divorce shall be of no effect. Prohibitions as to remarriage are of force only within the State where decreed. Judgments of divorce in another State are recognized in the State of New York only where both parties personally appeared. Special provisions for defense of divorce are made by the States of Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Vermont, and Washington. In Kentucky a county attorney successfully resisting an application for divorce is allowed a fee of twenty dollars, to be paid by the husband. Causes barring divorce in a majority of the States and Territories are: Collusion, connivance, condonation and recrimination. Actions for divorce must be brought within periods of from one to ten years. Recent Legislation. By act of July 30, 1886, Congress prohibited the granting of divorces by legislatures of the several Territories. Individual legislation of States and Territories influencing materially the progress of divorce within the past few years may be briefly summed as follows: Arizona.-Radical change of divorce law by code of 1887. Arkansas.-Extension of causes for divorce to include "insanity after marriage," 1873. Colorado-Act of Feb. 16, 1881, making "Willful desertion and absence and departure from the State without intention of returning," previously a cause when committed by husband only, a cause wher committed by either party, and adding cause: "When the husband, being in good bodily health shall fail to make reasonable provision for the support of his family for the space of one year." The period of two years' continuance of "habitual drunkenness " was also reduced to one year. Connecticut.-Repeal, March 27, 1878, of old law permitting divorce for any such misconduct as permanently destroys the happiness of the petitioner and defeats the purposes of the marriage relation." Dakota.-Act of March 1, 1881, reducing the period of desertion from two years to one year. Indiana.-March 10, 1873, act changing period of abandonment as cause for divorce from one year to two years, altering clause "failure of the husband to make reasonable provision for his family" by insertion of" for a period of two years," and striking out the "omnibus clause." Maine.-Act of March 3, 1883, defining causes for divorce, previously left to discretion of court, prohibiting the party on whose petition the divorce is granted from marrying again within two years after final decree, without the consent of the court," and providing that the party against whom decree was issued shall not marry again after two years without consent of court. South Carolina.-Repeal, Dec. 10, 1878, of act of Jan. 31, 1872, legalizing judicial divorce for adultery or willful desertion of either party. Utah. -Act of Feb. 2, 1878, requiring bona fide residence of one year within the county; defining cause for divorce, in lieu of previous omnibus clause, and compelling complaint or petition in writing, with oath of plaintiff; no decree to be granted upon default or otherwise, except upon legal testimony; and findings and decrees to be made and filed upon testimony only. This legislation was rendered necessary by the fact that for the years 1875, 1876, and 1877 Utah courts had become bureaus of divorce for citizens of other States, in consequence of the laxity of the law of March 6, such cause accrued lived together as husband and wife in this State; nor for a cause which accrued in another State or country, unless one of the parties then lived in this State. Act of Nov. 26, 1884, "to diminish the frequency of divorces," repealed Nov. 9, 1886. West Virginia.-Act of March 6, 1882, requiring one year's residence in place of residence at time of filing suit. DOMINION OF CANADA. The Hon. John Henry Pope, Minister of Railways and Canals, died during the parliamentary session of 1889, and in December Sir John Macdonald succeeded him as head of the Department of Railways and Canals, and the Hon. Charles C. Colby, M. P. for Stanstead, P. Q., entered the Cabinet as President of the Council. For Finances.-The Hon. George E. Foster, Minister of Finance, made his first budget speech on March 5. He showed the expenditure for the fiscal year 1887-'88 to have been $36,718,494, or $281,506 less than the estimate of his predecessor, Sir Charles Tupper. This left a deficit of $810,031, but the expenditure included $1,939,077 paid as sinking fund and investment for interest of sinking fund, otherwise the Finance Minister would have been in a position to show, instead of a deficit, a surplus of $1,129,046. The items of capital expenditure were: Railways and canals, $2,798,704; public works, $1,207,111; Dominion lands, $135,047; Northwest rebellion, $539,929; total, $4,437,460. On railway subsidies $1,207,041 was spent, and on redemption of debt $3,185.638. The net debt increased from $227,313,911 on July 1, 1887, to $234,531,358 on July 1, 1888. The minister estimated the expenditure for the current year, 1888-'89, at $36,600,000, and the revenue at $38,500,000. $39,175,000, and the expenditure at $36,500,000. the year 1889-'90 he estimated the revenue at Comparing the present net debt, $234,531,358, with the net debt in 1874, when the union of the provinces was completed, $108,324,965, he pointed out that the burden of interest amounted in 1874 to $1.34 per capita, and in 1888 to $1.78. It must also be remembered that the Dominion had assumed as debts of the provinces, not created for federal purposes, $106,472,033. capital expenditure of the Dominion, almost entirely for public works, would exceed the amount of the purely federal debt by $51,650,649. An unfair comparison is sometimes instituted between the United States debt of $20.42 per capita of the population and the Dominion debt of $47.16 per head of the population; it ought to be taken into consideration that the United States assumes no debts of its various States, and pays no State subsidies, whereas Canada has assumed provincial debts to the amount of $106,472,033, has paid in subsidies to its provinces since confederation $72,316,028, and in interest on the debts assumed for the different provinces at least $70,000,000. Canada has also had to pay for penitentiaries, immigration, and quarantine, and the salaries of governors, which in the United States are provided for by the various States. The Dominion has also had to bear a and of the administration of justice than the much larger proportion of the cost of the militia United States. The Jesuit Estates Settlement.-In the "Annual Cyclopædia" for 1888, the act passed by the Quebec Legislature for the settlement of the Jesuit estates claim is described in the article QUEBEC. The act, which attracted wonderfully little public attention while it was before the Quebec Legislature, and met with practically no opposition from the Protestant members of that Legislature, no sooner became law than it aroused a widespread demand for the exercise of the veto power by the Federal Government. On March 28, on motion for the House of Commons to go into Committee of Supply, Lieut.Col. O'Brien moved in amendment that Mr. Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that it be resolved, That an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor-General setting forth: 1. That this House regards the power of disallowing the acts of the Legislative Assemblies of the provinces, vested in His Excellency in Council, as a prerogative essential to the national existence of the Dominion. 2. That this great power, while it should never be wantonly exercised, should be fearlessly used for the protection of the rights of a minority, for the preservation of the fundamental principles of the Constitution, and for safeguarding the general interests of the people. 3. That, in the opinion of this House, the passage by the Legislature of the Province of Quebec of the act entituled "An act respecting the settlement of the Jesuits' estates" is beyond the power of that Legislature. First, because it endows from public funds a religious organization, thereby violating the undoubted constitutional principle of the complete separation of Church and state and of the absolute equality of all denominations before the law; second, because it recoguizes the usurpation of a right by a foreign authority, namely, His Holiness the Pope of Rome, to claim that his consent was necessary to empower the Provincial Legislature to dispose of a portion of the public domain, and also because the act is made to depend upon the will and the appropriation of the grant thereby made as subject to the control of the same authority; and third, because the endowment of the Society of Jesus-an alien, secret, and politico-religious body, the expulsion of which from every Christian community wherein it has had a footing has been rendered necessary by its intolerant and mischievous intermeddling with the functions of civil government-is fraught with danger to the civil and religious liberties of the people of Canada. And this House therefore prays that His Excellency will be graciously pleased to disallow the said act. As the Government had already refused to recommend the disallowance of the act, the adoption of this resolution would have been equal in effect to a vote of non-confidence in the ministry. An exciting debate took place, the most striking features of which were that C. C. Colby, who was considered to be essentially a representative of the Protestant minority in the Province of Quebec, opposed the resolution; and that Dalton McCarthy, one of the ablest supporters of the Government, for many years its chief legal adviser and known to be high in the personal confidence of Sir John Macdonald, vigorously supported the resolution. The main arguments adduced in favor of disallowance were that the act, by endowing a religious society, violates a fundamental principle of the Constitution, i. e., that all denominations shall be equal before the law and that there shall be no connection between Church and state; that by making the settlement conditional upon the sanction of the Pope, the Queen's supremacy is chal lenged; and that the incorporation of the Jesuits in Canada is unconstitutional. The Minister of Justice, Sir John Thompson (a Roman Catholic), supported the act on its merits. Most of the Protestant members who opposed disallowance took the ground that while the Jesuit act was in itself highly objectionable, it was yet clearly within the competence of the Quebec Legislature. The Liberal party, by the way, had always held that the veto should be exercised by the Federal Government only in the case of acts ultra vires of the legislature that passed them. The Conservative party, on the other hand, had exercised the veto freely without regard to any such limitations, holding that the courts, being competent to upset any provincial legislation that may be unconstitutional, the veto was manifestly designed to be applied to provincial acts that might be constitutional but not in the interests of Canada. The amendment was negatived by a vote of 188 to 13 on the following division: YEAS-Barron, Bell, Charlton, Cockburn, Denison, Macdonald of Huron, McCarthy, McNeill, O'Brien, Scriver, Sutherland, Tyrwhitt, Wallace-13. langes, Bain of Wentworth, Barnard, Beausoleil, BéNAYS-Amyot, Armstrong, Audet, Bain of Souchard, Bergeron, Bergin, Bernier, Blake, Boisvert, Borden, Bourassa, Bowell, Bowman, Boyle, Brien, Brown, Bryson, Burdett, Burns, Cameron, Campbell, Cargill, Carling, Carpenter, Caron (Sir Adolphe, Cartwright (Sir Richard), Casey, Casgrain, Chisholm, Choquette, Chouinard, Cimon, Cochrane, Colby, Colter, Cook, Corby, Coughlin, Coulombe, Couture, Curran, Daly, Daoust, Davies, Davin, Davis, Dawson, Desaulniers, Desjardins, Dessaint, Dewdney, Dickey, Dickinson, Doyon, Dupont, Edgar, Edwards, Eisenhauer, Ellis, Ferguson of Leeds and Grenville, Ferguson of Renfrew, Ferguson of Welland, Fiset, Fisher, Flynn, Foster, Freeman, Gauthier, Gigault, Gillmor, Girouard, Godbout, Gordon, Grandbois, Guay, Guillet, Haggart, Hale, Hall, Hesson, Hickey, Holton, Hudspeth, Innes, Ives, Joncas, Jones of Digby, Jones of Halifax, Kenny, Kirk, Kirkpatrick, Labelle, Labrosse, Landerkin, Landry, Lang, Langelier of Quebec, Langevin (Sir Hector), La Rivière, Laurier, Lepine, Livingston, Lovitt, Macdonald (Sir John), Macdowall, Mackenzie, McCulla, McDonald of Victoria, McDougald of Pictou, McDougall of Cape Breton, McGreevy, McIntyre, McKay, McKeen, McMillan of Huron, McMillan of Vaudreuil, McMullen, Madill, Mara, Marshall, Masson, Meigs, Mills of Annapolis, Mills of Bothwell, Mitchell, Moffat, Moncrieff, Mortplaisir, Mulock, Neveux, Paterson of Brant, Patterson of Essex, Perley, Perry, Platt, Porter, Préfontaine, Robillard, Roome, Ross, Rowand, Rykert, Ste. Marie, Prior, Purcell, Putnam, Rinfret, Riopel, Robertson, Scarth, Semple, Shanly, Skinner, Small, Smith (Sir Donald), Smith of Ontario, Somerville, Sproule, Stevenson, Taylor, Temple, Thérien, Thompson (Sir John), Tisdale, Trow, Tupper, Turcot, "Vanasse, Waldie, Ward, Watson, Weldon of Albert, Weldon of frew, Wilmot, Wilson of Argenteuil, Wilson of ElSt. John, Welsh, White of Cardwell, White of RenWestmoreland, Wright, and Yeo—188. gin, Wilson of Lennox, Wood of Brockville, Wood of Fisheries and Trade Relations with the United States.-On motion to go into Committee of Supply, the Hon. Mr. Laurier, leader of the Opposition, moved in amendment thatStates of the Washington Treaty of 1888, and the unIn view of the rejection by the Senate of the United fortunate and regrettable differences existing between Canada and the United States on the fishery and trade questions, this House is of opinion that steps should be taken, at an early day, by the Government That, in the mean time, and to permit of such negotiations being favorably entered on, and to afford evidence of the anxious desire of Canada to promote good feeling and to remove all possible subjects of controversy, this House is of opinion that the modus vivendi proposed on behalf of the British Government to the Government of the United States with respect to the fisheries should be continued in operation during the ensuing fishing season. Mr. Laurier claimed urgency for his resolution, on the ground that the proclamation of non-intervention threatened by the President of the United States was impending. Speaking for the Liberal party, he declared their belief that newed. It was unfortunate that, after more than one failure of negotiations for giving the Ameritained that access by means of a money considcans access to our fisheries, they should have oberation. It was inevitable that when the term stipulated and paid for expired, the question would be reopened with increased bitterness. Then the Conservatives, when in opposition, had thought it honorable warfare, in order to make a point against the Liberal Government, to inaugurate a campaign of brag and bluster against the United States. In the maritime provinces they had said again and again that by building up a tariff wall Canada would, in a few years, bring the Americans to their knees and force them to grant reciprocity. Naturally, the Americans stiffened their backs and refused to give to threats what they might have been disposed to give to negotiations. Then the Government had the most satisfactory relations that ever existed between Canada and the United States, and between England and the United States, were those created by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1854. The time was not distant when the Conservatives to a large extent held the same views, in fact, these views had been made the basis of the national policy: but that policy, instead of tending in the direction of a reciprocity of tariffs, as had been claimed it would, had brought the two countries to the verge of non-intercourse and commercial war. He declared that throughout the American civil war the sympathies of the Canadian Government and of a large number of the Canadian people had been withheld from the side that was fighting for the right, and given to the rebels. The American Union, finding a hostile people on their borders, had cut off reciprocal trade relations with them, and with the abolition of the treaty all the old quarrels and all the old difficulties with regard to the fisheries had been re put the narrowest possible construction on the Convention of 1818; they refused to ship the fish of Americans in bond, seized their schooners for alleged or trivial offenses against the customs laws, and expected to bring down the Americans by that policy. The result was the Retaliation bill. It was not until Erastus Wiman (a Canadian in the United States with a true Canadian heart, a man honored with the daily abuse of the Conservative press), stepped to the front, constituted himself ambassador for Canada to the United States, and had an interview with Secretary Bayard, that the Government thought it fit and proper to move, and sent Sir Charles Tupper to Washington. After Sir Charles and Secretary Bayard had agreed upon a basis of settlement, a definite proposition made by the former was rejected by the American plenipotentiaries, simply on account of the policy that the Government had adopted in regard to the Fishery Treaty, and the irritation caused thereby in the United States. He called upon the Government to reverse their policy of harshness and adopt a policy of conciliation, to admit that they had been in the wrong, and to endeavor to obtain reciprocity of trade, not by threats nor by acts of violence, but by negotiation and peaceable means. The hostility displayed in the United States toward England during the presidential contest was a blot on the fair fame of the United States, just as the hostility displayed during the civil war by England toward the United States was a blot on the fair fame of England. It behooved Canadians, connected geographically as they were with the United States, to help to create a better public sentiment between the two countries. the United States of a desire to enter into The amendment was negatived by a vote of 108 to 65. Sir John Macdonald declared himself unable to congratulate the leader of the Opposition upon the success with which he had shown Canada to be altogether blameable, and the United States altogether or nearly innocent of wrong the sixty million people to have been trampled upon and oppressed by the five million. The Government declined to admit that they had been in the wrong. The treaty made last year with the United States showed that the President, the commissioners appointed by him, and the gentlemen who signed the treaty, all admitted that every one of the pretensions of Canada, every one of the arguments used by Canada, and every one of the positions taken by Canada, were just and right. The Americans admitted that they would have to pay for the privileges which before that treaty they contended were theirs by right, and the American fishermen willingly paid for those privileges. The honorable gentleman-a friend, like other cosmopolitans, to every country but his own-a few days before a new government was about to enter upon the administration of the affairs of the United States, with its policy undeclared, asked the Government of Canada to go upon their knees and admit that they had oppressed the United States and wronged the fishermen of the United States, and then, to quote Lord Chatham, say to the Americans, "Now make a treaty." But the United States would say: "What is the use of making a treaty? You have conceded everything, you have given up all you contended for, and even what we admitted." That was not the way the Govern- (a) To unduly limit the facilities for transporting, ment proposed to make treaties. The honorable producing, manufacturing, supplying, storing, or dealgentleman had shaken the Non-Intercourse billing in any article or commodity which may be a subat the Government, as if they would be fright- ject of trade or commerce; or, ened at it. Canada discounted that non-intercourse threat a year ago. Suppose, however, that the Canadian Government issued licenses to the American fishermen up to February, 1890, and then they were told-say on March 4, 1889that the Non-Intercourse bill was to go into effect, they would have opened the fisheries and the markets of Canada to the Americans and committed themselves to the whole extent of the modus vivendi, and at the same time we could not send a herring into the United States. Therefore the Government declared that they had that under consideration. The modus vivendi was an evidence, in the hands of the Canadian Government, of friendship and amity and of a desire for extended relations with the United States. At the first intimation on the part of Prevention of Combinations.-Mr. Clark Wallace succeeded in getting an act passed for the prevention and suppression of combinations formed in restraint of trade. The clause defining the offense reads as follows: Every person who conspires, combines, agrees, or steamship, steamboat, or transportation company, unarranges with any other person, or with any railway, lawfully (b) To restrain or injure trade or commerce in relation to any such article or commodity; or, (e) To unduly prevent, limit, or lessen the manufacture or production of any such article or commodity or to unreasonably enhance the price thereof; or, (d) To unduly prevent or lessen competition in the production, manufacture, purchase, barter, sale, transportation, or supply of any such article or commodity or in the price of insurance upon person or property. The penalty is a fine of not more than $4,000 and not less than $200, or imprisonment for not more than two years. In the case of a corporation being convicted, the fine is not more than $10,000 and not less than $1,000. Unrestricted Reciprocity. Sir Richard Cartwright, on March 19, on motion to go into Committee of Supply, moved an amendment that Mr. Speaker do not now leave the chair, but that it be resolved, That in the present condition of affairs, and in view of the recent action of the House of Representatives of the United States, it is expedient that steps should be taken to ascertain on what terms and conditions arrangements can be effected with the United States for the purpose of securing full and unrestricted reciprocity of trade therewith. cents an ounce. The Postmaster - General is authorized to establish a parcel post within Canada, and to arrange for a foreign parcel post. Extradition.-Pending the arrangement of any treaty between Her Majesty and any foreign power for extending the provisions of the exist The amendment was negatived on the following extradition treaties, an act was passed auing division: YEAS-Armstrong, Bain of Wentworth, Barron, Beausoleil, Béchard, Bernier, Borden, Bourassa, Bowman, Brien, Burdett, Campbell, Cartwright (Sir Richard), Casey, Casgrain, Charlton, Choquette, Chouinard, Cook, Couture, Davies, De St. Georges, Dessaint, Doyon, Edgar, Edwards, Eisenhauer, Ellis, Fisher, Flynn, Gauthier, Gillmor, Godbout, Guay, Hale, Holton, Innes, Jones of Halifax, Kirk, Landerkin, Lang, Langelier of Montmorency, Langelier of Quebec, Laurier, Lister, Livingston, Lovitt, Macdonald of Huron, Melntyre, McMillan of Huron, McMullen, Meigs, Mills of Bothwell, Mitchell, Mulock, Neveux, Paterson of Brant, Perry, Platt, Préfontaine, Purcell, Rintret, Robertson, Rowand, Ste. Marie, Scriver, Semple, Somerville, Sutherland, Trow, Turcot, Waldie, Watson, Weldon of St. John, Welsh, Wilson of Elgin, and Yeo-77. NAYS-Audet, Bain of Soulanges, Baird, Barnard, Bell, Bergeron, Bergin, Boisvert, Bowell, Boyle, Brown, Bryson, Burns, Cameron, Cargill, Carling, Carpenter, Caron (Sir Adolphe), Chisholm, Cimon, Cochrane, Cockburn, Colby, Corby, Costigan, Coughlin, Coulombe, Curran, Daly, Daoust, Davin, Davis, Dawson, Denison, Desaulniers, Desjardins, Dewdney, Dickey, Dickinson, Dupont, Ferguson of Leeds and Grenville, Ferguson of Renfrew, Ferguson of Welland, Foster, Freeman, Gigault, Girouard, Gordon, Grandbois, Guillet, Haggart, Hall, Hesson, Hickey, Hudspeth, Ives, Jamieson, Joncas, Jones of Digby, Kenny, Kirkpatrick, Labelle, Labrosse, Landry, Langevin (Sir Hector), La Rivière, Lépine, Macdonald (Sir John), Macdowall, McCarthy, McCulla, McDonald of Victoria, McDougald of Pictou, McDougall of Cape Breton, McGreevy, McKeen, MeMillan of Vaudreuil, McNeill, Madill, Mara, Marshall, Masson, Mills of Annapolis, Moffat, Moncrieff, Montplaisir, O'Brien, Patterson of Essex, Perley, Porter, Prior, Putnam, Riopel, Robillard, Roome, Ross, Rykert, Scarth, Shanly Skinner, Small, Smith of Ontario, Sproule, Stevenson, Taylor, Temple, Thompson (Sir John), Tupper, Tyrwhitt, Vanasse, Wallace, Ward, Weldon of Albert, White of Cardwell, White of Renfrew, Wilmot, Wilson of Argenteuil, Wilson of Lennox, Wood of Brockville, Wood of Westmoreland, and Wright-121. Customs. An act was passed to amend the Customs act. The amending act provides that no goods shall be imported into Canada in any vehicle other than a railway carriage, nor on the person, between sunset and sunrise, or on a Sunday or statutory holiday, without a written permit from the Collector of Customs. That parts of any manufactured article are to be charged with the same rate of duty as the finished article, or a proportionate valuation. Special or general regulations of the Governor in Council for determining market values of imported articles to have the full force and authority of law. The fair market value of any goods must include any drawback allowed by a foreign government, and also the amount of consideration or money value allowed by the exporter on account of the goods being exported. Post Office.-Important amendments were made to the Post-Office act. The postage on "drop letters" delivered by carriers in the city where mailed is increased from one cent to two thorizing the surrender of fugitive criminals to foreign states, with or without treaty arrange ments. Public Acts.-The following public acts, not referred to in detail, were passed: Granting supplies for financial year 1888-'89, $2, 090,177.23. Granting annual subsidies to steamship lines: £15,000 for a monthly service, or £25,000 for a fortnightly service, between British Columbia and China and Japan, providing the United Kingdom subsidizes the line to the extent of £45,000 for a monthly or £75,fast weekly service between Canada and the United 000 for a fortnightly service. Also $500,000 for a Kingdom, making connection with a French port. Granting subsidies in money and lands to railway companies. Amending the Franchise act. Authorizing the expropriation of lands for public works. Prescribing 6 per cent. as the rate of interest on judgment debts in the Northwest Territories. Making further provision for inquiries respecting public matters; authorizing the commissioner to compel witnesses to give evidence, and providing that witnesses are not to be exempted on ground of selfcrimination. Providing for the appointment of extra judges. Against bribery and corruption in connection with municipal affairs. butter, and condensed-milk factories. Against frauds in the supplying of milk to cheese, Amending the Inland Revenue act, the General Inspection act, the Weights and Measures act, the act respecting certificates to masters and mates of ships, the Northwest Mounted Police act, the Dominion Lands act, the Copyright act, the winding up act, the Supreme and Exchequer Courts act, the Summary Convictions act, and the Summary Trials act. DUPRÉ, JULES, a French artist, born in Nantes, France, April 5, 1811; died at L'Isle Adam, France, Oct. 6, 1889. His father, François Dupré, a native of L'Isle Adam, conducted a small porcelain manufactory at Parmain, and at the age of twelve this son was the principal porcelain painter in the atelier. In his leisure hours he wandered through the woods and fields, sketch-book in hand, studying without formula or guidance, directly from nature. At eighteen he went to Paris, where his talent was immediately recognized. Landscape art at that time, made chiefly from patchwork sketches, or motivi collected from different expeditions to the country and painted in the studio, was under contempt in France; but Dupré's canvases, which were direct copies of nature, speaking to the eye through their truth and beauty, and to |