be of advantage neither to the country itself nor to the exiled Jews; for it is my firm conviction that this new settlement should be scattered through different lands and spread over a large space, so that there shall be no opportunity for social or religious rupture. I made a study, therefore, of different countries, and after careful examination I have become convinced that the Argentine Republic, Canada, and Australia, above all others, offer the surest guarantee for the accomplishment of the plan. I expect to begin with the Argentine Republic, and arrangements for the purchase of certain lands for the settlement are now being made.

I do not undertake the execution of so weighty a work without much preparatory study as to whether the Jewish race has or has not an inclination towards agriculture. The following example will go far to silence any doubt in this direction and to prove the capacity of the Jews for farming and colonization.

Some years ago several hundred Jewish families were exiled from Russia to the Argentine. In spite of untold suffering, in spite of the greatest hindrances which they encountered, they succeeded in taking root in their new homes. These same families, which a few years ago, bending under heavy burdens, appeared to be only wandering trades-people in Russia, have now become thrifty farmers, who with plough and hoe know how to farm as well as if they had never done anything else. They lay out their farms in the best manner, and build themselves such pretty little houses that every one in the vicinity employs them as carpenters in housebuilding.

The knowledge of this guides me in my work, and I am now setting out with all my strength to accomplish it.

This is, in a few words, the idea which leads me in my philanthropic work-the motive that lies at the bottom of the plan. The working of a huge cosmopolitan scheme would scatter my strength broadcast. If I devote myself, however, to this one work, I can perhaps bring it to eventual accomplishment. And all through the matter I have the certainty that he who frees thousands of his fellow-men from suffering and an oppressed existence, and helps them to become useful citizens, does a good work for all humanity.

M. DE HIRSCH.

THE FARMERS' DISCONTENT.

BY L. L. POLK, PRESIDENT OF THE FARMERS' ALLIANCE.

BUT for the closing paragraph of the contribution of Mr. George E. Waring, Jr., to the June number of THE REVIEW, it might have been read and dismissed with some commendation, even by one who feels a peculiar interest in everything that touches upon the condition of the American farmer. But the remark, "That the present Alliance movement will directly im prove the situation is not likely," inspires a re-reading of the article, and also an inclination to clarify some things which were passed over in the first reading as being rather erratic, but not harmful.

The discontent of the farmers threatens "a grave disturbance in the equilibrium of national affairs" may be properly regarded as the basic proposition of the article in question. This proposition alone is a most tempting one for treatment; and the treatment might be begun by asking, What is the present "equilibrium of national affairs"? It is not proposed, however, to enter upon such a discussion here, and the matter may be passed over with the statement that the farming element has ever been the first and most potential in establishing an equilibrium in a republican form of government, and in efforts to maintain it. The simple truth is, there is now no equilibrium, and the farmers are moving to restore that which may have been, or to establish an equilibrium on a broader scale than has formerly been necessary.

Mr. Waring seemingly makes an effort to detract from the importance of farming as a feature of existing social organization. It is, he says, "the basis of the social organization only in the sense of having been its beginning." The admission that it is the beginning is an admission that it is the foundation. There can be no safe and complete superstructure without a foundation, though the foundation may exist without the superstructure.

The acknowledgment that society cannot be maintained without the food-producer is made perforce; but the assertion that it cannot be maintained "without millers and butchers and grocers and cooks and the whole round of purveyors and workers" is open to questioning. It might be legitimately asked what kind of social organization demands all these workers, and what kind could be maintained without them. The present social organization demands-and the demand is supplied-speculators, racecourses, gamblers, trusts, monopolies, "combines," breweries, bar-rooms, railroad pools, subsidies, and the like. Surely Mr. Waring will not assert that a society meeting all the demands of the highest conception of civilization cannot be maintained without these.

The evidence of the past tells of quite an endurable form of society when there were no professional carpenters, cooks, millers, butchers, etc. People lived, and as a consequence we live. One of epicurean tastes, in making a comparison of the ancient and modern forms of society, might say that keeping one's self alive is not living; but there is no living without keeping alive. The engine may be beautiful, but it is useless without the steam. The banquet-hall is uninviting without the products of the farm. An attempt to rank any vocation with the importance and necessity of farming will ever prove futile.

ure.

The Hon. J. M. Rusk, Secretary of Agriculture, is authority for the statement that one-half of our population depends on agricultMr. Waring says: "The fact that those in one industry outnumber those in another does not give them a greater claim to consideration." This is noticed because it conveys an implication that the farmers are demanding greater consideration than that accorded to other classes, or that somebody is demanding it for them. It would be impossible to sustain either implication. The great fundamental principle of the discontented farmers is "equal rights to all, special privileges to none." They have made demands for legislation which they believe would be beneficial to them, though not exclusively. Some of these demands have been strenuously opposed on the ground that they can be acceded to only through "class" legislation. The objection is debatable, but let it be admitted for the sake of argument. The farmer points to statute-books full of legislation in the interest of other classes, and exclaims: "Equal rights for all.

If it be right to legislate for the manufacturer and shipbuilder and banker, why not for me?"

"But," says the legislator, "one of your tenets is 'special privileges to none.' How can you ask for special legislation ?" The farmer replies: "Yes; 'special privileges to none. Then take away the special privileges you have accorded to the manufacturer, the shipbuilder, and the banker."

The farmer has never made claim for greater consideration than is accorded to other classes, and only until very recently, when overwhelmed and discouraged by adverse conditions and discriminating legislation, has he asked for the same consideration from national power that nearly all other classes have enjoyed for years. The test of "industry, skill, frugality, and fair dealing" has been applied to the vocation of farming under existing economic conditions without encouraging results. The average land-owner and farmer, though exercising the most consummate skill and practising the most rigid economy, cannot hope to achieve fortune in a lifetime. The speculator in "futures" and the manipulator of stocks, with no knowledge of frugality and without legitimate skill, achieve fortunes in a day.

In defining what is "truly the basis of our national prosperity," Mr. Waring indulges in misleading, if not erroneous, language. "National prosperity" is a term which may not be properly applied to the condition of a country or society a large part of whose population is struggling under adverse and oppressive circumstances which arise from national legislation. It is a term which cannot be applied without violence to the condition of this country, whose national records show the existence of nine millions of mortgages on the farms and homesteads of sixty-three millions of people-a mortgage to every seven individuals, or a mortgage for every four families out of five. If intended to apply to such a condition as this, it is misleading. The possible error lies in the assertion that "industry, skill, frugality, and fair dealing" are the basis of national prosperity.

Mr. Waring adds: "The sphere in which these are applied is immaterial." This leaves a loop-hole of escape from every objection that may be urged to the assertion. It was evidently intended to apply to individuals in the pursuit of their various callings, and if this, and this only, were meant, the force of the assertion could be easily broken; for there would be no difficulty

in establishing the fact that "industry, skill," etc., cannot be effective in such vocations in civilized society as may be subject to the adverse effects of discriminating legislation. But if this were shown, Mr. Waring might escape through his loop-hole by saying he meant that legislation, as well as any other component part of the social organism, must be characterized by “industry, skill, frugality, and fair dealing."

What he asserts to be the basis of our national prosperity is, in a society and civilization so large and advanced as ours, merely the basis of existence. The responsibility is not assumed here of affirming just where the line between existence and prosperity should be drawn. Let it be admitted, however, that he who has anything over and above what is necessary for actual existence is prosperous. Does the owner of this surplus, be it little or much, hold it and enjoy it by personal "industry, skill, frugality, and fair dealing," or are his tenure and enjoyment of the surplus secured and protected by such legislation or compact as the individuals composing the society are willing to submit to? If this latter question could be negatived, it would carry the affirmation that legislation is unnecessary, unless it can be established that legislation may be so framed and administered as to aid equally all the individuals of a large society in acquiring whatever is necessary to make them prosperous. To deal fully and effectively with this proposition would require a more elaborate argument than can be contained within the limits to which this article must be confined; for the presentation of such an argument would necessitate the production of a second argument to show that the realm of nationalism was not being invaded.

The proposition, however, is not new; it was a tenet of the framer of our national constitution, and was expressed by him in the words, "You can legislate prosperity or adversity on yourselves." The truth and force of this enunciation are beginning to be felt by the whole people, and they are awaking to the realization that, in a society which has reached the stage and dimensions of ours, legislation is the basis of national prosperity. In this their conviction is so strong that they are proposing legislative remedies for existing evils and inequalities; but the step was not taken until they had sought long and earnestly, but in vain, to evolve some other method of dealing effectively with the condition as it is found.