De Temporibus et Moribus.

Send a letter three thousand miles for two cents! Buy the Herald, the World, or the Times for two cents! What a two cent country this is getting to be.

Think of this daily history as black and white in substance as in appearance ;-the one side telling of battle, murder, and sudden death; lightning and tempest; plague, pestilence, and famine; sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion; false doctrine, heresy, and schism; and of all the rest of the crimes, casualties, and falsities from which we pray to be delivered; the other chronicling tales of heroism, charitableness, high purpose, lofty deeds; pleading for true doctrine. and exalted virture; recording the spread of commerce, the discrimination of the Gospel, the progress of science. See, the good and the evil are as thoroughly mixed in the newspaper as in the great globe itself while the cost is,-two cents. We live in the nineteenth century, and this is the modern method of accounting for unaccountable things, the masculine equivalent for the feminine "be

cause."

But, jesting aside, is this warring of the newspapers a benefit to the reading public? Let us see.

We live in an age when startling events are of almost daily occurrence, not to speak of the anniversaries of those which happened years ago. We are a people determined to keep pace with the times, a nation fond of knowledge,

and especially of that knowledge which pertains to the day's doings. In short, every American has an unquenchable thirst for news. So the daily paper is a necessity. How else could men hear of the coming horse-race, the latest pearls of wisdom dropped from the lips of some political favorite, or the last dynamite plot which might have killed some one? Then men will have the daily news. You cannot prevent them from taking some daily newspaper. If a man is unable to pay for it himself, he will let the publishers send it gratis, or else borrow his neighbor's copy Consequently it is money in his pocket if he can get for two cents, that for which he once paid five.

Another thing, if up to this time he has been compelled by "circumstances over which he has no control," (the lazy man's high-flown expression for poverty), to take a trashy sheet, hitherto sold for a cent or two, what a relief to find himself able to subscribe for an honest, reliable paper! I speak comparatively, of course, for allowance must always be made for the editors' individual bias. But then who could expect. or of what use would be a perfectly independent paper in this republic of ours, so notably parti san? It would be uninteresting and unpopular. I mean a paper honestly without a party,-a paper which should confine itself entirely to constructive criticism in politics' and never advocate any candidate's election. Would it not be stupid? But this is a digression.

The news dealers are grumbling over the "decline in newspapers." Nor is it wonderful when one compares their past with their present gains. A fall of a hundred or two per cent. in a single day is enough to make any proprietor's face grow long. They get but little sympathy, however, for the "consumers" do not care, while the publishers say that the "middle-men" are making a fair profit.

But do the publishers themselves gain or lose by the operation? Just now they are undoubtedly losing what they

might have gained had they kept up their old prices. Yet I am inclined to think that they, like the news managers, are making a fair profit. It must be remembered that the price of white paper is not what it once was; that the printing press has attained to a wonderful state of perfection; that the type set for the daily, answers in a great measure for the weekly and semi-weekly editions for which there is little cost in the way of editing, composing, and proof-reading, and which are exceedingly profitable because of their advertisements. Taking, then, all these things into consideration, I see no reason to look for the immediate bankruptcy of the Herald, World and Times.

Again, the circulation will surely be increased, and with a wider circulation, necessarily comes an increase of advertisements, so they need hardly fear for the future, If only the standard of quantity and quality be adhered to faithfully, one who is not a whit a prophet can easily predict the result;-that, like all similar enterprises, it will pay in time.

The cause of the war is uncertain, but that all parties were in a state of expectantcy, is shown by the readiness with which they accepted the challenge, and rushed to combat. That they fully understand what they are about, is scarcely to be questioned, and until they themselves cry for quarter, they surely need no sympathy. Then let us not waste our pity, but instead, cheer them on in the good work until the great weeklies shall feel compelled to follow their shining example. The sooner we become a two cent nation the better, if we only get good daily newspapers at a fair price.

A FOOLISH VIRGIN.

We had heard rumors for a long time that a "Vassar novel" was to appear; one that should really have something in it, and should not be mere trash, with the name "Vassar" tacked on at conspicuous corners to make it sell; and so we eagerly awaited the appearance of "A Foolish Virgin." Never was novel more fitly named; although the title was apparently selected as being effective, and the story was conscientiously held to its standand, regardless of the detriment thereby occasioned to Vassar, women in general, and one poor heroine in particular. It is possible to conceive of a girl-yes, even a Vassar girlwho should be foolish to a marked degree; for such accidents will happen in the best regulated colleges; but surely such a supremely foolish virgin as "this nice Elinor of ours," is a phenomenon who should have been judiciously crushed in comparative infancy. To think that, after Vassar has safely struggled through other calamities, she should again be dragged before the public as, in some inexplicable way, responsible for this stylish inanity!

If Elinor had only been definitely bad, it would have been a relief; but her characteristics seemed to be chiefly negative." She was pretty, perhaps something more; (doubtful apparently) "with a complexion so charmingly changeful that it almost acquired expression." Pity it did not; that would have been one thing original at least! She was the embodiment of selfishness, but she achieved that vice by not being generous; somewhat as pins save peoples' lives by not being swallowed. Added to her apparent mental incapacity is a painfully deficient moral sense; and "this unscrupulous young heroine of ours" proved that she lacked the right of being considered a characteristic Vassar girl by the very fact of her dishonesty. Our dear Elinor" must have been cordially des

pised during her college course; for her principles were such as to admit of deliberate cheating and persistent deception, for the mere gratification of her vanity.

Max Halliday lacked principle to an equally marked extent. But his want of honesty was a trifle more endurable, since it was usually called forth by a desire to put some one else at ease, rather than to make himself appear uncommonly fine. Heath "could not understand why Halliday was willing to perjure his soul, even in the matter of china, simply to please a pretty girl. Halliday could not understand how a man could throw away the opportunity to please a pretty girl, for so slight a thing as a china scruple." One can imagine Halliday as being lovable from a pitiful sort of standpoint, because he was so absolutely dependent on other people; but he did not possess one quality which should call for respect. He was less exasperating than Elinor, because for him the author makes no pretension. While we are continually called upon to love "our dear Elinor," to admire "this nice Elinor of ours," when she has given us no cause to feel anything but disgust at her insipidity. It is possible to conceive a girl with all her displeasing characteristics, as still having a few of those indefinite redeeming qualities which are expressed by "good-hearted," or "well-meaning," but the story contains not even a hint of warrant as to their existence in Miss Morgan's interior mechanism.

If selfishness can combine on the plan of negatives, it was not a bad idea to make Elinor Morgan and Max Halliday fall in love with each other with the expectation of thus neutralizing at least one bad quality in each. In fact, Brother Ned and Mr. Heath are the only characters in the novel who do not regard themselves and their personal interests as paramount to every other consideration. Brother Ned is very good, what there is of him. One could wish that he had figured more prominently, except for the mer