decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in a case that originated in the county of Suffolk in this State. Involved in that case was the proposition whether the government could constitutionally tax an inheritance, and the proposition whether an excessive inheritance tax could properly be laid. The United States Supreme Court laid down the principle that a man's ability legally, affirmatively, or constructively, to control the disposition of his property by will was purely a legislative concession: it was not a natural right; it was not a constitutional right. The statement was made that, the making of a will is an act of personal legislation taking effect upon property possessed at the time by the testator, and that the legislature could not only recall that permission, but could allow the people to resume possession of that which had been intrusted to the man up to the time of his death, and that they could resume possession of it either by the repeal of the will-making power or by the placing of a tax as high as 100 per cent. upon it, rendering the making of wills as impossible as the 10 per cent. taxation makes circulation to State banks impossible, and to banks other than national banks. Now, if this is so, I do trust that among the first provisions to be repealed will be the repeal of the federal inheritance tax. The State inheritance tax should be sufficient. Certainly, double taxation is wrong; and the State tax and the federal tax, if not double in form, are either dual taxation or taxation twice over. I leave that to the lawyers. I can only say that, should an inheritance tax be paid at Albany and one also be paid the United States government, the thing taxed would be twice taxed.

In the course of a long life, Mr. President, I have observed the mighty power which this tariff question plays in our politics; and I am glad that one result of this war is this, that none of us can be hide-bound protectionists or hide-bound free traders. In the near future the question of tariff and taxation must be questions of condition: it can no longer be a question of theories. I also hope that some of these internal taxes will be retained, not merely for the purpose of simplifying the matter of insuring enough revenue, but for the purpose of relieving, if possible, the agitation which occurs every four years,— a new making and a new unmaking of our financial system. I believe in the possibilities of There are patriotic men, men who believe in principle, men who believe in the union of views, who believe in preserving in the name of civilization all that we have gained in the name of humanity. I believe in the possibility of those men coming together and agreeing upon our tax system in a manner to make it as just as truth, as intelligible as fair dealing, and as exact as bookkeeping.

man.

III. DEPARTMENT OF JURISPRUDENCE.

I. ABSTRACT OF ADDRESS BY THE

CHAIRMAN.

[In his opening address on Thursday morning, Professor Francis Wayland, Chairman of the Jurisprudence Department, called attention to the great and growing numbers of unpunished murders in the United States as compared with the criminal statistics of Great Britain and her colonies. He mentioned, among the more serious defects in our criminal jurisprudence in dealing with homicide, the needless delay in reaching trial, the inexcusable prolongation of trials, the facilities afforded by the right of appeal to State courts and to the Supreme Court of the United States for defeating the ends of justice, the gross abuse of the pardoning power, and the vicious and demoralizing exhibitions of public sympathy with convicted murderers.

By contrast, Professor Wayland commended the prompt, dignified, thorough, and impartial treatment of prisoners arraigned before the criminal tribunals of Great Britain, the certainty and celerity of punishment following conviction, the absence of all demonstrations of maudlin sympathy with the prisoner, and the impossibility by appeal to successive courts of postponing punishment until the true moral effect of conviction is hopelessly lost.

These views were enforced by reference to some recent trials for murder in the United States,- notably, the Durant case in California, and the Carlisle case in New York. His statements as to the administration and enforcement of criminal law in Great Britain were fortified by statistics kindly furnished by the Home Office in London.]

2. CAN INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES BE

JUDICIALLY DETERMINED?

BY PROFESSOR ISAAC FRANKLIN RUSSELL, D.C.L., LL.D., OF NEW YORK CITY.

[Read Thursday morning, September 1.]

The war with Spain cost us over a million dollars per day. At the outbreak of hostilities we were unprepared in many respects for a sharp military and naval struggle with even a second-class power. We have been a peaceful nation. Our diplomatic isolation from European countries, and the cherished counsel of the immortal Washington in his Farewell Address to keep free from foreign entanglements, have controlled our foreign policy. Our statesmen have been sound on the Monroe Doctrine. But we have not escaped wars altogether. And how marvellously have human destinies been shaped by these death-struggles! The French and Indian War settled the language, religion, and institutions of this continent, and made them English instead of French. Our Revolutionary War taught England the necessity of a wise colonial policy, and guided her in building up an empire, under all suns and in all seas, based on righteousness, liberty, and law. The Algerine War was without special incident. The War of 1812, while it resulted in sweeping the American flag from the ocean, proved that, man for man and frigate for frigate, the American navy had no superior in the world. The Mexican War was fought to secure more area for slave-cultivation through conquest, and for the perpetuation of that economic system through the admission into the Union of new States committed to the policy of slave-labor. The annexation of Texas hurried on the irrepressible conflict. The War for the Union proved the necessity of a continental empire and a policy thoroughly national; and, incidentally, it wrought a revolution in the naval warfare of the world.

No investments of money have been more popular than those that have been made in war. No heroes have gotten such glory as the soldiers and sailors of the Republic. Every President of the

United States has been either a soldier or a lawyer, and many have been both soldiers and lawyers. In several cases the Presidency has sought the soldier as a reward for his services and a tribute to his genius. This is certainly true of Washington, Jackson, Taylor, the elder Harrison, and Grant. Nothing appeals so strongly to popular sentiment as martial glory. There can be no more eloquent advocacy of a candidate for office than to say of him, "Here is a friend of Abraham Lincoln: here is a companion in arms of Grant, Sheridan, and William McKinley." Military titles are coveted, not only in Kentucky, where every man of wealth and importance is at least a colonel, but also in New York, where appointments of civilians on the governor's staff are sought on account of the spurs and epaulettes which illustrate the high rank of these fierce warriors.

In Europe the truth is more easily understood. The Kaiser is a war-lord. The Prince of Wales is a field-marshal, and, as such, subject to military criticism and discipline for indiscretion at a game of cards. A soldier, booted and spurred, meets the princess royal at the marriage altar, and there receives his wife from the Queen's own hand. No man of letters, till the time of Tennyson, ever got a peerage in recognition of the service of authorship. No physician till the Queen's Diamond Jubilee was ever honored by ennobled blood. How are monumental honors awarded in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral? Where are the statues of Shakspere, Arkwright, and Jenner? And in what town in England can we escape the high mounds, the towering shafts, and spacious squares that perpetuate the glories of Waterloo and Trafalgar?

And now come a few publicists, priests, and philosophers, who tell us that war should be no more, that war is wholly evil and not a necessary evil, that the arbitrament of reason should take the place of an appeal to arms, and that a forum of all the nations should settle all disputes between states. Many orators and essayists have exhibited the frightful cost of war in blood and treasure, in widowhood and orphanage, in desolate homes, broken hearts, and shattered lives. The figures they display in units of millions are astounding, and simply unappreciable by the ordinary mind. They stagger the imagination even. It costs as much to build and equip a battle-ship as it does to found and maintain a university.

The question is many-sided. Economically, we have to count

not only the cost of building and fitting out fleets, of maintaining armies and purchasing food and ammunition, but we must contemplate the waste of energy in withdrawing thousands of ablebodied men from productive industry. The religious and ethical aspects of militancy are more frequently presented. It is considered quite unchristian by some to kill one's fellow-man. War is murder, war is hell. It is unphilosophic and irrational as well, for no truth is demonstrated by the presence of the heaviest artillery.

But is there not an optimistic view of war which we are compelled at times to take and always to consider? Industrialism has been evolved from militancy. The main bulwark of manufacture and commerce is the security to life and property which the army and navy afford. If the military and naval establishments are expensive, they pay for themselves many times over in a low rate of interest to the borrower. Has not empire been founded by the sword, and is it not empire which gives man peace? Who would exchange the equilibrium of great states resting on the European concert for the chronic strife of mediaval feudalism?

There must surely be some reason, deep-seated in human nature, for the glory that accompanies feats of arms. May we not find it in great part in the contempt for physical pain, for death even, that marks the hero? In these politer times there are moral heroes who bravely face the mouth of imaginary cannon, and who fight at close range with the spiritual forces which make for evil, but who are cowards in the presence of physical pain, and who cry piteously for gas or some other anesthetic whenever they feel the sting of the surgeon's steel. Our condemnation is severe for the contests and gladiatorial strife of the Roman amphitheatre. We are unsparing in our denunciation of the bull-fights of Spain and Mexico. And yet it remains true of our own country, in times of peace, that professional prize-fighters attract more notice than any other class of men who appeal to public attention, unless it be the college champions who strive for victory at the oar or on the diamond or the gridiron. Why is it that boys in preparatory schools can name the famous athletes of our great universities, and know nothing of the professors who fill the chairs of Latin, Greek, and mathematics? Why is it that football has come into such commanding notice at our chief seats of learning? Many urge that prize-fighting is child's play as compared with