leading towards a real union of Central American states. Nothing less than this union was the avowed aim of the Conference," to promote the unification and harmony of interests as one of the most efficacious means to prepare for the fusion of the Central American peoples into one single nationality." As a first means to this end there must be common legislation wherever possible. Hence the Conference adopted a provision, like that of the Hague Conference, for the regular, automatic meeting of further conferences. Within a month from the final ratification of the new treaties, each of the contracting Governments agrees to name one or more commissions to occupy themselves with matters of an economic and fiscal nature which it is deemed proper to make uniform in Central America. Within six months after their appointment the commissions shall present a report, and each Government shall communicate that report to all the other Governments, naming delegates to meet at a common conference to be convened on the first day of the following January. The object of this conference is to frame common laws. Similar conferences are to be held annually thereafter in January. The first conference is to meet at Tegucigalpa, and when its sessions are over it shall designate the next place where the conference is to meet, and so on from conference to conference. Thus there will arise, we are glad to say, almost immediately an international Central American Parliament.

As in the Hague Conference last summer, so in the Central American Conference this autumn, if, with many, the first subject of importance seemed that of a transformation of the Conference into an International Parliament, the second was certainly that of the establishment of an International Court. Such a Central American Court should represent, as the treaty text says, "The National Conscience of Central America." It should efficaciously guarantee the rights of the five Governments, and maintain peace and harmony in their

The Central American
Court of
Arbitral Justice ·

relations, without being obliged to resort in any case to the employment of force. The delegates therefore agreed to establish a permanent.tribunal, to be called the "Central American Court of Justice." To it the Governments are to bind themselves to submit all controversies of whatever nature. The delegates have even declared, in their Convention now before the Central American Governments for ratification, that the Court shall take cognizance of questions which an individual of one country may raise against any of the other contracting Governments, no matter whether his own Government supports the claim or not, if the remedies provided by the laws of the respective countries shall have been exhausted, and if a denial of justice shall be shown. It might be difficult to persuade most Governments to agree to such a provision. Each of the five Central American Governments is to name a judge for a term of five years, at an annual salary of eight thousand dollars. Final decisions are to be rendered in accordance with the agreements of at least three judges. It is a satisfaction to note the provision declaring that the office of such judge, while acting, is not compatible with the exercise of his profession and the discharge of public offices and employments-a provision doubtless one day to be ratified regarding the Hague Court of Arbitral Justice. The Central American Court is to sit at Cartago, but is authorized to transfer its residence if deemed proper. The first suggestion of these details probably came from Mr. Root. If so, he obtains within a few months a second triumph, for the Hague Conference followed almost to the letter many of his instructions to the American delegation. Thus has been established, first, peace and amity in Central America, and, second, definite arrangements for the legislative and executive departments of a proposed great state to be made out of five present little states. Finally, we in the North may feel justly elated because of the moral bond toward ourselves and Mexico involved in the fulfillment of these treaties. Civilization is thus justified of her children. The strong have aided the weak.

Mr. Kipling to College Men

Probably no recent writer is more widely read by undergraduates in American colleges than Rudyard Kipling. He has been called a materialist, but he is really the poet laureate of modern energy, daring, and achievement. His words recently spoken before the students of McGill University in Montreal will be heard with greater attention because students regard Mr. Kipling as one of themselves in their love of action. When you go into the battle of life, he said to the young men of McGill, you will be confronted by an organized conspiracy which will try to make you believe that the world is governed by the idea of wealth for wealth's sake. Sooner or later, however, you will see some man to whom this idea does not appeal, who is not interested in the methods of amassing wealth. You will be inclined to laugh at him at first and think that he is not "smart." Watch him closely, and he will presently show you that money dominates everybody except the man who does not want it. You may meet this man on a farm, in a village, in the Legislature. Whenever or wherever you meet him, and it comes to a direct issue with him, his little finger will be thicker than your loins, and you will go in fear of him; he will not go in fear of you. You will find that you have no weapon in your armory with which you can attack him. Study that man, because it does not pay to be obsessed with the desire of wealth for wealth's sake. If more wealth is necessary to you, for purposes not your own, use your left hand to acquire it, but keep your right for your proper work in life. If you employ both arms in that game, you will be in danger of stooping; in danger also of losing your soul. The chief cure for the depressions, despondencies, and doubts of youth, which have their root in the egotism of human nature, is to lose yourself in some issue not your own, in another man's trouble or another man's joy. Do not be "smart." Whenever you see any of your mates showing signs of "smartness" in his work, his talk, or his play, take him by the hand, or both hands, or by the back of the neck, if necessary, and lovingly, playfully, but firmly, lead him to a knowledge of higher

and more interesting things. In these words of Mr. Kipling is presented the gospel of the real life, of common sense, and of universal experience. It cannot be preached too often by men of Mr. Kipling's position, nor can it be heard. too frequently in our colleges.

A City Dramatized

Like

In many respects the most noteworthy event of the present opera season was the production at the Manhattan OperaHouse in New York on Friday of last week of Gustave Charpentier's musical romance "Louise." The real subject of the opera is neither a man nor a woman, but a city-Paris. From the beginning to the end it is the city that acts, that sings, that speaks, before the audience. some divinity, it has its slaves and its votaries. These it rules by compulsion and allurement. Within its power it holds their destinies; for their struggles in rebellion it brings tragic suffering; for acquiescence it brings buoyant gayety. What fate is to the Greek drama, the Bohemia of Paris is to the people who live on the stage in "Louise." The story is a simple one. A Parisian working-girl, Louise, captures the eye and then what might be called the heart of Julien, an artist; she in turn surrenders to him. The girl's mother scolds, her father tries affectionately to dissuade. Her resistance to the artist, however, gradually weakens. The call of the city, made vocal by the cries of the street venders, reinforces his suit. At last, as she is at work with her shopmates in a sewing establishment, she hears his voice in serenade. She can no longer control her desire. Amid the jeers of the girls she flies with him. Together they live on the slopes of Montmartre. The city, their divinity, lies before them. Night falls. Bohemians. and grisettes gather in masquerade. A mob of onlookers collect. With wild shouts and songs the roysterers bedeck Louise as Queen of Bohemia. Suddenly Louise's mother, broken in spirit, appears. She tells of the father's illness and pleads for her daughter's return. She promises her liberty. Louise goes with her. Then comes the tragedy. The father treats

her as a child. She has tasted freedom and is unresponsive. Pathetically, näively, he sings to her the old-time lullaby. Her only response is an ecstatic call for Julien and for the city. The father, angry, bids her go, and drives her before him. Louise, frightened, makes her escape. The father, come to his senses, repents; he calls for Louise. There is no answer. Overcome with sorrow, he breaks down. Suddenly rage seizes him again; but this time it is against the alluring city. He rushes toward the open window, and with shaking fist cries out with hatred, "Oh, Paris!"

The opera has been called French Art Socialistic. That is a tribute in Opera to Socialism, for it implies that a picture of the life of wage-earners is sufficient argument for social revolution. The fact is, the opera preaches no sermon, inculcates no lesson. It is an artistic picture of one great section of human life. It exhibits the French passion for delicacy in treatment, for clarity, for balance, for dramatic structure. Realism there is, too; but not the sort of realism that is really a perverted love of the ugly. The scenes, the dress, the language, the manners, are of the streets of Paris to-day. There are the chattering shop-girls, the impudent gamins, the posing artists, the coachman, old clo' man, tradesmen's clerks-all passing by as unaffectedly as ever did the denizens of Hester Street on the stage of Harrigan and Hart. But, as the whistles of the tugboats and the ferries sometimes blend in a strange and haunting harmony, so the cries of the venders become the voice of the street, the chattering of the shop-girls the voice of nervous industry, and the song of the ragpicker the voice of the submerged. One who enjoys looking at life from a French point of view will not be offended by the one episode that smacks of the theatrical. The music, like the other elements of the drama, would not have been possible without Wagner; but it has its own qualities, too. It never ceases to be an accompaniment of beautiful sound; and it intensifies the dramatic movement. The performance was remarkable. Used

as New York is to absurdly acted musicdramas, the people of the city should be grateful to Mr. Hammerstein for such a company of actors. The scenery was adequate. One scene in particular, that of the city from Montmartre, was a wonderfully artistic production. Miss Mary Garden, M. Dalmores, Mme. BresslerGianoli, and M. Gilibert were ably supported; and M. Campanini, the musical director, secured an ensemble that deserved all the enthusiastic applause it received. The one word to describe the opera as performed is “adequate.” On another page will be found a sketch of the composer, Gustave Charpentier, by Mr. Alvan F. Sanborn.

Music in New York

It is the fashion in some parts of the country to sneer at music in New York City as a matter of fashion and not of artistic appreciation or love. Boston crowds Symphony Hall, and everybody says, "What intelligent lovers of music the Bostonians are!" New York crowds two opera-houses, and is so eager to hear a great number of concerts of the highest class that it is often very difficult to secure seats, and everybody outside says, "How those New Yorkers go in droves !" Well-known European conductors who have been here during the past few years have taken a different point of view. They have declared, almost unanimously, that New York has a great and cultivated musical public, and that in point of appreciation it ranks with the first four or five musical cities in the world. These statements are amply borne out by the facts. New York has two large opera-houses; it has eight symphony orchestras, well sustained, and rendering music of the highest order at short intervals; it has several choral organizations, which not only present the great classical oratorios, but the new works, long before they are presented elsewhere in the country. There are, in addition, innumerable chamber concerts and recitals, and artists of the highest rank, like Kreisler and Paderewski, are received with an intelligent and persistent enthusiasm year after year. There are also a number of singing societies doing excel

lent work, and popular concerts are given in many parts of the city. A writer in the New York Evening Post reports that there are probably thirty thousand students of music in New York City; and a recent gift of $500,000 to the Institute of Musical Art, to be used in securing for New York students the best teachers of music in the world, is an evidence of the substantial love of the art in the metropolis. The same writer calls attention to the fact that Chinese tom-toms, Armenian and Turkish players, Greek music, Italian music of the lyric quality, Irish, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, and Hebrew music may all be heard in New York City.

An Early Gospel Text

At a meeting of the Archæological Institute of America, held December 30, Profes

sor H. A. Sanders, of the University of Michigan, reported on four manuscripts

Freer, of Detroit, early in 1907, in Egypt. They all certainly antedate 639 A.D., and probably range in date from the third to the sixth century. Of these, the two most interesting are one which contains the Psalms, and which is believed from the present examination to be one of the best manuscripts of the Psalms in existence; the other contains the four Gospels entire. The latter was probably written in the fifth or sixth century, but there is good reason for believing it to represent a text of the Gospels that existed as early as the first part of the second century. The most interesting feature in this manuscript is the following addition to the close of the Gospel of Mark, which is found inserted between the fourteenth and fifteenth verses:

Mark xvi. 14a -" And they answered, saying that this age of unrighteousness and unbelief is under the power of Satan, who does not permit the things which are made impure by the (evil) spirits to comprehend the truth of God (and) his power. 'For this reason, reveal thy righteousness now,' they said to Christ; and Christ said to them, The limit of the years of the power of Satan has been fulfilled, but other terrible things are at hand, and I was delivered unto death on behalf of those who sinned in order that they may return to the truth and sin no more, to the end that they may

tutional Law

In its issue of December 7 The Outlook suggests a rule of constitutional construction which, it seems to me, differs from that which has been followed by the Supreme Court. In commenting upon the issues presented by Senator Foraker's announcement of his candidacy, The Outlook says (page 753):

Is the Constitution to be treated like the charter of a corporation which possesses no powers not conferred by the charter, or is it the expressed will of the Nation, which, because it is a Nation, has all the powers of National sovereignty not expressly denied to it by the Constitution; and are the principles expressed in that document to be applied to the changed conditions of the National life as the National welfare may require ?

If by the word "Nation" is meant the people of the United States, then the Constitution need not be examined to ascertain the powers of the Nation, for the Nationthat is, the people-is all-powerful. If by the word "Nation" is meant the United States Government, then I submit The Outlook is in error.

The Constitution is "the expressed will of the Nation;" it is the measure of the powers conferred by the people upon the Federal Government; and in order to ascertain the powers of that Government the Constitution must be examined and construed.

and

power, The Constitution is a grant of the test of constitutionality has always been whether within the Constitution there could be found warrant for the act under consider

ation. The Constitution is examined, not to learn whether a power is denied, but to ascertain whether it has been granted.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Cooley, in his "Principles of Constitutional Law" (ed. 1891), says (page 28):

The government created by the Constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers, and the Constitution is the measure and the test of the powers conferred. Whatever is not conferred is withheld, and belongs to the several States or to the people thereof. And on page 29,

From what has just been said, it is manifest that there must be a difference in the presumption that attends an exercise of National and one of State powers. The difference is this. To ascertain whether any power assumed by the government of the United States is rightfully assumed, the Constitution is to be examined in order to see whether expressly or by fair implication the power has been granted, and if the grant does not appear, the assumption must be held unwarranted. To ascertain whether a State rightfully exercises a power, we have only to see whether by the Constitution of the United States it is conceded to the Union, or by that Constitution or that of the State prohibited to be exercised at all. The presumption must be that the State rightfully does what it assumes to do, until it is made to appear how, by constitutional concessions, it has divested itself of the power, or by its own Constitution has for the time rendered the exercise unwarrantable.

This is not a question of strict or liberal construction. It is a question of the fundamental principles of constitutional construction. The method suggested by The Outlook might apply to the Constitution of a State, but, without violating the rules which have been laid down since the foundation of the Government, it cannot apply to the construction of the Federal Constitution. An attempt so to do would be in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the authoritative and final interpreter of the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution is not what The Outlook thinks it is, not what our correspondent thinks it is, not even what Judge Cooley thinks it is, but what the Supreme Court of the United States decides that it is. To determine what is the Constitution under which we are now living, we are to look, not merely at the original document, but at that document as interpreted by over a century of judicial decisions and National actions. We believe that a careful consideration of that century of historical and judicial interpretation establishes the following fundamental principles.

I. The United States is a Nation. By this word "Nation " is meant neither the Federal Government on the one hand nor the people of the United States on the other. The Nation is more than seventy millions of people living together within the limits of one territory; the Nation is this people acting organically. The Constitution did not create this Nation; the Nation created the Constitution. This Nation possesses all the powers of sovereignty possessed by other nations except as they are expressly denied to it by the terms of the instrument; thus, it has no power to establish slavery in any territory under its jurisdiction, because it has expressly denied to itself that power.

II. This Nation differs from other nations not because it possesses fewer powers, but because they are differently distributed. In most nations the sovereignty is lodged, undivided, in one organization. In the United States it is divided certain powers of sovereignty are lodged in the Federal Government, certain other powers in the States. The Constitution determines, not what powers the Nation possesses, but how these powers are distributed.

III. The limitations on the power of the Federal Government are solely for the protection of the people of the United States. In dealing with those who are not citizens of the United States, its powers are not limited by the Constitution. An alien in the United States cannot claim the protection of the Constitution. The Federal Government can arrest, try, and deport such an alien without giving him a jury trial. People living in a territory which belongs to the United States, but is not a part of the United States, cannot claim the protection of the Constitution, and the power of the Federal Government over them is not limited by the Constitution. The Federal Government can arrest, try, and imprison such a person residing in the Philippines, though he be a citizen of the United States, without giving him a jury trial.

Neither an alien in the United States nor a citizen residing in territory not a part of the United States can claim anything under the Constitution.

IV. While the powers of the Federal