defence. It appears to me that the amount of freedom which incorporate society may fitly leave to its members is not a fixed quantity to be determined a priori by deduction from the fiction called 'natural rights'; but that it must be determined by, and vary with circumstances. I conceive it to be demonstrable that the higher and the more complex the organization of the social body, the more closely is the life of each member bound up with that of the whole; and the larger becomes the category of acts which cease to be merely self-regarding, and which interfere with the freedom of others more or less seriously."

It has been repeatedly and plainly pointed out by the profoundest thinkers, that the steadily growing and irresistible tendency of modern civilization is towards decentralization, that is to say, towards democracy, which means Paternal Government.

Indeed, it may as well be said, that such is not only the tendency of modern civilization, but that such tendency towards democracy, is clearly discernible in the history and evolution of all civilizations, ancient or modern. Vigorous thought and enterprise, knowledge and invention, dominations of genius and developments of governmental and social organizations, have become world-wide growths; and no kind of progress, intellectual, industrial, governmental or social, can be kept within its former narrow boundaries; it crosses the seas, it penetrates the mountains, geographical and political boundaries are no longer obstacles to the potential march of evolutionary progress in the history of civilization. The world-the wide, wide world is now the true domain of knowledge; and if each nation displays some special capacities in some special branch, the various capacities of different nations compensate one another, and the advantages which could be derived from them would be only temporary. The fine British workmanship in mechanical arts, the Yankee boldness for gigantic enterprise, the French systematic mind, and the German pedagogy, are becoming international capacities.

It is needless to say, that these facts, with others, distinctly indicate a strong current, in a large stream, towards decentralization and a purer democracy; and that in the same ratio, all things being equal, Government everywhere tends towards

paternalism. And if the ideal " Paternal Government " means, to more completely minister to the wants and needs of the people; why should it not be encouraged? If it tends to do this, it is the grandest and sublimest ideal to strive to get into practice.

Woodrow Wilson on "Congressional Government," page 53, etc., emphasizes this tendency, by drawing a striking contrast between two seemingly opposing tendencies, to wit: between centralization and paternalism. He well and forcibly says: "There are voices in the air which cannot be misunderstood. The times seem to favor a centralization of Governmental functions such as could not have suggested itself as a possibility to the framers of the Constitution. Since they gave their work to the world, the whole face of that world has changed. The Constitution was adopted when it was six days' hard traveling from New York to Boston; when to cross East River was to venture a perilous voyage; when men were thankful for weekly mails; when the extent of the country's commerce was reckoned, not in millions, but in thousands of dollars; when the country knew few cities, and had but begun manufactures; when Indians were pressing upon near frontiers; when there were no telegraph lines, and no monster corporations. Unquestionably, the pressing problems of the present moment regard the regulation of our vast system of commerce and manufacture, the control of giant corporations, the restraint of monopolies, the perfection of fiscal arrangements, the facilitating of economic exchanges, and many other like national concerns, amongst which may possibly be numbered the question of marriage and divorce; and the greatest of these problems do not fall within the enlarged sphere of the Federal Government; some of them can be embraced within its jurisdiction by no possible stretch of construction, and the majority of them only by wresting the Constitution to strange and as yet unimagined uses. Still, there is a distinct movement in favor of national control of all questions of policy which manifestly demand uniformity of treatment and power of administration such as cannot be realized by separate, unconcerted action of the States; and it seems probable to many that, whether by Constitutional

Amendment, or by still further flights of construction, yet broader territory will at no distant day be assigned to the Federal Government. It becomes a matter of the utmost importance, therefore, both for those who would arrest this tendency, and for those who, because they look upon it with allowance, and not with positive favor, would let it run its course, to examine critically the Government upon which this new weight of responsibility and power seems likely to be cast, in order that its capacity both for the work it now does and for that which it may be called to do, may be definitely estimated."

It may safely be asserted that the tendency of Government is everywhere towards democracy more strongly than it ever has been at any period of the world's history; but this tendency does not warrant the conclusion in that unqualified sense in which the anti-paternalist teaches the democratic maxim that that Government is best which governs least. It is good. democratic doctrine that least Government is best Government. This must not be taken however, in an absolute sense, but it means least under the circumstances. If this were not so, that would be the best Government which allowed every man to trample upon the rights and liberties of other men ; and the ideal Government of democracy would be one that permitted all sorts of wrongs and injuries without a remedy. But what is the difference in principle between such a Government and one that permits individuals or corporations to harass and plunder the community through their control and management of such public concerns as are naturally monopolies ? Whenever the alternative occurs, whether the people shall be governed by individuals, or by themselves, the vital principle of democracy comes forward—and no matter what mere general rule of democracy adapted to other circumstances may have prevailed-and declares that the people shall govern themselves. But the opponents of so-called "Paternal Government" forget that democracy is based upon principles which must be adapted to conditions, and not upon inflexible rules. They apply democratic rules a century old, to the conditions of today, wholly ignoring what the majority of the people are beginning to see, that in observing the rule, they repudiate the principle. W. M. RAPSHER.

THE TORREY BANKRUPT BILL.

That section of the bill which declared it an act of bankruptcy to suspend and not resume the payment of commercial paper within thirty days, has been amended so that the time has been shortened to fifteen days. There is a provision also in the bill that the neglect for sixty days, after written demand, to pay an open account, shall be an act of bankruptcy. The other acts of bankruptcy, for the most part, refer to some sort of wrong doing, or proceedings calculated to give to certain creditors the advantage over their associate creditors. The two acts referred to, are, therefore, the only grounds upon which the creditors of certain honest men, could put them into bankruptcy. There are plenty of cases in which the debtor is perfectly honest, but by reasons of misfortunes, of one kind or another, has fallen behind with his payments and has become hopelessly insolvent, and yet his courage is so great, that he hopes ultimately to be able to pay his creditors dollar for dollar. The creditors might disagree with him as to the advisability of his continuing to conduct his business at a loss and desire to throw him into bankruptcy and collect a pro rata of their claims, but would not be able to do so, if it were not for the defaults as above constituting acts of bankruptcy.

The section relating to the exemptions of a bankrupt has been amended so that it now reads as follows:

"The bankrupt shall be allowed the same exemptions as are prescribed by the laws in force, at the time of filing of the petition, in the State wherein the adjudication is made."

Under the old law, exemptions were fixed as of the date when the act first went into effect, so that if any State had, during the time that that law was in force, increased its exemptions, it would not have benefited the bankrupt, and on the contrary, if the exemptions had been reduced, it would not have benefited the creditors. It will be noted that under the section as above quoted, that the exemptions are to be such only as are provided by the laws of the State, at the time of the filing of the petition. It is not thought by the friends of the act that any State is liable to increase its exemptions, as the history of legislation upon that subject is to the effect

that exemptions are very high in the new States, and that they are gradually reduced. It is said that no State has ever increased its exemptions.

This section is simply an adoption of the State exemptions as they stand. Under the old law, bankrupts received not only State exemptions as are here provided, but were entitled to certain articles and amounts in addition. The Lowell Bill, as proposed, also gave exemptions in addition to those provided by the law of the States.

There is a general feeling in commercial circles that in certain States in the West and Southwest, the exemptions are larger than they ought to be. The friends of the proposed bankrupt act recognize this fact, but say that it is not fair to undertake to burden their cause with an attempt at reform upon this question. It seems, as a political proposition, impossible to obtain uniform exemptions. If it were attempted, the Representatives and Senators from States which now have exemptions in excess of the one proposed, would of course vote in the negative, at the instance of the debtor classes. On the other hand, in the States in which the exemptions are now less than the one proposed, the Representatives and Senators would vote in the negative at the instance of the creditor classes, so that the bill would have only for its supporters, the statesmen from those States in which the effect would be not to modify the law upon that subject. It follows that the friends. of bankruptcy must either accept the situation or suffer defeat. They have chosen the former alternative.

The section upon who may become voluntary or involuntary bankrupts has been amended so that it now reads as follows:

"Any person owing debts to the amount of five hundred dollars or over, not a national bank, may be adjudged a voluntary bankrupt, upon his own petition and the surrender of his assets.

"Any person owing debts to the amount of five hundred dollars or over may be adjudged an involuntary bankrupt upon the petition of his creditors or a part of them, except (1) national banks; (2) those engaged exclusively in raising agricultural products; (3) municipal, charitable, literary or religious corporations or associations, or (4) wage workers.”

The amendment is a great improvement.