the strength of which was bought the assent of the States then owning such property. The question to-day is whether that bargain shall be repudiated. Your Honors know what the seaboard States gave up for it. They gave up that inexhaustible source of revenue, customs duties, the whole regulation of commerce, and now the question is whether the other States, in whose behalf and for whose benefit that was given up, shall take back the price for which it was given. I cannot believe that your Honors will entertain any real doubt upon such a question as this.]

But there is another clause providing that representation and direct taxes shall go hand in hand. What did that mean? Why was it that the framers twice said it in the Constitution? And it is the only thing that they did say twice. They said it in section 2 of article 1, when they provided that representatives and direct taxes should be apportioned according to numbers. And they said it in the ninth section of the same article when they prescribed that no capitation or other direct tax should be levied except according to the census. [If the Court please,] they were fresh from the struggles about representation going hand in hand with taxation, and it was for the protection of this property, this accumulated property in the States, as against the inroad of the votes of mere numbers, that they stipulated and insisted upon the guaranty of apportionment such was the fundamental condition of the States adopting the Constitution.

The purpose was as clear as if it had been written in so many words that when the representatives of any State voted in the House of Representatives, where only a tax could originate, upon a law to impose a direct tax upon the property or the income of property in any State, they should do it under the restraint that according as they possessed the political power to vote the tax, it should fall upon the citizens of the State that they represented. [Is there any doubt that that was the object, that that is how it was made a precaution and a guaranty? That is how it was made a safeguard of the Constitution, so that when a man came from a poor State to put a direct tax upon New York or upon Massachusetts or Pennsylvania, however poor his State might be, however small or great might be its population as compared with that of those richer and greater States, it should bear just that proportion of the tax, and that in voting to tax Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and New Jersey he could not by any device exempt his own State from its proportionate share.]

What an object lesson this law is as to these subjects of direct tax that I have now spoken of, namely, the rents of land and the income of personal property. Here are the other forty States, all the States representing that region that has come in under the provision that new States might be carved out of the Territories, which have voted to put this direct tax under the pretence of an income tax upon these seaboard States, throwing to the winds the restraint

that the Constitution placed upon them, and practically exempting their own States. They have provided that New York, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Jersey shall pay, as I told you in the beginning, five times the amount they would pay if the rule of apportionment guaranteed by the Constitution had not been utterly disregarded.

HENRY JAMES: GUSTAVE FLAUBERT

From "Essays in London and Elsewhere," New York, 1893, pp. 138-150.1

This excellent example of the interpretative, impressionistic criticism I have discussed pretty fully in the Introduction, pp. 98-100. It is worth while, however, to point out here that its excellence lies in its exquisite sensitiveness to the inner, emotional significance of fact, and in its power of setting forth the influence of the more subtle and impalpable kinds of fact on the responsive temperament of an artist. Such criticism demands, in the first place, untiring patience and placidity of rumination, in order that your feelings may crystallize themselves, and, in the second place, the finest delicacy of exposition.

IT is only a reader here and there in all the wide world who understands to-day, or who ever understood, what Gustave Flaubert tried for; and it is only when such a reader is also a writer, and a tolerably tormented one, that he particularly cares. Poor Flaubert's great revenge, however, far beyond that of any editorial treachery, is that when this occasional witness does care he cares very peculiarly and very tenderly, and much more than he may be able successfully to say. Then the great irritated style-seeker becomes, in the embracing mind, an object of interest and honor; not so much for what he altogether achieved, as for the way he strove and for the inspir

1 Copyright, 1893, by Messrs. Harper & Brothers.

ing image that he presents. There is no reasoning about him; the more we take him as he is the more he has a special authority. "Salammbô," in which we breathe the air of pure æsthetics, is as hard as stone; "L'Education," for the same reason, is as cold as death; "Saint-Antoine " is a medley of wonderful bristling metals and polished agates, and the drollery of "Bouvard et Pécuchet" (a work as sad as something perverse and puerile done for a wager) about as contagious as the smile of a keeper showing you through the wards of the madhouse. In "Madame Bovary" alone emotion is just sufficiently present to take off the chill. This truly is a qualified report, yet it leaves Flaubert untouched at the points where he is most himself, leaves him master of the province in which, for many of us, it will never be an idle errand to visit him. The way to care for him is to test the virtue of his particular exaggeration, to accept for the sake of his æsthetic influence the idiosyncrasies now revealed to us, his wild gesticulation, his plaintive, childish side, the side as to which one asks one's self what has become of ultimate good humor, of human patience, of the enduring man. He pays and pays heavily for his development in a single direction, for it is probable that no literary effort so great, accompanied with an equal literary talent, ever failed on so large a scale to be convincing. It convinces only those who are converted, and the number of such is very small. It is an appeal so technical that we may say of him still, but with more resignation, what he personally wailed over, that nobody takes his