Local Government: at Homb and Abroad. BY ROBERT P. PORTER, ESQ.. CHICAGO. Article No. One FROM THE PRINCETON REVIEW. \ PRICE, FIVE CENTS. THE PRINCETON REVIEW For JULY, 1879. LABOR AND WAGES IN ENGLAND. Prof. THOROLD ROGERS, LL.D., Uni- versity of Oxford. THE AIM AND INFLUENCE OF MODERN BIBLICAL CRITICISM Rev. Dr. E. A. WASHBURN, New York. NEMESIS IN THE COURT-ROOM. FRANCIS WHARTON, LL.D., Cambridge. REASON, CONSCIENCE, AND AUTHORITY. Prebendary IRONS, D.D., F.R.H.S., St. Paul’s, London. THE ORGAN OF MIND. Prof. DAVID FERRIER, Kings College, London. MUSIC AND WORSHIP. President POTTER, Union College. CHRIST AND THE DOCTRINE OF IMMORTALITY. Rev. GEORGE MATHESON, D.D., Scotland. LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AT HOME AND ABROAD. ROBERT P. POR- TER, Chicago. PHILOSOPHY AND APOLOGETICS. Prof. CHARLES W. SHIELDS, Princeton College. The Review is published bimonthly, at two dollars a year , or thirty-five cents a number, postage paid. The proprietor respectfully solicits your subscription, and desires vour influence in extending its circulation. The ooject is to present, to the largest number of intelligent readers, articles entirely original, of the highest order and timeliness, from the best minds of this country and Europe, treating of the most interesting phases of thought in The- ology, Philosophy, Politics, Science, Literature, and Art. Remittances should be addressed to the PRINCETON REVIEW, NEW YORK LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD. T HE true position of our own local government may be seen more clearly by comparing it with the systems of other nations. Brodrick 1 informs us that the origin of local government in England must be sought in the primitive com- munities of our Saxon forefathers. The German nations, as described by Caesar and Tacitus, were nothing but associations of self-governed villages, or larger districts, occupied by sepa- rate families or clans, among whom there was not even the shadow of a common national allegiance, except for purposes of war. Such was the organization of the Saxons when they first settled in England, and continued for centuries to be the essential organization of the English people. In Scotland the most ancient form of local jurisdiction of which any trace remains was the baronial ; and the power of the barons grew till it alarmed the crown which had created it. There sprung up, in the course of time, communities which engaged in man- ufactures and merchandise, and the crown sought in these some counterpoise to the great barons. It gave charters to these communities of the lands in their neighborhood, and made them perpetual corporations, with power to choose councils and magistrates, and with special privileges of trade. These, after a long term of abuse, grew into veritable republics, with magistrates chosen by the people, practically independent, in their office, of the crown, and their acts subject only to revision for error or illegality in the courts of law. These baronial courts continued in full vigor till the great rebellion of 1745, when their jurisdiction was so limited by Parliament that it 1 “ Local Government in England.” By Hon. George C. Brodrick. LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD . 173 gradually decayed, and has now nearly died out. Local gov- ernment in Ireland has but little distinct history from that of England ; and the local authorities may be divided into five classes — those connected with Poor Law Unions, counties, towns, and harbors, respectively, with a class of minor authori- ties. The county authorities include baronial presentment ses- sions, grand juries, governors of lunatic asylums, trustees of inland navigation, and arterial drainage authorities. In France there are no traditions to be considered as in England and Scotland. The old system of local government was entirely altered at the end of the last century. In France the department is divided into arrondissements — the arrondisse- ments into cantons, and the cantons into communes. The can- ton is only a judicial division ; but the department has its Par- liament, the Conseil General, presided over by the Prefet ; the arrondissement has its Conseil d’Arrondissement, presided over by the Sous Prefet ; and the commune its Conseil Munic- ipal, presided over by the Mayor. The number of the depart- ments is 86 ; each of them including from two to six arrondisse- ments, from 17 to 62 cantons, and from 72 to 904 communes. The number of inhabitants, according to the census of 1871, varies from 118,898 to 2,220,060. There are 362 arrondisse- ments, 2865 cantons, and 35,989 communes. The commune is the administrative unit in France, and corresponds to our township. France suffers by so much being done through these municipal councils, in very much' the same way as we suffer ; for there, as in the United States, the city councils are not infrequently composed of an inferior class of men. But there is no clashing of areas of taxation, as in England. Each forms part of a harmonious whole. The departmental council fixes the departmental taxes, which are divided between the arrondissements, and by them subdivided among the com- munes. The arrondissement settles any district taxation, and partitions it between the communes. The commune votes its own taxes for municipal objects, and collects them with the communal share of the departmental and arrondissement taxa- tion. Complete reports of the expenditures of the communes of France are rarely published, and are only accessible for the years 1836, 1862, 1868, and 1871 : '74 THE PRINCETON REVIEW. 1836. 1862. Francs. Francs. 1868. Francs. 1871. Francs. Receipts : Ordinary 100,848,990 291,899,431 24,461,073 I 49 » 5 I 7,559 | 83,830,926 256,954,948 33,962 204 193,283,419 309,488,605 130,178,005 276 , 343 , 9 x 5 167,518,655 313,169,350 226,416,910 276,187,190 244,314,970 Extraordinary Expenditures : Ordinary Extraordinary It will be seen that the expenditures for the year 1871 aggregated 520,502,160 francs. 1 Deducting from these num- bers the sums expended in consequence of the war, and the total expenditure for the year was 401,378,075 francs. The latest available statistics show that the local taxation of France is now, in round numbers, a sum exceeding 800,000,000 of francs for the whole country, including the Ddpartment de la Seine. The proportion between the various sources of income may be nearly estimated at 500,000,000 from direct taxation, 200,000,000 from indirect taxation, and 100,000,000 from tolls, dutiaB, and miscellaneous revenues. De Laveleye 2 has traced in the institutions which govern the provinces and communes of Belgium and Holland the double impress of the German and the Latin spirit. Whatever of autonomy they possess he thinks is owing to the free cus- toms of the Germanic tribes who peopled the provinces of the Low Countries. Whatever of centralization they possess is due to the French conquerors of 1792, who, both under the Repub- lic and under the Empire, took as their ideal of government a complete uniformity imposed upon every locality by the cen- tral power. Their institutions preserve to this day much of their ancient character, and on the borders of the Lake of Lucerne can be found all the features of the primitive democ- racy transmitted without interruption from times the most an- cient. 3 But as riches accumulated in the hands of the few, 1 This does not include the commune of the Department de la Seine. The budget of the Ville de Paris is about 200,000,000 francs a year. 2 “The Provincial and Communal Institutions of Belgium and Holland.” By M. Emile De Laveleye. 3 This idea has been recently developed in De Laveleye’s “ Property, and its Primitive Forms.” LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD . 175 democratic institutions disappeared little by little. The inhab- itants having nothing in the way of common property to man- age, had less reason for assembling together. They got tired of administering justice. They neglected to attend the public assemblies. In brief, communal liberties died, feudalism was established. Precisely the same evolution took place in Eng- land, where the manor absorbed the commune so that the very name has disappeared, and there remains nothing but the vestry. De Laveleye thinks nothing is more dramatic or more instructive than the picture of the progress of democracy in the great communes of the Low Countries, and nowhere can it be better studied than in the history of Liege. The conquest of popular liberties was there made in a more regular manner than elsewhere, because the sovereign authority exercised by an elective bishop was less powerful than when exercised by hereditary dynasties. The local government in Belgium and Holland has its foundation in the commune, though the com- munes no longer enjoy, as in the Middle Ages, the attributes of sovereignty ; but they are ruled by elective bodies which in matters of administration and police have very considerable powers. By no means the least important reform accomplished by the present Emperor of Russia has been the entire change which was effected in local government in 1864. Mr. Ashton W. Dilke, who has resided much in Russia, and has acquired no slight personal knowledge of its people, institutions, and lan- guage, informs us that before the ukase of 1864 there existed in Russia only three popular elected assemblies with deliber- ative powers. Of these, one, the lowest, and at the same time the most widely spread and important of all, was the village assembly ( mir , mirkskaya skhodka ), which, though not mate- rially altered, received extensive powers in 1864. The village commune (mir) is the unit of Russian local government. A Russian peasant lives for his commune and not for himself ; to him life as a unit is almost unintelligible. The patriarchal system, a remnant probably of the time when the Slavonic race was still a pastoral one, has been handed down untouched — nay, strengthened even by some local circumstances. The town meeting is very frequently called as the people are leav- 1 76 THE PRINCETON REVIEW ing church, and always takes place in the open air in the middle of the village street. After the meeting, the crowd generally adjourn to the village tavern, once more to discuss the business which has been settled. Formalities there are none ; the cre- dentials of voters are not looked into too closely. Nominally every head of a household is entitled to a vote. It is said that the assembly seldom comes to an actual vote on a subject. Russian peasants hardly ever decide by majorities ; but if two parties disagree in a matter, it is talked over and over again, and the meeting is adjourned. At the next meeting a compro- mise is generally arrived at. The only real and living piece of self-government in Prussia is the municipal government, which had its origin in Stein's great law in 1808. Morier says of it : It has, after nearly 70 years of a fruitful existence, driven its roots deep into the soil and satisfactorily solved the great problem of local government, viz., the combining the administration of affairs which are partly private, partly public, in the same hands ; it has established itself as the type which all future attempts at creating self-governing institutions must follow. This comparison, brief and imperfect as it is, shows that in England alone the Anglo-Saxon idea of freedom took perma- nent root. Professor Gneist, one of the most profound politi- cal writers, in his various works 1 has sketched with great skill the relations borne by the local institutions to the general insti- tutions of the country in Germany and England. He exposes the continental error of the eighteenth century, which supposed that the secret of England’s political liberty lay in her parlia- mentary institutions. Morier, another good authority, ob- served this when he said the great continental recipe for politi- cal liberty became the creation of parliamentary institutions. Fix upon a census ; divide the country into electoral districts ; elect representatives ; find some big town-hall for them to sit in, and the thing is done ; all the rest will come of itself. The Parliament will beget self-government ; self-government will beget liberty. It is this erroneous idea that Professor Gneist so effectually refuted and showed the reverse to be the case. He held that it was because the English were free in the old 1 “Self-Government in England;” “Communal Institutions of England;” “The Administration of the Constitution of England.” LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD. 177 Teutonic, positive, and concrete sense of the word freedom , and not in the abstract negative sense, of the word liberte , that England was self-governed, and that it was because they were self-governed in their local affairs that Parliament grew up, in which they were able to govern themselves in regard to imperial affairs ; in a word, that in the received continental doctrinaire view, cause and effect had been reversed. Let us now glance briefly at the history of local government in England, from which our own system of local government had its origin, and in which as far back as the Conquest lay the hidden germ of our present political liberty. It may be traced by the light of charters and other documents still extant. London, as is well known, was chartered, though not incorpo- rated, by the Conqueror himself. Henry I. granted its citizens the liberty of electing their own sheriff. The mayoralty of London is traced back to the beginning of Richard I/s reign ; but it was from John that London first received the royal per- mission to choose a Lord Mayor annually. Other towns slowly gained their civic independence. After the reign of Richard I. and John, borough charters became numerous. Local freedom was encouraged by The Tudors, and propagated by means of new charters ; and the entire local government was placed in the hands of the Mayor and Common Council. There can be little doubt that in this diversity of municipal constitutions, franchises, customs, and sentiments, consisted one of the most potent securities for liberty. Had London been one symmetrical whole instead of being overspread with a net-work of public and private jurisdictions in the days of Magna Charta, it would have been far more submissive. Close students of the Middle Ages admit that the necessity of con- sulting local sentiment, and governing through local agency, made itself felt in every branch of civil administration. Louis XI. succeeded in debauching the ministers of Edward IV., but he could not debauch the members sent up to Parliament from the country ; Pepys records the same facts in the evil days of Charles II. But the local institutions that had nursed our lib- erties through the most trying times, could not withstand the political blight of the eighteenth century, and the decline in the old-fashioned public spirit took the very soul from municipal 12 THE PRINCETON REVIEW, 178 life of olden times, and the Reform Parliament of 1832 opened a new order of things in Great Britain. Brodrick mentions the curious and instructive fact that while the primitive ideal of self-government had thus become obscured, both in English counties and in English boroughs, it not only survived, but acquired a fresh vitality, in the colonies of New England. The New England “towns,” which we shall presently consider, he says were nothing but a reproduc- tion of Anglo-Saxon “ townships,” with a larger average area, and with better defined corporate identity. Their resident in- habitants, or ” freemen,” like the free suitors of the old town- moot, constituted the electoral body, which admitted new members, chose all local town-officers, such as ” constables,” ” tithing-men,” and “ surveyors of highways,” regulated all local taxation, and sent deputies to the “ General Courts,” which corresponded in most respects with county courts before the Conquest. Like the townships of Old England, the New England towns were held responsible for their own roads, bridges, and police ; they were also held responsible for their own poor relief and education. Old usages and even old names were carefully preserved ; there were grand juries and petty juries, militia regiments and district train bands, and even whipping-posts and stocks, as there were in England under the rule of Cromwell. The system thus evolved from the results of English experience, modified, as I shall endeavor to show, by the exigencies of a vast and new country, retains its characteristic outlines to this day in every State of the Ameri- can Union. It has been truthfully remarked that the study of it may serve to show how little the working of political ma- chinery depends on its outward form, and how much on its in- ward spirit. Mr. S. A. Galpin 1 has roughly classed the minor political subdivisions of the United States for local purposes under three general types or systems, viz., the “town” system, the “ county” system, and the “ compromise” system. It will be necessary for our present purpose to indicate briefly the general characteristics of these types. Of the three systems mentioned 1 “ The Minor Political Divisions - of the United States.” By S. A. Galpin, LL.B., Hartford, Conn. Statistical Atlas of U. S. LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD. *79 above, the two which differ most widely from each other are the “ town” system of New England and the “ county” sys- tem of the South. Both of these were firmly rooted in their respective sections before the Declaration of Independence, and passed through the successive transfers of sovereignty growing out of the war of the Revolution, without any material change. Of course the county exists in the “ town” States, their title being simply the result of the prominence given to the “ town” in their interior political organization. So strong has been the impress of English tradition throughout the United States, that, with one exception, only the political division next below the State is known as the county.. The only exception is found in Louisiana, which is divided into “parishes.” But the powers these “ parishes” possess are substantially the same as the counties of other States. The “ town” system pure and simple prevails only in the six New England States — Connec- ticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont, The area of these States is 8348 square miles ; population, 3,487,924 ; containing one thirtieth of the area and one eleventh of the population of the United States. In these States the “ town” is the important political division of the State. It is a body corporate and politic, deriving its charter from the Legislature of the State, and generally entitled to an independent representation in the lower branch of the Legisla-- ture. It has power to elect its own officers, to manage in its own way its own roads, schools, local police, and other domes- tic concerns, and collects through its own officers not only its self-imposed taxes for local purposes, but also those levied by the Legislature for the support of the State, or for the support of county officers and to cover their limited expenditures. Where so much power is vested in the town, any larger subdi- vision of the State must necessarily have but a limited function. The county in the States above mentioned thus becomes a judicial, not a political, subdivision of the State. The “ county” system is now found in seventeen States, viz., Alabama, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida, Geor- gia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. These “ county” States have an area of 1,243,295 i8o THE PRINCE TON PE VIE W. square miles, with a population of 11,955,731 — about two- thirds of the area and more than one third of the population of ail the States. Under the “ county” system the conditions of the ” town” system are reversed — the outward form remains the same, but the inward spirit is greatly changed. The names of the greater and lesser subdivisions of the State remain un- changed, but the powers and position of these subdivisions are in no case or degree the same. The town or township is but the skeleton of the New England town, while the county is clothed with all the political power. It derives its charter from the Legislature, and is responsible to the State authorities for its share of the taxation. A comparison of the States of Rhode Island and South Carolina will show the reader at once the radical difference between these two systems. The area of Rhode Island, as given by the General Land Office, is 1306 square miles, less than double the average area of the political unit under the county system, yet it has within its limits 36 towns and cities, each being an independent political organiza- tion, while South Carolina, with an area of 34,000 square miles, has only 31 organized counties, which are in no respect the superiors of the Rhode Island towns in political power. On the other hand, the population of the Rhode Island town averages 6038, or, excluding cities, 4000 inhabitants, the area being about 36 square miles ; that of the South Carolina county 22,731 inhabitants, distributed over an average area of nearly 1100 square miles. Under these conditions of settle- ment, differing so widely, it is easy to understand how different are the methods of administration. Lastly comes the system called the ” compromise system,” which, having its home in States lying between those already named, is itself the result of a fusion of the systems prevailing on either side of it. This third general type has been adopted in the organization of the States of the North-west, and now prevails in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minne- sota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsyl- vania, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. These fourteen States contain 672,824 square miles, and 22,671,986 inhabit- ants, their area being about one third of that of the States of the Union, their population nearly two thirds. In this system the political power, which in New England is lodged with the LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD. 181 .town , and at the South with the county , is divided between the two organizations. The county is the creation of the Legisla- ture, and is the political unit. It is, however, subdivided into towns or townships, which possess considerable political rights, and thus becomes a miniature of a State as subdivided for local purposes into its counties. The townships are laid out by the county officers , 1 and have power to elect their own officers, to lay and repair their highways, to determine in township meeting the amount of taxes to be raised for school and other local purposes, and submit an estimate of the same to the county authorities for approval, and, in general, to act upon all local matters in much the same way as the New England town, subject, however, to the supervisory of the county. The tabulated statement below is compiled from official sources, and shows at a glance the various systems of local government in the United States. Table showing the Number and Average Area of the Towns, Town- ships, or other Political Divisions of the Counties of the United States, so far as the same can be ascertained from the Returns of the Ninth Census, together with their Average Population. The “ Town” System. Total Number. Aver- age Area. Average Popula- tion. The “ County” System. Total Number. Aver- age Area. Average Popula- tion. Connecticut. . 164 29 3.277 Tennessee.. . . 1,282 36 982 Maine (i) ( 2 ).. 412 36 1.552 Texas 705 226 1,161 Massachus’tts 338 23 4.318 New Hamp- The system. 6,961 79 1,301 shire ( 2 ) 23 I 39 1,378 T TT T7* G U If Rhode Island. 36 36 6,038 1 riH. Vermont ( 2 ). . 243 42 1,360 promise” Sys* . TEM. The system. 1,424 34 2,450 Illinois ( 7 ) i,545 36 1,644 Indiana 993 34 1,693 The “Coun- Iowa ( 8 ) 1,187 45 1,006 ty” System. Kansas ( 9 ) 353 104 1,032 Min’sota ( 10 ). 662 79 664 Arkansas. . . . 659 79 735 New Jersey. . 228 37 3,974 Delaware. . . . 31 68 3,139 New York . . . 942 50 4,653 Georgia ( 3 ). . . 1,122 52 1,055 N. Carolina. . 809 63 1,324 Kentucky.. . . 845 45 1,563 Ohio 1,357 29 1,964 Louisiana ( 4 ). 444 93 1,637 Pennsylvania. L452 32 2,426 Maryland .... 193 52 • 4,046 Virginia (8). .. 435 88 2,817 Mississippi.. . 325 145 2,547 WestVirginia. 313 73 1,412 Missouri ( 5 ). . 940 70 1,831 Wisconsin... . 780 69 1,352 South Caro- lina (6) 415 S 2 1,700 The system. ii,9I5 59 1,923 1 We note one exception, New Jersey, the Legislature reserving this right -in that State. 1 82 THE PRINCETON REVIEW. Recapitulation. Total Number. Average Area. Average Population. The “Town” System 1,424 34 2,450 The “ County” System 6,961 79 1,301 The “ Compromise” System 11,9*5 59 1,923 20,300 69 1,695 (1) The average area is estimated. (2) Only organized towns included in computations. (3) Militia districts of twenty counties estimated. (4) Wards of four parishes estimated. (5) Townships of one county estimated. (6) Town- ships of three counties estimated. Since 1870 all townships in this State have been abolished. (7) Townships of the twenty-six unorganized counties estimated from the returns of precincts or land survey townships of those counties. (8) Townships of two couhties estimated. (9) Townships of twelve counties estimated. (10) Townships of nineteen counties estimated. In attempting to examine the badly-kept accounts of up- wards of 20,000 minor political divisions of a vast country, one is met with many and serious difficulties. We cannot expect to find the uniform order and method which prevails in France,, alike in all the municipal budgets, from the largest town to the humblest commune. The Americans, as De Tocqueville has shown, can be very justly reproached for the sort of confusion which exists in the accounts of the expenditure in the town- ships and cities. Another writer of talent, in the compari- son which he has drawn between the finances of France and those of the United States, says, “ When I see the communes of France, with their excellent system of accounts, plunged in the grossest ignorance of their true interests, and abandoned to so incorrigible an apathy that they seem to vegetate rather than to live ; when, on the other hand, I observe the activity, the information, and the spirit of enterprise which keeps soci- ety in perpetual labor in those American townships whose budgets are drawn up with small method and with still less uniformity, I am struck by the spectacle ; for to my mind the end of a good government is to ensure the welfare of a people, and not to establish order and regularity in the midst of its misery and its distress.” It will be well to bear in mind these words in this attempt to unravel some of the evidences of local misgovernment in the United States. It is my present pur- pose, now that the reader has been made acquainted with some LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD. 183 of the difficulties attending such an investigation, to first call attention to the debts of the cities and counties of the United States — those mortgages of property that weigh so heavily upon taxpayers. It may be useful to consider their rise and progress in the cities where they exist, and their pressure upon the populations ; to compare their relative amounts ; and to add up, when correct figures can be obtained, their vast totals ; so that we may form some idea of the aggregate burden as well as of their separate effect on the cities that are bowed down under the double yoke of debt and taxation. The cen- sus reports afford very little assistance in ascertaining the real local indebtedness of the United States. In 1870 the total in- debtedness of the United States is given as follows . State debts, $352,866,698 ; county debts, $187,555,540; town and city debts, $328,244,520; total, $868,676,758. Leaving out the State debts, there remains $515,810,060, which is put down in 1870 as the total county, town, and city debt of the country. Feeling satisfied, in 1876, that local indebtedness and taxation had augmented out of all proportion to the other two elements — value of property and population — with regard to which it should maintain a certain relation, I instituted an inquiry, with a view of finding out the facts. Letters were sent to the comptrollers of one hundred and fifty of the princi- pal cities of the United States, selected not only for their size and importance, but to geographically represent the entire country. The facts sought after were the amount of the debt, the assessed valuation, annual taxation, and population in 1866 and 1876. One hundred and thirty responded, and from these answers a tabulated statement was compiled, which, as far as it went, formed at that time the most recent statistics of the kind attainable. The aggregate footings of the four elements of debt, valuation, taxation, and population, in the hundred and thirty cities which reported, are as follows : 1876. 1866. Municipal debt of 130 cities $644,378,663 $6,175,082,158 $112,711,275 8,576,249 $221,312,009 $3,451,619,381 $64,060,098 5 . 9 I 9 . 9 I 4 Assessed value of property of same Annual taxation of same Population of same 184 THE PRINCETON REVIEW. The aggregate municipal indebtedness of these cities, as will be seen, was in 1876 over ten per cent of the assessed value of property, whereas in 1866 it was only six per cent, showing an increase of indebtedness of four per cent of the valuation of property. It will also be seen that debt increased upward of $420,000,000 in the decennial period ending 1876, a yearly in- crease of $42,000,000. The percentage of increase is about as follows : Debt, 200 per cent ; taxation, 83 per cent ; valuation, 75 per cent ; and population only 33 per cent. Population and valuation of property have by no means kept pace with debt. Another fact brought out by this investigation was that if the census report of 1870, giving $515,810,060 as the total local debt of the United States, was correct, then the increase from that year to the close of 1876 must have been enormous, for incontrovertible figures showed that the municipal debt of one hundred and thirty cities, representing a population of only 8,576,249, exceeded by $128,568,603 the county, town, and city indebtedness of the entire country in 1870 ; or, still more appalling, that in six years the indebtedness of these cities had exceeded by $316,134,143 the bonded and floating indebt- edness of all the towns and cities in the United States. I pon- dered over these figures some time before I ventured to make them public. There could be no mistake about the calcula- tion, as the debt of 1876 came direct from the financial depart- ment of the respective cities, and the long column of figures were added up and fully verified. In 1875 and 1876 there was a very general halt in the reckless extravagance in municipal affairs. The New York commission appointed by Governor Tilden to devise a plan for the government of cities published their report ; and though but little heed was taken of it, the mere publication of the startling facts was not without its effect. Pennsylvania followed, and though the commission ap- pointed by this State did not even take the trouble to collate statistics of its local indebtedness, the report served to call public attention to the threatening danger. Among the good results of this very general discussion of the subject of the growth of local indebtedness was the passage, by several States, of bills compelling the county, township, or city officers to make out annually, and forward to the State Auditor, a LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD . 185 report of the outstanding indebtedness. One or two States had deemed it of sufficient importance to collect these statistics before the general agitation of municipal reform which fol- lowed the overthrow of Tweed in New York, but in all other States no complete record had ever been kept. The advan- tages of these new laws are now beginning to be understood, and from the different auditors' reports of 1879 I have succeeded in obtaining a complete report of the existing local indebtedness (with one exception), at the close of the year 1878, of eleven States of the Union : Table showing the Aggregate Local Debi of Eleven States in 1870 and in 1878. State. Total Local Debt, 1878. Total Local Debt, 1870. 1 New York (1) $244,079,859 89,601,156 51,811,691 41,205,840 9.931.158 5,272,230 13,473.197 35,343,155 17,151,327 26,130,351 12,289,564 $127,399,090 40,940,657 37,300,932 12,509,910 3,651,475 2,436,795 4,848,976 29,043,865 9,813,006 15,209,212 3,025,142 Massachusetts (2) Illinois (3) Ohio (4) Wisconsin (5) Minnesota (6) Kansas (7) Missouri (8) Connecticut (9) Georgia (10^ Rhode Island (11) Total $546,289,528 $286,179,060 Debt, then, in these eleven States has almost doubled, but the following table shows that the value of property has in- creased at no such ratio : 1 The figures in this column have been obtained by adding together the reports of the county, town, and city debts, as given in the census of 1870. It includes floating and bonded debt. (1) New York makes no return of local indebtedness, so the figures were taken from the census report of 1875, and are undoubtedly correct. (2) Tax Commissioners’ Report, January, 1879, p. 161. (3) Auditor’s Report for 1878, p. 223. (4) Auditor’s Report, 1878, p. 12. (5) Secretary State’s Report for 1878, p. 146. (6) Auditor’s Report, 1878, p. 137. (7) Auditor’s Report for 1878, p. 253. (8) The returns of county, township, and city indebtedness of Missouri may be found in the Missouri State Almanac for 1878, p. 73. The figures as given were not even footed up, a work I performed myself. (9) Comptroller’s Report for 1878, p. 25. (10) Comptroller’s Report for 1878, p. 22. (n) Rhode Island Manual for 1878, p. 191. i86 THE PRINCETON REVIEW. State. Total Assessed Valua- tion of Property, 1878. 1 Total Assessed Value of Property, 1870. 2 New Y ork $2,755,740,318 1,568,988,210 1,201,123,110 1 , 574 , 645.765 423,596,290 220,930,629 137,826,643 614,726,225 344 , 406,977 235 , 659,530 256,052,818 $1,967,001,185 1,591,983,112 482,899,515 1,167,731,697 333,209,838 84 U 35,332 92,125,861 556,129,969 425 , 433,237 227 2 IQ. ^ IQ Massachusetts Illinois Ohio Wisconsin Minnesota Kansas Missouri Connecticut Georgia Rhode Island 244,278,854 Total $ 9 , 333 , 696,515 ! $7,172,148,179 The above statement indicates a better condition of affairs than did the investigation into the financial condition of the hundred and thirty cities. One advantage in the latter investi- gation is that reliance can be placed in the figures — especially those for 1878. Debt has increased almost a hundred per cent in the eight years, while the assessed valuation of property has only risen from seven to nine billions. In some States the assessed valuation has actually decreased — as, for instance, Massachusetts and Connecticut. In the former the local debt has doubled, in the latter it has gone from nine to seventeen millions. A comparison of the aggregate debts of the hundred and thirty cities exclusively with the returns of the total local indebtedness of the eleven States brings fully to view the fact that the danger lies exclusively in the city and not in the county and township debts. The debts of the hundred and thirty cities jumped from $221,312,009, in 1866, to $644,378,663, in 1876. On the other hand, by adding in county and township debts the increase is from $286, 179,060 to $548,789, 528— the one at a rate of 200 per cent, the other at less than 100 per cent. In short, the bulk of the debts are municipal. The debt of twenty cities in Pennsylvania, a State that gives no complete returns, aggregates $87,329,180; nine cities in New Jersey, $36,502,722 ; two cities in Maryland, $34,000,000 ; five cities in Louisiana, $20,000,000, and five cities in Kentucky, 1 The assessed valuation of these States for 1878 has been taken from the last report of the State Auditors of the respective States. 2 From United States census of 1870. LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD. 187 $12,000,000. But when to these great debts are added the township and the county debts, the average per capita to the population is brought down, and the grand aggregate, though serious enough, loses some of its startling characteristics. I have made a careful estimate of the total local indebtedness of the United States, based on the returns received by the State Auditors, and such returns as I have been able to obtain, my- self, from States where no regular reports are made. Accord- ing to this calculation the total local debt of the country at the close of the year 1878 was $1,051,106,112, exclusive of the debts of Territories. If this calculation be approximately cor- rect it will be seen that the eleven States given in the table on page 14, representing a population of about 16,500,000, owe the largest proportion of the local debt. In eight years the debt has increased about half a billion dollars, while, as has been shown, in some States the assessed valuation of property has decreased. The imperfect and variable revenue laws may have much to do with the latter result, but the same may be said of the reports of 1870, so it is fair to make the comparison. Added to this it has been given out at Washington, in a semi- official manner, by those presumably well informed in such matters, that the next Federal census will reveal a condition of things not flattering to our national vanity. Statements based upon the most recent returns of the assessed valuation of the dif- ferent States have been printed in the leading newspapers of the country, showing an actual decrease in the aggregate wealth of the United States during the last decade. Of course these are but estimates, and the figures showing the total assessed value of property of eleven States, on page 15, do not warrant such statements, still it is more than probable that the total in- crease in the real value of property will be small when compared with that of 1860-70. The wiping out of millions of worthless bonds, the decline in stocks, and the enormous shrinkage in real property will have a decided tendency to lower the value of property in 1880. Of the separate effect of these debts so much has been said and written that it seems hardly necessary to more than allude in passing to one of the most recent and painful illustrations of the evils arising from the rapid growth of municipal debt. The THE PRINCETON REVIEW. 188 shocking condition of affairs in some of the cities of New Jersey formed the chief topic in the last annual message of the Gover- nor of that State. The following tabulated statements obtained from official sources, and which may be regarded as authentic, will show at a glance that repudiation or bankruptcy alone can save the property of the tax-payers of those unfortunate cities from confiscation : Total Debt. Population. Census, 1875. Debt per Capita. Expense per Capita. Paterson $1,374,000 38,814 $35 39 $8 36 Newark 8,824,455 123,310 7 i 56 8 64 Jersey City 14,217,435 109,227 130 16 16 78 Hoboken I,IIO,o65 24,766 44 82 5 77 Rahway 1,690.000 6,947 243 27 23 36 Elizabeth 5,808,500 25 , 9 2 3 224 06 14 89 Trenton 879.567 25,031 35 13 5 99 Camden 1,130,200 33,852 33 38 6 24 New Brunswick 1,468,500 16,660 88 14 10 17 $36,502,722 404,530 The annual amount of interest paid by these nine cities on their debt amounts to $2,138,856, while the total annual ex- penses for carrying on the local government only amounts to $2,- 307,368, or $166,512 more than the interest on the debt. The tremendous burden under which the tax-payers of these nine cities are bowed down can more fully be understood by a glance at the following table, which I have compiled from the abstract of ratables reported in 1878, and which shows the assessed value of the property side by side with the debt : Newark . Paterson Jersey City. Hoboken. . Rahway Elizabeth Trenton Camden New Brunswick Total Tax Rate. Amount Property Taxable. Debt. $19 80 $84,704,000 $8,824,455 22 50 19,150,861 1 , 374,000 23 60 60,404,281 14,217,435 18 57 15 , 278,573 1,110,065 29 61 3 , 093,275 1,690,000 35 60 I 3 , 579,650 5,808,500 15 00 14,503,252 879,567 23 00 11 , 773,815 1,130,200 29 00 5,658,000 1,468,500 $228,145,707 $36,502,722 LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT LIOME AND ABROAD. 189. The town of Rahway, a town of 6500 population, and with property assessed at $3,093,275, has a debt of $1,690,000, or of $243.27 per capita of its inhabitants, and which exceeds, by thousands of dollars, half the assessed value of all the property within the city. The value of the property in Elizabeth is $1 3, 579>650, and its debt almost $6,000,000, or very nearly half the value of its property. There are many other cities in this country struggling under burdens almost as heavy for the tax- payers to sustain as those given above. It is not the intention of this article to continue further the examination of the sepa- rate effect of these debts, but rather to ascertain, if possible, what has been done and what can yet be done to lighten the taxation which with the present imperfect revenue systems often falls heaviest in the poorest localities and lightest in the richest. Before venturing to suggest a remedy for this condition of affairs, it may be well to pass in brief review the propositions made by the distinguished commissions of New York and Pennsylvania, whose elaborate investigations in this direction were mentioned at the beginning of the article. The New York commission says the .only remedy is that; every city should have a responsible executive head elected by the people — heads of the department answerable to him, and removable for cause. Debt must be regulated by those who have to pay the taxes. A board of finance, elected by tax-payers and rent-payers, to have full control, jointly with the Mayor, of the financial affairs of the city. Property holders to have something to say about improvements chargeable to their estates. The Legislature of any State to be deprived of the power to impose burdens upon the tax-payers of cities for purely local affairs, and above all that local affairs be separated as far as possible from State and national politics. In these changes, and in nothing short of them, could Mr. Evarts and his eminent associates see anything like a rational and business-like management of the affairs of our large cities. 1 But the equally eminent gentlemen who composed the Penn- 1 Report of the Commission to Devise a Plan for the Government of Cities in the State of New York, 1877. 9 ° THE PRINCETON REVIEW. sylvania commission 1 differed with the New York commission in regard to the property qualification for electors. The Penn- sylvania commission say this proposition attracted their care- ful attention ; and while they were prepared to admit the force of many of the arguments in its favor, and that, perhaps, in a city like New York it might prove effective, yet they were forced to the conclusion that in Pennsylvania no important re- sults could be expected from requiring such a qualification. The proposition of the New York commission has been fully discussed by the press of the country, and has a great many advocates ; on the other hand, the limited number printed of the Pennsylvania report has almost entirely cut off the discus- sion that such an elaborate investigation deserved. The com- mission show that the city of Philadelphia contained in August, 1876, 143,936 dwellings. It is estimated that 5000 have been built since that time, so that, in round numbers, Philadelphia now contains 150,000 dwellings. The number of votes cast at the last municipal election was 127,520, and it is not claimed that the city contains more than 135,000 voters. It will thus be seen that the great bulk of voters are either owners of houses •or tenants paying rent. Hundreds of blocks of comfortable houses, renting from $12.50 to $20 per month, are scattered throughout the city. These are mainly occupied by the intel- ligent class of mechanics and operatives in manufacturing and •other establishments. The provision recommended by the New York commission, requiring the payment of an annual rental of $250 as a qualification for voting, would, if adopted in Pennsyl- vania, exclude this large and reputable class of citizens, while it would not exclude the tenants of low grog-shops and other disreputable establishments, who, in most cases, pay a higher rent. This is not the only point on which the Pennsylvania commission disagrees with that of New York. From a careful investigation they are led to believe that the undue accumula- tion of debt in most of the cities of the State of Pennsylvania has been the result of a desire for speculation on the part of owners of property themselves. Large tracts of land outside 1 Report of the Commission to Devise a Plan for the Government of Cities ;in the State of Pennsylvania, 1878. LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD. 19 1 the built-up portions of the cities have been purchased, com- binations made by men of wealth, an councils besieged until they have been driven into making appropriations to open and improve streets and avenues, largely in advance of the real necessities of the city. In many of these cases, the commission truthfully remarks, owners of property need more protection against themselves than against the non-property-holding class. It is due the municipal authorities that in some cases the largest debts have been contracted, not by their authority, but under the provisions of special acts of Assembly, appointing commis- sioners to open streets, park commissions, building commis- sions, and so on. It is plain, therefore, that an adequate pro- tection against municipal debt cannot be found in a property or rental qualification. In the opinion of the Pennsylvania commission nothing short of absolutely forbidding cities to bor- row money can effect any permanent good in this direction. They also proposed an elaborate scheme for divorcing the city councils from all executive functions, believing the great vice of the present system is the practical consolidation of legislative and executive powers in committees of city councils. While New York and Pennsylvania have been adding to the literature on the evils of municipal debts, Massachusetts has set about their payment in a manner that will show a material re- duction in the aggregate burden another year. From a com- parison of the tables in the Tax Commissioner’s report for 1879 it appears that 203 towns have diminished their net debt during the year 1878, and only sixty-five towns have increased it, and twenty have neither increased nor diminished. Sixty-three towns have no debt this year, against fifty-four which were in a like situation last year. The idea is constantly gaining ground that at least a partial remedy for the evil of local indebtedness maybe sought for and obtained in constitutional limitations. In view of this nearly all the recent State constitutions have inserted clauses looking to the limitation of local debts. New York, by the amendment of 1874, prohibits the loan of the credit of the State absolutely The power to contract debt is limited : (a) to meeting casual deficiencies in the revenue, not to exceed at one time $1,000,- 000 ; ( b ) to meeting the contingencies of war ; (c) “ to some 192 THE PRINCETON REVIEW. single work or object’ ’ authorized by law and distinctly speci- fied, in which case the proper tax shall be levied to pay the debt within eighteen years, provided that such law, on its final pas- sage, be voted upon by the popular vote, when no other prop- osition of law or of the constitution is pending popular action.. Subdivisions of the State are forbidden to appropriate money* incur indebtedness, or lend their credit in favor of any individ- ual, association, or corporation, except to provide for the poor according to the general law. Pennsylvania, in like manner* limits the State debt for casual purposes to $1,000,000, and does; not admit other purposes for which debt can be contracted at all, except those of war and to pay existing debt. The State or municipal credit cannot be loaned for any purpose ; the debt of municipal subdivisions shall never exceed seven per cent of the valuation ; new debt ofthe amount of two per cent shall not be in- curred without a popular vote. The State shall not assume muni- cipal debts, but their payments shall be provided for by municipal taxation. Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota, Nevada, Alabama, Florida, Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas all strictly limit the borrowing power of the State, without even a recourse to the popular sanction for an increase ; the same States prohibit the loan of municipal credit. In Mississippi and Nebraska the power of the munici- pality to contract debt is based upon the popular vote. In New Hampshire the power of the municipality is restricted. Colo- rado, Illinois, New Jersey, and North Carolina all limit the State debt and have strict prohibitions upon municipalities. California makes it the duty of the Legislature to limit munici- pal indebtedness. Reading over the annual messages of thirty-eight governors produces a curious effect on the mind. Though alike in form and arrangement, the views are as varied as the colors of the covers. Though as a whole monotonous, here and there may be found a scrap of wisdom, and now and then a fact of deep in- terest. One prominent feature in all these messages is the ap- parent lack of intercourse between the executives of the differ- ent States. Some governors recommend laws and measures that have been tried and proved utter failures in sister States. Many of the messages contain paragraphs, and in some pages LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD. 193 are devoted to the subject of local reform, but there cannot be found in one a decided proposition looking toward a remedy of the evil so bitterly complained of. It is pleasing, however, to observe that several governors recommend that measures be immediately taken to ascertain the amount of the local debt of their respective States. Some governors take a gloomy view of the future of American local government. For example, the Governor of Pennsylvania says : “ It is apparent to all that, under the present system, the bankruptcy of our larger cities is only a question of time.” In this gloomy pre-eminence Penn- sylvania is not alone. One day later Governor Robinson, of New York, said : “ The people of this State have played with debt, and courted taxation, as if for pastime. Many towns almost buried themselves with bonds, issued for railroads which have never been built, and covered their farms with mortgages for which they have received no consideration. Now that the illusion is gone, they are deploring the misfortunes in which it has involved them. Some of them are even hinting at the dis- honor of repudiation.” Governor McClellan, of New Jersey, in speaking of the municipal problem in that State, says : “ In some of our cities the problem is very serious and difficult of solution, and demands the utmost wisdom, so heavy is the bur- den of debt, so grievous the taxation.” After calling attention to the local debt of Illinois, Governor Cullom says that about 30 per cent of the $51,000,000 of local debt of that State repre- sents the railroad aid debt of the municipalities of the State. The constitution of the State now forbids all counties, cities, or other municipalities from making subscriptions to capital stocks or donations in aid of any railroad or private corporation, and further forbids the incurring of any indebtedness to an amount, including existing indebtedness, in the aggregate exceeding five per cent on the value of the taxable property therein. “ These,” the Governor says, “ are wise and fortunate provi- sions, and under them the municipal debt of the State is now decreasing, and will for some years continue to decrease.” Governors Croswell, of Michigan, and Williams, of Indiana, show the absolute need of at once taking steps to ascertain the local indebtedness of those States. Governor Gear, of Iowa, says that it is “a cause of general complaint by the tax-payers of our *3 i 9 4 THE PRINCETON REVIEW. cities that their municipal affairs are so loosely conducted, without due regard to their interest/' He also suggests that a commission be appointed to report to the next General Assem- bly “ the propriety of placing the cities and towns of the State under some more simple, uniform, and economical system of municipal government than we now have.” Year by year the question of reform in local government is augmented in importance. Already the demand for laborers in this field has met with a response from earnest and able men, in all parts of the country. How they differ from each other in their methods has been shown. Secretary Evarts, in New York, proposing to stop the flood-gates of corruption by a prop- erty qualification ; the Pennsylvania commission by divorcing the legislative and executive powers of the cities ; Governor Cullom, in Illinois, by constitutional amendments ; Francis Parkman pointing out the failure of universal suffrage, and W. R. Martin showing the importance of cities as units in our pol- ity, are all laborers toiling in the same vineyard. Each has his especial medicine for the malady, but the trouble is no one pre- scription will effect a cure. It needs time. It needs patience ; and, above all, the working out of natural laws. New experi- ments and tinkering only aggravate the disease. Instead of looking for new schemes in the future, the proper way is to look back into the past — back, if need be, to where we started, into the primitive communities of our Saxon forefathers ; back to the time of Tacitus and Caesar ; back to the time when com- munal liberty died and feudalism was established in Holland ; back to the days of Anglo-Saxon liberty in England, before the dull thud of the “ poor law” sounded the death knell of pure local government. It is by looking back into the past that a remedy can be found. The Anglo-Saxon idea of freedom, after preserving our liberties through centuries of darkness and despotism, acquired fresh vitality in the colonies of New Eng- land. To these little republics, Jefferson says, we owe the vigor given to our Revolution. It is this pure self-government we want now. The self-government of to-day hates trouble and loves self-indulgence — hence the deplorable condition of our cities. Self-government, it has been well observed, is a hard task-master. It expects every man to do his duty, not LOCAL GOVERNMENT— AT HOME AND ABROAD. 195 optionally but as a public obligation. Have those who com- plain bitterly of high taxes and mismanagement done their duty? They have paid their taxes. Yes! What else? Folded their arms and done nothing. Without disparaging the efforts of the distinguished gentlemen who have expended so much thought on this question of reform in local government, it is my belief that it can never be thorough until our citizens return to their former simplicity. Let general orders be given out for reform in every one of the twenty thousand townships in the land, as to the sergeant of an army, and soon the whole nation will be thrown into energetic action in the same direction. Then, and not till then, the force becomes absolutely irresistible, and we are on the right road to true and lasting Reform. Robert P. Porter. The following articles are published from the office of the PRINCETON REVIEW , 37 Park Row, New York, and can be obtained from all Booksellers and Newsdealers at Five Cents each : 1. LOCAL GOVERNMENT: AT HOME AND ABROAD, July, ’79 ROBERT P. PORTER, Esq., Chicago. 2. THE PULPIT AND POPULAR SKEPTICISM, . . Mar., '79. Rev. PHILLIPS BROOKS, D.D., Boston. 3. THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF SCIENCE, . . . Nov., ’78. Principal DAWSON, F.R.S., D.C.L., McGill University, Montreal. 4. FORCE, LAW, AND DESIGN May, ’79. President PORTER, D.D., LL.D., Yale College. 5. AMERICAN ART : ITS PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS, May, ’78. JOHN F. WEIR, N.A., School of Fine Arts, Yale College. 6. FINAL CAUSE: M. JANET AND PROF. NEWCOMB, . Mar., ’79. President McCOSH, D.D., LL.D., Princeton College. 7. ENGLAND AND HER COLONIES, May, ’78. JAMES ANTHONY FROUDE, D.C.L., London. 8. CLASSICS AND COLLEGES, July, ’78. Prof. B. L. GILDERSLEEVE, LL.D., Johns Hopkins University. 9. THE ANGLO-CATHOLIC MOVEMENT, .... Sept., ’78. The Right Rev. the LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL. ic. MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE, Nov., ’78. Prof. JOSEPH LE CONTE, LL.D., University of California. 11. THE AIM OF POETRY, Sept., ’78. Principal SHAIRP, D.C.L., University of St. Andrews. 12. THE IDEA OF CAUSE May, ’79. Prof. FRANCIS BOWEN, Harvard College. 13. MUSIC AND WORSHIP July, *79. President POTTER, D.D., LL.D., Union College. 14. NATIONAL MORALITY, Nov., ’78. EDWARD A. FREEMAN, D.C.L., LL.D., England. 15. THE EUROPEAN EQUILIBRIUM, Nov., ’78. THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, D.D., LL.D., Ex-President of Yale College. JANUARY, 1879. THE CONSCIENCE AS A WITNESS FOR CHRIST. President W. 0. KILLEN, Presbyterian College, Belfast. THE MONETARY CONFERENCES OF 1867 AND 1878. Prof. FRANCIS A. WALKER, Ph.D;, Yale College. MORAL GOVERNMENT. Prof. B. F. COCKER, D.D., University of Michigan. POLITICAL EFFECT OF THE DECLINE OF FAITH IN CONTINENTAL EUROPE. JOHN W. DRAPER, LL.D., University of New York. THE DAY AT CAESAREA PHILIPPI. Prof. BERNHARD WEISS, D.Th., Univ. of Berlin. THE PULPIT AND SCEPTICAL CULTURE. STUART ROBINSON, D.D., Louisville. THE SURRENDER OF FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE. Chief Justice COOLEY, Michigan. THE PHILOSOPHY OF CAUSALITY. J. HUTCHISON STIRLING, LL.D., Edinburgh. CAUSES OF COMMERCIAL DEPRESSION. Prof. THOROLD ROGERS, Univ. of Oxford. MARCH. RELIGION AND THE STATE. The Late Prof. TAYLER LEWIS, LL.D., L.H.D., Union Coll. THE GENESIS AND MIGRATIONS OF PLANTS. Principal DAWSON, F.R.S., D.C.L., Montreal. THE PULPIT AND POPULAR SKEPTICISM. Rev. PHILLIPS BROOKS, D.D., Boston. SENTIMENTAL AND PRACTICAL POLITICS. EDWARD A. FREEMAN, D.C.L., LL.D., England. THIERS. E. DE PRESSENS^, formerly Member National Assembly, France. FINAL CAUSE; M. JANET AND PROF. NEWCOMB. President McCOSH, D.D., LL.D., Princeton College. CONTINENTAL PAINTING AT PARIS IN 1878. PHILIP GILBERT HAMERTON, France. PREMILLENARIANISM. Rev. R. M. PATTERSON, D.D., Philadelphia. THE ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC. Sir JULIUS VOGEL, K.C.M.G., New Zealand MAY. FORCE, LAW AND DESIGN. President PORTER, D.D., LL.D., Yale College. CONTINENTAL PAINTING AT PARIS IN 1878 PHILIP GILBERT HAMERTON, France. UNIVERSITY WORK IN AMERICA. Prof. B. L. GILDERSLEEVE, Johns Hopkins University. SCIENCE AND A FUTURE STATE. BALFOUR STEWART, LL.D., F.R.S., Manchester. THE FINAL PHILOSOPHY. Rev. Dr. FRANCIS L. PATTON, Chicago. THE CRITICAL ESTIMATE OF MOSAISM. Rev. ALFRED CAVE, D.D., England. THE IDEA OF CAUSE. Prof. FRANCIS BOWEN, Harvard College. A PLEA FOR FREE TRADE. ARTHUR ARNOLD, London. THE SUPREMACY OF CONSCIENCE AND OF REVELATION. LYMAN H. AT- WATER, D.D., LL.D., Princeton College. The last volume of the Review, containing twenty-seven articles, will be sent to any address, postage paid, for one dollar. The object is to present, to the largest number ot intelligent readers, articles entirely original, of the highest order and timeliness, from the best minds of this country and Europe, treating of the most interesting phases of thought in Theology, Philosophy, Politics. Science, Literature, and Art. The Review is published bimonthly, at two dollars a year, or thirty-five cents a number ; postage paid. The proprietor respectfully solicits your subscription, and desires your influence in extending its circulation. Remittances should be addressed to the PRINCETON REVIEW, JULY, 1878. EXPLORATION AS VERIFYING REVELATION. Prof. J. L. PORTER, Assembly's College, Belfast. GOD’S INDISCRIMINATE PROPOSALS OF MERCY. Prest. ROBERT L. DABNEY, Hampden-Sydney Theol. Seminary. CLASSICS AND COLLEGES. Prof.*B. L. GILDERSLEEVE, Johns Hopkins University. THE MATERIALIST REVIVAL. Prof. LIONEL S. BEALE, King’s College, London. THE SON OF MAN. Prof. J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE, University of Utrecht. RECENT CHANGES IN JURISPRUDENCE AND APOLOGETICS. FRANCIS WHARTON, LL.D., Cambridge. METHODS OF HOME EVANGELIZATION. Prof. WM. G. BLAIKIE, Free Church College, Edinburgh. KANT AND HIS FORTUNES IN ENGLAND. Prof. J. p. MAHAFFY, Trinity College, Dublin. CHRISTIANITY UNDER THE ROMAN EMPIRE. Prof. ADOLF HARNACK, Univer- sity of Leipzig. THE PROPHETS AND PROPHECY. Prof. WM. HENRY GREEN, Princeton Theol. Seminary. SEPTEMBER. THE PROBLEM OF THE HUMAN WILL. HENRY CALDERWOOD, LL.D., University of Edinburgh. ART AS AN INTERPRETER OF HISTORY. Prof. HENRY COPP^E, Lehigh University. TAXATION OF THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC. Judge ROBERT C. PITMAN, Mass. SCIENCE AND A FUTURE STATE. BALFOUR STEWART, F.R.S., the Owens College, Manchester. J. S. MILL AND THE DESTRUCTION OF THEISM. President DANIEL S. GREGORY, Lake Forest University. THE AIM OF POETRY. Principal SHAIRP, University of St. Andrews. THE FOUNDATIONS OF CHANCE. Prof. JOHN VENN, University of Cambridge. FAITH. MARK HOPKINS, Ex-President of Williams College. THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK IN FRANCE. Rev. Dr. ROBERT L. STANTON, Cincinnati. THE COST OF A LANDED GENTRY. ARTHUR ARNOLD, London. THE ANGLO-CATHOLIC MOVEMENT. The Rt. Rev. the LORD BISHOP of GLOUCESTER and BRISTOL. NOVEMBER. NATIONAL MORALITY. EDWARD A. FREEMAN, D.C.L., LL.D., England. THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF SCIENCE. Principal DAWSON, McGill University, Montreal. PHILOSOPHY AS SCIENTIA SCIENTIARUM. ROBERT FLINT, D.D., LL.D., University of Edinburgh. THE EUROPEAN EQUILIBRIUM. THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, Ex-President of Yale College. COPYRIGHTS AND PATENTS. LEONE LEVI, F.S.A., F.S.S., Kings College, London. MAN’S PLACE IN NATURE. Prof. JOSEPH LE CONTE, University of California. DUTIES OF HIGHER TOWARDS LOWER RACES. Canon GEORGE RAWLINSON, University of Oxford. ECLIPSES OF THE SUN. SIMON NEWCOMB, LL.D., U. S. N. Observatory, Washington. THE RECENT SOLAR ECLIPSE. Professor YOUNG, Princeton College. A CRITICISM OF THE CRITICAL PHILOSOPHY, IN REPLY TO PROFESSOR MAHAFFY. President McCOSH, Princeton College. PHYSIOLOGICAL METAPHYSICS. President PORTER, Yale College. The last volume of the Review for 1878, containing thirty-two articles, will be forwarded naid. for one dollar.