offense against the Penal Code, and as such severely punishable. While we trust that hereafter justice will not be slow in punishing offenders, we hope, above all, that the result will be the speedy banishment from our country of the barbarous, tyrannical, illegal and un-American system of boycotting.

New York Tribune (Rep.), April 24.

THE failure of the boycott in this country is already a foregone conclusion. The American people are so imbued with the spirit of toleration that they do not quickly arouse themselves to resent even abuses. The respect for the freedom of the individual is sometimes carried so far as to have the effect of encouraging invasions of public or private rights. The general disposition and purpose is to allow every one the utmost liberty compatible with immunity from license, and though there are some miscarriages in the national policy, it is carried out broadly to the advantage of the country. The boycott is so foreign and undemocratic an invention, so opposed in principle to American doctrines, that when the attempt was made to introduce it here the public was not prepared for the novelty, and at first probably failed to realize its scope and meaning. But this state of hesitation and doubt did not last long, for the boycott has at least the merit of explaining itself, and the simplest citizen, after watching its operation a little while, must arrive at a full comprehension of what it implies. It is in effect an attempt to establish in this free country a tyranny and a slavery wholly incompatible with the survival of democratic instituti ns. Such a machinery never could have originated here. It belongs to an entirely different state of society, politics, and civilization. The conception is ancient, but wherever it has been applied it has been the instrument of barbarous or despotic power seeking to coerce and to intimidate in defiance of any doctrine of equal rights and individual liberty. Such a method is as much out of place in this republic as the thumb-screws and the rack would be. The right to apply such coercion to an American citizen is denied by our fundamental principles of government. The Constitution of the United States and those of all the separate States declare in their bill of rights a Magna Charta which excludes the boycott. The ignorance of our system of government exhibited by those who have had recourse to this prohibited survival from barbarism and despotism is indeed their only apology for so mischievous an experiment. A free community can not and will not permit such a process to be established. And the moment public opinion is awakened to the meaning of the attempt, it rises against the boycott with prompt indignation and quashes it.

New York Herald (Ind.), April 24.

IT IS reported from Cleveland, Ohio, that a combination of ministers has been formed, headed by Bishop Bedell, for the purpose of boycotting Sunday newspapers. We trust that there is no truth in this statement. It would be painful, indeed, if ministers of the Gospel are to be bitten by the prevailing fever for boycotting, and we sincerely hope, if the report be true, that for their sakes the disorder will not spread. It would seem, also, that there is something specially unkind in the act of boycotting Sunday newspapers, for it is to the press that ministers not infrequently owe a large proportion of their popularity. Where would Talmage be if it were not for the newspapers? Where Ingersoll?—but he is not a minister. What would have been heard of Sam Jones and that other Sam (Small), had not the press made public their virtues and their successes. We have not a word to say on the usefulness of Sunday newspapers; they vary. Perhaps Bishop Bedell and his brethren who have undertaken this crusade may entertain a special animosity toward Ohio Sunday newspapers. But the principle of boycotting is one that never should be employed for, such a purpose. Imagine the newspapers boycotting the ministers! Who would read their sermons then?

From Die New England Staaten-Zeitung, Boston, April 24.
[Translated expressly for PUBLIC OPINION.]

STRIKES and "boycotts" for the prosecution of the just demands of the workingmen have partially excited a repugnance in the public mind from a too precipitate employment of these methods, from their excesses and the acts of violence which have attended them. Boycotting, at its outset even, occasioned a feeling of surprise by its excesses; to this, upon a closer examination, has succeeded the belief that, at best, it was but a doubtful expedient, and one which might easily lead to abuse. A reaction has thus taken place in public opinion. In certain circles be very "unpopular" to speak out against the light-minded and, so to speak, manually-laboring strikers and boycotters. No consideration need be accorded to the gentry who hold this opinion, if, indeed, they should be taken into consideration at all. If such wish to make anything out of these observations, let them address themselves to the leader of the great American labor union, who will doubtless expound to them the constitution and the laws.

it may

The Daily State Journal (Ind.), Lincoln, Nebraska, April 24. THE Knights of Labor are having a little trouble among themselves in the way of establishing and lifting boycotts. In the nature of things, with a complex organization with a great number of "executive boards" and "master workmen," the temptation for titled knights to do a little business on their own account is quite formidable. Instances have occurred in which these officials have issued “circulars" boycotting a firm or lifting a boycott and recommending the goods of the forgiven concern to the public without any permission except that of their own sweet will. A "circular" is easily concocted and to prin it takes but a trifle. It begins to look as though it would take a large force of detectives to keep track of the boycotts and the reliefs from boycotts, since the business has become so extensive, and ferret out the bogus transactions of dishonest officials.

New Orleans Times-Democrat (Dem.), April 24. BOYCOTTING is beginning to be used as a political weapon, as well as a labor one. Large meetings of the taxpayers of Prince Edward and Mecklenburg counties, Va., were held Monday last, at which it was unanimously resolved to pay all State taxes in money, and appealing to the people generally, but especially to the mer. chants and tradesmen to have no dealings whatever with the business houses of

the various cities until they have first satisfied themselves that such houses are not paying taxes in coupons Texas is following the old Dominion, according to the Laredo Times, which says that a race boycott has been organized in Cameron and Starr counties for the purpose of electing none but Americans to office.

Pittsburgh Evening Gazette (Ind.), April 24.

BOYCOTTERS have succeeded boodlers as objects of the attention of the New York grand jury. There are plenty of evidences as to the state of public sentiment on the subject. Leading members of the New York Chamber of Commerce have petitioned its president to call a special meeting to consider what action may be appropriately taken with a view of sustaining citizens in the peaceful pursuit of their business. The regular thing in New York when the people are stirred up in regard to some big matter used to be, hire a hall and get Evarts to make a speech, but since Evarts has become a politiciau he has grown very non-committal.

The Craftsman, Washington, April 24.

WITH what gusto and relish do those who wish to uphold monopoly in its warfare upon the people argue in favor of "the right in the case." Absolute right is brought down to its finest point when applied to a body of workingmen, but when applied to corporate monopoly it is as elastic as rubber. The workingmen have no right to organize, to strike, to boycott, to hinder others from taking their places, to protect their families from wrong. In the name of God, what rights has the workingman got? Only the right to work or starve, for it is so nominated in the bond.

Atlanta Constitution (Dem.), April 24.

THE Knights of Labor wrong themselves and wrong the country when they engage in boycotts and take other measures with which the public cannot afford to sympathize, but no greater wrong is done than when organized capital buys legislatures and bribes the judiciary.

Rochester Morning Herald (Ind.), April 24.

AMERICA is still "the home of the brave," but some people are beginning to doubt whether it is "the land of the free." King George was never half the tyrant that King Boycott would be if permitted to have his way.

New York Sun (Dem.), April 25.

It seems that about two hundred ministers of Rhode Island, chiefly Baptists and Methodists, have issued a manifesto, in which they denounce Sunday newspapers, and exhort Christians generally to refuse to buy them. Clergymen of Cleveland, too, with Bishop Bedell, of the Episcopal church at their head, we are told, have sent out a confidential circular to ministers urging them to make a combined effort next Sunday to boycott all such publications. But these clergymen will make their assault in vain. Instead of hurting the newspapers, they will rather diminish their own influence by showing their lack of common sense. There are some things about which people do not need to go to the pulpit for advice, but which they feel entirely able to decide for themselves, and the less the clergy interfere in such matters the better it will be for them, and the higher will be the value set on their counsel in other directions.

Contributed to Chicago Mail (Ind.)

BOYCOTTING is likely to become odious, if ridicule of it, newspaper criticism of it, and, more than all else, if the abuse of it as a weapon is continued. But will the bare-faced injustice by boycotting ever equal the secret horrors of blacklisting? There is a great manufacturing concern in Chicago which has cried out piteously because it has been boycotted-blazoned through the country as in bad repute with trades-unions. Yet it has been a habit for a decade of this concern, it is declared on good authority, to blacklist mechanics who participated in strikes. Men of muscle, with honest faces, and with women and children at home hungry and naked, have tramped, after leaving that factory, from employer to employer, from sunrise to sunset, day after day, week after week, month after month, until the very strangers to whom they applied, out of pity to their hungry faces, told them they dared not hire them that they were blacklisted. Boycotting, blacklisting-which is the viler?

The Railway Review.

THE local strikers demanded a full surrender, and now Powderly comes out from behind the mask of the "secret" circular and supports them by expressing the views contained in the letter given elsewhere. Mr. Powderly, boycotter, can no longer be esteemed as the Mr. Powderly, moderator, of the "secret" circular.

The New Haven Journal and Courier.

BOYCOTT is a wicked, malevolent tyrant. He does not take into consideration the moral law, the conscience or the rights of men. We believe that his power in this country is about to be taken away from him. It cannot be that the freedom. loving inhabitants of the United States will tolerate him much longer.

The Boycotter (New York).

We wish here, once for all, to set our everlasting seal of condemnation upon the habit of indiscriminate boycotting. There are enough of legitimate boycotts to attend to those which are forced upon us. Let us be sure that the cause is just, and then let us boycott and strike hard.

Columbus, Ohio, State Journal (Rep.).

THE boycott is an importation from foreign shores, wholly opposed to every feel. ing and sentiment of Americans, directly incites to violence and riot, odious, tyrannical, and unjust, and, as recent deveolpments have shown, will not be tolerated in a land of freedom and of equal rights.

Philadelphia Inquirer (Ind.).

IN the largeness of our liberty and easy-going good nature, we Americans are open to the charge of being too tolerant, but if there is one thing clearer than

the association has its headquarters in Chicago, the movement is not intended to be. a local one. The intention is to make the "benefits" of the "reform" "" universal throughout the United States." To this end "all unions, labor organizations, societies, and persons interested in the peace of society, and in the pecuniary, intellectual, and moral welfare of the nation," are earnestly urged "to begin on May I, 1886, and thereafter to labor at all the mercantile, mechanical, manufacturing, and other regular employments, as far as may be, but eight hours each day." The authors of this summons to do less submit a somewhat extended argument in support of the proposition that "the working classes will be benefited, and all the various kinds of business made more prosperous through working less hours at daily labor." They have made the important discovery that the way to get more product is to produce less. This is stated in all seriousness. It is precisely what they claim. They do not pretend, as did the eight-hour agitators a few years ago, that a man can produce as much in eight hours as he can in ten. On the contrary, they distinctly say that they ask for a reduction of the working day from ten hours to eight "for the reason that such reduction of time will give opportunity for two more men to work for every eight now employed. In other words, the work now performed by eight men will require ten men to achieve the same result." Thus it is plainly declared as the first purpose of the movement that every man shall produce less. And yet somehow every man is to get more product. This is no exaggeration or misrepresentation of the position taken by the authors of this document. Among the enumerated advantages to "the laboring classes" of the eighthour day are these: "An opportunity to lay aside means for the purchase of a home," and "the ability to obtain respectable dress and make a good appearance." And again it is said: "The extra time thus gained "- equivalent to seventy-eight days a year—"will afford every workingman not only a sufficient recreation, but opportunity to attend the State and county fairs, the national exposition, and make a visit to the childhood home, with time to spare for a journey to Europe." The proposition is that minus will equal plus; that by producing less everybody will get more; that the way to get abundance is first to get scarcity. The reasoning by which it is demonstrated that workmen will get more, however it may be with others, runs thus: "A reduction of one-fifth of laboring time for all that work will make a reduction of one-fifth of all kinds of products in the near future, which will make proportionate scarcity. With scarcity will come advance in prices for every commodity, giving merchants and manufacturers a fair profit, and wageworkers an advance in wages. Ere long, all being employed, the production will be as great as now, but, all earning wages, the consumption and demand will be greater than now, so that prices and wages will still continue better than at present." It seems, therefore, that at first no more persons will be employed than are employed now, and the result will be scarcity and high prices. Only after that beneficient result has been achieved by those wise regulators of society will the army of idlers have something to do. Glorious is the gospel of scarcity and high prices! But it is not new. It has been preached and practiced by the protectionists for many years, and yet, if we may believe the eight-hour agitators, we have the army of idlers still with us. These agitators say that too much is produced. "The productive power of the country, through machinery and long hours, is in excess of the ability to consume." That is not true. The people would be glad to consume all that is produced if they could afford to buy. Some things are at times produced in excess of demand, but there is no such thing as general overproduction. The remedy for unbalanced production is not to be found in the eighthour plan of producing one-fifth less all around. That is a plan for impoverishing the country, not enriching it. The agitators assume that one-fifth of the people who want to work are unable to find employment. There is no reason to suppose that to be true. The number of persons in gainful occupations in this country is about 20,000,000. One-fifth of this number is 4,000,000. There is no reason to think that so many people who want to work can find nothing to do. The highest estimate that of the labor bureau at Washington-is 1,000,000, and that is probably an exaggeration. The agitators are entitled to credit for advising workers to take for eight hours' work an eight-hour price, "allowing the law of supply and demand to regulate wages in the future." If the demand were made for a tenhour price, enterprise, already greatly depressed in consequence of irrational per-. formances of many bodies of workmen, would be paralyzed. Men with means to invest would decline to take the risks, not knowing what to expect, and there would be more men out of employment than ever.

New York Tribune (Rep.), April 23.

The conclusion inevitably resulting remains the same in kind, though less in degree, whether the quantity of products be less by one fifth or one eighth or onetenth. One-fifth less product for everybody; let us first see what that means. Clearly it means one-fifth fewer shoes and coats and hats to be worn by everybody. All that are now made are worn; fewer would be made, and therefore all must be content to wear fewer. So there would be fewer houses built, and fewer chairs and tables, and fewer carpets and fewer tools. Notice that it is not yet a question of prices or of wages. There would be fewer things provided by labor, and therefore fewer things to divide as the rewards of labor. But the people who have most means would not be content with fewer things, and would, therefore, pay higher prices in order to secure more than their share. The result would be that other people, having less means, must also pay higher prices or be content with less than their share. Thus prices and wages would have to adjust themselves to the general necessity that, there being fewer things, fewer can be divided as rewards of labor. Now a man gets as his share, in return for work in any other occupation, his proportion of all the boots and shoes now made; let us puppose a pair of boots for one day's work. Then his share would be only four-fifths of a pair of boots for a day's labor, and he would have to pay more money, or else be content with even less than his share. So of other things. The wages may be fut nominally as high as anybody pleases, and prices will adjust themselves so that the day's work will still bring only its share of the results of all days' workthat is, a fifth less than before, and to the poorer inevitably less than their present share. But the earth will go on producing twenty-four hours out of twenty-four, it is said; so that the cost of food will not be increased. That is a mistake. The earth does not produce without human labor. If others insist on eight hours for a day's work, farm labor will make its charges accordingly. It will have to pay to all others the same day's work for a fifth less cloth and tools, railroad transportation, and house-building. The necessary result will be that farm labor will either produce less food, or charge more for what it does produce. It comes to this, then, that in order to work fewer hours we must all be content with one fifth less results of labor, less food, clothing, tools, traveling, cigars, or beer. It matters not in what form a man pleases to take the return for his labor; he must be content with less return if all work less and produce less. Have the workingmen of this country more things to satisfy desire than they want? Surely not, when some are suffering. If they insist upon producing less, the inevitable result will be greater suffering for those now in want, and many will want who now are satisfied. N. Y. Evening Post (Ind.), April 23.

WHAT animates the bulk of the eight-hour advocates is the belief that while less work would be done in eight hours than in ten, the pay would remain the same, and employment would be furnished to large numbers who now have nothing to do. We see no objection in the world to the experiment being tried, if it be tried on the American basis of individual liberty-that is, if individual choice be allowed to determine in every case whether a man shall work eight hours or ten, and the employer be allowed to choose between the eight-hour men and the ten-hour men. To make it work more satisfactorily, however, each man ought to be paid by the hour, and then both classes could work in the same factory or shop. But the important question for the public is how the experiment is to be tried. If it is to be carried out on the compulsory principle-that is, if-the eight-hour men are to provide themselves, like savages, with stones, bricks, clubs, and knives with which to kill or maim the ten-hour men, and if the people who employ ten-hour men are to be boycotted and their premises infested by hooting, howling mobs, and their machinery damaged, and their butchers and bakers warned off-then the American people will make short work of it somehow. This is both the law and the gospel of the whole matter. No man or class of men will be permitted to convert this republic into a den of pirates.

N. Y. Sun (Dem.), April 23.

EIGHT hours' hard work certainly makes a pretty long day, and we dare say that in the progress of society, attended, as it must be, by all sorts of improvements and inventions, the time will come when men will not have to work more than eight hours in order to earn their living; and perhaps a shorter day will suffice for the purpose, though, as the case now stands, it is doubtful whether a general limitation of the working day to so brief a period is practicable. But, however this may be, we should like to see it tried, and as for those who can afford to restrict their hours of daily toil to eight, let them go ahead with the experiment. One thing, however, is certain, and this is that no person who works only eight hours can expect to be paid as much for it as when he works ten hours or more. Moreover, the great point about all these questions is liberty. Let every one have full freedom to do or not to do everything that his mind prompts, and let no one But why should there be any dispute on the number of hours that should constitute a day's work? The sensible plan would be to pay by the hour, not by the day, and to let every one labor as many .hours or as few as he may wish.

Boston Advertiser (Ind.), April 23.

Philadelphia Record (Ind.), April 25.

FEWER hours of labor mean less of a drain on the physical system, and, as resultants, better health, more opportunities for improvement, and a reduction in the cost of living. These results may not be achieved at first, but they are sure to come, and it is safe to venture the assertion that not only the bread-winner, but every member of his family, will share in the benefits that will follow. In certain branches of unskilled labor wages at present are at a low standard, but with the

not a vestige of the "supreme Caucasian race" was left. Her physician was sent for in alarm and haste. On his arrival he laughed immoderately and said: Madame, you are not ill, you are a chemical product. You are no longer a woman, but a 'sulphide.' It is not now a question of medical treatment, but a simple chemical reaction. I shall subject you to a bath of sulphuric acid diluted with water. The acid will have the honor of combining with you; it will take up the sulphur, the metal will produce a sulphurate,' and we shall find as a precipitate' a very pretty woman.' The good-natured physician went through with his reaction, and the belle was restored to her membership with the white race.-Scientific | American, April 23.

AFFINITIES OF TREES.-The Northwestern Lumberman thinks there is no reason to doubt that woods have what may be called their affinities. It has been stated on authority that has not been questioned, that certain woods (both dry); when placed in contact will soon rot, but when in contact with other woods will not rot. It would be reasonable to suppose that the nature of a piece of wood has its likes and dislikes, that it will repulse and attract; in other words, that it is affected by that with which it comes in contact. Were it not so, it would be an exception in the mineral, animal, and vegetable kingdoms.

STATISTICAL.

In

EDUCATIONAL FACTS AND FIGURES.-Instead of one uniform school system for the nation, we have no less than forty-eight systems—a different one for each State and Territory. The result is that the statistics are far less valuable than they would be if they were all gathered upon the same basis. For instance, we would like to compare the juvenile with the adult population in different sections. But how can we do it when the school age is not the same? Every State and Territory has its own idea as to the time when children should begin to go to school and when they should stop going. The periods during which they are enumerated in the school census vary from eight to seventeen years. Some States enroll the children when 4 years old, and some not until they are 8 years old. Some permit them to attend school only until they are 15, and others until they are 21. In Texas the school age is from 8 to 16. In Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, from 5 to 15. In South Carolina, from 6 to 16. In New Mexico, from 7 to 18. In Connecticut, from 4 to 16. In California, from 5 to 17. Georgia, Nevada, Utah, and Louisiana, from 6 to 18. In Dakota, from 7 to 20. In Kentucky and Missouri, from 6 to 20. In Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Washington Territory, and West Virginia, from 6 to 21. In Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, and Virginia, from 5 to 21. In Oregon and Wisconsin, from 4 to 20, and in Maine and Montana, from 4 to 21. There are no less than seventeen different school ages in the States and Territories. The entire enrollment of school children is 16,794,402, or nearly one-third of the whole population. This represents the number who were entitled to go to school. But the number who actually went, even for a single day, so as to get their names on the rolls of the teachers in 1884, was 10,738,192, or about five-eighths of the whole. And the average daily attendance was 6,693,908, or a good deal less than half of the whole. But as the period during which a child is enumerated as of school age is about fifteen years, even if all went half of that time, the average daily❘ attendance would be only a little larger than that now reported. Probably, then, nearly all who are of school age go to school, more or less, though not as much as they could and should go. The number of teachers necessary to drill this army of scholars is 307,804, of whom nearly two-thirds are females. This gives a teacher, on an average, to about 22 pupils. The monthly salaries of these teachers vary greatly in the different States and Territories. In Maine male teachers average $32.59 a month, and female teachers, $16.28. In Massachusetts the men average $108.02 a month, and the women, $44.18. In Nevada the men average $140 a month, and the women, $96. In California the men average $81.38 a month, and the women, $65.37. In South Carolina the men average $26.92, and the women, $24.73. So it seems that the lowest estimate of woman is in Maine, and her lowest estimate as compared with man is in Massachusetts, around "the Hub," the headquarters of the woman's rights organizations. A woman in Nevada is worth twice as much as in Massachusetts and six times as much as in Maine. The amount of permanent investment in school sites and buildings in the United States is $240,638,416, and the current expenses of the schools in 1884 were $110,567,567. An interesting table is that of the cost of education per capita. Comparing the whole expense of the school in each State with the average daily attendance, we learn that the yearly education of a pupil in the free schools of Georgia costs $3.25; in South Carolina, $3.71; while in Nevada it costs $29.25, and in Arizona, $48.33. These are the extremes. In Massachusetts the yearly cost is $25.84. In New York, Connecticut, Illinois, and Iowa, about $20. One reason of this great variation in cost is the different length of the school term. States it is as low as 78 days in the year, and in others as high as 210 days. It should be noted that 606,517 of the children and youth attend private schools. Hence there are in school 7,300,425, or about one-seventh of the whole population. To train teachers for the public schools there are 255 normal schools, with 1,937 instructors and 60,063 pupils. Of these, 128 are private and self-supporting, and 127 are public, supported by the respective States or by the larger cities. Of the 60,063 pupils probably not more than 15,000 graduate each year. So there is an annual addition of only 5 per cent. to the number of teachers from this, the principal source of supply. It is not strange, therefore, that many of the State superintendents complain of great difficulty in securing enough competent teachers. There are, no doubt, plenty of men and women ready to teach even at the prices that they pay women in Maine, but many of them are of the kind that would be dear at any price. Liberal provision by States and cities for normal

In some

the

instruction is essential to the success of our system of popular education. And that this is appreciated appears from the fact that the number of such schools and of the pupils attending them has doubled within ten years. In 1884 no less than 221 commercial or business colleges reported to the commissioner. The number of pupils in them was 44,047. These pupils were preparing themselves to be merchants, bookkeepers, or clerks of various kinds. The number of kindergartens in 1884 was 354. Ten years ago there were only 55. In these pleasant schools for youngest there are over 17,000 children under school age. Many of these kindergartens are free, and are sustained by the gifts of benevolent men and women-especially of women, to whose motherly instincts they strongly appeal. Mrs. Senator Stanford pays the entire cost from year to year of the largest in San Francisco. With less than some wealthy ladies spend on their wardrobes she makes doubt, will be saved from lives of vice or crime by the influence of this early trainseveral hundred poor children happy every day in the year, and many of them, no ing. We need more kindergartens, especially in our cities. Who will furnish the funds to sustain them? The number of what are called by the commissioner "secondary schools"-i. c., academies that are not preparatory departments of colleges or public high schools—is 1,588, with 152,354 students. The number of preparatory schools is 169, with 18,319 students. The number of institutions for the superior instruction of women is 236, with 30,587 students. The number of universities and colleges is 370, with 65,522 students. The number of schools of. science, which include our national military and naval academies, is 92, with 14,709 students. The number of theological seminaries is 146, with 5,290 students and 750 professors. This gives an average of 5 professors and 37 students to a seminary, and about 7 students to each teacher. The number of law schools is 57, with 269 teachers and 2,686 students. The number of medical schools is 145, with 15,300 students. Thus there are twice as many in the theological seminaries as in the law schools, and nearly three times as many in the medical schools as in the theological seminaries. This shows that only a small proportion of the lawyers attend law schools, that about half of the ministers attend theological seminaries, while nearly all the doctors attend the medical schools. The number of men in these three professions-divinity, law, and medicine-was, in 1880, 254,520, of whom 64,698 were ministers, 64,137 lawyers, and 85,671 physicians and surgeons, 12,314 dentists, and 27,700 pharmaceutists. Hence, the proportion in the learned professions (so called) is about 1 to 200 of the population. The proportion of ministers and lawyers is very nearly equal, and is I to 782 of the population. The proportion of physicians and surgeons is 1 to 584, and of dentists I to 4,000.—Compiled by The Interior from the Annual Report of the U. S. Commissioner of Education.

THE GOVERNMENT DEBT.-In the last fifteen years the public debt of the United States has been reduced through the working of the Sinking Fund from $2,332,067,793, on January 1, 1871, to $1,344,776,204, on January 1, 1886, the total reduction amounting to $987,291,589. A parallel to this in the payment of a national debt is scarcely to be found in the history of nations. The reduction in the total debt has been over 42 per cent., and in an annual interest the reduction has been nearly 60 per cent., the interest paid in 1871 being $125,576,565, and for the fiscal year to June 30, 1885, $51,386,256. The following shows the total debt January 1, 1871, and at the beginning or each year since, and the amount paid upon the principal of the debt in each year to December 31, 1885: Reduction for year. $88,229,382 81,586,073

Year.

1871

1872 1873

1874

1875

1876

1877

1878

1879

1880

1881

1882

1883

Total debt January 1. $2,332,067,793 2,243,838,411

2,937,012

2,162,252,338

16,717,024

2,159,315,326

22,766,106

2,142,598,302

26,910,953

2,119,832,195

46,965,799

2,002,921,241