4. Enforcing the right of suffrage will, of course, not be a solution of the "Race Problem," but it will go a great way toward it. That problem, to my thinking, will be solved hand in hand with the labor question; at any rate, one will aid the solution of the other. It may not be solved in our day, still it is our duty to agitate and investigate, and by doing so intelligently and earnestly, we may be able to hand down to our children a "book of knowledge," that they may know good from evil, and from the pages of which they may work out the problem.

That which is of the most importance now, is a true understanding of the present situation. We all agree on that. How and where shall we obtain this necessary data? We cannot hope for it from Senator Hampton and his followers. That much is clear. It is evident that those who took part in the heated discussions of ante-bellum days, and who, since the war, have, on account of partisan measures, never given their blood time to cool, are not to be relied upon. The biased party men, who for years fought to destroy our constitution in order to maintain their own "peculiar" ideas on this same question, and who now, through chagrin and wrath, openly accuse the defenders of our government as being the destroyers and violators of the constitution, will hardly afford a reliable source from which to obtain data for so important a discussion. Congress will not afford it, for if the committee of investigation be composed of Republicans and Democrats, we will have two reports; if of Republicans, Democrats, and Prohibitionists, we will have three reports; and if a fourth political party be added, we will have four reports. Nor can we rely upon those who make "flying" trips through the South, for such too fully confirm the old adage, that "a rolling stone gathers no moss.'

The question then presents itself - How shall we obtain trustworthy data on which to discuss the "Race Problem"?

C. A. SEIDERS.

THOUGHTS ON

THE DEATH

PENALTY.

EDITORIAL NOTES.

"Capital punishment is the peculiar and undeviating sign of barbarism. Where capital punishment is frequent, barbarism prevails; where it is rare, civilization predominates." - Victor Hugo.

A LONDON daily declares that the recent execution of Kemmler sent a thrill of horror around the globe. Let us hope it has done more that it has forcibly brought before the minds of thousands of conscientious thinking men and women, not only the hideous spectacle of the death writhings of the man in the electric chair, but the broader and more important fact that capital punishment administered in any form is essentially a relic of a barbarous age, wholly unworthy of our present civilization; that the spirit that clamors for the blood of any human being belongs essentially to the beast in man's nature. The surest token of true progress is found in the increased appreciation of the sanctity of life. So long as a State places so little value on human existence that for any cause she slaughters her citizens, she will find numbers of the most degraded of her people following her example, with this important difference, -the State always acts with coolness and deliberation, while ninety per cent. of her children slay their fellowmen in the frenzy of passion or under the baleful influence of liquor, which has in most cases been purchased in saloons licensed by the State. Without entering into any lengthy argument against capital punishment, which I believe to be one of the foulest blots on the face of our nineteenth century civilization, I wish to briefly notice a few of the leading barriers that prevent the immediate abolition of the death penalty, the chief and most important of which is I think the popular but erroneous idea relating to the efficacy of capital punishment compared with other methods of treatment. We hear constantly that capital punishment is the only method of restraining murderers. This has been reiterated until it has grown hoary with age and has all the prestige of generations of accumulated prejudice. Yet as a matter of fact we all know that it does A number of not prevent men from taking the lives of their fellowmen. sickening murders followed closely upon the heels of the execution of Kemmler, and this is no exception to the rule, as is shown by Mr. Tarbuck, secretary of the Howard Association, who declares that "it has often been noticed that executions have been immediately followed by an unusual 'crop' of murderers; for example, in 1870, shortly after the execution of Tropmann in Paris, for a peculiarly atrocious murder, several similar cases of wholesale slaughter occurred, including the seven-fold murder at Uxbridge." Mr. Tarbuck, after citing other instances, calls attention to the significant fact that "when men were hung by the dozen for forging one pound bank of England notes, the crime did not diminish -IT INCREASED." The Rev. Dr. Roberts of England visited one hundred and sixty-seven convicts under sentence of death, all but three of whom A well-known executioner in Paris had personally witnessed executions. during his term of office hung twenty murderers who, to use his expresThese sion, had been "in constant attendance at gibbeting matinees." are only straws, it is true, but they indicate the fallacy of the popular claim that capital punishment restrains murderers; while on the other

hand, a treatment of the guilty ones by the State, which while effective in protecting society at the same time answers the requirements of the most humane sentiments would, I believe, judging from the experiments that have been made in this direction, greatly reduce the number of murders committed, as well as work the redemption of a large per cent. of the condemned. On this point I wish to quote from the learned jurist and author, Sanford M. Green, late judge of the Supreme Court of Michigan, author of "Green's Practice" and other standard works, among which his manual on "Crime" is probably the most noteworthy. In his last named volume Judge Green says:

"If there are any who still believe that life is more safe in those States where the murderer is put to death for his crime, a study of the effects of its abolition ought, it would seem, to be sufficient to correct the error. In Rhode Island, Michigan, and Wisconsin, where capital punishment was abolished from twenty-five to fifty years ago, human life has been as secure as in any other States of the Union, and much more so than in some of them where the death penalty is in force; and during the forty years since imprisonment for life was substituted for hanging in case of murder, in Michigan, but one case of murder by lynching under mob law has come to our knowledge. In Switzerland, that model and most peaceful republic of the Old World, capital punishment has existed as a legal enactment in but eight of the twenty-five cantons since 1879. "In 1867," says Mr. Sparhawk (late consul at Zanzibar), "the death penalty was abolished in Portugal. It was not until the third year after that any appreciable change occurred, and since then, year by year, murders have decreased in number, till to-day there are not more than half as many as prior to its abolition, and are far below that of other countries, making allowance for difference in population."

These facts and hints are sufficient to show that the old-time claim does not rest on the bed rock of truth, and on it no longer can justification for capital punishment be urged.

Next, I wish to notice a point always raised by some zealous Christian [?] when this question is argued. The Bible, we are told, declares that "Whoso sheds man's blood by man shall his blood be shed.” It is well to remember that the same Bible commanded the slaughter of all witches (Lev. xx. 27), and the attempt to carry out this mandate resulted in the frightful killing of the alleged witches as late as the tragedies of Salem. The same Bible declared that those who worked on the Sabbath day should be slain and later emphasized the terrible meaning of the law by giving a most graphic picture of the stoning to death of a poor man who gathered a few sticks on the Sabbath day. (Numbers xv. 32-36.) All of which simply illustrate the fact that the Jews in ancient times had few or no prison facilities, and, being far lower in the scale of civilization than they were in subsequent ages, were governed by a code of morals which, considered in the light of our present civilization, is essentially barbarous and oftentimes outrages our every sense of right and justice, while, nevertheless, it was undoubtedly as enlightened as their civilization at that time could brook.

The attitude of many professed Christians is to me a never failing source of surprise. With what tenacity they cling to the letter of the Old Testament law, paying no heed to Paul's declaration to the Jews of his time that their law was a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ; that is, an instructor directing their eyes toward a higher dispensation of light and civilization. Moreover, aside from all this it seems incredible that any professed Christian should defend capital punishment, seeing that Christ with one majestic stroke swept away forever the foundation upon which all these retaliatory measures rest.

The doctrine of an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life, was all wrong or else Christ was mistaken. He came as the herald of a loftier civilization than the Jews had ever seen. Note the following words of Jesus: " Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: but I say unto you that ye resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. . . Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you and persecute you." That such authoritative commands, sweeping away as they did the whole superstructure of the savage and brutal code of retaliation, and coming from a humble appearing Galilean, were regarded as presumptuous and unpractical at that time, is not surprising; but how, after nearly two thousand years of pretended advocacy of his doctrines his professed followers should persist in flying in the face of their Master's teaching, and insist on going back to a comparatively barbarous period, there to pick out, amid the multitude of obsolete laws and commands, this one for the purpose of bolstering up a savage custom that outrages every sense of refinement, every humane instinct, every manly impulse, has ever been incomprehensible to me. Let us be honest and keep our faces fronting the light. Let us not go backward beyond Gethsemane or at most further than Bethlehem for hints for the treatment of our fellowmen, who, owing to circumstances over which they have had little or no control, are more brutal than ourselves. I have supreme confidence in the ultimate triumph of the humane and civilized spirit which forbids the death penalty. The trend of civilization lies in that direction just as surely as the trend of human thought is upward, but confidence in this result should not deter all who oppose the hideous legacy of a dark and vanished past from ceaselessly working for its abolition. What though we are but atoms, place ten thousand such atoms in a state and we have a nucleus that will soon grow great enough to beat back every threatened wrong and potent enough to wipe out all existing evils.

POPULAR CONTEMPT

FOR LAW.

The daily press of New York a few weeks since knowingly and deliberately defied a recently enacted statute of that State in a manner unparalleled in modern times, and although the newspapers coolly acknowledged that they had broken the law, the authorities did nothing, while the people as a whole were unquestionably in sympathy with the press. We refer to the recent electrocution law which declares that "no account of the details of any such execution, beyond the statement of the fact that such convict was, on the day in question, duly executed according to law at the prison, shall be published in any newspaper. Any person who shall violate or omit to comply with any provision of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Here we have a suggestive spectacle. The Metropolitan press contemptuously defies the law, and the public, if it does not applaud the act, certainly sympathizes with the law breakers.

That the press is right in its claim that the people ought to be apprised of the method in which they kill their offending brethren is undoubtedly true; yet on the other hand the plea advanced at the time the ill-considered bill became a law, that the publication of the details by the press had a bad effect on the morals of society, had much plausibility. It is not, however, my purpose to enter into the details of this special case, I merely wish to point out a bad tendency which is, year by year,

becoming more pronounced, and the causes which are producing the evil. There is no denying the fact that the old-time reverence entertained for law by the people is vanishing. There is growing up in every section of the country a contempt for our lawmakers and our judiciary, which I regard with the gravest apprehension; for the moment a nation becomes convinced that its laws are not based on justice and wisdom, or as soon as they lose faith in the judiciary, the zenith of that nation's glory has been passed, unless through some mighty convulsion, whether it be evolutionary and practically peaceful in its radical reform, or revolutionary and bloody in its result, the nation is reborn; as, for instance, was France after her baptism of blood. It is a fact worthy of note that while our people are naturally law-abiding, the old respect for statutory enactments which pervaded the minds of our fathers when laws were comparatively few, and when far greater deliberation was deemed necessary before any bill was enacted, holds far less sway over the public mind than in former days, and what is more significant, is becoming less and less with each recurring decade. In former days liberty was accounted of the first importance and great reliance was placed on the inherent manhood and instinctive sense of right and justice that pervaded the masses. Few laws, and those based strictly on universally accepted principles of justice, were deemed necessary, while the greatest possible toleration characterized the policy of the early statesmen who laid the broad foundation for this Republic. Since then a great change has taken place. The baleful miasma of European paternalism has insidiously permeated the atmosphere of liberty. The old ideals have long been vanishing. That healthy confidence in manhood that was such a strong characteristic of our people has in a great measure given place to the pernicious doctrine of governmental state or municipal protection and intervention. The reaction of late years has taken the form of a craze - - for everything we must have a law. The people are incapable of self-government; they must be treated as children. They must be looked after by the State. Usually behind the pleasing front of the protective law stands an interested party. The glove of philanthropy generally conceals the hand of tyrannical monopoly or selfish avarice. In other cases law-makers are anxious to make a nime. They seize on every ill-considered suggestion advanced by the press or on the passing sentiment of the hour and promptly come forward with a bill to regulate this or that, quite reckless as to what it may injure or upon whose legitimate liberty it may infringe.

The case referred to above illustrates this case. A passing popular fancy, that the publication of the details of an execution were injurious, was seized upon and a law passed making the publishers of any newspaper which gave an extended account guilty of misdemeanor. The press defied the statute, thus adding to the general contempt for law, which has for years been gaining ground. If Congress fails to enact laws enough, the legislature can be depended upon to burden the statute books with a multitude of measures which in many cases are cruel, unjust, and discriminative. Then below the legislature we have the municipal government, almost as active as the superior bodies.

In this manner, as laws multiply reverence for law diminishes; for the people quickly recognize the difference between a wise statute based on the broad principles of equal justice, and petty, ill-advised or immature measures, prompted by prejudice, avarice, or a passing whim of public sentiment. Again our law-makers are not as a rule wise or far-seeing statesmen. They may be well-meaning but they too often fall under the blighting influence of a mercenary lobby and the people are coming more and more to understand this fact. A real danger threatens any nation when her people become convinced that