Triumphs and Wonders of the 19th Century: The True Mirror of a Phenomenal Era A volume of original, entertaining and instructive historic and descriptive writings, showing the many and marvellous achievements which distinguish an hundred years of material, intellectual, social and moral progress (part 2 of 4)

Triumphs and Wonders of the 19th Century: The True Mirror of a Phenomenal Era A volume of original, entertaining and instructive historic and descriptive writings, showing the many and marvellous achievements which distinguish an hundred years of material, intellectual, social and moral progress (part 2 of 4)

While the era of a distinctive and popular penny press was short-lived, it witnessed one of the most notable advances of the century in journalism. It stimulated newspaper enterprise throughout the entire country, and journals multiplied enormously. The era practically ended with the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861, which event caused a rise in the price of paper, a demand for expensive correspondence, telegraph news and battle scenes, and a consequent necessity for enlarged and quadrupled sheets. Many of the penny papers went up to a five-cent price under the stimulus of war excitement, the improved system of collecting news, and the added expense of publication. This era of phenomenal newspaper expansion extended even to the end of the century. It has witnessed the wonderful evolution of the newspaper in all its modern phases,—the advent of the Sunday newspaper; the growth of the daily sheet to mammoth proportions; the incorporation of the Associated Press, with its thousands of agents in every part of the country gathering and sending the minutest events of the day; correspondence from every quarter of the globe, and covering every field of activity; a highly improved and more independent editorship; a greatly enlarged, more active, and more conscientious reportorial staff; the coming of the interviewer, at first an impertinent pest, but now recognized as a valuable journalistic adjunct in reflecting opinions and sentiments not otherwise obtainable; the employment of the thousand and one new appliances for printing, such as stereotyping, electrotyping, improved types, typesetting machines, rapid presses, folding machines, etc.

By 1883 a reaction came on in the prices of leading journals, and they were forced to reduce them by reason of the strong competition offered by the numerous and powerful two-cent journals which had come into being and had proven to be valuable properties. Indeed, this reaction did not leave the two-cent journals untouched, for it brought many of that class to a one-cent basis, with the claim that a consequently increased circulation would enhance the profits from advertising. This claim is a debatable one, and it may be safely said that most of the newspapers established near the end of the century have adopted a two-cent basis as a golden mean between the one-cent and three-cent journals.

Proportionally speaking, the growth of the press in the United States has been as even as it has been rapid. No leading city is without press establishments and prominent journals, some of them conducted on the largest scales of expenditure,—the West vying with the East, and the South with the North, in liberality and enterprise. The newspaper office of the early part of the century was generally dingy and cramped. The abode of many, especially in the larger cities, has become a handsome pile, conspicuous in architectural effects, capacious and cleanly,—fitting hive for the myriad of workers that toil at midday and midnight in pursuit of the “art preservative.” The annual expenditure of a single newspaper operated on a large scale has been thus computed: Editorial and literary matter, $220,000; local news, $290,000; illustrations, $180,000; correspondence, $125,000; telegraph, $65,000; cable, $27,000; mechanical, $410,500; paper, $617,000; business office, $219,000; a total of $2,153,500.

Nearly every town in the United States of 15,000 population has come by the end of the century to have its daily newspaper, and few of even 1000 population, especially if a county-seat, are without their weekly newspapers. It has become possible to conduct a rural weekly of fair proportions and with quite readable matter upon a very economic basis, by means of a central office in some large city. This office prints and supplies to the rural offices, of which it may have hundreds on its list, the two outside pages of a weekly, leaving to the local office only the duty of supplying and printing on the inside pages its domestic news.

In the number of its newspapers and periodicals the United States easily leads the world. Only approximate figures for the close of the century are at hand; but these, for the United States, gravitate around a total of 20,000 newspapers and periodicals, while those for other countries which report are as follows: Great Britain, 4229; France, 4100; Germany, 5500; Austria-Hungary, 3500; Italy, 1400; Spain, 1200; Russia, 800; Switzerland, 450; Belgium, 300; Holland, 300; Canada, 862. In the report of 1894 for United States newspapers and periodicals, the following subdivision appears: Dailies, 1853; tri-weeklies, 29; semi-weeklies, 223; weeklies, 14,077; bi-weeklies, 62; semi-monthlies, 290; monthlies, 2501; bi-monthlies, 70; quarterlies, 197. The States in which over one thousand newspapers and periodicals are printed are, New York, with 2001; Illinois, with 1520; Pennsylvania, with 1408; Ohio, with 1108. The States next in order, and with a number of newspapers and periodicals between 500 and 1000, are, Iowa, with 978; Missouri, with 907; Indiana, with 753; Kansas, with 732; Michigan, with 727; Massachusetts, with 664; Texas, with 656; Nebraska, with 639; California, with 637; Wisconsin, with 551; Minnesota, with 549.

The century’s newspaper literature in the United States has been further characterized by the introduction of the comic feature. The comic newspaper came into being about the middle of the century, but did not strike a practical minded people with favor. It was not until the century was well rounded out that the cartoonist’s and joker’s art came into sufficient demand to make a comic newspaper a commercial success. Even now their number is limited to a very few that can boast of permanent success.

The daily newspapers of the latter part of the century have not been dissuaded by earlier attempts to make illustrations a conspicuous feature. On the contrary, newspaper illustration has grown to the proportions of a special art, and all of the larger and better equipped dailies have organized departments into which are gathered photographs and engravings ready for reproduction as events demand. So the correspondent and reporter have added to knighthood of the pen that of the camera, and the scenic view has become an essential part of serious correspondence and sprightly reporting.

An immense, imposing, and highly useful current of literature flows through the magazines, which have, by their number, beauty, and adaptation, come to be a distinguishing feature of the nineteenth century. This class of literature is usually called “Periodical,” and it embraces the magazines and reviews devoted to general literature and science, the class magazines devoted to particular branches of science, art, or industry, and the publications of schools and societies. Most periodicals published in the English language are monthlies. The same is true of those published on the continent of Europe, save that there the old-fashioned quarterly style is still much affected.

Periodical literature found a beginning in France as early as 1665, in what is still the organ of the French Academy. The first English periodical was published in 1680, and was hardly more than a catalogue of books. The growth of the periodical or magazine proved to be very slow. Up to 1800, not more than eighty had found mentionable existence as scientific and technical periodicals, and only three as strictly literary periodicals. The advent of “The Edinburgh Review,” in 1802, gave great impetus to periodical literature in Great Britain, and the period from 1840 to 1850 was one of special development, but to be surpassed by that of 1860 to 1870, when the shilling magazine came into vogue. This class of literature also developed very rapidly in France during the century, Paris having 1381 periodicals of all kinds by 1890. There was an equally rapid development in Germany, Austria, and throughout the continent.

The English magazine found several imitators in the United States during the latter part of the eighteenth century, most of which had brief existences. Such was the fatality overhanging this class of enterprise, that until 1810 but twenty-seven periodicals could be counted in the United States. While the next forty years were marked by several magazine successes, such as the “Knickerbocker,” “Graham’s Magazine,” and “Putnam’s Monthly,” they were, nevertheless, strewn with long lines of melancholy wreckage. Indeed, it was not until the middle of the century that the demand for magazine literature became sufficiently intense to make investment in it profitable and permanent. Since then the development has been almost phenomenal, keeping even pace with that of the newspaper. At the end of the century the number of monthlies published in the United States approximates 2800; and there are over 300 fortnightlies, 56 bi-monthlies, and 192 quarterlies. These cover the vast domains of general literature, religion, science, art, and industry, and in many respects vie with the newspaper in popularity and influence. Many of them have developed into magnificent properties, whose value would appear incomprehensible to our grandfathers. They employ excellent talent when special topics are treated, and rise to occasions of war or other excitement through graphically written and highly illustrated articles. Indeed, one of their most impressive features is the high degree to which they have carried the art of illustration. Toward the close of the century, periodical literature has been greatly expanded and popularized by the introduction of the cheap magazine. The older and more dignified periodicals had not thought of permanent and profitable existence at a price less than twenty-five to fifty cents a copy; but those of the younger and ten-cent class, by dint of what seems to be a newly discovered enterprise, have found cheapness no barrier to commercial success. Within a decade they have duplicated patrons of magazine literature by the million, and proven quite as clearly as the newspapers have done that we are a nation of readers.

THE RECORDS OF THE PAST

BY MORRIS JASTROW, JR., PH.D.,

Professor of Semitic Languages, University of Pennsylvania.

The present century has so many distinguishing features that it is a hazardous undertaking to summarize its achievements. All branches of science—Philology, History, Mathematics, Medicine, Theology, and Philosophy—have felt the stimulating influence of a new spirit that made its appearance after the French Revolution. New methods of investigation have not only led to profound modification of views in all departments of science, but have brought about considerable additions to the sum of human knowledge. In the domain of natural science, the discovery of new principles and of hitherto unknown forces has widened the horizon of humanity and created new mental disciplines; but while perhaps less conspicuous, because not so directly connected with the actual concerns and needs of the present, the fertility of historical research during this century is not less remarkable. The larger area now embraced under the caption “history of mankind” furnishes the best proof for the success that has signalized the labors of scholars—philologists, historians, and explorers—devoted to the study of the past. Ancient history no longer begins with the Greeks or the Hebrews. Its certain limits have been removed to as remote a date as 3000 B. C., while the anthropologist, supplementing the work of the historian, has furnished a picture in detail of the life led by man in various quarters of the globe during that indefinite period which preceded the rise of culture in the true sense of the word. This extension of knowledge in the domain of human history is primarily due to the spade of the explorer, though it required the patience and ingenuity of the philologist and archæologist to interpret the material furnished in abundance by the soil that happily preserved the records of lost empires. Documents in stone, clay, and papyrus have been brought forth from their long resting-places to testify to the antiquity and splendor of human culture. By the side of written records, monuments of early civilization have been dug up, palaces, forts, and temples filled with works of art and skill, to confirm by their testimony the story preserved by those who belonged to the age of which they wrote.

RESEARCHES IN MESOPOTAMIA.—The archæological researches conducted during this century have definitely established the fact that the earliest civilizations flourished in the Valley of the Euphrates and in the district of the Nile. Until the beginning of this century, Egypt, Babylonia, and Assyria were little more than names. The spirit of skepticism which accompanies the keen desire for investigation led scholars to question the tales found in classical writers of the great achievements of the Babylonians and Egyptians. At the beginning of this century scarcely a vestige remained of the cities of ancient Mesopotamia. The site of Nineveh was unknown, and that of Babylon was in dispute. A profound sensation was created when, in 1842, P. E. Botta, the French Consul at Mosul, discovered the remains of a palace beneath a mound at Khorsabad, some miles to the north of Mosul on the east bank of the Tigris. Botta’s discovery marked the beginning of an activity and exploration in Mesopotamia which continues to the present day. At first the excavations were confined to the mounds in the north, in which the palaces of the great Assyrian kings, Sargon, Esarhaddon, Sennacharib and Asurbanibal (or Sardanapalus as he was called by Greek writers) were unearthed, as well as the great sacred edifices that formed one of the glories of ancient Assyria. The buildings exhumed abound in long series of sculptured slabs, on which are depicted incidents in the campaigns of the kings and in their private life. Historical records on stone and clay furnished the needed details in illustration of the scenes, and lastly, literary remains in profusion were found, which revealed the intellectual life and religious aspirations of the masses and of the secular and religious leaders. To England and France belongs the glory of these early explorations. Through Botta and Sir Austen Henry Layard, the ancient cities of Nineveh, Calah, and Ashur, were rediscovered. But as the field of activity extended to the mounds in the south, in the Valley of the Euphrates, other countries, notably Germany and the United States, joined in the work. The excavation of the remains of the city of Babylon were first conducted by Sir Henry Rawlinson in 1854, and much work was afterward done by Hormuzd Rassam; but the most notable achievements of recent years are the excavations conducted by DeSarzec, under the auspices of the French Government, at Telloh, from 1881 to 1895, and those of the University of Pennsylvania at Nippur, begun in 1888, and which are still going on.

Through these excavations the history of Babylonia has been carried back to the fourth millenium B. C., and while there are still some important gaps to be filled out, the course of events in Babylonia and Assyria from this remote period down to the year 587 B. C., when Cyrus the Mede established a new empire on the ruins of Babylonia and Assyria, is tolerably clear. Hand in hand with the excavations has gone the decipherment of the inscriptions found in such abundance beneath the mounds. On clay, stone, and metals, rulers inscribed records of their reigns; and added to pictorial illustrations accounts of their achievements in war as well as in the internal improvements of their empires. Clay, so readily furnished by the soil, became the ordinary writing material both in Babylonia and in Assyria, and in the course of time an extensive library, embracing hymns and prayers, omens and portents, epics, myths, legends, and creation stories, arose. In every important centre there gathered around the temples bodies of priests devoted to the preservation and the extension of this literature. Assyrian culture being but an offshoot of the civilization in the south, Assyria reaped the benefit of the literary work accomplished by the scribes of Babylonia, and the most extensive collection of the literary remains of Babylonia has come to us from a library collected through the exertions of Asurbanibal, and discovered in 1849 by Layard in the ruins of that king’s palace at Nineveh.

The basis for the decipherment of the cuneiform inscriptions, as they are called from the wedge-shaped characters, was laid by George F. Grotefend early in this century, whose system was further worked out with great ingenuity by Edward Hincks, Jules Oppert, and Sir Henry Rawlinson. These pioneers have been succeeded by a large coterie of scholars in all parts of the world, who are still busy studying the large amount of material now forthcoming for the elucidation of the past. Not merely have we learned much of the public and official events and religious ideas and customs during the period covered by the Babylonian and Assyrian Empires, but through thousands of little clay tablets that formed the legal and commercial archives deposited for safe keeping in the temples, an insight into the life of the people has been obtained, of their occupation, of their business enterprise and commercial methods, and of many phases of social life, such as the position of women and slaves, of the manner in which marriages were contracted and wills drawn up. Perhaps the most characteristic feature of the remarkable civilization that arose in the Valley of the Euphrates is the domination of the priesthood over all except the purely political interests of the people. Thus the priests, as scribes, as judges, as astronomers, as physicians, brought that civilization to its high degree of excellence, while under their guidance, likewise, the religion of the country developed from a crude nature worship to an approach to a monotheistic conception of the universe. The heir of the Babylono-Assyrian empire was Persia, which, from the days of Cyrus till the advent of Alexander, swayed the fortunes of the ancient world. In all that pertains to art and architecture, Persia remained largely dependent upon Babylonia. Extensive excavations conducted at Susa by Dieulafoy, about ten years ago, and quite recently continued by M. de Morgan, have proved most successful in revealing the general nature and interior decoration of the great royal palace at that place. In brilliant coloring of the brick tiles which, as in Babylonia, formed the common building material, the Persians passed beyond the Babylonians and Assyrians. One of the most interesting rooms in the Louvre at Paris is that devoted to the exhibition of the colored wall decorations from the palace at Susa, representing such various designs as a procession of archers and a series of lions. The columns still standing at Persepolis have long been famous; and it is here likewise that the first cuneiform inscriptions were found which, couched in Persian, Median, and Assyrian, formed the point of departure for the decipherment of cuneiform scripts.

EGYPTIAN RESEARCHES.—The civilization of Egypt rivals in age and grandeur that of Babylonia and Assyria. Here, witnesses to the past that survived in the shape of obelisks and pyramids gave scholars in this century a good start in the work of unraveling the fascinating narrative of Egyptian history. Notwithstanding this, our present knowledge of the history is due largely to the remarkable series of excavations which have been conducted in Upper and Lower Egypt since the early decades of this century, and which continue with unabated activity at the present time. The stimulus to Egyptian research was given by Napoleon in 1798, who, when setting out upon his Egyptian expedition, added to his staff a band of scholars entrusted with the task of studying and preparing for publication the remains of antiquity. The result was a monumental work that forms the foundation of modern Egyptological studies. Another direct outcome of the expedition was the discovery of the famous Rosetta stone, in 1799, which, containing a hieroglyphic inscription accompanied by a Greek translation, served as the basis for a trustworthy system of decipherment of the ancient language of the Nile. The Frenchman, Jean François Champollion, and the Englishman, Dr. Thomas Young, share the honor of having found the key that unlocked the mystery of the hieroglyphic script. As in the case of Babylonian archæology, so here, excavations and decipherment went hand in hand. A few years after the advent of Botta at Mosul, Mariette inaugurated in Egypt a series of brilliant excavations under the auspices of the French government. About the same time the German government sent Richard Lepsius on an expedition to Egypt, which resulted in the establishment of a large Egyptian Museum at Berlin. In 1883 England entered the field through the formation of the Egyptian Exploration Fund, and since that time a large number of cities in Lower Egypt, in the Fayum district, and in Upper Egypt have been unearthed. Year after year W. Flinders Petrie, Edouard Naville, F. L. Griffith, and others have gone to Egypt and returned richly laden with material that has found its way to the Museum at Ghizeh, to the British Museum, to Boston, to New York, and to the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. The activity of the French was continued after the death of Mariette, through Gaston Maspero, E. Grebaut, J. DeMorgan and E. Amelineau, so that the mass of material at present available for Egyptologists is exceedingly large.

The cities of Memphis and Thebes have naturally come in for a large share of these excavations. Through the texts discovered within the pyramids at Thebes and the surrounding district, the history of the early dynasties was for the first time revealed. At Balas and Nagadah, a short distance to the north of Memphis, the excavations have brought us face to face with the indigenous population of the Nile that maintained its primitive customs long after those who founded the real Egyptian Empire had established themselves in the country. In the district of the Fayum, notably around Arsinoe, at Hawara, Illahun, and Gurob, traces of early foreign influence—Phœnician and Greek—were discovered, while in Lower Egypt the towns of Naukratis and Tanis represent extensive Greek settlements made in Egypt as early, at least, as the seventh century B. C. Through the magnificent illustrations in the tombs of Beni-Hassan, which have recently been carefully copied by English artists, almost all phases of ancient Egyptian life have been revealed. Though dating from the eleventh and twelfth dynasties, the picture that they afford applies to earlier and later periods as well. Thus, through the work done in all parts of the ancient empire, the links uniting the earliest period to the sway of the Ptolomies and the invasion of the Romans have been determined. Wonderful chapters, replete with interest, have been added to the history of mankind, and though much remains to be done, we are much nearer to a solution than ever before of that most important problem as to the origin of the mysterious Egyptian culture. We know for a certainty that when the Egyptians came to the region of the Nile, they found a fertile district populated by a people, or by groups of people, that had already made some progress on the road to civilization, though not yet knowing the use of metals. The Asiatic origin of the Egyptians is regarded as clearly established by so eminent an archæologist as M. DeMorgan, though it is likely that his views will be somewhat modified by further research. The infusion of Greek ideas, we now know, begins at a much earlier age than was formerly supposed, so that it becomes less of a surprise to find, even before the advent of Alexander, considerable portions of Egypt absorbed by foreign settlers.

A noteworthy feature of archæological work in Egypt during the past decade has been the discovery of a vast amount of papyri containing long lost portions of Greek literature. The famous work of Aristotle on the Constitution of Athens and the poems of Bacchylides may be mentioned as the most notable among these discoveries, and the sources from whence these treasures have come seem still far from being exhausted.

GREEK RUINS.—The mention of Greek literature leads one naturally to speak of the work done in this century in that land which stands so much nearer to us and to modern culture in general than either Babylonia or Egypt. While, thanks to the activity and industry of Greek and Roman historians, the records of the inspiring history of the Greek states during their most glorious epoch are well preserved, the earlier periods were enveloped in doubt and obscurity, while of the remains of Greece, of her beautiful temples and her famous works of art, comparatively few vestiges remained above the soil.

The most notable of these were the Parthenon and the Erechtheum, with their works of art, that stood on the Acropolis, and it is precisely here that some of the most remarkable archæological discoveries of the century were made. The Parthenon dates from that glorious period in the history of Athens which follows in the wake of disasters in the fifth century, when the Persians entered the city and laid waste its beauties. The earlier Athens, which reached its zenith in the days of Pisistratus, has been brought to light through the excavations conducted by the Greeks themselves. In 1882 a systematic excavation of the Acropolis, under the auspices of the Greek Archæological Society, was begun. The foundations of the ancient Temple of Athena that stood close to the modern Parthenon were discovered, and numerous works of art, statues, fragments, pediments, bases and vases, dating from the earlier period, by means of which we are enabled to trace the development of Athenian sculpture from the rough beginnings to the perfection that it reached in the days of Phidias. The style of these earlier works differs totally from that which we had hitherto been accustomed to regard as the type of Athenian art, and yet even the rudest of the earlier statues possess already some of that charm which is so strongly felt in the works of the later period. Most remarkable, perhaps, among the remains of the earlier Athenians are a large series of figures that appear to have been set up in rows within the Temple of Athena. It is through these figures, dating from various periods, that we are best able to trace the evolution of Greek art. They are unquestionably votive offerings, the gift of faithful followers of Athena, and, while intended probably as representations of the goddess herself, but little care was taken to give the goddess those accompaniments in dress and ornament which are never absent in the best specimens of the later period. As a result of these excavations on the Acropolis, aided by the investigations of numerous scholars, among whom Ernst Curtius and William Doerpfeld merit special mention, the entire plan of the little sacred city that stood on the Acropolis can now be traced in detail. The construction of the beautiful Propylæa by Mnesicles, of which remains are still to be seen, has been determined, and various temples to Athena, worshiped under the different guises that she assumed, have been discovered. The place where the great bronze statue of Athena, one of the master works of Phidias, stood, has been fixed, and through the inscriptions found on the Acropolis, numerous problems of Greek history have been solved. Every one knows the story of the Elgin marbles that once formed the decoration of the friezes of the Parthenon, and which in the early part of this century were brought to London by Lord Elgin. That act, though frequently denounced as a piece of vandalism, has probably done more to arouse an interest in Greek archæology throughout Europe than anything else. Even the indignation which Lord Elgin’s act provoked has served a good purpose, not only in leading Greece to take better care of her great treasures, but in inducing scholars of England, France, Germany, and the United States to establish, in Athens, architectural schools where young archæologists may be trained, and where expeditions can be organized for the systematic investigation of the numerous cities of ancient Greece and the surrounding islands. The most important work done through these schools is the excavation of Olympia by the Germans, and of Delos and of Delphi by the French, while only some degrees less noticeable is the work done by a zealous Greek, M. Carpanos, at Dodona, by the Greek Society at Eleusis, Epidaurus, and Tanagra, and by the American School at Eretria and at Argos. At Olympia the discovery of the great Temple to Zeus, the grand theatre in which the famous games took place, the numerous shrines erected in honor of various deities that belong to the court of Zeus, and of hundreds of votive inscriptions commemorating the victors in the games, have enabled scholars to restore for us the ancient glories of the place, and to trace the history of the sacred city through its period of glory to its decline and fall. The master work of antiquity, the golden statue of Zeus made by Phidias, is, alas! forever lost, but it was at Olympia that the Germans found the wonderful statue of Hermes by Praxiteles, a find that in itself was worth the million marks spent by the German government as a tribute to ancient Greece. At Delos and Delphi, the careful work done by the French has added to our material for tracing the course of Greek religion. Next to Olympia there is, perhaps, no place in ancient Greece which had such a strange hold upon the people as the seat of the great oracle at the foot of Mount Parnassus. The work at Delphi is still progressing, but enough has been found to justify the great reputation of this religious centre in ancient times. We can now traverse once again the sacred way leading past numerous buildings to the great shrine of Apollo, and to the cave from which the Pythian priestess obtained her inspiration. Fewer works of art have been discovered here than in Olympia, though perhaps the soil still harbors treasures which the coming years may reveal.

The worship of Demeter and the nature of the Eleusinian mysteries are much clearer since the successful excavations that were conducted at Eleusis. Tanagra is of interest because of the clay figurines, the manufacture of which was one of the specialties of ancient Bœotia. Those figures, prepared partly from religious motives, partly as a tribute to the dead, are valuable as illustrations of popular customs. Great credit is due to the American school for the thorough manner in which excavations have been conducted by it, and while the results are not as striking as in some other places, so fundamental a problem as the arrangement of the Greek theatre, which has been engaging the attention of archæologists for the past decade, has been brought nearer to its solution through excavations at Eretria. At Argos a head of Hera was discovered, which is now famous as one of the best specimens of the Polycletan school.

No sketch of Greek archæology, however brief, would be complete without mention of a man who exhibited singular devotion and rare enthusiasm for the study of the past. Heinrich Schliemann, by dint of individual effort, laid bare the remains of pre-Grecian civilization at Mycenæ and Tiryns, and, prompted by a theory which for a long time provoked naught but ridicule, devoted many years and a large fortune to excavations at Hissarlik, on the coast of Asia Minor, which, he believed, was the scene of the Trojan War. At the latter place no less than nine cities, erected one above the ruins of the other, have been found, but the theory of Schliemann which identified the second layer with ancient Troy, afterward known to the Greeks as Ilium, has been shown to be false. It is the sixth layer that represents the ruins of Homer’s Troy. At the same time, it must be remembered that the Homeric poems, while based upon historic events, are not history, and the attempt to test their supposed historical accuracy by the results of excavations is now regarded by Greek students as futile and unscientific. But this view in no way diminishes the credit due to Schliemann, who not only did more to stir up popular interest in ancient Greece than any other man living, but has illuminated the early chapters of Greek history which were almost unknown to the scholars of this century. It now appears that Phœnician traders, settling on the coast of Asia Minor and in districts adjacent to the islands of the Ægean sea and harbors, which furnished a refuge for their ships, gave the first impulse to Greek art, and, although they were outdistanced by their apt pupils, the traces of Phœnician influence remain in Greek architecture, and more particularly in Greek cults, down to the latest times. Apart from the direct bearings of the excavations conducted in various parts of Greece upon the development of Greek art, the most important results of the work consist in the vast increase of material for Greek history, which is now being rewritten on the basis of the many thousands of inscriptions that have been found in the great centres of ancient Greece. As the work of excavation continues, each year brings its quota of new facts, and it is safe to predict that the recovery of ancient Greece will be noted in future ages as one of the most notable achievements of the nineteenth century.

PHŒNICIAN RUINS.—With Egypt, Babylonia, and Greece we are still far from having exhausted the field covered by archæology in this century. At Cyprus much has been done by Löhr, Cesnola, and Ohnefalsch-Richter. The cities of Cyprus are interesting as forming a meeting-ground for such various civilizations as Phœnician, Egyptian, Proto-Grecian, and to a limited extent Babylono-Assyrian. The result is a curious mixture of art and of equally strange syncretism in religious rites. It is one of the disappointments of scholars that we as yet know so little of the Phœnicians who played such an important role in history. The traces of this people of wanderers and merchants have been found in tombs and votive inscriptions throughout the lands bordering on the Mediterranean, in Northern Africa, in Southern Spain, in Sicily, Malta, Asia Minor, Cyprus, Crete, Italy, and even Southern France; but in Phœnicia itself but few inscriptions have been unearthed, and only scanty remains of the important cities of Sidon and Tyre, which once flourished on the coast of the Mediterranean. The fate of these cities, subjected in the course of centuries to so many different powers, is a sad one. Almost everything that belonged to a high antiquity has disappeared, and such scanty excavations as have been undertaken, the most notable of which is that of Um-el-Awamid by the late Ernest Renan, in 1861, have been of little value. Tombs have been discovered, but only few of them belong to the Phœnician period in the proper sense. The Sarcophagus of Eshmunazar, king of Sidon, with a long Phœnician inscription, is however a most notable monument and of great historical importance. But the most remarkable find within the limits of ancient Phœnicia was made a few years ago by Hamdi Bey under the auspices of the Turkish government. In the necropolis at Sidon a series of sarcophagi were unearthed which, belonging to the Greek period, are valuable as furnishing a specimen of the art of Greece transplanted in foreign soil.

RESEARCHES IN PALESTINE.—Ancient Palestine, likewise, so full of sacred recollections for millions, has been chary of yielding up the treasures which there is every reason to believe still lie somewhere beneath the soil. In 1870, a stone was found in the land of Moab which commemorated the victory of King Mesha over Israel, about 800 B. C., and forms one of the most valuable monuments for tracing the history of the Phœnician alphabet, of which the one we use is a direct successor. At Jerusalem a single inscription, belonging probably to the age of Hezekiah, was found by accident at the pool of Siloam. This paucity of archæological returns is not due to any lack of interest in recovering the monuments of ancient Palestine. In Germany and England, societies for the exploration of Palestine have been in existence for the past twenty years, and much important work has been done by them in making careful surveys of the country, in identifying ancient sites, and in adding material to our knowledge of the geography of the country. The combined opposition of fanatical Turks, Arabs, Christians, and Jews has prevented, until recently, the undertaking of excavations in the important centres of the country, such as Jerusalem, Samaria, Bethlehem, Hebron, and the like. A few years ago the mound Tel-el-Hesy, covering the site of the ancient city of Lachish, was thoroughly explored by F. J. Bliss, and no less than ten layers of cities identified by him; but the results, except for some pottery and a most important discovery of a cuneiform tablet which belongs to the El-Amarna series and dates from the fifteenth century B. C., have been rather disappointing. Recently Mr. Bliss has succeeded in obtaining permission to undertake excavations at Jerusalem. He has begun his work by tracing carefully the walls of the ancient city, but until this work is pushed to the extent of actually digging down some forty feet below the level of the present Jerusalem, it is not likely that significant discoveries will be made. There are good reasons for hoping that the time is not far distant when systematic work, such as has been done in Egypt, Babylonia, and Greece, will also be undertaken in Palestine. When that time does come, we may expect that many of the problems besetting students of the Old and New Testaments will find their solution.

HITTITE REMAINS.—Archæology does not only solve problems, but frequently raises new ones. Such a new problem is that of the Hittites. During the past fifteen years, a large series of monuments, many of them sculptured on rocks, have been found in various parts of Asia Minor, from the district of Lake Van almost to the Mediterranean coast, and notably at Hamath, on the Orontes. They all betray the same art, and are accompanied by inscriptions in characters to which the name Hittite has been given. It is to be borne in mind that this term Hittite is to a large extent a conventional one, covering a series of peoples that may have belonged to different races. We hear of these Hittites in the Asiatic campaigns of Egyptian kings from the seventeenth century B. C. down to 1400 B. C. Establishing an empire on the Orontes, they gave the Assyrians a great deal of trouble, and it was not until the end of the eighth century that they were finally conquered. Though we know a good deal of the history of these Hittites from the records of Egyptians, Babylonians, and Assyrians, their origin remains wrapped in obscurity. The Hittite characters have not yet been deciphered, although various attempts of interpreters have been made. The last of these is that of Professor Peter Jensen, of the University of Marburg, who believes that the Hittite language is a prototype of the modern Armenian. Although a number of prominent scholars have acknowledged their acceptance of the Jensen system, it cannot be said as yet to have been definitely established, nor is it likely that a satisfactory key will be found until a large bilingual inscription containing a record in Hittite characters with a translation, perhaps, in Assyrian or Aramaic, shall have been found. Such a find may be expected at any moment. Meanwhile, it may be said that from an ethnological point of view, it seems more plausible to regard the Hittites as a part of the Turanian stock rather than belonging to the Aryan or Semitic races. The exploration of India, China, and Japan can scarcely be said to have more than begun. The notable series of inscriptions that recall the period of Indian history connected with Acoka may be regarded as a specimen of what we may expect when once those distant lands are as thoroughly explored as the countries situated around the Mediterranean sea.

ROMAN RUINS.—Coming to the last and greatest of the empires of antiquity, Rome, a word should be said about the activity that has characterized the excavations at Herculaneum and Pompeii, and recently in the city of Rome, which are carried on so successfully by Rudolfo Lanciani. While our knowledge of Roman history has always been much more complete than that of Greece, still many questions of detail have only recently been settled through these excavations. An insight has been afforded into the public and private life of the Romans which supplements that which was to be gained from the study of the classical writers. Europe and America have also been seized with the archæological fever. In Germany, Austria, France, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, North America, and South America, the knowledge of the past has been extended through exploration and excavation. So large is the field of archæology at present, that it is impossible for one person to make himself familiar with more than a small section; but, on the other hand, so close is the sympathy between the various branches of mankind scattered throughout the world that there is no work carried on in one division of archæology which has not its bearings upon many others. What Goethe said of human life may be said of archæology: “Wo ihr’s packt, da ist’s interessant.”

PROGRESS IN DAIRY FARMING

BY MAJOR HENRY E. ALVORD, C.E., LL.D.,

Chief of Dairy Division, U. S. Department of Agriculture.

Nearly all industries have their branches or specialties. Farming is no exception, and one of the most interesting, highly developed, and remunerative of its branches is dairying. To be successful, dairying requires good judgment, knowledge of the relations of modern science to agricultural production, constant study, system, and close attention to details. Hence it is regarded as among the highest forms of farming. The occupation is itself so stimulating and the rewards are so substantial, when brains and brawn are applied to it in judicious combination, that dairying districts are commonly conspicuous as the most enterprising, prosperous, and contented of the rural communities of their section of country.

In all lines of farming at least one “money crop” seems to be the aim, although this term may include animals and animal products. A great disadvantage in certain kinds of farming is that the returns come at long intervals, perhaps but once a year, while the expenses are continuous for twelve months. Dairying, as conducted by modern methods, distributes the farm income through the year; the cash returns are monthly, or oftener, the pernicious credit system disappears, money circulates, and at all seasons a healthy business activity prevails in the whole community.

It is a noteworthy fact, that during periods of agricultural depression experienced in the United States during the nineteenth century, the products of the dairy have maintained relative values above all other farm products, and dairy districts seem to have passed through these periods with less distress than most others.

The greater part of this country, geographically, being well adapted to dairying, this branch of agriculture has always been prominent in America, and its extension has kept pace with the opening and settlement of new territory. For many years a belief existed that successful dairying in the United States must be restricted to narrow geographical limits, constituting a “dairy belt” lying between the fortieth and forty-fifth degrees of latitude, and extending from the Atlantic Ocean to the Missouri River; and the true dairying districts were felt to be in separated sections occupying not more than one third of the area of this belt. These ideas have been exploded. It has been shown that good butter and cheese can, by proper management, be made in almost all parts of North America. Generally speaking, good butter can be profitably produced wherever good beef can. Decided advantages unquestionably exist, in the climate, soil, water, and herbage of certain sections; but these influences are largely under control, and what is lacking in natural conditions can be supplied by tact and skill. So that, while dairying is intensified and constitutes the leading agricultural industry over wide areas, including whole States, where the natural advantages are greatest, the industry is found well established in spots in almost all parts of the country, and is developing in unexpected places, and under what might be considered as very unfavorable conditions.

Dairying existed in colonial times in America, and butter and cheese are mentioned among the early exports from the settlements along the Atlantic coast. But this production was only incident to general farming. Dairying, as a specialty in the United States, did not appear to any extent until well along in the nineteenth century. The history of this industry in this country is therefore identical with its progress in that century. This progress has been truly remarkable. The wide territorial extension, the immense investment in lands, buildings, animals, and equipment, the great improvement in dairy cattle, the acquisition and diffusion of knowledge as to economy of production, the revolution in methods and systems of manufacture, the general advance in quality of products, the wonderful increase in quantity, and the industrial and commercial importance of the industry, have kept pace with the general material progress of the nation and constitute one of its leading features.

During the early part of the century, the keeping of cows on American farms was incident to the general work, the care of milk and the making of butter and cheese were in the hands of the women of the household, the methods and utensils were crude, the average quality of the products was inferior, and the supply of our domestic markets was unorganized and irregular. The milch cows in use belonged to the mixed and indescribable herd of “native” cattle, with really good dairy animals appearing singly, almost by accident, or, at the best, in a family developed by some uncommonly discriminating yet unscientific breeder. The cows calved almost universally in the spring, and were generally allowed to go dry in the autumn or early winter. Winter dairying was practically unknown. As a rule, excepting the pasture season, cattle were insufficiently, and therefore unprofitably, fed and poorly housed. In the Eastern and Northern States, the milk was usually set in small shallow earthen vessels or tin pans, for the cream to rise. Little attention was paid to cooling the air in which it stood in summer, or to moderating it in winter, so long as freezing was prevented. The pans of milk oftener stood in pantries and cellars than in milk rooms specially constructed or prepared. In Pennsylvania and the States farther south, where spring-houses were in vogue, milk received better care, and setting it in earthen crocks or pots, standing in cool, flowing water, was a usual and excellent practice. Churning the entire milk was very common. Excepting the comparatively few instances where families were supplied with butter weekly, and occasionally a cheese, direct from the producers, the farm practice was to “pack” the butter in firkins, half-firkins, tubs, and jars, and let the cheese accumulate on the farms, taking these products to market only once or twice a year. Not only were there as many different lots and kinds of butter and cheese as there were producing farms, but the product of a single farm varied in character and quality, according to season and other circumstances. Every package had to be examined, graded, and sold upon its merits. Prices were low.

These conditions continued, without material change, up to the middle of the century. Some improvement was noticeable in cattle and appliances, and in some sections dairy farming became a specialty. With the growth of towns and cities, the business of milk supply increased and better methods prevailed. Butter-making for home use and local trade, in a small way, was common wherever cows were kept, and in some places there was a surplus sufficient to be sent to the large markets. Vermont and New York became known as butter producing States. “Franklin County butter,” from counties of this name in New York, Vermont, and Massachusetts, was known throughout New England, and the fame of “Orange County” and “Goshen” butter, from New York, was still more extensive. New York, Ohio, and Northern Pennsylvania produced large quantities of cheese; and the total supply was so much in excess of domestic demand, that cheese exports from the United States, mainly to Great Britain, became established, and ranged from three to seventeen million pounds a year.

The twenty-five years following 1850 was a period of remarkable activity and progress in the dairy interests of the country. At first, the agricultural exhibitions or “cattle shows,” and the enterprise of importers, turned attention towards the improvement of farm animals, and breeds of cattle specially noted for dairy qualities were introduced and began to win the favor of dairymen. Then the early efforts at coöperative dairying were recognized as successful, and were copied until the cheese factory became an established institution. Once fairly started, in the heart of the great cheese-making district of New York, the factory system spread with much rapidity. The “war period” lent additional impetus to the forward movement. The foreign demand for cheese grew fast, and the price, which was ten cents per pound and less in 1860, rose to fifteen cents in 1863, and to twenty cents and over in 1865. There were two cheese factories in Oneida County in 1854, and twenty-five in 1862. The system spread to Herkimer and adjoining counties, and in 1863 there were 100 factories in New York, besides some in Ohio and other States. The number increased to 300 in the whole country in 1865, to 600 in two years more, and to over 1000 in 1869. From that time the coöperative or factory system practically superseded the manufacture of cheese on farms. Establishments for the making of butter in quantity, from the milk or cream collected from numerous farms, soon followed the cheese factories. Such are properly butter factories, but the name of “creamery” has come into general use for an establishment of this kind, and seems unlikely to change. Placing the real beginning of cheese factories as a system of dairying in 1861 or 1862, the first creamery was started in 1861, in Orange County, New York. In Illinois, the first cheese factory was built in 1863, and the first creamery in 1867; in Iowa, the respective dates were 1866 and 1871.

The effect of these industrial establishments, comparatively new in kind, is to transfer the making of butter and cheese from the farm to the factory. Originating in this country, although now extensively adopted in others, the general plan may be called the American system of associated dairying. The early cheese-factories and creameries were purely coöperative concerns, and it is in this form that the system has usually extended into new territory, whether for the production of butter or cheese. The cow owners and producers of milk coöperate and share, upon any agreed basis, in organizing, building (perhaps), equipping, and managing the factory and disposing of its products. Another plan is for the plant to be owned by a joint-stock company, composed largely, if not wholly, of farmers, and milk or cream is received from any satisfactory producer; the factory may be allowed a certain rate of interest on the investment, or may charge a fixed price per pound for making butter or cheese, and then divide the remaining proceeds pro rata according to the raw material supplied by its “patrons.” The proprietary plan is also common, being managed much like any other factory, the proprietor or company buying the milk or cream from the producers, at prices mutually agreed upon from time to time. And all these plans have their variations and modifications in practice.

The third quarter of a century was also a period of unprecedented progress in the application of mechanics to the dairy. The factories and creameries required new equipment, adapted to manufacture upon an enlarged scale, and equal attention was paid to the improvement of appliances for farm dairies. The system for setting milk for creaming in deep cans in cold water—preferably ice-water—was introduced from Sweden, although the same principles had been in practice for generations in the spring-houses of the South. Numerous creaming appliances, or creamers, were invented, based upon this system. Shallow pans were changed in size and shape, and then almost disappeared. Butter workers of various models took the place of bowl and ladle and the use of the bare hand. Churns appeared, of all shapes, sizes, and kinds, the general movement being towards the abolition of dashers and the substitution of agitation of cream for violent beating. About this time the writer made a search of the United States Patent Office records, which revealed the fact that forty or fifty new or improved churns were claimed annually, and after rejecting about one fourth, the patents actually issued provided a new churn every fifteen days for more than seventy years. This illustrates the activity of invention in this line. It was admitted by all that at this period the United States was far in advance of any other country in the variety and excellence of its mechanical aids to dairying.

The same period witnessed the organization of dairymen in voluntary associations for mutual benefit in several States, the formation of clubs and societies of breeders of pure-bred cattle, and the appearance of the first American dairy literature of consequence in book form. The American Dairymen’s Association was organized in 1803. Its field of activity was east of Indiana, and accordingly the Northwestern Dairymen’s Association was formed in 1867. Both of these continued in existence, held periodical meetings, and published their proceedings for twelve or fifteen years. Then the formation of State dairy associations in Vermont (1870), Pennsylvania (1871), New York (1877), Wisconsin (1872), Illinois (1874), Iowa (1870), and other States took the place of the pioneer societies which covered wider territory.

The Short-horn breed led in the introduction of improved cattle to the United States, and for a long time the representatives of this race, imported from England, embraced fine dairy animals. Short-horn grades formed the foundation, and a very good one, upon which many dairy herds were built up during the second and third quarters of the century, and much of this blood is still found in prosperous dairying districts. This was the period of greatest activity in importing improved cattle from abroad. But Short-horns have been so generally bred for beef qualities that the demand for them is almost exclusively on that line, and they are no longer classed as dairy cattle. Ayrshires from Scotland, Holstein-Friesians from North Holland, and Jerseys and Guernseys from the Channel Islands, are the breeds recognized as of dairy excellence, and upon which the industry mainly depends for improvement of its milch cows. The first two named are noted for giving large quantities of milk of medium quality; the other two breeds, both often miscalled “Alderney,” give milk of exceeding richness, and are the favorites with butter makers. There are also the Brown Swiss and Simmenthal cattle from Switzerland, the Normandy breed from France, and Red Polled cattle from the south of England, which have dairy merit, but belong rather to what is called the “general purpose” class. Associations of persons interested in maintaining the purity of all the different breeds named have been formed since 1850, and they all record pedigrees and publish registers or herd-books. Pure-bred herds of some of these different breeds are owned in nearly all parts of the country, and half-breeds or higher grades are found wherever cows are kept for dairy purposes. The quality and production of the average dairy cow in America are thus being steadily advanced.

The development of dairying in the United States during the closing decades of the nineteenth century has been uninterrupted, and marked by events of the greatest consequence in the entire history. The importance of two inventions during this period cannot be overestimated. The first is the application of centrifugal force to the separation of cream from milk. This is based upon the specific gravity of the milk serum or skim milk, and of whatever impure matter may have entered the milk, such gravity being greater than that of the fatty portion or cream. The dairy centrifuge, or cream separator, enables the creaming or “skimming” to be done immediately after milking, preferably while the milk is still warm. The cream can be at once churned, while sweet; but a better practice is to cure or “ripen” it for churning: this can be done at a comparatively high temperature, dispensing with the necessity of so much ice or cold water. The skim milk is available for use while still warm, quite sweet, and in its best condition for feeding to young animals. This mechanical method is more efficient, securing more perfect cream separation than the old gravity system, and the dairy labor is very largely reduced. The handling and caring for the milk may be thus wholly removed from the duties of the household. A usual plan is to have a “skimming station,” to which the milk is hauled at least daily from the producing farms in the vicinity, and where one or more separators are operated by power. Separators are also made of sizes and patterns suited to farm use, where they may be operated by hand or by light power,—electricity, steam, water, a horse, a bull, a sheep, or a dog. Besides its economy and its effect upon labor, this machine almost eliminates the factor of climate in a large part of dairy management, and altogether has worked a revolution in the industry. The centrifugal separator is still a marvel to those who see it working for the first time: the whole milk, warm, flows into the centre of a strong steel bowl, held in an iron frame; the bowl revolves at a rate of 1500 to 25,000 times per minute, and from two projecting tubes cream and skim milk flow in continuous streams to separate receptacles. The machines can be regulated to produce cream of any desired thickness or quality. These separators, of different sizes, are capable of thus skimming or separating, or more properly, creaming, from 15 to 500 gallons of milk per hour. A machine of standard factory size has a speed of 6000 to 7000 revolutions a minute, and a capacity for separating 250 gallons of milk an hour. The world is indebted to Europe for this invention, at least as a dairy appliance. Yet investigations were in progress contemporaneously in this country along the same line, and many of the material improvements in the cream separator and several entirely new patterns have since been invented here. The first separators were put into practical use in this country and Great Britain in the year 1879. The century closes with 35,000 to 40,000 of these machines in operation in the United States.

The second great dairy invention of the period is the fat-test for milk,—being a quick and easy substitute for chemical analysis. This is one of the public benefactions of the Agricultural Experiment Stations which, under State and national endowment, have been established during the last part of the century, so that there is now at least one in every State. A number of these have done much creditable work in dairy investigation, and from them have come several clever methods for testing the fat content of milk. The method which has been generally approved and is now almost universally adopted in this and other lands is named for its originator, Dr. S. M. Babcock, the able chemist and dairy investigator, first of the New York Station at Geneva and since of the Wisconsin Station at Madison. This tester combines the principle of centrifugal force with simple chemical action. The machine, on the Babcock plan, has been made in a great variety of patterns, simple and inexpensive for home use, more elaborate and substantial for factories. By them from two to forty samples of milk may be tested at once in a few moments; and by slight modifications in the appliances, the fat may be determined in samples of milk, cream, skim-milk, or butter-milk. This fat test of milk has wide application, and is second only to the separator in advancing the economies of dairying. The percentage of fat being accepted as the measure of value for milk for nearly all purposes, the Babcock test may be the basis for city milk inspection, for fixing the price of milk delivered to city dealers, to cheese factories and creameries, and for commercial settlements between patrons in coöperative dairying of any kind. By this test, also, the dairyman may prove the quality of milk from his different cows, and (with quantity of milk-yield recorded) may fix their respective value as dairy animals. With perfect apparatus in careful hands, the accuracy of the test is unquestioned, and it is of the highest scientific value. It should be noted that although clearly patentable, and offering an independence through a very small royalty, this priceless invention and boon to dairying was freely given to the public by Dr. Babcock.

The advent of the twentieth century finds the dairy industry of the United States established upon a plane far above the simple and crude domestic art of three or four generations ago. The milch cow itself, upon which the whole business rests, is more of a machine than a natural product. The animal has been so bred and developed to a special purpose, that instead of the former short milking period, almost limited to the pasture season, it yields a comparatively even flow of milk during ten or eleven months in every twelve; and if desired, the herd produces as much in winter as in summer. It is not unusual for cows to give ten or twelve times their own weight of milk during a year. And the quality has been so improved that the milk of many a good dairy cow will produce as much butter in a week as could be made from three or four average cows of the olden time. Instead of a few homely and inconvenient implements for use in the laborious duties of the dairy, generally devolving upon the women of the farm, perfected appliances skillfully devised to accomplish their object and lighten labor are provided all along the way. The factory system of coöperative or concentrated manufacture has so far taken the place of home dairying, that in entire States the cheese vat or press is as rare as the hand-loom, and in many counties it is as hard to find a farm churn as a spinning-wheel. Long rows of shining tin pans are no longer seen adorning rural dooryards, as one drives along country roads; but in their place may be found the bright faces of “the women-folks,” who rejoice over the revolution of modern dairying.

Here is an example of this radical change in the system of making butter: Northern Vermont has always been a region of large butter production. St. Albans, in Franklin County, is the natural business centre. During the middle of the century the country-made butter came to this town to market every Tuesday from miles around. The average weekly supply was 30 to 40 tons. This was very varied in quality, was sampled and classified with much labor and expense, placed in three grades—prime, fair, and poor—and forwarded to the Boston market, two hundred miles distant. During twenty-five years ending in 1875, 65,000,000 lbs., valued at $20,000,000, passed through this little town. All of this was dairy butter made upon a thousand or two different farms, in as many churns. In 1881, the first creamery was built in this county. Now, the Franklin County Creamery Company, located at St. Albans, has fifty-odd skimming stations distributed through this and adjoining counties. To them is carried the milk from 30,000 cows or more, and the separated cream is sent by rail to the central factory, where from ten to twelve tons of butter are made every day. A single churning room for the whole county! All of this butter is of standard quality, and sold on its reputation upon orders from distant points received in advance of its manufacture. The price is relatively higher than the average for the product of the same farms fifty years ago.

In one respect dairy labor is the same as a hundred years ago. Cows still have to be milked by hand. Although numerous attempts have been made, and patent after patent issued, no mechanical contrivance has yet been a practical success as a substitute for the human hand in milking. Therefore, twice a day, every day in the year, the dairy cows must be milked. This is one of the main items of labor in the dairy, as well as a most delicate and important duty. Allowing ten cows per hour to a milker,—which is pretty lively work,—it requires the continuous labor of an army of 300,000 men, working ten or twelve hours a day throughout the year, to milk the cows of the United States.

The industry is becoming thoroughly organized. Besides local clubs, societies, and unions, there are dairy associations in thirty States, most of them incorporated and receiving financial aid under State laws. In some States, the butter makers and cheese makers are separately organized. Sixteen States provide by law for officials known as Dairy Commissioners or Dairy and Food Commissions. These officers have a national association, and there are also two national organizations of dairymen. At various large markets and centres of activity in the commerce of the dairy, there are special boards of trade. The United States Department of Agriculture has a Dairy Division, intended to watch over and promote the dairy interests of the country at large. Dairy schools are maintained in several States, offering special courses of practical and scientific instruction in all branches of the business. These schools and the agricultural experiment stations, with which most of them are closely connected, are doing much original research and adding to the store of useful information as to the applications of modern science to the improvement of dairy methods and results. Weekly and monthly journals, in the interest of dairy production and trade, are published in various parts of the country. And during the last decade or two a number of noteworthy books on different aspects of dairying have been published, so that the student of this subject may fill a good-sized case with substantial volumes, technical and practical in character.

The business of producing milk for town and city supply, with the accompanying agencies for transportation and distribution, has grown to immense proportions. In many places the milk trade is regulated and supervised by excellent municipal ordinances, which have done much to prevent adulteration and improve the average quality of the supply. Full as much is being done by private enterprise, through large milk companies, well organized and equipped, and establishments which make a specialty of serving milk and cream of fixed quality and exceptional purity. This branch of dairying is advancing very fast, and upon the substantial basis of care, cleanliness, and improved sanitary conditions.

Cheese-making has been transferred bodily from the realm of domestic arts to that of manufactures. Farm-made cheeses are hard to find anywhere, are used only locally, and make no impression upon the markets. In the middle of the century about 100,000,000 pounds of cheese were made yearly in the United States, all of it on farms. At the close of the century the annual production of the country is about 300,000,000 pounds, and 96 or 97 per cent of this is made in factories. Of these establishments there are some 3000, varying greatly in capacity. New York and Wisconsin each have over a thousand; the former State makes nearly twice as much cheese as the latter, and the two together produce three fourths of the entire output of this country. The other cheese-making States, in the order of quantity produced, are Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, and Pennsylvania; but all are comparatively unimportant. More than nine tenths of all made is of the familiar standard variety copied after the English Cheddar, but new kinds and imitations of foreign varieties are increasing. The cheese made in the country, with the small importations added, gives an allowance of less than four pounds a year to every person; but as thirty to fifty million pounds are still annually exported, the per capita consumption of cheese in the United States does not exceed three and a half pounds. This is a very low rate, much less than in most European countries.

Great as has been the growth of the factory system of butter-making, and fast as creameries are multiplying, especially in the newer and growing agricultural States, such as Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, and South Dakota, there is still much more butter made on farms in the United States than in creameries. Creamery butter controls all the large markets, the dairy product making comparatively little impression on the trade. But home consumption and the supply of small customers and local markets make an immense aggregate, being fully two thirds of all. Estimating the annual butter product of the country at 1,400,000,000 pounds, not much over 400,000,000 of this is made in the 8000 or 9000 creameries now in operation. Iowa is the greatest butter producing State, and the one in which the greatest proportion is made on the factory plan. This State has 850 creameries, only three counties being without them; about two fifths are coöperative. In these creameries about 90,000,000 pounds of butter are made annually from 750,000 cows. It is estimated that in the same State 50,000,000 pounds of butter in addition are made in farm dairies. The total butter product of the State is therefore one tenth of all made in the Union. Iowa sends over 80,000,000 pounds of butter every year to other States. New York is next in importance as a butter-making State, and then come Pennsylvania, Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Minnesota, and Kansas. Yet all these combined make but little more than half of the annual butter crop of the United States, and in no one of them, except Iowa, is half of the butter produced made in creameries. The average quality of butter in America has materially improved since the introduction of the creamery system and the use of modern appliances. No butter is imported, and the quantity exported is as yet insignificant. Consequently the home consumption must be at the yearly rate of twenty pounds the person, or about one hundred lbs. annually to the family of average size. If approximately correct, this shows Americans to be the greatest butter-eating people of the world.

And the people of this country also consume millions of pounds every year of butter substitutes and imitations, known as oleomargarine, butterine, etc. Most of this is believed to be butter by those who use it, and the State Dairy Commissioners mentioned are largely occupied in the execution of laws intended to protect consumers from these butter frauds.

The cows in the United States were not counted until 1840, but they have been enumerated for every decennial census since. It has required from 23 to 27 cows to every 100 of the inhabitants to keep the country supplied with milk, butter, and cheese, and provide for the export of dairy products. The export trade has fluctuated much, but has never exceeded the product of half a million cows. With the closing years of the century, it is estimated that there is one milch cow in the United States to every four persons. This makes the total number of cows about 17,500,000. They are quite unevenly distributed over the country, being largely concentrated in the great dairy States. Thus Iowa leads with a million and a half cows, followed by New York with almost as many, and then Illinois and Pennsylvania with about a million each. The States having over half a million each are Wisconsin, Ohio, Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Indiana. Texas is credited with 700,000, but very few of them are dairy animals. In the Middle and Eastern States the milk product goes very largely to the supply of the numerous cities and large towns. In the Central West and Northwest butter is the principal dairy product. It is estimated that the dairy animals of the United States include nearly half a million which are pure bred, and that this blood has been so generally diffused that more than one fourth of the cattle are grades.

The following table gives approximately an exhibit of the quantity and value of the dairy products of the United States in the year 1900:—

====================================================================== Cows, |Product.| Rate of | Total Product. | Rate of|Total Value, Millions.| | Product.| | Value.| Dollars. ---------+--------+---------+-------------------+--------+------------ 11 | Butter |130 lbs. |1,430,000,000 lbs. |18 cents|257,400,000 1 | Cheese |300 lbs. | 300,000,000 lbs. | 8 cents| 24,000,000 5½ | Milk |380 gals.|2,090,000,000 gals.| 8 cents|167,200,000 ======================================================================

This gives the grand total of the dairy products of the country a value of $448,600,000. If to this be added the skim milk, buttermilk, and whey, at their proper feeding value, and the calves dropped yearly, the annual aggregate value of the produce of the dairy cows exceeds $500,000,000. This may be accepted as a conservative estimate.

In a classification of the various annual farm products of the country by values, meats and closely related products stand first in order, the corn crop second, dairy products and the hay crop alternate in the third and fourth places, and wheat occupies the fifth. Hay and corn are so largely and directly tributary to the dairy as raw materials for its support, that it is fair to place the products of the dairy as second only to meat products in the general list. The cotton crop of the country is considered one of great importance, but during recent years it rarely equals the butter crop in value. The dairy aggregate exceeds all the mining products of the United States other than coal, oil, and gas. There never has been a year when the entire gold and silver product of the world was enough to buy the annual dairy products of this country at the present time. These comparisons show the commercial importance which the dairying of America has assumed. It is a branch of farming of such magnitude as to command attention and justify all reasonable provisions to guard its interests.

THE CENTURY’S MORAL PROGRESS

BY SARA Y. STEVENSON, Sc. D.,

Secretary Department of Archæology, University of Pennsylvania.

In dealing with a subject so indefinite in its limits as the progress of morals in the nineteenth century, it may be well to establish by a brief survey of previous facts some solid basis upon which to rest the discussion.

The notion of Duty or of moral obligation—i. e., of well-doing viewed in the abstract and outside of expediency—does not appear to have been brought forward by the Greek philosophers, to whom is mainly due the origin of our own conceptions with regard to morality.

Even Plato, who dealt with nearly all duties, while insisting especially upon the negative duty of committing no injustice or evil, even against one’s foes, nowhere systematically treats of Duty. Indeed, the Greek equivalent for the word did not exist in his time, and the notion was conveyed by a periphrase.

That morals have a bearing upon the welfare and character not only of the individual and of the family, but of the whole body politic, was however early recognized. Theognis, for instance, who lived in the sixth century B. C., stigmatized in the most energetic terms the evil influence exercised upon the destiny of nations by the immorality of the upper classes.

In the earlier schemes of civilization, where worship played a dominant political rôle, morals were regarded as under the protection of the sacred law. Worship and law were closely united in the government, and morals were included in these and governed by motives of expediency.

Man’s obligation to the Deity was then mainly confined to material offerings and propitiatory rites, whilst the law dealt with conduct in so far as order must be enforced, authority respected, and certain mutual rights recognized, if the welfare of the nation was to be maintained.

That the moral standards of these early societies were high cannot be doubted. Those which prevailed in ancient Egypt, as preserved to us in the maxims of sages, as well as in certain chapters of the sacred books, prove that the rule of conduct which was to insure to the subjects of the Pharaohs respect and popularity in this world and happiness in the world to come was in no way inferior to our own. The men who taught their contemporaries “Do not save thy life at the cost of another” had little to learn from the high-bred Parisians who recently escaped unhurt from the burning walls of the French Charity Bazaar.

For the Greek thinkers, however, who first systematically dealt with the subject, Ethics was a branch of Politics, i. e., the Science of Government. Aristotle, like Socrates and Plato, took for the starting point of his argument the sovereign good, or the idea of absolute well-being. All that man undertakes has an aim which, under analysis, is found to be the greatest advantage to him who is acting. Accordingly all knowledge tends to this end; and as all its elements are more or less connected, there must be one, the final end of which is essential; this is the political science which aims at the highest well-being not only of each man, but of man collectively, i. e., of society.

The nature of this highest “well-being,” which is generally termed “happiness,” gave rise among Greek philosophers to discussions which have been revived by modern thinkers.

It may therefore be stated that in ancient thought, at least until the time of the Stoics, morals and virtue were studied, whether in connection with religion or with politics, under the light of expediency rather than under that of abstract right, and that “they were discussed as functions more than as moral obligations.”

The fullness of significance which at present is conveyed in the word “Duty” is mainly due to the gradual and complex development of religious, legal, and philosophical modes of thought, in which certain human acts are regarded as enjoined and others as forbidden by a higher power, and in which conscience enters as an important and ever increasing factor. A sense of duty is the legitimate product of human nature under cultivation. But although we should look in vain among the ancients for the abstract notions which the words “Conscience, Duty, and Right” evoke in the modern mind, we find in groping our way up the stream of time that germs of these concepts had long lain concealed in the precepts of ancient moralists. The fact of virtue existed long before it was made the subject of theoretical systems, and if with the development of the reasoning faculty our moral code has been elaborated and our ethical terminology enriched, broadly speaking, the rules of conduct laid down by civilized men in the remote past and those which govern us to-day are, in kind, virtually the same. Thou shalt not kill; Thou shalt not steal; Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife; Thou shalt not bear false witness, are coeval with the beginnings of communities. It is in the scope and degree of their application—not in their nature—that mainly lies the difference existing in this respect between the past and the present.

In the highest stage of our moral development the unselfishness which seeks gratification in the welfare of others and in duty accomplished, at the cost of self, may in final analysis be reduced to a refined egoism. The motive held up to man by most moralists is still expediency. The reward, whether it is promised on this earth or in the world to come, is still a reward, and to the “greatest advantage of him who is acting.”

Moreover, moral standards to-day, as in the past, have a strong bearing upon political government, and it is in studying the development of democratic ideas that we may best follow the evolution of modern ethics as characteristic of our epoch; for to this development is due a higher sense of justice, the recognition of the rights of men and of the unimportance of the ego as compared with the race, all of which form distinctive features of the modern creed for which the words “altruism” and “humanitarianism” have been coined. It may also be said, to the honor of the present century, that there exists a growing tendency to accept abstract truth and right outside of expediency as standards of conduct, and to apply these regardless of sex, class, or persons according to the inflexible logic of a trained reason.

Two thousand years ago Christianity established itself upon the wreck of ancient civilizations, preserving that which in them was immortal. Grafted upon the Roman world, the gospel of democracy which it preached could be accepted as the official religion of the Empire only at the cost of its own purity. How could God and Mammon rule together? How could a Constantine rise to an understanding of the Teacher who said: “Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them.... But so shall it not be among you; but whosoever will be great among you shall be your minister; and whosoever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all.” (St. Mark x. 42–44.) Christ had established religion among his followers as distinct from worship. The people soon relapsed into worship, whilst for the clergy theology took the place of religion.

With the alliance formed between Church and State in the Christian community, much of the Sermon on the Mount was necessarily forgotten; many of the parables in which the Teacher embodied his doctrine of justice, of tolerance, of love and humility, were to lose their living force. Under the banner of faith, conduct sank to the second rank. The dry subtleties of scholasticism helped to crush morality beneath the words and formulæ of a learned dialectic. Although for centuries the spirit of Christ continued to protect the weak and the lowly, although from the very body of the Church, then ever ready in its arrogance to cast its anathemas upon every effort of man to assert his freedom, sprang reformers who endeavored to restore to the gospel some of its early significance, the Church strayed ever farther from its founder. Was this because, as Michelet said, the reformers themselves needed reforming? Once more man found himself crushed under the law which Christ had declared was made for him, until, at last, in the forcible words of Mr. Darmesteter, of all the Teacher’s lessons Christian Rome seemed to remember only one, “Return unto Cæsar that which is Cæsar’s.” However fiercely monarchy might struggle against the temporal encroachments of the Church, it joined with it to repress the people. “Authority rested upon a mystery. Its right came from above. Power was divine. Obedience to it was a sacred duty and inquiry became a blasphemy.”

Then from the great schools and universities the developing intellect of Europe awakened to a sense of its rights. Suddenly there came inquiries into the reality of this spiritual power over human souls and over the human understanding which Rome claimed to be derived from Heaven. In its revolt against dogma, from Abélard and Arnold di Brescia to Huss and Wickliff, from Luther and Pascal to Voltaire and Rousseau, the human thought struggled for freedom under the banner of learning and of reason, and fought for the rights of the people against the privileged few. “I will not speak of tolerance,” cried Mirabeau, in his plea for the emancipation of the Jews in the National Convention (1791); “the freedom of conscience is a right so sacred that even the name of tolerance involves a species of tyranny.”

At the close of the last century, freedom at last planted its standard in Europe above the ruins of despotism. In the fiery torrent which swept away the ancient traditions of the Church, as well as those of the State, it seemed for a time as though religion as well as the church, right as well as might, must disappear from the surface of the earth, and that, in the smoke of battles and the revelry of reason, truth and morals must perish and anarchy prevail. But a moral rule is indispensable to society, and “Religion is after all but the highest expression of human science and of human conscience.” Its germ, innate in man, grows with his understanding in its constant strain to establish a relation between himself and the universe.

To the moral chaos that for a brief space followed the overthrow of the old order of things succeeded, in the beginning of this century, a period of readjustment, and now, in the words of a poet whose own mental processes are a type of those of his time, “Of a hopeless epoch is born a fearless age.”

After the absolute negations of the early years of the nineteenth century, after the violent controversies not only of arrogant science and of prejudiced faith, but of scientific and theological schools inter se which fill the serious literature of the last generations, a reconciliation between faith and science is taking place, a certain unity of thought is being reached with regard to conduct and to the rights of men. And the century, at its close, shows us the Protestant churchman less tenacious of his dogma, the Romanist less certain of the infallibility of Rome, the scholar less convinced of the infallibility of his science, the agnostic less boastful of his skepticism, the monarchist awakened from his dreams of a divine right of kings and of a preordained subjection of men, the socialist sobered of his revolutionary frenzy and repudiating the extremes of anarchy and nihilism born of his earlier teachings, all marching shoulder to shoulder under the banner of a broad tolerance toward a common goal, in a united effort to lift the masses from the depths of poverty, ignorance, vice, and often crime, to which centuries of repression seemed to consign them, and seeking in friendly coöperation to bring about a better social order.

For in our time has taken place a great broadening of the moral standpoint from which the old rules of conduct are in future to be applied. Toward the end of the last century the equality and fraternity of men was proclaimed to the European world and received a baptism of blood. This official declaration of the rights of men professed to be universal; but, like other dispensations that had preceded it, in its application it fell short of the democratic ideal. All men were declared equal, yet with striking inconsistency those who proclaimed the new creed held others in bondage, and race disqualification survived.

The honor of leading in the greatest moral reform which the world has seen is due to the French Revolutionary leaders. On February 2, 1794, the Convention decreed the abolition of slavery throughout the French colonies, and all slaves were admitted to the rights of citizenship. It was only in 1833 that slavery was abolished in the British colonies by Act of Parliament, and that coolie labor was substituted. In 1861 Emperor Alexander II., following the policy inaugurated by his father, Nicholas I., freed the serfs in Russia. It is a curious fact that the United States, which for many reasons might have been expected to lead in the movement, only followed in 1863. The terrible struggle of the public conscience against expediency and class interest, which then took place upon this continent, must form one of the most important lessons which this century will offer to posterity.

Right prevailed, and with this triumph of justice the human conscience, throwing aside casuistry and evasion for a time, faced its problems honestly and asserted its own sovereignty.

The consequences of the mighty struggle did not stop here. Once the principles of abstract justice established, not only against might but against tradition and expediency; once the rights not only of men (as in 1776 and in 1789), but of all men, recognized in a broader application of the principles of a true democracy, there came a tendency to extend its application to mankind at large; and women, who according to their station in life had hitherto been dealt with theoretically as either useful or ornamental possessions, began to find their place as members of the community. The rights of slaves as men had been officially proclaimed. The rights of women as citizens began to be discussed.

In the widespread shifting of levels which has taken place in the last hundred years, affecting directly and indirectly the moral progress of all classes of society, certain important elements have entered which cannot be overlooked in the present discussion, and which in future ages must stand as preëminently characteristic of the nineteenth century and the Anglo-Saxon ascendency.

The reign of machinery in the industrial world, the advent of steam, of electricity, of compressed air, as motors, have done away with the human machine. Whether in peace or in war the skilled workman has crowded him out. Labor-saving inventions have done away with the necessity for a multiplicity of hands. The need to-day is for trained heads. From evaporated fruit and canned meats to heat, light, and inter-communication, science is brought to bear upon every detail of existence. As an immediate consequence of the part necessarily played by learning in our industrial and commercial life under modern conditions, public education has become the mainspring of national prosperity. Freedom and public education have made our laboring classes the self-respecting, thinking people they are. The human automaton upon which formerly played the greed, the vice, the craft of others now holds a comparatively small place in the modern community, outside of Latin Europe. The “vile multitude,” as M. Thiers still stigmatized it (before he turned republican), no longer exists. The world has moved, and so have men.

“If the shuttle would weave of itself,” said Aristotle in his apology for slavery, “there would be no need of slaves.” The miracle, which seemed impossible to the founder of science, has been accomplished with the predicted result. The shuttle weaves of itself and slavery has disappeared.

Even in Oriental lands, under Anglo-Saxon supremacy the carrying out of great public works is stimulating a demand for education among the people, and the sum total of ignorance and poverty is gradually decreasing and making way for better conditions; for only a trained hand guided by a trained intellect can use the modern tools. This applies to agriculture as well as to industries.

In the rising tide of intellectual and material progress, woman has been carried along to a great extent unconsciously. It is a matter of grave doubt whether the early “suffragists” did more than be the first to recognize and herald the logical drift of contemporary events. It is through higher education that woman has quietly forged her way to the place she occupies in the modern community, and that she is claiming her share of the common heritage of freedom and independence. The prophecy embodied in Bulwer’s “Coming Race” is being realized. From year to year her sphere is broadening. She is fast becoming self-supporting. In education she already holds a leading place. Her influence as a moving force is becoming patent. It is officially recognized to a varying degree in certain parts of the civilized world,—England, New Zealand, Russia, and twenty-two of the United States, where she stands before the law not only in her relation to man as his mother, wife, or sister, but in a direct relation to society, as a reasoning being and as a citizen.

The increased self-respect born in woman’s mind of a consciousness of equal training and culture, the growing number of women whose ambitions have been stimulated to higher achievement, and the consequent increasing influence wielded by them in the community, suggest the thought that in time their legal status will be generally established, as it already is now in several localities.

Much leveling has taken place since the abolition of the “ancient régime,” not only in the relations of the various classes composing society, but in the relation of men and women. The process is still steadily going on. And it is not unreasonable to believe that, with the gradual elevation of the ideals of one half of the population,—that half which is in control of the early training of children of both sexes,—a common standard of character and morality may in time be acknowledged which will admit of but one rule by which the actions of mankind, without distinction of persons, class, or sex, may be measured. The fact that all distinction in favor of the privileged class has already been removed in the eyes of modern public opinion holds out such a hope. The casuistry which still discriminates between evil-doers can but retard moral progress, and the more earnestly modern parents urge upon their sons the same observance of the laws of hygiene and propriety, of truth and self respect, as they exact from their daughters, the nearer to true civilization will society reach.

The world is yet far from this goal. No legislative act has as yet saved society from the ravages of vice, sensuality, and greed, and to-day every degree of savagery and immorality still exists in so-called civilized countries. Education, taking the word in its broadest sense, can alone, by its refining influence, force the savage to give way before reasoning man. And it is by the constantly increasing proportion of educated, self-respecting men and women that the coarser instincts of the human race are being controlled and brought to yield to reason. By holding up the same standards of conduct to humanity, the important place occupied by casuistry and expediency, in the discussion of the ethical problems set before the moralist, may be reduced, and a logical facing of the serious issues to be met may follow. Such a result must tend to strengthen the marriage tie and the family relation, upon which rests the whole moral structure of society.

At present, modern casuistry, if it no longer seeks to justify falsehood and crime committed on behalf of Church or State, still exonerates, in the world of affairs, the high railroad official or the industrial magnate of an infraction of the higher code by which his own personal integrity is judged, provided that infraction is committed in the interest of his constituents. Many a man of high standing, whose personal honor is beyond suspicion and whose conscience would not allow him to take an unfair advantage of another, does not hesitate to transgress when dealing with rival corporate bodies or with public interests. Hence the corruption which prevails in public life to a degree dangerous to the commonwealth, and which is in direct contradiction with the professed standards of the age. Must we then think that living up to the highest moral standard is incompatible with business success, and agree with M. Jules Lemaître that “the attaining to moral perfection is really possible only in the solitude of literary or artistic pursuits, in the humility of manual labor, or in the dignity of such disinterested functions as those of priest or soldier”?

However this may be, new conditions have created new problems which the public conscience alone can solve—as it has already solved that of slavery and of race—with unflinching logic.

The human mind, if less concerned than it was in the days of Molina with polemics on the nature of the human will,—a question, by the way, which Rome after eleven years and thirty-three Councils dared not then settle,—or with theological controversies regarding the value of indulgences, is not yet at peace with itself. Indeed, for being less immaterial, the issues now before it for adjustment are, owing to their bearing upon practical life, all the more vital to the moral health of the body politic.

To the respective rights and duties of labor and capital our best thinkers must turn their attention before an equitable solution can be reached. That such a solution must be reached cannot be doubted, for the interests at stake are fundamental.

Whilst individualism in thought and in conduct asserts itself at every turn, never were the principles of organization so actively carried out among all classes of society. To the strain caused by the forming of trades unions and of united labor leagues for the protection of the wage-earner is now succeeding the danger produced by the concentration of capital in the hands of powerful corporations and the creation of mighty trusts, the undue extension of which in this country seems to threaten the prosperity of the nation and to add to its political corruption. As against these monopolies, public ownership and operation of common utilities is being successfully tried, notably in England and the British Colonies, and the honest municipalization of all community service, carried on as the post-office is carried on among us, results in positive benefit to the people, that is, in good wages and reduced taxes. To discuss these important problems would encroach upon the domain of political economy and social science; but there is no doubt that the public morality is closely dependent upon their solution.

Whether so-called civilized nations, whilst regarding murder as a capital offense and punishing dueling when indulged in by individuals, will long continue to train their best men at enormous expense, in order that in cold blood they may scientifically destroy the greatest possible number of other trained and equally good men; whether peaceful communities of practical tradesmen will some day cease to emulate barbarians in their rejoicings over the slaughter of so-called enemies whom they are individually prepared to befriend and whose prowess they are ready to extol, are glaring contradictions offered by the problem of war which must be left to future generations to reconcile. The leading part which the Anglo-Saxon race has taken in urging arbitration as a proper means of settling international differences places it in the foremost rank of civilization; whilst the Peace Conference proposed by one of Europe’s most powerful potentates, the Czar of Russia, must bring a ray of hope to the hearts of those who labor for the advent of universal peace.

Such are the great moral issues of the present day; and in these many minor ones are included. Everywhere and at all periods of history the theory of ethics has widely differed from practical conduct. The race conflict which is taking place in France as the result of the Dreyfus trial, more than a century after the emancipation of the Jews before the law was proclaimed, is a late illustration of this fact. To this, the corruption and failure of justice which recent exposures have revealed in the highest circles of republican France add peculiar significance. As already stated, the broad outlines established in precept remain unchanged, and it is in their logical application that lie all present growth and future hope.

To trace, even in sketchy outline, the debit and credit account of modern ideas upon the various subjects involved in the above mentioned issues would be a serious undertaking. A chapter must be devoted to each nation, for the moral progress of each differs as does its besetting sin. Moreover, every shade of opinion must be weighed and considered. Inherited traditional views are, in each modern mind, hopelessly interwoven with the new articles of a code of morals which public opinion is even now evolving from contemporary conditions. “Each of us,” says Edmond Schérer, “belongs to two civilizations, that which is coming and that which is going; and as we are accustomed to the first, we are poorly placed to judge or enjoy the latter.”

There never was an epoch when the struggle for existence was fiercer and when earthly possessions were more keenly prized. But despite the many survivals which still point to a semi-barbaric inheritance of selfishness descended through millenniums, a decided moral gain may, on the whole, be placed to the credit of our era. With the decrease of the sum total of ignorance, not only among the lower but among the upper classes, the sum total of well-doing and well-being has immeasurably increased.

The sympathy for suffering is more widespread than it has ever been. No middle-aged person can fail to note the rapid change which has taken place in the public mind with regard to the general treatment not only of children, but of animals. The present mode of dealing with school children according to their individual capacity, the trust in their honor which governs their relation to the teacher, the absence of any corporal punishment, form a recent departure in education well calculated to produce the best moral results.

The improvement of modern methods in relief work as well as in the treatment of vice—now viewed more in the light of a pathological condition than in that of a sin—must make this a memorable epoch in the ethical history of humanity. No branch of civilization has undergone greater change in modern times both in theory and practice than public and private charity. To-day the humanitarian endeavors to lift up the fallen and the needy, and almsgiving on the part of the well-to-do is fast becoming relegated to the category of a self-indulgence which is not to be encouraged. The distinction between the old methods and the new is given in the formula that “henceforth the chief test of charity will be the effect upon the recipient.” Any relief calculated to undermine self-reliance and independence is discouraged by those who have in view the prevention of our moral ills rather than their relief.

Indeed, the new school preaches scientific charity as against emotional charity. What it may have lost in impulse it has more than made up in effectiveness. The attempt to teach the needy to help themselves, the work of college settlements and of the organized efforts in the poorest and most neglected districts of large cities, with a view to fostering by personal contact and example habits of thrift and self-respect where those virtues are most lacking, are among the truest if more homely glories of the closing century.

Verily, never was a more thoughtful effort made everywhere to mitigate the cruel distinctions of race and sex, of wealth and poverty, and to “harmonize the social antagonisms” of modern life. Never was so much consideration given to the betterment of humanity, nor was the aggregate of earnestness so great.

In our more robust intellectual world the tree is judged by its fruit, and acts tell, not creed. The principle that well-doing, unless it is disinterested, forfeits its claim to the highest respect of men, is growing in strength, whilst the feeling is gaining ground among the thoughtful that in the development of personality may be found a sufficient motive for the exercise of virtue, and that character, not reward, being not having, are the highest aims.

If we resume the moral progress of the nineteenth century, allowing for its inconsistencies, carefully weighing its negative and positive results, and taking as a balance what is original in its contribution to the ethical development of the human race, we will find that this contribution mainly lies in the direction of tolerance and of altruism. This altruism is distinct from the charity of St. Vincent, which sacrificed self in a loving attempt to relieve individual distress. Such pure sacrifice, admirable as it is, is not only narrow in its scope, but because of its austerity must fail to survive in the struggle for existence. Modern altruism aims at removing the main cause of individual distress, and spends itself in educational efforts, in which the well-doer finds happiness in the consciousness of usefulness. It is also unlike the socialism of Condorcet, which reached down in an endeavor to make all institutions subservient to the interests of the poorer and most numerous classes, for it aims at lifting these to the highest possible plane. The mountain summits are not to be lowered, but the valleys are being filled. To raise the people, to build up, not to tear down, is the avowed end of all modern moral effort, and must ever stamp the humanitarian struggles of the present age as distinct from those of the eighteenth and preceding centuries.

With this we may claim an increase in individual freedom, and a perceptible tendency to a logical and ever broadening conception, not only of the rights, but of the duties of citizenship; to a more honest recognition of the place assigned by expediency to evil in the social and business intercourse of a practical life; to a growing scorn of casuistry, and to a stronger faith in the reality of right and of abstract truth as they are revealed in every thinking man’s heart, and the uniformity of which is reflected in the public conscience.

PROGRESS OF SANITARY SCIENCE

BY CHARLES McINTIRE, A.M., M.D.,

Lecturer on Sanitary Science, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.

Since blessings brighten as they take their flight, it may be difficult to realize how much of our present happiness and comfort depend upon the constantly abiding benefactions brought about by the progress of Sanitary Science in the present cycle. The proper care of the body and the prevention of disease, rather than its cure, have occupied the minds of men from the dawn of history. Moses is the author of a well-digested code of hygiene, and erudite scholars can find hints of the proper conservation of health in the Egyptian papyri. Hippocrates wrote about the prevention as well as the cure of disease; indeed, all along the course of time the master minds of medicine attempted the solution of many of the problems of Sanitary Science as eagerly as they sought for the elixir vitæ or for the universal solvent. Notwithstanding all this, one can truthfully say that sanitation could not be fairly termed Sanitary Science until its rules of procedure began to be formulated with more or less exactness upon careful experiment and accurately recorded observation. Sanitary science, as such, could not begin to be until pathology (a knowledge of the morbid processes of disease) and etiology (a study of the causation of disease) had builded upon a scientific foundation. Before this all deductions were from experience, and had no other reason than the seeming helpfulness of the procedure; after this, as fast as the facts were demonstrated, deductions were made that determined a procedure which would of a certainty accomplish the purpose. In the olden times, during an epidemic of a contagious disease, tar barrels were burned in the streets,—and not without some benefit. At the present, the room, with its contents, can be disinfected with a certainty of destroying every atom of contagion.

This difference must be kept in mind when comparing the old with the new, and the true reason of the great advance be recognized as due to the spirit of scientific investigation, which began in the latter part of the last century with the employment of instruments of precision in research, and which has developed so wonderfully up to the present that the experimental psychologist measures the minute portion of time it takes to form a thought. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that the sciences which furnish sanitary science much of its material are progressing and, because progressing, changing; that the conditions desired to be removed are prevailing, and the necessity of overcoming them urgent. Not in every case has the sanitarian fully demonstrated and laid down scientifically accurate data on which to base his method of procedure. Hence it happens that even now sanitary empiricism must needs be mingled with sanitary science, and the mingling is sometimes as much of a motley as the dress of the court fool of the Middle Ages.

Since sanitary science had its origin during the present century, it will be helpful to assign a definite period for its birth. Not that any one would have the temerity to dogmatically assert that the science came into being at a fixed date, but rather to fix a period of time when the conditions working through the ages were so shaped that, perforce, the problems of sanitation would thereafter be treated more in a scientific and less in an empirical method than before. This time is associated with the beginning of the reign of Queen Victoria of England, since the first Act of Parliament for the registration of births, marriages, and deaths was passed in 1837, and the beginning made of accurately gathering information which is to the sanitarian what the pulse is to the physician. With his fingers on this tell-tale of the flow of the heart-blood of the nation, he is enabled to determine whether disease is above or below the normal, the character of the disease that abounds, and its whereabouts. Knowing where to find any disease in excess, he can study the conditions and surroundings, comparing them with other places, whether afflicted in like manner or, more favored, free from the disease. By means of these vital statistics he can compare year with year, and tell with a degree of exactness heretofore impossible whether any disease is increasing or decreasing; he can lay his returns by the side of the figures of the meteorologist and learn if the weather has any influence on the death-rate; he can follow the results of his efforts to improve the condition of the people and vindicate his expenditure of the public money by pointing to the reduced mortality rate. It may seem to be a gruesome task for every physician in the land to send to the proper official a notice of each death and of each patient suffering from a disease apt to be communicated to some one else; and almost ghoulish for the officer to sit at his desk, day after day, and catalogue and tabulate these returns. But it is only a modern version of the old riddle of Samson, out of the bitter came forth the sweet; for without this, much of the progress of sanitary science would be well-nigh impossible.

The act adopted in Great Britain has been modified and improved upon since then, and in the United States many of our cities and some of our States have been engaged in a similar effort. As yet we have no central bureau or collecting office for the nation; nor is this necessary, if each State would do its duty, or, at least, the general government in that event need only tabulate the returns of each of the States. The effort is now making, under the auspices of the American Public Health Association, to secure a uniform method of registration in all offices collecting vital statistics, by which the same name will be given to the same disease and the same facts recorded in each return made. This will cause a little confusion at first in those offices where statistics have been tabulated for a number of years, but the advantage will be so great as to fully repay any inconvenience at the first. If we desire to obtain the full benefits from the advance of sanitary science, we must see to it that in every State there is an efficient bureau of vital statistics, whether under the supervision of the State Board of Health or some other department of the State. The absence of such a bureau reflects upon the intelligence of the people or the integrity of the law-making power.

Are there tangible results to warrant so sweeping an assertion? is a fair question, since at the time of the preparation of the census of 1890 New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware were the only States collecting vital statistics, and since then but Maine and Michigan have been added. Before quoting figures, it must be premised that even now the returns only approximate accuracy; they were much more inaccurate at the first, and before the general registration was undertaken most of the statements are merely estimates, after the fashion of the geographer who gives the number of inhabitants in China, where a census never has been taken. It may happen that the benefits are not as great as the figures seem to show, but after making all allowance there is great improvement.

The “Encyclopædia Britannica” asserts that two centuries ago the mortality of London was 80 per 1000, while now it is but a little over 20. In 1841, out of every 100,000 people in England, 30,000 would have died before reaching the age of 10, and one half would have died before they were 40 years old; in the decennium 1881–90, before 30,000 would have died out of each 100,000 some would have lived to be 17, and some would have lived to be 55 before one half of the number had departed into the unknown and the hereafter.

The figures of the statistician must be quoted again and again in the progress of the article, as no more tangible evidence can be given of the benefits resulting from improved methods of sanitation. Very early a coincidence was observed between the uncleanly and the death-rate. Neighborhoods where little or no care was taken to remove the refuse, where there were foul drains and a deficient water supply, were found to be the abodes of special forms of disease,—so much so, that these diseases soon received the name of “filth diseases.” Acting upon the suggestion, the gospel of cleanliness was preached and its practice enforced. There was a “redding up” in its eventuality as thorough as the cleansing of Santiago de Cuba in recent days. It did not take long to discover that decaying organic matter in some way was the offending body, and that this contaminated the water supply. Wells were condemned and public water supplies installed; means were sought to enable the cleansing to be constantly carried on, and sewers for house drainage followed or accompanied the water supply. In proportion as this has been thoroughly done has the death-rate from certain diseases diminished. During the last century the European armies were decimated by fever (typhus or relapsing) to such a degree that the work of the fell destroyer at Santiago was trifling in comparison. On into the present century, the great scourge of Great Britain was these same two fevers; so much so, that “the fever” meant the dread jail or typhus fever. It was imported into this country, and epidemics of “ship fever” were of frequent occurrence. Thus, as late as 1846, it was estimated that in Dublin alone there were 40,000 cases of fever, with a total in Ireland of 1,000,000 cases. There were 10,000 deaths in Liverpool, a city especially prone to the disease; while in Edinburgh one person out of every nine of the population was attacked, and one out of every eight of the sick died. Turning from this account to the medical returns of the war for the Union, there were reported only 1723 cases, with 572 deaths, to the office of the Surgeon General, and even these a very competent authority after careful investigation decided not to be instances of true typhus. Or turn to civil practice: the disease is found so seldom with us that it is not necessary to assign to it a column along with the other diseases in publishing the mortality returns by our health authorities. The deaths from fever in London during October, November, and December, 1898, were but 296. London has an estimated population of 4,504,766, and the “fever” in the report included typhoid, simple and ill-defined forms of fever, as well as typhus. This makes a death-rate of but 0.26 per 1000.

Had sanitary science no other trophy, its votaries could still boast of the great benefits to humanity brought about by their labors. This is but one of many; thus, scurvy, the great bane of the navy, is now a disease that few physicians have the misfortune to see, or patients to endure. Then that disease somewhat akin to typhus, and until within the memory of the fathers confounded with it, hence called typhoid fever, is likewise fast disappearing, more rapidly in cities than in rural communities however. The suppression of typhoid proceeds with equal step with the introduction of a public water supply in our towns, the adoption of the proper means to furnish this water unpolluted, and the proper removal of domestic waste through sewers, whose contents are so treated as to work no harm after they escape. Notwithstanding these great triumphs, if boasting is permissible, the sanitarian’s boast is rather that his science, which had its beginning, as we have seen, at the time when there was a great awakening of the national conscience in British politics for “the larger sympathy of man with man,” has broadened with the years of its growth; has endeavored to care for one’s brother so that his blood would not cry up from the ground; so that, after forty or fifty years had passed, a distinguished sanitarian could write with literal accuracy: “Whatever can cause, or help to cause, discomfort, pain, sickness, death, vice, or crime—and whatever has a tendency to avert or destroy, or diminish such cases—are matters of interest to the sanitarian; and the powers of science and the arts, great as they are, are taxed to the uttermost to afford even an approximate solution of the problems with which he is concerned.”[1] And the crowning glory of the science to-day is the care it bestows upon the weak, the ignorant, and the helpless; the efforts it makes to ameliorate every undesirable condition of society.

[1] Dr. J. S. Billings in Ziemssen’s Encyclopædia.

It would be misleading to infer that all of these benefits have been brought about solely through the collection of vital statistics, although much of it would have been difficult without the knowledge furnished by these statistics. Workers in almost every branch of pure science have contributed to the progress,—the physicist, the meteorologist, the chemist, and by no means the least, the biologist. Indeed, with the more recent investigations, the culture tube of the biologist has almost revolutionized medicine and all that pertains to it.

Sanitary science seeks to accomplish two ends; it purposes to prevent disease and to promote public health. If it seeks to prevent disease, after the fashion of the oft-quoted cook-book, it must first secure the disease, or what is essentially the same thing, know what causes it. If the cause be known, and we can conquer the cause, we can prevent the disease. Thus a disease known as trichinæ spiralis, from the name of the parasite invading the body and causing sickness and death, is caused by eating pork infected by the trichinæ. We can certainly prevent trichinæ in persons by forbidding pork; but we also know that the trichinæ do not occur in all pork, and that their presence can be detected by the microscope. If, then, a sample from every slaughtered pig is submitted to the microscopist, the infected pork can be discovered. This is done in our large packing establishments, especially for that pork which is to be exported. Again, a thorough cooking will kill the trichinæ, even if present. Only the grossest carelessness, consequently, can account for a case of trichinæ, and, indeed, it is a very rarely occurring disease. This illustrates the importance of a knowledge of the cause of the disease, to enable one to devise a method for preventing it. In the study of disease causes, the biologist has been very successful during the past few years, and a number of our communicable diseases are demonstrated to be caused by the growth and development of bacteria. From this demonstration in the case of some, a general hypothesis has been formulated, which is useful as a working hypothesis, but by no means safe to call a theory as yet. This hypothesis is that all of our communicable diseases are caused by living organisms originating in one person and conveyed to another, where they begin to grow, to reproduce their kind and to perform their life functions. Hence all communicating diseases are infectious. Some of these infectious diseases, like measles or smallpox, are capable of direct communication from one person to another, rendering them contagious; others, like typhoid fever and cholera, are not contagious in this sense of the word. This is a very excellent distinction to make in the use of these much abused words.

The biologist has rendered sanitary science great service not only in discovering the causes of certain diseases, but also by aiding to determine the nature of the disease in any outbreak. It makes a vast difference if a given case is one of true diphtheria or not, or of Asiatic cholera or not, and often the symptoms alone are not conclusive. Here the biologist comes to our aid, as is seen so often in cases of supposed diphtheria. A portion of the throat secretion is sent him under such precautions that no bacteria from the outside can possibly contaminate. With this secretion he stabs or inoculates a jelly composition which he has placed in a test-tube, stuffs a wad of absorbent cotton in the mouth of his tube and puts it in a warm chamber or incubator. If there are any microbes present, they will begin to grow, and the expert biologist can tell the bacteria from its manner of growth as readily as the gardener can distinguish between his radishes and lettuce when they sprout in the spring, and in this way is able to report the nature of the germs. If he is in doubt, he carries his cultivation further and employs other tests to prove his observation.

The biologist has also rendered great aid to sanitary science in discovering many other species of bacteria that are helpful to man. Our polluted waters could not be purified, our air could not be cleared from foul odors, nor the proper decomposition of organic matters go on, without the aid of bacteria. These little vegetable growths, while working much harm upon humanity, contribute far more to their comfort, well-being, and happiness than they do to their ill. Possibly no better illustrations can be given of the value of bacteriology to sanitary science, and the great progress it has brought about, than to contrast a cholera outbreak of a few years ago with one occurring more recently; or to point to the efficacy of purifying water by the assistance of bacteria. Another disease, pulmonary consumption, may also be noticed, but the triumph here is not so marked as yet.

The first outbreak of cholera in the United States occurred in 1832. In one special hospital in New York city, 2030 patients were received in the nine weeks from July 1 to September 1, and of these 850 died. An eye-witness, who was personally known to the writer, one not given to exaggeration, said that the state of dread and alarm had been increasing until, when the disease first made its appearance in New York, fully one half of the population had left the city, many of the physicians fleeing with the rest. There was no efficient health department, and no organized system for the protection of the public health. This gentleman was a city missionary, and, in the performance of his duties, visited many of the houses. He mentioned visiting one of these on a morning when the fifteenth body had been carried out. It was the time of the rumble of the dead cart and the indiscriminate burial in public trenches. Contrast the horrors of this scene with the last attempt of cholera to invade the United States, in 1893, when, notwithstanding its presence at the quarantine station in New York harbor, and the actual presence of a few well-authenticated cases in the city itself, not one of these cases proved a focus for the spread of the disease.

The opinion that water in some way acts as a conveyer of disease can be generalized after a very little observation. To explain how it does this is a problem that was attempted to be solved by the chemist. He added vastly to our knowledge, but it was not until the biologist showed the presence of the disease-producing bacteria in water that a full explanation was possible. But the biologist has done more: it has been found, and notably in the very complete series of experiments carried on by the Massachusetts Board of Health, that even an effluent of a sewer, if filtered through a bed of sand, is purified to such an extent that the filtrate is a perfectly safe water to drink. The dangerous organic matter disappears, and ninety-eight per cent of the bacteria is removed. And it is pleasing to note, when one has so much to say of the dangers of bacteria, that the purification is entirely brought about by the action of bacteria working for the good of man. A sand filter bed does not purify water properly until it has been in operation for a few days, when the top of the bed is covered with a slime in which the bacteria act upon the organic matter in the water and purify it. The fact of the purification was known before the manner in which it was done was understood; and in those cities where the authorities have acted upon this knowledge and have purified their water supply, the influence upon the death-rate of typhoid fever is almost as marked as those already quoted for typhus fever, while the scourge of cholera has been almost entirely removed from their borders, as many an instance during the late outbreak in Europe could illustrate. It does not contribute to our self-esteem to know that most of the water supplies so filtered are to be found abroad. There is not enough of “practical politics” in filter beds to charm the traditional alderman of our cities.

It is now clearly proven that a species of bacteria is uniformly present in pulmonary consumption. This bacillus is to be found in the material coughed up by those who are ill with that disease. It has considerable tenacity of life; the expectorated material can be dried, pulverized into dust, and carried about on the wind; should the bacteria so dried and carried find a proper soil, they can grow and reproduce the disease. Fortunately, a combination of circumstances is required for the contraction of this disease, or it would be far more prevalent than it is. Notwithstanding, it already claims more victims than any other single disease. What has sanitary science done for its repression? It is attempting, in a tentative way, to obtain a registration of those who are consumptives, in order to teach them to avoid being possible sources of infection; to disinfect the discharges carrying the bacteria, and at times the rooms occupied by the consumptives. In Rome, for example, the services of the public disinfectors are asked for as eagerly for the room occupied by a consumptive as for one that had been used by a person suffering from diphtheria. In New York city, where the department of health has been exercising an oversight and care over the consumptives, there has been a constantly diminishing death-rate from all tubercular diseases from 1886, when the rate was 4.42, to 1897, when it was 2.85, with the single exception of 1894, which was lower than 1895. It is too soon to predict the result, but the proper care of consumptives promises much to check the ravages of the disease.

One of the charms connected with the great results indicated is the simplicity of the methods employed to bring them about. While complex schemes and elaborate machinery may be necessary whenever the amount of service to be rendered requires organization and division of labor to properly accomplish the desired results, the principles are such that they can be executed in the smallest hamlet, and with the very crudest paraphernalia. The two great weapons of the sanitarian in fighting disease are isolation and disinfection. Dr. Henry M. Baker, the efficient secretary of the State Board of Health of Michigan, has for years collected and tabulated the results of the observing and non-observing of these precautions in his State. He has a happy faculty for graphically presenting the results. One of his diagrams is presented here and needs no explanation. In very few of these outbreaks could there have been any municipal disinfecting plant or isolating hospital.

Isolation and disinfection—but the old quarantine and fumigation under new names! Who of us has not sympathized with the traveler of the earlier days in the Levant, when he was condemned to days and weeks of detention in the barren lazaretto? And even at so comparatively recent a date as the pilgrimage recorded by Mark Twain in his “Innocents Abroad,” he states that the Italians found it more to their convenience to fumigate travelers than to wash themselves. How very different is a modern quarantine station, such as may be found near any of our more important ports on the Atlantic coast. If the health officer of the port finds a contagious disease upon board, he immediately removes the sick to the hospital, and keeps the well under supervision long enough to see if the disease has been communicated to any. He may keep them on shipboard; but more likely, if the ship must be disinfected, he removes them to the detention station, safely separated from the hospital. The steerage has been crowded, and there is need of disinfection of their persons and clothing. Under proper supervision, each is required to take a bath, for which abundant facilities are furnished; and while this is doing their clothing has been placed in the steam disinfecting apparatus, a partial vacuum secured, superheated steam introduced, the clothing thoroughly disinfected, a partial vacuum again produced, whereby the contents are rapidly dried, and they are ready to be put on again by the time the bath is completed. The luggage is treated in the same way, while the cargo is probably treated to a sulphur fumigation,—the sulphur being burned in furnaces and the fumes carried to all parts of the cargo through lines of hose. In the course of a very few days, at least, all but the sick can proceed on their journey without any risk of conveying the disease.

Everything that has thus far been chronicled regarding the progress of sanitary science has related to the diminution of the death-rate and the prevention of disease. After all, is this worthy the telling? When one learns “how the other half lives,” or, with more restricted knowledge, realizes to a degree the intensity of the remark of a young Hebrew, replying to a command of a police officer to clean up, as related in “The Workers” by Professor Wykoff: “You tell us we’ve got to keep clean,” he answered in broken English, lifting his voice to a shout above the clatter of machines; “what time have we to keep clean, when it’s all we can do to get bread? Don’t talk to us about disease; it’s bread we’re after, bread!”

Is it worthy of boasting that sanitary science is only increasing the hardships and adding to the number of mouths to be fed, without opening up new ways to earn one’s bread? Even if it be so decided, and all the claims of progress thus far made be declared wanting, there still remains much worthy of praise. Sanitary science strives not only to prevent disease, but also to promote health, and its progress is fully as marked in its efforts at promotion as in those of prevention, although we do not possess the cold figures of even imperfect vital statistics to demonstrate the proposition.

It must be kept in mind that sanitary science is wider than sanitation in its technical sense. One would not care to assert that philanthropic effort and sweet charity are resultants of the development of sanitary science,—very few care to assert an evident untruth. But the influence of this study has been widespread and beneficial. The whole round of social science is also permeated with the truths demonstrated by the sanitarian, and is likewise deeply indebted to its teachings. Our field broadens greatly as we view it, just as one who has been traveling through a vale of surpassing grandeur, because of the mountain barriers on either side, finds himself confronted by a park whose beauty is enhanced by its variety as well as its extent, bounded, it is true, by the same mountains, but merely a hazy definition of the distant horizon.

In the construction of dwellings, for example, the small, low ceiled rooms, whose earthen or stone floors were covered with rushes seldom removed, the absorbers of whatever might fall upon the floor; the unpaved, unswept, and unsewered street; the domestic water supply but a well into which filters the water from the adjoining cesspool,—these and many similar destroyers of health and comfort can no longer be found among nations classed as enlightened in our school geographies. Even the improvements of half a century ago—the tenements improvised out of the deserted mansions of the well-to-do, with the additions built on the rear of the lot to increase the density of the population and the rent of the owner (as well as the death-rate), are disappearing, and in their places we find dwellings capable of furnishing air and light to all of the residents.

Then, in the matter of streets, how much more attention is now given to small parks! When about the middle of the century interest in public parks was revived, the efforts of the various cities were directed to the securing of large tracts of ground and beautifying them in every way. They were open to every one, it is true, but too often too far removed to be of use to the submerging tenth. Now, while not adorning these with one garland less, the effort is making to break up the congestion of the crowded districts by breathing spaces, to the comfort and vigor of those who must make the surrounding houses their homes. The streets, too, no longer paved with the unsightly cobble-stones, are made noiseless with the asphalt paving and, what is more to the purpose, can be easily cleansed by flushing. When practical business, and not practical politics, prevails in the municipality, there is no opportunity for the household refuse to accumulate, although no longer rushes are available to receive it, for it is regularly and promptly removed.

The exigencies of trade compelled our government to establish its bureau for the inspection of meat. The necessity of an inspection of foodstuffs for export demonstrates the possibility of adulteration for the home market. While, possibly, the ingenuity of the sophisticator has more than kept pace with the keenness of the inspector, the health of the people has been maintained, their comfort promoted, and their resources husbanded by the inspections carried on by the various city and state boards of health.

The welfare of the people at home, in their dwellings and at their tables, does not limit the efforts of the sanitarian. He takes cognizance of the daily toil, the ceaseless grind, to win one’s daily bread. He recognizes that some callings are dangerous or annoying to the people, and devises methods to overcome this, or failing in this, insists that such occupations must be carried on remote from the dwelling-place of man. Others, he finds, bring danger to those who are employed. This may not be an inherent danger, but one acquired by our crowding of operatives, or in other ways not securing to them proper comfort; and factory inspectors are at work to reduce these dangers to a minimum, and to prevent child labor as well—giving to youth, as far as cessation from overmuch toil can give, an opportunity to develop into physical manhood or womanhood. The sanitarian insists upon proper ventilation in mines, and tries to devise the means to remove the danger from those trades that ordinarily are inherently dangerous.

The sanitarian seeks to aid in the amenities and relaxations of life as well. The playgrounds for children, the athletic grounds by the riverside at Boston, recreation piers in New York, are examples of this. And all of these are comparatively recent efforts, adding to the catalogue of achievements during the century. It was the arch-enemy who, in the poem of antiquity, said: “All that a man hath will he give for his life.” But he made the remark after much observation, and to Jehovah, unto whom even he would not dare to lie; and the rolling years since the Hebrew epic was first written have only added testimony to the truth of the assertion. In these later days, when the rule and plummet are everywhere applied, where the scientist delves and classifies to seek the cosmos in the apparent chaos, there was evolved out of self-seeking for life a higher and better quest,—a search for those things which make for the health of all. This search has widened, until many a broad savannah has been trodden, many a mountain scaled and wilderness explored. With its ever extending view, new responsibilities and greater cares have been thrust upon those who are endeavoring to rule in this domain. A community, a nation, is but a unit. Let one part suffer, and all are in pain; let one but decay, and rot is imminent everywhere. There can be no true social progress, no real stability of government, no national prosperity worthy the name, unless the environment of each individual permits the enjoyment of personal health, if he individually observes but the ordinary care of self. And whatever else of progress for sanitary science may be granted or denied as belonging to our century, the crowning claim of all, which cannot be taken from her, is that, along with the ideas embodied in commonweal and commonwealth, she has added the other of equal dignity and worth—Public Health.

THE CENTURY’S ARMIES AND ARMS

BY LIEUTENANT-COLONEL ARTHUR L. WAGNER,

Assistant Adjutant General, U. S. Army.

A true appreciation of the progress made in the arts and sciences in the nineteenth century can be obtained only by contrasting the conditions found at present with those existing a hundred years ago. The difference between the sperm candle and the electric light; between the stage-coach and the rapid-flying express train; between the flail and the threshing machine; between the hand-loom and the machinery of the modern woollen mill; between the cruel medical operations of five score years ago and the skillful surgery, with the use of anæsthetics, of the present day; or between the mail-carrier with letters in his saddle-bags and the electric telegraph flashing news instantaneously from continent to continent; marks the difference between the beginning of the nineteenth and the opening of the twentieth centuries.

But there is scarcely an agency that has been employed during this wonderful century for the improvement of the condition of man that has not been enlisted for his destruction. Steam, electricity, chemical knowledge, engineering skill, and mechanical invention have all been employed in the science of war, and everything pertaining to the organization, arms, equipment, supply, training, and even the size of armies, has been so revolutionized that there is scarcely anything in common between the forces that fought at Marengo and those employed in recent wars, except the characteristic of being armed and organized bodies of soldiers under military leadership.

The nineteenth century was born in the midst of war. All Europe was an armed camp, and the contest between the principles of the French Revolution and the old feudal system had taken the form of actual strife upon the field of battle. A great alteration was taking place in the methods of war; the old pedantic strategy of the Austrian school had already received a rude shock at the hands of the brilliant young Bonaparte, and the old tactical methods bequeathed by Frederick the Great were, also, soon to be shattered by the genius of the newer and greater warrior. To appreciate the changes that were already being made in military methods, a brief glance at the organization of the armed forces in the latter part of the eighteenth century is necessary. The Prussian army, as organized by the great Frederick, was regarded as the finest of the time. In it the most exact and machine-like methods were observed, the most careful accuracy in marching was required, drill was carried to mechanical perfection, volley firing was conducted with the greatest precision, and no skirmishers were employed. In comparison with later methods, the whole system may be characterized as exact, methodical, and slow. Armies were supplied entirely from magazines, by means of long and cumbrous trains, and the art of moving rapidly and subsisting on the country was still to be discovered.

The French army produced by the Revolution, and led by such men as Dugommier, Hoche, Moreau, and Bonaparte, was trained to operate in column, to deploy quickly into line, and generally to act with celerity; while the impoverished treasury of the republic compelled its armies to live entirely upon the country in which they were operating, as the only alternative to starvation. This entailed serious hardships to the soldiers, and great distress to the population of the country in which they were acting, but it marked distinctly the beginning of a new system of supply, which contributed greatly to the rapid movement of armies. The French army, at the beginning of the century, contained no regiments, but was organized into demi-brigades, each of which consisted of four battalions, each comprising ten companies, two of which were trained to act as skirmishers. These demi-brigades, with one or more batteries of artillery, constituted a division, to which a small force of cavalry was generally added. In 1805 Napoleon, then the supreme ruler of France, made important changes in the organization of the army. The demi-brigade was replaced by the two battalion regiments, each regiment now consisting of eight companies. Two regiments formed a brigade, and two brigades and a regiment of light infantry constituted a division. On the light regiment devolved the duties of skirmishers; namely, to harass and develop the enemy before the main attack. The divisions were grouped into larger organizations known as corps d’armée, or army corps, each of which consisted of all arms of the service, and was, in fact, a force capable of operating independently as a small army.[2] A corps of reserve cavalry was also formed. In numbers the cavalry was equal to one fourth, and the artillery one eighth of the strength of the infantry. The infantry was armed with a smooth-bore, muzzle-loading, flint-lock musket, which required some thirty-two distinct motions in loading, and which had an effective range of only two hundred yards, though by giving it a high elevation it could do some damage at twice that distance. This weapon bore about the same relation to the magazine rifle of the present day that the old-fashioned sickle bears to the modern mowing-machine. The artillery consisted of muzzle-loading, smooth-bore guns, which had less than one fourth the range of the modern infantry rifle. Cavalry, being able to form with comparative impunity within close proximity of the opposing infantry, could sweep down upon it in a headlong charge; and the use of the sabre on the field of battle, now so rare, was then an almost invariable feature of every conflict. Under Napoleon the armies continued to “live on the country,” but magazines of supplies were carefully prepared to supplement the exhausted resources of the theatre of war.

[2] Brigades and divisions had long existed, but the army corps was a creation of Napoleon.

In besieging a fortified place, the first parallel or line of batteries of the besiegers was habitually established at about six hundred yards from the enemy’s works, a distance then at long artillery range, but which would now be under an annihilating fire from infantry rifles. The cannon used solid shot almost exclusively, though early in the present century a projectile, invented by Lieutenant Shrapnel, of the British army, and which now universally bears his name, was introduced. This consisted of a thin cast-iron shell filled with round musket balls, the interstices between which were filled by pouring in melted sulphur or resin, to solidify the mass and prevent it from cracking the shell when the piece was fired. A hole was bored through the mass of sulphur and bullets to receive the bursting charge, which was just sufficient to rupture the shell and release the bullets, which then moved with the velocity that the projectile had at the moment of bursting. Shrapnel has at all times been a destructive missile, though in its early form it was insignificant in comparison with the “man-killing projectile” which now bears the same designation.

In the year 1806, the Congreve rocket was added to the weapons of war. It consisted of a case of wrought iron, filled with a composition of nitre, charcoal, and sulphur, in such proportions as to burn more slowly than gunpowder. The head of the rocket consisted of a solid shot, a shell, or a shrapnel. At the base was fastened a stick, which secured steadiness for the projectile in its flight. The range of the rocket was scarcely more than five hundred yards, though a subsequent improvement, which dispensed with the guide-stick and substituted three tangential vents, increased the range very considerably. Congreve rockets were used with effect in Europe in 1814, and against our raw militia at Bladensburg in the same year. They seem, however, to have depended more upon the moral effect of their hissing rush than upon any really destructive properties, and were effective mainly against raw troops and cavalry. The rocket is now an obsolete weapon, having made its last appearance in war in the Austrian army in 1866.

The infantry of all the armies of Continental Europe, when deployed for battle, was formed in three ranks. On the eve of the battle of Leipsic, Napoleon, finding himself greatly outnumbered by the allies, ordered his infantry to deploy in two ranks, in order that his front might approximate in length to that of the enemy. This formation had, however, been adopted by the British some years before, and had been used with great success against the assaulting French columns, in many of Wellington’s battles in Spain, where the steadfast Anglo-Saxon soldiery was able to maintain the “thin red line,” and throw the fire of every musket against the denser formation of its foes. It was not until the British troops encountered, upon our own soil, an Anglo-Saxon opponent as steadfast as themselves, and better skilled in marksmanship, that they were unable to achieve a victory over their enemies. True, our raw militia was everywhere beaten when it encountered the disciplined soldiers of Great Britain, but our regular troops at Chippewa and Lundy’s Lane gallantly defeated the choice veterans of Wellington’s campaigns; and, at New Orleans, an army composed mainly of hardy backwoodsmen, trained in Indian lighting, and expert in the use of the rifle, hurled back, with frightful carnage, experienced British soldiers who had habitually triumphed over the best veterans of the French empire.

The battle of New Orleans marked the introduction of the rifle as a formidable arm for infantry. It was by no means a new weapon, for it had been invented in Germany in 1498; but it had not been used to any extent in military service, mainly because of the slowness of loading. The capabilities of the rifle in the hands of an army of expert marksmen were, however, made so manifest by Jackson’s great victory that the attention of military men was turned towards the weapon which had enabled a crude army to overwhelm the choicest troops of Europe.

Yet it was not until 1850 that a practically efficient military rifle appeared. This was the invention of Captain Minié, of the French army, and was the well-known “Minié rifle,” long familiar to troops on both continents. The weapon was a muzzle-loader, and its projectile, the “Minié ball,” was of a conoidal shape, as shown in the accompanying figure. The ball being slightly smaller in diameter than the bore of the piece, the loading was easily accomplished, and the shock of the explosion against the cavity at the base of the bullet forced the lead into the grooves of the bore and caused the shot to take up a rotary motion on its axis—in other words, “to take the rifling.”

Rifles, mostly constructed on principles similar to those on which Minié’s weapon was based, were soon in use in the armies of all great nations. The rifle musket, “model of 1855,” adopted by the United States, is shown in the accompanying figure.

In 1817 percussion caps were invented in the United States, but some time elapsed before they were introduced into military use; and though the “percussion rifle” was known in 1841, the victorious troops which went with Scott in the brilliant campaign from Vera Cruz to the City of Mexico, six years later, were armed with the flint-lock musket. In 1833, Colonel Colt invented the first practical revolving pistol. This weapon, especially in its present perfected form, is so well known as to need no description. The first pattern of Colt’s revolver used paper cartridges and percussion caps.

In the long period of peace which Europe enjoyed after the battle of Waterloo, but little change was made in the organization of the armies of the great powers; and in the Crimean war (1855–56) the composition of the English, French, and Russian armies did not differ materially from the constitution of the forces of the same nations in the Napoleonic wars. Marked changes had, however, been made in the nature of the weapons; most of the English and a part of the French infantry being armed with the rifle, though the Russian infantry, with the exception of a few selected regiments, were still armed with the smooth-bore musket. Though the extreme range of the rifle at this time did not exceed eight hundred yards, and was inaccurate at half that distance, it was, nevertheless, a formidable weapon in comparison with the infantry musket of Napoleonic times. Rifled siege guns were employed by the British at Sebastopol, but they were not a success, and were soon withdrawn from the batteries. A striking indication of the increased range of artillery was furnished at Sebastopol, when the besiegers established their first parallel at a distance of 1300 yards from the Russian works.

In the Italian war of 1859 rifled cannon appeared for the first time upon the field of battle. They were employed by the French, and to their use was largely due the victories of the French and Sardinians over the Austrians. For many years the attention of artillerists had been devoted to the production of serviceable rifled artillery, and as early as 1846 an iron breech-loading rifled cannon had been invented in France by Major Cavalli. This gun fired a shell not dissimilar in shape to the projectile employed in the Minié rifled musket. In 1854, experiments with a Cavalli gun gave very satisfactory results, both in range and accuracy; but the breech mechanism seemed dangerously weak, and the rifled guns, adopted by the French and used with such effect in Italy, were muzzle-loaders.

In 1854 a breech-loading rifled field-piece was invented by Sir William George Armstrong. It was made of wrought-iron bars coiled into spiral tubes, and welded by forging. The breech was closed with a screw which could be quickly withdrawn for loading and sponging the gun. The projectile was made of cast-iron, thinly coated with lead, and was (with its coating) slightly larger in diameter than the bore. The lead coating was crushed into the grooves by the force of the powder, the necessary rotation being thus given to the projectile. This gun gave excellent results in range and in rapidity and accuracy of fire, but it was not until some years after its invention that it was adopted in the British service. Other breech-loading cannon soon appeared; but in the United States army the 3-inch Rodman muzzle-loading rifled gun was preferred to any breech-loader then devised, and was used with great effect throughout the War of Secession. This gun was made by wrapping boiler plate around an iron bar, so as to form a cylindrical mass, the whole being brought to a welding heat in a furnace and then passed through rollers to unite it solidly. The piece was then bored and turned to the proper shape and dimensions. The projectiles for rifled guns were generally coated with soft metal, or furnished with an expanding base or cup of similar metal or papier maché; though in some systems they were furnished with studs or buttons which fitted into the grooves of the bore. In the case of the Whitworth gun, the projectile was made nearly of the exact size and form of the bore, so as to fit accurately into the grooves.

Breech-loading cannon were not, however, quickly adopted, owing, perhaps, to conservatism on the part of artillerists, and partly because the guns first produced did not seem to give appreciably better results in range, accuracy, or even in rapidity of fire than the muzzle-loaders. Not only were breech-loading cannon adopted with seeming reluctance, but rifled cannon generally were looked upon with disfavor by many artillerists of the old school. Hohenlohe tells of an old Prussian general of artillery who was so prejudiced against the rifled innovation that he requested, on his death-bed, that the salute over his grave should be fired with nothing but smooth-bore guns. It must be confessed, however, that the 12-pound smooth-bore Napoleon gun long held its own against the new rifled field-pieces, as many a bloody battle in our Civil War well attested.

In the manufacture of heavy guns the United States for some time led the world. In 1860, General Rodman, of the Ordnance Department, produced the first 15-inch gun ever made. This gun was made of cast-iron, and was cast on a hollow core, cooled by a stream of water passing through it, by which means the metal nearest the bore was made the hardest and most dense, and the tendency towards bursting was thus reduced to a minimum. General Rodman was also the inventor of the hollow cake powder, which consisted of cakes perforated with numerous small holes for the passage of the flame, thus enabling the powder to be progressively consumed, and causing the amount of gas at the last moments of the discharge to be greater than at the instant of ignition. A large-grain powder, known as “mammoth powder,” was afterwards devised by him to produce the same results. It will be seen later that this invention has rendered possible the powerful ordnance of the present day; and it is perhaps not too much to say, that Rodman is really thus the father of the modern high-power guns.

At the beginning of the War of Secession the heaviest gun in the United States was the 15-inch Rodman, the projectile of which weighed 320 lbs., the charge of powder weighing 35 lbs. Next to this was the 10-inch Columbiad, which fired a 100-lb. shell with a charge of 18 lbs. of powder. The effective range of these guns was a little less than three miles. The heaviest mortar was of 13-inch caliber, fired a 200-lb. shell, with a charge of 20 lbs. of powder, and had a range of 4325 yards. This mortar was, like all others then in use, manipulated by means of handspikes, and not only was much less powerful, but was much more clumsy than the admirable mortar of the present day.

The Crimean and Italian wars had foreshadowed the passing away of the old military conditions and the dawning of a new era of warfare. But it was in the gigantic struggle which rocked our own country for four years that the developments of modern warfare really commenced. At the beginning of this great conflict the ranges of 1000 to 1200 yards for field guns, and of 1500 to 2000 yards for heavy guns, were as great as could be secured with any degree of accuracy. The infantry rifle with which the Union and Confederate armies were armed had an extreme range of but 1000 yards, and a really effective range of only half that distance. The rifle was a muzzle-loader, which required nine distinct motions in loading besides those necessary in priming the piece with the percussion cap then used. The tactics employed at first in all arms of the service did not differ materially from the methods employed in the Napoleonic wars; and a line of American infantry deployed for battle in two ranks, shoulder to shoulder, scarcely differed in anything but the color of its uniforms from the “thin red line” of Wellington’s warriors. All this was to be changed; but it was not only in the matter of arms and tactics that a revolution was to be effected, for new forces hitherto untried were to be employed in the art of war.

The War of Secession was not only one of the most gigantic conflicts ever waged on earth, but was one which will always be of interest to the military student because of its remarkable developments in the science of warfare, and one which will ever be a source of pride to Americans because of the grim earnestness and stubborn valor displayed by the contending armies. From first to last, more than two millions of men were enrolled by the United States, and in the final campaign 1,100,000 men were actually bearing arms in the service of the Union. The infantry was organized in companies of one hundred men, ten companies forming a regiment. At first, three or four regiments constituted a brigade, though it was afterwards formed of a greater number when the regiments became depleted by the losses of battle. Three brigades generally composed a division, which also habitually included two batteries of artillery and a small detachment of cavalry for duty as orderlies and messengers. Three or more divisions constituted an army corps. The cavalry was formed into brigades and divisions, which in the later years of the war were combined to form, in each of the large armies, a corps of cavalry. It was in command of such corps of mounted troops that Sheridan, J. E. B. Stuart, Merritt, and Wilson achieved their great fame. The batteries first distributed to divisions, or even brigades, were afterwards assigned to the army corps, and all guns not thus employed were grouped into a corps of reserve artillery.

It is a curious fact that the two factors most important in warfare were found to be two inventions designed primarily for the interests of peace, namely, the railroad and the electric telegraph. Steam and electricity had both been used in the Crimean and Italian wars; but it was in the War of Secession that they received their first great and systematic application. The effect of the use of railroads in war not only enables armies to be more rapidly concentrated than was formerly the case, but renders it possible to supply them to an extent and with a certainty that would otherwise be out of the question. The difference between the supply of an army by wagon and by rail was clearly shown in the siege of Paris, in 1870–71, where six trains a day fed the whole besieging army, while it is estimated that nearly ten thousand wagons would have been required for the same purpose. Moreover, the force of troops necessarily detached to protect a line of railroad communications is not nearly so great as the force that would be necessary to guard the innumerable wagon or pack trains that would otherwise be required. In the opinion of the best military authorities, railroads, had they been in existence, would have enabled Napoleon to conquer Russia, and with it the world; while, without the aid of railroads, the successful invasion of the South by the armies of the Union would have been an impossibility. It is only while it keeps moving that an army can “live on the country.” It is like a swarm of locusts, consuming everything within reach; and if it be compelled to halt, whether for battle or from other cause, it must be supplied from bases in the rear, or it will speedily disintegrate from hunger alone. This fact was fully appreciated by General Sherman, when he left Atlanta in his famous “march to the sea;” for though he expected to, and did, live upon the country, he nevertheless took the precaution to carry with him a wagon train containing twenty days’ rations for his entire army.

In the War of Secession the electric telegraph first appeared on the field of battle. The telegraph train became a prominent feature of all our armies; and the day’s march was hardly ended before the electric wire, rapidly established by an expert corps, connected the headquarters of the army with those of each army corps, division, and brigade. But it was not in its employment on the actual field of battle that the telegraph found its most valuable military use. It enabled generals, separated by hundreds of miles, to be in constant communication with each other, and rendered it possible for Grant to control from his headquarters hut at City Point the movements of the armies of Sherman, Thomas, and Sheridan in combined operations, which enabled each to perform, in harmony with the others, its part in the mighty plan.

It followed as naturally as day follows night that a shrewd and intelligent people, engaged in a desperate struggle for self-preservation, would avail themselves of all means provided by military science for carrying out the contest in which they were engaged. Iron-clad vessels had been devised in both England and France, but they were merely frigates designed on the old lines and partly covered with a sheathing of armor. With characteristic energy and ingenuity the Americans, ignoring old traditions and seeking the shortest road to the fulfillment of a manifest want, produced simultaneously the Merrimac and the Monitor, the former resembling “a gabled house submerged to the eaves,” and the latter looking like “a Yankee cheese-box upon a raft.” These novel vessels met in their memorable combat at Hampton Roads, and the booming of their guns sounded the death knell of the old wooden navies.

As with war vessels, so with firearms. New conditions were met with inventive genius and mechanical skill. Though the great mass of our troops continued throughout the conflict to use the muzzle-loading rifle, breech-loaders were in the hands of many thousands of our soldiers before the close of the great contest. In 1864 the cavalry of Sheridan and Wilson and many regiments of infantry were armed with breech-loading carbines, which gave them a great advantage over their opponents. The effect of the breech-loaders upon the Confederates was unpleasantly surprising to them, and the Southern soldiers are said to have remarked with dismal humor that “the Yankees loaded all night and fired all day.”

The principal breech-loading arms in use in the Union armies were the Sharps and the Spencer. In the Sharps carbine the barrel was closed by a sliding breech-piece which moved at right angles with the axis of the piece, the breech being opened and closed by pulling down and raising up the trigger-guard. The Spencer carbine was a magazine rifle, and was greatly superior to the Sharps. The magazine of the rifle lay in the butt of the stock, and was capable of holding seven cartridges. As the cartridge was fired and ejected another was pushed forward into the breech by a spiral spring in the butt of the piece. The Spencer carbine used metallic cartridges. The introduction of these cartridges was one of the most remarkable advances in the art of war made during the present century. The cartridge in use in 1864–65 is shown in the accompanying figure; it consisted of a thin copper case firmly attached to the bullet containing the powder, and having at its base a small metallic anvil, in a cavity of which was placed the fulminate, which was exploded by means of a firing pin, driven in by a blow of the hammer. The advantages of the metallic cartridge can scarcely be overestimated; it rendered obsolete the percussion cap, and being water-proof it did away with the ever-present bugbear of damp ammunition. The old injunction, “Put your trust in God and keep your powder dry,” has consequently lost much of its force; for while it is to be hoped that the soldier will continue to place his reliance upon Providence, the latter part of the advice can now be safely ignored.

Among the many advantages possessed by the breech-loader over the muzzle-loader, the principal ones are greater rapidity of fire, ease of loading in any position, diminished danger of accidents in loading, and the impossibility of putting more than one charge in the piece at the same time. This last advantage is by no means slight. Among 27,000 muzzle-loading muskets picked up on the battlefield of Gettysburg, at least 24,000 were loaded. Of these about half contained two charges, one fourth held from three to ten charges, and one musket contained twenty-three cartridges.

The failure of the Americans to produce during the great war a practical breech-loading field-gun is doubtless due to the fact that the field artillery in use at that time answered fully all the requirements then existing. Owing to the nature of the country in which the armies were operating, the range of the 3-inch rifled gun was fully as great as could have been desired; and on the broken and wooded ground which generally formed our field of battle, the smooth-bore Napoleon gun, firing shrapnel and canister, seemed to have reached almost the acme of destructiveness. Moreover, the muzzle-loading cannon, both rifled and smooth-bore, were served with such celerity as to make it a matter of doubt for some years after whether the introduction of breech-loading field-guns would materially increase the rapidity of fire. It was not until infantry fire had greatly increased in range and rapidity that a further improvement in field artillery became necessary. In siege artillery, heavy rifled guns of the Rodman and the Parrott type appeared. The Parrott gun was of cast iron, strengthened by shrinking a coiled band of wrought iron over the portion of the piece surrounding the charge. The famous “Swamp Angel,” used in the siege of Charleston, was a Parrott gun. The sea-coast artillery consisted mainly of smooth-bores of large calibre, which were able to contend successfully with any armor then afloat. It is a curious fact that the war, so to speak, between guns and armor has been incessantly waged since the introduction of the latter, every advance of armor towards the degree of invulnerability being met with the production of a gun capable of piercing it. The sea-coast artillery of the United States in the Civil War met fully every demand to which it was subjected.

The War of Secession produced the first practical machine-gun,—the Gatling,—though such guns were not used to any extent. The machine-gun has, in fact, passed through a long period of gestation, and it is only in recent years that it can be said to have attained its full birth. Our great war was also noted for the introduction of torpedoes. These peculiar weapons had, it is true, been devised may years before; and Robert Fulton had, in the early part of the century, devoted his inventive genius to the production of a submarine torpedo, which, however, was never practically tested in war. It was not until the contest of 1861–65 that torpedoes were of any practical use. The high explosives of the present day being then unknown, these torpedoes depended for their destructive force upon gunpowder alone. Yet crude and insignificant though they were in comparison with the mighty engines of destruction now known by the same name, they accomplished great results in more than one instance. The destruction of the Housatonic off Charleston, the sinking of the Tecumseh in Mobile Bay, and Cushing’s daring destruction of the Albemarle, gave notice to the world that a new and terrible engine of warfare had made its appearance.

But it was not merely by the production of new weapons that the great American war was characterized. It marked the turning-point in tactics as well. The first efforts of our great armies of raw volunteers were as crude as the warfare of untrained troops always is, and it was fortunate that we were opposed to a foe as unpracticed as ourselves; but as the troops gained experience in war, acquired the necessary military instruction,—in brief, learned their trade and became regulars in all but name,—they displayed not only a steadfast prowess, but a military skill that placed the veteran American soldier at the head of the warriors of the world. The art of constructing hasty intrenchments on the field of battle grew out of the quickness of the American soldier to appreciate the necessity of providing defensive means to neutralize, in some degree, the greatly increased destructive effect of improved arms. In this respect he was thirteen years in advance of the European soldier, for hasty intrenchments did not appear in Europe until the Turco-Russian War. True, intrenchment on the field of battle was as old as war itself; but the American armies were the first that developed a system of quickly covering the entire front of an army with earthworks hastily thrown up in the presence of the enemy, and often actually under fire. Skirmishers were no longer used merely to feel and develop the enemy; but in many of our battles, notably in Sherman’s campaign in Georgia, the engagement was begun, and fought to the end, by strong skirmish lines successively reinforced from the main body, which they gradually absorbed in the course of the action. Here, too, the American soldier was fully six years in advance of the European warrior; for it was not until the Germans had been warned by the terrific losses incurred in their earlier battles with the French, in 1870, that they evolved from their own experience a system of tactics, the essential principles of which had already been demonstrated on the Western Continent.

The increased range of artillery again received a practical illustration; for at the siege of Fort Pulaski the Union batteries first opened fire at ranges varying from 1650 to 3400 yards from the Confederate fort. At the siege of Charleston shells were thrown into the city from a battery nearly five miles distant.

In 1866, the brief but bloody war between Austria and Prussia suddenly raised the latter nation from a comparatively subordinate position to the front rank of military powers. The greatness of Prussia was born in the sackcloth and ashes of national humiliation. Forbidden by Napoleon, after her crushing defeat in 1806–7, to maintain an army of more than 40,000 men, her great war minister, Scharnhorst, conceived the plan of discharging the soldiers from military service as soon as they had received the requisite instruction, and filling their places with recruits. In this way, though the standing army never exceeded the stipulated number, many thousands of Prussians received military training; and when Prussia declared war against Napoleon, after his disastrous Russian campaign, the discharged men were called back into the ranks, and there arose as if by magic a formidable Prussian army of trained soldiers. The principle of universal military service, thus called into existence in Prussia in time of war, had been continued through fifty years of peace, and enabled Prussia, with a population scarcely more than half as numerous as that of Austria, to place upon the decisive field of Königgrätz a larger army than that of her opponent.

The Prussian system, which has since been copied by all the great military nations of Europe, is, in its essential features, as follows: Every able-bodied man in the kingdom, upon reaching the age of twenty years, is available for military service; and each year there are chosen by lot sufficient recruits to maintain the army at its authorized strength. The great body of the male population is thus brought into military service. There are a few exceptions, such as the only sons of indigent parents, and a small number of men who are in excess of the force required. Any man who escapes the draft for three successive years, and all able-bodied men exempted for any cause from service in the regular army, are incorporated in the reserve. The term of service in the regular army is two years for the infantry and three for the artillery and cavalry. After being discharged from the regular army the soldier passes into the reserve, where he serves for four years. While in the reserve, he is called out for two field exercises of eight weeks’ duration each, and the rest of his time is available for his civil vocation. At the end of four years in the reserve he passes into the Landwehr, in which he is required to participate in only two field exercises of two weeks’ duration each. After five years in the Landwehr proper, he passes into the second levy of the Landwehr, where he is free from all military duty in time of peace, though still liable to be called to arms in case of war. From the second levy of the Landwehr he passes, at the age of thirty-nine years, into the Landsturm, where he remains until he reaches his forty-fifth year, when he is finally discharged from military duty. The soldier in the Landsturm is practically free from all military duty, for that body is never called out except in case of dire national emergency. By this system Prussia became not only a military power but “a nation in arms,” in the blaze of whose might the military glory of Austria and of France successively melted away in humiliating defeat.

The careful military preparation of Prussia in time of peace was by no means limited to measures for providing an army strong in numbers. Every year her troops were assembled in large bodies for practice in the manœuvres of the battlefield. This mimicry of war, at first lightly regarded by the military leaders of the other European nations, produced such wonderful effects in promoting the efficiency of the army that it has since been copied in all the armies of Europe, and is now regarded as the most important of all instruction for war.

Though breech-loading rifles were, as we have seen, used in the War of Secession, the Prussian army was the first that ever took the field completely armed with such weapons. The Prussian rifle was not new, for it had been invented by a Thuringian gunsmith, named Dreyse, about the time that the Minié rifle appeared. Dreyse’s arm was known as the “zundnadelgewehr,” or needle-gun, and its effect in the Austro-Prussian war was so decisive and startling as to cause muzzle-loading rifles everywhere to be relegated to the limbo of obsolete weapons. Yet the needle-gun was but a sorry weapon in comparison to those now in use, and was distinctly inferior to the Spencer carbine. Its breech mechanism was clumsy, it used a paper cartridge, it was not accurate beyond a range of three hundred yards, and its effective range was scarcely more than twice that distance. The German infantry fought in three ranks, and its tactics was not equal to that employed by the American infantry in the War of Secession. The Prussian field artillery was the most formidable that had yet appeared, and consisted mainly of steel breech-loading rifled guns, which were classed as 6-pounders and 4-pounders, though the larger piece fired a shell weighing fifteen pounds, and the smaller projectile used a shell weighing nine pounds. In the Austrian army the infantry was armed with a muzzle-loading rifle, and the artillery consisted entirely of muzzle-loading rifled guns.

The exalted military prestige gained by Prussia rendered it certain that she must soon enter the lists in a contest with France, whose commanding position in Europe was so seriously menaced by the rise of the new power. Foreseeing the inevitable conflict, Napoleon III. endeavored to prepare for a serious struggle. The French infantry was armed with the Chassepôt rifle, which had an effective range nearly double that of the needle-gun. A machine gun, known as the mitrailleuse, was also introduced into the French army. Much was expected of these new arms; but so superior was the organization, readiness, generalship, and tactical skill of the Prussians that the war was a practically unbroken series of victories for Prussia and the allied German States. Profiting by their experience in the course of the conflict, the Prussians formed their infantry for attack in three lines; the first consisting of skirmishers, the second of supports, either deployed or in small columns, and the third of a reserve, generally held in column until it came under such fire as to render deployment necessary. The skirmishers were constantly reinforced from the supports, and finally from the reserve as the attack progressed, the whole force being united in a heavy line, and opening the hottest possible fire when close enough to the enemy for the final charge. In its essential principles this attack formation is in use at the present day in the armies of all civilized nations. The Prussian artillery was handled with terrible effect both in battle and siege. A new demonstration of the increased power of artillery was given in the siege of Paris, in which shells were thrown from the heights of Clamart to the Panthéon, a distance of five miles.

The next European war was the contest between Russia and Turkey, in 1877. In this conflict the American system of hasty intrenchments was used with success by the Turks, who were also armed with an American rifle, the Peabody, which enabled them to inflict serious losses upon the Russians at a range of a mile and a quarter. Owing to the Turkish intrenchments and the inferiority of their own arms, the Russians won their victories over much smaller armies only with a gruesome loss of life. A further impetus was given to the development of the infantry rifle, and the German tactical experience was confirmed by the Russian General Skobeleff in the declaration that infantry can successfully assault only in a succession of skirmish lines.

The war in Turkey was the last great European conflict. Subsequent campaigns of the Russians in Central Asia, of the English in Egypt, the Soudan, and India, of the Japanese in China, of the Turks in Greece, and the Americans in Cuba, have emphasized the lessons already taught, and demonstrated the increased power of new weapons.

Having taken a retrospective view of the military forces and weapons employed in the wars of the nineteenth century, let us now turn to a consideration of the armies and arms of the present day. The adoption of the system of universal military service has increased the size of the standing armies of the nations of Europe far beyond the proportionate increase of their respective populations. In round numbers, the strength of the armies of the great powers is as follows: Russia, 869,000; Germany, 585,000; France, 618,000; Austria, 306,000; Italy, 231,000; Great Britain, 222,000.[3] Not only are the standing armies greater than in the early days of the century, but, owing to the improved methods of transportation and supply, the forces now brought upon the field of battle are vastly larger than in the days of Napoleon. The French army at Marengo was less than 30,000 strong. At Austerlitz it was only 70,000, which was its strength also at Waterloo. In only two battles, Wagram and Leipsic, was Napoleon able to place 150,000 men on the field; and in the latter battle the armies of all Europe opposed to him numbered only 280,000. In more recent times Prussia alone placed upon the field of Königgrätz 223,000 men with which to oppose the Austrian army of 206,000; and at Gravelotte the great French army of 180,000 men was outnumbered by the German host of 270,000. It is probable that in the next great European war more than a million men will be found contending on a single battlefield. A detailed description of the armies of all the great powers would prove wearisome to the reader, for their points of resemblance are many and their general characteristics are the same. The German army may be taken as the most perfect specimen of a highly organized military force, and a description of its organization would answer with slight modification for the other armies of Continental Europe.

[3] These numbers give the peace strength of the armies. In time of war they can easily be quadrupled.

The infantry of the German army is organized in companies of 250 men each. Four companies constitute a battalion, and three battalions compose a regiment. The brigade consists of two regiments, and the division is composed of two brigades of infantry, four batteries of artillery, and a regiment of cavalry. The army corps consists of two divisions, a body of corps artillery composed of twelve batteries, a battalion of engineers, and a supply train. In round numbers, the fighting strength of the army corps consists of 30,000 men and 120 guns. The cavalry is organized in squadrons of 150 sabres each, five squadrons forming a regiment, only four of which are employed in the field, the fifth remaining at the regimental depot. The cavalry brigade consists of three regiments; and the cavalry division, which is composed of two brigades, aggregates 3600 sabres. Thus a small part of the cavalry force is attached to the infantry divisions, while the bulk of it is organized into divisions composed of mounted troops alone, two batteries of horse artillery being attached to each cavalry division. The entire military force is divided into “armies,” each consisting of from three to six army corps and two or more cavalry divisions. The cavalry has about one sixth and the artillery about one seventh of the numerical strength of the infantry. The German cavalry is armed with sabre, carbine, and lance. The officers carry the sabre and revolver.

In the army of the United States the organization differs in many respects from that of the German army. The infantry companies each consist of 106 men, including officers. Twelve companies form a regiment, and three regiments constitute a brigade. A division is composed of three brigades, and the army corps is made up of three divisions. The number of batteries assigned to the divisions varies, as also the amount of corps artillery. In the army operating in Cuba, the artillery was all in a separate organization, and was distributed to the divisions only on the eve of battle. Experience and theory alike suggest four batteries for each division and eight batteries for the corps artillery. No cavalry is assigned to the divisions, but a regiment is supposed to be assigned to each army corps. The main force of the cavalry is grouped together into cavalry divisions. The cavalry is organized into troops of 100 sabres, four troops forming a squadron, and three squadrons constituting a regiment. Three regiments form a brigade, and three brigades a division. The American cavalry brigade is thus of the same size as a Prussian cavalry division. The cavalry is armed with the sabre, carbine, and revolver. The lance is unknown in the American army.

Having viewed the composition of modern armies, let us now see how they are armed. A consideration of the powder now in use is a necessary preface to a description of the weapons employed in the warfare of the present day. The old fine-grained black powder familiar to every boy who has ever handled a shotgun has passed completely out of military use. The powders now employed usually have guncotton or nitroglycerine and guncotton for a base. They are practically smokeless, the product of their combustion is almost entirely gaseous, they leave no solid residuum, and are of the quality known as “slow-burning,” giving a constantly increasing pressure on the projectile from the moment of ignition to the time when it leaves the muzzle of the piece. These powders are manufactured in thin sheets or small tubes or cords, which, for small arms, are broken up into grains. They vary in color from light yellow to black.

Before the adoption of smokeless powder, the cake powder invented by General Rodman had been highly developed and improved in the form of “cocoa powder.” This was made in hexagonal prisms, each perforated longitudinally, so as to have a hollow core. These grains were carefully arranged in the cartridges so as to have this core continuous from one grain to another, in order that upon ignition the combustion would begin in the interior and produce a constantly increasing volume of gas as the exterior surface of the grain was reached. Though the time of combustion was too rapid to be appreciated by the ordinary senses, it was, nevertheless, quite different from the practically instantaneous combustion of the old small-grain powder, and was susceptible of accurate measurement. Much difficulty was experienced in overcoming the detonating tendencies of the smokeless powders, but at last the requisite slow-burning properties were obtained. The smokeless powder for large guns is made in cartridges composed of bundles of strips or cords, or in the same prismatic form as the cocoa powder, and the process of combustion is the same.

The form of the gun is dependent entirely upon the nature of the powder used. As the pressure of the gas constantly increases with the burning of the powder, the maximum force will be reached at the moment the combustion is complete. The length of the bore should, therefore, be just sufficient to enable the powder to be entirely consumed at the exact instant the projectile leaves the muzzle of the piece. A shorter bore would cause much of the powder to be thrown out unconsumed, while a much greater length would retard the projectile by subjecting it to the friction of the bore after the maximum force of the powder had been reached. This accounts for the greatly increased length of the modern cannon. A change in the method of gun construction has accordingly become necessary. Guns are no longer made of cast iron, but are “built up” of steel. The explosion of the powder is, of course, exerted in every direction, against the bore and sides of the piece as well as against the base of the projectile. This produces two strains; a longitudinal strain which is exerted in the direction of the axis of the piece, and a transverse strain which tends to burst the gun. It is necessary, therefore, to have the piece so strong, especially at the points of first explosion, as to counteract these strains, and thus cause the entire force to be exerted upon the projectile in the direction of the “least resistance.” This strength, or “initial tension,” is obtained by shrinking cylinders of steel over the original cylinder of the piece, each outer cylinder or jacket being a few thousandths of an inch smaller in its interior diameter than the outer diameter of the cylinder which it incloses, and being expanded by heating to a sufficient degree to enable it to be slipped over the latter. Upon cooling, the jacket exerts a constant and powerful force of compression, which counteracts the outward pressure of the force of explosion. The longitudinal strain is less dangerous than the other, and is usually counteracted by an interlocking of some of the cylinders or hoops, to which the strain is transmitted from the breech-plug. The art of building up guns has been of slow growth, the first efforts in this direction having been made by Sir W. G. Armstrong nearly half a century ago. The weight of the projectile of the present 16-inch gun in the United States service is 2370 pounds; the charge of powder weighs 1060 pounds, and the extreme range is more than 14 miles. The cost of each shot is $450, and when we consider that this does not include the wear and tear of the gun, it is evident that money has become more than ever before “the sinews of war.”

Not less remarkable than the improvement in cannon is the improvement in mortars. These mortars are very unlike the clumsy weapons of that name manipulated by hand-spikes, which were known in our great war. They are now mounted on a platform which turns on rollers. They are elevated or depressed by a mechanical appliance, are loaded at the breech, are accurately rifled, and can drop their projectiles on the decks of hostile vessels at a range of six miles. They are placed in groups of four, each in a separate pit, some batteries containing as many as four groups, or sixteen mortars. In all important sea-coast batteries both guns and mortars are so arranged as to be fired by electricity, either singly or in volleys.

A dynamite gun has been devised by Captain Zalinsky for the purpose, as the name implies, of throwing a projectile containing dynamite. Attempts to fire dynamite projectiles by means of powder have thus far failed. In the Zalinsky gun the propelling power is compressed air. The projectile contains from fifty to sixty pounds of gelatine dynamite, the explosion of which is terrific. Excellent results have been obtained with Zalinsky’s gun up to a range of 2000 yards, but as this is insignificant in comparison with the enormous range of high-power cannon using powder as a charge, the dynamite gun is still a weapon of limited usefulness. Although the dynamite gun has not as yet fulfilled the desired requirements as to range, promising experiments have been made in firing shells charged with high explosives from mortars using charges of powder, and it is probably a question of only a short time before means will be found for successfully firing dynamite in a similar manner.

The great improvements in field artillery make the cannon of the early battlefields of the century seem, in comparison, almost like harmless toys. The modern field gun is made of steel, is rifled, loads at the breech, and has great rapidity and accuracy of fire. The extreme range of the 3.2-inch field gun in the United States service is about four miles. This, in fact, is beyond the ordinary range of human vision, and it is but rarely that the ground for so great a distance is free from features that obstruct the view. For these reasons the fire of field guns can seldom be utilized beyond a range of two miles. The projectile of the 3.2-inch field gun weighs 13½ pounds, and the charge of powder 3½ pounds. The 3.6-inch gun is a still more powerful weapon, the weight of the projectile and charge being 20 and 4½ pounds respectively. Shells are used against inanimate objects, such as earthworks or buildings; but the great artillery projectile for the battlefield is shrapnel. It is now very different from the crude projectile known by the same name in the early years of the century. The bullets are assembled in circular layers and held in position by “separators,” which are short cast-iron cylinders with hemispherical cavities into which the bullets fit. The bottom separator fits by means of lugs into recesses at the base of the shrapnel, and prevents independent rotation of the charge of bullets. The top separator is smooth on its upper side, and is kept firmly in place by the head of the projectile, which screws against it. The separators prevent movement or deformation of the bullets under shock of discharge, and being weakened by radial cuts, increase the effect by furnishing additional fragments of effective weight. The shrapnel for the 3.2-inch gun contains 162 bullets one half inch in diameter and weighing 41 to the pound. The total number of bullets and individual pieces in the shrapnel is 201.

The heavy sea-coast guns are now mounted either in armored turrets, en barbette, or on disappearing gun-carriages. The first system is very costly and is not generally used in the United States. The second system, in which the guns are fired over a parapet and are constantly exposed, is used only in rare cases. The third has been perfected in the United States in the Buffington-Crozier and the Gordon disappearing gun-carriages. These carriages enable the gun to be loaded in safety under cover of the carriage pit, and then to be raised by means of counterweights or compressed air to a position from which it can fire over the parapet. With trained cannoneers, the gun can be raised and fired in twenty seconds, and this brief period of exposure, especially when smokeless powder is used, renders it almost impossible for the enemy to locate the gun with any degree of accuracy. The shock of the recoil, taken up by pneumatic or hydraulic cylinders, brings the piece back, quickly but gently, to the loading position, whence it is again raised for firing.

The siege artillery of the United States army consists of the 5-inch gun, the 7-inch howitzer, and the 7-inch mortar. They all use shell, and their effective range is from three to four miles.

When the enemy is sheltered behind entrenchments it is difficult to reach him with shrapnel fired from field guns. Field mortars have accordingly been devised for this purpose and have given excellent results. The United States 3.6-inch field mortar is rifled, and carries a shrapnel weighing twenty pounds. The weight of the field mortar is only 500 pounds, and it can be easily carried in a cart drawn by a single mule.

But great as the improvements have been in artillery, they are less important than the changes effected in the infantry rifle; for upon the quality of the infantry depends, more than upon anything else, the efficiency of an army. There are many kinds of rifles now in use in the different armies of the world, but in their essential principles they are very similar. All use smokeless powder, and all are provided with a magazine which admits of firing a number of shots without reloading. The Springfield rifle formerly in use in the United States army has been replaced by the Krag-Jorgensen, which has a magazine holding live cartridges, and is provided with a cut-off which enables the piece to be used as a single-shooter. When an emergency demands rapid fire, the opening of the cut-off enables the cartridges in the magazine to be fired in rapid succession. The range of the Krag-Jorgensen is 4066 yards, being practically equal to that of the Mauser, which, in the hands of the Spaniards, inflicted casualties upon our men when they were more than two miles from the hostile position. The difference in the penetrating power of the Krag-Jorgensen and the Springfield is shown in the accompanying illustration, taken from the report of the chief of ordnance for 1893. The Springfield lead bullet was fired with 69 grains of black powder, and penetrated 3.3 inches of poorly seasoned oak, the bullet being badly deformed. With a bullet covered with a German silver jacket the penetration was 5.3 inches, the bullet being again deformed. The Krag-Jorgensen used a bullet consisting of a lead core and a cupronickeled jacket, which was fired with 37 grains of smokeless powder. The bullet penetrated well-seasoned oak to a distance of 24.2 inches and was taken out in perfect condition. The new rifle, at short ranges, has an almost explosive effect and produces a shocking wound; but at ordinary ranges the wounds inflicted by it may be almost characterized as merciful, for the bullet makes a clean puncture, and unless a vital organ is struck the wound heals easily and quickly. The old expression of “forty rounds,” so familiar to veterans of the Civil War, is now obsolete; for no soldier now thinks of going into action with less than 150 cartridges on his person. Not only is the firing more rapid than was formerly the case, but the lighter weight of the cartridge enables a greater number to be carried.

From the rifle to the Gatling gun is only a step, for the latter is essentially a collection of rifle barrels fired by machinery. It consists of a number—generally ten—of rifle barrels grouped around, and parallel to, a central shaft, each barrel being provided with a lock. By turning a crank at the breech, the barrels and locks are made to revolve together around the shaft, the locks having also a forward and backward motion, the first of which inserts the cartridge into the barrel and closes the breech at the time of the discharge, while the latter extracts the cartridge after firing. Upon the gun, near the breech, is a hopper which receives the cartridges from the feed case. The cartridge falls from the hopper into the breech-block of the uppermost barrel, and in the course of the first half-revolution of the barrel it is inserted, the hammer is drawn back, and at the lowest point of the revolution the breech is closed and the cartridge is fired. As the barrel comes up in the second half-revolution the cartridge shell is extracted, and when the barrel reaches the top it receives another cartridge. The Gatling gun can be fired at the rate of 1000 to 1500 shots a minute. It generally uses the same cartridge as the infantry rifle; but some patterns of the gun fire a projectile an inch in diameter, and approximate closely in their effect to a field gun. The gun is mounted either on a carriage similar to that of a field-piece or on a tripod. Gatling guns were very successfully used by the British in the Zulu War and in the Soudan, and by our own troops in the battles around Santiago.

The Gardner is a lighter machine gun than the Gatling. It consists of two parallel rifle barrels, and is operated by means of mechanism at the breech, which, as in the case of the Gatling, is worked with a crank. It can fire 500 shots a minute without danger of overheating, as the breeches are enclosed in a metallic water-jacket. Its extreme portability makes it a most valuable weapon, though its firing capacity is not equal to that of the Gatling.

There are several other types of machine guns, but the most ingenious, and perhaps the most effective, is the Maxim automatic gun. This has a single barrel, about two thirds of which, from the muzzle towards the breech, is surrounded by a water-jacket into which water is automatically injected at each discharge, thus rendering overheating impossible. The mechanism for operating the gun is at the breech, covering the remaining third of the barrel. All that is necessary is to draw back the trigger to fire the first shot; the recoil of the piece again cocks it, and the gun is then automatically fired, the process being kept up until the cartridges in the feed-belt are all expended. The cartridges are fed to the piece by means of belts holding 333 rounds, two or more of the belts being joined together if desired. The Maxim gun can easily fire ten shots a second, and if every man at the piece were killed the moment the first shot was fired the gun would keep on until it fired at least 332 more shots.

The Gatling, Gardner, Maxim, and similar guns are known as machine guns. Of the same general family, so to speak, are rapid-fire guns, which are, however, distinguished from machine guns by having a larger calibre, loading by hand, having only one barrel, and being provided with artificial means of checking recoil and returning the piece to the firing position. They use metallic ammunition, and have a breech mechanism which cocks the firing pin and extracts the empty case by the same motion which opens the breech for reloading.

Rapid-firing guns were first designed as a means of naval defense against torpedo boats. They deliver a rapid and easily aimed fire, and use projectiles of sufficient power to penetrate the plates of the boats. In the naval service the gun is mounted on a spring return carriage fixed to the vessel, so that the piece, when discharged, is brought back to the firing position without any derangement of aim. On land a rigid carriage is used. This carriage has a spade at the end of the trail, which is forced into the ground by the recoil and holds the gun and carriage in place. The principal rapid-fire guns are the Hotchkiss, Driggs-Schroeder, Nordenfelt, Krupp, Canet, and Armstrong, which fire from five to ten shots a minute, and use either shell or shrapnel. Experiments are now being made in different armies with a view to adopting rapid-fire guns for field artillery.

The principle of rapid fire, or “quick fire,” has been successfully applied to guns having a caliber as great as six inches. The metallic cartridge used in rapid-fire guns is, in appearance, simply a “big brother” of the cartridge used in the infantry rifle.

Closely allied with guns, both in coast defense and in naval warfare, are torpedoes. The crude weapons of this type, used in the War of Secession, have been developed into formidable engines of war, before whose destructive power the strongest vessels are helpless. For their classification and description see “The Century’s Naval Progress,” pages 84, 85.

The destructive power of torpedoes is so well known as to give them a great moral weight as a means of defense. The fact that the German harbors on the Baltic were known to be protected by torpedoes saved them from an attack by the French navy in 1870–71, and Cervera’s fleet in the harbor of Santiago, in 1898, was safe from our squadron so long as the mouth of the channel was closed with Spanish torpedoes.

Though necessarily brief, the foregoing sketch will show that in the course of the nineteenth century armies have increased enormously in size, and in the power of rapid movement and certainty of supply. Infantry has increased in relative numbers and in importance. Extended order fighting, in which the individuality of the soldier comes into play, has taken the place of the old rigid shoulder-to-shoulder line of battle. The private soldier’s vocation has risen, in many branches of the military service, from a trade to a profession, and now, more than ever before, is extensive training and a high order of intellect necessary for the command of armies. Wars have become shorter, sharper, more decisive and more terrible; and increased emphasis has been placed upon the warning, “In time of peace prepare for war.”

THE CENTURY’S PROGRESS IN AGRICULTURE

BY WALDO F. BROWN,

Agricultural Editor “Cincinnati Gazette.”

I. VICISSITUDES OF EARLY FARMING.

If the thought enters the mind of the reader that a youth (?) of sixty-seven is not competent to write upon agricultural improvement for the entire century, the answer is that such improvement can scarcely be said to have begun until near the middle of the century; that the early forties saw the writer at work on a farm; that he has ever since lived on a farm; and that he, therefore, writes from personal experience of the improvements which have transformed agriculture from a simple art to a profound science.

To realize the progress agriculture has made, we must understand its condition in the first half of the century, and the causes which prevented improvement at that time. The soil was rich with the accumulations of centuries, and the farmer was at no expense to either maintain or restore fertility, for with but indifferent cultivation large crops could be raised. When a field became impoverished, with axe and torch a new field was soon cleared from the forest. The implements in use were of the crudest and mostly manufactured by the nearest blacksmith, and it cost but a few dollars to equip a farm; still they were sufficient for the wants of the farmer of that date. So it will be seen that the difficulty was not in the farm nor with the farmer; for he could grow not only all that was necessary for family use, but more than enough to supply the demand for such market as he had. Perhaps the greatest difficulty in the way of agricultural progress was the want of transportation facilities; for a market was of little use to a farmer if he was separated from it by a hundred miles or more of roads which, through almost the entire winter, were so deep with mud that modern farmers would think them utterly impassable, with streams unbridged and hills ungraded. The first step toward relieving the farmer of this trouble was John Quincy Adams’ message to Congress in 1827, when he recommended the construction of the National Road, the eastern terminus of which was to be in Maryland and the western at St. Louis, Mo. This road was constructed within a few years. It was the first outlet for the crops of the great West, and over it, across the Alleghany Mountains, a procession of covered wagons passed during the entire year, carrying the products of the farms to the Eastern markets and bringing back manufactured goods. One other avenue was opened for the interchange of products between these two sections, the Erie Canal being completed in 1825, and enlarged and improved many years later.

During the thirties, just preceding the era of railroads, there was almost a craze on the subject of canal building, and scores of miles of canals were begun which were never completed, as with the beginning of the fourth decade of the century the railroad idea had taken possession of the minds of the people. In some cases the tow-path of the canal formed the roadbed for the railroad which superseded it, and probably more lines of canal were abandoned than were completed. The era of railroads—that wonderful factor which was to revolutionize farming—dates from about 1830. The first locomotive in the United States was imported from England and placed upon the rails in 1829, and in 1830 the first American locomotive was built. It was, however, very near the middle of the century before the system of railroads had been completed so as to materially improve the condition of agriculture; and although the fact may sound strange to some, the first railroad train ran into Chicago in 1852. During these years of depressed agriculture, however, the population of the country was rapidly increasing.

While the railroad system of the country was developing, turnpikes were being built radiating from the principal markets and railroad stations. With the beginning of the second half of the century the farmers awoke to the fact that the United States was a large and populous nation, requiring an immense amount of supplies, and that improvements for transportation had been furnished so that the markets were easily accessible. Before passing, however, from the discouragements and difficulties of agriculture in the early days, some practical illustrations of the difficulties met with seem necessary to give a clear understanding of the condition. What would the farmer of to-day think were he obliged to start with a load of wheat in midwinter over roads which crossed unbridged streams and wound over clay hills, not a rod of which was macadamized and all of which were poorly graded, spending ten days with a four-horse team to make a round trip of one hundred miles with thirty-five bushels of wheat, and sell it in the market for 35 cents a bushel? Yet such was the fact which the writer had from the lips of a farmer who had been through this experience. Two thoughts may occur to the reader—first, that thirty-five bushels was a light load for a four-horse team, and, second, that hotel bills would more than absorb the money received from such a load of wheat. But both of these are explained by saying that one cause of the lightness of the load was that the farmer must carry feed for his team for the entire trip, and another, the uncertainty of the condition of the roads; for though he might start with the roads frozen solid and possibly worn smooth by the teams which had preceded him, he was liable on the trip to meet with a sudden thaw which reduced the roadbed to mortar, so that the wheels would sink almost to the axle, and in many cases the load would be found too heavy for his team. It was no uncommon sight to see a score of places to the mile where the fences had been torn down and rails carried into the middle of the road to be used in prying the wagons out of the mud when hopelessly mired. The reason the hotel bills did not consume the proceeds of the load was that there were none; for the farmer carried his camp kettle, bedding, and provisions with him, and slept in the wagon during his entire trip. The same farmer referred to, in telling his story, said that all the money spent on the ten days’ trip was three “fips” (18¾ cents), and that, presumably, was for three “nips” of whiskey.

An interesting personal experience in the winter of 1846–47 was in driving hogs from Anderson, Ind., to Cincinnati, Ohio, a distance of about 150 miles. The drove was started with the mercury at zero, and the first difficulty met was in getting them across White River, as there was no bridge and the stream must be forded. The hogs absolutely refused to enter the icy water, but the pioneer of that day was equal to any emergency. The drove was soon huddled on the bank, rails were carried from an adjoining field, and a close pen was built around them; then two plucky frontiersmen, with thick leggings reaching from ankle to hips, towed them by the ears to frozen shoal water in the centre of the river, and pushed them across the ice, when they were obliged to go ashore on the other side. Two days later a sudden and unexpected thaw set in, when for one hundred weary miles the drivers urged the hogs through mud which reached from fence to fence, and which was so fluid that not a trace was left behind, as it flowed in to fill not only the track of the hogs but the footsteps of the drivers. When after days of urging the hogs began to lose strength and fall by the way, they settled down into the ooze, from which the men must lift them into wagons which accompanied the drove or were hired from farmers along the road. When Cincinnati was reached it seemed that the worst trouble of the journey was over; but not so, for the climax of disaster with this drove was reached at the slaughter-house, when for two weeks the weather was so warm that no slaughtering could be done, and the price of pork declined day by day, until the entire drove was finally sold at one and three quarters cents per pound dressed weight—and during the entire time, both on the road and in the pens, the hogs had been losing rapidly in weight every day. This was the lowest price recalled for hogs; but it was very common to have a glut in the market of some staple which reduced the price so low that it scarcely paid for transportation, and in some cases made it actually unsalable.

A neighbor relates that when he was a boy, needing some money, his father made him the offer that he might have all the corn that he would shell, take to mill, and market the meal in Cincinnati, forty miles distant. He went to work with a will, prepared a two-horse load, and reached Cincinnati with it safely, only to find the market glutted so that he could not get an offer on it. A part of it was finally sold at 10 cents per bushel, and the remainder was taken home.

During the closing years of the fifth decade the prices of stock were at the lowest, good dairy cows bringing from $7 to $9 per head; yearling calves from $1 to $2; the very best horses, $40, and stock hogs selling for $1 or $2 each. At the same time many of the necessities of life were sold at exorbitant prices, and an examination of an old account book shows the following figures: Salt, $4 per barrel; nails, 6 to 8 cents per pound; calico, 12½ cents per yard; drilling, 25 cents per yard; clocks, $40 each (the value of the best horses!).

Some other facts must be taken into consideration to understand why the farmers did not attempt improved methods. One was the condition of the currency. The United States Bank, which it would seem should have afforded security and stability to the currency, had been wrecked by the action of Andrew Jackson in vetoing its rechartering and withdrawing the United States funds (at that date about $43,000,000) from it; and private banks had been established over the entire west and south, a system of what was then known as “wild cat” banks supplying the people with currency. The man who was trading needed to carry in his pocket at all times a “bank detector,” to which he might refer to ascertain how many cents on the dollar the issue of each bank was worth.

Looking back at the condition of affairs as described, remembering how few the markets, how easily glutted, how unstable the currency, and all the uncertainties connected with the disposal of the farmer’s products, what was there to stimulate him to improve his methods or increase his products? If, as was occasionally the case, the farmer determined to improve his stock, he must import from England or buy at high prices from an importer, and there being no express companies to deliver his stock, he must either go in person or trust to private individuals to drive them over the mountains or, if small stock, to bring them in wagons the entire distance.

He could not afford to carry on a wide correspondence, for each individual letter cost twenty-five cents postage, if the distance was over three hundred miles. It was not until 1845 that postage was reduced to ten cents, and ten years later it was reduced to three cents for letters of half an ounce.

If any one is inclined to throw the blame upon the farmers for not having done their part to improve agriculture and bring prosperity, he should consider the conditions under which they had lived for a generation; the uncertain markets; the low prices of products; that they must construct roads and bridges, build schoolhouses and churches, clear the farms, nearly all of which were covered with heavy timber; and the fact that all this work was done with the crudest implements. It will be seen that the farmers had been accomplishing wonders and were worthy of the highest praise rather than blame.

With the beginning of the last half of the century, the farmers suddenly awoke to the fact that the conditions had become wonderfully favorable. Towns and cities were growing up on every hand, offering new markets. Railroads and other means of transportation were opening to them. Inventive genius had taken up the improvement of implements of agriculture, and, best of all, prices had advanced greatly for all the leading products. The improvements of methods in farming, which have not been less than those in manufacturing and other callings, date from this time, and will be described under the following heads: Improvements in implements; in stock; in drainage and tillage; in the maintaining and increasing of fertility; in care and feeding of stock; in and around the farmer’s home; and education, which includes agricultural literature, farmer’s organizations, and schools.

II. IMPROVEMENTS IN FARM IMPLEMENTS AND MACHINERY.

In writing on the improvements in agriculture one can scarcely fail to be impressed with the fact that whenever the human race comes to the point that it must have help and make a demand upon nature, she always honors the draft; and as the steps are portrayed by which the agricultural products of this continent have been increased a hundred fold, while the power of the individual worker has increased wonderfully, and the labor has been lightened by machinery, we can see that these inventions and improvements came just as fast as they were needed, and no faster. God has given to the human mind such power, and to the hands such skill, that whatever is necessary is soon provided when the want is made known. Perhaps there is no better way in which this can be traced than in the appliances by which the farmer feeds the world. It is an interesting study to note the successive steps in the improvement of implements for the work of the farm. In the beginning of the century the sickle and flail were all that were needed to cut and thresh the grain; and it was by a series of steps that the steam thresher and the combined mower and binder were evolved. The sickle was all that was needed until population increased and markets were made accessible; then the cradle was invented. With the former, an expert could cut an acre a day, and with the latter four or more acres; but all the work was done by human muscle. The man using a sickle must work with bended back all day. The cradle enabled him to work erect, and lightened the labor; but when the “Reaper sickle” was invented the labor was transferred to brute muscle. The first machines were clumsy and heavy to draw, requiring as much, or more, power to cut the grain as to cut and bind it with the light running modern binder. Now, the man who sweltered with bended back ten or twelve hours to cut an acre of grain with the sickle “drives his team afield,” and by simply guiding it cuts and binds ten or fifteen acres a day, and carries the bundles to the shock row.

The improvement in threshing machinery has been as marked as in that for harvesting the grain. In the first part of the century all the work was done with the flail, and on farms where a large amount of grain was grown it kept a man busy a good part of the winter to thresh it. The first improvement was in threshing the grain by tramping it out with horses, and with two men and four horses, under the most favorable conditions, from fifty to one hundred bushels could be threshed in a day. But by both these methods there was the disadvantage that in all damp weather the work must be stopped, as the grain would become so tough that it could not be threshed. Another disadvantage of these methods was that it took a long time to prepare the crop for market, and in case of a sudden rise in price the farmer could not take advantage of it as he now can when his grain is all threshed in a single day and held in the granary for sale. In the thirties, the first threshing machines were put in use, and were but little improvement over the method of tramping with horses. The machines were of small capacity, and simply threshed the grain, but did not separate it from the straw and chaff, both of which operations had to be done by hand; and if the straw was to be saved, either in the barn or in a stack, it had to be all handled with rakes and forks. The first threshing machine that the writer ever saw was one that was called “The Traveller.” This was followed by machines run by stationary horse-power. These were called “chaff pilers,” from the fact that they threshed the wheat but did not separate it from the straw or chaff. The first horse-powers were inclined planes, or endless chain powers, as they were called, and were run by the weight of the horses, the floor revolving under their weight as they attempted to go up the grade. These were soon superseded by lever powers, made at first for two or four horses, but afterward increased in size and power until ten or twelve horses were used; and about this time the machinery for separating the grain and chaff was added to the machine. It almost seemed to the farmers at this time that perfection had been reached when two or three hundred bushels could be threshed in a day and also cleaned; but the feeding of this large number of horses was a heavy tax upon the farmers, particularly when a rainy day would intervene before the job was finished, and they were obliged to keep the horses two or three days. The invention and introduction of the mounted steam-engine not only saved the farmer from this expense, but also increased the power and doubled the daily capacity of the machine. For a short time the farmers were satisfied with this; but the engine was heavy, and often the farmers’ teams were light, and as it was the rule that each man must draw the engine from his farm to where the next job was to be done, and often the distance was great and the roads bad, it was not long until he tired of this. Then came the traction engine, which not only transported itself but also drew the thresher and separator. About this time another difficulty arose; for now that the machine had been improved and the power increased so that under favorable conditions a thousand bushels could be threshed in a day, the handling of the straw became a serious problem, for it was impossible to build it in a stack suitable for keeping as fast as the machine would deliver it. The first step to lighten and expedite this labor was in adding a straw carrier, a kind of revolving platform, which was attached to the separator and would lift the straw some twelve or fifteen feet. For a year or two the farmers were satisfied with this help, but soon found that it was inadequate for the work. Then the stacker was invented, a separate machine which was backed under the straw carrier to receive the straw, and which had, mounted on wheels, an elevator which would carry the straw to a height of twenty-five or thirty feet; and not only could it do this, but it was the work of a moment, with a crank at its base, to raise it, and it could be run at any angle. When the machine first started, the straw carrier was placed horizontally, and as the stack grew in height, it was raised until in the finishing out of the stack it stood at an angle of forty-five degrees or more. The straw carrier could not only be raised, but by an ingenious arrangement of small wheels, it could be moved from side to side by a light pressure with one hand, or by a man on the stack pushing it with his fork. With this admirable machine for handling the straw, it seemed as though perfection had been reached, and that there was now practically nothing more to be desired. But it was not long until the farmer found that with the delivery of six tons of straw per hour it was heavy work for six men to build the stack, and that it was the most disagreeable work about the machine because of the dust. About 1890, some inventive genius produced the “blower” to take the place of the stacker. This is a long jointed tube, some sixteen or eighteen inches in diameter, mounted at the rear of the cylinder through which the straw is forced by compressed air which is furnished by the machine. It can be raised or lowered, turned to the right or to the left, so as to deliver the straw at any desired point on the stack. It is managed by a man standing on top of the separator near the rear end, does away entirely with any hands on the stack, and thus reduces the force about six men. Some other improvements which have been added are the putting of knives in the cylinder to cut the bands, thus saving one or two hands, for often it was necessary to have a man on each side for cutting the bands when the wheat was dry and the work was done with the greatest rapidity. Then a revolving platform, called a self-feeder, was added in front of the cylinder, on which platform the bundles could be thrown from a wagon standing on each side, and be carried automatically and dumped into the cylinder, doing away with the man who formerly fed the bundles to the machine. To some machines an automatic weigher has been attached, which does away with a man for measuring and keeping tally of the wheat. Compare for a moment this modern machinery which, with a force of twelve or fourteen men, will thresh and clean for market from 1200 to 1600 bushels of wheat per day, with the man with the flail laboriously pounding out ten bushels, and you will get a vivid idea of the progress in agricultural machinery. One somewhat curious fact must be taken into account in this, which is, that with some of these most wonderful machines the cost of labor is about the same it formerly was. But the advantage is that the work can be done in a few hours, and the farmer’s crop be ready for market to take advantage of increased prices, while by the old plan the work would reach almost through the winter.

In the cutting and handling of hay there has been as great improvement as in any portion of the farm. A first-class mowing machine, new from the shop, can now be bought for $40 or less, and with it the farmer can drive to the field after supper, in the cool of the day, and in an hour cut more grass, and do it better, than a man could with a scythe by working hard all day.

Instead of shaking out the swaths slowly with a fork, with a single horse hitched to a hay tedder about two acres an hour can be shaken up and left in such shape that both sun and wind have perfect access to it and cause it to cure rapidly.

Instead of raking the hay laboriously by hand, a steel sulky rake does the work easily and quickly, doing more in an hour than was possible in a day with the hand rake. On farms where the acreage of hay is large, a self-loader attached to the rear of the wagon gathers the hay from the windrow and delivers it on the wagon. At the barn, instead of the slow and wearisome hand pitching, the hay fork and hay carrier deliver it in the top of the highest barns.

The invention of the hay baler enables the farmer now to condense his crop, so that one third of the room for storage formerly required for hay will answer; and it also enables him to ship it to market by rail, where formerly it was necessary that it should be taken in wagons.

While the plough has not been improved to the extent that many of our farm implements have been, it is vastly superior to those used by the pioneers, and modifies somewhat the adage of “Poor Richard,” who wrote:—

“He who by the plough would thrive, Himself must either hold or drive;”

for the modern ploughman must not only hold and drive, but drive three horses at that, and turn as many acres in a day. Another adage attributed to “Poor Richard” was—

“Plough deep while sluggards sleep, And you shall have corn to sell and keep.”

But the modern farmer has learned that the depth to which he ploughs must be governed by the nature of his soil, and that deep ploughing on heavy clay lands, or lands with a crude subsoil, is often the cause of short crops and permanent injury to the soil.

It is doubtful if in any line of farm implements there has been more improvement than in that of harrows; and yet this improvement dates back but about a quarter of a century, as previous to that time the old “A” harrow or drag, which was hard on the team and did indifferent work, was the only one found on most farms. More recently the cutting and slicing harrows have been largely introduced, and many other forms of improved harrows have been put on the market. For the preparation of hard land for a seed bed, especially for small grain, the disk harrow cannot be excelled.

But for garden use, or for pulverizing sod land which has not been too much compacted, the slicing Acme harrow is the most perfect implement in use, it being of light draft, easily transferred from field to field, and capable of making the finest and best seed-bed.

The cultivators in use have been greatly improved. It is necessary to describe but two of them. The two-horse cultivator with fenders, which enables the farmer to cultivate both sides of the row at once, driving two horses in the field instead of one, as by the old method, has more than doubled the capacity of the individual; as by its use he is able not only to cultivate both sides of the row at once, but to dispense entirely with the man who, under the old rule, was obliged to follow the cultivator and uncover the corn. This “fender” is exceedingly simple, and the only wonder is that it took the farmer so long to find out its value. Costing but a few cents, it has saved the farmers millions of dollars, as previous to its adoption it was necessary to have one man follow each one-horse plow to uncover the corn. There are two forms of this “fender,” the simplest being a light piece of galvanized sheet iron attached to the cultivator or plow so as to come just between it and the row of corn; the other is in the form of a rolling cutter, and attached in the same way. With either of these the farmer goes into the field as soon as the young plants can be seen in the row, drives his team astride the row, and stirs every inch of the soil, putting a little fresh earth around each hill of corn or potatoes without covering a single plant. As a single State grows some millions of acres of corn, it can be seen that the saving from this little invention to the farmers amounts to millions of dollars in a single year.

The old idea of deep cultivation of most crops has been proven to be wrong, and modern implements are made to cultivate the surface to a depth of two or three inches rather than to tear up the roots of the plants; and one of the most perfect of all implements for this purpose is the “Planet Junior one-horse cultivator.”

Perhaps no other class of machines has relieved the farmer more than the ones for planting the grain; and with a modern two-horse corn planter two rows can be planted at a time in checkered rows, so that it can be cultivated both ways and with more precision, both as to alignment and as to the number of plants in a hill, than by the old hand method of planting. The small grain is sown by a two-horse drill arranged for not only the grain, but at the same time to deposit commercial fertilizer along the rows of grain, and with a grass seed sower attached. In the garden a hand drill is used. It is easily adjustable to any sized seed, from that of the turnip up to beans and peas, and the seed is perfectly distributed in straight rows, while the garden hand cultivator does away largely with the use of the hoe.

One other modern implement, which promises to be very useful, is “the weeder,” and its value rests on two facts which it required the farmer many years to discover. The first is that the thorough pulverizing of the surface, even to the depth of an inch, breaks the capillaries and checks the evaporation of moisture; but to do this it is necessary that the work be done just as soon after a rain as the land will crumble, and since often if a drying wind blows the land gets dry in a few hours, a machine is needed that will enable the farmer to thus stir a large surface in a short time; and this the weeder does, as it is made to cover the width of three rows at once, and more than two acres an hour can be stirred with a single machine. The other fact which makes this implement of great value is that all weeds are easily exterminated when in embryo, and this stirring of the soil kills every one that is starting.

One other machine which has been greatly improved is the clover huller. Previous to its invention, most of the clover seed was sown in the chaff, and when clean seed was required it took several days’ work with four horses to tramp out three or four bushels, and then much of the seed was left in the chaff.

The modern huller is equipped with the blower and self-feeder, and with it from twenty to fifty bushels can be hulled and cleaned in a day, the amount depending on how well filled the heads are with seed.

It is quite recently that machinery has been invented that relieves the farmer of the hard work of planting potatoes by hand, and at the same time does the work better than the old way, as the machine drops the seed at a uniform distance apart and covers it perfectly. A man with this machine will do the work of eight or ten men dropping by hand. Several potato diggers, operated by horse power, have also come into recent use. They greatly lighten and accelerate the work, and the cost of growing potatoes has been reduced several cents a bushel by these inventions.

III. IMPROVEMENT OF STOCK.

Perhaps it would be well in beginning to write on this subject to ask, what is “pedigreed stock”? Many people have the idea that pedigreeing is an arbitrary rule adopted by stock growers to mystify the buyer and secure larger prices for their stock. The fact is that it is intended as a protection to the purchaser, and is, or should be, a guarantee that the stock has been bred along certain lines for a sufficient period to establish the desirable qualities which it is wished to perpetuate. A rigid censorship is exercised over the record books, and it makes every one recording stock, in a certain sense, a detective to see that the records are truthful and represent the animals just as they are.

It is doubtful if along any line of farm operations there has been greater improvement than in the breeding and care of stock; yet there were greater difficulties to overcome in doing this than in improving the implements. These difficulties may be classed as follows: First, the one already alluded to in the opening chapter, to wit, the expense of importing and the consequent high price of thoroughbred animals; and when we recall that this was at a time when the farmers were hewing out their homes from the forest, and could not obtain large prices for their products, it will be seen that few farmers could afford to improve their stock. Second, as to cattle and hogs, it was almost impossible to breed pure stock; for all animals were allowed to run at large, and the woods were full of “tramp males,” which would break through the fences and invade the fields where the improved stock was kept. Third, those engaged in breeding stock found that there was a limit which when reached brought barrenness to high-bred animals, and in many other cases reduced the vitality so as to invite disease. That this evil was a real and serious one is shown from the fact that large numbers of high-priced animals failed to produce young among cattle, and that many herds of pedigreed swine were carried off by epidemic diseases. Fourth, and perhaps the most serious hindrance to improvement, was the indifference of farmers and the want of appreciation of good stock, and of course the farmer who did not want it would not coöperate in producing it.

The difference between the improvement of implements and stock consisted largely in the fact that trained mechanics were responsible for the former, and they would perfect the implements until the farmers could not afford to do without them; while the slipshod farmer would be satisfied with his common stock, and would fail to accept the help of the men who were trying to improve it. Another thing which farmers learned slowly was that good stock requires good care, which not only means shelter and liberal feeding, but also that the food be adapted to the wants of the animal. More fine animals were ruined by over-feeding with corn—a heating and fattening diet—than by insufficient food and exposure to cold and storm. It took many years to teach the farmer what a balanced ration was, and why it was necessary.

It would be interesting to take up each separate breed of cattle and trace its source, giving credit to the men who improved and developed it, and the date of each importation; but the limitations of this article forbid anything more than brief mention of the more prominent breeds, and many which possess great merit cannot be even mentioned. The improved cattle of the United States may be grouped under three heads—beef, dairy, and general purpose. Of the first the Short-horn holds, perhaps, the highest place, or certainly did for a long series of years. These for many years were bred under the name of “Durham,” but about a generation ago the name began to undergo a change to Short-horn.

These animals, while especially adapted to the block, are fairly good milkers, and some strains of them are superior dairy cows. They have the quality of early maturity and produce a larger per cent of fine cuts of meat than most, if not any, other breeds. These cattle were first imported into America in 1797, and many other importations were made during the first half of the present century.

Another breed which closely resembles the Short-horn is the Hereford. These cattle are usually of a uniform color—a pale red—with white face, breast, and flanks, and drooping horns. They were first introduced by Henry Clay in 1817. Another importation was made in 1840, but it was not until 1860 and subsequently that they were imported largely and a “herd book” established for them. Since that time they have multiplied largely.

The last of the three distinctly beef breeds is a hornless race originating in Scotland, and known by the name of Aberdeen Angus, Galloway, or Polled cattle. These cattle have the distinctive quality of hardiness, and as they have very thick, close hair they are able to subsist on the range without shelter better than perhaps any other breed. The males have a remarkable prepotency, and the cross-bred animals very rarely show horns. Like the Herefords, they are poor milkers; for while their milk is rich, the quantity is small, and they usually go dry for several months of the year. They were first imported into this country about 1850, and in 1883 nine hundred were imported and distributed among the cattle breeders of the plains. Polled cattle are becoming more popular every year, and many farmers now dehorn the cattle of other breeds; and the time is not far distant when horned cattle will be the exception and not the rule.

The Channel Island group—the Jerseys, Alderneys, and Guernseys—embraces unquestionably the best butter animals of the world; and if we are to judge by their wide distribution and great popularity, the Jerseys lead the list. They were first introduced into the United States in 1820, and in 1850 large importations were made; but it was during the decade from 1870 to 1880 that greatest interest in the breed was awakened and large and frequent importations were made. There has been a strong and bitter opposition to these cattle by many farmers on account of their small size, but they have won their way until they are more universally distributed, and are to be found on more farms than any other breed. Remarkable yields of butter from the individual have been recorded, many of them running from 12 to 18 pounds per week under high feeding and extra care.

While the Ayrshire possesses great merit, so few of them have been imported into this country that it seems scarcely worth while to more than mention them.

Under the head of general-purpose animals come the Holsteins, Devon, and Red Polls. All of these breeds possess fine qualities. The Holsteins were probably not introduced into this country until the last half of the century, and the “Holstein Herd-Book,” published in 1882, shows that about 5000 registered animals were in this country at that date. While fair beef cattle, the Holsteins are deep milkers, and show a record of the largest quantity of milk of any breed in America,—some cows giving over 12,000 pounds of milk in a year. The milk, however, is not as rich in butter fat as that of the Jersey, but probably they are the best breed of dairy cows for the cheese factory in the United States.

The Devons are beautiful red cattle. They do not rank as large milkers, but produce a superior quality of milk, and are unexcelled in this respect by any breed but the Jersey. One peculiarity about the breed is the comparative smallness of the cow; for while the steer will weigh from 1400 to 1600 pounds, the cows will average only from 800 to 1000 pounds each.

The importation of Red Polls from England is comparatively recent, and they come nearer filling the idea of a general purpose animal than any other breed in America. The first importation was made in 1873, and consisted of only four animals. Two years later four more were imported, and in 1882 twenty-five. Other importations soon followed. They are of a uniformly cherry-red color, with occasionally the tip of the tail white or a little white about the udder. Ninety per cent of the grades are hornless. They are of large size, mature bulls weighing from 1800 to 2200 pounds, and occasionally one will exceed 2500 pounds. Cows weigh from 1100 to 1600 pounds, and will average 1200. That they mature early the following weights, copied from the report of the Smithfield Club, of England, will show:—

Steer, twenty-two and one half months old, weighed 1390 lbs. Heifer, twenty-one and three quarters months old, weighed 1258 lbs. Steer, twenty-three and one half months old, weighed 1500 lbs. Steer, twenty-two months old, weighed 1336 lbs.

At the same show a mature cow was exhibited that weighed 1903 pounds. As dairy cattle they show good records, giving an average of 5500 pounds of milk per year, and some have exceeded 500 pounds of butter in a year, milking over 300 days.

While the United States can show as good horses as any other country in the world, they are not as generally distributed among the farmers as are animals of other breeds of stock. This perhaps can be accounted for, first, from the fact that a horse must be mature, and not less than six years old, before it can be put on the market; and that the low price of the service—fee of grades and scrub stallions—is too great a temptation to the farmer who is in debt and short of money. Still, our standard has been advancing, and there is a sure but slow bettering of the working stock of the country.

In the draft class we have the Norman, Percheron, Clydesdale, and Belgian, and possibly some others, while the Cleveland Bay comes as near the general-purpose horse as any other breed. The importations that have given us the magnificent horses which are being used in this country have been made chiefly from France, England, Belgium, and Germany. The blood of the English thoroughbred and of the Arab has also contributed to the development of the qualities desired.

In no other class of stock produced in this country has the improvement been more marked than in the swine, and while there are probably half a score of breeds in the country, a look through the markets shows that probably 90 per cent of them are of the three following breeds: Poland-China (formerly called Magie), Berkshire, and Duroc or Jersey Red; although it is quite possible that the Chester White might take the third place. With the exception of the Berkshire, these may be called distinctively American breeds, and even the Berkshire has been so modified and improved as to almost lay claim to American origin. A few other breeds are kept pure in this country, particularly the Essex, Yorkshire, and Victorias; but they are bred to but a limited extent and then for a special purpose. One thing that makes it easy and rapid to improve swine is the fact that they mature so early, and that a new cross may be made every year if desired. The writer, living in that part of Miami Valley, in Ohio, where the Poland-China swine originated, has seen, in a quarter of a century, these hogs change in form and color and general characteristics, and these fixed so thoroughly that they could be depended on to reproduce them. As this breed existed in the fifties, they were coarse in form, mongrel in color, and slow in maturing, requiring from eighteen months to two years to be made ready for market. But to-day they are early maturing, can be put on the market at six months of age, weighing from 200 to 250 pounds, and are of uniform shape and color. They are still the leading breed throughout the great corn belt of the United States, and the herd-books have registered breeding stock to the number of many thousand.

The Berkshire hog was first introduced into this country in 1823, and a second importation was made in 1832, but there was no systematic breeding and care to preserve their purity, and grades were sold for pure-bred until the breed fell into disrepute; but in 1865 new importations were made of the finest animals to be found in England, and the merits of the breed became universally known. Though called a small breed, they are but little below the Poland-China in weight, and grades from Berkshire males on large rangey sows will give the finest possible hogs for the block; but these grades must not be used for breeding, or the stock will deteriorate.

The American Chester White hog originated in Chester County, Pennsylvania; but it is believed that there was an importation of white hogs from England in 1818. The breed, until within less than a quarter of a century, was coarse, large of bone, and slow of maturity, and sometimes would attain enormous weight, nearly 1000 pounds; but in the last quarter of a century they have been improved until they are a close rival of the best breeds we have.

The Duroc-Jersey Red seems to be a distinctly American breed, having a history dating back to 1824, but it is less than a half century since they came into prominence, and the improvement made in them in that time has put them near the front rank. One thing which caused their rapid increase was the belief that they were proof against swine-plague and hog-cholera, and they were boomed on that idea. But this did not prove true, and our intelligent farmers have learned that it is not in the breed but in the food and care that immunity from disease will be found. These hogs are of a beautiful red color, and of good form. The mothers are prolific and good nursers, and they mature early, making the choicest of pig pork at an early age.

No other class of animals has been subject to so much foreign competition or has figured to such an extent as a political factor as the sheep, and this, for more than a generation past, has kept the sheep industry fluctuating between a depression which destroyed all profit and a boom which placed fictitious values on them, and both extremes have worked harm to the industry. Yet through all these changes, those who have recognized the intrinsic value of the sheep and stuck to the work of improvement, have not only found the business profitable but have prevented the deterioration of the animals which threatened.

While swine are of no value until killed, the sheep gives two coupons in a year, one in the fleece and the other in the increase, and the breeder always has two distinct objects before him,—the production of wool and mutton. The breeds of sheep are almost as dissimilar as are horses from cattle, and some are suited for hot arid lands, while others are adapted to the rich lowlands with their abundant and succulent herbage. The most ancient of all breeds is the Merino; and those who have studied this question trace its descent back in direct line, probably, to the flocks of the patriarchs. For ages they have been the clothers of mankind, first with the skin and later with the fleece, and still they maintain a high, if not first, place among different breeds. They have been wonderfully improved, but the improvement has been along the line of increasing the value of the fleece rather than the carcass, and it has been changed from an animal that would produce two or three pounds of wool, and one which had bare belly and legs, to one which produces a fleece from the hoofs to very near the nose. It is within bounds to say the weight of the fleece has been doubled.

With the long-wool breeds the improvement has been designed to develop the carcass and mutton qualities rather than the wool, and of these the two typical breeds are the Shropshire and Cotswold. Probably the best mutton lambs that are produced in this country are from the Shropshire rams and Merino ewes. The representative Cotswold is of majestic port and large size. The wool is curly, long, and lustrous; not dry and harsh to the touch, and has but a slight amount of yolk; at maturity it ought to be eight inches long. The fleece averages six or seven pounds.

IV. IMPROVEMENT IN FARMING METHODS.

The improvement of methods on the farm has been discussed to some extent in speaking of implements and stock, as their use involves better methods; but there are other points worthy of notice. One of the most important of these is drainage. The first attempts to remove surface water from farm-land were by the construction of open ditches; but as these had to follow the natural water-courses which often zigzagged through the fields, they were objectionable, not only because of making bad shaped lands to plow and cultivate, but also because they caused a waste of land, and usually had to be bridged to be crossed with the wagons. Other objections to them were that they produced crops of weeds to give trouble in the fields, and there was a constant tendency to fill up, which soon impaired their usefulness; or, if kept cleaned out, it had to be done at heavy expense. The first attempt at underdrains, or “blind ditches,” as they were called, was by making an underground water-way with stone or timber; but both these materials were found objectionable, because such drains were easily damaged by the action of craw-fish and rarely continued to do good work for more than a few years. It was after the middle of the century that drain tiles made of burnt clay were introduced, resembling good hard brick in material; but the first drains laid were usually with tiles of too small caliber, two-inch being largely used, which were not only easily choked but failed to carry the water off rapidly enough in a wet time. Large sections of many of our States were originally swampy and so nearly level as to make it necessary to construct open ditches, almost like canals, as an outlet for the water flowing into them from the drains. These could not, of course, be constructed by individuals, as no man had a right to go on his neighbor’s land to open a ditch for this purpose; so, in many cases, this was made a matter of legislation, and the large open ditches were built by taxation equitably levied on the lands. By this means the farmers were enabled to thoroughly drain large areas of country which otherwise would have been nearly worthless for agricultural purposes. In some instances the earth taken from these large ditches was graded up several feet high at the side, and on the top of this levee a turnpike road was constructed, thus giving a double benefit from a single operation. The first draining of farms was in the wet spots where, usually, a single line of tiles, laid for a moderate distance, would bring the parts of the field under cultivation that otherwise would be waste; but gradually the farmers learned that there were other valuable effects from drainage, and that most heavy clay lands would be benefited by it sufficiently to justify the expense. The following incidental advantages have been learned: first, drainage deepens the soil; second, it prevents the killing out of grass and grains during a wet season; third, it makes the land warmer; fourth, it improves the texture of the soil and makes it possible to work and plant it earlier in the spring; fifth, it prevents washing and waste of manure; sixth, it often prevents failure of crops in excessively wet seasons, and enables them to endure drought better in dry seasons. Although drainage is expensive it is a permanent improvement, and in many cases the increase of the wheat crop in a single year has defrayed the expense of tilling the land.

Another improvement, which seems to be the opposite of this, is the irrigation of arid lands in those parts of the country where the annual rainfall is small and every summer brings a drought. In these cases, water stored in large natural or artificial reservoirs, or that furnished by snow melting on the mountains, is utilized to carry the crops through the dry season and to enable the farmer to grow large crops where nothing could be produced without this aid.

Perhaps in no other line have the methods changed for the better more than in the care of domestic animals, and this includes both shelter and feeding. In the first half of the century, cattle and hogs were usually exposed to the severe weather of the winter with no other shelter than that afforded by a straw-stack, and this often was found leveled to the ground by the first of March, leaving them entirely without shelter at that changeable season of the year. They were allowed at all seasons to roam over the farm and gather their own living, and were turned into the cornfields as soon as the ears were removed, where they lived well as long as the stalk pasture lasted, after which they depended on straw for food until spring; and it was common to have the cattle so poor, as spring approached, that many died of actual starvation, while others became so feeble that they would have to be lifted to help them on their feet. Then the stables for horses were constructed apparently with the idea that ventilation was the chief thing, and the horses stood and shivered in their stalls from the drafts that blew through the sides of the barn and up through the floors of their stalls. Gradually these things have changed, until the larger part of farm stock is warmly sheltered, and well fed with a variety of food. Succulent food is now largely furnished from ensilage preserved in silos, from beets and other roots grown and stored for winter use, and, more recently, from sorghum, which has been found to retain its succulence and sweetness during the entire winter. Farmers have learned what is meant by a balanced ration, which is a combination of foods that will give the proper proportion of heat and fat producers with those which make bone and muscle, and that it means both health and economy to substitute to a certain extent bran and oil meal for corn, and clover hay for hay made from the grasses, and straw.

Another great improvement has been along the line of fencing; and, in this respect, the most economical step of all has been in reducing the amount of division fence on the farm, keeping only a portion of it divided into fields for pasture, and leaving half or more of the best parts to be cultivated in a single inclosure on which stock is never turned. In most States, laws have been passed obliging each farmer to fence in his own stock, and no one is compelled to fence out his neighbor’s. The substitution of wire for wood as a fencing material has reduced the cost of fence construction about one half, and the waste of land occupied by fences is reduced in about the same proportion.

V. IMPROVEMENT IN AND AROUND THE HOME.

The change in this direction in a single generation has been most marked, and is one of the surest signs of prosperity. The log cabin has given place to a substantial and, in many cases, an elegant home. The irregular and ill-shaped yards, fenced with rails, which surrounded both house and barn, and in which hogs and cattle were kept, with no shelter but a rail pen with straw roof, have disappeared, and rectangular lots enclosed with neat fences and good barns and piggeries have taken their place. The wood-pile has retired from the front yard, and is now sheltered in a woodshed adjoining the kitchen; and a neat lawn with flowers and shrubbery is no longer the exception, but the rule. A good garden, in which the newer and improved vegetables have taken the place of the old sorts, and a berry patch, well cared for, afford the luxuries which they alone can give for a period of many weeks each season. The water is no longer carried from a remote spring, but good wells and cisterns are placed conveniently, many of them so that the pump is in the kitchen or under a porch attached to the house. The cellar is usually floored with cement, and the stairs leading to it are of easy grade; while good walks of plank or cement make it a pleasure to pass from the house to the surrounding outbuildings.

Another line in which very great improvement is shown is in maintaining the fertility of the soil. The old method was to exhaust the fertility of a field and then clear a new one; and it is doubtful if one farmer in a hundred could have answered the question, “Why does land become sterile after long cultivation?” for they had no conception of what the chemical elements of the soil were which are necessary to its fertility. There are two theories of fertilizing and fertility: one, that the soil is a mine to be worked out, and which will inevitably become unproductive in the process; the other, that it is a laboratory in which, under the intelligent management of man, forces can be set at work which will maintain and develop a perpetual fertility. Malthus, more than a century ago, announced that the time would come before long when the people of the earth would starve because they had outgrown the fertility of the soil and its productive capacity; but after long cultivation, we find it possible to produce on less than half the cultivatable land enough not only to feed our own nation, but the world at large, and there is no questioning the accurateness of the laboratory theory as opposed to the mine theory.

The first improvement along this line was in the better saving and utilizing of animal manures; but when it was found that these were insufficient, science came to the help of the farmer. The chemist analyzed both crop and soils, ascertaining what was needed, and then the world was searched for the materials necessary. The elements which formed our plants were found to be fifteen in number, but of these it was found that it was necessary to furnish only three,—nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash. Nitrogen was known to exist in inexhaustible quantities in the atmosphere, forming seventy-six per cent of its composition; but the question was long unsolved: “Can growing plants appropriate atmospheric nitrogen?” Finally, it was discovered that plants of the Leguminosæ family—of which clover is the best type and of greatest value for this purpose to the farmer—could appropriate nitrogen from the atmosphere; and after careful research, with the aid of the microscope, it was discovered that this appropriation came about through the agency of bacteria in the roots. This fact connected with the clover plant is one of immense importance to the farmer, because nitrogen is not only the most expensive element of fertility to purchase, but is likely to be lost both through evaporation and leaching. So it can be seen that clover is one of the most valuable plants which can be grown on the farm, for the reason that the crop can be utilized as food for stock, while still great benefit inures to the soil, as the fertility is largely stored in the roots, which cannot be used for any other purpose, and as by the action of these roots the mechanical condition of the soil is greatly improved. Further, the dense shade the plant affords induces chemical action in the soil, which makes plant food available that would otherwise remain inert. One of the most wonderful things connected with fertility is that God has so locked it up in the earth that no greedy generation can exhaust it, and that the greatest source of fertility is the atmosphere, whose secrets are just being discovered.

An English scientist has recently announced that by the aid of electricity, furnished by cheap water-power, nitrates can be manufactured directly from the atmosphere so as to reduce their cost to less than one fourth what it has heretofore been. Again, the intelligent use of clover will enable the farmer to produce his own nitrogen and reduce the cost of chemical fertilizers to one half what it usually is when containing nitrogen. This brings us to the question of commercial fertilizers. With the single exception of guano, they are a product of the last third of the century. The first step toward the use of commercial fertilizers was by analyzing our barnyard manures. When the chemist discovered that a ton or more which the farmer drew out laboriously with two horses to the field contained but twenty or thirty pounds of actual plant food,—the remainder being water, sand, and other dead matter,—the next step was to combine the three elements essential to a perfect fertilizer in such proportions that a single sack would hold enough manure for an acre of ground; and in tens of thousands of cases, the application of this amount of fertilizer has increased the wheat crop from five to fifteen bushels per acre, doubling the grass crop which followed, which in turn, and through the influence of the fertilizer, formed a sward which, by its decay, fertilized a third crop when it was turned under in the rotation.

The element in fertilizers of next importance to nitrogen is phosphoric acid, and the first source from which this was obtained was the bones of animals. But the supply from animals slaughtered was entirely insufficient; and so the great plains of the West were gleaned, and tens of thousands of tons of buffalo bones were gathered and shipped East to fertilize our farms. But soon this source began to wane; then two other sources, practically inexhaustible, of this indispensable element were discovered,—the phosphate rocks of the South and the iron slag from furnaces, each of which is found to contain a large per cent of phosphoric acid; and when the rock is dissolved by acids and the slag ground to an impalpable powder by machinery, the fertilizing elements in both are found to be as available and valuable as that from bones. The supply of potash was obtained at first from wood ashes, which the clearing of the farms and the universal use of wood as fuel made abundant. But later, when these sources were no longer sufficient, potash salts were found in large quantities where they could be mined from the earth, so that now there seems to be in sight an inexhaustible supply of the elements needed for plant food. Like almost every reform, the use of commercial fertilizers was opposed bitterly by many farmers, and statements were made by them that their effects on the soil were like those of whiskey or other stimulants on the body, and that the ultimate result of their use would be that the soil would become barren. Many refused, to use them at all; others, after a single trial made without intelligence, denounced them as humbugs. But as they saw on the farms of their neighbors the wonderful results from their use, they have been gradually led to adopt them, until now, with most farmers, the question no longer is, “Can I afford to use commercial fertilizers?” but rather, “Can I afford to do without them?”

VI. IMPROVEMENT IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION.

To one who has followed the writer to this point, it must be apparent that the farmer of to-day has made progress in the knowledge of his calling to at least as great an extent as he has improved in his methods, and that the terms “farm drudge” and “clodhopper” are misapplied and should be obsolete. There is no other industrial calling in which one touches nature and science at so many points, or which gives such good opportunities to develop the perfect man,—“the sound mind in the sound body,”—as that of the farmer. Admitting that not all farmers understand this and live up to their privileges, does not alter the fact that the farm offers a great opportunity to develop and broaden the mind; that the last quarter of the century has brought into active operation forces which have touched and influenced a large per cent of the tillers of the soil; and that the leaven of education is working mightily. The intelligent, studious farmer becomes a practical botanist as he studies the growth and habits of plants. As he is dependent more than any other man upon the weather and must change his plans frequently to correspond with climatic changes, he becomes a meteorologist. Myriads of insects, which include both enemies and friends, make him a student of entomology; and the wonderful alchemy of the soil by which offensive and poisonous matters are transmuted into golden grain, luscious fruits, vegetables, and flowers, calls for a knowledge of chemistry. The use of modern machinery develops his mechanical powers; and the man on the farm develops in more directions and has an opportunity to acquire a broader education than any other man who earns his living by his own labor. To sustain this statement, it is only necessary to enumerate the educational opportunities and privileges now open to the farmer and which are, to a great extent, utilized by him. First, what the government is doing for him. No other calling is represented in the cabinet of the President, and time and experience have demonstrated the wisdom of a Secretary of Agriculture. Not only are we distinctively an agricultural people, but the prosperity of the nation depends on the intelligence and prosperity of the farmer more than on all other classes combined. Not only must the food supply of our people be furnished, but the foreign demand must be met; and this gives to the farmers money to spend, so that the industries which contribute to their wants shall share in the general prosperity. While there are many honorable and useful callings, agriculture seems to be the only one which touches and affects all others. The financial importance of agriculture is shown by the fact that, after the wants of the nation were supplied, in the year 1897 we exported in round numbers $690,000,000 worth of agricultural products, or nearly 67 per cent of the entire exports; and notwithstanding an enormous increase of imports of wool and sugar, in anticipation of increased duties, the balance of trade on agricultural products for the year was $289,000,000, and the export of agricultural products for the current fiscal year would show still larger figures.

Considering the specific educational influences which are elevating the farmer and his calling, we enumerate the following: Agricultural literature, farmers’ organizations,—including farmers’ clubs, farmers’ institutes, and the Grange,—agricultural experiment stations, and agricultural colleges, all of which have contributed their share to the intelligence and prosperity of the farmer, and all are products of the last half of the century. To give an intelligent idea of the help which these influences have brought to the farmer, it is necessary to treat them to some extent in detail. First, agricultural literature. All that is necessary to an understanding of the progress in this direction is to get one of the very few so-called agricultural papers of fifty years ago and compare it with those of to-day. Not only have they multiplied a hundredfold, but while the former largely contained stilted articles written by theorists, to-day every page is full of practical instruction written by farmers, and often by specialists who have spent years in improving some line of farming or stock breeding. Most of our agricultural papers have a staff of paid contributors, nearly all of whom have made a success in some branch of farming; and so anxious are the publishers of these papers to give their readers all the help possible, that they search out the men who are prospering on the farm and engage their services as instructors for their readers. The journals devoted to agriculture are numbered by hundreds, some of them devoted to a single line,—such as sheep, poultry, or gardening,—and others with well classified departments which give instruction on all points. In addition to this, nearly all of the weeklies have a page of agriculture, usually conducted by a farmer or some one with practical knowledge of farm work. There are no secrets in agriculture, and every farmer is ready to impart to all any valuable information he acquires. Farmers appreciate the value of these helps and make large use of them, and the circulation of these papers is enormous.

By Farmers’ Clubs we mean those organizations of farmers, governed by constitutions and by-laws, who meet at stated times for the discussion of topics connected with the improvement of their calling. There are no statistics available from which can be gathered the extent of this movement, but Ohio reports fifty clubs and has formed a state organization. In Michigan, where the clubs are organized on a different basis, 30,000 members are reported; they have also formed a state organization, which was attended by 200 delegates at the last meeting. Indiana is but little, if any, behind these two States, and the club idea is rapidly spreading through the Northern States. There are two forms of these clubs, one of which limits the membership to twelve families, and the meetings are all held at the homes of the members, one each month. The advantages of this plan are several. First, with the club thus limited, the horses can be stabled and cared for during inclement weather of winter. Second, the wives need prepare but one meal in the year for the club; while with the large club it is necessary that each should contribute to a basket dinner for every meeting, which often causes as much trouble as to prepare the meal for the entire club once a year. Third, the attendance is sure to be more regular in the small club, and one condition of membership is that every member shall be present at each meeting unless providentially detained. Fourth, with a club of this size every member can take part in the discussion, and there will be less danger of a few “talkers” monopolizing the time. Fifth, the social features in the small club are very much better than in the large. Most of the clubs in Ohio and Indiana are organized on this basis, while in Michigan it is probable that most of the clubs have an unlimited membership. The objection is sometimes urged that the small club seems selfish, but as any twelve or even six families are at liberty to organize a club this objection is not valid.

As many farmers who would like to organize may not be able to find a form of constitution and by-laws, it seems proper to give one here.

Preamble.

Recognizing the fact that farmers need an opportunity to compare methods and to cultivate their social qualities, and considering that “As iron sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend,” in order that we may be mutually helpful to each other in matters relating to husbandry, home comfort, and economy, we do form ourselves into an association known as the —— Farmers’ Club [fill the blank with the name you wish to use for your club], and adopt for our government the following:—

Constitution.

Article 1. The officers shall be President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, and Librarian, who shall be elected annually in November, and assume their duties in January of the following year.

Article 2. The duties of these officers shall be such as pertain to the offices in other organizations and are indicated by the name of the office.

Article 3. The active members of this club shall be engaged in agricultural pursuits, but honorary members may be elected by unanimous vote. Honorary members are not obliged to attend all the meetings, but will be welcomed to any.

Article 4. Application for membership must be submitted at the meeting previous to their being balloted for, and members will be admitted on receiving a two-thirds vote by ballot; but the membership shall be limited to twelve families.

Article 5. Amendments may be made at any regular meeting by a two-thirds vote of the active members.

By-laws.

1. The club shall meet at the residence of one of the members on the third Thursday of each month, at ten o’clock, invitations to which shall be limited to the hostess of the day.

2. The club shall be called to order by the president, after an hour spent in social intercourse, and the order of exercises shall be as follows:—

a. Reading and approving minutes of last meeting.

b. Monthly record of current events.

c. Selections, recitations, essays.

d. Adjournment for dinner and social intercourse until two o’clock.

e. Discussion; so conducted as to avoid all questions of politics and theology.

f. Question drawer.

g. Miscellaneous business.

In order that the work of the club may be systematic and the time fully occupied, a programme covering the entire year is prepared and printed so as to be ready for distribution at the December meeting of each year. That the reader may understand the working of this plan, a few topics will be given, taken from the programme of the club of which the writer is a member:—

January.

The club will meet at the home of Mr. ........

Thursday, the 19th.

Selection ....................... Mrs. ........

Paper ........................... Mr. .........

Topic: A review of the previous year.

Each member will give in writing a statement of profits and losses for the year under the following heads:—

1. General crops grown and acreage and yield thereof. 2. What special crops have been raised. 3. Stock raised or handled. 4. What experiments have been made on the farm. 5. What losses of stock, or crops, and the cause thereof.

June.

The club will meet at the home of Mr. ........

Thursday, the 15th.

Selection ...................... Mrs. ........

Paper: “Hindrances to sheep raising and how to avoid them.” Mr. .........

Topic: The Farmer’s Barn.

1. Relative size to farm. 2. Location and ground plan. 3. Arrangement of stabling, feeding, and water conveniences. 4. Plan for saving manure.

Either a gentleman or a lady is appointed to open each topic, after which the subject is opened for question or discussion by any member of the club. During one month of the summer, usually July or August, a picnic takes the place of the regular meeting, at which a basket dinner is served.

Farmers’ institutes are, in the best sense of the word, a farmers’ school, and while it is less than twenty years since their first organization, nearly all of the States, at least in the North, are conducting them to a greater or less extent. As Ohio claims the honor of inaugurating this movement, and the writer is more familiar with the plan of organization and the work of institutes in that State than any other, some facts concerning them will be given. The first attempt to teach the farmers by lecture courses was made late in the seventies at the Ohio State Agricultural College, when a course of eighty lectures on subjects connected with farm interests were given, all of them by professors of the college. This first course occupied five weeks; and as it was found that but a limited number of farmers could be induced to leave their homes and care of their stock in the winter, and that the attendance was only about forty, the next two years the course was shortened in hopes that a larger attendance might result, but such was not the case. Then some one suggested, “If the farmers will not come to the lectures, why not take the lectures to the farmers?” and the outcome of this suggestion has been a wonderful success; the State holding three hundred institutes in the winter of 1897 and 1898, under a law providing a fund for that purpose, and over a hundred independent institutes in addition, by which is meant institutes in which the local organization pays its own expenses and chooses its own lecturers and subjects.

The work in most of our States is thoroughly organized, a fund provided to meet the expenses of the work, placed in some States under the charge of the Secretary of Agriculture, and in others in charge of a superintendent of institutes. The farmers have met this effort for their improvement with great enthusiasm, and the attendance is usually limited by the size of the hall provided. All partisan and sectarian questions are rigorously excluded from the discussions. A bulletin is issued in the fall, which gives the names of a large corps of lecturers and a list of subjects, and these are sent to the officers of the local organizations, from which they can select such topics as they wish discussed. Half of the time of each session is allotted to the state lecturers, while local talent is expected to fill the other half. The greatest possible freedom is allowed in asking questions and discussing the work of the speakers, and no other educational influence which has come to the farmer has equaled that offered by these meetings. At the close of each year the best papers and discussions are printed in a bulletin for free distribution among the farmers, and are given out at the meeting the ensuing year, or are mailed from the office of the Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture on application.

The Grange was organized at Washington, D. C., in 1807, but existed only on paper until January, 1873, when the first meeting of the National Grange convened at Georgetown, D. C., with delegates from ten States. It was started as a secret society, with a ritual and degrees, and seemed to catch the popular fancy among the farmers. At the meeting of the National Grange in 1874, thirty-two States were represented.

Probably no other organization has made so rapid a growth as this. A large element, however, of the membership was attracted to it by the rallying cry of “Down with the middleman!” and had little or no conception of its educational possibilities. Little country stores with very small capital, and managed by men with no business training, sprang up at every cross-road, which, contrary to the expectation of their founders, did not save money, but resulted in some valuable business education for which a good tuition fee was paid. The reaction which set in made it seem for a time as though the entire order would disintegrate; but fortunately there were wise leaders who had caught the true idea, that the organization must be kept on an educational basis to save it from extinction, and through their efforts it has become a power for good in most localities, and has been of great service to the farmers. County, state, and national societies have been organized, and no other large bodies of farmers can so quickly and thoroughly coöperate in measures pertaining to the interests of the farmer as those belonging to this order.

Another educational force of immense value to the farmers is found in the experiment stations, which are established in every State of the Union. This work was started by an act of Congress, approved March 2, 1887, and known as the “Hatch Act.” By this act the sum of $15,000 per annum was appropriated for each State in the Union, to be specially provided by Congress in the appropriations from year to year. In addition to this sum, most of the States have made large appropriations for the purchase of suitable grounds and the erection of buildings, and to cover the expense of printing the reports and pamphlets which are sent out free to the farmers who apply for them.

To go a little farther, the questions requiring investigation by the agricultural experiment stations may be divided into three principal groups, according as they are related to the soil, to the growth of crops and vegetation, or to domestic animals and their products.

I. The soil is studied—

(1) In its varieties, as found in different parts of the farm and of the State.

(2) In its physical properties, as affected by tillage, drainage, irrigation, etc.

(3) In its chemical properties, as related to the maintenance of fertility by the use of fertilizers and otherwise.

II. In vegetation and crop production some of the objects of study are:—

(1) Varieties, including the selection and dissemination of new sorts; the elimination of synonyms; the comparison of strains of varieties; the production of improved varieties, etc., etc.

(2) Vegetable pathology, including studies of rusts, smuts, blights, rots, mildews, etc.

(3) Control of injurious insects.

(4) Forestry, embracing the culture of forest trees for wind-breaks, for timber, for nuts and incidental products.

III. In the study of animals some of the problems are:—

(1) Breeds and their comparative values for different purposes.

(2) Foods and feeding, for growth, for meat, for milk and wool.

(3) The diseases of animals, especially those of contagious, epizootic, or parasitic nature.

The stations have done most valuable work along these different lines, and have contributed in a large measure to the introduction of improved varieties of cereals, forage crops, and fruits. In the case of wheat especially, there can be no doubt that the work of the stations has been a factor of great importance in producing large yields, by stimulating the farmers to a more careful comparison of varieties and of methods of culture.

A plan of purchasing and testing most of the so-called new varieties of fruits and grains has been followed by some of the stations, thus enabling the farmers and fruit growers to judge whether such varieties are likely to be superior to sorts already cultivated. It has been part of the work of the stations to expose fraudulent sales of fruit, stock, and fertilizers. Much other work has been and is being done, but the instances given show the value of the investigations made. As has already been stated under another heading, the officers of the experiment stations take an active part in the work of the institutes, and by the frequent issuing of bulletins and their annual reports convey valuable information to the farmer in every department of his work. In many States they have established reading courses for the study of Nature, which are conducted similarly to those in the Chautauqua courses.

In the same connection the work of the Bureau of Animal Industry should be noticed. Possibly no other organization of the government is doing so much to save farmers from loss through disease of stock and educating them to the same extent as this. The organization is made up of men of the highest scientific training, whose lives are devoted to the study of diseases of domestic animals and whose work extends to the testing of remedies, the inspection of meats, the study of foreign markets, and everything that pertains to the interest of the stock growers. No disease can break out in the herds of live stock in any part of the country without this bureau being at once notified of it, and trained officials are sent to study all the circumstances connected with it and to prevent, if possible, such disease from becoming epidemic. Some years ago, when contagious pleuro-pneumonia had secured a foothold in this country, the Bureau of Animal Industry set to work to stamp it out. The Old World was paralyzed by the enormity of the undertaking. Veterinarians in England and Continental Europe laughed at us and considered us fit subjects for lunatic asylums. “Hadn’t they always had it? It cost them millions of dollars annually in cattle, yet they had been unable to stamp it out, and most assuredly we could not do what European veterinarians could not.” They forgot that we were Yankees. It cost us many good hard dollars that were represented by large figures; but we stamped it out, and it has now been years since “Uncle Sam” officially declared the country free from it.

Another work which this bureau undertook was the regulation of vessels in which cattle were exported, and they reduced the losses so as to save from two to three million dollars annually in the insurance of export cattle. The greatest possible care is taken to disinfect vessels in which cattle have been shipped, and strict regulations are established regulating the size of stalls, ventilation, the number of cattle to be carried on any single vessel, and every point which has a bearing on the health and comfort of the animals.

It was not until after the Civil War that such a thing as an agricultural college was known in this country, but through the action of Congress very liberal appropriations were made, which in most States were supplemented by the action of the State Legislatures, and an agricultural college was started in every State of the Union. In the beginning there was much criticism, and without doubt many mistakes were made by those to whom the work was assigned; but now that a generation has passed, the farmers have come to understand better the objects of these schools, and scientific men have been trained to do the work; and these men have gone out into other departments, such as those already described, and have made possible the splendid achievements which have already been hinted at in what has been written. The teachers and officials of these colleges have been exceedingly friendly to everything that could help the farmers, and are in close touch with them; aiding in the work of local, state, and national organizations, and, in most States, carrying on the work of the experiment stations through their professors and graduates; and in many of them courses of lectures by practical farmers have been established. Without question they are becoming more and more helpful as the years go by, and their power for good is constantly increasing.

A SUMMING UP.

What has agriculture gained, or rather along what lines, in the century’s progress? A brief summary would seem a fitting close of this chapter:—

(1) The marvelous advance in methods and means of transportation, and the consequent opening of the markets of the world.

(2) The knowledge of the chemical constituents of the soil and its management in the line of maintaining fertility.

(3) The appliances to lighten labor and shorten processes in the production and harvesting of crops.

(4) Increased knowledge of plants, as to their growth and cultivation, their feeding qualities, and the combination of these qualities in feeding our domestic animals, by which we are able to reduce the cost of production through the early maturity of the animals and the maintaining of vigorous health.

(5) Increased knowledge of the value and power of organization and of agricultural literature in helping to a practical education for the duties of the farm.

(6) In an increase of home comforts and a higher ideal of living, and an appreciation of the fact that the work of the farm should be subservient to the life on the farm, as “The life is more than meat, and the body than raiment.”

(7) In no other country on the globe are there so many tillers of the soil who own their homes, and, as a consequence, there is no country where there is so much of patriotism. When Matthew Arnold visited the United States, nothing that he saw delighted him more than the beautiful farms, with their comfortable dwellings and outbuildings and the evidences of high cultivation and fertility. But one thing puzzled him, and that was the absence of tenant houses, and he asked, “Where do the men live who cultivate these farms?” When told that in most cases the farmers were their own tenants, he could scarcely express his astonishment.

Prince Kropotkin, of Russia, who has traveled in this country and paid particular attention to the condition of agriculture, says in his summing up: “American agriculture offers an imposing sight; not in the wheat fields of the far West, which will soon become a thing of the past, but by the development of rational agriculture and of the forces which promote it. Read the description of an agricultural exhibition in a small town in Iowa, with 70,000 farmers camping with their families in tents during the fair week, studying, learning, buying and selling, and enjoying life. You see a national fête, and you feel that you deal with a nation in which agriculture is held in respect. Or read the publications of the scores of experiment stations, whose reports are published by thousands and scattered broadcast over the country, and are read by the farmers and discussed at countless farmers’ meetings, and you will feel that American agriculture is a real force, imbued with life, which no longer fears mammoth farms, and needs not, like a child, cry for protection.”

The future of agriculture in this country seems safe, and no class of men can look the future in the face with more of confidence than those who till the soil.

PROGRESS IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

BY WALTER LORING WEBB, C.E.,

Assistant Prof. of Civil Engineering, University of Pennsylvania.

I. AN INTRODUCTORY VIEW.

If we broadly define civil engineering as the art of construction, then the birth of the art is as old as the emergence of man from savagery. The savage who hollows out a log of wood in order to construct a canoe has taken the first step in the art of shipbuilding; and when he has constructed a hut, however rude, to take the place, as an abode, of the cave hollowed out by nature, he has moved one step nearer to those triumphs of building construction which satisfy man’s necessities, comforts, and æsthetic desires. From this standpoint civil engineering is as old as the oldest of the arts and sciences. Not only is civil engineering an ancient art, but when the archæologist points to some of the masterpieces of building construction which have been literally hidden from view by the débris of centuries, and describes the old roads which the disintegrating forces of nature, working for centuries, have not been able to destroy, it is natural to assume that in many features the civil engineering of the present day is but a copy of ancient work, or, at least, that there has been comparatively little real progress. It may be claimed that bridges are very old, that canals, lighthouses, and roads antedate the Christian era, and that even the ancient Egyptians knew that the earth is round, and had made a rough computation of its diameter. But it will be shown that even in these cases there has been an enormous advance, not only in the character and magnitude of the work done, but also in another feature of civil engineering which is frequently overlooked, namely, the economy of labor and material. Civil engineering has been defined as the art of doing well with one dollar what any bungler can do somehow with two dollars. This definition, although very loose and one-sided, nevertheless contains a very important truth. If by improved methods a canal or a bridge can be constructed for one half to one third of what it would have cost by older methods, then the world has advanced, in that it may have two or three canals or bridges at the same cost of labor as would have been previously required for the construction of one. When we add to this a vast improvement in quality, an improvement that would have been previously impossible at any cost, the world’s advance is hardly measurable by any standard. It is a well-known fact that many engineering works, justly considered masterpieces at the time of their construction, could now be replaced by a much better structure for a comparatively small part of their original cost. This statement not only applies to very old constructions, but even to some of the great engineering works of the latter half of this century. Some of these reconstructions have actually occurred, as is illustrated in the Victoria tubular bridge at Montreal, or the Roebling suspension bridge at Niagara Falls,—described later. In fact, the progress in civil engineering during the nineteenth century is chiefly made up of the enormous advances which have been made during the latter half of the century. It should not be argued that these recent constructions are cheaper, because “everything is cheaper now.” The general scale of wages has advanced, and the total cost of construction is cheaper, only because improved methods of work have reduced the labor required to produce finished building material from the raw product and to erect that material into a structure. Therefore in considering in detail the construction of the great masterpieces of this century, we should not lose sight of the enormous advance in general methods of work, which has rendered it possible to have all of these structures which so minister to the prosperity of the world, at such a reduced cost in labor.

A complete discussion of the century’s progress in civil engineering would require a treatise on all modern practice as well as a description of nearly all of the great engineering masterpieces in existence, but the limitations of this article utterly preclude the possibility of even a short discussion of all the branches of the science, to say nothing of a detailed description of all of the examples. The following discussion will therefore be confined to those branches in which the advance has been most notable, even to the unscientific reader, the progress being illustrated by brief statements regarding the most typical constructions.

II. BRIDGES.

Not only is there evidence that bridges of the simplest forms have been used from prehistoric times, but the engineering world has been frequently surprised at the discovery, in semi-barbarous lands where there was evidently no scientific knowledge of bridge construction, of a bridge which, in its mechanical analysis, is a rude example of some one of the more complicated types now in use. But these bridges are always small, and are constructed with an utter disregard of that economy of construction which is one of the great triumphs of modern bridge engineering, being uselessly strong in some parts, considering their weakness in others. At the beginning of this century there was not a wrought-iron or steel bridge in existence. Disregarding stone arches for the present, all other bridges were made of wood—with the exception of a few bridges of cast iron, which were constructed during the latter part of the eighteenth century. But cast-iron is unsuitable for pieces requiring tensile strength; it is also difficult to cast very large pieces with any assurance of uniformity. The best existing examples of cast-iron bridges are, therefore, those of the arch type; but these are very heavy in proportion to their real strength, and would now be much more costly than, as well as inferior to, steel bridges of equal strength. Therefore the great advance in bridge work during this century consists in the development of steel bridge construction, and a brief description will be given of a few bridges which represent the chief types.

BROOKLYN BRIDGE.—The suspension bridge between New York and Brooklyn is the largest bridge of its kind in existence, and, until the construction of the “Forth” bridge, was the longest clear span ever built. Every one is so familiar with this stupendous structure that only a few statements will be made, which may give a better idea of the unprecedented problem which confronted the great engineer, John A. Roebling. When looking at the exceedingly graceful design of the towers, one is apt to forget that a large part of the structure of each tower is hidden from view. The bottom of the foundation of the pier, on the New York side, is 78 feet below mean high tide, and spreads over an area 172 feet long and 102 feet wide. The pressure exerted by the caisson on its base is about 114,000 tons, or 6½ tons per square foot. This great area, 354 feet below the parapet of the towers, is a surface consisting partly of bed-rock and partly of a material so compact that it was found, to be almost impossible to drive an iron bar into it. Down below the mud, below all danger of scour, far below the depth where the dreaded teredo navalis can destroy the timber in the caissons, these piers rest on an immovable foundation, and are an imperishable monument of man’s skill. The floor of the bridge is supported by four cables, each containing 6300 wires. Each wire is supposed to be subjected to a stress of about 570 pounds, and to have an ultimate strength of 3400 pounds. To say that each cable is pulled by a force of 3,591,000 pounds conveys but little real impression to the mind—as little as to say that it would require a pull of over 21,000,000 pounds to break it. And there are four such cables! The main span, including the weight of the cables, weighs about 5000 tons. Some interesting facts concerning the caissons under the piers of this bridge will be given under the heading of “Caissons.”

NIAGARA RAILWAY ARCH.—The railway suspension bridge, constructed by Mr. John A. Roebling across the Niagara gorge in 1853–55, was justly considered a monument to the skill of a great engineer, a monument of the world’s progress; and yet so rapid has been the advance in the art of bridge engineering, that this great structure is already a thing of the past, and has now been replaced by another bridge which better fulfills the increased requirements. It was not that Roebling’s bridge was an engineering failure, but that the large increase in the weight and length of trains now requires a much stronger bridge. There were several formidable conditions confronting the engineer who designed the steel arch which has now replaced the suspension bridge. For one thing, a heavy railroad traffic was using the old bridge. The interruption of railroad traffic for even a few day’s is a serious matter. Extend the time to several months, and the consequences are too serious for toleration. And thus it became necessary to so plan and construct the arch that both structures would occupy the same site, not interfere with each other, and not interfere with the running of trains. It is an amazing, almost inconceivable, triumph of constructive skill that this was accomplished so that “not a single train was delayed, and traffic on the highway floor was suspended only for about two hours each day, while the upper floor system was being put in.” The second rigid requirement was the necessity for constructing the arch without any “false works” underneath. Of course it was not practicable to suspend the various members of the arch during construction, from the old bridge, as it was not designed for such a load. Nor would it have been possible to plant false works in the deep and swift current of the Niagara River. And so it became necessary to make each half of the bridge self-supporting, as it hung out over the raging torrent a distance of about 275 feet from the abutments, until the two projecting arms could be joined in the centre. The illustration does not show the independence of the arch from the old bridge. If the old bridge had not been there (as was virtually the case, so far as support given by it is concerned), the independence of those arms reaching out over the river would have been more apparent. Add to all these rigorous conditions the marvelous fact that the erection of this great arch was begun on September 17, 1896, and that the bridge was tested on July 29, 1897 (only 315 days afterward), and we have here one of the greatest triumphs of engineering which could be imagined.

PECOS RIVER VIADUCT.—The original location of the Galveston, Harrisburg, and San Antonio Railway included a section of about 25 miles which was very difficult to operate, on account of its very heavy grades and sharp curvature. After some years of study and surveying, a line was found which would save 11.2 miles in distance, 378 feet of rise and fall, and 1933 degrees of curvature, besides being free from land slides which threatened the old line at many points. But the great economic advantages in the expenses of operating could only be obtained at the cost of an almost unprecedented structure,—a viaduct 2180 feet long, which should cross the Pecos River at an elevation of 320 feet 10½ inches above the water surface. There are two bridges in Europe which span very deep gorges by arches, which are higher above the water than this viaduct, but in such cases the depth of gorge is of no engineering importance. There is also a viaduct, for a narrow-gauge railway in Bolivia, 800 feet long and with a height of 336 feet from the rails to the water. But the Pecos viaduct is built to carry standard-gauge railway traffic over a valley nearly half a mile wide, and at such a height that a train moving over it appears diminutive. The stone towers in the illustration appear small, but they are constructed to a height of over 50 feet above the ordinary level of the water, to allow for possible floods. The longest “bents” have a height of 241 feet 0¾ inches. No “false works” were used in erecting the bridge. The “traveler,” shown in the illustration, had an arm 124 feet 6 inches long. After completing the construction on one side of the river (including one half of the “suspended” span immediately over the river), the traveler was taken apart, loaded on cars and transported by rail a distance of nearly 40 miles, in order to reach the other side of the valley. Then the construction was carried on as before, until the two halves of the suspended span met in the centre. The work of erection began November 3, 1891, and on February 20, 1892 (only 108 days later), the two halves of the suspended span were connected. A portion even of this time was lost by inclement weather and unavoidable delays. This light “spider-web” method of construction for crossing very high valleys was originated by American engineers, the first notable instance of it being the construction of the “Kinzua” viaduct, on the N. Y. L. E. & W. R. R., which has a length of 2050 feet and a height of 302 feet above the water—figures which are only slightly less than the above.

FORTH BRIDGE.—The next type of bridge to be considered has for its example the largest bridge in the world—the “cantilever” crossing the Firth of Forth, in Scotland. The economic design of bridges of this type, on the basis of the mechanical principles involved, is not only an achievement of this century, but of the latter part of the century. Nevertheless, we may find illustrations of the fundamental principle in the stone lintels in an Egyptian temple; in a rough wooden bridge erected by Indians in Canada, near the line of the Canadian Pacific Railroad; and in a bridge erected over two hundred years ago in Thibet, and discovered in 1783 by Lieutenant Davis, of the English embassy to the court of the Teshoo Lama. The principle of these bridges is very graphically shown by a photograph made at the time of the construction of the Forth bridge.

This bridge joins two sections of Scotland which had been previously separated by an arm of the sea, which could only be crossed by a tedious ferry. Even this ferry was frequently tied up by fog or by the strong gales which so often blow up the channel. The prevalence of heavy wind pressure demanded that special attention should be given to this feature, and the most elaborate tests ever made of the effect of wind on a bridge structure formed a part of the preliminary work. The estuary, for a distance of nearly fifty miles, is never less than two miles wide, except at this one place, where it is but little more than one mile wide, with the added advantage of having the island of Inchgarvie nearly in the centre of the channel. The channel on both sides is about two hundred feet deep, which would forbid the location of a pier at any place except on this island, which, being composed of basaltic trap rock, furnished a sufficient foundation at a comparatively slight depth below the surface. To secure the maximum rigidity consistent with economy in weight, the “vertical columns” of the towers were spaced 120 feet apart at the base, but only 33 feet apart at the top. The towers are 330 feet high. As shown in the illustration, the cross-sectional dimensions of the cantilevers diminish rapidly both in width and height, so that although the weight of the steel per running foot at the towers is 23 tons, it becomes only a little over two tons per foot at the centre. The structure is exceptionally rigid.

The picture of any gigantic structure, especially when well proportioned, utterly fails to give an adequate idea of the size of its component parts. It is difficult to realize from the illustration that the four tubular “vertical columns” on each main pier are twelve feet each in diameter at the base—large enough for “a coach and four” to drive into, if they were laid horizontally. Over 50,000 tons of steel were used in the main spans. The total cost of the whole structure was over £3,200,000 ($16,000,000).

STONE ARCHES.—The nineteenth century has but little to claim as to the development of stone arches. The mechanical theory of their stresses is perhaps better understood now than ever, and the largest masonry arch in existence (the Cabin John arch, having a span of 220 feet, carrying the Washington aqueduct over a creek) is a piece of American work of this century. But it should not be forgotten that more than five hundred years ago there was constructed at Trezzo, Italy, a granite arch of 251 feet span. This arch was unfortunately destroyed in 1427. One of the most remarkable arches in existence was designed and built by an “uneducated” stone-mason at Pont-y-Prydd, Wales, in 1750. A rigorous analysis of its strains—of which the designer probably knew nothing—shows that the “line of resistance” passes almost exactly through the centre of the arch ring. The most highly educated engineer of the present day could do no better. On the other hand, the development of the theory has been shown by the successful construction of an exceedingly bold design for a bridge on the Bourbonnais Railway, in France. The span is 124 feet, and the rise only 6.92 feet. The design was considered so very bold that a model of the arch was first constructed and tested before the design was finally adopted. The extension of the use of stone arches, especially those of very large size, is doubtless prevented by their excessive initial cost over the cost of a steel structure of equal span and strength. Since a stone arch is generally considered more beautiful than a steel bridge, the æsthetical element often demands the construction of stone arches in public parks in situations where a metal structure would be more economical. The great reduction in the cost of steel during the past few years, due to improved processes of manufacture, generally renders the cost of a steel bridge, even with a proper allowance for maintenance, repairs, and renewals, cheaper than a stone arch, unless the span is short.

III. CAISSONS.

The use of compressed air to keep back the water that would naturally flow through the soil into a deep excavation is a comparatively recent idea. In 1839 M. Triger, a French engineer, conceived the idea of sinking an iron cylinder through twenty metres of quicksand in the valley of the Loire River, in order to reach a valuable coal deposit which was known to be located beneath the river. A chamber with doors, such as is now called an air-lock, was constructed at the top of the cylinder. To pass into the cylinder the lower door, opening downward, was closed, and when the air in the chamber was at atmospheric pressure, the upper door, also opening downward, was opened. Upon entering the chamber the upper door was shut, and air was pumped in until the pressure equaled the pressure in the cylinder underneath, which was also the pressure necessary to keep back the water from the excavation. The lower door could then be opened and the working chamber entered. To pass out, the reverse process in inverse order was necessary. This was the first pneumatic caisson ever sunk, although such plans had been proposed and even patented in England several years before. The idea was essentially the present plan, but the process has been improved and enlarged. The required pressure is substantially that due to the weight of a column of water as high as the depth of the base of the caisson below the water surface. In the case of the St. Louis bridge, the bottom of the caisson was sunk to 109 feet 8½ inches below the water surface, which required an air pressure of about 47 pounds per square inch in the working chamber. Such a pressure is dangerous to those working in it. The men literally “live fast.” Great exertion is easily made, but is followed by corresponding exhaustion after leaving the caisson. Those having heart disease, or who have been debilitated by previous excesses, are liable to be seriously affected—generally by a form of paralysis which has been specifically named by physicians the “caisson disease.” At the St. Louis bridge, when working at the greatest depths, the men were only worked four hours per day, in two-hour shifts. Facilities were likewise provided to have them bathe, rest, and take hot coffee on coming out of the working chamber. Healthy men, who observed these and similar precautions, were not permanently affected by the work.

The caissons of the New York and Brooklyn suspension bridge are the largest ever constructed, and a bald account of some of the experiences encountered is fairly dramatic. Under such air pressures the flame of a candle will return when blown out, and so the danger of fire inside the wooden caissons became very serious. One evening a fire was discovered in one of the caissons, caused presumably by a workman holding a candle temporarily against the wooden roof while searching for his dinner pail. When discovered it was apparent that the fire had burned out a cavity in the solid timber roof, and the supply of compressed air was fast turning those timbers into a mass of living coal. Two pipes capable of throwing one and one half inch streams had been provided for this express contingency, and the two streams were turned on as quickly as possible. All night the fight went on. At 4 A. M., when the water was pouring out of the orifice of the cavity as fast as it was sent in by the hose, it seemed as if the cavity must have been thoroughly flooded and the fire out. To make sure of the absolute extinction of the fire, borings were made, which showed that the fire had worked its way along individual timbers, especially those which were “fat” with resin, and that the fourth roof course was still a mass of burning timber. It was then decided that the caisson must be flooded, which was done by pumping in 1,350,000 gallons of water. After flooding the caisson for two and one half days, it was pumped out and the work examined. It required the services of eighteen carpenters, working day and night for two months, to repair the damage caused by that fire.

When the Brooklyn caisson was twenty-five feet below the water level, the boulders encountered became so large that blasting became necessary. But blasting inside of a caisson was hitherto an untried experiment. It was feared that the men would be injured; that their ear-drums would break by a sudden explosion in that confined space under heavy air pressure; that a “blow out” might occur, i. e., that the compressed air might suddenly escape past the edges, and that an inflow of water would then drown the men. At first a pistol was fired, gradually using heavier charges; then a small blast was set off. Encouraged by their freedom from resulting complications, the blasts were gradually increased, until they finally used as heavy blasts as was desired, the men simply stepping into an adjoining chamber to avoid flying fragments; and an increase in the rate of progress was at once apparent, the caisson being lowered from twelve to eighteen inches, rather than only six inches, per week.

The caissons of the bridge across the Firth of Forth, Scotland, are examples of the great development of the caisson idea. The pneumatic caisson of Triger, in 1839, had but one air lock, through which must pass men, excavated material, and constructive material for linings, etc. This plan meant slow and expensive work. The caissons of the Brooklyn bridge were a vast improvement over this plan, both on the score of economy and safety. In the Forth bridge the caissons were made almost wholly of iron, thus avoiding the danger of the fire which so nearly wrecked the caisson of the Brooklyn bridge. The careless or premature opening of the doors of air locks, which once nearly caused a serious accident on the Brooklyn caisson, was rendered impossible by a very elaborate system of interlocking. The efficiency of the apparatus for removing excavated material from the compressed air chamber was also greatly increased. Electric lights were used instead of gas or candles.

“FREEZING PROCESS.”—This process is mentioned here on account of the analogy of its object to that of pneumatic caissons—sinking a shaft through excessively soft wet soil. The process is very recent, it having been invented by Dr. F. H. Poetsch, of Prussia, in 1883. It has been used only in a very few cases up to the present time, but where it has been used it has accomplished results which were practically unattainable by ordinary methods. A very brief description of one instance of its use will explain the general idea. For many years engineers had been baffled in their attempts to sink a shaft through 107 feet of quicksand at the Centrum mine, near Berlin, Germany. Dr. Poetsch sunk sixteen pipes in a circle around the proposed location of the shaft, and in thirty-three days had succeeded in producing a frozen circular wall six feet thick, within which the excavation was readily made and the shaft suitably lined. The freezing is accomplished by circulating a freezing liquid (chloride of calcium) through the tubes. After the shaft is completed the pipes can be thawed loose from the wall of ice by simply circulating a hot liquid instead of a cold one. The pipes can then be redrawn uninjured, and used over again—a consideration of no small advantage. The process is not cheap. It would seldom, if ever, be used where the more common methods are practicable; but for passing through very soft and wet soils it is frequently the only possible method.

IV. CANALS.

History records the construction of a ship canal across the Suez Isthmus as early as 600 B. C.; that it continued in use for about 1400 years and was then abandoned. It was very small; all traces of it are now utterly lost. The authentic records of it are very meagre, and they serve only to show the great antiquity of the canal idea. The nineteenth-century progress on this line, therefore, consists in the enormously greater magnitude of the works accomplished in the solution of the great subsidiary problems involved, and in the improvement in methods of work which has rendered these great structures possible. The limitations of this article utterly forbid even a brief description of all the great canals which have been constructed during this century, and it must therefore be confined to a few statements regarding the more important and typical constructions. It might be thought that no discussion of nineteenth-century canals would be complete without a mention of the Nicaragua and Panama canal projects. But these stupendous works, which will eclipse anything of the kind which the world has ever seen, are not yet accomplished facts. The twentieth century will be well under way before a trip “around the Horn” will become unnecessary. The successful completion of one of these canals will, very probably, so reduce the demand for the other that its construction will be indefinitely postponed. These canals will not be further considered.

SUEZ CANAL.—This great work permits a reduction of about 3750 miles in the length of a voyage from Western Europe to India. Compared with some of the other great canals of the world, its construction was easy. The total length between termini is about 101 statute miles, of which about nine miles required no excavation; sixteen miles more required only a slight excavation to make the channel of sufficient depth through existing dry depressions, called “lakes;” and the remaining seventy-six miles of excavation were cut chiefly through a soft alluvial soil. At only one point did the excavation reach fifty or sixty feet in depth, and here also was found the only instance of rock excavation. Even this rock (gypsum) was so soft that part of it was excavated by the steam shovels. About 80,000,000 cubic yards of material were removed. If this material had been loaded on to cars carrying twenty-five cubic yards per car, made up into trains of twenty cars per train, and the trains were strung along at the rate of five per mile, it would have required 32,000 miles of such trains to transport the material that was excavated. Work was actually begun in 1800. The Viceroy of Egypt originally agreed to furnish the laborers required, and at one time about 30,000 laborers were thus employed. On a change of administration in Egypt, the new Viceroy refused to furnish the native labor, and it then became necessary to import labor from Europe, and to supplement this insufficient and high-priced supply of labor by very large dredging machines, or steam shovels, of which about sixty were employed. The task of supplying water for the vast army of workmen was an engineering feat of no mean character and cost, as the entire route lies through an arid desert. A system of waterworks, having its source at Cairo, on the Nile, and distributing the water throughout the length of the canal, was therefore constructed. In the latter part of 1869, the waters of the Red and Mediterranean seas were joined, large arid depressions had been transformed into great lakes, and ocean-going vessels were sailing through what had been a desert. The canal is 26 feet deep, 72 feet wide at the bottom, the sides sloping variably, according to the nature of the material, the resulting width at the top varying from 190 to 328 feet. Although not deep enough for the very largest vessels afloat, it will accommodate the great bulk of ocean travel, including war vessels. The total cost of this work, including the breakwaters, lighthouses, etc., at each terminus, was, approximately, £20,000,000, or $100,000,000.

Unlike most canals, the Suez canal has no locks. The original plan of the Panama canal did not include locks, but the revised plan provided for them, in order to save excessive cutting. The Nicaragua canal scheme necessarily includes locks. The water for the Suez canal comes directly from the seas which are connected. A canal with locks necessarily requires an ample water supply from some river or fresh-water lake. If the Suez canal had been constructed at a higher level than the Mediterranean and Red seas, had been supplied with water from the Nile, and had, therefore, been constructed with suitable locks at each end (as was actually recommended by some engineers), the cost of construction, as well as the perpetual expense of maintenance, would have been greatly in excess of its actual cost. And so the fact that it was possible to construct the canal without locks, and without providing for a supply of water, was a great advantage that facilitated the promotion of the enterprise.

MANCHESTER CANAL.—This canal, having a total length of only thirty-five and one half miles, has transformed the city of Manchester, England, from an inland city to a seaport. Actual excavation was begun in November, 1887, and just six years afterwards the whole canal was filled with water. It has a depth of 26 feet, and a width at the bottom of from 120 to 170 feet, thus giving a greater capacity than the Suez canal or the proposed Panama canal. Some of the greatest difficulties involved arose from the necessity of providing for the existing canals and railroads with which that busy portion of England is so crowded. Perhaps the most interesting feat of engineering was the drawbridge carrying the Duke of Bridgewater’s canal at Barton. This small canal, having originally a depth of only four and one half feet, here crosses the River Irwell. It was justly considered a great feat of engineering when James Brindley constructed the canal, during the eighteenth century, so that it crossed the river on a viaduct. A waterway crossing a waterway on a viaduct was then a new idea. But this old canal was constructed considerably above the desired level of the Manchester canal, and yet, of course, not so high that a masted ship might pass under it. Therefore a draw became necessary. To add to the complication, the water supply of the small canal being somewhat limited, it was considered very undesirable to lose a troughful of water (roughly, 200,000 gallons) each time the draw was opened. To allow this water to flow into a tank and then pump it back would consume too much time, to say nothing of the expense. Therefore the bridge must swing with the trough full of water. That required gates at each end of the draw, as well as at the ends of the canal on each abutment. These gates were comparatively simple; but the difficult problem was to ensure a water-tight joint between the ends of the draw trough and the corresponding ends of the canal. Temperature changes, as well as many other considerations, would preclude the possibility of making even a fairly tight joint by swinging the draw to a close fit with the abutments. The desired result was accomplished by placing at each end of the draw a very short U-shaped structure, having the same cross section as the cross section of the trough, and having beveled ends fitting corresponding bevels on the ends of the trough. These beveled ends are faced with rubber. To open the draw the gates are closed, the water between the gates at each end (a comparatively small amount) is drained off and wasted, the U-shaped wedges are raised, and the draw is then free to turn. The wedges are operated by hydraulic rams.

CHICAGO DRAINAGE CANAL.—It will probably be a surprise to many people to learn that this “drainage” canal has a greater cross section throughout the “earth-work” sections than any ship canal in existence, and is only exceeded through the rock sections by the Manchester canal. The city of Chicago obtains its water supply from Lake Michigan. The “intake” pipe was at first located comparatively near the shore. As the population of the city grew and the volume of its sewage increased, it was observed that the water supply was becoming contaminated. The Chicago River, into which the sewage was emptied, became so foul that the odor was intolerable. The very evident fact of this odor probably had more to do with the promotion and accomplishment of the means of relief adopted than the far less evident but very dangerous pollution of the water supply. An extension of the intake pipe to a point several miles from shore by means of a tunnel (which was in itself a notable feat of engineering) only deferred the time when the water supply would again be fatally contaminated if the sewage continued to flow into the lake. It was accordingly determined to dispose of the sewage by discharging it into an artificial channel where it might become diluted with water from Lake Michigan, and thence pass from the watershed of the Great Lakes to the watershed of the Mississippi. The level of Lake Michigan is so high that there was no trouble about obtaining the requisite grade, and the divide between the watersheds is so low that the depth of the required cutting at the summit was not forbidding. But why have such a large canal? It was required that the sewage should be diluted, so as not to become offensive to the inhabitants of the region through which the canal must pass. The law under which the work was authorized required that the flow should be 600,000 cubic feet per minute, and that the minimum width at the bottom of the channel must be 160 feet. According to the well-known laws of hydraulics, it was seen that a deep canal would have a greater capacity per unit of excavation than a very wide shallow canal. This is especially true through the sections of deepest cut, since excavation above the water line adds nothing whatever to the capacity for flow. The sections adopted called for a depth of water of 22 feet. The side walls in rock are practically vertical, the width of channel being 160 feet at the bottom and 162 feet at the top. In earthwork the cross section is larger than in rock, thus reducing the velocity of flow and danger of scouring the banks. The width of channel at the bottom is 202 feet, the width at the water surface being 290 feet, and the side slopes 2 horizontal to 1 vertical.

A very expensive feature of this great work was the necessity for constructing a diversion channel for the Desplaines River throughout that portion of the river valley occupied by the canal. Lack of space forbids a further discussion of this feature. The canal drains into the Desplaines River at a point where the slope of the river is so great that there will never be danger that a strong west wind or an unusual lowering of the level of Lake Michigan can possibly cause the current to flow eastward.

Work on the canal was commenced only after many years of discussion, planning, legislation, litigation, and bitter opposition by the varied interests which considered themselves more or less injured. But the work was actually commenced in July, 1892. The estimated excavation was approximately 40,000,000 cubic yards—about one half that of the Suez canal; but the length is only 29 miles, compared with 101 miles for the Suez canal. The total cost was estimated at something over $27,000,000. On August 22, 1900, the Congressional River and Harbor Committee approved the work as far as completed.

V. GEODESY.

It may be that many, who have read of the incredulity of all Europe when the voyages of navigators during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries first demonstrated the sphericity of the earth, will be surprised to learn that this knowledge had been acquired almost two thousand years before, and had since then been forgotten. To Eratosthenes, a Grecian, belongs the honor of first making a measurement (about the year 230 B. C.) of the size of the earth, which, while very rude and inaccurate, used the same fundamental principle as is now employed by geodesists. But the appliances of those ancient Grecians and of the Arabians, who later carried on the work, were exceedingly crude. Even during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the French, English, and Dutch were working very hard on the problem, and were gradually obtaining results which came closer and closer to those now known to be correct, the appliances for measuring angles were so rough and inaccurate that it was only possible to assert that the earth is spherical, with a diameter of about 7900 miles. The seventeenth century was nearly past when Picard first used spider lines to determine the “line of collimation,” or the true line of sight, in a telescope. This marked a new era in methods of work, but the eighteenth century was about half gone when it was first authoritatively proven that the earth is not a sphere, but is more truly an “oblate spheroid,”—such a figure as would be obtained by flattening a sphere at the poles. Some idea of the accuracy of the work done, even at this stage, may be obtained by considering that the computed flattening is so slight that if we had a perfect reproduction of the earth, reduced to a diameter of 12 inches, the flattening would be less than 1/25 of an inch—almost imperceptible even to a trained eye. The very highest mountain would be considerably less than 1/100 of an inch in height on such a sphere.

The present marvelous state of the science is due to the great improvements which have been made in the construction and use of angle-measuring instruments and of “base bars;” also to the development of the mathematical theory and processes involved, notably that of the “method of least squares.” As an illustration of the accuracy attainable in the construction of theodolites, the writer recently made an elaborate test of the error of the centering of one of these angle-measuring instruments. Of course no direct measurement is possible. The result is based on a long series of observations, which, when combined according to certain mathematical principles, will give the desired result. The error was thus computed to be forty-two millionths of an inch. To realize what is meant when an angle is measured with a “probable error” of a few hundredths of a second of arc, it should be remembered that one second of arc on a circle 10 inches in diameter is less than 1/40000 of an inch. The accuracy which has been attained in the measurement of base lines is not easily realized by a layman. An engineer realizes the practical impossibility of measuring a line twice and obtaining precisely the same result to the finest unit of measurement. The initiated are therefore able to appreciate the achievement of measuring a base line having a length of over nine miles, with a “probable error” of less than one five-millionth of its length. The words “probable error,” as used above, have a scientifically exact meaning, but they may be taken by the uninitiated as representing a measure of the precision obtained.

At about the close of the last century the great mathematician, Laplace, had declared that the results of the surveys which had then been made were inconsistent with the theory that the form of the earth is exactly that of an oblate spheroid. That form would require that the equator and all parallels of latitude shall be true circles, and that all meridian sections shall be equal ellipses. Laplace showed that the discrepancies between the actual results obtained and the results which the theory would call for are too great to be considered as mere inaccuracies in the work done. With the extension, during this century, of the great geodetic surveys, carried on by the various governments of the world, more and more evidence has developed that the meridian sections of the earth are not equal, which is equivalent to saying that the equator is not a perfect circle. This has led to the next stage, which has been to prove that the form of the earth may be more closely represented by an “ellipsoid” than by a spheroid, that is, that every section of the earth is an ellipse. Several calculations have been made to determine the length and location of the principal axes of such a figure. But these calculations are considered unsatisfactory, because evidence has developed that the true form of the earth cannot be represented even by an ellipsoid. This figure is symmetrical above and below the equator. There are reasons for believing that the southern hemisphere of the earth is slightly larger than the northern, and that the form of the earth is more nearly that of an “ovaloid,”—a figure of which the ordinary hen’s egg is an exaggerated example.

All the above forms, the sphere, spheroid, ellipsoid, and ovaloid are geometrical forms which represent with more and more exactness the true form of the earth, but even this increasing exactness will not account for the discrepancies and irregularities which have been found at various places, and which cannot be explained on the ground of inaccurate work. Geodesists have been forced to the conclusion that the true form of the earth is not a regular geometrical form, but is a “geoid,” that is, like the earth and like nothing else, unless we admit the exaggerated comparison that it is “like a potato.” It should be understood that the words “form of the earth” do not refer to the actual surface of mountain, valley, or ocean bottom, but to the actual ocean surface, and to the surface which the free ocean would assume if it could penetrate into the heart of the continents. The astounding accuracy of the work done may be appreciated when we consider that the differences between the “geoid” and the more accurate mathematical forms are distances which should be measured in feet rather than in miles. For many purposes, it is sufficiently exact to consider the earth as a sphere. For some very precise work it is necessary to consider it as a spheroid. The more exact forms have little or no utilitarian value, and the vast amount of work that has been spent on these researches has been due to man’s thirst for knowledge as such,—due to the same enthusiasm which advances the sciences in fields which only broaden man’s knowledge of the world in which we live.

VI. RAILROADS.

The achievements of engineering skill on the line of bridges, canals, tunnels, etc., have been great, but their effect is insignificant compared with the social revolution that was created by the invention and development of railroads. The railroads of this country represent a value of about $12,000,000,000—one sixth of the national wealth. Their pay-rolls include about 850,000 employees—1/28 of the working population. They support, directly or indirectly, about 5,000,000 people. They collect an annual revenue of about $1,200,000,000, which is greater than the value of the combined products of gold, silver, iron, coal, and other minerals, wheat, rye, oats, barley, potatoes, and tobacco, produced by the entire nation. Such a stupendous social institution requires special discussion, and it will be found treated separately under the heading of “Evolution of the Railway.”

VII. TUNNELS.

Tunnels are of exceedingly ancient origin, if by tunnels we include all artificial underground excavations. From prehistoric times natural caves have been used as burial places, and, following this practice, tunnels and artificial rock chambers have been cut out by kings and rulers in Thebes, Nubia, and India during periods so ancient that we call the study of their history archæology. Nor were the ancient tunnels confined to tombs. The Babylonians constructed tunnels through material so soft that a lining of brick masonry had to be used to sustain the work. The Romans constructed a tunnel over three and one half miles long to drain the waters of Lake Fucino. About 30,000 laborers were occupied on this work for eleven years. The nineteenth century can hardly boast of works that represent a greater amount of labor (measured in mere days of work) than some of these ancient monuments of constructive skill, but the masterpieces of this century are works which have been greatly aided and even rendered possible by three modern inventions,—compressed-air drilling machines, modern explosives, and the compressed-air process used in subaqueous work. The advance in methods of tunnel surveying is as great and nearly as important. Progress in excavating tunnels is necessarily slow, because the working face is so small that only a few men can work there at a time, and the rate of advance depends upon them. As an illustration: although the Mont Cenis tunnel belongs to the latter half of this century, the first blast being made in 1857, yet for the first four years hand drilling was employed, when the average progress was about nine inches per day. Then machine drilling with compressed air was adopted, when the rate of advance was multiplied five times. The invention of compressed-air drills simultaneously solved two difficulties: (1) The compressed air furnishes an extremely convenient and safe form of power, which enables holes to be drilled much more rapidly than it is possible to drill them by hand. (2) The compressed air, after doing its work, is exhausted into the tunnel, and thus furnishes a continuous supply of fresh air. The necessity for ventilation has often required the construction and operation of expensive ventilating plants. Add to these improvements the lighting of the tunnel, even during construction, by electric lights which consume no oxygen, and the comparison between ancient and modern methods becomes especially marked. Before the invention of explosives, hard rock was sometimes broken by building wood fires next to the rock, and then, when the rock had become very hot, cooling it suddenly with water. The sudden contraction would split the rock. Ventilation was attempted by waving fans at the tunnel entrances. With torches and fires to consume the precious oxygen, and no effective ventilation, it is a wonder how those earlier tunnels were constructed. The compressed air methods for subaqueous work will be referred to under a special case. The essential principles have already been described under caissons.

TUNNEL SURVEYING.—The tunnel surveying developed during this century is one of the marvels of surveying work. If a tunnel is to be several miles in length, not only is the excavation commenced at each end, but one or more intermediate shafts are frequently sunk to the level of the tunnel, and excavation is extended in each direction from the shafts. It is extremely important that these sections of the tunnel should “meet” exactly. If they should fail to do so by any appreciable amount, the necessary modifications are frequently costly and therefore justify the most elaborate precautions in the surveying work, especially since the surveying costs much less than the consequences of such a blunder. The Hoosac tunnel is over 25,000 feet long. The heading from the east end met the heading from the central shaft at a point 11,274 feet from the east end and 1563 feet from the shaft. The error in alignment was five sixteenths of an inch, that of levels “a few hundredths,” error of distance “trifling.” The corrected alignment was then carried on toward the heading from the west end, which it met at a point 10,138 feet (nearly two miles) from the west end and 2056 feet from the shaft. Here the error of alignment was 9/16 of an inch and that of levels about 1-5/8 inches. The surveying work of the spiral tunnels on the St. Gothard Railway (to be described later) is another example of marvelously accurate work under peculiarly unfavorable circumstances.

ST. GOTHARD TUNNEL.—To appreciate the magnitude of the problem involved, of which this great tunnel is the crowning feature, some idea should be obtained of the Alpine topography lying between Silenen, in Switzerland, and Bodio, in Italy, less than forty miles apart. The idea of connecting Switzerland and Italy by a railroad passing over or through the Alps, by utilizing the St. Gothard Pass as far as possible, dates back to 1850, or even earlier. An enterprise of such magnitude could be consummated only after years of discussion, planning, surveying, negotiations, and even international agreements. In 1871 a treaty was finally ratified between Germany, Italy, and Switzerland, by which the construction and financiering was duly authorized. On August 7, 1872, the contract for the construction was signed, with a proviso that the work must be completed within eight years. On April 30, 1880, the advance headings met, and soon thereafter the mails were regularly carried through, although the tunnel was not actually completed in the specified time.

The route adopted was bold enough to stagger the financier, if not the engineer. Starting from Silenen, Switzerland, it required a climb of nearly 2000 feet to reach Göschenen, the adopted northern portal of the tunnel. This would require an average grade of 200 feet per mile in the ten miles of distance, or an actual grade of 370 feet per mile in the upper part of the line, if the river valley were followed. The line was therefore “developed,” that is, the distance was purposely increased by adopting an indirect line, in order that the grade might be less. It was found possible to run the line from Silenen to Pfaffensprung, a distance of about six miles, on the comparatively low grade of 137 feet per mile. At this point the line suddenly plunges into the mountain, and curves around in a circle, which is, roughly, 2000 feet in diameter, while it continues an upward grade of 121½ feet per mile. After traversing 4845 feet of such tunnel, the line again emerges into the open air, having turned nearly three fourths of a circle in the solid rock. About 2000 feet farther on the line actually crosses itself, the upper line there being 167½ feet higher than the lower line, which is at that point within the tunnel. By this device, which is called a spiral, the line is run at a practicable grade, and an elevation of 167½ feet is surmounted by introducing 6986 feet of “development.” Near the entrance of the Leggistein tunnel, the line is less than 500 feet away (horizontally) from a lower part of the line, which is about 350 feet lower in elevation. Space forbids a further description of this climb of 2000 feet to Göschenen, where the line plunges into the bowels of the earth, and does not again emerge until it has traversed nine and one quarter miles, and has reached the southern slope of the Alps. Even here the portal is 3755 feet above sea level, and the valley down to Bodio is steeper in places than the valley of the Reuss. Four spirals are used in descending about 2650 feet in an air line distance of less than 19 miles. In one place even the upper line, where it crosses the lower line, is in solid rock. Imagine standing in the gloom of a tunnel and considering that vertically beneath your feet—more than 100 feet further down in the bowels of the earth—there is another tunnel belonging to the same line of road. The great majority of tunnels are straight. A few have curves at one or both ends, but nowhere else in the world can be found such examples of spiral tunnels carved out of the living rock.

ST. CLAIR TUNNEL.—A glance at a map of lower Canada and Michigan will show that all the rail traffic of lower Canada, and even that from Montreal and Quebec, that passes as far west as Chicago, must either cross the Detroit River at Detroit or the St. Clair River, at or near Port Huron. Plans for bridging the river have been frequently made, but the Canadian government has steadily refused permission. The traffic along the river in 1896 amounted to over 35,000,000 tons, or more than was shipped at the ports of either New York, London, or Liverpool, and greatly in excess of that which passed through the Suez canal. Such traffic must not be impeded even by a drawbridge; and therefore a tunnel was the only alternative. The problem was in many respects unique. Borings showed that the tunnel must pass through clay and occasional pockets of quicksand, and therefore it would be necessary to employ a pneumatic method. Brunel had used a “shield” on the Thames tunnel half a century before; but all of the earlier tunnels constructed by this method were much smaller, and the difficulty and danger increase very rapidly as the size increases.

In 1886 the “St. Clair Tunnel Company,” virtually a creature of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, was organized, and in 1888 work was begun. After a false start, made by sinking shafts which were afterwards abandoned, open cuttings were commenced at each end, which were extended to points 6000 feet apart, between which the tunnel was excavated and lined. The circular lining, having an outside diameter of 21 feet, is of cast iron, made in segments which are bolted together, having strips of wood three sixteenths of an inch thick placed in the joints. Liquid asphalt was freely used as a preservative and to make tight joints. The tunnel was excavated for nearly 2000 feet on each side as an ordinary open tunnel until the excavation was actually under the river; then a diaphragm with air locks was built on each side, and that part of the tunnel lying under the river—2290 feet in length—was constructed under air pressure. Several curious facts were developed during the construction. The material excavated outside of the shields was thrown inside, loaded on to cars, and hauled by mules to the diaphragm. It was found that horses could not work in compressed air. Mules could do so, but even they were sometimes affected by “the bends,” a disease akin to paralysis, which frequently occurred among the men. The shields were forced forward by twenty-four hydraulic rams, each having a capacity of 125 tons, or 3000 tons for each shield. Usually a force of 1200 to 1500 tons was sufficient. Much gas was encountered, which, on account of its explosiveness, prevented the employment of blasting to break up the boulders which were frequently found. The advantages of electric lighting in compressed air work were exemplified in this tunnel. In August, 1890, about one year after the shields were placed on each side of the river, they met near the centre. The progress of each shield averaged nearly ten feet per day. Considering the frequency with which the cost of great engineering work exceeds the original estimate, it is remarkable to note that in this case the actual cost ($2,700,000) was less than the original estimate, which was about $3,000,000.

THE CENTURY’S PROGRESS IN THE ANIMAL WORLD

BY D. E. SALMON, M.D.,

Chief of Bureau of Animal Industry, U. S. Agricultural Department.

I. OF ANIMAL DISEASES.

The wars of Napoleon, which in the early years of the nineteenth century so seriously affected the governments and institutions of Europe, had an equally marked influence upon the development of the animal industry in the countries that were brought within the sphere of the military operations. This chapter of the history of that period appears to have been neglected by writers who have industriously delved into details of subjects of far less interest and importance. Enough has been chronicled by various historians, however, to show that in many cases those engaged in successful operations for improving the breeds of domesticated animals were forced to abandon the work to which they had devoted their lives, and for which long study and experience had specially fitted them, and to become units in the vast armies which were organized only to melt away in the bloody and disastrous campaigns of that epoch. But it was not the men alone that were taken. The best horses were seized for the use of the officers and the cavalry, for the artillery and the transportation trains. The sheep and swine were slaughtered for the subsistence of the armies, and the cattle were driven off for the same purpose. Neither the choicest flocks and herds nor the most magnificent individuals produced by the breeder’s art escaped. The fruits of many years of patient effort in selection and in guiding the forces of heredity were blotted out; the animals left were few and inferior. To crown all these disasters, the most deadly forms of contagion were gathered from their hiding places with the animals that were seized, the plagues which these caused were propagated among the vast aggregation of beasts that were required for the service of the armies, and, finally, they were disseminated throughout all sections to which these armies penetrated.

The agriculturists of Great Britain, thanks to the isolation due to the considerable expanse of water which separates their territory from the mainland, escaped not only the invasions of armed and destructive hosts, but also the pestilences which accompanied them. While, therefore, the farmers of the continent were struggling to save a few of their remaining animals from the ravages of glanders, rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease, pleuro-pneumonia, and other plagues, those of the British Isles were perfecting the work of their ancestors without molestation. These circumstances, lost sight of by many, explain to a certain extent the apparently marvelous success of the British husbandmen in developing so many breeds of horses, cattle, sheep, and swine to the wonderful perfection which we see at the end of the nineteenth century. The favorable climate, together with the abundant and nutritious herbage, have undoubtedly been factors in the production of the British breeds, but the power and opportunity to select the best animals and retain these for breeding purposes must also have had great influence.

The effect of contagious diseases in retarding the development of animal life may be appreciated from the estimate, carefully made, that in the closing years of the eighteenth century the cattle plague (rinderpest) alone destroyed in Europe two hundred million head of cattle, valued at seven billions of dollars. During the first half of the nineteenth century, cattle plague, pleuro-pneumonia, and foot-and-mouth disease were particularly disastrous to the animal industry of the Continent of Europe, and unquestionably, also, throughout Asia, which appears to have been the original habitat of these plagues. During the last third of this century the development of veterinary science, together with the enactment of sanitary legislation and the enforcement of intelligent measures of repression, have practically eradicated the cattle plague from the countries of Europe, and we have only to note, as important, its invasion of Great Britain in 1865, which led to the adoption of the present most excellent sanitary organization, and the extensive outbreak on the continent following the Franco-Prussian war. During the last six years this plague has swept over large sections of the African continent, destroying nearly every bovine animal in the regions first invaded, and had it not been for the fortunate and timely discovery of a successful method of preventive inoculation, the cattle industry would have been absolutely annihilated.

Pleuro-pneumonia, almost equally destructive with cattle plague and much more persistent, was widely disseminated over the continent of Europe during the seventeenth century, and reached England about 1840. Many years were lost in futile contentions over the subject of contagion, and it was not until the last twenty years that vigorous measures for its extermination were enforced. In the meantime the contagion had been carried to Australia and South Africa, where it has since remained domiciled, a constant source of loss to the cattle growers. The losses from this disease in Europe are now comparatively unimportant, but in the countries of Asia and Africa, and in Australia, it is still a great incubus. Foot-and-mouth disease, less fatal in its effects than the other maladies mentioned, appears to be more difficult to control, and, in the closing years of the century, we find it prevailing extensively over the principal countries of Continental Europe.

The diseases which have most seriously affected the development of other species of animals are the glanders of horses, the variola of sheep (sheep-pox), and the three diseases of swine known in Europe as erysipelas, swine pest, and swine plague. These have been extremely prevalent and fatal in many parts of Europe. Glanders, swine pest, and swine plague have been brought to the American continent, and have been even more destructive here than in their ancient habitat.

The diseases which at present are regarded as most serious attracted but little attention at the beginning of the century, or were unknown. Tuberculosis has now become the great scourge of dairy cows and other highly bred cattle, ruining many of the best herds and threatening the health of the consumers of milk, if not also of beef. Texas fever, a disease of cattle first studied in the United States, but now known to be widely disseminated over the South American, African, and Australian continents, has during late years retarded operations for improving and increasing the stock of cattle, and has seriously restricted the marketing of animals from the infected districts.

This brief summary relative to contagious diseases and their effects is all the attention that can be given in this article to conditions which through all historic times have been important, and, in many cases, have been supreme in their influence upon the tendencies and development of the animal population. As the twentieth century approaches, however, the influence of the animal plagues is on the wane, and with a few more years of active scientific investigations they will all be so thoroughly controlled that the disastrous visitations of the past can never be repeated, and they will not even be a hindrance or menace to the stock grower.

II. INCREASE IN NUMBERS.

As might be expected, there has been an increase in the numbers of the domesticated animals held in the various countries of the world, but this increase has been far from uniform, and cannot be measured either by the growth of the population or the degree of prosperity. Evidently the density of population, the development of manufactures, and the fertility of the soil have had much influence.

In the United Kingdom there were 1,500,000 horses in 1800, and but 2,000,000 in 1898. During this time the cattle had increased from 5,000,000 to 11,000,000; the sheep from 25,000,000 to 31,000,000; and the swine from 3,000,000 to 3,700,000. Thus, while the cattle doubled in numbers during the century, the horses increased but one third, the sheep one fourth, and the swine one fourth. As in the same period the population of the country was augmented from 16,200,000 to 40,000,000, or two and one half times, it is not difficult to see why England has become the world’s greatest market for animals and animal products.

It is important to note the increase in animals in a few of the principal countries of Europe. In France there were 1,800,000 horses at the beginning of the century, and there were 3,418,000 in 1896. The cattle increased from 6,000,000 to 13,334,000; the swine from 4,500,000 to 6,400,000; the goats from 800,000 to 1,500,000; while the sheep decreased from 30,000,000 to 21,200,000. That is, in round numbers, the horses, cattle, and goats doubled, the swine increased nearly 50 per cent, but the sheep were diminished one fourth. The population advanced from 27,350,000 to 38,500,000, or about 40 per cent.

In Germany, from 1828 to 1892, the horses increased from 2,500,000 to 3,836,000; the cattle from 9,770,000 to 17,500,000; the goats from 700,000 to 3,000,000; the swine from 4,500,000 to 12,174,000; and the sheep decreased from 17,300,000 to 13,600,000. The population increased during the same time from 29,700,000 to 49,500,000.

In European Russia, from 1828 to 1888, the horses were increased from 12,000,000 to 20,000,000; the cattle from 19,000,000 to 23,840,000; the sheep from 36,000,000 to 47,500,000; while the swine decreased from 15,800,000 to 9,200,000. The population during this period increased from 45,000,000 to 90,000,000.

These are the countries in which there is most interest on account of their influence upon the markets of the world. In regard to Europe as a whole, owing to the lack of statistics, we can only estimate approximately as to the condition at the beginning of the century. From such data as are available it appears that there were about 20,600,000 horses, 61,800,000 cattle, 157,500,000 sheep, and 36,600,000 swine. The population of Europe at that time is placed at 175,000,000. In the year 1900 there will be in Europe not far from 44,250,000 horses, 108,000,000 cattle, 180,575,000 sheep, and 56,800,000 swine. The population will reach about 380,000,000.

From these figures it would appear that, taking all of Europe, the human population has increased more rapidly than have any of these species of domesticated animals. In other words, the population is 2.17 times what it was at the beginning of the century, while there are but 2.14 times as many horses, 1.75 times as many cattle, 1.55 times as many swine, and 1.14 times as many sheep.

This growing deficiency in the stock of animals, coupled with an increasing consumption of meat per capita, has led to the importation of great numbers of animals and large quantities of meats and other animal products. The resulting trade has stimulated the production of animals in other parts of the world, particularly in the United States of America, Australia, and Argentina, in all of which there has been a marvelous development.

There are no reliable statistics as to the number of animals in the United States at the beginning of the century. Some have estimated that there were only 300,000 horses, 600,000 cattle, and 600,000 sheep; but the writer is of the opinion that there were from 500,000 to 1,000,000 horses, at least 3,000,000 head of cattle, and from 2,000,000 to 3,000,000 sheep. In 1840, with a population of 17,063,000, there were 4,300,000 horses, 14,900,000 cattle, 19,300,000 sheep, and 26,300,000 swine; while in 1899 the number is placed at 15,800,000 horses and mules, 44,000,000 cattle, 39,000,000 sheep, and 38,600,000 swine.

In 1888 the horses of Canada numbered 1,100,000, the cattle 3,790,000, the sheep 2,600,000, and the swine 1,205,000. In the same year Mexico was credited with 2,000,000 horses, 3,000,000 cattle, 2,000,000 sheep, and 5,000,000 goats. Taking the whole of North America, and making allowances for the increase since 1888 in Canada and Mexico, it may be fairly assumed that at the close of the century there will be about 19,000,000 horses and mules, 55,000,000 cattle, 50,000,000 sheep, and 40,000,000 swine.

In South America, Argentina far outstrips all other countries in animal production. The horses, which in 1864 numbered 3,875,000, had increased by 1895 to 4,447,000; the cattle increased in the same period from 10,215,000 to 21,702,000; the sheep, from 23,110,000 to 74,380,000. The population in 1895 was only 3,964,000. In Uruguay there were, in 1895, 402,348 horses, 5,248,000 cattle, and 14,333,000 sheep. In Paraguay there were, in 1896, 246,000 horses and 2,100,000 cattle. The last returns from Chili (1882?) give 450,000 horses, 1,530,000 cattle, and 2,500,000 sheep. As to the condition in Brazil, we have no reliable statistics.

The animal industries of Australasia have shown the most wonderful development during the century. In 1800, there were but 200 horses, 1040 cattle, and 6100 sheep. In 1810, there were 1130 horses, 12,440 cattle, 25,900 sheep, and 9540 swine. In 1896, there were 1,923,554 horses, 12,701,600 cattle, 110,524,000 sheep, and 1,000,000 swine.

In Asia there are large numbers of animals, but it is impossible to give statistics, except for British India, where, in 1895, there were 1,152,000 horses, 49,000,000 cattle, and 17,200,000 sheep.

Mr. Simonds endeavored to ascertain the number of each class of live stock in the world in 1890, and his conclusions may be accepted as approximately correct. He placed the total number of horses in all countries at 63,469,000, the asses and mules at 10,318,000, the cattle at 309,807,000, the sheep at 588,935,000, the swine at 102,526,000, and the goats at 59,971,000.

III. IMPROVEMENT OF BREEDS OF ANIMALS.

The increased number of animals now held in various parts of the world does not give an adequate idea of the enlarged production of animal food products, as compared with one hundred years ago. During the last century there has been constant improvement in the various breeds of animals, with a view to perfect their form and shorten the time required for their growth. The breeder has learned how to stimulate development, and has fixed the quality of early maturity, through hereditary influence, until it is now transmitted with the same regularity as are other characteristics.

Cattle are no longer fed until they are three or four years old before being sent to the butcher, and it has been found that they can be made to yield an equal quantity of beef of better quality at eighteen months to two years. It is the flesh of such young animals which has been much discussed under the title of “baby beef.” Not only is this beef commended on account of its tenderness, its high nutritive value, and the more even distribution of fat through the muscular tissue, but because this shortening of the feeding period enables the farmer to produce a greatly increased quantity of human food from the same number of acres. That is, by reducing the age at which bullocks are marketed from three and one half years, as was formerly the rule, to twenty months, it is possible for the same farm to produce one third more animals in a given series of years.

It may be admitted that not all of the stock of beef-producing animals, nor even the greater part of it, has acquired this extreme degree of early maturity, but most of it has developed somewhat in this direction. The large-boned, gaunt, and long-horned cattle of Texas have nearly disappeared, and even in Mexico they are being rapidly replaced by others of better quality. The most important fact is that breeds exist which can be depended upon for the speedy transformation of the entire stock of cattle when the necessity arises.

A similar hastening of maturing has been accomplished with the mutton breeds of sheep, with numerous varieties of swine, and to a considerable extent with poultry.

The development of the dairy breeds of cattle has also been remarkable. It can be best appreciated by contrasting the half wild cows of our Western plains, which yield but two or three quarts of milk a day at their best, and none for half of the year, with the highly specialized types which produce twenty to thirty quarts daily when in full flow, and with which the milk secretion continues from year to year without interruption.

The yield of butter has been increased equally with that of milk, and among the dairy breeds there are some which are specially valued because of their aptitude for butter production. While the unimproved cow yields but one fourth to one half pound of butter a day, good specimens of the best breeds produce from one and one half to three pounds, and in numerous instances still greater quantities.

In the production of wool there has also been a wonderful advance. The fibre has been increased in length, the fleece has been distributed more uniformly over the surface of the body, and the quality of the fibre has been modified to conform to the requirements for manufacturing the infinite varieties of fabrics demanded by modern civilization. The fleece of to-day is probably three times as heavy as that of a century ago.

The improvement in the Merino type has been truly wonderful. Not only have the beautiful long and silky wools of the Rambouillet and Saxony breeds been developed by persistent selection, but the body of the Merino, formerly small and almost useless for its flesh, has been brought to a standard closely approaching that of the best mutton breeds.

It is unfortunate that the changes of fashion have, during the latter part of the century, made the production of the extra fine wools less profitable than the coarse varieties, and that, as a consequence, many flocks which had been bred to the very highest degree of perfection in this direction have gone to the shambles, and their peculiar points of excellence have been lost.

With poultry, a vast number of varieties and strains have been developed, among which the most fastidious taste may readily find its ideal. Some of these have been perfected from the standpoint of utility, while with others the guiding principle has been purely æsthetic. Thus there are breeds which are characterized by their size, rapid growth, and excellence of flesh; others which have been developed simply as egg-producing machines and which have even lost the maternal instinct for incubation; and still others in which the beauty, the complication, and the perfection of the feathering constitute the principal claims to attention.

The standard weights of the heavy varieties, such as Brahmas and Cochins, is now 11 lbs. to 12 lbs. for cocks, and 8½ lbs. to 9½ lbs. for hens. In the United States, there has been developed a distinct American class of medium weight fowls, of which the Plymouth Rocks and Wyandottes are the most popular varieties. The cocks of these varieties weigh from 8½ lbs. to 9½ lbs., and the hens 6½ lbs. to 7½ lbs. They are valued both for their flesh and for egg production. The rapid multiplication of varieties by modern breeders is illustrated by the Wyandottes, which came into existence during the last third of the century, and of which there are now five distinct varieties: the Silver, Golden, White, Buff, and Black.

The breeder’s art has been most successfully brought to bear in stimulating the function of egg production. Not many years ago, an average yield of 125 to 150 eggs annually from the hens of even a small flock was considered all that it was possible to obtain, but at present there are varieties which may be relied upon to produce more than 200 eggs annually. In some instances, it is alleged that an average of nearly 300 eggs a year has been reached in small flocks which have been given special care.

It should not be forgotten that there has also been great improvement in the various breeds of horses. The heavy draught horses have been bred into a more compact form, with better legs and feet and less sluggish disposition. The most noticeable advance has, however, been in the lighter grades of horses, and this has largely been accomplished by infusing the blood of the English thoroughbred. The French, by systematically breeding the heavy mares of the country to thoroughbred stallions with careful selection of the offspring, produced an extremely valuable breed of carriage-horses, known there as the demi-sang, and which have been imported into the United States as French coach-horses. These animals, beautiful in form and action, have been brought to a high degree of perfection, and the breed is so well established that its good qualities are reliably transmitted from generation to generation.

There are also German coach-horses and similar breeds in several other countries, which have been established by following the same general plan as that adopted by the French. These breeds are peculiarly the product of the nineteenth century, and are in their most valuable condition as the century closes.

The American trotting horse has without doubt been one of the most remarkable triumphs of the breeder’s art which the century has seen. Originating in considerable obscurity, but undoubtedly owing much of its excellence to the thoroughbred, the trotter was born with the century, and has continually increased its speed until the very end. It now gives promise of continuing its evolution through at least a considerable part of the twentieth century. In the decade from 1800 to 1810, the best recorded speed at this gait was 2:59; from 1810 to 1820, the time was lowered to 2:48½; from 1830 to 1840, it reached 2:31½; from 1840 to 1850, the limit was 2:28; from 1850 to 1860, 2:19¼; from 1860 to 1870, 2:17¼; from 1870 to 1880, 2:12¾; from 1880 to 1890, 2:08¾; and from 1890 to 1898, 2:03¾.

This extraordinary and constantly progressing increase in speed during the century has excited the interest and admiration of the world. It is, however, quite generally admitted that too much attention has been given to speed and not enough to disposition, size, conformation, and soundness, to bring the animals to their highest value for other than racing purposes.

Owing to the relatively small extent of agricultural territory and the great development of manufactures, Great Britain has become the best market in the world for animals and animal products. The purchases of cattle, sheep, beef, and mutton have been particularly large. Considering, first, the importations of cattle, it is found that during the five years from 1861 to 1865 inclusive, the average number was 174,177; from 1866 to 1870, the average was 194,947; from 1871 to 1875, 215,990; from 1876 to 1880, 272,745; from 1881 to 1885, 387,282; from 1886 to 1890, 438,098; from 1891 to 1895, 448,139; and for the two years 1896 and 1897, 590,437.

This unparalleled growth in the consumption of foreign cattle has had a marked influence in encouraging the development of the cattle industry of some other parts of the world, particularly in the United States, Canada, and Argentina. The export trade of the United States has developed even more rapidly than the import trade of Great Britain. In 1871 this traffic was in its infancy, and but 20,530 head of cattle were exported, valued at $400,000. By 1879 the number had increased to 136,720, valued at $8,300,000. Then came the British restrictions prohibiting American cattle from leaving the docks where landed, and requiring their slaughter on these docks within ten days from their arrival. These regulations were a rude shock to the American cattle grower, and led to measures here for the control and eradication of the cattle diseases which were cited by the English authorities as the cause of their unfavorable action.

Although the pleuro-pneumonia, about which most apprehension was expressed, has long since been extirpated, and an elaborate inspection service has been organized to prevent any affected animals from leaving our shores, the restrictions have been continued. Fortunately, the trade was only temporarily embarrassed, and has continued its growth notwithstanding this obstruction. In 1889 these exports first exceeded 200,000, and the following year reached 394,836. Since that time the number has fluctuated between 287,000 and 392,000, until 1898, when it reached the enormous aggregate of 439,255, valued at $37,800,000. Not quite all of these cattle have gone to Great Britain, but that has been the destination of by far the greater part.

The exports of sheep have varied widely, according to the fluctuations of the markets at home and abroad. From 1870 to 1873 the number varied from 39,000 to 66,000; from 1874 to 1889, it varied from 110,000 to 337,000. In 1890 the exports were but 67,500; in 1891, 60,900; in 1892, 46,900; and in 1893, 37,200. Beginning with 1894, the exports of sheep again increased, reaching in that year 132,000; in 1895 they were 405,000; and in 1896, 491,000. In 1897 there was a decrease to 244,000, and in 1898 a further decrease to 200,000, valued at $1,213,000.

The export trade in horses and mules was inconsiderable, varying from 2000 to 8000 a year until 1895, when 14,000 horses and 4800 mules were shipped to foreign ports. This trade increased in 1896 to 25,126 horses and 6534 mules, together valued at about $4,000,000. In 1897 a further increase was made to 39,532 horses and 7753 mules, the value being $5,400,000. And, finally, in 1898 there were exported the largest number ever sent from this country, amounting to 51,150 horses and 6996 mules, valued at $6,691,000.

Swine are not exported in very large numbers, as they do not stand shipping well. The largest number sent abroad was 158,581, in 1874, the value of which was $1,625,837. In 1897 and 1898 there were only 16,800 exported each year. Very few of these cross the ocean.

This resumé of the development of the international traffic in live animals and the status of the animal industry would not be complete without some reference to the markets for animal products. The quantity of foreign meat consumed in Great Britain is most remarkable. The imports of fresh beef, which from 1861 to 1865 averaged but 15,772 cwts., had increased in the years 1891 to 1895 to an average of 2,020,668 cwts., and in 1897 exceeded 3,000,000 cwts. The proportion of this supplied by the United States is indicated by the returns for 1896, giving a total of 2,659,700 cwts. of imported beef, of which this country furnished 2,074,644 cwts.

Great Britain also imported 3,193,276 cwts. of fresh mutton in 1897, more than nine tenths of it being frozen carcasses from Argentina and Australasia. Of fresh and salted pork, the United States supplied 4,183,800 cwts. out of a total of 6,563,688 cwts. The principal other animal products imported by that country are, 1,750,000 cwts. of lard, 276,458 cwts. of rabbits, and 1,683,810,000 eggs.

The continent of Europe consumes considerable quantities of lard and salted pork, which are largely furnished by the United States, notwithstanding the unfavorable attitude of the governments towards such traffic and the existence of many annoying and injurious regulations. Fresh meats from America have been practically excluded.

The British markets for dairy products and wool have also had considerable influence upon the prosperity of the animal industries in various parts of the world. The rapidly increasing demand for dairy products is worthy of attention. In 1877 there were imported into the United Kingdom 1,637,403 cwts. of butter and margarine. In 1897 the imports had been raised to 3,217,801 cwts. of butter and 936,543 cwts. of margarine, or a total of 4,154,344 cwts., being two and one half times the quantity imported in 1877.

The quantity of cheese imported in 1877 was 1,653,920 cwts., and had increased to 2,603,608 cwts. in 1897.

The country supplying the largest quantity of butter in 1896 was Denmark, with France second, Sweden third, Holland fourth, and Australasia fifth. Nearly all of the margarine came from Holland. The largest quantity of cheese came from Canada, the United States being second, with less than half the quantity furnished by her neighbor to the north, and Holland third.

The quantity of wool imported by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, United States, and other consuming countries, increased from 200,000 tons, in the decade 1821–1830, to 3,300,000 tons in 1871–1880. This wool came principally from Australia, River Plate, South Africa, Russia, and Spain.

The excess of imports of wool into the United Kingdom over the exports were, in 1892, 312,217,111 lbs., and in 1896, 383,845,450 lbs. Of the total quantity imported by the United Kingdom in 1896, the United States supplied but 4,500,000 lbs., while Australasia furnished 477,600,000 lbs.; Cape of Good Hope, 70,000,000 lbs.; British East Indies, 43,000,000 lbs.; Natal, 21,000,000 lbs.; France, 20,000,000 lbs.; Turkey, 16,500,000 lbs.; and Belgium, 11,400,000 lbs.

The tendency of the last decade of the nineteenth century has been to displace horses and adopt mechanical motors. The great increase of steam railroads, cable cars, electric cars, bicycles, and automobile vehicles has so reduced the demand for these animals that their value has decreased over fifty per cent. While there is still a good market for horses suitable for carriage use, for drays, for army service, and for agricultural purposes, buyers are becoming more critical and the future is uncertain. As it is five or six years after a breeding establishment is started before any of the horses produced can be placed upon the market, the effect of this uncertainty is to discourage would-be horse breeders and influence them toward other enterprises.

The end of the century also finds the sheep industry in a depressed condition on account of over-production. The vast quantities of wool grown in Australasia and South Africa have clogged the markets to such an extent that Australian wool in the London market has dropped from 15d. per pound in 1877 to 8¼d. in 1897, and South African wool from 15¾d. to 7½d. during the same period. Other wools have fallen in about the same proportion. Although sheep are raised for the production of mutton as well as wool, and the tendency in the United States has been towards the breeding of mutton sheep, the value of these animals has been reduced about one half.

There have been periods of depression with the cattle and swine industries, but prices have been well sustained. The European markets are yearly requiring larger supplies, and the stock of beef-producing cattle in the United States, in proportion to the population, is rapidly diminishing. The decreased number is in a slight degree counterbalanced by earlier maturity; but when due allowance is made for this, it is plain that the United States has not the surplus of beef which it boasted a few years ago. At the same time, our meat trade in the markets of the world is threatened with more serious competition from South America, Australasia, and even Russia.

The century closes in a period of wonderful achievements in the extension of transportation facilities and in the education of the masses in all parts of the world. The producer in South America, Africa, and Australasia keeps abreast with the most enlightened stock-growers of Europe and America in his knowledge of the best breeds, the most economical methods of feeding, and the most desirable handling of his products. There is no animal product so perishable but that it can now be sent from the antipodes to London in good condition. All of this has brought surprising changes in the traffic between different countries and in the modification of industries to meet new conditions. The producers of the most distant parts of the world are aggressively entering our nearest markets. Competition is becoming more intense, and commercial rivalry is assuming more the appearance of warfare than heretofore. The nations of the world are actively engaged in assisting their people in this struggle. They diffuse information as to the best and most economical methods of production, they seek out new markets, they subsidize transportation lines, they assist in the introduction of new kinds of goods, they sustain their subjects in the most aggressive practices, they exclude the products of competing countries by tariffs and hostile sentiment, by discriminations, by unpacking, delaying, or damaging goods, under the pretext of inspection, and by burdensome charges and regulations. Some countries have gone so far as to absolutely prohibit competing products for comprehensive but indefinite sanitary reasons.

The outcome of this commercial warfare cannot be foreseen. The struggle has been, and is, fiercest over the international traffic in animals and animal products. The greatest forces of the world are to-day contending as to what the future shall be. The United States has only recently begun to realize that it also must take part in this commercial struggle, if it would retain markets for its products and secure prosperity for its people. Its trade has been unjustly prohibited and discriminated against, its merchants have been unfairly treated and insulted, and its protests have been treated with ill-disguised contempt. Notwithstanding all these efforts at repression, American trade has gone on increasing at an amazing rate, the forbearance of the government having been far overbalanced by the energy of the people. Having grown to be one of the greatest powers of the world, with magnificent resources yet undeveloped, the United States will no doubt maintain its position and continue to supply the markets of the world with the best animals, the best meats, and probably with the best dairy products.

LEADING WARS OF THE CENTURY

BY MAJOR GENERAL JOSEPH WHEELER, U. S. ARMY.

I. WARS OF THE UNITED STATES.

The progress of the nineteenth century, in everything that pertains to civilization, arts, and sciences, has been greater than the total progress in any decade of centuries in the history of the world, and this is equally true in regard to the art and science of WAR; for the expenditure of blood and treasure in the prosecution of the wars and the fighting of the battles of this century far exceeds that of any other like period.

The first year of the nineteenth century dawned upon the United States at peace with the world. In September, 1800, Napoleon, finding that he could not coerce the young nation into “an entangling alliance,” and fearing lest the United States should join England in opposing him, found it his best policy to conclude a peace. The brilliant achievements of the newly organized navy, under Commodore Truxton, not only illuminated these early pages of our history, but established a prestige never yet forfeited; for the history of this branch of our service is unparalleled from the first effort, during the Revolution, of Esek Hopkins, to that of George Dewey at Manila, and Sampson and Schley at Santiago.

WAR WITH BARBARY STATES.—In 1803 the United States determined to end the piracy of the Barbary States, and an expedition under Commodore Preble was sent to the Mediterranean. The Philadelphia, while pursuing a pirate, was grounded off the coast of Tripoli, and captured by the Tripolitans, who made slaves of the crew and prisoners of the officers. In February, 1804, Captain Decatur, with seventy-six men from his ship, the Intrepid, boarded the Philadelphia, killed or drove off the Moors, fired the vessel, and returned without the loss of a man, although fiercely attacked by the shore batteries. In July, Commodore Preble, with his squadron, laid siege to Tripoli, but his bombardment was ineffective. General Eaton, consul to Tunis, induced Hamet, the brother of Yusef, who had usurped the sovereignty of Tripoli, to furnish him a troop of Arab cavalry and a company of Greeks. With these, and a band of Tripolitan rebels and a force of American sailors, he crossed the Barcan Desert, stormed and captured Derne, an eastern seaport of Yusef. The latter was glad to make peace, and a treaty was signed June 4, 1805.

INDIAN WARS.—From 1809 to 1811 fighting with the Indians in the South and Northwest was constant. General Harrison and the celebrated Indian chief Tecumseh were the principal actors.

WAR OF 1812.—The contest between England and France for the dominion of the seas was the cause of the war of 1812. England declared the German and French coast to be in a state of blockade. Napoleon, in 1806, made the same declaration regarding British ports. In 1807, England prohibited trade with the coast of France. American commerce was injured and almost destroyed by the combined action of the two powers. Four years were consumed in negotiations, with constant aggressions on the part of England, and on June 19, 1812, Congress declared war. The great error of the campaign was the attempted invasion of Canada. Had the war been made entirely upon the seas, an early peace might have ensued.

The war began on the Lakes, and, repulsed in the effort to make a stand on the Canada shore, and falling back, Hull surrendered Detroit, August 5. Again, at Queenstown, October 13, the Americans were defeated with the loss of a thousand men. Altogether the first year of the war was a disastrous one on land.

At sea, the navy, consisting of not more than a half-dozen frigates, with its magnificently disciplined officers, had been eminently successful. On August 13, the Essex, Captain Porter, captured the British sloop Alert; on August 19, Captain Hull, commanding the Constitution, destroyed the Guerriere off the Gulf of St. Lawrence; October 18, the Wasp, Captain Jones, captured the Frolic, but later in the day both the Frolic and the Wasp fell into the hands of the British ship Poictiers. October 25, Captain Decatur, with the frigate United States, captured the Macedonian off the Azores; on December 29, after a desperate fight in the South Atlantic, Captain Bainbridge, commanding the Constitution, defeated the British ship Java.

The campaign of 1813 opened on the Canadian frontier with the several divisions in command of Generals Harrison, Dearborn, and Hampton. On June 8, General Winchester, with eight hundred Kentuckians, drove the British and Indians, under Proctor, from Frenchtown, on the River Raisin, but returning with a force of fifteen hundred, they obliged Winchester to surrender, which he only consented to do under Proctor’s promise to protect the Americans from the Indians; which promise Proctor treacherously disregarded, and marched away, leaving the sick and wounded Kentuckians to be massacred. Henceforth the Kentucky war cry was, “Remember the River Raisin,” and many were the British and Indians who had cause to dread that slogan. May 5, General Harrison, reinforced by General Green Clay and his Kentucky troops, repulsed the British and their dusky allies under Tecumseh. July 21, they returned four thousand strong, but were again repulsed.

The Americans, by wonderful exertion and hard work, built and equipped, at Erie, a squadron of nine ships with fifty-five guns, the command of which was given to Commodore Perry. September 10, Perry won his grand victory on Lake Erie, over the English squadron of six ships and sixty-three guns. This was the turning point of the war, and Perry’s name goes down to posterity with the immortal names that never die. On October 5, General Harrison, conveyed by Perry’s ships, landed his forces in Canada and completely destroyed Proctor’s army, Tecumseh being among the slain. So ended the war in the Northwest.

In the meantime, General Dearborn was fighting with varying success in Upper Canada. Jackson, in the South, was avenging the Fort Mimms massacre, finally crushing the Creeks early in the next year. The British, under the odious Admiral Cochrane, plundered and ravaged and burned everything in reach, from Lewistown to the Carolina coast, seizing the negroes and selling them in the West Indies. During this year the American navy continued to be successful, meeting few losses, though the fighting was even more desperate.

July 5, 1814, the Americans defeated the British at Chippewa; and on the 25th was fought the battle of Lundy’s Lane, where Generals Brown and Scott were wounded. In this desperate battle, eight hundred men were lost on either side; and though the battle was undecisive, it had the effect of a victory for the Americans. August 14, five thousand troops, under General Ross, were landed on the Patuxent, and, defeating General Winder, who made a stand with a handful of men near Bladensburg, proceeded to the city of Washington. After burning the capitol and White House, and other buildings, they hastily withdrew. The attempt to take Baltimore proved abortive, and on September 14 the British reëmbarked. It was at this time that Key wrote the “Star Spangled Banner.” August 15, the enemy were repulsed at Fort Erie with the loss of one thousand men, and a month later were finally driven back. The whole British squadron on Lake Champlain surrendered to Commodore MacDonough after a terrific fight for several hours, on September 17, and on the same day the British army of twelve thousand was forced to retreat from Plattsburg by General Macomb’s force of forty-five hundred.

In Florida the Spaniards had allowed, if not encouraged, the English to use their territory to fit out expeditions against the United States. Jackson, with two thousand men, took possession of Pensacola on the 7th of November, driving out the British.

December the 28th the British opened fire on New Orleans; again, on January 1, 1815; and on January 8 Packenham, with twelve thousand men, made his supreme effort. Jackson’s force was now about six thousand. The British were driven to their ships after losing two thousand killed and wounded, their general being among the slain. The American loss was seven killed and six wounded. The war was kept up on the ocean until March, the last capture being that of the British brig Penguin by the American sloop-of-war Hornet, in the South Atlantic.

The treaty of Ghent had been signed on the 24th of September, 1814, and the news of the glorious victory at New Orleans reached Washington simultaneously with that of the signing of the treaty. The war had been so distasteful to the people of New England that Massachusetts and Connecticut had passed laws directly antagonistic to those of the United States, and hostilities between the Federal and State governments were feared, which, perhaps, were only averted by the ending of the war. The issues leading to the war of 1812 were left unsettled by the treaty, but England never again attempted to interfere with American shipping.

SECOND WAR WITH BARBARY STATES.—Immediately on the close of the war of 1812, the Algerians, supposing that the American navy was badly crippled, began again their depredations on American commerce. Commodore Decatur was sent to the Mediterranean with a squadron, and once more gave them an American drubbing. June 17, 1815, he destroyed two Algerine vessels; June 28, in front of the city of Algiers, he demanded the release of all American prisoners, indemnification for all property destroyed, and a relinquishment of all claims for tribute from the United States. The Dey quickly assented to the terms, and signed a treaty of peace. Tunis, Tripoli, and Morocco were likewise brought to terms, the United States thus taking the lead of all the other powers in its determination to break up the piracy of the Barbary States.

MEXICAN WAR.—The Republic of Texas became, by its own request and by Act of Congress, one of the United States July 4, 1845. Mexico prepared for war; the United States took measures to protect the new State. March 8, 1846, General Zachary Taylor marched with fifteen hundred men to a point on the Rio Grande opposite Matamoras, where he erected Fort Brown.

To the secretary of war, William L. Marcy, and to General Winfield Scott was due the plan of campaign, the battles of which, like instantaneous flashes of victory from the beginning of the war until its close, illumine the pages of American history. Then, as now, Congress was slow to respond to the needs of the military branch of the government.

April 24, 1846, hostilities began. General Taylor advanced into Mexico and, May 8, won the brilliant victory of Palo Alto, and again, the next day, the battle of Resaca de la Palma. Taylor’s force was less than one third the number of the enemy, whose loss was one thousand. These two battles crushed the flower of Santa Anna’s army. Taylor returned to the relief of Fort Brown, where the brave garrison had sustained a cannonade for 168 hours. September 24, Monterey and its garrison of nine thousand men were taken by General Taylor with six thousand.

February 23, 1847, Taylor gained the glorious victory of Buena Vista, in which the Mexican loss was 2000, the American, 714. At times the Mexicans were within a few yards of Bragg’s guns. “A little more grape, Captain Bragg,” was Taylor’s celebrated order, the execution of which decided the day. The American loss was severe in officers. Taylor’s force, depleted by more than two thirds, which had been sent to reinforce General Scott, was barely forty-five hundred; the Mexican troops numbered twenty thousand. Captain Fremont, assisted by Commodores Sloat and Stockton, had subjugated California; General Kearney and Colonel Doniphan, Northern Mexico. Doniphan defeated the Mexicans at Bracito, December 25, 1846, and at Sacramento, February 8, 1847, and took possession of Chihuahua, a city of forty thousand inhabitants, and marched to join General Wool at Saltillo, March 22.

Early in January, 1847, General Scott reached the mouth of the Rio Grande, where he awaited the eight thousand troops sent by General Taylor. This raised his force to twelve thousand. These were landed at Sacrificios. The Americans debarked just below Vera Cruz between sunset and ten o’clock on the night of March 8 without a single accident. With wonderful skill the investiture of Vera Cruz and the castle of St. John de Ulloa was completed. On March 22 the Governor of Vera Cruz was summoned to surrender. Day and night the mortar batteries played upon the city, the fleet ably assisting; and on the 29th the stars and stripes floated above the walls of city and fortress. The Americans lost but two officers and a few soldiers. April 18, the magnificent victory at Cerro Gordo, where three thousand Mexicans were captured, was won; April 19, Jalapa was taken; April 22, Pecote, the strongest of Mexican forts, was captured; and May 15, Puebla surrendered to General Worth. Ten thousand prisoners, seven hundred cannon, ten thousand stands of arms, and thirty thousand shot and shells were captured within two months. When the army entered Puebla it numbered but forty-five hundred.

Reinforcements reaching him, Scott set out from Puebla to the valley of Mexico on August 7. August 20, the heights of Contreras were assailed and taken, and the battle of Churubusco—with nine thousand Americans against thirty thousand Mexicans—was fought and won. September 8, Molino del Rey was taken; September 13, the heights of Chapultepec. The Mexicans fled from the capital, and the victorious American army marched in and took possession of the city, September 14, 1847. Here Scott and his noble warriors rested until the treaty was concluded at Guadalupe Hidalgo, February 2, 1848, and peace was proclaimed, July 4, by President Polk. Guadalupe Hidalgo, New Mexico, and California were ceded to the United States, $15,000,000 paid to Mexico, and the debts due from Mexico to American citizens were assumed by the United States.

THE CIVIL WAR.—It is not here the place to rehearse or to discuss the causes which led to America’s Civil War, a war perhaps the most stupendous recorded in history. Looking backward, after the bloody foot-prints have been well nigh obliterated by the growth of a generation, we can see that the trend of human progress, the political problems confronting the federated States, in the solution of which were evolved elements of discord, the inherited antagonism between the Puritans of the North and the Cavaliers of the South, all combined to make the conflict inevitable. For more than a decade of years grievances had been growing and rumblings were heard, like the imprisoned fires beneath the surface of the earth, until the election of Abraham Lincoln as President, pledged to a policy believed to be inimical to the South, caused the outburst of the volcano, whose fierce fires and molten lava for four years spread desolation over the land.

Time and milder judgment have very nearly smoothed away the wrinkles of discord, and the close of the century finds the nation a reunited people, whose new compact is written in the life-blood of her sons on the battlefields of the recent war with Spain.

December 20, 1860, South Carolina; January 9, 1861, Mississippi; January 10, Florida; January 11, Alabama; January 18, Georgia; January 23, Louisiana, and February 1, Texas, one by one asserted their supposed right to withdraw from the federal compact, and enacted ordinances of secession in their several state conventions. Each State, as it took action, claimed and possessed itself of all government property, forts, guns, ammunition, within its borders, and armed its militia for garrison duty. A convention of delegates from the seceded States, held February 4, 1861, at Montgomery, Alabama, organized a new federation, to be known as the Confederate States of America, chose Jefferson Davis President and Alexander Stephens Vice-President, and set the whole machinery of a provisional government in working order. July 20, Richmond became the capital of the Southern Confederacy. Virginia seceded April 17; Arkansas, May 6; North Carolina, May 20, and Tennessee, June 8. Kentucky declared neutrality.

Lincoln, upon assuming the executive chair, March 4, 1861, found the treasury depleted, the army of only sixteen thousand men scattered in the West, and many of its best officers already with the Confederacy. The navy had been sadly neglected by Congress, partly because this branch of the service had been steadily antagonized by the West, so that at the beginning of the war, both as to vessels and armament, it was by no means in a condition for active service. As in the army, some of its most valuable officers had espoused the cause of their native States, and the South Atlantic and Gulf ports, being in possession of the new federation, left the United States vessels no place of refuge. With unlimited means at command, the Union navy increased the number of its vessels to 588—75 of them ironclads—with 4443 guns and 30,000 men, before the end of 1862. Torpedoes and steel rams were first used during this war, and monitors, just invented, were used by the United States. With a nucleus of 10 vessels, around which to build its navy, the Confederacy had, by November, raised the number to 34. Until the blockade became effective, “cotton was king;” for, in October, 1861, the Nashville, running out with a heavy consignment, brought back into Charleston in exchange a cargo worth $3,000,000. Vessel after vessel was bought from English shipbuilders, among them the celebrated Alabama, which, in the fourteen months of her service, captured sixty-nine prizes, and destroyed ten million dollars’ worth of merchandise. The armored ram Stonewall was bought in France.

April 12, 1861, Fort Sumter, in Charleston harbor, was forced to surrender to the Confederates, and the first shot at the old flag ushered in the long, bitter struggle.

Troops were called for by Lincoln. Lieutenant-General Scott, the veteran hero of Mexico, was in command of the army. In three months, three hundred thousand men were in the field. One hundred thousand had swarmed to the Confederate ranks. General McClellan was sent to the front and, after the resignation of Scott in the latter part of the year, was made commander of the army.

July 21, the battle of Bull Run was fought. The Union troops were disastrously routed and retreated in confusion to Washington. The army did little more during this year.

April 21, after setting fire to and destroying the Navy Yard and ships, Norfolk was evacuated by the Union forces. The frigate Merrimac, which had been sunk, was raised by the Confederates, plated with iron, renamed “Virginia,” and became the scourge of the shipping off the Virginia coast.

The navy, as is usual, and because of its very organization, got in its effective work much earlier than did the army, and the seizure of the forts and ports on the coast of the seceded States began at once. Fort Hatteras was taken August 29; Port Royal, in South Carolina, November 7. November 7 a naval officer, by overhauling an English mail steamer and taking off Messrs. Mason and Slidell, who had been appointed commissioners of the Confederate States to France and England, very nearly caused a complication with the latter power. Mr. Seward’s diplomacy settled the incident amicably, and the commissioners were allowed to proceed upon their mission, which, however, proved futile. By the close of the year, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, at first doubtful, were securely in the Union, though many of their citizens were in the Southern army.

1862.—February 6, General Grant, commanding the army of the Tennessee, with the assistance of Commodore Foote and his gunboats, captured Fort Henry, on the Tennessee River, and, on the 16th, Fort Donelson on the Cumberland. The Federal forces had reached the number of four hundred and fifty thousand, of which McClellan had two hundred thousand.

May 23, at Front Royal, and May 25, at Winchester, “Stonewall” Jackson defeated the Union troops and forced them across the Potomac. Banks, Fremont, and McDowell, concentrating their forces, bore down on Jackson, who slipped through their lines, and, on June 9, defeated Shields at Fort Republic.

The cry of the Northern press was, “On to Richmond,” and McClellan endeavored to obey the command. He had arrived not far from the city, between the York and James rivers, when he was defeated in the bloody battle of Seven Pines, May 31 and June 1. The Confederate General Johnston was wounded, and General Lee was assigned to the command of the army of Northern Virginia, which he retained until the end.

The Seven Days’ battles, from June 25 to July 1, were fought at fearful cost to the Confederates; nevertheless, “it was a glorious victory,” and the siege of Richmond was raised. Lee advanced toward Washington, met the armies of Banks and Pope, and defeated them in the second battle of Bull Run, August 29 and 30, and at Chantilly, September 1 and 2, forcing Pope’s army to retreat to Washington. The clamor in the South had been, “On to Washington.” Lee crossed the Potomac at Harper’s Ferry and took twelve thousand prisoners. McClellan, who had been recalled, met the Confederates at Sharpsburg (Antietam), September 17, and fought a battle with undecisive results. Each side lost about ten thousand men, and Lee returned.

The Union army under Burnside, who had superseded McClellan, met a fearful repulse at Fredericksburg, December 13, with a loss of fourteen thousand. The Confederate loss was five thousand.

December 31, January 1 and 2, was fought the terrible battle of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, where Bragg’s force was 35,000, and his loss in killed, wounded, and missing, 10,466. Rosecrans’s force was 43,400, and his loss 12,595.

March 8, the Virginia attacked the Union fleet at Fortress Monroe and destroyed the Cumberland and the Congress. The next day, the Monitor attacked the Virginia, and, after five hours’ fighting, succeeded in disabling her so that she returned to Norfolk. The Virginia was destroyed by the Confederates before evacuating Norfolk, May 10.

Admiral Farragut, with a fleet of 45 vessels, entered the Mississippi and bombarded the forts of St. Philip and Jackson. Despising the fear of mines and torpedoes, he continued on his course, defeating the Confederate fleet, and, together with General Butler, entered New Orleans April 25. During this year the navy, with the assistance of land forces, had retaken all important ports on the Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia coasts, seriously interfering with the blockade running, upon which the Confederacy depended for its foreign supplies. The year 1862 closed with no advantage having been gained on either side.

1863.—On January 1, Lincoln issued the threatened Emancipation Proclamation. This destroyed the last hope of the Confederacy for recognition by England. No event of importance occurred before the middle of spring, when Hooker, who had relieved Burnside, made another advance upon Richmond, and was routed by Lee and Jackson at Chancellorsville, May 2, and on the 5th was forced across the Rapidan with a loss of seventeen thousand. The Confederate loss was less than five thousand. In Jackson’s death the Confederacy received a blow, the consequences of which may never be estimated.

Lee’s army again crossed the Potomac for an invasion of the North. The Union forces, under Meade, marched in an almost parallel line with Lee’s through Maryland into Pennsylvania. They met and fought at Gettysburg, July 1, 2, and 3, one of the decisive battles of the world’s history. Lee was forced to again retire beyond the river. The Union could well afford the loss of twenty-three thousand men, but Lee’s loss of twenty thousand of the choice troops of his army was irreparable.

In the meantime, Grant had been sent to open the Mississippi, and after a six weeks’ siege, on July 4, Vicksburg, with nearly thirty thousand prisoners and vast quantities of stores, fell into his hands. These two almost simultaneous victories greatly encouraged the North, and formed the turning point in the history of the war. July 9, Banks’s victory at Port Hudson accomplished the desired possession of the Mississippi River.

Bragg, who had been sorely pressed by Rosecrans, made a stand at Chickamauga, defeating the Union General Rosecrans, September 19 and 20, and forcing him to retreat to Chattanooga, where he was besieged by Bragg. Grant, with Sherman, coming to his aid, the battles of Lookout Mountain and Missionary Ridge were fought, November 23 and 25, and Bragg was driven back into Georgia.

The Federal navy was gradually taking possession of the whole coast, and Charleston was tightly blockaded. In March the Confederate ship Nashville was sunk in the entrance of the Savannah River.

During this year both governments were forced to resort to conscription. Lincoln ordered a draft, and, in July, a three days’ riot in consequence prevailed in New York, during which two million dollars’ worth of property was destroyed.

1864.—In March, Grant was put in command of the whole Union army, the grade of lieutenant-general having been revived in his behalf. He left Sherman in command, repaired to Washington, and, May 3, started on the third campaign against Richmond, with a force of one hundred and forty thousand. Sherman, with one hundred thousand, was to march to Atlanta. The whole strength of the Union army at this time was about seven hundred thousand. Grant had spent some weeks in formulating his plans of campaigns, from the main features of which he never deviated. The Union had at last found the man, and at the same time had acquired the wisdom to leave the conduct of the war to his judgment; proving, also, that “there is no war on record that has not given its man to the world or shaped the destiny of some other.”

Crossing the Rapidan, Grant encountered the Confederates, and the fighting, on the 5th, 6th, and 7th, of the battles of the Wilderness, was terrific, but the result undecisive. At Spottsylvania he fought from the 8th to the 18th with fearful loss. June 1, he was repulsed at Cold Harbor, and again on the 3d, and fighting, more or less desultory, continued in that vicinity until the 12th. Since the opening of the campaign, the Union army had lost sixty thousand men; the Confederate thirty thousand. Grant moved on Petersburg and began the siege which lasted from June until the next April. The western part of Virginia had seceded from the eastern portion, and, June 20, was admitted into the United States.

To divert Grant, and, if possible, to raise the siege of Petersburg, in July, Lee sent General Early to threaten Washington and Baltimore, which he accomplished without, however, affecting Grant’s position. Returning laden with spoils, Early turned, and driving back the Federal troops invaded Pennsylvania, burning Chambersburg, and came back again bringing vast quantities of supplies. Sheridan was sent to dispose of Early and to ravage the valley. At Winchester, he met and defeated Early in a very severe fight on October 20, almost destroying the force under that general’s command. Sherman set out for Chattanooga on May 7, marching towards Atlanta. At Dalton he met General Johnston’s army of fifty thousand men. Johnston’s masterly retreat from Dalton to Atlanta is unrivaled in military history. He made a stand from May 25 to June 4 at Dallas, but, being outflanked, was obliged to fall back. The next stand was made at Great Kenesaw, on June 22, when he repulsed the Federals. On the 27th, Sherman made a powerful assault, but was again repulsed with a loss of four thousand, Johnston’s loss being four hundred; but, again outflanked. Johnston was forced across the Chattahoochie, and July 10 found the Confederate army entrenched in Atlanta.

Johnston’s retreating tactics caused the people to clamor for a “fighting leader,” and Davis, in transferring the command from Johnston at such a crucial time, committed a grave error. Johnston was superseded by General Hood, whose chief ambition was to fight, which, in this case, was a great mistake in judgment. On the 20th, 22d, and 28th of July, Hood assaulted the lines of the besiegers, only to be repulsed again and again. In these fights more men were lost than during Johnston’s long, skillful retreat. An injudicious movement by Hood separated his command, obliging him to evacuate Atlanta, of which Sherman, on September 2, took possession. In its advance on Atlanta, the Union army had lost thirty thousand men. Hood saved his army and made his way towards Nashville, hoping to divert Sherman from Georgia. At Franklin, November 30, he met General Schofield, and drove him back to Nashville, from whence General Thomas made a sortie, and fell upon Hood’s troops, December 15, completely routing them. In the two fights, Hood lost in killed, wounded, and captured over eleven thousand. With the remnant he escaped into Alabama, and these finally reached Johnston, participated in his last fight with Sherman, and were surrendered at Raleigh with the troops of their old commander.

November 14, Sherman burned Atlanta, cut all telegraph lines and began his “March to the Sea,” ravaging, devastating, and utterly destroying everything in his reach. He was opposed by the Confederate cavalry, which successfully defended the cities of Macon and Augusta, upon which the Confederacy mainly depended for the manufacture of munitions of war. Sherman entered Savannah on December 22, the advance having cost him only 567 men killed and wounded.

On June 19, the celebrated sea fight between the Kearsarge and the Alabama took place off Cherbourg, France. The Alabama was sunk after a five hours’ fight. Admiral Semmes was rescued by the Deerhound, belonging to an English gentleman, and thus saved from capture. August 5, Commodore Farragut, overcoming the Confederate ram Tennessee and the gunboats, sailed into Mobile Bay, commanding his fleet from the maintop of his flagship.

1865.—The opening of the campaign of 1865 found Grant’s army still before Petersburg. On April 2, he ordered an attack along his whole line, which had been so lengthened that the lines of Lee’s depleted army were very thin. The Confederates were driven back with heavy loss. Lee telegraphed to Davis: “My lines are broken in three places; we can hold Petersburg no longer. Richmond must be evacuated this evening.” That night Admiral Semmes, in obedience to orders, destroyed the Confederate fleet in the James River. Richmond was in the possession of the Union forces the next day, and on April 4 Lincoln held a reception in Davis’s vacated mansion. Lee attempted to break through Grant’s lines at Appomattox, but closely pursued by Sheridan, and finding further retreat impossible, he surrendered with about twenty-six thousand men on the 9th of April.

Grant’s magnanimous terms were worthy of his fame. The troops were paroled on condition of promise not to take up arms until exchanged. The officers were permitted to keep baggage and side arms, and all were to retain their horses, as, Grant said, “they would be needed in the crops.”

Turning northward from Savannah, Sherman continued his march and reached Fayetteville, North Carolina. Wilmington had been captured early in the year by a land and naval force. Johnston had been reinforced by the garrison which had been forced to evacuate Charleston and the remnant of Hood’s army, and had several severe fights, with no decisive results, with Sherman, who entered Raleigh; and here, on April 26, Johnston’s army surrendered on the same terms given by Grant.

December 31 and January 1 Fort Fisher was captured, and on January 12 Wilmington was entered by the Federals; February 18, Charleston was captured.

The regular battles during the Civil War numbered 892. Lincoln called in all for 2,690,000 men. There were actually in service 1,490,000. There were 400,000 disabled; 304,369 perished; 220,000 were captured, and 26,000 died in captivity. The expenses of the war were $3,500,000 per day. The national debt was $2,700,000,000.

This great American War was fought on both sides with a courage and fortitude never before experienced in the annals of warfare. As compared with the statements of forces and losses in battles of European armies, the casualties in the battles of the Civil War were three and four times as great. And this proves that in the American War each side met “foe-men worthy of their steel.” These overwhelmingly fearful casualties are not to be explained otherwise. And each section respects the other more than before the war—a war in which the conquered felt not, nor said, peccavi, and in which surrender to greater numbers and heavier artillery involved no sacrifice of belief in the truth and justice of their cause. Was there ever an armed strife that brought forth greater generals or more knightly valor, undiminished courage and unflinching fortitude on the part of combatants? Together must the names of Grant and Lee go down to posterity as great types of the American soldier,—the one, noble and generous in victory; the other, though a hero uncrowned by success, a warrior still more heroic in defeat.

THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR.—The proximate causes of the war with Spain are tersely set forth in the Joint Resolution declaring the independence of Cuba and demanding the withdrawal of Spanish sovereignty therefrom, which says:—

“Whereas, The abhorrent conditions which have existed for more than three years in the island of Cuba, so near our own borders, have shocked the moral sense of the people of the United States, have been a disgrace to Christian civilization, culminating as they have in the destruction of a United States’ battleship, with 266 of its officers and crew, while on a friendly visit in the harbor of Havana, and cannot longer be endured, as has been set forth by the President of the United States in his message to Congress of April 11, 1898, upon which the action of Congress was invited; therefore,

“Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled:

“First, That the people of the island of Cuba are, and of right ought to be, free and independent.

“Second, That it is the duty of the United States to demand, and the Government of the United States does hereby demand, that the Government of Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba, and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters.

“Third, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, directed and empowered to use the entire land and naval forces of the United States, and to call into the actual service of the United States the militia of the several States to such extent as may be necessary to carry these resolutions into effect.

“Fourth, That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said Island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination when that is completed to leave the government and control of the Island to its people.”

This resolution was signed by the President at 11.24 o’clock A. M., April 20, 1898.

It was on February 15, 1898, that the catastrophe referred to—the blowing up of the Maine—occurred. On April 25, the formal declaration of war was made.

Spain had three fleets,—Admiral Cervera’s flying squadron, the Asiatic fleet under Admiral Montejo, and Admiral Camara’s fleet of heavy armored vessels.

The American navy is always ready for emergencies, and even with the grudging appropriations made by Congress, the “new navy,” while not possessing vessels of such large size as those of some other nations, was much more formidable than was generally supposed. Congress, apprehending the outcome, had given the President $50,000,000 to put the country on a war footing. In reply to the call for 125,000 volunteers, five times that number offered themselves.

It had been more than fifty years since the United States had encountered a foreign foe, and since the close of the Civil War, for a third of a century, peace had reigned.

April 25, by cable to Hong Kong, Commodore Dewey was ordered to find and destroy the Spanish Asiatic fleet, which he proceeded to do on May 1st, without the loss of a single man. Entering Manila Bay, scorning torpedoes and mines, his wonderful battle at Cavite is the admiration of the world.

Schley, with his flying squadron, watched in Hampton Roads for an attack by the enemy on the Atlantic coast. Havana was blockaded by Sampson’s squadron April 22, and his searchlights seen from the Cuban capital were as the handwriting on the sky, foredooming Spanish rule. His tactics were to take no risk with his vessels while awaiting the appearance of the Spanish ships, so he failed to return the greeting of the shore batteries.

The first casualties of the war were in Cardenas harbor May 11, when upon the Winslow, while chasing a decoy gunboat too far under the fire of the land batteries, Ensign Bagley and four sailors were the first men of the navy to lay down their lives.

It was known that Cervera had sailed from Cadiz toward the West Indies. Sampson made a tour of Porto Rico to hunt the Spaniard, who mysteriously eluded the sight of the Americans. San Juan was bombarded on May 12. On May 30 Schley, who in the meantime had arrived off Santiago, dispatched: “I have seen the enemy’s ships with my own eyes.” Cervera had then been in the harbor ten days. On the 31st, Schley commenced a bombardment, and the forts at the mouth of Santiago harbor and the vessels within replied for an hour. June 1 Sampson came, and all hope of escape for Cervera was cut off. On that night Lieutenant Hobson executed his bold, heroic plan of sinking the Merrimac in the channel of the harbor, which was accomplished without the loss of one of his seven co-heroes, although subjected to a deadly fire from forts and vessels.

The first troops landed on Cuban soil were the marines, 650 in number, under Lieutenant-Colonel Huntington. This battalion had been on board the Panther since May 22, and the men were eager to land. After Sampson had shelled the shore and adjacent hills and woods, on the afternoon of June 10 the landing was made and the American flag raised for the first time on Spanish territory in the west. No Spaniards were seen until after the tents had been erected and the evening shadows were falling. Then for five nights and days there was no sleep for these men, than whom there were no greater heroes in this short, sharp war. With few exceptions they received their “baptism of fire,” and nobly did they acquit themselves.

I am told that when almost utterly exhausted the first platoon reached the summit of Cusco hill, so exactly in unison was their fire that the Spanish, believing that machine guns were opening upon them, turned and ran, never again making a stand. The first to consecrate the soil with his life’s blood was Dr. John Blair Gibbs, who left a $10,000 practice in New York to go as surgeon of the battalion, and who had greatly endeared himself to both officers and men. Sergeant Goode, one of the finest subalterns in the corps, and four men were killed. The good condition and health of this battalion during the whole campaign were due to the fine organization of the commissariat and the strict discipline maintained in this corps.

General Shafter arrived off Santiago, June 20, with a force of 773 officers and 14,564 men. General Garcia, the Cuban commander, with four thousand insurgents, was at Assuadero, eighteen miles west. There he, Shafter, and Sampson held a consultation. On the 22d, the disembarkment of troops was begun. On the morning of the 23d, General Lawton with his division advanced to Juragua. Major-General Wheeler, after landing 964 of his force, pursuant to General Shafter’s orders, moved rapidly to the front, and, passing through Lawton’s lines, pushed on to Las Guasimas, attacking and defeating General Linares on the morning of June 24.

The entire American force was pressed forward under General Wheeler, General Shafter being detained on the ships to attend to the landing of the armament and supplies. On the 29th, the commanding general left his ships and pitched his camp on the Santiago road, and on the next day orders were given for an attack along the whole line. In carrying out these orders, General Lawton with about six thousand men attacked El Caney, a small town about five miles north of Santiago. The garrison consisted of 520 men, the defenses being one block-house and a shore fortification. It was not until four o’clock that General Lawton’s success was complete. His loss was 437 killed and wounded, and but 30 of the enemy succeeded in escaping and reaching the Spanish lines. While Lawton was moving on El Caney, the cavalry division, unmounted, and Kent’s infantry division were ordered to move forward. Crossing San Juan River at a point about five hundred yards from the enemy’s fortifications on San Juan ridge, the left of the cavalry rested on the main Santiago road and the infantry formed to the left of the cavalry. These troops were subjected to a very heavy fire in advancing from El Pozo, in crossing the river and in forming on the other side; they, however, most bravely charged the enemy in their strong position on Kettle Hill and San Juan ridge, and drove them precipitately from their strong fortifications; the American loss being 154 killed and 997 wounded. This placed the Americans in a position commanding the fortifications around the city of Santiago.

The Spanish fleet, consisting of five armored cruisers of 7,000 tons and 2 torpedo-boat destroyers, attempted to escape from Santiago at 9.30 o’clock on Sunday morning, July 3, just nine weeks after the destruction of Montejo’s fleet. Schley and Sampson destroyed the vessels and made prisoners of 70 officers and 1600 men; 350 were killed and 160 wounded.

Fighting more or less severe occurred until the 10th, when negotiations for surrender were inaugurated, resulting in the capitulation of Santiago, July 16, the Spanish fortifications, twenty-four thousand prisoners, and a large amount of arms and ammunition. At noon on Sunday, July 17, 1898, the American flag was hoisted over the headquarters at Santiago.

General Miles started on the invasion of Porto Rico, July 25, and reached Guanica at daylight next morning. He landed with three thousand five hundred men, marched toward Yauco, five miles distant, which he entered after a skirmish, and was received enthusiastically by the citizens, as he also was at Ponce, where he was joined by General Wilson, who had come with the war ships, and who was made governor. The army continued on to San Juan along the military road, meeting very little opposition.

July 26, the French ambassador, M. Jules Cambon, acting for Spain, made overtures for peace. The protocol was signed on April 21, by M. Cambon and Secretary of State Day. A cessation of hostilities was proclaimed. At the very moment of the signing of the protocol, the last naval battle took place at Manzanilla, Cuba, and an artillery engagement at Aybonito in Porto Rico.

The one-hundred-days Spanish-American war was concluded by the treaty of Paris.

It will be only in the retrospect that we may tell the results of this conflict. As the future unfolds them to our view, it may be that it will have been more momentous in its consequences than we can now determine. One thing it has proved, that is, that this nation is really reunited; for, from all sections and from all grades of life, men flocked together to fight and conquer under the old Stars and Stripes.

II. FOREIGN WARS.

NAPOLEONIC WARS.—The long contest between France and Austria began when the Girondist ministry of France declared war, April 20, 1792. By the execution of Louis XVI., January 21, 1793, the Revolution threw down the gauntlet to all ancient Europe. England, whose sympathies had hitherto been more or less with France, began to take measures to bring about more cordial relations with the other powers of Europe. Spain, Portugal, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, for the time seemed to forget their several grievances as they found themselves confronted with a totally new move on the chessboard of European autonomy. The year 1794 saw the French Revolution progressing triumphantly, and all Europe, except England and Austria, appeared acquiescent in apathetic indifference. In 1795 the royalists made a supreme effort to recover power, but were crushed by the “Man of Destiny,” and the Directory, consisting of five members, of whom Carnot was one, came into power. Dominated by the martial genius of Carnot, “the organizer of victory,” the Directory won the confidence of the army. Scherer, the commander, lacked the qualifications to undertake a successful campaign against Austria, and Bonaparte, succeeding him, soon infused his own spirit into the army and bound it to himself with a devotion that never failed.

Early in the year 1800, Napoleon, having been made first consul, took up his abode in the old palace of the kings of France, the Tuileries. The history of Napoleon for the ensuing fifteen years is the history of Europe. It is, therefore, best to begin with the close of the eighteenth century, in order to appreciate the situation at the dawn of the nineteenth.

Austria and England, with several small German principalities, were still in arms against France. The plans and movements of the armies under Napoleon showed him to be verily a master in military skill. Opening this campaign, he left Massena with about eight thousand soldiers to hold the territory from Nice to Genoa, so as to keep the Austrian army in Italy busy. He sent the Rhine army, under Moreau, to threaten Bavaria and to secure the most important position between the Rhine and the Danube. Moreau drove the Austrians to Ulm, and disposed his left flank to support Napoleon. Meantime, he himself was recruiting another army for operations on the Po. Baron de Melas, commanding the Austrian troops in Northern Italy, besieged Massena in Genoa, which, after severe suffering, surrendered, leaving De Melas free to join the army of the Po. Napoleon was between de Melas and Austria. General Ott, with eighteen thousand men, attempted to reach Placentia, but Lannes, with twelve thousand, defeated him at Montebello, forcing him back to Allesandria. Napoleon hastened across the Po to Stradella to intercept De Melas and prevent his breaking through the French lines to Placentia.

The night of June 13, 1800, the French army was scattered, watching along the Po and the Tessino for the Austrians, while their army, forty thousand strong, with ten thousand more not far distant, was ready at daybreak of the 14th to cut its way through the armies of France, and reach Placentia. The French force was but eighteen thousand, but Victor with his division held his position firmly, and the great leader, Kellerman, was in command of the cavalry. Backward and forward surged the battle with varying fortune, and at noon victory seemed perched upon the banners of Austria. De Melas was so certain that the battle was won that he galloped back to Allesandria and sent dispatches to that effect to the governments of Europe. General de Zach was left in command to conduct the pursuit and to drive the French across the Scrivia. Napoleon, dismayed, hoping against hope that Desaix, whom he had sent towards Novi the day before to look out in that quarter for De Melas, might hear the thunders of the battle and return, saw him in the distance, hurrying with his troops, who, though worn and tired, were eager for the fight, and Napoleon saw already the tide of battle turned.

Desaix had found no trace of the Austrians, but he had heard the sound of battle at day dawn, and he knew that De Melas was there, and that there he was needed, and not at Novi. He roused his division, and hastened back to Napoleon. A short conference with his chief, to whose questioning he answered, “The battle is lost, but it is only three o’clock, there is yet time to win another,” and the battle of Marengo, glorious in its consequences to Napoleon, stupendous in its carnage, was won; but Desaix, the brave paladin, lay dead upon the field. De Melas returned from Allesandria to meet the victorious army he had left—flying in disorder—thoroughly routed. On December 2, Moreau and Ney won the field of Hohenlinden, and the “peace of Luneville” was concluded, February 9, 1801.

The result of this campaign was the cession of Austria’s strongholds in the Tyrol and Bavaria to France, as also a number of important holdings in Italy. France secured the left bank of the Rhine, the Belgian provinces and Tuscany, and the king of Naples closed his harbors to England. In March, 1802, by the “treaty of Amiens,” peace was concluded with England.

The coalition of Denmark, Sweden, Russia, and Prussia, with France against England, in 1800, fomented by Napoleon, broke down in 1801, after Nelson’s battle of Copenhagen.

England had secured the supremacy of the sea and dominion over India, rescued Portugal, Naples, and the States of the Church from France, and restored the Sublime Porte to Turkey. Finding Napoleon again militating against her interests, and resenting his encroachments, England declared war against France in the spring of 1803. Russia espoused the cause of England, Prussia held off, and Austria was friendly, though not in fighting trim. The third coalition comprised England, Russia, and Austria.

Powerless to hurt England on the seas, Napoleon, who had the year previous been proclaimed emperor, attacked Austria, invaded her territory, captured her army at Ulm, proceeded to Vienna, and occupied a great part of the valley of the Danube. On December 2, 1805, the “Battle of the Three Emperors” (the battle of Austerlitz) was fought. The “Peace of Pressburg,” concluded December 26, left Austria shorn of her ancient prestige, her title of German Empire, and of a great part of her possessions. The “Sun of Austerlitz” melted the third coalition. In the meantime the battle of Trafalgar, won by the immortal Nelson, crushed the naval power of both France and Spain.

In September, 1806, Prussia declared war against France, and, to the amazement of Europe, alone undertook to engage armies flushed from their recent victories and still in Germany. October 14, Napoleon utterly defeated the Prussians at Jena and Auerstadt, and entered Berlin a conquerer, the king having fled to Königsberg. Russia came to the aid of Prussia, but arrived too late to accomplish anything except to check the advance of the French, whose armies wintered on the Vistula. The next summer, however, the Russians met their final defeat in this campaign at Friedland, and Königsberg was taken. The “Treaty of Tilsit” ended the operations of this fourth coalition July 7, 1807.

The fifth coalition against Napoleon comprised England, Austria, Spain, and Portugal. The decisive battle of this campaign was at Wagram, July 5 and 6, 1809, and terrible as were the consequences of his defeat to Austria, so crippled was Napoleon that he willingly granted the armistice of Znaim and concluded the “Peace of Vienna.” When the fifth coalition ended, Napoleon had acquired the Illyrian provinces and part of the Tyrol for France, and eventually the Emperor’s daughter, Maria Louisa, for his wife.

In 1812 came war with Russia, and that most disastrous campaign which cost France more than three hundred thousand soldiers and Napoleon his empire. Russia, England, Prussia, and Sweden formed the coalition now, and Turkey had made peace with Russia. Napoleon crossed the Niemen in June, halted at Wilna to put his new conscripts in better order, addressed words of sympathy to Poland, and took measures to keep Austria conciliated. The Russians retreated before him. He met and fought and defeated them at Smolensk, August 17; they retreated in good order, burning and destroying all in their reach. The terrible battle of Borodino was fought September 7; the defeated Russians again retreated in good order, pursuing the same tactics. Napoleon reached Moscow September 15, but the heroic measure of Russia in destroying that city was equal in its results to several victories. October 15, the French troops commenced their fearful retreat. The Russian armies grew bold, they harassed the French troops, weak from hunger and cold, and from Moscow to Wilna their progress was one continual guerilla warfare. From Wilna, their flight to France, December 5, was even more disastrous. Of the grand army that set out in the spring not one fourth ever returned.

Affairs in Spain had fared badly for France. Wellington defeated the French army in Spain, and finally expelled it. France, though sometimes shaken in her devotion by the conscription that was draining her children’s blood, still had faith in Napoleon, and in 1813, having raised another grand army, he undertook to subjugate Prussia. His first victory was on the plain of Lutzen. The Prussians and Russians retreated in good order through Dresden. Napoleon pursued and drove them from Bauken, on May 20 and 21, and established his headquarters at Dresden. Austria now joined the allies. In their attack upon Dresden, August 26 and 27, they were defeated, but Russian troops and the King of Bavaria coming up made Napoleon’s position untenable. The allies were awaiting him at Leipsic. The battle raged for three days, and Napoleon withdrew on October 19, utterly defeated.

January 23, 1814, Napoleon, having raised another army, left Paris to assume command. The allies—England, Austria, Prussia, and Russia—were more determined than ever to crush him. Many battles were fought, and the fortunes of war varied. Blucher defeated him at La Pothiers on the 1st of February. Napoleon was the victor at Montenau; unsuccessful at Soissons, March 3; victorious at Cravonne, March 7; and defeated by Blucher at Laon, March 9. With more than half his army lost, Napoleon worried the allies in their rear; but Blucher marched on Paris. The prestige of Napoleon and France in Europe was at an end.

The Empress and the regency retired to Blois. On March 31 Paris surrendered, and the Emperor of Russia and the King of Prussia entered the city. A provisional government, with Talleyrand at its head, deposed Napoleon on April 2, and on April 6 he abdicated. May 30, the First Peace of Paris was concluded between France and the allies. France was to have her boundaries as they were in 1792, and also her foreign possessions, except Tobago, St. Lucia, and Mauritius, which, with Malta, were ceded to England. The Bourbons, in the person of Louis XVIII., were restored; but the French people were not content, so that when Napoleon appeared at Cannes on March 1, 1815, he was greeted with joy, even by the troops sent out to oppose him. This astonishing news was communicated to the Congress of the Allies assembled at Vienna. The allied armies at once gathered on the borders of France, Wellington landed in Flanders, and Blucher’s Prussians joined him. Wellington, finding Napoleon in front of him, fell back to Waterloo, lest the approach of the Prussians should be cut off. Napoleon hurled his force on Blucher at Fluores, and victoriously drove him from the field on the 15th. Ney, who had been sent to confront Wellington, fought at Quatre Bras, and the following day joined Napoleon. On the 18th of June, 1815, Napoleon made his supreme and final effort to recuperate his lost fortunes and to reestablish his empire.

The story of the battle of Waterloo, than which none ever fought was more decisive in its consequences, has been told and retold. The battle was at first undecided, victory seeming to incline to Napoleon, though the English and Germans with unflinching heroism still held the field until the afternoon, when Blucher, with his Prussians, at last arrived. Napoleon perceived that the supreme moment was at hand, and that his only hope was to crush Wellington before Blucher’s advancing columns could be thrown into line of battle. He sent forward his magnificent Imperial Guard. They charged with chivalric splendor, fought with heroic desperation, were repulsed,—and the star of Napoleon set to rise no more.

Finding his cause irretrievably lost, leaving the remnant of his army in command of Marshal Soult, Napoleon fled and, failing to find a passage to America, surrendered. This battle, magnificent in its results, ensured to England a long peace, and raised her to the first rank, for military prowess, among the nations of the world.

Napoleon’s skill at Waterloo was up to the highest standard of his most glorious work; but he was overwhelmed by preponderance in numbers. His entire force with which he conducted this campaign was barely 104,000, while the combined armies of Wellington and Blucher numbered 220,000.

The Congress of Vienna restored the ancien régime, replacing dethroned monarchs upon their hereditary domains, but the parceling out of the smaller territories showed the Powers to be quite as arbitrary as Napoleon himself. The semi-decade of passive submission to the “policies of princes” was broken in 1820 by general revolts in Europe. Spanish-American colonies, indignant at French interference in Spanish matters, began their struggles for independence.

GREEK WAR FOR INDEPENDENCE.—Since the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, in 1453, Greece had been subject to Turkey. Out of the defeats of several rebellions against the greed, tyranny, and brutality of the Moslem,—particularly from the revolutions of 1770 and 1790,—grew the secret society of the Hetæria, cementing the union of the Greeks for the struggle beginning in 1821. It is claimed that ten thousand Greeks were slaughtered within a few days, and thirty thousand in less than three months.

Mahmoud, having failed in 1825 to crush the rebellion, called Mehemet Ali, the Pasha of Egypt, to his aid. Mehemet sent Ibrahim, his son, with his army and navy, trained in the tactics of European warfare, into the Peloponnesus. Victory and devastation marked his course. Never was grander courage nor loftier bravery displayed than by the Greeks. The siege of Missolonghi lasted from April 27, 1825, until April 22, 1826. Athens was captured, June 2, 1827. The fleets of England, France, and Russia were cruising on the coasts to prevent attacks by the Turks on the islands. Approaching the bay of Navarino, they were attacked by the Turks and Egyptians, whose combined fleets were thereupon annihilated on October 20, 1827. The Sultan was forced by the powers to consent to the establishment of the kingdom of Greece, and his delay to do so was punished by Czar Nicholas, who declared war, crossed the Balkans, and at Adrianople in 1829 compelled the Sultan to recognize her independence, grant Christian governors to Servia, Moldavia, and Wallachia, and to yield Bessarabia to Russia.

MINOR EUROPEAN WARS.—The French Revolution of 1830, placing Louis Philippe on the throne of France, brought about Belgium’s independence.

The Polish insurrection of 1831–32 lost Poland her last vestige of liberty, enchaining her irretrievably under the tyranny of Russia.

From 1840 to 1852 England was engaged in quelling periodic wars in her Indian possessions. In 1841, her army, numbering seventeen thousand men, perished in their retreat from Afghanistan. So with France in Algiers and Morocco. And revolts in Spain were more or less successful.

In 1842, England’s war with China, caused by seizure of opium, resulted in the cession by China of Hong Kong, the freedom of five other ports, and $21,000,000 indemnity.

In 1848, the revolutionary spirit broke out fiercely, and the people made strong leaps for liberty and constitutional government. In France, it overthrew Louis Philippe, establishing a republic, with Louis Napoleon President. In all Europe its echo resounded. Riots in Vienna forced Metternich to flee to England; Ferdinand, to take refuge in the Tyrol and to abdicate in favor of his son, Francis Joseph. Frederick William was compelled by the conditions in Berlin to promise a constitution. The Frankfort Assembly, in 1849, offered Frederick William the title and prerogative of Emperor of Germany, and though, because of his respect for the Hapsburgs, he declined the honor, he still took advantage of the sentiment that prompted the offer to so strengthen the dynasty that later it might be held.

Hungary rose against Austria in 1848, and almost won independence. Kossuth proclaimed Hungary a republic, and Nicholas immediately sent aid to Austria. The Russian army, 130,000 strong, joined the Austrians. The Hungarians retreated to Temesvar, where they were defeated with great slaughter, and Georgy surrendered, August 9, 1849. The name of Haynau, the Austrian commander, is held in execration for his awful cruelty to the conquered.

In the meantime Italy rose. Lombardy drove out the Austrians. Charles Albert, king of Sardinia, had declared war on Austria and crossed the Mincio, April 8, 1848. Radetsky, commanding the Austrians, lost Gorto and yielded Peschiera in May, but in June he forced the Papal troops, who were assisting Charles Albert, to surrender, and completely routed the Italians at Custozza, July 25, and entered Milan. Charles Albert was again defeated by Radetsky at Novari, March 23, 1849, and Venice was captured August 23. Charles Albert resigned his crown to his son, Victor Emmanuel, and died shortly after.

Pope Pius IX. was forced to flee from Rome. Mazzini established the Roman republic in November. Austria, by the close of the summer of 1849, had regained control of her disputed possessions. Louis Napoleon, taking part against Italy, occupied Rome with his troops, July 2, 1849, and drove out Mazzini and Garibaldi.

THE CRIMEAN WAR.—In 1853, Louis Napoleon wanted war. He fomented trouble between the Porte and Nicholas, which ended by a declaration of war by Russia. The Czar claimed and demanded the protectorate of Christians in Turkey. Austria, France, and England opposed the demand. Nicholas had intimated to the British minister at St. Petersburg that England and Russia should share the partition of Turkey,—showing that he was ready to carry out the will and aims of Peter the Great and Catherine. The Russian army was thrown across the Pruth into Moldavia, and was at first worsted by the Turks. In deference to the wishes of Austria and Prussia, Nicholas withdrew his army from the Danubian provinces, and so secured their neutrality. He dislodged the Turkish fleet at Sinope, November 4, 1853.

England and France allied with Turkey and declared war against Russia, March 28, 1854. The allied fleets and troops proceeded to the Black Sea. Sebastopol was the great arsenal of Russia. Twenty-seven thousand English, thirty thousand French, and seven thousand Turks were landed in the Bay of Eupatoria, thirty miles above Sebastopol, September 14, 1854, towards which, five days later, the southerly march began. The allies waded the river Alma under terrific fire from the large Russian army, and won a brilliant victory. The attack was remarkable in that it won victory over superior numbers in seemingly impregnable positions, and in spite of official blunders. Mentschikoff, the Russian general, withdrew the crews from the ships in the harbor and put them, eighteen thousand strong, in command of the batteries. With his own army he marched out of Sebastopol, leaving twenty-five thousand defenders to the city. Admiral Korniloff and his able assistant, Colonel Von Todleben, undertook to strengthen the defenses and to inspire the troops. On October 17, the siege guns of the allies were in position. The English stormed the suburbs of the city, the Malakoff and the Redan; the French stormed the city. Both were unsuccessful. Russian troops poured into Sebastopol, and invited battle outside of the fortifications. At the harbor of Balaklava, Turkish troops recoiled from the Russian advance, and Sir Colin Campbell, with the Highland Brigade, saved the shipping and stores by timely check to the Russians. The battle of Balaklava, October 25, gave the town to the British after stubborn fighting, more than two thirds of the Light Brigade having been sacrificed to Lord Lucan’s misconstruction of orders.

At Inkerman, on November 5, sixty thousand Russians, in fog and rain, surprised the British Household Guards, and for six hours vainly strove to crush them. General Bosquet, with the genius of the soldier, guessed the point of severest attack, and sent reinforcements to the Guards. The Russians were finally driven back. Little good resulted from these two stubborn battles. Winter put an end to active operations. Rain, hurricanes, insufficient shelter, lack of supplies, and extreme cold produced fearful misery among the soldiers. Russia suffered as severely as did the allies, besides having had her fleet on the Black Sea destroyed and her army beaten.

In April, 1855, the bombardment began again. In May the allies captured Kertch and Yenikale, thus cutting off Russian supplies from the Caucasian provinces. In June, Marshal Pelissier succeeded Canrobert and successfully stormed Manelon; and, after the abortive attacks, June 18, of the French on the Malakoff and the English on the Redan, General Simpson succeeded Lord Raglan. August 16, the Russians crossed Tchernaya, but were repulsed by the French. On September 8 the French carried the Malakoff; the British failed to carry the Redan. The Russians set fire to the city and ships and retired to the northern part of the harbor, where they held strongly intrenched positions opposite the allied armies and beyond the reach of the allied fleets. Russia was driven from the Black Sea, had lost her prestige in the Baltic Sea, Bomarsund, on the Aland islands, and the arsenal of Sweaborg, in the Gulf of Finland. She had saved Cronstadt, and, at terrible sacrifice, had captured Kars from the English General Williams with his army of Turks. Her vast territory was comparatively intact. The nations were not satisfied. The Peace of Paris increased the prestige of Louis Napoleon; it postponed the Eastern Question by putting the Christian subjects under the nominal protection of the Powers, but virtually under that of the Sultan. The treaty of peace was signed March 30, 1856.

WARS IN THE EAST.—In 1857, the Indian Mutiny was caused by the introduction of Enfield rifles. Delhi was taken after desperate fighting, September 20. Cawnpore and Lucknow were the theatre of horrible scenes. The rebellion was finally crushed in 1859.

In the meantime war with Persia was begun and ended by the recapture of Herat, in Afghanistan. In December, 1857, England and France made war on China and captured Canton. They secured many concessions by the Treaty of Tien Tsin, and $2,000,000 indemnity.

WAR BETWEEN AUSTRIA, FRANCE, AND SARDINIA.—In 1859, Louis Napoleon made a secret alliance with Italy. General disarmament was proposed. Sardinia agreed to it; Austria stood aloof. On April 25, 1859, Austria ordered the disarmament of Piedmont. On the 27th, King Victor Emmanuel proclaimed war. On the 30th, French troops were in Turin. On May 13, Louis Napoleon himself disembarked at Genoa, where he was met by Victor Emmanuel. The Austrian forces crossed the Ticino, en route for Milan, but hesitated, because of the French advance. The opening battles at Montebello and Balestro, May 20, 30, and 31, were favorable to the allies.

At Magenta, June 4, the Austrians met with terrible defeat. The forces of the allies numbered 55,000, and their loss was 4000; the Austrian army of 75,000 lost 10,000 killed and wounded and 7000 prisoners. The conquerors entered Milan on June 8. Francis Joseph fell back to the line of the Mincio, and at Solferino the decisive battle of the campaign was fought on June 24. Napoleon commanded the allied armies, which numbered about 150,000; they fought for sixteen hours against the Austrian force of 170,000, gaining a fearful victory. This battle cost Austria 20,000 men; the French lost in killed and wounded 12,000 and the Sardinians 5000 men.

The allies crossed the Mincio and laid siege to Peschiera, but while all Europe expected another fight, an armistice of five weeks was agreed to, and Napoleon, unknown to his ally, met Francis at Villafranca and made a peace, upon which was based the Treaty of Zurich, signed November 10. Austria gave Lombardy to Napoleon for the king of Sardinia, as also the fortresses of Mantua and Peschiera. Italy was to become a confederation, with the Pope as president, of which Austria was to be a member, because of her holdings in Venetia. Tuscany and Modena were to be restored to their princes. Garibaldi’s brilliant conquest of Sicily and Naples, in 1860, and Sardinia’s growing power, startled Europe, but the nations dared not interfere. The general parliament of Italy met in 1861, at Turin, and made Victor Emmanuel king of Italy. Rome, under the Pope, and Venetia, under Austria, were as yet dismembered from “Young Italy.”

WAR WITH DENMARK.—Christian IX. succeeded to the throne of Denmark November 15, 1863. He endeavored to incorporate Schleswig with Denmark; the German population repudiated him and appealed to the Confederacy. The Diet sent troops into Holstein. Bismarck induced Austria to join Prussia in setting aside the London treaty of 1853, and the allied troops forced the Danes back to the intrenchments of Duppel. The capture of Duppel by the Prussians, April 18, proved the efficiency of needle guns and rifled cannon. June 22, the allies crossed the channel to the Island of Alsen and, on the 28th, captured the Danish stronghold Dennewerke, hitherto considered impregnable. The Treaty of Vienna, October 30, 1864, closed the war. Prussia and Austria together were to control the duchies.

THE SEVEN WEEKS’ WAR.—The arrangement between Prussia and Austria respecting the Danish duchies caused the “Seven Weeks’ War” of 1866. Bismarck induced Victor Emmanuel to form an alliance against Austria, March 27. The Prussians, on June 7, without a blow forced the Austrians to retire from Holstein, ignoring the protest of the Federal Diet. Austria was not prepared for war. Her army, together with that of Saxony, amounted to two hundred and seventy-one thousand. With Prussia, fully equipped and on a war footing with three armies, besides the reserves, the grand total estimated at three hundred thousand, the result was a foregone conclusion. Prussia declared war, June 15, 1866, against Hanover, Hesse, and Saxony, and next day threw her armies into the hostile states. On the 17th Francis Joseph published his war manifesto. Italy declared war, on the 20th, against Austria and Bavaria. In fourteen days Prussia’s immense army was mobilized. In five days the northern states to the Main were disarmed, and the Saxon army was forced to retreat toward Bohemia.

General Benedek was commander of the Austrians. Upon news of Prussian victories, he advised Francis Joseph to make terms of peace with William. Prussia fought for German unification; Austria to protect her pride. It was supposed the Austrians would first enter Saxony and dispute the Prussian advance, but Bismarck had determined the war should be brief, for Prussia was now master of the situation. On June 23, the Prussian army marched from three points towards Josephstadt, where Benedek was preparing to fight. On the 27th the Austrians were driven back at Soor, next day at Skalitz, and on the 29th at Gitschen. Archduke Leopold, on the 28th, and Count Clam Gallas, at Gitschen, both attacked the enemy in disobedience of orders, and thus forced Benedek to fall back from his strongest position towards Königgratz. The Austrians were also defeated, on the 28th, at Königinhof and Schweinschadel, and their loss by this time numbered over thirty-five thousand. Benedek asked permission to retreat into Moravia and await reinforcements, but news of the Austrian victory over the Italians at Custozza reached Vienna, and immediately battle was enjoined upon Benedek. Benedek placed five hundred guns in position, spanning a league between the Elbe and Bistritz.

On July 2, the king of Prussia assumed command of the Prussian hosts and ordered attack for the next day. The Crown Prince, several miles away with his army, received orders at four o’clock in the morning of the 3d to advance his Silesian army from Königinhof. At eight o’clock, Prince Frederick Charles, with a hundred thousand, attacked the Austrian centre lying against Sadowa. General Herwarth, with four hundred thousand men, attacked the Austrian right. The whole Austrian army was hurled against these two commands for five hours. Prince Frederick Charles forced passage through the Bistritz and took Sadowa, but could not take the heights. At one o’clock retreat was being considered, but the Crown Prince coming up with his troops the heights were taken at four o’clock. The fighting on both sides in this battle was determined and heroic. The Prussian loss was over ten thousand, and the Austrians lost twenty-seven thousand killed and wounded, nineteen thousand prisoners, with 174 cannon and 11 colors. At Lissa, on July 20, the Austrian navy destroyed the Italian fleet. July 22, an armistice of four weeks was granted. The Peace of Prague was concluded August 23. Her defeat cost Austria Venetia and the quadrilateral, namely, the fortresses of Peschiera, Mantua, Verona, and Legnano, deprived her of any part in Germany or German affairs, and Holstein and Schleswig, and obliged her to pay 40,000,000 thalers, one half of which she was to retain in lieu of the duchies.

Austria emerged from the “Seven Weeks’ War” with her ideas somewhat liberalized, and though her territory was diminished her progress and prosperity increased. The dual-Austro-Hungarian empire was formed by Francis Joseph, he ruling at Vienna as Emperor of Austria and at Buda Pesth as king of Hungary. This war also ended the Germanic confederation of 1815, and the North German Confederation under Prussia arose.

At the peace of Vienna, October 3, Austria recognized the kingdom of Italy, and with the acquisition of Venetia and the quadrilateral fortresses the “Seven Weeks’ War” had greatly helped on the cause of “United Italy.”

In April, 1864, Louis Napoleon sent an army of twenty-five thousand to sustain the Austrian Archduke Maximilian on the throne of Mexico. At that time the United States was occupied with the Civil War. This ended, Napoleon was summarily required to withdraw his forces from the American continent, which he did. Maximilian was thus left to his fate, and, after being condemned by court martial, was shot at Querétaro, June 19, 1867.

THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR.—Prince Leopold, of Hohenzollern, was offered the throne of Spain after Isabella had fled from Madrid. Leopold declined, but Napoleon demanded that the Emperor William should guarantee never to permit Leopold to accept. William refused to accede to the demand, and Napoleon, urged by the war party, declared war July 19, 1870. On the same day the Confederation placed its forces in the hands of William, as did the South Germans. This spontaneous uprising of all Germany was unlooked for. Napoleon’s army numbered three hundred and ten thousand men. In ten days William had nearly half a million soldiers ready to march against the enemy. August 2, the first fight took place at Saarbrücken, a little town over the German frontier. Napoleon and the young Prince Imperial were present, and the force of Uhlans was driven back. August 4, the Crown Prince of Prussia drove the right wing of MacMahon’s army back at Weissenburg, and on the 6th, again was MacMahon defeated at Wörth. The Germans, having separated MacMahon’s army, advanced into Alsace. In the meantime General Steinmetz carried Spicheren by storm, and the whole German army went forward. Together with the Crown Prince, Steinmetz, on the 14th of August, defeated Marshal Bazaine, at Courcelles, who retreated to Metz, and then endeavored to push on with his hundred thousand men to Chalons. Von Moltke hurried on the Crown Prince to intercept Bazaine, and at Mars la Tour was fought the fiercest battle, so far, of the war. On either side the losses amounted to seventeen thousand. Gravelotte was fought, on August 18, between the armies of Steinmetz and the Crown Prince, King William commanding in person. The battle lasted all day between two hundred thousand Germans and one hundred and eighty thousand French. The Germans lost twenty thousand men, and succeeded in forcing Bazaine into Metz. Although, in one sort, an undecisive battle, Gravelotte perhaps settled the fate of the Empire. MacMahon’s plan was, with his one hundred and twenty-five thousand men reorganized at Chalons, to prevent the German advance on Paris. He was overruled and sent to the relief of Bazaine. Defeated in several small fights, MacMahon was obliged to fall back on Sedan. The heights and ridges above Sedan once occupied by hostile troops, surrender or annihilation was the outcome. MacMahon was wounded, then Ducrot, and the command fell to Wimpffen. Sedan was forced to surrender, September 1, and Napoleon himself gave his sword to King William. Paris was maddened. The Empress escaped to England. Napoleon was taken to the castle of Wilhelmshöhe.

A month had hardly passed since the outbreak of the war, and one of the two great French armies with the Emperor had been captured; the other was besieged in Metz. Gambetta and other prominent men in Paris set up the government of the national defense. A republic was proclaimed. The defense of Paris was zealously undertaken. Large supplies of provisions were gathered. Fortifications were strengthened. The siege began September 19, 1870, and ended January 28, 1871. The direst famine attended it. Gambetta left Paris in a balloon, and at Tours succeeded in forming the army of the Loire and the army of the North. Both were defeated. Strasbourg was captured, and Metz surrendered with a hundred and seventy-three thousand men, among them three marshals of France. The entire German loss in this war was 129,700 men.

January 17, 1871, Thiers was elected President of the Third Republic. Knowing the impossibility of further resistance, with half a million German soldiers, flushed and inspired by constant success, on the soil of France, and Paris in their anaconda coils, he counseled that peace be asked. Thiers, Favre, and Picard negotiated with William and Bismarck. An armistice of twenty days was permitted, that the National Convention then at Bordeaux might ratify terms. In the meantime the house of Hohenzollern reached the summit of its gratified ambition, when, on March 18, William was crowned at Versailles, Emperor of Germany. The cession of Alsace and Lorraine, and $1,000,000,000 indemnity, was the price of peace.

No patriot name in all history deserves more reverence than that of Louis Adolphe Thiers. Upon him devolved the task of making peace with the German foe, of quelling the civil war, and of so managing the finances of France, that her people within two years were enabled, to the astonishment of the world, to pay the enormous indemnity extorted by the Germans, and, by September, 1873, the last franc was paid and the last German sentinel removed from the soil of France.

The civil war between the Republic and the Commune settled the question once for all, that Paris, accountable for all the errors and vicissitudes of the country, is not France, and there is every reason to hope that out of the unequaled horrors of those awful days of carnage the republican government of France arose to remain in perpetuity.

Garibaldi, taking advantage of the fall of Louis Napoleon, and caring not for the king’s promises, took possession with his troops of the city of Rome, September 20, 1870, and on July 2 of the next year Victor Emmanuel erected his throne in the Quirinal.

TURCO-RUSSIAN WAR.—In 1875, the Bosnians, Turkish subjects, revolted. They maintained their struggle, and the enraged Turks sent Mohammedan troops among the defenseless Bulgarians, destroying unnumbered thousands of men, women, and children. Czar Alexander declared war April 1, 1877. His army crossed the Balkans and occupied Shipka Pass. Osman Pasha developed unexpected military genius and skill. For five months he checked the onward march of the Russians and won world-wide admiration by his defense of Plevna. By the first of December Plevna was invested completely by the Russians. Driven back whenever attempting to make a sortie, starvation compelled Osman to surrender with forty-four thousand troops. Adrianople was occupied. The Treaty of San Stefano was wrested in sight of Constantinople. It greatly reduced Turkish power in Europe, and constituted Russia heir to Turkey in Europe. Bulgaria was to be protected by fifty thousand Russian troops for two years and to have a Christian governor.

Three months later, England formed a secret treaty with Turkey, securing Cyprus and agreeing to protect Turkey in Asia. Austria, too, was dissatisfied, and the treaty of Berlin was made in 1878, to rectify the balances of the nations. Russia was by this treaty damaged in prestige and, shorn of triumphs, was given only Asiatic provinces. Turkey was stripped of all real power in Europe.

CHINO-JAPANESE WAR.—In Japan’s declaration of war against China, August 1, 1894, she set forth succinctly the provocation forcing her to this action. She said that Korea had been brought into the notice of the nations of the world by her efforts; that China constantly had interfered with Korea’s government, insistently posing as her suzerain; that when an insurrection in Korea broke out China sent troops into Korea, and that when Japan, under the treaty of 1885, also sent troops to assist Korea to quell the rebels, asking China’s coöperation in the effort, China refused her rightful demand; that China’s course tended to keep up the trouble indefinitely, so that the only course left for Japan was to declare war.

As with Germany a score of years previously, when the time came Japan was ready, not only with munitions of war, but with better topographical knowledge of the enemy’s country than they themselves possessed. The Emperor, whose dynasty antedates the Christian era, gave his people a constitution, and stretching his hand towards Korea he helped her in the same direction. He had Japan’s army and her navy drilled by expert European officers. Arsenals and extensive manufactories for the implements of war were started, with European superintendents. The latest and best of ships were both bought at foreign marts and made at home. Her students were to be found in the universities of the world. Her agents were sent to study in their capitals the economy of every government and the machinery of their executive departments. To find the best and assimilate it seemed the principle of her progression, so that both in military skill and the knowledge of diplomacy she acquired the ability to hold her place among the nations of the civilized world. A war alone was needed to prove that this was a fact.

Japan’s navy consisted of four armored cruisers and eight vessels of 3000 tons each. This was a much lighter fleet than that of China, but swifter. China’s navy had been trained by an able English naval chief, Captain Lang. Her outfit of ships was, perhaps, superior to that of Japan, consisting of five armored vessels, nine protected cruisers, and torpedo boats besides. The principal battle of this Chino-Japanese war was fought on September 15 at Ping Yang, an old capital of Korea, situated at the meeting of several roads. The Japanese landed troops at Gensan, on the northeast, and at Hwang-jo, on the northwest, coast of Korea. These formed the right and left wings of the army whose centre, under General Nodju, advanced from Seoul, about one hundred miles to the south, of which the Japanese were already in possession. Only one wing of the army met opposition in its march, a small battle having been fought. The forces, so far as we can learn, were between twenty and thirty thousand of Chinese and between thirty and forty thousand of Japanese. Japan’s twenty-four years of scientific preparation, her study of the art of war, the practicability of her strategic movements,—admired by the soldiers of the world,—left China, with her old semi-barbarian methods, no chance for victory.

The battle was a bloody one; the defeated Chinese fled until they were on the other side of the Yalu River, in Manchooria. Seven hundred (some accounts say fourteen thousand) Chinese were captured, two thousand killed and wounded. The army continued fighting and conquering until practically the province of Manchooria was in Japan’s possession, as well as the peninsula of Liaotung, terminating with Port Arthur.

The battle of Yalu, or Hai Yun Tao, afforded the first practical test of modern vessels, guns, and projectiles in Asiatic waters. Ping Yang has been called China’s Sedan, and Yalu, Japan’s Trafalgar. Japan had nine cruisers and two converted cruisers wherewith to fight twelve Chinese warships and four torpedo boats. It is said that Japan used melanite shells. The fleet of Chinese warships, convoying transports with ten thousand troops, entered the Yalu River. The next day, September 17, the Japanese fleet, under Admiral Ito, went out to meet them. A European officer on a Chinese vessel says: “Passing along the Chinese line, the Japanese poured as heavy a fire as they could bring to bear upon each ship in succession, and, while they had sea-room, circled round their opponents. The Japanese state that no Japanese war-ship was lost and only three seriously injured.” A Chinese officer says: “As soon as the Chinese on the port side had brought their guns to bear and had obtained range accurately, the Japanese would work around and attack the starboard side.” Four ships were destroyed and two badly injured. One of the Chinese ships was said to have been hit two hundred times. The Chinese ironclads that escaped were later sunk off Wei Hai Wei. Port Arthur, captured October 21, was filled to overflowing with ammunition, grain, and other supplies.

China made three informal overtures for peace. Finally, Li Hung Chang went from Tientsin to Shimonoseki, to make terms, on the 19th of March, 1895. By the treaty there made, May 17, China recognized the independence and autonomy of Korea, ceded certain territory in Manchooria, all the islands in the eastern part of the bay of Liaotung and the northern part of the Yellow Sea, Formosa, and all islands belonging to it, and the Pescadores group. Two hundred million Kuping taels were exacted as indemnity, to be paid in eight installments, one every six months. The inhabitants were to sell out and leave, or in two years to be Japanese subjects. Russia, Germany, and France recommended that Japan should not permanently possess the peninsula of Feng Tan, and Japan agreed to their suggestions.

Formosa, as a strategetical post, is of the greatest value. Korea and Japan now control absolutely the Japan Sea. It was only after four months of fighting that Japan completely conquered the Formosans and had all her new possessions under her control.

China paid Japan an additional $30,000,000 for the release of Port Arthur and Liaotung peninsula. China was well pleased. But in April, 1897, Russia herself had obtained possession of Port Arthur and Talien Wan, and in December the Germans received Kaio Chao, the finest naval station of the province of Shantung. France subsequently obtained Kwang-Chau, the best port of Wangsi; and England, though not joining these powers in the demand in favor of China in 1895, obtained Wei Hai Wei in 1897.

GRECO-TURKISH WAR.—In 1895, the fearful atrocities committed by the “unspeakable” Turk began to assume appalling proportions. During three years one hundred thousand Cretans were murdered. February 8, 1897, the Cretans proclaimed union with Greece. The Greeks, unable longer to endure the sufferings of their kindred, determined to help them.

Prince George left for Crete with a torpedo flotilla February 10; Colonel Vassos, aide-de-camp to the king, followed with fifteen hundred men and two batteries on the 13th. Prince Nicholas led a regiment of artillery to the Thessalian frontiers. The powers sent a collective note of protest to Greece, but it was not heeded. Colonel Vassos landed in Crete on the 14th. Sailors from the fleet of the powers occupied the coast towns of Crete. Pasha Berovitch resigned and returned to Constantinople. Greek reserves rallied promptly. Volunteers offered. Colonel Vassos established headquarters in the mountainous interior at Sphakia.

March 18, the powers blockaded Crete. On the 27th, Crown Prince Constantine proceeded to the Turkish frontier. On April 5, the powers declared no gain should accrue to the combatant who approached Thessalian borders. April 8, three thousand Greeks crossed near Krania, began fighting, and were driven back. On April 17 Turkey declared war. On the 18th, a battle of twenty-four hours, in Milouna Pass, crowned Turkish arms with victory. Another hard fought battle, at Reveni, discomfited the Greeks. Greeks passed the Arta River and Greek ironclads bombarded Prevessa. On the 19th, the Turks were in Thessaly and the Greeks in retreat to Larissa. After terrific battles Tornavo and Larissa, on the 25th, fell into the hands of the Turks. Colonel Smolenski fought desperately at Valestino, but had to yield; and Volo also fell to the Turks. The Turks occupied Pharsaos on May 6. Greece asked the powers for peace, May 8; Cretan autonomy was agreed to, and Turkey permitted armistice on the 15th. The war closed. Turkey was forced to yield all Thessalian territory, and Crete was relieved of Turkish oppression. Greece was forced to withdraw all support from Crete and pay $20,000,000 indemnity.

The remarkable feature of this war was the intensely hard fighting from start to close, and the disposition of the powers to assist Turkey by interfering with the Grecian navy. Frequently the Austrians helped the Turks by placing their guns in position. It was only when the Sultan conquered Thessaly and threatened to keep it that the powers interposed.

The crime committed by the powers against civilization and Christianity by their action seems incredible, even though the peace of Europe was thereby secured.

ENGLAND’S WARS IN THE SOUDAN.—The Khedive of Egypt had obtained great loans from Europe. England and France took financial control of the country. Arabi Pasha inaugurated a rebellion and fortified Alexandria. Many Europeans were murdered, and England bombarded the city, taking possession July 12, 1882. General Wolseley, at Tel el Kebir, September 13, fought and defeated Arabi, who fled leaving two thousand dead. France withdrew from the financial arrangement. The English remained to put the Egyptians in condition for self-government. England has remained ever since.

Mohammed Ahmed arose in the Soudan, proclaiming himself El Mahdi, the Mussulman Messiah. The barbarian hordes flocked to his banner. He defeated the Egyptians in four engagements, October, 1883. The Anglo-Egyptian force of ten thousand men, under General Hicks, was destroyed, only two escaping. General Gordon was sent to the relief of the Egyptian army. He reached Khartoum, February 18, 1884. The Mahdists besieged the city. Gordon sent for reinforcements. England was so slow in sending them that they arrived two days too late. Khartoum was captured through treachery, and Gordon, the most beloved of English soldiers for his saintly and heroic character, was put to death on January 27, 1885.

General Sir Horatio Herbert Kitchener was made Sirdar in 1890. He started from Cairo with one thousand British and fifteen thousand Egyptians, black and fellah troops, building a road across the desert as he advanced, and engineering his gunboats up the Nile. The distance from his base, at Cairo, to his first storehouse, at Wady Halfa, is eight hundred miles. April 8, 1898, was fought the battle of Atbara, a fort at the point where the Atbara River enters the Nile. Here Mahmud, the commander of the barbarians, was captured and his army of twelve thousand infantry destroyed. Osman Digna got away with the greater part of the cavalry, numbering four thousand.

The force was about a month reaching Wady Hamed, and, September 1, was in sight of Omdurman. The Sirdar’s line was drawn up in crescent form, with Omdurman and Khartoum for its centre. In this position was fought the first battle of Egeda, in which twenty-two thousand of the Dervishes fell. The Khalifa and Osman Digna fled with a scant handful of followers, and are now said to be bandits in the Kordofan. The number of the annihilated army of the Mahdists will never be known. The British loss of whites was less than two hundred, and the native loss less than three hundred. The fire of the barbarians was generally too high to effect great injury. September 2 will be a marked day in England’s calendar. The Sirdar marched into Khartoum, the Union Jack was raised, and beneath its floating crosses his chaplains performed Gordon’s funeral ceremonies on the spot where he was slain nearly fourteen years before.

THE BOER WAR.—By the treaty of 1881 Great Britain claimed suzerainty over the South African (Transvaal) Republic and Orange Free State. These Republics claimed that by the treaty of 1884 Great Britain gave up her claim of suzerainty. Here arose an issue which was aggravated by the discovery of diamonds at Kimberley and of gold at Johannesburg, followed by the Jameson raid, which, shorn of its disguise, was notice to the Boers that Great Britain desired and designed to occupy and absorb their two Republics. The diplomatic war went on for years between President Kruger, of the Transvaal, and Mr. Chamberlain, Great Britain’s Colonial Secretary. It culminated in an ultimatum on the part of Kruger, on October 9, 1899, which Chamberlain rejected. Both sides had been preparing for this, and on October 11, the outbreak of the war, Great Britain had already an army of 25,000 men in South Africa, while the Boers had mobilized an equal, if not superior, army of effectives. The Boers immediately invaded Natal and Cape Colony, shutting up General White and his army in Ladysmith, and Colonel Powell and his forces in Mafeking. Kimberley was also besieged. The initial battles were numerous, fierce, and generally favorable to the Boers. Great Britain’s eyes were speedily opened to the gravity of the situation. She hurried large reinforcements to the scene till her armies far outnumbered those of the Boers. Yet her best generals, as Buller at Tugela River, and Methuen, at Magersfontein, continued to meet with disastrous defeats. Lord Roberts, in connection with General Kitchener, was sent, January 10, 1900, to supersede the blundering generals, and to organize a new campaign. It was seen that direct battle against the Boers was bound to end in defeat. So Roberts was provided with an overwhelming army, estimated at 225,000, and he at once entered upon a war of strategy. His northward advance was general along his lines, thus keeping the Boers divided. He flanked them out of their strongholds. By February he had invaded the Orange Free State, and raised the siege of Kimberley. On February 27 he captured General Cronje and his force of 4000 men, and on March 13 took possession of Bloemfontein, the Free State capital, whence he issued a proclamation annexing the republic under the name of Orange River Colony. On February 28 the siege of Ladysmith was raised, and shortly after that of Mafeking. The Boers continued to fight doggedly, all the while inflicting heavy losses on their enemy, but resistance was futile against such overwhelming odds. They were gradually forced from one position to another in the direction of Pretoria, the Transvaal capital. On March 5 Presidents Kruger and Steyn joined in peace proposals, which were rejected. On March 12 they made an appeal to the nations for mediation. All refused to mediate. On March 27 the Boers lost their ablest general in the person of General Joubert, who died at Pretoria. By May 12 Kroonstad, the second Free State capital, had fallen into Lord Roberts’ hands. The Vaal River was then crossed and the Transvaal invaded. On May 31 the British army entered the important town of Johannesburg, and hastened toward Pretoria, which was captured on June 5, 1900. President Kruger and General Botha had left a few days before, the former in the direction of the Portuguese port of Lorenzo Marques, the latter with the remnant of the Boer army to the mountains beyond Pretoria. On September 3 Lord Roberts declared the Transvaal annexed to Great Britain under the name of the Vaal River Colony. Generals Botha and De Wet continued a guerrilla warfare far past the end of the century. President Kruger accepted the protection of Holland, and sailed thither on October 20, 1900. Lord Roberts arrived in England in December, 1900, to receive his honors. At the turn of the century the South African problem was a most wearying one for Great Britain.

THE BOXER UPRISING.—The defeat of China by Japan in 1894, the ambition of European powers to occupy her ports and enlarge their “spheres of influence,” the ominous threats to partition her territory, soured the Manchu dynasty and the people of northern China against foreigners. The Empress Dowager deposed the young Emperor, seized the reins of government, and catered to that reactionary and hostile spirit which culminated in the “Boxer” uprising. These mobs began the destruction of missions, the murder and expulsion of missionaries, and concerted attack against everything that savored of foreign direction and influence. The Chinese regular soldiers were either helpless before them or in sympathy with them. By May, 1900, all the powers represented at Peking stood aghast at the startling fact that their respective legations were beleaguered in Peking, and liable to be murdered. Warships were instantly ordered to Taku. By June 1, 1900, twenty-three vessels had reported,—nine Russian, three British, three German, three French, two American, two Japanese, one Italian. A force of 2000 soldiers was landed from these, and immediately started for Peking, under command of the British Rear-Admiral Seymour, for the rescue of the legations. This force was defeated by the “Boxers,” and compelled to retreat to Tien-Tsin with heavy loss. An attempt to torpedo the Taku harbor was resented by the warships. They bombarded and blew up the Taku forts. In this action the American warships did not participate. The “Boxers” swarmed in Tien-Tsin, and an allied force of 4000 men was sent thither to capture it. In their first attack, on July 9, they were repulsed with heavy loss. Being reinforced up to 7000 men, their second attack, on July 13, was successful. The city was taken, and made the base of further operations against Peking, 80 miles up the Pei-ho. The allies were further reinforced, and started for Peking with an army of 16,000 men. They met the Chinese army of 30,000 men at Pei-Tsang, and after a severe battle on August 5, drove them from their fortifications with great loss. The Chinese rallied at Yang-Tsun, but were again defeated by the allies on August 6. They offered no further serious resistance to the allies, who moved swiftly on Pekin, invested it, and, on August 14, breached its walls and entered it in triumph. The legations were relieved after an imprisonment of nearly three months. Two ministers, one of Japan, the other of Germany, had been murdered. The others had escaped death only by concentrating and defending themselves in the English compound. The allied forces occupied the city for a time, and then those of Russia and the United States withdrew, leaving a strong legation guard. The Chinese government appointed Li-Hung-Chang and Prince Ching ministers to meet ministers of the powers to arrange terms of settlement. After months of conference a protocol was signed in January, 1901, which was supposed to contain the germs of future settlement. But there was that in the Chinese situation which was bound to tax the diplomacy of the world during many years of the twentieth century.

A REVIEW OF MARTIAL RESULTS.—The history of the world shows that successful war adds to the glory and prestige of the victorious nation, and this is particularly exemplified by the wars of the nineteenth century. France, so long victorious, dazzled the world. At Waterloo, her glory was clouded. Napier, in his closing words of the history of these events of the twenty years of war and turmoil, showed how thoroughly the English people appreciated that their greatness and power were due to the glory achieved by the arms of Britain’s chivalrous sons.

While England was covering herself with glory, her offspring, the United States, was teaching her, in the war of 1812, that being now of age his pockets were not again to be turned inside out, a lesson which thereafter she heeded.

Greece, throbbing with the impulse of freedom, achieved her independence, displaying all the heroism of her Hellenic ancestry.

The Mexican war added greatly to the glory of American arms and resulted in the acquisition of a vast territory, whose inhabitants quickly assimilated themselves to the requirements of American citizenship.

The Revolution of ’48 but served to consolidate the power of Prussia, laying the foundation for the Imperial crown to rest upon the head of her king, while fitting France for her future solid republican career.

The Crimean war, except that it checked the policy of Russia, produced few results in comparison with the vast amount of blood and treasure so lavishly spent.

The victories of Magenta and Solferino illumined again the eagles of France. The “Seven Weeks’ War,” while still further consolidating Germany under Prussia, was not without its blessings for Austria, and advanced “Young Italy” greatly toward the goal of her ambition.

In America, the appeal to arms was made to decide the questions mooted since the nation’s birth. One effect of this war was to show the wonderful prowess and soldierly qualities of the American citizen.

The Franco-Prussian war lifted the dignity of Hohenzollern to its height, ended forever the Empire of France in a crushing fall, and taught the lesson of scientific preparation for war, than which no science is more worthy of intense study and application in all its branches.

The Chino-Japanese war was a triumph of a growing civilization over semi-barbarism, and foreshadows the prominent rôle that Japan may be called upon to play in the twentieth century. The enlargement of her territory was a fitting reward for her unselfish championing of her weaker sister, Korea.

The Greco-Cretan-Turkish war shed no glory on the Turkish nor on the so-called Christian nations, and will stand on history’s page as a crowning shame to European civilization.

The opening of Africa by General Kitchener and his great achievements read like old-time stories, and the twentieth century may see great results in Africa from this wonderful campaign.

The war of the United States with Spain, fought because it was impossible longer to allow the atrocities of her rule on this hemisphere at our very doors, has brought conditions not dreamed of, and which, under the providence of God, may lead to greater results in the development of Christian civilization than we now may comprehend.

The Boer war had little instigation on the part of Great Britain, except greed. Its management reflected no credit on her military genius, weakened her in the eyes of nations, and entailed a loss of life and money from which she will not recover in generations.

The Chinese disturbance did not rise to the dignity of war, but opened problems of startling intricacy and moment for all the powers.

THE CENTURY’S FAIRS AND EXPOSITIONS

BY GEORGE J. HAGAR,

Editor of Appendix to Encyclopædia Britannica.

Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace, in a recent work, argues that the nineteenth century is altogether unique in that it inaugurated a new era. To grasp its marvelous achievements, he tells us, it should be compared with a long historical period, rather than with another century, however happily selected. The progress it environs is set down as almost wholly material and intellectual, and the palm for completeness is given to the material. Debatable as his conclusion may be, there can be no dispute either as to the qualitative or quantitative progress in the material advancement of mankind in the century now closing. In the present retrospect the broader view becomes apparent,—that the material and the intellectual have been allied forces that have constantly pushed forward side by side, one devising in the solitude that genius needs for expansion, the other showing to the world the realizations of thought that in practical application benefit all.

The evolution of the international exposition of to-day is a conspicuous result of this material and intellectual wedlock. It seems a long time between the fair that was held to allow people not closely settled to purchase the ordinary commodities of life, food, clothing, and household belongings, and the great expositions to which the nations of the world bring the surpassing embodiments of native thought. Measured by years, the time is really beyond computation; but measured by results, mere time is annihilated, and the progress that the evolution illustrates is found to have kept a steady pace with man’s physical necessities and intellectual growth. The moment Necessity has shown that mankind needed something to make life brighter, happier, or more comfortable to pass through, Intellect has undertaken the task of creating it and has fashioned out the Material.

In the great expositions of to-day are seen the effects of the marvelous influence which sprang from the fair as a market, instituted so long ago that no call for the records is answerable. Of this kind, only a very few remain. Then came the fair designed to promote the useful arts and manufactures; the fair to advance agriculture and allied industries; and the fair to show special articles, to commemorate historical events, and to aid interests of large public concern. Under an ever-increasing expansion, stimulated by popular favor, the fair, with the commercial feature abandoned or having it only as a restricted branch, became the exhibition to show a larger development of the arts, sciences, and mechanical trades; to celebrate great public occurrences on a grander scale than earlier fairs had done; to promote special industries, local or national; to aid education by permanent displays of natural or manufactured products; and to promote the commercial intercourse of the world. From the first of this class of exhibitions came the international undertakings, first known as world’s fairs, and afterward as international exhibitions and expositions. In some one of these classes may be found every kind of a display of products, irrespective of its purpose or individual name.

The development of the modern exhibition from the early fair has been confined to no one country nor people. Everywhere the purpose and process have been the same. A few years changed the old-time mart, where people went to buy what they knew they would find, to the convenient place where tradesmen placed on view the things they knew people would need and buy, as well as articles offered at a venture that people who really didn’t need them might be tempted to purchase because of novelty or other quality. Thus, the bargain counter and the department store are several hundred years older than the thrifty housewife of to-day reckons.

Trade competition, then as now, led to a broadening of plans, rival efforts, and special attractions. People began to attend fairs to see what was new, as well as to buy; and soon, lest they should tire of sightseeing, it became necessary to provide means for entertaining them. Punch and Judy came on the scene with perennial popularity. Jugglery astounded the young and fascinated their elders. Dancing and wrestling rings proved sportive magnets of annually increasing strength. The fair now began to change from a strictly commercial undertaking to an occasion for holiday hilarity, and soon trade and amusement were struggling for the mastery. In many places, hilarity led to excesses, and excesses to crime. Public opinion demanded the forceful intervention of the law, and one by one the most demoralizing fairs were suppressed, the notorious Donnybrook closing its long career of debauchery and lighting in 1855.

The display of merchandise and the gathering of customers at the most noted fairs in time became really enormous, and for many years the great fairs of the day were held on open and extensive plains. Then, too, the fair assumed an importance that led first the local authorities, and after them higher dignitaries, to seek to turn it to their individual advantage. For a time no fair could be held in Great Britain without a special grant from the crown, and it was a widely observed custom for royal or ecclesiastical authorities to give permission to a town or village that had suffered some misfortune to hold a fair as a means of reestablishing itself. The famous fair of St. Giles’s Hill, near Manchester, England, was instituted as a revenue to the bishop by William the Conqueror. That it was a valuable monopoly is shown by the facts that its jurisdiction extended seven miles around the city, and that all merchants who sold wares within that circuit, unless at the fair, forfeited them to the bishop.

A curious evidence of early international interest in the fair, as well as of its importance and influence, is found in the records of 1314, when King Philip of France sent a formal complaint to King Edward II. of England, to the effect that the merchants of England had ceased frequenting the fairs in his dominions with their wood and other goods, to the great loss of his subjects. Philip entreated Edward to persuade, and, if necessary, to compel, English people to frequent the fairs of France as formerly, promising them all possible security and encouragement.

As a purely commercial institution, the fair had its best day when people were widely separated. The increase of population, the development of new life and activity by growing communities, the opening of means of travel between distant points, and the establishment of stores and markets, were all fatal to the commercial fair. To-day, in all Europe, only three really great annual fairs of this character remain,—those of Nijni-Novgorod, in Russia; Beaucaire, in France; and Leipsic, in Germany. The same conditions that brought the popular usefulness of the commercial fair to an end were the forces from which the fair as an exponent of industrial achievement has been developed, and the material progress of the nineteenth century is to be traced.

For the modern fair in all of its forms the world is indebted to the Society of Arts, of London, an organization whose fame in America was so great that Benjamin Franklin, in soliciting corresponding membership, declared that he would esteem it a great honor to be admitted and also to be permitted to contribute twenty guineas to be expended in premiums. What this Society in its early days did for Great Britain it did also for civilization. It organized the first exhibition of specimens of improvements in the useful arts and manufactures in 1760; stimulated native ingenuity by judicious awards of prizes and premiums for exhibits of exceptional merit; and extended its powerful influence to foster art, science, mechanical and agricultural industry, and the fishery trade and colonial commerce of the country.

Of the many influences of this Society that came to the United States, it may be questioned if any had a more lasting benefit for both people and country than that which gave birth to the mechanics’ institutes. There are people still living who are able to recall how the large cities in the Eastern and Middle States vied with each other in the establishment of two great and kindred institutions—the mechanics’ institute and the apprentices’ library. Philadelphia led the cities in the matter of time, her Franklin Institute being founded in 1824. Four years afterward the American Institute was chartered in New York City. After these came the Massachusetts Charitable Mechanics’ Association in Boston, the Maryland Institute in Baltimore, and numerous others,—those mentioned being the principal ones that still maintain annual or other exhibitions. At first, the exhibitions of these institutes, like the first one ever held under the patronage of a national government,—that in Paris in 1798,—were composed of various articles loaned by their owners. Soon, however, the popularity of the institutes and the awarding of prizes and diplomas brought to the exhibitions specimens of the handicraft of members and friends, and the rising lights in the arts and manufactures became eager to secure the recognition of their genius that such awards established. Thus, the influence of the principal surviving institutes has spread far beyond local limits.

Purely national exhibitions have never found much popular favor in the United States. When as a whole people we decide to hold one for a purpose of general interest, we prefer to set a large table and invite the universe to help us celebrate. In France, the first national exhibition was a loan exhibition. Its effect, however, was so immediate that the government repeated it the same year, organized more elaborate ones in 1801 and 1802, and decided to hold them triennially thereafter—a course that has since been interrupted by political exigencies. These exhibitions were projected to illustrate the progress of France only. In the United States there have been no State exhibitions, excepting agricultural fairs, for which outside coöperation has not been invited.

The life of the American agricultural fair is almost measurable by the full century. This, too, had its origin in England. The father of the American system of combined agricultural fairs and cattle shows was Elkanah Watson, a native of Plymouth, Mass., who spent the greater part of his life in promoting large public measures besides agriculture and education. In 1807 he removed from Albany, N. Y., to Pittsfield, Mass., where he engaged in general and experimental agriculture and cattle-raising. His efforts to improve local farming conditions and to raise a superior breed of cattle attracted widespread interest, and this suggested to him that an annual exhibition of cattle and of farm products, resulting from a more painstaking system of cultivation than was commonly followed, would prove of material advantage to the farmer, the breeder, and the general public. Accordingly, he induced his farming friends in the country to contribute specimens of improved breeds of cattle and of superior products of the soil; and the first exhibition or fair was held in 1810. This, with modest prizes for the best exhibits, proved a complete success.

Encouraged by the results of his initial efforts, he went to Boston to solicit pecuniary aid for a second and much larger exhibition. Although he was at that time widely known for his public-spirited philanthropy, and also as the founder of the influential Berkshire Agricultural Society, his appeals for aid brought him little save derision. To show how small concern was felt by business and public men toward the farming industry, a sentence in a letter from ex-President John Adams to Mr. Watson is sufficient:—

“You will get no aid from Boston; commerce, literature, theology, medicine, the university, and universal politics are against you.”

The ex-President was correct in his judgment. Mr. Watson did not receive a single favorable response to his appeals; yet he lost not a particle of faith in the wisdom of his undertaking. With the coöperation only of the farmers in his county, Mr. Watson succeeded in arranging annual exhibitions until 1816, when he returned to Albany. The same year he organized the first agricultural society in the State of New York, and began establishing fairs and cattle shows in the near-by counties. In 1819 he secured the passage of an Act by the Legislature appropriating $10,000 annually for six years for the promotion of agriculture and domestic manufactures, conditional on a like amount being raised by the agricultural societies in the different counties. A State Society was incorporated in 1832, to which county societies were directed to report, while it, in turn, had to render a combined report to the Legislature annually.

Since then an agricultural department has become an indispensable part of the government of the various States and Territories, even of those that are popularly believed to be only metallic producers. The character of the state and county agricultural fair has been undergoing a radical change for many years, especially in sections thickly settled or near large cities, and the chief attractions have passed from the exhibition of sleek domestic animals and choice fruits of the soil to horse-racing and bicycle contests. Innovations foreign to the spirit and intention of the fair have already wrought its ruin in many places and are threatening it generally.

Of American fairs in the original commercial sense, those held during the Civil War, to aid the work of the United States Sanitary Commission on the battlefield and in the camp and hospital, will always be historically conspicuous. During those memorable four years it is doubtful if there was a single city, town, or village in the Northern States that did not put forth a special effort to provide necessities and conveniences for the soldiers and sailors that were not supplied by the government, and the fair was the most popular form of raising the needful money.

Exhibitions of special articles, possessing the features of state, national, and international combinations, and independent of any locality, event, or period of time, are growing in frequency. Many of these have a predominating technical interest,—as the international exhibitions of fisheries and fishery methods, of life-saving methods and apparatus, of forestry products and systems of forest preservation, and of railway appliances; while others combine the technical and popular features, as the exhibitions of electrical apparatus, of improved food preparations, of bicycles, of automobile vehicles, and of wood-working and labor-saving machinery.

Special exhibitions in the United States that possess a large popular interest include the annual showing of the art associations and leagues in the principal cities, and the annual horse, dog, and sportsmen’s shows in New York city. Among them also are to be noted the permanent expositions in Philadelphia and Chicago—both reminders of the greatest international expositions that had been held up to their day. The Philadelphia exposition is held in Memorial Hall, the building erected in Fairmount Park by the State of Pennsylvania at a cost of $1,500,000, and used for the Art Gallery of the Centennial Exposition in 1876. It now contains an art and industrial collection similar to the famous South Kensington Museum in London. The Chicago exposition is in the former Art Palace of the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893, and, having been endowed by Marshall Field with $1,000,000, is now known as the Field Columbian Museum. Its most conspicuous feature is a collection showing the development of the railway, and the next, its forestry exhibits. In the line of permanent expositions, Philadelphia is to be credited with two commercial museums of far-reaching influence that will be considered further on.

The first exhibition of the industries of all nations was that held in Hyde Park, London, in 1851. It was an outgrowth of the annual exhibitions of the Society of Arts, before mentioned, and was at first designed to be only a national enterprise, but on a more extended scale than the former exhibitions of the Society. The late Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria, however, conceived the idea of throwing this particular exhibition open to the industry of the world. His suggestion at once met the favor of the Council of the Society, as well as of the leading manufacturers of England and the general public. A royal warrant was procured appointing a commission to “manage an exhibition of the works of industry of all nations,” and of this body Prince Albert became president.

On February 21, 1850, the commissioners felt justified in making a public announcement that the building would cover an area of from sixteen to twenty acres; that it would be ready for the reception of goods by January 1, 1851; and that the exhibition would be opened to the public on May 1, following. The plans for a building submitted by Sir Joseph Paxton were accepted after a large number had been considered. They called for a vast structure of iron and glass, somewhat similar to the great conservatory he had erected for the Duke of Devonshire at Chatsworth. A contract was signed with Messrs. Fox and Henderson for the construction of the building, under which they were to receive £79,800, and the materials of the building were to remain their property. On February 3, the completed structure was formally delivered to the commissioners. It had an extreme length of 1851 feet and an extreme breadth of 408 feet, with an additional projection on the north side, 936 feet long by 48 feet wide.

While the erection of the building was in progress, Dr. Lyon Playfair was chosen to decide and classify the wide range of articles that was sought to be brought together under the general title of “Objects of Industrial and Productive Art.” He arranged these under four great sections: Raw Materials, Machinery, Manufactures, and Fine Arts, and they in turn were divided and subdivided into a vast number of classes and smaller divisions. The collecting of national exhibits was placed in the hands of district committees in all the principal towns and manufacturing localities, and in response to invitations extended to all the British colonies and the various foreign governments, nearly every country in Europe, almost every State in the North American Union, the South American republics, India, Egypt, Persia, and the far-off islands of the seas, sent objects that swelled the total estimated value of exhibits—excluding the renowned Koh-i-noor diamond—to £1,781,929.

The exhibition was opened by Queen Victoria on the appointed day, and was continued till October 11. The total number of exhibitors was about 15,000. During the 114 days the exhibition was open a total of 6,063,986 persons visited it, a daily average of 42,111. The largest number in a single day was on Tuesday of the closing week, 109,915. An attempt to ascertain the number of foreign visitors developed the unexpected result that not much more than 40,000 foreigners visited London beyond the annual average of 15,000. The financial result of the exhibition was really remarkable. The total receipts from all sources amounted to £506,000, and the total expenditures to about £330,000, leaving a surplus of £176,000, which was subsequently increased to £186,436.

The distinctions of all kinds that were awarded, Council and prize medals and “honourable mentions,” aggregated 5084. It is here interesting to note, as showing the truly international character of the first world’s exhibition, that foreign guests occupied two-fifths of the exhibition space and received three-fifths of the honors. British exhibitors of machinery, manufactures in metal, and manufactures in glass and porcelain, took more prizes than all the foreigners combined. Foreigners led in the number of prizes for textile fabrics, fine arts, and miscellaneous manufactures; and in the section of raw materials for food and manufactures the foreign exhibitors gained nearly four times as many prizes as the British.

This exhibition developed a number of features that should be borne in mind when considering those that came after it. It was an experiment in an untried field; it was comprised in a single building; and it was self-supporting. In all respects it was a marvelous achievement. It made the late Prince Consort the “father,” and the Society of Arts the pioneer promoters, of the international exposition.

The beneficial influence of the first world’s exhibition began to be felt immediately. An exhibition of the arts and manufactures of Ireland was held in Cork in the following year, and the Royal Dublin Society, which had been holding similar exhibitions triennially, got up a much larger one than usual, through the generous pecuniary aid of William Dargan, in 1853. The Dublin exhibition, unlike that of Cork, was international in scope.

American visitors to the London exhibition brought home with them a pretty large inspiration for a similar effort, and before the close of 1851 a number of citizens of New York had associated themselves for that purpose. In January, 1852, the corporation of the city of New York granted a lease for five years of Reservoir Square, on the conditions that a building of iron, glass, and wood should be erected thereon, and that the entrance fee to the proposed exhibition should not exceed fifty cents. In March, the Legislature incorporated the Association for the Exhibition of the Industries of all Nations, with a capital of $200,000 that might be increased to $300,000. Subsequently, the Federal Government constituted the building a bonded warehouse and exempted foreign exhibits from the payment of duties.

This exhibition was therefore a private enterprise, having no other official recognition than that mentioned. It was also an unfortunate affair from beginning to end. The location was then three or four miles from the heart of the city; the area was entirely inadequate for the purpose; the day of opening had to be postponed, because of the incomplete condition of the building; and financially the enterprise was a huge failure.

The exhibition was opened July 14, 1853, with much ceremony, although still scarcely half ready for exhibits or visitors, and was continued for 119 days. There were about 4800 exhibitors, somewhat more than one-half being foreign. The total cost of the exhibition was nearly $1,000,000, and the receipts were $340,000. Although a financial failure, and a disappointment in many ways, this first international exhibition in the United States was productive of much good.

The success of the London exhibition also aroused the French to depart from the exclusively national character of their former exhibitions and to inaugurate one open to the world. This was done under the direct auspices of the Imperial Government, which undertook to combine certain features of both the London and the New York enterprises; hence, the first international exhibition held in Paris was practically a private scheme supported by official guarantees. A further departure was here made in the matter of building, and, instead of the single great structure, there were the Palais de l’Industrie, the Palais des Beaux Arts, the Panorama, and three smaller buildings for agricultural implements, carriages, and a variety of less costly articles. Another innovation was here introduced, a partial return to the methods of the commercial fair, in the setting apart of exhibiting spaces on the open ground.

The main building, the Palais de l’Industrie, was erected by a joint-stock company on the Champs Elysées, and provided a floor space of 1,770,000 square feet. It was built of glass, stone, and brick, and was 800 feet long by 350 feet wide. The various buildings cost about $5,000,000, and the Palais de l’Industrie was erected for a permanent structure.

This exhibition was opened on May 15, 1855, and closed on November 15, following. It was visited by 4,533,464 persons. Besides France and her colonies, fifty-three foreign states and twenty-two colonies belonging to them sent exhibits. In all there were 20,839 exhibitors, those of France and her colonies predominating by only about 500. The exhibits were classified on the London plan, there being in each case thirty classes altogether. Excluding the main building, which the Imperial Government acquired, the exhibition cost about $2,250,000.

Between the first and second London exhibitions there were many industrial and art displays in the United Kingdom and colonies and on the Continent, among which should be noted those of New Brunswick and Madras in 1853, Munich in 1854, and Edinburgh and Manchester in 1857.

The second London exhibition was undertaken by a commission headed, as the first, by the Prince Consort, under a guarantee fund of $2,250,000. While it was in course of preparation the Prince Consort died, and for a while a heavy pall hung over the scheme. The commission here introduced the French idea of separate buildings. The site was at South Kensington, and the main structure was built of brick, glass, and iron, was nearly rectangular in shape, and covered an area of about seven acres. With the annexes the total area under roof was about twenty-three acres.

This exhibition was opened by the Duke of Cambridge on May 1, 1862, and remained open for 177 days. It was visited by 6,211,103 persons, a daily average of 36,329, its receipts were wholly absorbed by expenses, and a slight deficit was left. Foreign exhibitors numbered 17,861, and received more than 9000 prizes.

In 1863 the French Government announced that an exhibition would be held in Paris in 1867, that was intended to be more completely universal in character and more comprehensive in plan than any that had ever been held. The Champ de Mars, the great parade-ground on which the Ecole Militaire faced, containing about 111 acres, was placed at the disposal of the commissioners by the Government. In the centre of this space was erected the principal building, an oval structure mainly of iron, 1607 feet long and 1246 feet wide, that cost $2,357,000.

In planning this building the convenience of exhibitors and visitors in ready access to the exhibits of any desired country or class was given the preference over architectural effect. Here, again, was a diffusion of exhibits in detached buildings, and a noteworthy novelty was the reservation of ground on the park surrounding the main building for the erection by foreign exhibitors of special buildings for the display of articles that could not be accommodated in the main structure. This feature became the most popular one of the entire exhibition, for it gave a most graphic illustration of the architecture, manners, customs, and countless peculiarities of the peoples of the world.

The exhibition was opened by the Emperor on April 1, 1867, and was closed on October 31, following. The number of visitors was upward of 15,000,000, a daily average of nearly 70,000, and of exhibitors, 51,819. In all, 12,944 medals and grand prizes of honorable mention were awarded. From beginning to end the expenses were $4,596,764, and the receipts aggregated $2,822,000. The national and municipal governments contributed $1,200,000 each, which added to the receipts of the exhibition proper created a surplus over expenditure of $626,000.

London’s third exhibition, from May 1 till September 30, 1871, was projected as the first of an annual series that should separately promote a distinct branch of industrial effort. Thirty-three foreign countries were represented; there were approximately 4000 art and 7000 industrial exhibitors; and the visitors numbered 1,142,000. The second in the series, in 1872, was confined to printing, paper, music, musical instruments, jewelry, cotton goods, and fine arts; and the third, in 1873, was devoted to the general subject of cookery.

Great as was the universal exposition of Paris in 1867, that at Vienna in 1873 far surpassed it in extent and grandeur, although its pecuniary success was severely affected by an epidemic of cholera, a financial crisis, and local extortions. As each of the preceding international exhibitions had developed a distinctive feature, so this of Vienna introduced the custom of holding world’s congresses for the discussion of great problems of universal application.

The exhibition was opened on May 1 and closed on November 3, following. Turnstiles recorded the entrance of 7,254,687 visitors. There were about 70,000 exhibitors, whose display, in extent and costliness, exceeded that of Paris in 1867. The gross receipts were about $2,000,000, and expenditures about $9,850,000, making a deficiency of some $7,850,000, which the Government liquidated. The United States was represented by 643 exhibitors, more than half of whom were awarded prizes.

This brings the record up to the Centennial Exposition, at Philadelphia, in 1876, and covers the third quarter of the century. The actual work of making the Centennial Exhibition began on March 3, 1871, when Congress passed an Act creating the United States Centennial Commission. This authorized the President to appoint a commissioner and an alternate from each State and Territory, on the nomination of the respective governors. The appointments were promptly made, and from the whole body of commissioners the following were chosen for the principal executive officers: President, Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut; Vice-Presidents, Alfred T. Goshorn, of Ohio, Orestes Cleveland, of New Jersey, John D. Creigh, of California, Robert Lowry, of Iowa, and Robert Mallory, of Kentucky; Director-General, Alfred T. Goshorn; Secretary, John L. Campbell, of Indiana; Assistant Secretary, Dorsey Gardner; Counselor and Solicitor, John L. Shoemaker.

Details of organization and management were vested in an Executive Committee. On June 1, 1872, Congress passed an Act creating the Centennial Board of Finance, with large powers. This Board estimated that the cost of the exhibition would be $10,000,000, and apportioned shares of capital stock for this amount among the several States and Territories, on the basis of population. Subsequently, a Board of Revenue was appointed and vested with authority to collect subscriptions and other funds.

Despite the financial panic of the summer of 1873, preparations progressed so favorably that on July 3 President Grant issued a proclamation reciting that the one-hundredth anniversary of the independence of the United States would be celebrated by holding an international exhibition of arts, manufactures, and the products of the soil and mine, in Philadelphia, in 1876, opening April 19 and closing October 19, and inviting the nations of the world to take part in both the celebration and the exhibition. In response to a formal invitation issued by the Secretary of State, thirty-two foreign governments sent favorable replies for themselves and their colonies.

The city of Philadelphia placed at the disposal of the commissioners a tract in Fairmount Park, aggregating 236 acres, for the principal buildings, and also made proportionately large allotments for the exhibition of livestock and agricultural implements.

Five principal buildings were erected. The Main Exhibition Building was in the form of a parallelogram, 1880 feet long and 464 feet wide, with projections at the centre of the longest sides 416 feet long, and at the centre of the short ones 216 feet long. The building was erected on piers of masonry, wrought-iron columns supporting wrought-iron roof trusses forming the superstructure, the sides of which for some distance above the ground were finished between the columns with paneled brick work. This building covered 21.47 acres, had a floor space of 936,008 square feet, and cost $1,600,000.

The Art Gallery and Memorial Hall, designed to be a permanent structure, was erected on an eminence in the Lansdowne Plateau. It is built of granite, glass, and iron, in the modern Renaissance style of architecture, on a terrace several feet above the level of the Plateau, and cost $1,500,000. The dimensions are: length, 365 feet; width, 210 feet; height, 59 feet. From the centre of the structure rises a dome of iron and glass, 150 feet in height, surmounted by a figure of Columbia with outstretched hands. This building was erected by the State of Pennsylvania, and is now used as a permanent art and industrial museum.

Machinery Hall was 1402 feet long and 360 feet wide, with an annex on the south side 210 by 208 feet, and the main building and annex had together a floor space of 558,440 square feet, or nearly thirteen acres. The total cost was $792,000. Horticultural Hall, near the Art Gallery, was built by the city of Philadelphia for permanent uses. It exhibits the Moorish architecture of the twelfth century, is 383 feet long by 193 feet wide, and is 72 feet high to the top of the lantern. Its cost was $251,937. The Agricultural Building was erected of wood and glass, the ground plan showing a parallelogram 630 feet long by 465 feet wide, and a nave 826 feet long and 100 feet wide crossed by three transepts, and cost about $356,000.

Other noteworthy edifices were the United States Government Building, 504 feet long by 300 feet wide, prepared to exhibit the various functions of the public service; the Women’s Pavilion, covering an area of an acre, and with its exhibits of woman’s handiwork from the fifteen leading nations of the world constituting the first display of the kind ever attempted on a large scale; twenty-six buildings erected by State and Territorial governments; and many others put up by foreign governments or exhibitors. Before the exhibition closed there were more than two hundred buildings on the ground.

An interesting feature of this exhibition was the observance of State Days, when the governors of the States, with their official staffs and a large following of citizens, made ceremonial visits and held receptions in the several State buildings. There were also numerous other special days, when hosts of people united in a common interest, religious, fraternal, social, military, aquatic, or educational, added thousands to the ordinary attendance.

During the exhibition 9,910,966 persons entered the grounds, of whom 7,250,620 paid the full rate of fifty cents, 753,634 paid twenty-five cents each, and 1,906,692 had free entry. The exhibition represented an outlay of all kinds and by all interests of about $20,000,000. The United States Government aided it with a loan of $1,500,000, which was repaid; the State of Pennsylvania appropriated $1,000,000, and the city of Philadelphia gave $1,500,000. From every point of view it was an unqualified success.

Two years after the Centennial Exposition another one was held in Paris, which not only exceeded all previous ones in that city in size and magnificence, but made an unprecedented display of works of art and literature. On this occasion about one hundred acres were set apart for the various buildings, the exhibitors numbered some eighty thousand, the gross receipts were upward of $2,500,000, and 16,032,725 visitors were registered.

The third world’s exhibition in the United States was held in New Orleans during the winter of 1884–85, and was planned to commemorate the centennial of the first export of cotton from America. The conception was an outgrowth of the exposition in Philadelphia, and was first carried out on a limited scale in Atlanta in 1881, and on a larger one in Louisville in 1883. Under the belief that the cotton centennial should be celebrated in the chief city of the cotton belt, the National Cotton Planters’ Association joined heartily in the scheme suggested by Major E. A. Burke, of New Orleans, for a universal exhibition in that city, in which the great industry of the Southern States should play the most prominent part. Congress aided the movement by an Act incorporating the World’s Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition, and, further, made a loan of $1,000,000 and appropriated $300,000 for a Federal Building. Railroad and other corporations subscribed for $500,000 in stock, the State of Louisiana appropriated $100,000, and the city of New Orleans contributed a similar sum for the erection of a permanent Horticultural Hall.

Formal invitations were sent out to all foreign governments by the State Department at Washington, commissioners were appointed for the several States and Territories, and the time of the exposition was fixed for December 1, 1884, to May 31, 1885. The site selected was the Upper City Park, an unimproved tract of 245 acres, and in its centre was erected the Main Building, a structure built wholly of wood, 1378 feet long and 905 feet wide, and with a continuous roof principally of glass. The entire building covered a space of thirty-three acres. A Music Hall capable of seating 11,000 persons was constructed in the centre of this building, and a Machinery Hall in the rear. An extension at the southern end, 570 by 120 feet, was devoted to mills and factories in operation, and at right angles with this extension was a building given up to sawmills.

The Federal Building, planned for the exhibits of the United States Government and of the States, was 885 feet long by 565 feet wide, and in general style and construction conformed to the Main Building. Horticultural Hall, built of iron and glass, is 600 feet long, 100 feet wide in main structure, and has a central transept carrying out the extreme width to 194 feet. The Art Building, of corrugated iron and glass, stood nearly in front of the Main Building, and was 250 long by 100 feet wide, with a rotunda 50 feet square in the centre. Two other noteworthy buildings were erected by the Mexican Government, one in the style of a native hacienda, with an interior gallery for the display of horticulture and bird-life; the other for native minerals. Excluding those of Mexico, the various buildings covered an area of 2,673,588 square feet, or sixty-two acres, and all buildings covered about seventy-six acres.

Among the special features of this exposition were the display of woman’s work, under charge of Mrs. Julia Ward Howe; of the work of the colored race, under charge of the late Blanche K. Bruce; of the cultivation of cotton and manufacture of the fibre; and of the cultivation, harvesting, and preparation for market of rice and sugar.

On May 5, 1889, another universal exposition was opened in Paris. This was also a commemorative one, marking the centennial of the French Revolution, and because of its political character only the United States and Switzerland accorded it official recognition, although most of the European governments encouraged individual participation. The exposition, despite this feature, was a grand success because of its unusual extent and comprehensiveness and its distinctive features. This exposition cost $8,600,000, and had about 60,000 exhibitors and more than 28,000,000 reported visitors, the greater number, of course, being French.

The making of the World’s Columbian Exposition, to commemorate the discovery of America by Columbus, began soon after the close of the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. It was at first proposed to create a permanent exposition, to be held in Washington in 1892, to illustrate the progress of North, Central, and South America, and a board of promotion was organized. By 1889, however, a strong popular sentiment had been aroused for a more comprehensive display, and citizens of Washington, New York, Chicago, and St. Louis vied with each other in pressing on a special committee of the United States Senate the advantages of their respective cities. A certificate to the effect that subscriptions to the amount of $5,000,000 had been made in Chicago decided the controversy in favor of that city.

On April 25, 1890, Congress passed an Act giving a legal status to a World’s Columbian Exposition, to be held under the auspices and supervision of the United States Government, the organizing corporation to guarantee the subscription of $10,000,000 and the payment of $500,000 before the national commissioners should officially recognize the site offered by the corporation for the exposition. On December 24, following, President Harrison announced the forthcoming exposition, to be opened on May 1, 1893, and invited the nations of the world to participate in it. Congress appropriated in various sums a total of $3,238,250 in money and authorized the coining of 5,000,000 souvenir fifty-cent pieces in silver to be sold for the benefit of the exposition.

The management was vested in a National Commission of two representatives of each State and Territory and of the District of Columbia, and eight from the country at large. The site was Jackson Park, on the shore of Lake Michigan, to which was added the Midway Plaisance tract of 80 acres, making an aggregate ground area of 633 acres. On the main ground more than 150 noteworthy buildings were erected. The Midway Plaisance was devoted to amusements and the illustration of the manners and customs of the world. Here, the most conspicuous of a multitude of great and curious objects was the gigantic revolving and passenger-carrying Ferris Wheel. All of the exposition buildings proper were constructed of wood, iron, and glass, in combination with a material known as “staff,” made by uniting plaster and jute fibre in water, in the form of a paste. As all exterior surfaces were painted white, the exposition grounds became popularly known as the White City.

The principal buildings, with their cost, were those of Manufactures and Liberal Arts, the largest of all, 1687 by 787 feet, $1,500,000; Machinery, $1,285,000; Fine Arts, $670,000; Agriculture, $618,000; Administration, $435,000; Electricity, $401,000; United States Government, $400,000; Live Stock, $385,000; Transportation, $370,000; Horticulture, $300,000; Mines, $265,000; Fisheries, $224,000; Woman’s, $138,000; Forestry, $100,000; and a brick imitation of a modern United States battleship, with complete armament and equipment, $100,000. Foreign governments appropriated a total of $6,571,520 for their respective buildings and exhibits, France leading with $650,000, and being followed by Japan, $630,000; Brazil, $600,000; Germany, $214,200; and Austria, $149,100; and the States and Territories, a total of $6,020,850. The entire cost of construction was $18,322,622.

According to the original Act of Congress, the buildings then completed were dedicated on Columbus Day, October 21, 1892, with prayer, music, and an oration by Chauncey M. Depew, and during that week a number of State buildings were also dedicated. The exposition was formally opened with exceedingly brilliant ceremonies on May 1, 1893, and was closed with an entire lack of formality on October 30, following, in consequence of the assassination of Carter Harrison, mayor of Chicago, two days before. Up to November 12, the receipts from all sources aggregated $33,290,065, and the expenditures, $31,117,353. The total number of paid admissions, excluding those prior to the opening and after the closing, was 21,477,218, and of all, 27,529,400; smallest single-day number, 10,791; largest, on “Chicago Day,” 729,203. In all there were 65,422 exhibitors, and medals were awarded to 23,757 of them, the jury examining and reporting on more than 250,000 separate exhibits.

Present space will only permit the briefest summarizing of this greatest of all international expositions hitherto held,—matchless in extent, in completeness of composition, in grandeur of setting. A pleasing evidence of the influence the undertaking was expected to yield is found in the remarkably large number of international congresses that were held during its progress. This feature alone called for 1245 separate sessions, at which there were 5974 speakers and a special attendance of more than 700,000 persons, chiefly adults. Almost every conceivable branch of human thought and effort had its individual congress. Particularly noticeable among these formal gatherings was the Parliament of Religions, in which Christian, Protestant, Catholic, Jew, and Buddhist expounded their doctrinal beliefs and narrated the story of their sectarian progress and hopes.

The Cotton States’ and International Exposition, opened in Atlanta on September 18, 1895, had its origin in two purposes: the first, to give the industrial conditions of the Southern States a more adequate display than they had at Chicago, owing to the constitutional inability of their Legislatures to appropriate public money for such a purpose; the second, to promote larger trade relations between the South and the Latin-American republics and with Europe. It was set on foot by private enterprise, and received its largest official aid from the city council of Atlanta, which appropriated $75,000.

Piedmont Park, a tract of 189 acres, two miles from the centre of the city, and memorable because traversed by the rifle-pits over which General Sherman threw shells into the city thirty-one years before, was selected as the site. In a natural dip of the ground an artificial lake was constructed, covering thirteen acres, and around it the principal buildings were erected. Not only the Southern, but many of the Northern and Western States aided the enterprise with special buildings and exhibits.

Of the thirteen large buildings, that of the United States Government occupied the most conspicuous site. The Administration Building was a reproduction of portions of Blarney Castle, the Tower of London, Warwick Castle, the Rheinstein in Germany, and St. Michael’s, on the coast of Brittany. On a considerable elevation was the Auditorium, a four-story building with a dome surmounted by a statue of Music. The largest building was that devoted to Manufactures and Liberal Arts, and the most original of all in design was the one set apart for Minerals and Forestry, which was constructed entirely of wood from the different Southern States in its natural condition, with the bark on. The Fine Arts and the Woman’s Buildings were the showiest, and the Negro Building was made attractive by specimens of the industry of negroes in fourteen States. The exposition was closed December 31, and cost about $2,000,000.

The international exposition at Nashville, open from May 1 to October 30, 1897, was a commemoration of the one-hundredth anniversary of the admission of Tennessee into the Union, and had for its special attraction a reproduction of a number of notable buildings of antiquity. The original plan provided for an exposition in 1896, the true centennial year, but the projectors encountered unusual opposition in their efforts to procure the necessary funds, and it was not till early in 1897 that the incorporators were able to begin the creation of the Centennial City.

West Side Park, a former race-course in the suburbs of Nashville, with many natural attractions in running water and forest growths, was selected as the site, and Centennial City was made for the brief time of the exposition a full-fledged municipality, with a mayor, board of aldermen, and a combined police and fire department. The reproduction of notable buildings showed on a reduced scale the Parthenon, the Pyramid of Cheops, the Alamo of Texas, the Blue Grotto of Capri, a glimpse of the Rialto of Venice, and, in the beautiful main entrance, a type of early Egyptian architecture. A flagstaff 250 feet high, cotton and tobacco fields, Venetian gondolas, Vanity Fair, a typical Chinese farm, an abundance of statues of classical and mythological subjects, waterfall and old-time wheel at work, Lake Katherine, Ellen Island, the umbrella fountain, and a large field for athletic sports, were among the pleasurable features. The State made a strong showing of its industrial development and of its riches yet in reserve.

In all 190 acres of ground were occupied. The total receipts were $1,087,227, and the expenditures balanced to a cent. A unique expense feature was that, excluding the preliminary work, the women raised the money and paid the entire running cost of the Woman’s Department. The turnstiles registered 1,886,714 entrances.

This exposition was succeeded in 1898 by the Trans-Mississippi and International Exposition at Omaha, an undertaking designed to show what had been accomplished by the pioneers and their children in the great Trans-Mississippi Valley, and especially in a State that forty-three years before was an unorganized territory in the vast tract known as the Louisiana Purchase. The site was a plateau just north of the city, and in planning the display every consideration was given to originality. Excepting that the grounds constituted a second White City, from the use of “staff,” as at Chicago, every feature of design and construction possessed striking elements of difference from all similar efforts in the past.

The management was under the presidency of Gurdon W. Wattles, and the exposition was formally opened by President McKinley, who, in the White House at Washington, pressed an electric button that started the great engine. The United States Government erected a building of the classic style, following the Ionic order. It was surmounted by a colossal dome supporting a copy of Bartholdi’s statue of “Liberty Enlightening the World,” and had a floor space for exhibits of about 50,000 square feet. The Government also recognized the importance of the event by issuing a special set of commemorative postage stamps. Fine arts was exhibited in a twin-domed building, a structure in two parts, with an elaborate peristyle between them, and all under one great roof.

What afforded the masses the greatest delight were the ethnological exhibits and the instructive and amusing scenes on the Midway Reserve. These included an Indian village, with representatives from every tribe between Alaska and Florida, a Chinese village, an Arabian encampment, a Moorish town, a Swiss village, a Cairo street, the entertaining Egyptian Pyramid, and the gigantic passenger-carrying Sherman Umbrella—a mechanical marvel operated by electricity, and one hundred feet higher than the Ferris Wheel of Chicago. There was also a picturesque lagoon or canal, half a mile long and 150 feet wide at its narrowest part, terminating in an artificial lake trefoil in shape and 400 feet across.

The exposition was opened on June 1 and was closed on October 31. In that time it was visited by more than 2,600,000 people, the largest single-day attendance being 98,785. The total receipts were not quite $2,000,000, and the expenditures were about $1,500,000.

This completes the record of the most notable expositions and the incidental history of their development, from the commercial fair of the previous century up to near the close of 1899.

There remains to note a form of permanent exhibition that has been purposely reserved for this point. The Commercial Museum, of which Philadelphia has the two most effective examples in existence, is a purely commercial development, yet an educational text-book of unique and extraordinary compass. Though the Philadelphia Commercial Museum and the similar department of the Philadelphia Bourse were both projected before the foreign trade of the United States had reached the enormous volume that caused wonder and alarm alike all over the world, both have had a powerful, direct, and immediate influence in bringing about a greater appreciation abroad of American products.

The commercial museums stand between the American producer and the foreign factor. They inform the former where special articles are needed and the latter of reputable firms who can supply their needs. By a large corps of traveling agents, an enormous correspondence, and a direct coöperation with the State Department and its representatives, these museums keep in the closest possible touch with the commercial interests of the world. All this is independent of the exhibition feature, a vast department in which the principal economic productions, first of the United States and then correspondingly of the world, are spread before the eye of the visitor. In this connection should also be noted the fact that many of our commercial representatives abroad have established at their headquarters collections of American products that are particularly needed in their respective localities.

In all of the foregoing a single text has been kept in mind: What has been the influence of the fair, the exhibition, the international exposition? Ready answers have been suggested by the several items of cost and attendance. Another answer may be divined in their frequency and universality. And at the close of this survey of more than a hundred years, probably the best answer of all is to be found in the efforts in this line with which one century is closed and another opened.

These include the Greater American Exposition at Omaha, July-November, 1899, a commercial success, and a revelation of trans-Mississippi pioneering enterprise. This was supplemented by the Export Exposition and World’s Commercial Congress, the first of the kind ever held under the joint auspices of the Commercial Museum and the Franklin Institute of Philadelphia, in that city, in September-November, 1899. Then followed the Universal Exposition in Paris, in 1900. It was regarded as especially elaborate and successful. It beautified the Champ de Mars and Place des Invalides with handsome industrial palaces, brought into permanent existence the two Palaces of Fine Arts and the Alexander III. Bridge, lined the banks of the Seine with the “Street of Nations,” and swarmed the Trocadero with the world’s colonization. Over 50,000,000 witnessed its panoramic scenes. Its expense was largely provided for by prior sales of tickets on a bonded plan. The century turned with a prospective of the Pan American Exposition at Buffalo and International at Glasgow in 1901; the Ohio Centennial and International at Toledo in 1902; the International at Liege, Belgium, in 1903; and the Louisiana Purchase Centennial at St. Louis in 1904.

THE CENTURY’S PROGRESS IN COINAGE, CURRENCY, AND BANKING

BY HON. BRADFORD RHODES,

Editor of “Banker’s Magazine.”

I. BANKS AND BANKING RESOURCES.

The history of nation building contains no parallel to the progress and development of the United States in the past one hundred years, and the most accurate and striking indication of this remarkable growth may be seen in the evolution of our currency and banking systems. As the variations in temperature and the changes in atmospheric pressure are measured by the thermometer and barometer, so are the fluctuations in a country’s wealth gauged by the banks and other financial institutions. Likewise the degree of civilization to which a country has attained is reflected by the perfection of its monetary machinery. After having tried nearly every unwise experiment condemned by the teachings of history, the United States has finally reached a position where its currency meets the two fundamental requirements of sound finance, namely, (1) the standard of value is that in use among the great commercial states of the world; (2) all of the currency is either directly or indirectly convertible into the standard coin.

Despite some minor faults in our financial system which make the maintenance of the parity of the several kinds of currency a cumbersome and expensive operation, and prevent the banks from rendering that full degree of assistance to commerce and industry which they would afford under laws that did not unnecessarily restrict their rightful functions, all our money responds to the two essential tests—safety and convertibility; while the banks have been among the most powerful factors in placing the United States in the front rank of the nations of the earth.

Our finances may be likened to a triangle, of which the base—the gold standard—has been in actual existence since 1879 (much longer than that in law), and the other side—safety—also assured, wanting but another addition—elasticity—to complete the symmetrical and perfect figure. That this last requisite of a sound currency will be supplied by the wisdom and ingenuity of our people, is not to be doubted.

There are two respects in which the financial policy of the United States is unique in comparison with most other great commercial countries; first, its gold reserve is unprotected by the devices in use elsewhere, as it does not charge a premium on gold as the Bank of France does when gold is wanted for export, nor can it protect the gold reserve by raising the rate of discount as the great banks of Europe may do; second, banking is practically free and anti-monopolistic. Under these conditions we have reached a place that may well excite the astonishment of the old-world countries. Our stock of metallic money, as estimated by the Director of the Mint, in 1898, was $925,000,000 in gold and $638,000,000 in silver. No other nation owned so much gold. Only one—China—owned as much silver, but it had no gold, and the per capita of silver in China is only $1.96 against $8.56 in the United States. Our stock of gold is more than double that of Great Britain, greater by a hundred millions than that of France, and also exceeds that of Germany and Russia. Of our silver stock, $561,500,000 is a full legal tender, and $76,700,000 a limited legal tender, the latter sum representing the subsidiary coins.

In our banking power the situation is equally fortunate. Mulhall defines banking power as the paid-up capital of banks, the deposits exclusive of savings banks, and the amount of convertible paper money. He shows the growth of this form of wealth to have been as follows, from 1840 to 1894:—

MILLIONS POUNDS STERLING.

----+----------+--------+---------+----------+--------+------- | Great | United | France. | Germany. | Other | Total. | Britain. | States | | | States | ----+----------+--------+---------+----------+--------+------- 1840| 132 | 90 | 16 | 12 | 58 | 308 1894| 960 | 1,030 | 356 | 231 | 760 | 3,337 ----+----------+--------+---------+----------+--------+-------

In the two great essentials of financial strength—the quantity of metallic money and banking power—we have far outstripped every other nation. This is an unfailing sign of our advance toward a position of commercial and industrial supremacy. The sceptre of financial power has crossed the Atlantic from Europe to the New World. We are gradually acquiring command of the world’s markets, and in time we shall see our banks—ever the handmaids of commerce—extending their operations to the most distant quarters of the earth and carrying everywhere the beneficent influences of modern civilization.

New York as a financial centre has been growing with astonishing rapidity in recent years. From 1879 to 1899 the banks belonging to the New York Clearing-House Association increased their deposits from $254,700,000 to $910,500,000, and their specie—chiefly gold—from $54,700,000 to $202,600,000, the latter item having about doubled in the past two years, being $104,700,000 in 1897, and $202,600,000, as above stated, in 1899. The aggregate of banking institutions in the city—national banks, state banks, trust companies, and savings banks, exclusive of private banking firms—had, about January 1, 1899, capital, surplus, and profits amounting to $311,600,000; deposits of $2,047,800,000; and total resources of nearly $2,500,000,000. One bank—the National City—with over $144,000,000 of deposits, is the largest in the United States; while the Bowery Savings Bank, with 121,000 depositors and $67,000,000 of deposits, is the largest of its kind in the country.

The present status of the different classes of banks in the United States is fairly shown by the following table compiled from the Annual Report of the Comptroller of the Currency, for the year 1898:—

PRINCIPAL ITEMS OF RESOURCES AND LIABILITIES OF ALL CLASSES OF BANKS IN THE UNITED STATES, JULY 14, 1898.

--------------------+--------------+-------------+------------+- | National | State Banks.|Loan & Trust| | Banks. | | Companies. | --------------------+--------------+-------------+------------+- Loans |$2,151,757,655| $813,749,803|$539,162,445| United States bonds | 285,356,900| 4,185,304| 34,186,440| Other bonds | 250,689,375| 127,500,484| 159,791,312| Cash | 492,882,724| 133,877,133| 22,250,862| Capital | 622,016,745| 233,587,353| 101,228,555| Surplus and profits | 332,971,643| 109,554,519| 97,643,666| Deposits | 2,076,226,576| 912,365,406| 662,138,397| Total resources | 3,977,675,445|1,356,084,800| 942,462,179| --------------------+--------------+-------------+------------+-

--------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------- | Savings | Private | Total. | Banks. | Banks. | --------------------+--------------+-----------+-------------- Loans |$1,070,775,293|$57,206,819|$4,632,632,015 United States bonds | 140,029,726| 927,473| 464,685,843 Other bonds | 834,670,491| 3,599,092| 1,376,250,754 Cash | 32,928,323| 5,857,132| 687,796,174 Capital | 18,536,130| 16,721,750| 992,090,533 Surplus and profits | 187,475,971| 5,092,341| 732,738,140 Deposits | 2,028,208,409| 62,085,084| 5,741,023,872 Total resources | 2,241,344,991| 91,436,387| 8,609,003,802 --------------------+--------------+-----------+--------------

There were 3582 national banks that reported, and 5903 other banks, a total of 9485. The total banking funds, that is, capital, surplus and profits, and individual deposits, of all banks reporting, amounted to $7,416,355,568.

We cannot get a correct understanding of these figures without going back to earlier dates and making comparisons. In 1798 there were twenty-five state banks in the country, against 3965 reporting to the Comptroller of the Currency in 1898, which is perhaps about 90 per cent of the total of such institutions now existing.

A hundred years ago the capital of the state banks was less than twenty millions, compared with $233,971,643 now reported. They had, all told, but $14,000,000 of specie—half as much as is now held by one New York city bank alone. Their circulation was only $9,000,000, compared with more than $200,000,000 of national bank circulation now outstanding.

The national banks also show a remarkable growth. In 1869 there were 1620 banks in operation, reporting $420,800,000 capital, $547,900,000 individual deposits, $17,500,000 specie, and $1,517,700,000 total resources. Thirty years later the number of banks had increased to 3590, while the capital was $608,300,000, the individual deposits $2,232,100,000, and specie $371,843,400, while the total resources had increased to $4,403,800,000.

The total wealth of the United States in 1895 was estimated at more than $80,000,000,000,—far exceeding in the aggregate that of any other country in the world. It is expected that the census of 1900 will show our total wealth to be more than $100,000,000,000, or probably double that of Great Britain, the next richest nation.

But while the nation is piling up wealth at an unexampled rate, it cannot be said that this is a land “where wealth accumulates and men decay.” Great in its material resources, the country was never before stronger in those elements which constitute the chief reliance of national power. A united citizenship, possessing an honesty that adversity cannot sully and an intelligence that when once aroused penetrates the most cunningly concealed economic sophistries, working out the problems of the future under laws and conditions assuring to the individual the largest opportunities, points to a development in the twentieth century in no wise inferior to that of the hundred years preceding.

II. COINAGE AND PRODUCTION OF PRECIOUS METALS.

The prevailing systems of coinage in this country and among all great commercial nations are the result of development and growth. Gold and silver have become the principal money metals by a process of natural selection, which has chosen the instruments best suited to the purpose. In recent years, and under the laws of development, nearly all the great trading countries of the world have selected gold as the standard of value. In the future, gold itself may give way to something better, for it only relatively meets the essentials of a perfect standard.

Among Greeks, Romans, and Oriental peoples, cattle were generally used as a standard of value. The modern rupee of India is the old Sanscrit word roupa, a herd. Capital is but the estimate of Roman riches in cattle. The Latin pecus, cattle, is the root of pecunia, riches, and the origin of our word pecuniary. The Icelanders measured values in dried fish; the Hudson Bay country in skins; the early Virginians in tobacco; the Indians of the United States and Canada in wampum; the Chinese, even in recent times, in squares of pressed tea; the Africans in bars of salt and slaves.

These primitive devices gradually gave way, under the demands of international trade, to the use of metals as standards of value. Tin, copper, gold, silver, and iron all were used, and, at first, passed by weight. Government coinage of money is thought to date from the seventh century B. C., and is credited to the Lydians and to Pheidon of Argos, the official stamp being a guarantee of the honesty, weight, and purity of the coins.

Modern coinage dates from the reformation of the coinage of Rome under Constantine, who introduced the gold solidus of $3.02 in value, and a silver coin of like weight but of relative value. After the time of Julian, this silver piece, called siliqua, was given such value as that twenty-four of them equaled a gold solidus. In the Frankish Empire, under the Merovingian kings, the relative values of the solidus and siliqua fluctuated greatly. In the eighth century, on account of the scarcity of gold, there was a gradual transition to the silver standard, and a silver unit, also called a solidus, was substituted for the gold solidus, the former being divided into twelve pence. This silver solidus afterwards became the shilling of England and Germany. At first 300 pence were coined out of a pound of silver; but under Pepin the number was reduced to twenty-two solidi of twelve pence each—264 pence—out of a pound of silver. Under Charlemagne it was provided that only 240 pence, or twenty solidi of account, should be stamped out of a pound of silver, and this system was introduced, with more or less success, in what is now France and Germany. As to form, it has remained, up to the most recent period, the basis not only of the countries of Charlemagne’s Empire but of England.

After the time of Henry VIII. came a period of coinage debasement which culminated in 1551. A thorough coinage reform was effected under Elizabeth in 1560. The first large coinages of gold in England were made under James I. These continued until the death of William III., in 1701. Still, silver continued to be the standard metal, and in 1695 another attempt was made to reform the currency by a recoinage of the silver pieces, most of which had been clipped or worn, into a new full-weight silver coin. These, however, were soon exported, in spite of a reduction of the current value of the guinea, in 1717. The gold standard in England gained a nearly complete victory by act of Parliament in 1774, which provided that silver coins not of full weight (there were hardly any others) need not be accepted in payments of more than twenty-five pounds, except by weight. This provision, after several renewals, became permanent in 1798. In 1797 coinage of silver was suspended, and the single gold standard practically introduced, though its operation was somewhat interfered with by the existence of a paper currency. In 1816 the present English monetary system was introduced. It held fast to the gold standard, by the provision that silver pieces should be used only as divisional coins, and with a legal-tender power limited to forty shillings.

Properly speaking, there was no coinage in the United States during the colonial period. Maryland had a mint at one time, and one or two of the other States, but they practically amounted to nothing. In the early colonial period the substitutes for coins were wampum and bullets, as in Massachusetts; skins and furs, as in New York; tobacco, as in Maryland and Virginia. The coins in use before the Revolution were, to some extent, those of England, but more largely those of Spain, circulated in South America and traveling up to the United States. The unit of account was the Spanish milled dollar or piece-of-eight, though, up to 1775, accounts were kept in pounds, shillings, and pence, a pound consisting, then as now, of twenty shillings, and a shilling of twelve pence “colonial” or “pound” currency. Four pounds of this “colonial currency” were reckoned as equal to three pounds sterling.

This colonial composite system of current coins was regulated by coinage tariffs. Such a tariff, issued in 1750, valued one ounce of silver at six shillings and eightpence, the Spanish milled dollar at six shillings, the guinea at twenty-eight shillings, and the English crown at six shillings and eightpence. All foreign coins were valued in proportion to the value of the Spanish piece-of-eight. Some of the colonies stamped the shilling, which constituted a large part of the money in circulation. It, however, varied greatly in value in the different colonies. Thus, the Spanish dollar equaled five shillings in Georgia; eight in North Carolina and New York; six in Virginia, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island; seven and sixpence in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; thirty-two and sixpence in South Carolina. The Spanish dollar itself, with which these comparisons were made, was frequently below legal weight, and, therefore, varied in value. Where the pieces mentioned in the tariff of 1776 were of full weight, the ratio there established was the English ratio of one to 15.21, the ratio for bullion being nearly the same.

After the tariff of 1776 had been in operation for six years, the colonies began to feel keenly the difficulties caused by the variety of coins constituting their metallic circulating medium, and the need of a special American coinage was frequently expressed. In 1782, Robert Morris, superintendent of finance, submitted to the Congress of the Confederation a scheme for a national coinage and the establishment of an American mint, which met with approval. Jefferson recommended the decimal system, with the dollar as the unit. Neither of these proposals was carried into effect till, in 1786, the Congress of the Confederation chose as the monetary unit of the United States the dollar of 375.64 grains of pure silver, which unit had its origin in the Spanish piaster or milled dollar, then the basis of the metallic circulation of the English colonies in America. This American dollar was never coined, there not being at the time a mint in the United States.

The Act of April 2, 1792, established the first monetary system of the United States. The bases of the system were: The gold dollar, containing 24.75 grains of pure gold, and stamped in pieces of $10, $5, and $2.50, denominated respectively eagles, half-eagles, and quarter-eagles; the silver dollar, containing 371.25 grains of pure silver. A mint was established. The coinage was unlimited, and there was no mint charge. The ratio of gold to silver in coinage was 1:15. Both gold and silver were legal tender. The standard was double.[4] The Act of 1792 undervalued gold, which was therefore exported. The Act of June 28, 1834, was passed to remedy this by changing the mint ratio between the metals to 1:16.002. The latter act fixed the weight of the gold dollar at 25.8 grains, but lowered the fineness from 0.916⅔ to 0.899225. The fine weight of the gold dollar was thus reduced to 23.2 grains. The Act of 1834 undervalued silver as that of 1792 had undervalued gold, and silver was attracted to Europe by the more favorable ratio of 1:15½. The Act of January 18, 1837, was passed to make the fineness of the gold and silver coins uniform. The legal weight of the gold dollar was fixed at 25.8 grains, and its fine weight at 23.22 grains. The fineness was therefore changed by this act to 0.900 and the ratio to 1:15.988+. Silver continued to be exported. The Act of February 21, 1853, reduced the weight of the silver coins of a denomination less than $1, which the Acts of 1792, 1834, and 1837 had made exactly proportional to the weight of the silver dollar, and provided that they should be legal tender to the amount of only $5. Under the Acts of 1792, 1834, and 1837 they had been full legal tender. By the Act of 1853 the legal weight of the half dollar was reduced to 192 grains, and other fractions of the dollar in proportion. The coinage of the fractional parts of the dollar was reserved to the government.

[4] This was true so far as the law was concerned, but not actually, as may be seen by reading the sentences immediately following the above statement.

The Act of February 12, 1873, provided that the unit of value of the United States should be the gold dollar of the standard weight of 25.8 grains, and that there should be coined besides the following gold coins: A quarter-eagle, or two and-a-half dollar gold piece; a three-dollar gold piece; a half-eagle, or five-dollar piece; an eagle, or ten-dollar piece; and a double eagle, or twenty-dollar piece, all of a standard weight proportional to that of the dollar piece. These coins were made legal tender in all payments at their nominal value when not below the standard weight and limit of tolerance provided in the act for the single piece, and when reduced in weight they should be legal tender at a valuation in proportion to their actual weight. The silver coins provided for by the Act were a trade dollar, a half-dollar or fifty-cent piece, a quarter-dollar, and a ten-cent piece, the weight of the trade dollar to be 420 grains troy; the half-dollar, twelve and a half grams; the quarter-dollar and dime, respectively, one half and one fifth of the weight of the half-dollar. The silver coins were made legal tender at their nominal value for any amount not exceeding $5 in any one payment. Owners of silver bullion were allowed to deposit it at any mint of the United States to be formed into bars or into trade dollars, and no deposit of silver for other coinage was to be received. Section 2 of the joint resolution of July 22, 1876, recited that the trade dollar should not thereafter be legal tender, and that the Secretary of the Treasury should be authorized to limit the coinage of the same to an amount sufficient to meet the export demand for it.

The Act of March 3, 1887, retired the trade dollar and prohibited its coinage. That of September 26, 1890, discontinued the coinage of the one-dollar and three-dollar gold pieces. The Act of February 28, 1878, directed the coinage of silver dollars of the weight of 412½ grains troy, of standard silver, as provided in the Act of January 18, 1837, and that such coins, with all silver dollars theretofore coined, should be legal tender at their nominal value for all debts and dues, public and private, except where otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract. The Secretary of the Treasury was authorized and directed by the first section of the act to purchase from time to time silver bullion at the market price thereof, not less than $2,000,000 worth nor more than $4,000,000 worth per month, and to cause the same to be coined monthly, as fast as purchased, into such dollars. A subsequent act, that of July 14, 1890, enacted that the Secretary of the Treasury should purchase silver bullion to the aggregate amount of 4,500,000 ounces, or so much thereof as might be offered, each month, at the market price thereof, not exceeding $1.00 for 371.25 grains of pure silver, and to issue in payment thereof Treasury notes of the United States, such notes to be redeemable by the government, on demand, in coin, and to be legal tender in payment of all debts, public and private, except where otherwise expressly stipulated in the contract. The act directed the Secretary of the Treasury to coin each month 2,000,000 ounces of the silver bullion purchased under the provisions of the act into standard silver dollars until July 1, 1891, and thereafter as much as might be necessary, to provide for the redemption of the Treasury notes issued under the act. The purchasing clause of the Act of July 14, 1890, was repealed by the Act of November 1, 1893. The War Revenue Act of June 13, 1898, authorized and directed the coinage of standard silver dollars to the amount of not less than one and one half million dollars a month, from the bullion in the Treasury purchased under the Act of July 14, 1890. The Act of June 9, 1879, made the subsidiary silver coins of the United States legal tender to the amount of $10. The minor coins are legal tender to the amount of twenty-five cents.

The following official figures give, by periods of ten years, the coinage of the United States from the establishment of the Mint to the present time:—

-------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+- Years. | Gold. | Silver. | Minor. | -------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+- 1793–1799 | $696,530.00| $1,216,158.75| $50,111.42| 1800–1809 | 3,067,067.50| 3,154,687.75| 164,865.79| 1810–1819 | 2,348,915.00| 6,107,903.75| 162,534.07| 1820–1829 | 2,579,017.50| 14,787,327.65| 178,372.70| 1830–1839 | 17,745,422.50| 28,112,136.60| 334,810.21| 1840–1849 | 58,909,439.00| 22,223,733.00| 360,840.33| 1850–1859 | 352,915,059.00| 47,238,813.00| 1,135,580.03| 1860–1869 | 290,786,131.00| 13,637,607.90| 8,504,070.00| 1870–1879 | 370,718,883.50| 142,196,178.60| 2,231,009.50| 1880–1889 | 411,766,277.00| 305,869,081.20| 8,127,305.56| 1890 to June | 374,806,225.00| 136,248,501.65| 7,564,849.65| 30, 1897 | | | | -------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+- |$1,886,338,958.00|$720,792,129.85|$28,814,558.26| -------------+-----------------+---------------+--------------+-

-------------+----------------- Years. | Total. -------------+----------------- 1793–1799 | $1,962,800.17 1800–1809 | 6,386,621.04 1810–1819 | 8,619,561.82 1820–1829 | 17,544,717.85 1830–1839 | 46,192,369.31 1840–1849 | 81,494,012.33 1850–1859 | 401,289,443.03 1860–1869 | 312,927,808.90 1870–1879 | 515,146,071.60 1880–1889 | 725,762,663.76 1890 to June | 518,619,576.30 30, 1897 | -------------+----------------- |$2,635,945,646.01 -------------+-----------------

At this writing the report of the Director of the Mint has not been published, but the coinage for the full year 1897 may be stated as follows: gold, $76,028,484; silver, $18,486,697; and for the year 1898, gold, $77,985,757; silver, $23,034,034. From January 1 to June 30, 1899, the coinage was: gold, $65,915,020; silver, $12,780,441.

It is sometimes thought that the silver dollars are not a full legal tender, but this is not so. They are an unlimited legal tender for all debts, public and private. The Treasury does not, in practice, redeem silver dollars in gold, but successive Secretaries of the Treasury have announced their readiness to do so, if necessary to keep the silver dollars from depreciating,—that is, preserve their parity,—which the law directs.

Silver certificates and gold certificates are not legal tender, but entitle the holder to receive the kind and amount of coin named on their face.

The value of gold bullion in a dollar of that metal is 99.991125 cents, or practically 100 cents. The value of the silver bullion in a dollar of that metal is about 45 cents. It varies, however, with the fluctuations in the market value of silver.

It will thus be seen that the bullion value of a silver dollar and of a gold dollar differs greatly, but the equality of the purchasing power of the two coins is due to the fact that the silver dollars are receivable for public and private debts, that they are indirectly exchangeable for gold, by depositing them in the banks, and that the government is pledged to redeem them in gold, if necessary to preserve their parity with gold.

As early as 1826 the United States began to export domestic gold, beginning with an export of $1,056,088 of gold coin and bullion, and receiving an import of $678,740. Up to 1897 the grand total of exports of gold coin and bullion amounted to $2,186,238,541, and the total imports to $1,112,138,766, an excess of exports over imports of $1,074,099,775. In 1898 the imports of gold coin and bullion into the United States were $120,391,674, and the exports $15,406,391, making the net imports $104,985,283.

From 1821 to 1897 the grand total of exports of silver coin and bullion from the United States was $1,152,688,776, and the imports $730,325,881, making an excess of exports over imports of $422,362,895. In the fiscal year 1898, the silver imports were $30,927,781, and the exports $55,105,239, making the excess of exports $24,177,458.

The total product of gold in the United States from 1792 up to 1896 was $2,113,034,769, and of silver $1,444,970,000, making a grand total of the precious metals of $3,558,004,769. The total value of the entire world’s production of gold, between the years 1493 and 1896, was $8,983,320,600, and of silver $10,556,700,800, making a grand total of gold and silver of $19,540,021,400.

As a comparison of the money status of the United States at the beginning and end of the century, the following figures are interesting: In 1800 the population was 5,308,483; the estimated bank notes outstanding, $10,500,000; the estimated specie in the country, $17,500,000; the total money in the United States, $28,000,000; the specie in the Treasury, $1,500,000; the money in circulation, $26,500,000; the amount per capita, $4.99. In 1898 the population was 74,522,000; the total coin in the United States, including bullion in the Treasury, $1,498,993,249; total paper money, $1,138,440,126; total money of all kinds, $2,637,433,375; coin, bullion, and paper money in the Treasury, $799,537,480; total circulation, $1,837,859,895; circulation per capita, $24.66.

Perhaps no law relating to the coins and currency of the United States has been so widely discussed, or has borne more directly on the attitude and influence of political parties than the Coinage Act of 1873. This act grew out of a proposition to revise our coinage laws, made by John Jay Knox to the Secretary of the Treasury, in April, 1870. Mr. Knox, in his rough draft of a bill, provided for a silver dollar of 384 grains, to be a legal tender for sums not exceeding $5.00. Thus, the standard silver dollar of 412½ grains was eliminated. It did not appear in the bill as it passed the Senate, January 10, 1871, nor in that reported to the House, March 9, 1871. The bill underwent protracted and thorough discussion, and on May 27, 1872, was passed in the House. As passed, it contained the original provision for coining a silver dollar of the weight of 384 grains—twice the weight of the silver half dollar. These dollars were to be a legal tender for amounts not exceeding $5.00. The Senate amended this House bill, by substituting a trade dollar of the weight of 420 grains for that of 384 grains, at the same time preserving the legal-tender limit of $5.00. In the amended form, it passed the Senate, January 17, 1873, and the House, February 7, 1873, and became a law. It will be seen that the standard silver dollar of 412½ grains was never in the bill, and could not, therefore, have been secretly omitted, as was afterwards charged. It was omitted from the first draft, and all through, because none were being coined, and those that had been coined were exported, the silver bullion in them being, at that time, worth more as bullion than coin. By joint resolution of Congress, approved July 22, 1876, the trade dollars provided for in the act were deprived of their legal-tender quality. It was supposed they would circulate in China, but they proved useless even for that purpose.

III. EARLY BANKING IN THE UNITED STATES.

The first banks in the United States owed their origin to Robert Morris and Alexander Hamilton. Morris, as early as 1763, conceived the plan of a bank to assist in developing American trade, and in 1779, Hamilton proposed the organization of “The Company of the Bank of the United States.” These plans did not mature, but were followed, at the suggestion of Thomas Paine, by an association of ninety-two subscribers to a fund of 300,000 pounds Pennsylvania currency to support the Revolutionary army. This association became known as the Pennsylvania Bank. It commenced business July 17, 1780, and after a career of a year and a half, during which time it greatly aided the government in furnishing army supplies, its affairs were wound up.

On May 17, 1781, Hamilton presented the plan of a bank to Congress, which was to be truly national, and “created avowedly to aid the United States.” Its name was to be the Bank of North America, with a subscription of $400,000 in gold and silver, and its notes, payable on demand, to be receivable for duties and taxes in every State. Congress approved the plan, and Morris, then Superintendent of Finance, published it, with an address showing its advantages to the government and people, then suffering from the ill effects of a depreciated currency.

The Bank of North America was organized November 1, 1781, and began business January 7, 1782. It creditably fulfilled its mission “to aid the United States,” and, after the expiration of its charter, became a State institution. In 1864 it entered the national banking system, though retaining its old name. This bank was followed by the Bank of New York, which began business June 9, 1784, and by the Massachusetts Bank, which began business July 5, 1784.

FIRST UNITED STATES BANK.—This institution grew out of the recommendations of Alexander Hamilton, and formed a part of his scheme of strengthening the public credit and bringing about a closer union of States. His plan was incorporated into a bill which passed the Senate January 3, 1791, and the House, January 20, 1791. Washington signed it February 25, 1791. The bill was hotly opposed as unconstitutional by Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, Attorney-General Edmund Randolph, and in general by representatives from the Southern States.

The capital of the bank was fixed at $10,000,000, one fifth of which was to be subscribed by the government. The remainder was subscribed by individuals, and two hours after the opening of the books the capital was oversubscribed to the amount of 4000 shares. The central bank was located at Philadelphia, and afterwards branches were established in New York, Boston, Baltimore, Washington, Norfolk, Charleston, Savannah, and New Orleans. Business was first opened in Carpenters’ Hall, Philadelphia, December 12, 1791. In July, 1797, the site was removed to a new building on Third Street, below Chestnut, and it remained there till the dissolution of the bank, with the exception of a brief removal to Germantown in 1798, during the epidemic of yellow fever. Though this bank proved a profitable enterprise for the government, it failed to secure a renewal of its charter in 1811, chiefly because so many of its shares had passed into foreign hands.

EARLY STATE BANKS.—From 1790 to 1811 the number of State banks increased from four to eighty-eight; their circulation from $2,500,000 to $22,700,000; their capital from $2,500,000 to $42,610,000. In the same time the metallic circulation of the country rose from $9,000,000 to $30,000,000. These banks failed to meet the monetary necessities of the War of 1812, and in 1814 practically all of them south of New England suspended specie payments. Their notes were poured out in all denominations from six cents upward, and, with coin redemption stopped, they depreciated rapidly. This led to great financial distress in 1818–1820, and to excessive bank failures. The seriousness of the general situation, and the declining credit of the government, led to the establishment of the second Bank of the United States.

SECOND BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.—In October, 1814, Secretary Dallas laid a report before Congress, in which he deprecated the uncertain amount and value of the paper currency. “There exists,” he said, “at this time no adequate circulating medium common to the citizens of the United States. The moneyed transactions of private life are at a stand, and the fiscal operations of the government labor with extreme inconvenience.” He then recommended as the remedy the establishment of a national banking institution. A bill, based upon Dallas’s plan for such an institution, failed of passage in the House in 1814, and again in 1815, though passed by the Senate. It was, however, finally passed in an amended form, but was vetoed by President Madison.

On December 24, 1815, Mr. Dallas laid before Congress another plan for a national bank. A bill was framed authorizing such an institution, with a capital of $35,000,000, $7,000,000 of which were to be subscribed by the government, the central bank to be at Philadelphia, with power to establish branches, payments to be made in specie at all times unless otherwise authorized by Congress. This bill passed both Houses of Congress, and was signed by President Madison, April 10, 1816. When the subscription books of this bank were closed, it was found that the subscriptions fell short of the authorized $35,000,000 by $3,000,000, which amount was taken by Stephen Girard.

The bank could not lend more than $500,000 to the government without authority of Congress, was to be the fiscal agent of the Treasury, and to receive deposits of public moneys. No notes of a less denomination than $5.00 were to be issued, and the penalty for refusing to pay notes or deposits in specie on demand was twelve per cent per annum until paid. It began business January 7, 1817. Owing to the impending financial crisis and bad management, the bank verged rapidly toward insolvency, but was resuscitated under the vigorous management of a new president, Langdon Cheves, who was elected March 6, 1819. He was succeeded by Nicholas Biddle in 1823, who was destined to see the fall of the great institution.

The national bank incurred the hostility of the State banks, which called it a monster because it refused to allow the notes of the local banks to accumulate as deposits in its branches without redemption. Various States passed discriminating laws against it. Jackson, in his message to Congress in 1829, attacked the constitutionality of the law establishing it, and charged that it had “failed in the great end of establishing a uniform and sound currency.” At this time the Bank was an imposing institution with its capital of $35,000,000, its public deposits of six to seven million, its private deposits of a like amount, its circulation of $12,000,000, its annual discounts of $40,000,000, its annual profits of over $3,000,000, its palatial establishment in Philadelphia, its twenty-five branches throughout the Union, its five hundred employees, its stock distributed through nearly all parts of the world, and its notes current at par at home and abroad.

Jackson’s message was not received favorably by Congress. His aversion, it was thought, was due rather to his belief that the Bank was his enemy than to any dislike of a national bank. The growing hostility between him and Henry Clay induced the latter to make the renewal of the Bank’s charter a political issue. When the bill rechartering the Bank was passed in July, 1832, Jackson vetoed it, charging, in the main, that the Bank was a monopoly. This brought the question of the further existence of the Bank fully into the arena of politics, in the presidential election of 1832, with the “Hero of New Orleans” on one side, and on the other “monster monopoly,” “Old Nick’s money,” and “Clay’s rags.” Jackson won, and speedily decided to remove the public deposits from the Bank. This decision precipitated a bitter war between Jackson and Congress. But Jackson did not swerve from his purpose. By 1835 it became apparent that the Bank could not secure a renewal of its charter from Congress. As a confession of its defeat, and just thirteen days before the expiration of its federal charter, the Bank obtained from the State of Pennsylvania, February 18, 1836, a charter for the United States Bank of Pennsylvania, for a period of thirty years. Shorn of its importance, in a restricted field, yet with enormous capital, it fell into large bond and stock investments of questionable value. Its troubles were aggravated by bad management. It suspended during the panic of 1837 and the next year, and again for the last time in 1841. Biddle resigned the presidency in 1840, and four years later died poor and broken-hearted. Thus perished what is sometimes called the third Bank of the United States, its predecessor, the second Bank of the United States, having fallen a victim to political intrigue and loss of prestige. The shareholders lost their entire investment of $28,000,000, but the circulating notes were all paid, and also the deposits. The government got back its investment of $7,000,000, and made $6,093,167 besides, from its connection with the Bank.

STATE BANKS AND INDEPENDENT TREASURY.—After the removal of deposits from the Bank of the United States, September 26, 1833, the public revenues were deposited in selected State banks, sometimes called “pet banks.” In 1836 eighty-eight State banks in twenty-four States held public deposits to the amount of $49,377,986. As the State banks had thrown their influence against the national bank, they were rewarded by allowing them to use the public money intrusted to them as a basis of extending their loans and for enormous issues of their own notes. Banks were started for the sole purpose of issuing notes which they could use in buying public lands. As a consequence the government lost heavily through the depreciation of these notes and the failure of the banks. On July 11, 1836, the Secretary of the Treasury issued a circular forbidding the receipt of anything but specie in payment for public lands. This caused a run on the banks and aided in hastening the financial crisis of 1837. An act of Congress of June 23, 1836, authorizing the calling in of $37,468,859 of the public funds deposited in the State banks, for purposes of distribution, forced the suspension of specie payments by all such banks, with very few exceptions.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us