and always stood in the way of progress, and made their influence felt for evil. Happily, the better elements of New England society have always succeeded in carrying through the measures which were for the highest interests of the country, and then, every one and everything has been forced to conform to the new state of things. We have seen how it was in the town at the head of Buzzard's Bay. No public manifestation of sympathy with the war for Independence was made there. But when the struggle was crowned with success, the result was accepted, and ever since, nowhere probably has a more loyal spirit been displayed.

This hopeful and encouraging fact to which we allude may be observed not only in our New England experience, but in our whole American history. When an important public measure has once been carried through—even if, to use a homely expression, it has "just nicked through"-it has not only been quietly acquiesced in by those who have opposed it, but often the children and the descendants of those very men have been its warmest supporters.

That accomplished scholar, Hon. Joseph B. Walker-in his recent history of the New Hampshire Federal Convention of 1788, which ratified the present national constitution-states that one of the ablest and most patriotic of the delegates was so impressed by the fears which his constituents entertained and expressed, lest such a strong central government as it was proposed to create, might endanger the rights of the individual States, that at last, finding all opposition hopeless, he absented himself from the Convention when the final vote was to be taken. The adhesion of New Hampshire, as the "ninth State"-according to the provisions of the constitution -secured its adoption; and now it is Daniel Webster, the son of that very delegate, who will be known in all time to come as the great "Defender and Expounder" of the Constitution to which his father hesitated to give his adhesion.

There is a story-familiar to every one-of an orator at a Fourth-of-July celebration in New Jersey, who was eloquently describing the victories of Washington at Trenton and Princeton, when his eye fell on the one surviving "revolutionary soldier" to whom had been assigned a seat by his side on the

platform. In a moment of sudden inspiration, the orator called upon the aged man to rise and give his testimony to the worth of the great commander under whom he had served. The veteran slowly rose to his feet, and with diffidence, and in a low voice, which was yet distinctly heard by all the vast assembly, stammered forth the words, "Me Hessian !"

It is one of the things about our American institutions which affords a bright omen for the future, that they have shown themselves capable of absorbing every element however heterogeneous, and of moulding the descendants of even the "rude and profane" followers of Weston at Weymouth, the descendants of the drunken revellers at "Merry Mount," the descendants of Hessians, and of all the multitude of "Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and dwellers in Mesopotamia" who have come among us-and of making them over into law abiding American citizens.

WILLIAM L. KINGSLEY.

ARTICLE II.-THE WHY OF POVERTY.

THE most troublesome element of the social problem on its economic side is the element of poverty. All other questions at the present time seem to radiate towards this as their com mon centre. Every scheme for reform seems to have this for its ultimate end, to relieve poverty. Poverty makes men restless, it makes them envious, it makes them desperate. And there is poverty in our land, hard, grinding poverty, notwithstanding the fact that the nation as a whole is growing richer at the rate of more than a billion dollars annually. Periodically there sweeps over the country a wave of hard times and thousands of struggling workers are almost swallowed up in its resistless flood. Even during what we call easy times there are many who must battle night and day to keep the wolf from the door. Multitudes of families know nothing of luxury, and not a few are strangers to even the comforts and decencies of life. Children are reared amid squalor and filth unfit even for animals. Women wear out their lives toiling for a mere pittance. Hungry ones long in vain for nourishing food; and weary ones are spurred on to their toil by the knowledge that rest means starvation.

These weary ones look across the way and see their neighbors living in plenty, who apparently toil no harder than they. The sight fills them with discontent, for they feel sure that something is wrong with the world in which they live. Wealth is certainly very unequally distributed. The fact is patent to all, and the question naturally arises, what is the cause of this inequality? Who is responsible for the fact that one man has enough and to spare while his brother man perishes with hunger? Is it the fault of our existing social system, or of wicked men, or of an unequal Providence?

This is a vital question. It strikes at the tap root of the social problem in its broadest outlook. In the cause of an evil lies the secret of its cure. Therefore the first step towards the cure of poverty must be the discovery of the causes of poverty.

Most men are ready to lay the blame for every evil upon others whether they have any sufficient reason to do so or not. The poor are apt to say that their condition is the result of circumstances. They accuse their wealthier neighbors of extortion and dishonesty. The writings and speeches of socialists abound in denunciations of all who have succeeded in accumulating large fortunes. Without discrimination they are branded as robbers of the poor, oppressors of the weak, enemies of honest toil; and the poor are led to believe that the property of every rich man represents a certain amount of wealth stolen directly from them. On the other hand, how often we hear the wealthy and comfortable ones speaking contemptuously of the poor as the miserable and pitiable victims of their own ignorance or lack of thrift. They say that all who suffer are themselves to blame. They are idle, careless, improvident, immoral, and much more of the same sort.

Such sweeping denunciations on either side are unjust, and most frequently they are the utterance of those who know but little as to the actual truth involved. Worse than all, they do not help in the slightest degree to relieve existing difficulties or to prepare the way for a better state of things in the future. Quite the contrary. They intensify all feelings of hostility and drive men farther apart than ever, thus causing an unreasonable and useless delay in the solution of the social problem.

In all such assertions there is a shadow of truth, and it is this minute element of truth that gives them power for evil. There are undoubtedly many dishonest men among the wealthy. But there are also many dishonest poor men. If some of the poor are thriftless, the rich are not without their idlers. Wealth is not proof positive of dishonesty any more than poverty is incontrovertible evidence of a lack of thrift and industry. Furthermore, if a man is poor because he has been wronged, it does not follow by any manner of necessity that he has been wronged by a rich man. Whenever, therefore, a tale of suffering and wrong comes to us, we cannot jump at once to a conclusion regarding the cause. We must investigate the matter carefully in all its bearings, before we can pronounce judgment that shall have any weight. We must first inquire who has been wronged. We must find out to what extent he has been

wronged. Then we must ask who has wronged him. Is he really wronged at all? Or is he simply unfortunate? Has he been wronged by others or by himself? Is his unhappy condition the result of his own ignorance, selfishness, obstinacy? Or has he been the helpless victim of a partial Providence or an unequal system of distribution? That a person is wronged implies injustice on the part of someone. That which is wrong when suffered cannot be right when committed. It may be himself, or it may be another that has done the wrong. Whereever the wrong lies, we must trace it and remove it. Otherwise we may not hope to remove its results.

As we study the condition of American society one fact impresses itself upon us almost immediately, namely, that the poor of our land do not belong to any particular class, nor can they be said to form a distinct class of themselves. This fact should be emphasized. Many associate poverty with toil, and talk about "poor working people." Others speak of the "poor classes" and the "wealthy classes," as though there were some distinct line drawn between them. Now, however this may be in other lands, it is not so in our own America. Our poor are not a separate class, nor are they all working people. Many of the hardest workers in the land are among the so-called wealthy classes. The thousands of poor people in our great cities and elsewhere are so many distinct and wholly unrelated units. They are not connected by ties of class or heredity. The poor man of to-day is the son of yesterday's millionaire, and his son will probably be the capitalist of to-morrow. The rotation from shirt-sleeves to shirt-sleeves in three generations is no myth, but a common occurrence in American society. Furthermore, the man who now complains of poverty but a few years ago stood side by side with his rich neighbor in school, in the work-shop, or in the counting-house. They began life at the same point, but their paths have diverged. No candid student can justly connect poverty and labor as though there were some natural relation between the two.

To connect poverty with progress as though the latter were cause and the former effect is equally unjust. The assumption that poverty increases as a consequence of the material progress of society utterly false. The countries of the Old World have