Government over subjects who are not citizens, and territories which are not part of the United States but belong to it, are practically unlimited, its powers are limited over the States and organized Territories and over citizens resident therein. But in determining what these limitations are, the Constitution is not to be interpreted as a body of rules or a codification of statutes, but as a statement of general principles. The fathers could not foresee and provide for all the exigencies which might arise in the life of the Nation, and they did not attempt to do so. They attempted only to provide certain fundamental principles in accordance with which future generations were themselves to solve the national problems as from time to time they should arise. Thus, the fathers did not and could not foresee the time when the country would be covered with a network of railways extending from ocean to ocean and from the Lakes to the Gulf; but they provided in general terms that all commerce between the States and with foreign nations should be subject to regulation by the Federal Government; and in accordance with that principle the Federal Government is now extending over the railways the regulatory power which it formerly extended over coastwise shipping. So again the fathers never foresaw that the time would arise when a State would claim the right to secede from the Union, and they made no provision for such an exigency. But they foresaw that disorder might arise and republican stability might be threatened in individual States, and they provided that the United States should guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and might call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and under these general provisions the United States fought insurrection against the United States and compelled the seceding States to return to the Union. Doubtless some of our readers still think, as in 1860 many citizens of the United States thought, that the Federal Government has no authority under the Constitution to coerce a State. But we are here stating, not what the construction of the Constitution ought to be, but what historically it has been; and for every statement in these paragraphs authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court or authoritative action of the people can be cited. V. The Federal Government possesses such powers as are not only by express terms, but also such as are by necessary implications, conferred upon it. What powers are conferred by necessary implication has been matter of frequent debate. Eminent lawyers, eminent jurists, have often been found divided in opinion upon this question. Yet we think it clear that a study of the course of Federal jurisprudence will show that under this principle of necessary implication very extensive powers have been exercised by the Federal Government and either tacitly approved or expressly sanctioned. Thus the Constitution nowhere gives the courts power to declare unconstitutional and so set aside a law enacted by Congress and approved by the President; but ever since the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 this has been habitually done; and this exercise of power not expressly conferred but only necessarily implied, though received with an outburst of indignation at the time by the Jefferson party, has for over a century been universally acquiesced in. This power of the Supreme Court, derived, not from express terms, but by necessary implication only, was strikingly illustrated a few years ago when its decision, first that the income tax was constitutional and then on a rehearing of the same case that it was unconstitutional, was universally accepted and acted upon by the entire people of the country. A not less striking illustration, though less dramatic, of the implied powers of the Federal Government is afforded by the protective tariff. The Constitution confers on Congress no express power to promote special industries; but the general power to tax imports has, with few dissidents, come to be regarded as conferring implied power to levy taxes for the purpose of promoting manufactures. The reader who has on hand a file of The Outlook will find in Vol. 77, 1904, pp. 336 and 446, Vol. 83, 1906, pp. 478-481, and Vol. 85, 1906, pp. 595-6, to go no further back, decisions of the Supreme Court referred to, illustrating and sustaining the general principles laid down in this editorial. Those principles may be summed up as follows: The United States is a Nation, with all the powers of National sovereignty not expressly denied to it by the Constitution; these powers over territory not a part of the United States, and over persons not citizens of the United States, are practically unlimited; over States and organized Territories and citizens resident therein the Federal Government possesses only those powers which are expressly conferred or necessarily implied; as new territory is added to and incorporated in the Union, the powers granted to the Federal Government are extended over such territory; and in an analogous manner, as new conditions arise in the Union, these powers are extended over the new conditions; finally, in determining what powers are implied, the courts and the people of the United States are inclined to a liberal rather than to a strict construction; that is, to an extension rather than to a limitation of Federal powers. can We believe that our readers depend upon this as a fairly accurate statement of the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States as it is established by a century of judicial decisions and National action. American tion from Harvard, his greatest academic distinction-highest final honors—in the theory and composition of music. As his text Mr. Wister took the fact, derived from the report of the Secretary of Agriculture, that America not only supplies itself with foodstuffs, but supplies the rest of the world with foodstuffs to the enormous total value, for the last year, of four hundred and forty-four millions of dollars. Then he asked, What is our balance of trade in the native harvest of the intellect? His answer was, "Minus 100 per cent." In other words, "Who, in short, sits in some American academic chair, to whose feet the students of the whole world come as to the supreme authority in his chosen subject?" Taking up one subject after another, he searched the world for authorities. Although Mr. Wister's list is not final, it is perhaps more profitable to make such a list than to make one of an All-America Football Team. In physics he found the late Lord Kelvin; in botany, De Vries; zoology, Haeckel; psychology, Wundt; philosophy, Windelband or Cohen; Semitic philology, Noeldeke; classic philology, Wilamowitz-Moellendorf; Egyptology, Maspero; Assyriology, Delitzsch; Romance languages, Tobler or Schuchardt'; archæology, the late Adolf Furtwaengler; mathematics, Poincaré; Sanscrit, Pichel or Oldenburg; pathology, Metchnikoff; economics, Brentano and Schmoller; astronomy, Struve; geology, Geikie. All these are Europeans. Then Mr. Wister Inferiority mentioned three Americans: in Sanscrit, in Scholarship Every year in Sanders Theater at Harvard is held a meeting for the Award of Academic Distinctions. As there are no athletic honors distributed, no social prizes announced, but only distinctions for achievements in scholarship awarded, it has not been necessary to provide an elaborate system for keeping tickets of admission out of the hands of speculators. The meeting for the present university year took place a week before Christmas. On that occasion the address was delivered by Mr. Owen Wister. It is worth noting in passing that this American novelist received, on gradua Bloomfield, of Johns Hopkins; in chem- says: We can study under three Americans, and the rest of the world will tell us that we could have found only three or four other teachers who were, perhaps, more universally accepted as masters in their line. To put it more shortly, no American university possesses one single teacher of undisputed preeminence. This fact, he says, ought not to be a wet blanket, but a challenge to our patriotism. Of course this does not end the list of American scholars. Mr. Wister names many. As "masters in their chosen fields . . . each in a class by himself," Mr. Wister names Henry C. Lea, Horace Howard Furness, S. Weir Mitchell, Wolcott Gibbs, Charles Eliot Norton. To these names he adds a larger and an honorable group: E. F. Smith, Chandler, John B. Clark, Hadley, Sumner, Lounsbury, Osborn, Young, Newcomb, Wilson, McMaster, Rhodes, Flexner, Welch, Loeb, T. C. Chamberlain, E. H. Moore, Haupt, Remsen, Gildersleeve, and, to cap all, this roll of Harvard men, Goodwin, James, Pickering, William Davis, Kittredge, Lanman, Gross, Toy, and G. F. Moore. In spite of this list, and in spite of our supremacy in applied science, however, "in the symposium of the purest and highest scholarship, our chair would be vacant, our voice silent." American brains, he believes, can fill not only our wastes of earth with crops of grain but also our wastes of scholarship with high authorities. This, however, the Government cannot do; "from ourselves we must generate the force to put behind the scholar." We must give him other pay than bare subsistence and loneliness. We are beginning to do this. Mr. Wister honors Mr. Pinchot for his activities on behalf of forestry, and Mr. Carnegie for his generosity to learning. Yet he hints of something more needed. His hint is illustrated in this paragraph: When I was in college, I obeyed the instinct to flock with my feather. Forgive me if I say with regret, now, that those birds we used to call " grinds" had no attraction for me; doubtless, I was despised by them. It was all a mistake, a natural mistake, to be sure, but one to beware of. When I look back now, I am sorry that fate or intention did not bring me more into contact with a certain "grind" in my class, whose name was George Lyman Kittredge. We must flock together more if we would get the best results. Mr. Wister's concluding appeal was for greater honor and support for the scholar. "You do not need to be told," he said, "of those who in these years go to Berlin and Paris to represent American thought at foreign universities; or of the booksabout France, and about Shakespeare, and Chaucer, for instance-with which your Bakers and your Wendells and your Schofields are winning further laurels for this place; they continue the shelf where other books stand, by Goodwin, by Norton, by James, by Royce, by Perry. But these commissioned officers of your army can do nothing unless backed by the enlisted men." Mr. Wister has not covered the whole subject of intellectual life in this country, but he has struck a strong note at an opportune moment; for never, probably, in the history of American colleges have there been so many expressions of discouragement from college teachers touching the lack of enthusiasm for scholarship and of respect for intellectual ability among undergraduates. There has come about a curious disarrangement of values among college men, so that the qualities in a student which make him a man of distinction and give him intellectual eminence and influence in after life almost entirely fail to give him rank among his fellows. There is a great deal of thorough work done in our colleges, but there is probably far less general intellectual enthusiasm, passion for general culture, intellectual aspiration, than a generation ago. There is an element of truth in the probably fabulous answer of a Yale undergraduate to the question, "Who are the first men in the University?" "The captain of the football team, the captain of the baseball team, the captain of the crew, and Dr. Hadley." The usurpation of the undergraduate mind by athletics to the exclusion of other interests is not wholly responsible for this state of affairs. The root of the trouble is to be looked for in the home. Boys are now sent to American colleges who are astoundingly ignorant regarding some of the greater interests of life. Many of them are as innocent of any knowledge of literature, the arts, music, or history as if they had come from Central Africa. Their preparation has been confined exclusively to the subjects on which they have to pass examination, and they are as devoid of intellectual aspiration and quality as the average professional baseball player. This is largely due to the absorption of their fathers in business and to the abdication of both fathers and mothers of any control or direction of the reading, the interests, and the amusements of their children. Mr. Wister's counsel is not one of discouragement, but of stimulus. It ought to be taken to heart by the American undergraduate, and especially by the parents of the American undergraduate. Great scholars are not created, nor is thorough scholarship fostered, by present conditions. life. This is the idea of the Church and the conception of missions which is taking possession of the imagination of American Christians and rekindling their enthusiasm. This great conception is coming back to them from the missionaries themselves, who everywhere are feeling the breath of a new day, and are awake to the opening of closed gates, the universal letting down of bars. In China and Japan especially the opportunities are on a level with those which One Lord, One Faith the first Christians met, when the Church The change of attitude towards missions in American churches of the Protestant order is one of the most significant signs of the times. Not many years ago missions were regarded as a form of church activity, primary in the teaching of Christ, but secondary in the actual work of Christians. Missionary activity in churches, it is true, was regarded as a register of religious fervor, but there was no adequate conception of the place of the missionary idea or of the function of the Christian Church as a missionary church. The great commandment of Christ is being read to-day with clearer eyes and more trustful hearts, and men are beginning to perceive that the Christian Church is first and foremost a mission; that it was sent into the world not to preserve a body of truth against attack, to maintain intact certain forms of worship, to embody and work out certain orders of ecclesiastical organization. It was not organized as a place of rest, a haven of refuge, a fortress in the heart of an antagonistic world. All these things it. All these things it is and will be, but it is none of these things primarily. It is primarily a moving army whose strength lies in the rapidity of its progress, whose safety is to be found in its audacity. It is not a guardian of a sacred fire upon an altar; it is a torch-bearer, carrying light and courage and truth in the very forefront of modern progress. In the exact degree in which it is a torch-bearer, holding aloft the flame of faith in fearless hands, is it a living church and not a company of men who accept a creed. It is first and foremost a missionary church. Missionary activity is not one of its functions; it is the breath of its set out to be a living army, moving aggressively through the world, and not a company of the Faithful comforting themselves with a truth which they did not feel compelled to share. Many of the leading missionaries are statesmen in their grasp of conditions, their conception of the relation of the Church to the world, their view of the function. and range of missionary work, their tactful and far-seeing adaptation of Christianity to national needs. They are true interpreters of the spirit of Christ and of the fundamental idea of the Church which he founded. It is from the mission field that the most powerful impulse toward Christian unity is likely to come. When men are engaged in a common work under the same conditions, whatever may be their differences of creed and worship, they get a true perspective of the relation of essentials and non-essentials. When they are facing a common foe, they sink their differences; when they serve a com- . mon cause with zeal and devotion, they are irresistibly drawn together. This is what has happened in China. At a conference of missionaries held some time ago in Shanghai, in which all Christians except Roman Catholics were represented, this significant declaration was adopted: This Conference unanimously holds the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the supreme standard cf faith and practice, and holds firmly the primitive Apostolic Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed as faith. Further, while acknowledging the substantially expressing the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith, the Conference does not adopt any creed as the basis of Church unity, and leaves confessional questions to the judgment of the Chinese Church for future consideration; yet, in view of our knowledge of each other's doctrinal symbols, history, work, and character, we gladly recognize ourselves as one body, teaching one way of eternal life, and calling men into one holy fellowship, and as one in regard to the great body of doctrine of the Christian faith; one in our teaching as to the love of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost; in our testimony as to sin and salvation, and our homage to the divine and holy Redeemer of men; one in our call to the purity of the Christian life, and in our witness to the splendors of the Christian hope. We frankly recognize that we differ as to methods of administration and Church government. But we unite in holding that these differences do not invalidate the assertion of our real unity in our common witness to the Gospel of the grace of God. Equally important and significant was the action of the General Convention of the Episcopal Church, recently held in Richmond, where, under Bishop Doane's leadership, the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies affirmed the action of the Conference at Shanghai in this resolution : Resolved, That the joint session of the two Houses of the General Convention recognizes, with gratitude to God and with cordial acknowledgment of its truly catholic spirit, the declaration by the Morrison Centenary Conference of the countless points of unity and accord among the Christian bodies of every name working in China and other foreign lands and drawn together by the power of their common efforts to banish and drive away darkness and error. The same spirit is at work in Japan and in the Philippines. The preachers of the Church abroad are facing the greatest opportunities since the begin ning of the Christian era. They are drawing together by the irresistible impulsion of a great need and a fresh revelation of what the Church stands for; and the Church at home is beginning to see the vision which is dawning on the Church abroad. They are to be one Church, in spirit, aim, activity; bound together in loyalty to a Lord and Master who, in an alien and hostile world, declared the Fatherhood of God over the one great family of which all men are members. The answer of the Church at home to the Church abroad was nobly made, not only at Richmond in the highest governing body of a great and conservative communion, but at Hartford by Bishop Brewster, one of the leaders of that communion. Christians, he said, will never think or worship just alike; unity is not uniformity. Such union is outward and mechanical. Unity is essential and vital. It is the unity in diversity of an organism where the several parts are developed each in a freedom which the more fully ministers to the rich life of the whole. It is a unity living and free, embracing distinctions, differences of administration, opinion, and mode of worship, but all made concordant because taken up into the large harmony of the whole in the key of a common faith and the common life of the one spirit in one body. The constructive genius of John Wesley would seem to have conceived of the inclusion of great organizations within the organism of the one body. This to me seems by no means inconceivable. If I hope for some such organic unity, that shall not be dissevered from the life of the past and yet shall take hold of and enfold the life of the future, in my mind is ing to absorb the rest. I dream rather of the seeking, by all, of some common basis of faith and order; the foregoing by all, to that end, of things of human ordering and preference, not insisting, I mean, upon such things for others; a general return, for that common standing ground, to the old and well tried, the great, the simple things of God in Christ, that do not dissever, but unite men, as at the first, in one Lord, one faith, one baptism. not the method of some one communion seek The Spectator The Spectator, to his great regret, was unable to be present at the marriage of Prince Charles of Bourbon to Princess Louise of France, but he is at least equally pleased that, in place of his own impressions, he is able to offer The Outlook's readers a first-hand account from the pen of an American whose part in the great event was, despite his wishes, just a trifle conspicuous. But first should be given a brief account of the interesting ceremonies extracted from a London paper: Evesham, November 15.-At noon to-day Prince Charles of Bourbon, son of the Count and Countess of Caserta, and brother-in-law of the King of Spain, is to be married to Princess Louise of France, youngest daughter of the late Count of Paris, and sister of the Duke of Orleans, the Queen of Portugal, and the Duchess of Guise. . . . An enthusiastic crowd gathered outside the station this afternoon to meet the King and Queen of Spain. Only fifty people were admitted to the platform, and the station gates were |