the expense of imprisonment amounted to $70,300. The cost of the work was less than $59,000; thus saving more than $11,000.

It was argued against probation that it would weaken the general deterrent effect of law. The facts prove the contrary. In France, as M. Monis showed, the number of first offenders has diminished ten thousand in ten years.

The treatment of the criminal insane from a medical rather than a penal standpoint is a marked feature of advance in penology. The whole judicial procedure of civilized countries has been modified by the necessity of determining the question of responsibility. If an accused person is adjudged to have been insane before the offense was committed the act is not regarded as criminal, and he is sent to an insane asylum. A prisoner who becomes insane after committal to prison is likewise transferred to an asylum. But the objection to receiving insane criminals in hospitals organized for those who are not criminals, combined with the necessity for greater restraint, has led to the establishment of special quarters for the insane in prisons and to other special asylums. Such asylums now exist in New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Illinois, as well as in Canada, Saxony, Baden, Hungary, England, Belgium, Norway, and Italy.

tance.

The old theory of penal law was to affix a penalty to a forbidden act and to enforce it without much regard to the condition of the offender. In these days his condition is a question of prime imporFrom the study of crime, pathologists and sociologists have turned to the study of the criminal. It is too soon to speak of positive results in the department of criminal anthropology. The studies of Lombroso, Ferri, and others open new lines of inquiry and raise new problems. We may expect fruitful results in the prevention of crime from the study of the history and environment of offenders.

In the important work of distinguishing between habitual and occasional criminals, the anthropometric system of Bertillon is recognized as a sure means of identifying any person who has been measured and recorded under this method. Let a person be arrested in any part of France, and in a few minutes it can be ascertained at Paris whether he has ever been arrested before. The system has been adopted in London and in some cities of our own country; but to coördinate the information a central bureau should be established by the Government as a measure for public protection.

The close of the century is signalized by a notable step taken by Russia in abolishing deportation as a part of her penal system, with

the exception of a small penal colony for political and habitual offenders. This is a step long contemplated by Russia, and now determined upon after the most positive evidence of the evils of deportation to Siberia. Russia is about to make provision in prisons for 14,000 more prisoners; and she has appropriated $3,520,000 for the new buildings which must be erected for the 8,000 who cannot be accommodated in existing prisons. This new step by Russia marks the practical abandonment of transportation by all civilized countries with the exception of France, which still supports penal colonies; but the latter are secondary features of the French system.

If asked to sum up in a paragraph the most important indications of progress in penology, the representatives of different schools would undoubtedly differ; but speaking as a student of tendencies, principles, and results, and not as the exponent of a school, I should say that progress in the century just closed is evident in the following points: (1) The higher standard of prison construction and administration; (2) the improved personnel in prison management; (3) the recognition of labor as a disciplinary and reformatory agent; (4) the substitution of productive for unproductive labor, and to a small degree requited for unrequited labor; (5) an improvement in prison dietaries; (6) new and better principles of classification; (7) the substitution of a reformatory for a retributory system; (8) probation, or conditional release for first offenders, with friendly surveillance; (9) the parole system of conditional liberation, found in its best form in the indeterminate sentence as an adjunct of a reformatory system and as a means for the protection of society; (10) the Bertillon system for the identification of prisoners; (11) the new attention given to the study of the criminal, his environment and history; (12) the separation of accidental from habitual criminals; (13) the abandonment of transportation; (14) the humane treatment of the criminal insane, the improvement in criminal procedure, with more effective organization in relief and protective work and in the study of penological problems; and (15) the new emphasis laid upon preventive, instead of punitive or merely corrective, measures.

S. J. BARROWS.

THE EDUCATION OF THE MILLIONAIRE.

"WE must educate our masters 99 was the favorite observation of an English liberal half a century ago. We must educate our leaders could be said with equal truth by Americans to-day. If the statement made by Mr. Thomas Nelson Page, in his recent address at Concord, that not more than fifty thousand people of the American public were at all interested or concerned in the life of Newport, the subject would perhaps not be worth further public discussion. But as fifty million would probably be an under-estimate of those who are interested in the life there, or whose lives are influenced, directly or indirectly by that life, it comes properly within the class of public questions, and one that now needs further serious public discussion.

As long as we continue to live under the régime of private property and inherited wealth the "multis" of Newport will be our social leaders. Their example will be felt throughout all classes. They will give the tone to manners and morals in our country as much as a prince and his court do in any country of Europe. The indictments of the Rev. Dr. Hamblin and Mr. Page for their conduct, with the replies of the various prominent Newport leaders, have brought the case into court. The alleged wrong-doer, the "multi,” is now at the bar of public opinion. The declarations of Dr. Hamblin and Mr. Page, however, do not, in my opinion, go at all into the merits of the case. Dr. Hamblin evidently saw Newport with the eye of one of his seventeenth-century Puritan ancestors. Playing croquet and tennis on Sunday cannot to-day be taken as serious offences. Mr. Lecky in his recent work, "The Map of Life," has reminded us how much the point of view has changed in criticising moral conduct. The question in this age is not whether we are living in accordance with dogmas, but how much positive good or ill we are accomplishing as social beings.

The comments of Mr. Page that have attracted most attention, viz., (1) the arrogance of the Newport leaders; (2) that society there is composed of divorced and doubly divorced individuals; and (3)

that not more than fifty thousand people in America know or care for their proceedings are severally immaterial and incorrect.

Arrogance is certainly not the prevailing tone of manners there. No doubly divorced person is identified with Newport society; and the implication that there is immorality there is a most unfair one. This may be for the ignoble reason that the people are too busy with their trappings and their toys; but it is true, nevertheless, as one of their defenders has said, that they are more correct in that respect than the denizens of any other resort of this kind in the world. The last and only material one of these statements, that only an insignificant part of the country is interested in the life of Newport, is, on its face, a mistaken one. Any allusions made to the acts or words of the Four Hundred in the theatres, in music halls, or in political meetings, from New York to the Pacific coast, are at once understood by the whole audience.

These comments hardly touch upon those acts of the "multis ” with which the public is most concerned. The most serious charges. that can be made against them from the point of their civic duties are (1) their enormous unproductive expenditure, and (2) their ignorance of some of the most important laws of that wealth of which they possess so much. They are, however, to be criticised for the lack of a certain kind of education which public duty demands of them, and not for moral perversity or arrogance.

One fallacy in relation to their wealth seems to obtain among the millionaires as well as among the millions, one that was exposed by Adam Smith in the very year in which we started upon our national life, namely, that spendthrift expenditure is a good thing for society. Despite the fact that every great economist since his day has demonstrated the contrary, it is a fallacy that has not yet been rooted out of the minds of a large majority of even the educated. Indeed, it might be called the pons asinorum of economics. There are so few even of college-bred men who have ever given themselves the trouble to understand the subject in the abstract, and of those few some are constantly stating propositions that are altogether inconsistent.

If Adam Smith, when he first exposed the fallacy of this belief, a century and a quarter ago, implied a responsibility on the part of the capitalist to expend his money in ways that would be most beneficial to society, or at least in ways not harmful to it, that responsibility must be much heavier to-day, with capital so enormously increased and concentrated. It is surprising, too, that the question of

expenditure of the rich should have suddenly become a more serious question with us than it is with any of the countries of the Old World. When Adam Smith wrote we were a hard-working community engaged in the simple occupations of clearing forests and killing Indians; while to-day palaces have arisen on our shores probably as magnificent as that of Diocletian at Spalato, and a scale of unproductive expenditure has been initiated, with racing stables, ocean-going yachts, etc., that could not possibly have been equalled by the expenditure even of Mæcenas. It is this that justifies a reassertion of some of the axioms of economics in regard to it.

When the millions as well as the millionaire thoroughly understand that absurd and vulgar expenditure impoverishes society and checks the production, and when they learn that there is no economical justification for the present vast, unproductive expenditure, then public opinion will compel the "multis" to expend their fortunes in ways that will be more in accordance with simplicity and good taste. The vulgarity of wasting wealth will be all the clearer when its effect upon the public wealth is understood; and no sound public opinion on the subject can be formed until the public understands the purely economic side of the question.

The "multi" has a right to give himself and his children any kind of an education he sees fit. He may become or he may cause his offspring to become a linguist, a musician, a locomotive engineer, or an architect; but he owes it to society to make the comprehension of the following propositions a part of his education, or, to employ a university phrase, society should put the following precepts in the list of his required studies:

That spendthrift expenditure is impoverishing, not enriching, society; that a demand for commodities is not a demand for labor, but only determines its direction; that a loss of wealth to the public results by the diversion of capital from productive to unproductive channels; that in living as they do they are making luxuries cheaper but necessities dearer; that when they, by deciding upon a channel for their capital, set labor in motion to produce something, it makes a great difference to society whether the thing produced has in itself reproductive qualities - the difference between an unoccupied palace and a factory; that there never has been any such a thing as overproduction, but that there has been only disproportionate production; that the only justification for the diversion of capital from a productive to an unproductive use, thereby drawing labor out of pro