Prey and be preyed upon, be crushed and tornAnd had they sinned, to suffer thus forlorn? Think you the Maker, who the sparrow sees, Made life a pain perpetual to these?

Sin, sorrow,

pain come to us from the Fall. Are pain and sorrow due alike to all

To animals, unsinning, without soul,

To whom the grave is destiny and goal

No life beyond to compensate at last

For all the weary hours they here have passed?

Is this your scheme of life? would you have made

The world thus-on it such a burden laid?
Then think made to be food for stronger jaw,
Would you add pain as well? a constant law-
Increase so uselessly the suffering?
Why will you to such idle theories cling?
Who tells you of this universal pain?
Whence read you it?-that I may read again.
Oh, Brother, Sister, have you means and time,
Do somewhat to oppose the flood of crime;
Right little wrongs that lie beside your door,
Bind up the wounds and soothe the smarting sore.
Is not one man, one living, dying soul,
Worth all the tribes below him? Can you roll
Off of one sepulchre of sin the stone,

Go roll it-and, till done, leave this alone.
Train man to kindness to his fellow-man,
Give to the hungry, needy, when you can;
But not before the swine cast down your store,
When hungry men are thrust from out your door.

Old, homeless horses, say you, faithful slaves,
Worn out, are cast adrift to find their graves.
Men worthy, honest, useful ere old age,
Are wandering helpless o'er life's weary stage.
Homes for them-for the orphan, widow, fool-
More means to send the ignorant to school-
More help to cleanse the filth from reeking lanes—
More water for the thirsty-these your pains
Will well reward. Nor say, ""Tis done before;

See, each asylum shows an open door."

'Tis false. Filled to o'erflowing, burdened down
With poverty, our institutions groan,
Asking for help-real, needed, useful aid.
Give money first, then time, that it be laid

Out for them wisely; then, when room for all,
The homes for inmates vainly seek and call-
When the poor wretch can no more plead excuse,
Nor say the stolen loaf was but for use-

Then when the world has kindness well been taught-
Kindness to fellow-men, by lessons fraught

With weighty meaning, by examples proved-
Then will the beasts who serve us, all be loved,
Cared for without your care or time or toil,
And cruelty be stranger to the soil.
Oh, it is pitiful to see the mind

For noble, useful, glorious deeds designed,
Wasting its strength on shadowy toys or plays,
Till death ends suddenly its misspent days.

E. W. W.

INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COMPETI

TION.*

Man hat Gewalt, so hat man Recht,

Man fragt um's Was? und nicht um's Wie?

Ich müsste keine Schifffahrt kennen:

Krieg, Handel, und Piraterie,

Dreieinig sind sie, nicht zu trennen.-Faust, Part 2, Act 5.

Having the power, you have the right.

One asks but what you've got, not how?

Talk not to me of navigation:

For war, and trade, and piracy,

These are a trinity inseparable.

I CHOOSE as a motto these words, put by Goethe into the mouth of Mephistopheles, because they express what I think has been too much overlooked by many writers upon the subject of International Commerce, i. e., the essentially antagonistic nature of trade. It has of late years been rather the fashion to omit from consideration those aspects of the case which become apparent when the several nations are regarded as competing organisms,

*Read before the American Social Science Association, at its ninth general meeting, held in the Hall of the University of Pennsylvania, October, 1870.

each of which struggles to better its condition both absolutely and relatively to the others, just as each individual of a community strives to rise in the social scale.

Much is said, upon the one hand, of the higher wages which the protective system affords to the producer; and, upon the other hand, much concerning the cheaper goods offered to the consumer by unshackled commerce; but if either the free-trader or the protectionist could prove to demonstration that his policy insured to either class a larger allotment of personal comforts during the current year, with a larger surplus at its end, than under the opposite policy it could enjoy, the question as to which course is most expedient for the State would still not be exhausted. The statesman must look beyond individuals or classes, and beyond the immediate present; not content with noticing that certain parts of the body politic are properly nourished, he must see that the body as a whole possesses vigor and symmetry; that development and robustness attend upon nutrition; that the whole organism enjoys fair play and good guidance in its strife with similiar artificial bodies, and above all, that its present course is leading on to future health and power.

The advocates of unrestricted commerce in particular seem to me to disregard too much the existence of nations, and to look upon men merely as individuals, each of whom is to take thought of his present and particular welfare alone, unmindful of his nation, for the collective and future well-being of which no one is to care.

The Manchester school of political economists persistently entreat mankind to regulate their commercial affairs upon the assumption that the entire race of man is but a band of brothers, who, though they may be accidently gathered into groups designated by the "geographical expressions" United States of America, England, France, or the like, and though they may be so devoted to their respective groups as to fight desperately upon occasion for the purpose of aggrandizing or overthrowing one or another of them, are yet, so far as so-called peaceful intercourse is concerned, really a single family, and ought in all that relates to trade (that is, in nearly all whereby in ordinary times the nations act upon each other) to disregard this national grouping. The common interest of mankind would seem, according to this school, to require that since such groups do exist, one of them

should produce food, and another cotton or wool, while a third should make tools or clothing, and that the individuals of each of the groups should expend much of their energy in carrying their several products across land and sea to trade them freely with members of the others.

Would such universal and unrestricted trading and division of labor among the nations be founded upon the deepest instincts and interests of our race, or are they so contravened by ineradicable human characteristics as to be merely sentimental and illusory?

These questions cannot be properly answered without consideration of many collateral points, and particularly, I think, of the following:

I. Is it intrinsically right for persons to form themselves for mutual aid and comfort into nations, preferring each other to strangers, carefully hedging themselves about, and jealous not only of their territory, but also of their separate and peculiar institutions and modes of life? Or should all barriers be broken down, and mankind be obliged to fuse and coalesce into a single mass?

II. If the grouping into nations be permissible, is it right for each nation to endeavor to be self-centred, self-supporting, complete, and independent as to material wants, or should certain of them be permanently subjected to others by dependence upon those others for articles indispensable to human well-being or comfort, which they could themselves produce?

III. If, again, men may properly form nations, should the several governments thereof take cognizance of trade between their respective populations, regulating the same as each may see fit, or should they limit their action strictly to internal affairs, absolving their subjects from allegiance, and imposing no conditions upon aliens, in so far as trade is concerned?

IV. Supposing that a nation, allured by the abstract beauties of the universal brotherhood theory, or by promises of pecuniary advantage, should legislate to treat citizens and aliens alike in matters of trade, but should find that by the hostile industrial organization of other nations its markets were overloaded, its workmen thrown out of employment, its money drawn away, its finances crippled, and its independence endangered: Ought that nation still to continue in the policy of defenceless confidence, or

ought it, if yet retaining vitality and courage enough, to protect itself from such trade invasions by fitting legislation?

V. Supposing the right of a nation to be undeniable as regards other nations to protect itself by any expedient devices from spoliation through trade, has its government the right, as between its own citizens, to aid some at the expense of others, in order that the whole nation may attain greater vigor, completeness, power of self-sustenance, and independence?

VI. Is there on the other hand any obligation on the part of a government towards its citizens, to give all necessary aid and support, at the common cost, to such as are laboring to expand its resources, extend its industrial domain, and fortify its independence?

VII. Is the common good of mankind promoted by an enormous transportation of raw material from the ends of the earth to a few spots, there to be manufactured, and the finished products in part transported back again; thus establishing among the nations something similiar to the division of labor which is successfully practised among individuals?

VIII. Does the "laissez faire," or let alone doctrine, which some sociologists insist upon as the law of nature, and as the correct rule for international trade, inculcate a really sound policy for the guidance of nations in their dealings with each other?

First. As to the right of mankind to form nations. This head might almost be dismissed from consideration with such adages

as

“whatever is, is right," or "vox populi, vox Dei," were it not that the basis of the whole question lies here, and that we must on that account pause here long enough to be quite sure of our foundation. Such difficulty as this topic offers is akin to the difficulty of proving that lead is heavy, or that it is wrong to tell lies, so near is it to being one of those ultimate facts which appeal directly to the sensual or moral perceptions.

We know as distinctly as we know any thing that men every where, and in all ages, invariably have formed and do form themselves into groups of greater or less magnitude and compactness, the individuals composing which voluntarily surrender certain portions of their substance, their time, their efforts, their free will, in order that they may derive from the community to which they belong a share in the advantages conquered by it from