a tenant farmer in Illinois

in 1840, there are more than 110,000 tenant farmers

now; and we have a vast increase of large farms. But

while the farmer sinks into poverty, those who handle

his products grow rich. The Chicago Stock Yard that was

started with a million of capital has grown so

prosperously that its stock now amounts to $23,000,000.

The monetary interests control all things, and Mr.

Stewart forcibly says: "The time has come, gentlemen,

when the government must run the railroads, or the

railroads will run the government. In Pennsylvania

to-day two roads own the State, its legislature, its

governor, its courts, its people, own them body and

soul, and stole the money from the people to buy them

with. You elect men to positions and pay them salaries,

and then the railroads buy them and make you pay for

bribing your own officers, in the freight rates they

charge you. The net income of the railroads of the

United States is three times that of the entire revenue

of the government."

The great mass of accumulated wealth was all unearned. It was the

donation of absurd law to monopolists,--to men who procured the titles

to lands. Their value came from the entire community, created by the

people, and when that amount is rescued from landlordism, the millions

vanish and society reclaims its own. Thus do I assert the ownership of

the community in millionnaire hoards. And when the tenant for life has

gone, to whom the law has been by far too generous, and left his

hoards, out of which he has already squandered more than he was

entitled to--the commonwealth from which this wealth was gathered may

rightly step in and reclaim it.

It is but a waif on the ocean of commerce--the jetsam and flotsam, of

which the law must direct the disposal. The heirs, as they have been

called, may come in to the wreck that lies on the shores of time,

after the soul has gone to eternity--but law must decide whether these

wreckers are entitled to the cargo,--to goods which they did not

produce, and whether it is safe and patriotic to allow them to carry

off what is substantially in the majority of cases morally and justly

the property of the commonwealth. There may be some exceptions to

these general statements as to property, but when we recollect how

land monopoly and other monopolies have robbed the commonwealth, I

hold that the commonwealth is bound to reclaim the stolen wealth

wherever it can find it, and certainly wherever the commonwealth can

find it abandoned by the claimant, the action of trover should come in

when the tenant for life has ceased to exist.

Perhaps the devotees of precedent may be bold enough to call this

robbery, but it is simply reclamation of that which has too long been

lost or stolen. For the chief foundations of large fortunes, the chief

source of the great flood of accumulated wealth, has been the taxation

of the people by the monopoly of land and monopoly of mines--the

monopoly by private individuals of what justly belonged to the

commonwealth, but was captured by the sword or by law--aided by

cunning financial operations which stand on no higher plane than

gambling or fraud.

The British peerage draw an annual rental from their lands of

$66,000,000, and the American princes draw far more, but I have not

had time to find the statistics.[5] It will not be long before foreign

landlords shall draw $50,000,000 annually from the United States, if

they do not already, for they hold more than 20,000,000 acres, and on

these they may practise the eviction of tenants in the Irish fashion.

The wrongs of Irish tenants elicit universal sympathy, but they are

far surpassed now in America without outcry or comment. About

twenty-four thousand evictions occurred last year in the city of New

York, and this indicated more than a hundred thousand human beings

turned homeless into the streets, generally in a penniless condition!

The distressing evictions of the great cities, and the selling out of

thousands of western farmers under foreclosing mortgages, are

preparing a terrible mass of discontented population to whom a social

convulsion would not be alarming. Those who live under the pressure of

a terrible social system will not be sorry if it is overthrown by

violence.

[5] Parker Pillsbury mentions a Governor of Maine, who

owns in Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakota,

and Canada, 691,000 acres.

A large portion of the city of New York is held at values ($50 a foot)

which would make its annual ground rental over $100,000 a year for a

single acre. When we think of the vast sums which have been

accumulating for centuries in the form of rent--say, for example, the

land rents of England, which, outside of mines, amount to $330,000,000

a year,--it will be apparent that the grand flood-tide of wealth,

which has passed into the possession of private individuals who have

been fortunate enough to acquire land titles long ago, and their

successors, exceeds by more than a hundred times all the wealth that

has not been squandered and remains in sight to-day.

But it is gone--squandered--and we never can reclaim it; and there is

another mountain mass of wealth not quite expended yet, which came

from corrupt financial monopoly, which has sometimes generated

financial lords more rapidly than land monopoly. Upon questions of

finance and political economy, our people have been as blind as they

have upon the land question, and our entire financial legislation has

been but a trap to catch the commonwealth and rob it, and the

commonwealth has been caught, and robbed of far more than two thousand

millions.[6]

[6] As a single specimen of this, I would mention that

those eminent politicians, John C. New, and Wm. H.

English, of Indiana, under the laws engineered by

cunning and accepted by ignorance, invested $200,000 in

a national bank scheme when greenbacks had been knocked

down to forty cents, and in thirteen years from 1864 to

1877 they made a clear profit of $2,133,000--more than

ten for one of their investment. But this is very

moderate in comparison with land speculation. The

Elyton Land Company at Birmingham, Alabama, with a cash

capital of $100,000, has declared in five years, ending

in 1888, dividends amounting to $5,570,000, and is

believed to own property still that will amount to

$5,000,000, a return of more than a hundred dollars for

every one invested--a clear profit absorbed of over ten

millions--_the gift of law to monopoly_. Will this ever

return to the commonwealth? The robbery of the

commonwealth goes on in every direction. Shall we

continue the present system under which, while the

nation is losing its inheritance daily, one man in

Chicago tied up the wheat crop of the United States,

and one man also tied up or cornered pork, and both

levied millions on the people?

The follies and crimes of the past cannot be readjusted--but its

legacy of robbery to the present must submit to the arbitration of

justice, and the demands of philanthropy. The millions exacted from

the tenants of England and Ireland by the descendants of the robber

barons and brigand soldiers, who took the soil by the sword, still cry

aloud for justice.

If we grant that an individual may by his own exertions justly acquire

a hundred thousand dollars, which is an ample competence, and that as

an encouragement and reward for his industry, society may justly allow

him to dispose of it by will, which I think is a liberal concession, I

see no sufficient reason for extending his authority beyond that

amount. All above that amount, I hold, should belong to the

commonwealth in justice, for two reasons--first, because it was taken

from the commonwealth, and second, because the commonwealth suffers

from two dangerous classes, which ought not to exist,[7]--the tramps

becoming demoralized and desperate, and the idlers, becoming

demoralized and worthless, who think themselves a privileged class,

born with a right to live in everlasting idleness upon the toil of

those who are not thus well born. This division into the aristocracy,

the proletariat, and the middle class struggling to become the

aristocracy, does not make a republic. It is an ancient falsehood and

injustice established by absurd laws of inheritance (as absurd as the

Hindoo castes), which have cursed the world, and will continue to

curse it until America shall establish democratic justice. Yet as

experience shows that men's opinions in all things are swayed by their

interests, there must be but few of the patrician class who can

perceive these truths, and we must rely for their appreciation upon

the vast majority who are not born to wealth.

[7] To save the nation _we must reform_ and stop the

production of 60,000 boy tramps and the half million of

paupers and criminals which our horrible system has

produced, which at the present rate of increase will,

in fifty years, be a million and a quarter, and in a

hundred years will probably exceed FOUR MILLIONS. I see

no measures but those I propose that will save us from

this terrible condition. They will not be adopted in

time to prevent civil war, but they must be adopted

afterwards.

What policy the commonwealth may observe,--whether it shall allow the

millionnaire to dispose of ten, twenty, or fifty per cent. as an

encouragement and reward for his accumulations,--is a debatable

question. To give him post-mortem control of fifty per cent. would be,

it seems to me, an act of prodigal generosity to millionnaire heirs.

That a dead man of a hundred millions should be allowed to keep fifty

millions hoarded in private possession appears to me an extravagant

claim, for even ten per cent. of that amount would be enough to spoil

his children and unfit them for good citizenship. I believe it would

be better for society if all inheritance of wealth were forbidden, and

every boy and girl required to begin life with a few hundred dollars,

and gain the position they deserved by their own abilities alone.

This reclamation of millionnaire estates by the commonwealth would not

be so necessary but for the fact that the world has been ruled by

false principles, and in all past ages millionnaires have, with few

exceptions, regarded their vast possessions as something on which the

public had no claim in justice, as being the true sources of

wealth--something on which the brotherhood of humanity had no

claim--something which was not a sacred trust for the benefit of

mankind--something which they should clutch with an iron grasp, as

long as possible, to keep it intact and unbroken, and still speaking

from the grave, hold it protected from all the claims of humanity, to

magnify their own names in their descendants, and keep their offspring

the lords dominant of society,--thus making it really a curse instead

of a blessing; and as neither the moralists nor the clergy have ever

taught them anything else, such is still their tendency, with a few

such exceptions as Peter Cooper and George Peabody. But when society

substitutes rational ethics and simple justice for old traditions and

debasing customs, the destruction of wealth will be _recognized as a

crime_, no matter how it was obtained; and such profligates as the

Prince of Wales, who spends half a million yearly, and then calls upon

his avaricious mother for one or two millions to silence the clamor of

creditors whom he has defrauded, will be no longer feasted, admired,

and imitated, for justice will be embodied in law and the race of

profligates will have been exterminated.

If any owner of these hoards, when he is compelled to give them up,

politely throws out five per cent. or even two per cent. for something

that he considers worthy, it is received with great laudation as

something not to have been expected. A Cleveland millionnaire was

lauded for a petty donation, less than he had expended on his old

wife's laces. As philanthropists millionnaires are generally great

failures. They did not study the public welfare through life, and they

do not know how to promote it; their benefactions generally go to

institutions that perpetuate the old order of mediæval conservatism,

and delay the progress of humanity. They are incompetent as trustees.

One man with the wealth of an Astor or a Rockefeller, and the

overflowing love guided by the wisdom of intuition (so conspicuous in

Jesus that men have worshipped him as a God, and elevated their own

natures by the worship), could accomplish more than all that American

wealth has ever done upon this continent.

Therefore by that right of eminent domain which is good over lands

occupied by the living, and far better over estates abandoned by the

dead, it becomes the duty of society to maintain the republic, to

assert the supreme law of justice, and thereby teach the doctrine so

long forgotten by followers of Christianity, that all our powers and

resources beyond our own necessities belong to our brothers. Such are

the principles of every real Christian. Such was the sentiment of John

Wesley; and his expression, if I recollect rightly, was that he would

consider himself a thief if he died with more than ten pounds in his

possession.

These doctrines are not entirely strange--the world is beginning to

look in this direction already. The _heirship of the state_ is an idea

already broached in France, sustained by Clemenceau, Pelletan, and

many other distinguished citizens, and discussed in the Chamber of

Deputies. The proposition was to limit the law of inheritance, and

substitute the heirship of the state for all collateral heirs. That

eminent and practical philanthropist, M. Godin, whose name has been

immortalized by the Industrial Palace at Guise, warmly espoused this

idea in all its breadth, and said:--

"When an individual dies, society has then the right to take

to itself what he leaves, for it has been the chief aid of

the deceased. Without its aid, without its institutions, he

could never have been able to amass the riches of which he

is at his death the holder. Society inherits wealth, then,

to use for the same work of social progress already

accomplished; that is to say to allow others, the surviving

in general (not the privileged strangers to the creation of

the existing riches), to continue their labor and

co-operation in the common social work. The heredity of the

State is then just, both in principle and in fact."

The two measures which are necessary now are the Department of

Productive Labor and the law of inheritance by the commonwealth, which

limits the transmission of estates above a hundred thousand dollars,

giving the commonwealth a share, rising from one to ninety-nine per

cent. according to the magnitude of the estate--or _some other form_

of taxation (if there be a better) producing equivalent results.

I do not propose these measures as THE REMEDY _par excellence_ for our

unhappy social condition. Not at all. They are merely the gigantic

blows from the right arm of the commonwealth, by which the curses

established in the dark and bloody past, crushing man and woman to the

earth, shall be hurled into oblivion. The true, absolute, and complete

REMEDY is that industrial, intellectual, hygienic, and ethical

training of all, which I have published as the "New Education" which

will make new men. These are bold and revolutionary measures,[8] but

the surgery of the knife is sometimes what humanity demands. The mad

riot of rivalry and selfishness must be restrained before it brings

the republic to ruin. The power of land monopoly must be broken by a

land tax, and the post-mortem despotism which perpetuates accumulated

evils must be thrown off by just and practicable legislation.

[8] Succession and income taxes are now beginning to be

considered. Two very feeble propositions have been

brought forward. The Massachusetts Legislative

Committee, on probate, reported a bill well adapted to

be worthless--to discourage benevolence and keep

property in the family by imposing a tax of five per

cent. on property left by will, except when going to

relatives or connections. Congressman Hall, of

Minnesota, introduced a bill in the last Congress for

an income tax, a fourth of one per cent. on incomes

between two and three thousand rising gradually to one

per cent. on incomes over $10,000. This very small

business is not what was demanded by "The Farmers'

Alliance and Industrial Union" in the Ocala convention,

which demanded the abolition of national banks and "the

passage of _a graduated income tax law_." These demands

were reiterated by the last legislature of Missouri, in

a resolution calling upon Congress to act upon them,

and pledging the legislature to enforce the farmers'

demand as far as in their power. North Carolina, too,

has adopted the Alliance principles. The income tax

will probably be a growing one--one per cent. will not

be its maximum. The British income tax under Mr.

Gladstone in 1885 was three and a third per cent. But

this is mere child's play, being about equivalent to a

property tax of one seventh of one per cent. When

seriously considered, the question will be between

five, ten, twenty, and thirty per cent.

We must act upon the undisguised truth that individual humanity is not

yet properly educated, and not yet qualified to exercise its

trusteeship of wealth, for the hard struggles against the oppressive

power of poverty, sickness, robbery, fraud, and sudden calamity have

made the self-protective faculties predominant, and the sharp rivalry

and competition of business has so increased their predominance that

the thought of public welfare is never paramount, and is but an

occasional glimmer, and the death-bed surrender of wealth, if it

considers the welfare of society at all, considers it so blindly that

a large proportion of the benevolent endowments are of little real

value.

It is, therefore, necessary that the outcry of suffering and the

warning of danger should rouse the public conscience to nobler

principles, and that society in its maximum wisdom, which embraces a

few earnest philanthropists, many capable financiers and economists,

very many tender-hearted women who will not consent to suffering, and

who are destined to participate in government, as well as a great many

who are personally conscious of wrongs that need rectifying, should

assume the administration of the SUPERFLUOUS WEALTH abnormally

accumulated.

The change proposed is so great that its realization may be far off,

and the evolution of law may be rivalled by the evolution of evasive

ingenuity, so that the commonwealth may be compelled to prohibit

evasive ante-mortem donations, and to reinforce the succession tax by

more stringent measures, from which there can be no escape, and which

will control plutocracy as effectively as any succession tax, and thus

render the latter of less importance; but it is none the less

important that the principle should be asserted, that the dead shall

not rule the living.

There are two obvious measures, and _one of them is sure to be adopted

soon_, without waiting for the abolition of unlimited inheritance. The

income tax is made almost necessary by the last Congress, which

emptied the treasury, and the income tax, if made accumulative,

increasing its rates with the increase of income, will be as

effective a control over plutocracy as the people wish to make it. The

_increasing rate_ of taxation upon superfluous wealth, is a sacred

principle for which every reformer should contend.

But even this is not fortified against evasion, and we need the most

efficient tax of all--the progressively accumulating tax on wealth,

which will gather a large rental from all the _superfluous_ millions,

compelling the holders to use them profitably. A three per cent. tax

on all over ten millions would not only enrich the commonwealth, but

stimulate industry in millionnaires. How long will the millionnaires

be able to defeat such legislation?

_These are the coming taxes._ They are not untried theories, for

Switzerland, the foremost nation in democracy, enjoys both the income

tax and the progressively accumulating tax, which falls most heavily

on the largest properties.

It is to be hoped that political corruption and intrigue will not

delay many years this assertion of the sovereignty of the commonwealth

by taxation, which will give the republic a solid foundation, and that

the power of the commonwealth thus enlarged will, through the

Department of Productive Labor, and by educational progress, give us a

true and a happy republic. These suggestions are not farther in

advance of public opinion to-day, than was the nationalization of the

land, when I urged it in 1847. They will find fit champions in a few

years.

To what extent the Department of Productive Labor should be fostered

by every State, and to what extent it may be authorized by the federal

constitution, we need not yet consider, for it is apparent that the

due administration of the national domain and development of the arid

region by irrigation, will furnish ample employment, if we adopt as a

sacred principle, the demand of justice, that _not another acre of the

national domain shall ever be sold_. Let us give settlers the easiest

possible terms, but never surrender to monopoly the land of the

commonwealth.

"ÆONIAN PUNISHMENT."

BY REV. W. E. MANLEY, D. D.

Some months ago an article with the above heading appeared in THE

ARENA. It was written by Rev. C. H. Kidder, and was intended as a

reply to one written by myself, on the eternal punishment.

It appears that a friend of Mr. Kidder, a physician "of great

ability," on reading my article was caused great disquietude. "He felt

that if all the statements contained in the article were accurate, his

religious instructors had been either knaves or fools--knaves, if they

taught what they did not believe, and fools, if they believed what

they taught," p. 101. I have only to say that the statements of my

article are, in all important respects, accurate, explain the rest as

he may; nor has Mr. Kidder shown that they are not accurate, except in

one particular, not affecting the main question. This will be noticed

in the proper place.

It is often true that men "of great ability" are men of hasty

judgment, especially when they are "much disquieted"; and the doctor

is certainly mistaken in supposing that his instructors were either

knaves or fools. The men who teach eternal punishment are in the main

honest, and of fair intelligence. The doctrine came into the church in

a dark age; and for centuries it was dangerous to believe or teach

anything else. When the human mind was set free, and it was no longer

dangerous to teach what one believed, the doctrine had become so

firmly established by a false system of interpretation, that it was a

long time before much impression could be made toward its removal. But

the Gospel leaven has been working in all these ages since the

reformation to the present century; so that now there is little faith

of that kind in the Orthodox church and none out of it.

I have not intended to admit that all the teachers of eternal

punishment in the church have been honest. Some have been dishonest,

in order, as they claimed, to do the more good. There was a class of

ministers in the ancient church who had two sets of opinions, one set

for the congregation, and another for the private circle. Dr. Edward

Beecher mentions several venerable men, who preached eternal misery,

but who had not a particle of faith in the doctrine, as he believes.

They are Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzus, Athanasius, and Basil the

Great. See Historical Retribution, p. 273. These were great men; but a

greater than these had taught that it is right to lie for the good of

mankind, namely, Plato. Who will say there have been no others since

that day? For the honor of humanity, I trust not many.

I would say here that all Mr. Kidder has advanced, may be admitted,

without the least detriment to the main purpose of my article. The

greater part of his paper is devoted to incidental topics that are not

essential to the main subject, and what he says on the main point

utterly fails to invalidate my argument, as the reader will clearly

perceive before I get through.

So far as our version favors eternal punishment, the fact is due

chiefly to a wrong translation; and it is difficult to suppress the

conviction that the translators, in much of their work of this kind,

were perfectly conscious of the wrong they were doing. The word _hell_

in every place where it is found (with one or two exceptions, where

the heathen hell is referred to) is the rendering of a word that has

no such meaning. The word _everlasting_ combines a wrong rendering and

a wrong exegesis. These are the main points. They are the Jachin and

Boaz of the orthodox temple. But the translators have sought to favor

their doctrines in other ways; sometimes by supplying words not found

in the text, and sometimes by rejecting words that are there.

My article was devoted chiefly to these last, particularly a wrong use

of the Greek article, and the rejection of an important word, when it

conflicted with their views, though they often employ it at other

times.

I say with the fullest confidence that the doctrine of eternal

punishment is not in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures. It came into the

church chiefly with converts who had believed it before their

conversion, and continued to believe it by a misconstruction of the

Scriptures.

THE SON OF GOD.

By not paying particular attention to what I said, my critic has

misrepresented me in an important particular; and has repeated the

idea a number of times, namely, that I deny the sonship of Jesus

Christ. I simply refer to some passages to show the importance of the

Greek article, and some of these have the expression, "the Son of

God," when they ought to have been rendered "a Son of God," or "a Son

of a God" not only because the article is omitted in the Greek, but it

is the language of Satan, and of the heathen, and therefore more

characteristic than the words _the_ Son of God. The sonship of our

Lord has evidence enough, without that of Satan and the heathen,

especially as the evangelists have represented them as giving no such

testimony.

The reference in my article to insanity and suicide was incidental;

and whether strictly correct or not, the thousand that have been

ruined in this way is a picture sufficiently frightful, and shows that

the Christian religion has been greatly misapprehended; for in its

purity, it never has, and never can, produce a single case of either

insanity or suicide.

THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY.

Of the six theological seminaries, which I referred to, on the

authority of Dr. Edward Beecher, as existing in the early days of the

church, I find on further reading that two were not theological

seminaries, but "schools of thought," as the doctor afterwards calls

them. One of these was in Asia Minor; and there, the annihilation of

the wicked was believed and taught. The other was in North Africa; and

here, endless punishment was the prevailing belief on the subject of

future destiny. The four others were real seminaries, in which the

doctrine of the final holiness and happiness of all intelligent

beings, after future disciplinary punishment, was inculcated by men as

much distinguished for piety and virtue and missionary zeal, as any in

the whole church.

The four schools were located at Alexandria, in Egypt, Cesarea in

Palestine, Antioch in Syria, and Edessa or Nisibis. This last school

was held at the one or the other of these places, in Eastern Syria.

When persecution drove it out of one of these cities, it held its

sessions in the other. All these four schools were numerously

attended, often having hundreds of scholars at one time. Mr. Kidder

thinks there must have been more than this number; but as it is a mere

conjecture with him, his opinion can have but little weight against

the statement of a man who has thoroughly investigated the subject. It

will not do to judge them after our little schools, at the present

day, when the church is divided into scores of little communities,

each having its insignificant seminary or seminaries. The church was

then one body, though each school varied slightly from the rest.

PROFESSOR SHEDD.

Dr. Beecher points out and refutes the statements of Professor Shedd,

and some others, on the prevalence of certain doctrines in the early

church.

Professor Shedd, in his history of Christian doctrine, Vol. II. p.

414, says, "The punishment inflicted upon the lost was regarded by the

fathers of the ancient church, with very few exceptions, as endless."

"The only exception to the belief in the eternity of future

punishment, in the ancient church, appears in the Alexandrian school."

"The views of Origen concerning future retribution were almost wholly

confined to their schools."

Dr. Beecher makes the following reply. "This statement somewhat

transcends the limits set by Lecky, to the doctrine of the

restoration. It is not confined to two individuals, but it is confined

to one school,--the school of Alexandria. What then shall be said of

Diodore, of Tarsus, not of the school of Alexandria, the eminent

teacher of Chrysostom, and a decided advocate of universal

restoration? What shall be said of his disciple, Theodore of

Mopsuestia, that earnest defender of the same doctrine, of whom Dorner

says that he was the climax and crown of the school of Antioch? What

shall be said of the great Eastern school of Edessa and Nisibis, in

which the scriptural exposition of Theodore of Mopsuestia, was a

supreme authority and text-book? Was Theodore of the school of

Alexandria? Not at all. He was of the school of Antioch.... And yet he

not only taught the doctrine of universal restoration on his own

basis, but even introduced it into the liturgy of the Nestorian

Church, in Eastern Asia. What, too, shall we say of the two great

theological schools, in which he had a place of such honor and

influence?... Dr. Shedd would have called to mind a statement in

Guericke's Church History, _as translated by himself_, "It is

noticeable that the exegetico-grammatical school of Antioch, as well

as the allegorizing Alexandrian, adopted and maintained the doctrine

of restoration, p. 349, note 1." Then it should be added that Origen

was not the only one of the Alexandrian school, who taught this

doctrine. Clemens, who preceded Origen, taught it; and Didymus who

succeeded him. The whole period of the presidency of these men over

the school must have been a century or more. And yet the great body of

Christians, as Professor Shedd would have us believe, were believers

in eternal punishment; but they neither turned these men out, nor

established any other school to counteract their influence. They must

have been a trifle different from believers in the doctrine now. And

what is very remarkable, we hear of no books or essays written against

the doctrine of the Alexandrian school, as if it were a pernicious

heresy.

Church historians in modern times impose on their readers by quoting

passages from ancient Christian writers, that employ the word

_everlasting_ in connection with punishment, leaving the impression

that these words were understood then as they are now, when in fact

believers in limited punishment, as well as those who thought

punishment endless, employed the term _everlasting (ai[=o]nios_) to

denote its duration. Origen and Clemens speak of everlasting

punishment, though they believed it would end in reformation and

salvation. Justin Martyr and Irenæus warn men of everlasting

punishment, though they believed in the annihilation of the wicked.

MORAL RESURRECTION.

In some instances the resurrection is used in the same way as the new

birth, to denote conversion. Such is John v. 21-29. The change thus

indicated is commonly called a moral resurrection. My critic would

have the last two verses refer to the general resurrection at the end

of the world; while he seems to admit that all the rest relates to a

moral resurrection, two things as unlike as they possibly could be.

Such is not our Lord's mode of teaching. I understand the whole

passage as confined to one subject, the moral resurrection. He divides

the subject into two parts, to be sure, but it is the same subject in

both parts--first, the moral resurrection then in progress; and

second, the moral resurrection "coming" on a more extensive scale,

even embracing all men. Jesus changes one word only, using

_graves_,--more properly _tombs_,--instead of _death_. But coming out

of death into life, and coming out of the tombs into life, are

essentially the same thing. Both are figurative expressions. I insist

that where Jesus says, "The hour is coming and now is," he conveys

the impression that the then present process was in its nature the

same as the coming one, only that the latter would be more extended,

even universal.

THE WORD A GOD.

That Trinitarians should translate this expression, The Word was God,

in John i. 1, might be expected; but by the rules of translating the

Greek language into English, the expression should be, The Word was a

god. The rule of Middleton that the article must not be used in the

predicate of a sentence may hold good, when it conflicts with no

superior rule; but if taken absolutely, it has many exceptions. I

suppose the renowned Origen understood the Greek language. He

interprets the passage before us as I do. "Origen uses [Greek: theos]

(god), not in our modern sense, as a proper name, but as a common

name. This use of the term, _which was common to him with his

contemporaries_, and continued to be common after his time, is

illustrated by his remarks on the passage, 'and the Logos was God'; in

which he contended, that the Logos was god, in an inferior sense;--not

as we would say God, but _a god_, not _the_ divine being, but _a_

divine being. (Opp. iv. p. 48, reqq.)." See Norton's Statement of

Reasons, p. 120, note.

The quotation from the Athanasian creed had better been omitted; for

many will read it, who had not before known that it contained any such

absurdity; and will have less respect for the Trinity than they would

wish to have. The quotation is, "The Father is God, the Son is God,

and the Holy Spirit is God; and yet they (?) are not three Gods, but

one God." I am accused of following an "uncritical principle," in not

reasoning in the same way. If it is "uncritical," I plead guilty, and

beg that my sentence may be as mild as possible. But before the

sentence is pronounced may it not be well to apply the reasoning to

some other subject,--to Peter, James, and John, for instance? Each of

these is a man; but they are not three men but one man!

MELLO.

I complained that the translators and revisors left out this word,

apparently for the reason that it conflicts with their theology. It

makes certain things to be near at hand, which they regarded as far in

the future. My critic says, "The Greek _mell[=o]_ frequently has the

meaning assigned to it by Dr. Manley, but it is not shut up to that

meaning," p. 106. It probably has that meaning twenty times, where it

has any other meaning once. In the passages from which it is excluded,

if it has any other meaning, why did they not retain it, and render it

according to its true import, and not throw it out? Mr. Kidder does

not meet the case, when he shows that the word does sometimes have

another meaning. His business is to show that _it has no meaning_, in

the passages from which it is excluded. It will then be in order to

show why the writers put such a word in these passages. When the

translators recognize the word, they seldom fail to give it a meaning

corresponding to the sense I assign to it.

It is conceded that the wrath to come (Matt. iii. 7; Luke iii. 7.),

should probably be the wrath _about_ to come, meaning the destruction

soon to fall on the Jewish State. This word _mell[=o]_ (about) takes

the passage out of the hands of those who would apply it to a far-off

eternal punishment. The word in other passages would have been alike

opposed to the common construction; and, therefore, it was left out.

This is the plain common-sense view of the case; and I shall hold the

translators and revisers guilty of a base fraud, till some good reason

can be given for their conduct. This probably cannot be done.

AI[=O]N, AI[=O]NIOS. That the expression, "end of the world," where

the original for _world_ is _ai[=o]n_, ever has the meaning of end of

this material universe cannot be proved. Where Jesus promises to be

with his disciples to the end of the world (_ai[=o]n_) is the most

favorable instance. But in the sense here intended, namely, enabling

them to perform miracles, he was with them, only to the end of the

Jewish age. By that time the Gospel was so well established, as no

longer to need miraculous interposition. In what sense Jesus was with

the disciples, is explained by the closing words of Mark's Gospel.

"And they went forth, preaching everywhere, the Lord working with

them, and confirming the word, by the signs that followed. Amen."

My critic says of _ai[=o]n_, p. 107: "It may at times refer to the

Jewish dispensation, with its limit fixed at the judgment executed

upon the holy city, and the destruction of the temple." Then it _may

mean_ this, in Matt. xiii. 38, 39, 49, and xxiv. 3. "It does not

always mean age; for this meaning is inadequate for the _worlds_,

_ai[=o]nos_, of Heb. i. 2, xi. 3." It does not seem so; for God

created the ages and dispensations of time, as much as he did the

material worlds. _Constituted_ may be better than _created_. God is

the author of both creations. Aion is a term that always implies time,

or duration, and not material substance. De Quincey says that

everything has its aion. The _ai[=o]n_ of an individual man is about

seventy years. The aion of the human race would probably be some

millions of years. It would follow from this reasoning that the

_ai[=o]n_ of God would be eternal, past, and to come. De Quincey does

not, I believe, carry his reasoning to this result; and I had never

seen the argument stated before, as it is in the passages produced by

Mr. K., from Aristotle and Plato. But the same reasoning that makes

the _ai[=o]n_ of God eternal, makes every other limited. It would be

illogical, and appear so at once, if one should argue, God is eternal;

and, therefore, punishment is eternal.

The rule generally accepted for understanding _ai[=o]nios_, is to

modify the meaning according to the nature of the noun which it

qualifies. If it denote duration, the amount of duration will depend

on the noun qualified. This rule forbids that eternal punishment

should be of as long duration as eternal life. Punishment is a means

to an end, and in itself is undesirable. Life or happiness is an end;

the longer continued the better; for it is desirable in itself. It is

that which we seek by means of punishment. The less we have of

punishment, the better. The more we have of life, the better.

My critic ought to have pondered the words of Dr. Taylor Lewis, before

he entered on this discussion. His words are, "The preacher, in

contending with the Universalist and the Restorationist, would commit

an error, and it may be, suffer a failure in his argument, should he

lay the whole stress of it on the etymological or historical

significance of the words, _ai[=o]n_, _ai[=o]nios_, and attempt to

prove that of themselves they necessarily carry the meaning of endless

duration." Lange's Eccl. p. 48. Beecher's "Retribution," p. 154. Prof.

Lewis says that _ai[=o]nios_ means _pertaining to the age or world to

come_. The only fault this definition has, is the addition of the

words _to come_. Jesus says, "These shall go away into the punishment

of the age, and the righteous into the life of the age." The age

referred to, is the Christian age or dispensation, that has already

come. It is the same as has all along been called, "the age to come,"

or about to come. It was to follow the Jewish age, which was soon to

end. Both together are referred to as "this age and that which is

about to come." But when the parable of the sheep and goats begins,

the age is already come.

The form here given by Taylor Lewis is the same as Jesus himself used,

if he spoke the Aramaic, as my critic says he did, and I agree with

him. He did not say, "These shall go away into _ai[=o]nion_

punishment," etc., which is the unwarranted Greek form. But his words

are, "These shall go away into the punishment of the age (or

pertaining to the age), and the righteous into the life of the age (or

pertaining to the age)." It is the same form in the Peshito-Syriac

version, made in the days of the Apostles. It is the same in the

Hebrew New Testament, translated by the Bible society, to circulate

among the modern Jews.

I have in my possession over a hundred passages, from classic Greek

authors, in which _ai[=o]n_ is used in a limited sense, generally

denoting human life, or the age of man. It is used, in a few

instances, to denote an endless age, by attaching to it another word

for _endless_. The adjective _ai[=o]nios_ is used very little by these

authors, and not at all, I think, by the more ancient ones. No lexicon

gives it the definition of eternal, till long after the time of

Christ; and the remark is added, when thus defined, that it is so

understood by the _theologians_.

But the principal help for understanding the Greek of the New

Testament, is the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint.

The words we are discussing are found in that version not far from

four hundred times, three fourths of them probably in a limited sense.

The Hebrew form, "the statutes of the age," are rendered into Greek,

everlasting or _ai[=o]nion_ statutes; "the covenant of the age," the

_ai[=o]nion_ covenant, etc. These terms have sixteen different

renderings. They are, _everlasting_, _forever_, _forevermore_,

_perpetual_, _ever_, _never_ (when joined with a negative particle),

_old_, _ancient_, _long_, _always_, _world_, _lasting_, _eternal_,

_continuance_, _at any time_, _Elam_. The last word stands for the

Hebrew _olam_, the word answering to _ai[=o]n_ in the Greek. With

these definitions in view (a number of them being limited terms), it

would be folly to claim that this word has an unlimited meaning when

applied to punishment. The punishment which God inflicts is limited.

Heb. 12.

Great stress is placed on the circumstance, that in Matt. xxv. 46,

the punishment and the life are spoken of near together, even in the

same verse. Tertullian, and later Augustine, urged this fact as proof

that both must be of the same duration. The late Albert Barns thought

the argument sound. Of course, no large man ever rode a large horse,

without being of the same size. Perhaps an illustration from Scripture

will be more satisfactory. "And the eternal mountains were scattered;

the everlasting hills did bow; his ways are everlasting." Hab. iii. 6.

For the last sentence, see the margin, Revised Edition. Are there to

be no ways of God, after the mountains and hills are gone? Besides,

this whole parable has its fulfilment, not in eternity, but in the

Christian dispensation. It began to be fulfilled at the coming of

Christ, when some were living, who had heard him, during his ministry,

nearly forty years before. Matt. xvi. 27, 28. No fixed rewards and

punishments are possible under the circumstances, for men are

changing. The rendering "pertaining to the age," has no objection of

this kind. If it be claimed that a man, "once a Christian, always a

Christian," no one can doubt, that a man, not a Christian, may become

one, and so change his condition--a proof that his condition is not

eternal.

I will close this article by a few words on the apocalypse. The

dramatic representation of Eichhorn is correct, save the added clause,

"the eternal felicity of the future life described." The holy city is

not heaven; it came down from God _out of heaven_. It does not denote

a final and fixed condition. It is four-square, and has three gates on

each side; and all of them open continually, to admit those who wish

to enter; and the invitation is sounded without ceasing, to the

outsiders from within, to "come and partake of the waters of life

freely." Neither in the New Jerusalem, nor the lake of fire, is there

any allusion to the eternal world of fixed and changeless conditions.

In those days, when books were not printed, but transcribed by the

hand, it was customary for the author to make a strong appeal to the

copyist or transcriber, not to make any alteration in the book, with

certain penalties, fictitious or otherwise. Hence the Revelation

closes with this admonition,--not to add to, nor take from, the book

(xxii. 18, 19.), the penalty being sufficiently severe, to which I

would commend the late revisers of the New Testament.

THE NEGRO QUESTION FROM THE NEGRO'S POINT OF VIEW.

BY PROF. W. S. SCARBOROUGH.

In the discussion of the so-called "Negro Problem," there is, as a

rule, a great deal of the sentimental and still more of the

sensational. By a series of _non sequitur_ arguments the average

disputant succeeds admirably in proving what is foreign to the

subject. This is true of writers of both sections of our

country--North as well as South--but especially true of those of the

South.

The recent symposium of Southern writers in the _Independent_ on the

Negro Question, as interesting as it was for novelty and variety of

view, is no exception to the rule. If the negro could be induced to

believe for a moment that he was thus actually destitute of all the

elements that go to make up a rational creature, his life would be

miserable beyond endurance. But he has not reached that point nor does

he care to reach it. Others may exclaim:--

"O wad some power the giftie gi'e us

To see oursel's as ithers see us;"

but not the negro, if the vision must always be so distorted. The

black man is naturally of a sanguine temperament, as has so often been

said; and the facts in the case bear him out in entertaining a hopeful

view of his own future and his ability to carve it out. I am sure that

they do not warrant even our Southern friends in taking such a

pessimistic view of the situation, so far as the negro himself is

concerned. But facts are of little account nowadays. There is a

tendency to ignore them and appeal to the prejudices and passions of

men, and that, too, when it is well known that such methods of

procedure prolong rather than settle the question at issue. This is

the work of the alarmist--to keep things stirred up and always in an

unsettled state.

I think it may be justly inferred that the average white man does not

understand the black man, and that he is still an unknown quantity to

many of the white people of the country, even to those who profess to

know him best. Admitting this, then, it is but natural that much of

their deliberation and many of their conclusions should be wide of the

mark. The negro does not censure the white man for his conclusions as

they are the logical consequence of his premises, but he _does_ object

to his premises. Our white friends make their mistake in seeming by

all their movements to insist that there is but one standpoint from

which to view this question, the white man's; but there is another and

the negro is viewing it from that side, not selfishly but in a

friendly and brotherly spirit.

Senator George was right when he said that the solution of this

question should be left to time, but wrong when he further added, "and

to the sound judgment of the Southern people." The recent

disfranchisement of the negroes of his native State shows very plainly

to the thoughtful citizen that the South is not yet capable of justly

handling this question, notwithstanding that they are the people "who

have the trouble before them every day." This is Mississippi's fatal

mistake and one that places the State in the rear of her Southern

sisters, and for the present, at least, lessens the value of any

suggestion from that quarter.

It is well understood that the sentiment of the American people is

that enough has been done for the negro; that the country is under no

obligations to look further after his interest, and that he must act

for himself. Survival of the fittest is now the watchword. There is no

objection to this provided the blacks are _allowed_ to do for

themselves,--to survive as the fittest, if it be possible,--but this

they are not allowed to do. They are certainly anxious to work out

their own destiny. They are tired of sentiment and are therefore

impatient. They desire to show to the world that they are not only

misunderstood but misjudged. They are willing to unite with either

North or South in the adjustment of present difficulties.

Unlike the Indians they are sincere--neither treacherous nor

deceitful. They are simple, frank, and open-hearted, and are as

desirous of good government as are the most honored citizens of the

land. Let alone, they will give neither the State nor the nation any

trouble. They feel themselves a part and parcel of the nation and as

such have an interest in its prosperity as deep as those who are

allowed to exercise, untrammelled, the rights of citizenship.

To keep the blacks submissive there is need of neither army nor navy.

Though at the foot of the ladder they are contented to remain there,

until by virtue of their own efforts they may rise to higher planes.

The negro has never sought, does not now, nor will he seek to step

beyond his limit. "Social equality," "Negro domination," and "Negro

supremacy," are meaningless terms to him so far as his own aspirations

are concerned. The social side of this question will regulate itself.

It has always done so, in all ages and all climes, despite coercion,

despite law. This is the least of the negro's cares. His demand for

civil rights is no demand for "social equality." This is a mistaken

view of the subject. It is this dread of social equality, this fear of

social contact with the negro that precludes many well-meaning people

from securing accurate information in regard to the aims, and

purposes, and capabilities of those whom they desire to help. But

there is light ahead, dark as at times it now may seem, and erroneous

as are the views in regard to the negro's relation to the American

body-politic.

Congressman Herbert, in his effort to show the negro's incapacity for

self-government by calling attention to the defalcations,

embezzlements, and petty larcenies, etc., of reconstruction times,

forgets that if this is to be taken as the gauge of capacity for

self-government, the same rule will apply to bank and railroad

wreckers of the present day,--to every defaulter and embezzler of

State and private funds, and to every absconding clerk. Now we must

remember that this class of citizens is enormously large, and that

they are all white, as a rule. Every daily paper that one picks up

devotes considerable space to this class of citizens who, according to

Mr. Herbert, has shown its "incapacity for self-government," as well

as the incapacity of others "who alone have acquired such a capacity"

as is claimed by Congressman Barnes. Queer logic is it not? The latter

should say so, for it is he who claims that "the Anglo-Saxon is the

only member of the human family who has yet shown evidence of a

capacity for self-government."

Again, it is said that the negro cannot attain high and rigid

scholarship, and even those who have succeeded in becoming educated

"if left to themselves would relapse into barbarism." Now, I cannot

believe that any such statement as this can be made with sincerity. In

the light of the facts it is preposterous. Flipper, while at West

Point, demonstrated beyond controversy the fallacy of such a position

as the first; and there is hardly a college commencement in which some

negro in some way does not continue to show its falsity by

distinguishing himself by his extraordinary attainments. Even while I

write, a letter lies before me from a young colored student, a

graduate of Brown University, who is now taking a post-graduate course

at the American School for Classical Studies, at Athens, Greece. From

all reports, he is making an excellent record, and will present a

thesis in March on "The Demes of Athens." As to relapsing into

barbarism, were the negro removed from white influence, the mere

mention of the negro scholar, Dr. Edward Blyden, born on the island of

St. Thomas, educated and reared in Africa away from the slightest

social contact with people of Anglo-Saxon extraction, is sufficient

proof that such a conclusion is not a correct one.

What a leading journal has said in regard to the Indians may be

repeated here as applicable to the negro: "The most crying need in

Indian [negro] affairs is its disentanglement from politics and

political manipulations."

Here is an opportunity for the Church, but the Church has shown itself

wholly inadequate to meet the case, and because of its tendency to

shirk its duty, may be said to be to blame for many of the troubles

growing out of the presence of the negro on this continent. I have

noted that there is more prejudice in the Church, as a rule, than

there is in the State. If, as is asserted by some, neither Church nor

State can settle this question, then there is nothing to be done but

to leave it to time and the combined patience and forbearance of the

American people,--black as well as white.

A PRAIRIE HEROINE.

BY HAMLIN GARLAND.

Lucretia Burns had never been handsome, even in her days of early

girlhood, and now she was middle aged, distorted with work and

child-bearing, and looking faded and worn as one of the boulders that

lay beside the pasture fence near where she sat milking a large white

cow.

She had no shawl or hat and no shoes, for it was still muddy in the

little yard, where the cattle stood patiently fighting the flies and

mosquitoes swarming into their skins already wet with blood. The

evening was oppressive with its heat, and a ring of just-seen

thunder-heads gave premonitions of an approaching storm.

An observer seeing Lucretia Burns as she rose from the cow's side, and

taking her pails of foaming milk staggered toward the gate, would have

been made weak with sympathetic pain. The two pails hung from her lean

arms, her bare feet slipped on the filthy ground, her greasy and faded

calico dress showed her tired, swollen ankles, and the mosquitoes

swarmed mercilessly on her neck and bedded themselves in her colorless

hair.

The children were quarrelling at the well and the sound of blows could

be heard. Calves were querulously calling for their milk, and little

turkeys lost in the tangle of grass were piping plaintively.

The sun just setting struck through a long, low rift like a boy

peeping beneath the eaves of a huge roof. Its light brought out

Lucretia's face as she leaned her sallow forehead on the top bar of

the gate and looked towards the west.

It was a pitifully worn, almost tragic face,--long, thin, sallow,

hollow-eyed. The mouth had long since lost the power to shape itself

into a kiss, and had a droop at the corners which seemed to announce a

breaking down at any moment into a despairing wail. The collarless

neck and sharp shoulders showed painfully.

She felt vaguely that the night was beautiful, the setting sun, the

noise of frogs, the nocturnal insects beginning to pipe--all in some

way called her girlhood back to her, though there was little in her

girlhood to give her pleasure. Her large gray eyes (her only

interesting feature) grew round, deep, and wistful as she saw the

illimitable craggy clouds grow crimson, roll slowly up, and fire at

the top. A childish scream recalled her.

"Oh my soul!" she half groaned, half swore, as she lifted her milk and

hurried to the well. Arriving there, she cuffed the children right and

left with all her remaining strength, saying in justification:--

"My soul! can't you--you young 'uns give me a minute's peace? Land

knows, I'm almost gone up--washin' an' milkin' six cows, and tendin'

you and cookin' f'r _him_, ought'o be enough f'r one day! Sadie, you

let him drink now'r I'll slap your head off, you hateful thing! Why

can't you behave, when you know I'm jest about dead." She was weeping

now, with nervous weakness. "Where's y'r pa?" she asked after a

moment, wiping her eyes with her apron.

One of the group, the one cuffed last, sniffled out, in rage and

grief:--

"He's in the cornfield,--where'd ye s'pose he was?"

"Good land! why don't the man work all night? Sile, you put that

dipper in that milk agin, an' I'll whack you till your head'll swim!

Sadie, le' go Pet, an' go 'n get them turkeys out of the grass 'fore

it gits dark! Bob, you go tell y'r dad if he wants the rest o' them

cows milked, he's got 'o do it himself. I jest can't, and what's more

I _won't_," she ended rebelliously.

Having strained the milk and fed the children, she took some skimmed

milk from the cans and started to feed the calves bawling strenuously

behind the barn. The eager and unruly brutes pushed and struggled to

get into the pails all at once, and in consequence spilt nearly all of

the milk on the ground. This was the last trial,--the woman fell down

on the damp grass and moaned and sobbed like a crazed thing. The

children stood around like little partridges, looking at her in

silence, till at last the little one began to wail. Then the mother

rose wearily to her feet, and walked slowly back towards the house.

She heard Burns threshing his team at the well, with the sound of

oaths. He was tired, hungry, and ill-tempered, but she was too

desperate to care. His poor, overworked team did not move quick enough

for him, and his extra long turn in the corn had made him dangerous.

His eyes gleamed from his dust-laid face.

"Supper ready?" he growled.

"Yes, two hours ago."

"Well, I can't help it! That devilish corn is getting too tall to plow

again, and I've got 'o go through it to-morrow or not at all. Cows

milked?"

"Part of 'em."

"How many?"

"Three."

"Hell! Which three?"

"Spot, and Brin, and Cherry."

"_Of_ course! kept the three worst ones. I'll be damned if I milk 'm

to-night. I don't see why you play out jest the nights I need ye

most--" here he kicked a child out of the way. "Git out 'o that! Haint

ye got no sense? I'll learn ye--"

"Stop that, Sim Burns!" cried the woman, snatching up the child.

"You're a reg'lar ol' hyeny,--that's what you are--" she added

defiantly, roused at last from her lethargy.

"You're a--beauty, that's what _you_ are," he said, pitilessly. "Keep

your brats out f'um under my feet;" and he strode off to the barn

after his team, leaving her with a fierce hate in her heart. She heard

him yelling at his team in their stalls.

The children had had their supper so she took them to bed. She was

unusually tender to them for she wanted to make up in some way for her

harshness. The ferocity of her husband had shown up her own petulant

temper hideously, and she sat and sobbed in the darkness a long time

beside the cradle where the little Pet slept.

She heard Burns come growling in and tramp about,--the supper was on

the table, he could wait on himself. There was an awful feeling at her

heart as she sat there and the house grew quiet. She thought of

suicide in a vague way; of somehow taking her children in her arms and

sinking into a lake somewhere, where she would never more be troubled,

where she could sleep forever, without toil or hunger.

Then she thought of the little turkeys wandering in the grass, of the

children sleeping at last, of the quiet, wonderful stars. Then she

thought of the cows left unmilked, and listened to them stirring

uneasily in the yard. She rose, at last, and stole forth. She could

not rid herself of the thought that they would suffer. She knew what

the dull ache in the full breasts of a mother was, and she could not

let them stand at the bars all night moaning for relief.

The mosquitoes had gone, but the frogs and katy-dids still sang, while

over in the west Venus shone. She was a long time milking the cows;

her hands were so tired she had often to stop and rest them, while the

tears fell unheeded into the pail. She saw and felt little of the

external as she sat there. She thought of how sweet it seemed the

first time Sim came to see her, of the many rides to town with him

when he was an accepted lover, of the few things he had given her, a

coral breastpin and a ring.