were held in check by the generous faith and unvarying impartiality of the President. Hitherto the sole issue was the relief or abandonment of Sumter; but now, by an apparent change of advice and attitude on the part of General Scott, the fate of Fort Pickens was also drawn into discussion.

So far as is known, the loyalty and devotion of General Scott never wavered for an instant; but his proneness to mingle political with military considerations had already been twice manifested. The first was when in his memorial entitled " Views," etc., addressed to President Buchanan, October 29th, 1860, he suggested the formation of four new American Unions if the old should be dismembered. The second was more recent. On the day preceding Lincoln's inauguration, the General had written a letter to Seward. In this he advanced the opinion that the new President would have to choose one of four plans or policies: 1st. To adopt the Crittenden compromise, and change the Republican to a Union party; 2d. By closing or blockading rebel ports or collecting the duties on shipboard outside; 3d. Conquer the States by invading armies, which he deprecated; and 4th, Say to the seceded States: "Wayward sisters, depart in peace!"* It must be noted that between three of these alternatives he gives no intimation of preference. The letter was simply a sign of the prevailing political unrest, and therefore remained unnoticed by the President, to whom it was referred.

When Lincoln assumed the duties of government, Scott had among other things briefly pointed out the existing danger at Fort Pickens, and the President by his verbal order of March 5th, directing "all possible vigilance for the maintenance of all the places," had intended that that stronghold should be promptly reënforced. He made inquiries on this head four days later, and to his surprise found nothing yet done. Hence he put his order in writing, and had it duly sent to the War Department for record March 11th, and once more gave special directions in regard to Pickens, assuming the omission had occurred through preoccupation about Sumter. Upon this reminder, Scott bestirred himself, and at his instance the war steamer Mohawk was dispatched March 12th, carrying a messenger with orders to Captain Vogdes to land his company at Fort Pickens and increase the garrison.

Scott to Seward, March 3d, 1861. Scott, "Autobiography," Vol. II., pp. 625-628.

+ Meigs, diary, March 31st, 1861. Unpublished MS. t Scott, memorandum, War Records.

Both President and Cabinet had since then considered that port disposed of for the moment.

On the evening of March 28th, the first State dinner was given by the new occupants of the Executive Mansion. Just before the hour of leave-taking, Lincoln invited the members of his Cabinet into an adjoining room for an instant's consultation; and when they were alone, he informed them, with evident deep emotion, that General Scott had that day advised the evacuation of Fort Pickens as well as Fort Sumter. The General's recommendation is formulated as follows, in his written memorandum to the Secretary of War:

mation from the South, whether the voluntary evacua"It is doubtful, however, according to recent infortion of Fort Sumter alone would have a decisive effect upon the States now wavering between adherence to the Union and secession. It is known, indeed, that it would be charged to necessity, and the holding of Fort Pickens would be adduced in support of that view. Our Southern friends, however, are clear that the evacua tion of both the forts would instantly soothe and give confidence to the eight remaining slave-holding States, and render their cordial adherence to this Union per petual. The holding of Forts Jefferson and Taylor on the ocean keys depends on entirely different principles, and should never be abandoned; and indeed the giving up of Forts Sumter and Pickens may be best justified by the hope that we should thereby recover the State to which they geographically belong by the liberality of the act, besides retaining the eight doubtful States."t

A long pause of blank amazement followed the President's recital, § broken at length by Blair in strong denunciation, not only of this advice, but of Scott's general course regarding Sumter. He charged that Scott was transcending his professional duties and "playing politician." Blair's gestures and remarks, moreover, were understood by those present as being aimed specially at Seward, whose peace policy he had, with his usual impulsive aggressiveness, freely criticised. Without any formal vote, there was a unanimous expression of dissent from Scott's suggestion, and under the President's request to meet in formal council next day, the Cabinet retired. That night Lincoln's eyes did not close in sleep. || It was apparent that the time had come when he must meet the nation's crisis. His judgment alone must guide, his sole will determine, his own lips utter the word that should save or lose the most precious inheritance of humanity, the last hope of free government on the earth. Only the imagination may picture that intense and weary vigil.

Blair to Welles, May 17th, 1873. Welles, "Lincoln and Seward," p. 65. Meigs, diary. Unpublished MS.

HE above is the boast of a coal laborer earning seven dollars a week. It illustrates a phenomenon which I would commend to the consideration of either psychologists or students of social science, or both. I refer to the conceit, let us call it, that there is some mysterious virtue in those kinds of foods that have the most delicate appearance and flavor and the highest price; that whatever else one has or does not have he must, if possible, have this sort of food; and that to economize by using anything inferior would be a sacrifice of both dignity and principle.

The quotation, from a description of the life of factory operatives in New England, in an article by Mr. Lee Meriwether, in "Harper's Magazine" for April, 1887, illustrates what I

mean.

The cheapest food is that which supplies the most nutriment for the least money. The most economical food is that which is cheapest and best adapted to the wants of the user. But the maxim that "the best is the cheapest" does not apply to food. The best food, in the sense of that which has the finest appearance and flavor and is sold at the highest price, is not generally the cheapest nor the most economical, nor is it always the most healthful. The coal laborer who made it so much an article of faith to give his family "the best of flour, the finest sugar, the very best quality of meat"; who, as Mr. Meri

In his Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor of Massachusetts for 1884, Mr. Carroll D. Wright summarizes the results of investigations into the cost of living of people with different incomes, especially of workingmen's families, in Massachusetts and in Great Britain, and quotes similar results obtained by Dr. Engel in Germany. Dividing expenses into those for subsistence (food), clothing, rent, fuel, and sundries, the percentage of the whole income expended for subsistence averages as in the tabular statement herewith. As incomes increase the relative percentage of outlay for food becomes less and that for "sundries" greater. In the Massachusetts and Great Britain fig. ures (I do not know how it is with the German, but presume that the case is the same) no outlay for intoxicating liquors is included in the allowance for subsistence.

wether tells us, at a time when excellent butter was selling at 25 cents a pound paid 29 cents for an extra quality; who spent $156 a year for the nicest cuts of meat, which his wife had to cook before six in the morning or after half-past six at night because she worked all day in the factory; who spent only $108 for clothing for his family of nine, and only $72 a year for rent in a crowded tenementhouse where they slept in rooms without windows or closets; who indulged in this extravagance in food when much cheaper meat and in all probability much less of it, cheaper butter, cheaper flour, and other less costly materials such as come regularly upon the table of many a man of wealth would have been just as wholesome, just as nutritious, and in every way just as good save in its gratification to pride and palate,-this man was innocently committing an immense economical and hygienic blunder. He was doing this because, like the very large class of people of whom he is a type, he was laboring under this conceit of which I speak.

One great difficulty here is the lack of information. Even those who wish and try to economize in the purchase and use of food very often do not understand how. They consult carefully the prices they pay, but have in general very vague ideas about the nutritive values. It is an interesting fact that although the cost of food is the principal item of the living expenses of the large majority of people,- of all, indeed, but a few of the especially well-to-do, and although the health and strength of all are so intimately dependent

upon their diet, yet even the most intelligent know less of the actual uses and value of their food for fulfilling its purposes than of those of almost any other of the staple necessities of life.

RATIOS OF NUTRITIVE VALUES TO COST.

THE large majority of the families in this country have, I understand, not over $500 a year to live upon. More than half of this goes, and must go, for food. Rent, clothing, the cost of preparing the food for the table, and all other expenses must be provided from the rest. Perhaps these statements apply less accurately to farmers, but of wage-workers in towns statisticians tell me they are correct.

To the man with an income of $5000 a year, it may seem to make little difference whether he pays 20 cents or $2 a pound for the protein of his food; but to the one who can earn only $500 or less a year for the support of his family, the difference is an important one. His wife goes to the dry-goods store to buy a dress for her daughter, and hesitates between a piece of cloth at 40 cents a yard that would please her better and one at 35 that is not so pretty but just as durable, and is very apt to take the cheaper one because she feels that she must. She does not fall into the error of getting more cloth than is needed and using part of the excess for lining and throw ing the rest away, nor, if she is wise, does she try to economize by getting poor trimmings and cheap thread. But when she goes to the grocer or to the butcher or to the fish-market for food to build up her children's bodies and give her husband and herself strength to work, she often pays one or two dollars a pound for protein to make muscle when she might obtain it in forms equally wholesome and nutritious for from 15 to 50 cents. The food she buys is apt to supply some of the nutrients in excessive amount as well as at needlessly high cost, while it furnishes others in insufficient quantity or in unfitting forms and in uneconomical ways; and only too often a part of it finds its way into the drain or the garbage barrel instead of being utilized for nourish

ment.

Of course the good wife and mother does not understand about protein and potential energy and the connection between the nutritive value of food and the price she pays for it, and doubtless she never will. But if the knowledge is obtained and put in print, and diffused among those who have the time and training to get hold of it, the main facts will gradually work their way to the masses, who most need its benefit.

A subject that has received but little attention in this country, though it is one of the

many special problems that are being carefully considered by students of social economy in Europe, is the relation of the nutritive value of food to its cost. We purchase our food by gross weight or measure. Part of it consists of nutritive substances, the rest is made up of water and various materials which serve only as ballast. In comparing different foodmaterials with respect to their cheapness or dearness we are apt to judge them by the prices per pound, quart, or bushel, without much regard to the amounts or kinds of actual nutrients which they contain. Of the different food-materials which the market affords and which are palatable, nutritious, and otherwise fit for nourishment, what ones are pecuniarily the most economical?

In a series of studies, undertaken at the instance of the Smithsonian Institution, I have had occasion to examine into some of these problems. A few of the results of the inquiry are summarized in Diagrams VI. and VII.

There are various ways of comparing foodmaterials with respect to the relative cheapness or dearness of their nutritive ingredients. The best, perhaps, consists in simply comparing the quantities of nutrients obtained for a given sum, 25 cents for instance, in the food when purchased at market prices. Diagram VI. gives a series of such comparisons. They are based upon the analyses of materials, obtained mostly in markets in New York City and in Middletown, Conn., and upon the retail prices paid for them. Along with the quantities of nutrients which 25 cents will buy are shown the quantities estimated to be appropriate for a day's diet for an ordinary man doing a moderate amount of muscular labor. Two such standards are given,—one proposed by Professor Voit in Germany, and based mainly upon experiments and observations in that country; the other proposed by myself. The diagram shows the quantities of different food-materials which one would get for a quarter of a dollar; the quantities of protein and fats and carbohydrates contained in them; and how these amounts of nutrients compare with what an average man, engaged in moderately hard muscular work, might be expected to need to maintain his body in vigorous condition and supply strength for the work he has to do. Another way of comparing the nutritive value of the food-materials with the cost is by the quantities of potential energy they contain. Diagram VII. shows the estimated quantities of energy in the nutritive ingredients of the materials in Diagram VI.,—that is, the amount which 25 cents would pay for. Still another method of comparing the actual expensiveness of different foods at the prices at which people buy them consists in comparing the cost of

EXPENSIVE VS. ECONOMICAL FOODS.

TAKING the diagrams and tabular statements together, the first thing that strikes one is the cheapness of the vegetable as compared with the animal foods. Note, for instance, Diagram VI. and the accompanying figures, which show how much actually nutritive material one may have for 25 cents in different foods at ordinary prices. The quarter of a dollar invested in flour, meal, or potatoes brings several times the quantity of nutrients that it does if spent for meats, fish, or milk. But it is to be remembered that the animal foods contain more of the protein and fats, which are the most valuable food constituents, while the excess of material obtained in the vegetable foods consists mainly or entirely of sugar, starch, and other carbohydrates, which, though very important for nourishment, are far less valuable, weight for weight, than the protein and fats. Furthermore, the protein of the animal foods is more easily and completely digestible than that of the vegetable foods.

The greater expensiveness of animal foods is brought out with even greater clearness in Diagram VII. and in the accompanying figures. The quantities of potential energy in the nutritive material obtained for 25 cents range, in

As explained in previous articles, the actually nutritive ingredients of food may be divided into four classes: Protein, Fats, Carbohydrates, and Mineral matters. Leaving water out of account, lean meat, white of eggs, casein (curd) of milk, and gluten of wheat consist mainly of protein compounds. Butter and lard are mostly fats. Sugar and starch are carbohydrates. The nutrients of meat, fish, and other animal foods consist mainly of protein and fats; those of the vegetable foods are largely carbohydrates.

In serving as nutriment, the protein compounds which contain nitrogen form the basis of blood, muscle, tendon, etc., and are transformed into fat, and also serve as fuel to supply the body with heat and muscular strength. The fats of the food are stored as fat in the body and serve as fuel. The carbohydrates are transformed into fats and serve as fuel. The potential energy in calories (colorie is the equivalent of heat which would warm about four pounds of water one degree Fahrenheit) is taken as the measure of the fuel. value of the food. One part by weight of fat is equiva

Estimating the expensiveness by the cost of the protein, we find this to range from 8 to 34 cents a pound in the vegetable and from 18 cents to a little over one dollar in ordinary animal foods,--meats, fish, milk, eggs, etc.,while in some it is much higher, thus showing the greater expensiveness of animal foods in another way. The reason for this higher cost is, of course, simple enough. Animal foods are made from vegetable, and by a more or less expensive process. The manufacture of beef or milk from grass and grain involves considerable outlay for labor and incidental expenses, and the product is, of course, much less in quantity than the raw material.

If the reader is interested in such statistics he will find considerable food for reflection in the diagrams and figures. He will observe that among animal foods those which rank as delicacies are the costliest. If he uses the protein of oysters to make blood, muscle, and brain, it will cost him from two to three dollars a pound. In salmon, if he is enough of a gormand to buy it at the beginning of the season at one dollar a pound, he will pay at the rate of five dollars a pound for his protein. In beef, mutton, and pork the cost of the protein ranges from a little over a dollar to about 40 cents a pound. (Salt pork, in which its cost is estimated at 25 cents, contains extremely little protein.) In such fish as shad, blue-fish, and halibut (which are not mentioned in the diagrams), when they are cheap, say from 8 to 12 cents a pound, the protein costs about the same as in

lent, in this respect, to about two parts of either protein or carbohydrates. The demands of different people for nourishment vary with age, sex, occupation, and other conditions of life. Health and pecuniary economy alike require that the diet should contain nutrients proportionate to the wants of the user.

Of course the difference in the composition of different specimens of the same kind of food-material, and in the nutritive effect of the same substance with different persons, is such that these calculations are not correct for every case. Furthermore, there are other things besides the proportions of nutrients that affect the nutritive action of food. This topic I hope to discuss later. Meanwhile it will suffice to say that for the staple food-materials these calculations are probably close approximations to the real nutritive values as compared with the costs. The methods by which they are made are too complex to be explained here, but may be found in an article on "Food Consumption" in the Report of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor for 1886, p. 251.