text:
The Civil Service and the Patronage/Chapter 03

Madison's policy would have been had he become president under circumstances similar to those which Jefferson encountered is uncertain. The Federalist press supposed that, as secretary of state, he opposed the proscriptive system, and at one time announced that he was on the point of resigning because of it; yet even if it were not to his liking, he might have been forced to practise it had he become chief magistrate in 1801. As it was, he succeeded an administration with which he was in complete harmony; there was as yet no loud call for rotation in office, and he was not even tempted to reconstruct the civil service.

Madison did not, however, find the apparently simple task of filling the natural vacancies an easy one. His lack of personal force gave hostile factions an opportunity, and they attempted to control, through the Senate, the distribution of the patronage. A threat of opposition forced the president to relinquish his project of nominating Albert Gallatin for secretary of state; and this victory did not make his opponents more considerate. The nomination of General Dearborn as secretary of war was defeated; there was a contest over the confirmation of Monroe as secretary of state in 1811, and another in 1813 when Jonathan Russell was nominated as minister to Sweden. We have some interesting notes, taken by Pickering, on the debate which took

place when the name of Joel Barlow, for minister to France, was sent in. Pickering sarcastically defended the nomination, saying that Barlow was no mere poet, for he had made too much money, — an allusion probably to the Ohio Company frauds.

The War of 1812 brought unexpected patronage to the executive; but the administration escaped much of the toil involved by leaving military nominations almost wholly to the state delegations. William Lowndes wrote to his wife that he should have liked a commission, but that he felt a scruple about asking for one, as the delegation of which he was a member really made the appointment. The advice of the state delegation was not always followed, however. Gallatin complained that a Mr. Chrystie, selected by the New York members for a lieutenant-colonelcy, was nominated for a majority only, because of the hostility of the secretary of war. The nomination of Thomas Pinckney, a South Carolina Federalist, received some opposition in the Senate, and caused general surprise. Even Lowndes, an extremely liberal man, wrote to his wife regarding it, “The Republican party, having so large a proportion of the population of the State, has enough of talents and of virtue to serve the country, if the administration knew how to select and employ them.” Madison, however, adhered to the policy of the Federalists, in making the war a national and not a party measure. He recognized the opposition, not only in the military but also in the diplomatic appointments, by making James A. Bayard a member of the peace commission at Ghent. This was in no sense an erasure of party lines; it was merely a call for the

assistance of the minority, an assistance then much needed. In the selection of individuals from both parties, political motives played the usual prominent part. It was bi-partisan, not non-partisan.

Vastly more difficulty was experienced in reducing the army when the war was over than in creating it, for every hero wished a reward, and his claims were vociferously urged by his admirers. The work of selecting the officers to remain in the regular army was largely left to a board of officers, but a liberal discretion was retained in the executive, and was sometimes used. This part of the task is said to have been easily accomplished, owing to the good sense of General Ripley; but many who could not thus be provided for cast an eye on the civil departments. Dallas wrote to Madison, August 3, 1815: “The cases of General Wilkinson, General Cushing, and General Boyd are urged upon me. The vacancies at Castine, etc., are too humble for these gentlemen; and I am requested to ask your authority to create vacancies of a higher kind in the collectorships of New York, New London, Newport, etc. There is no delicacy used on the occasion.” On August 10, Madison replied with a touch of irony: “The cases of the three generals you name are embarrassing, but the mode of relief merits serious consideration also. The principle of it is entirely new, and the extent of it not easily limited.” Boyd, he says, is not in need, and Wilkinson is dangerous. “Cushing's situation is probably urgent, and his conduct strengthens his claims. But is not the foundation of them the same with those on which the actual collector of New London received and has retained his appointment? . . . It is true, his political conduct has been justly exceptionable, but it is not on that ground that his removal is required. Ellery [at Newport]. . . was a revolutionary patriot in high public trusts, and on that ground also has been retained. . . notwithstanding frequent charges of political misconduct. . . . I am disposed to take into fair consideration the

mode proposed for rewarding or alleviating the cases to which it would apply; but I should be glad to learn, before it be adopted, some practicable rule for designating the officers to be displaced, and for selecting those to be provided for. If the deciding consideration be the wealth of the former and the poverty of the latter,” the rule would not be popular. “These remarks do not exclude the resource in favor of meritorious and indigent officers, which may be found in special removals pointed out by legitimate causes.” General Cushing was appointed collector at New London; how Huntington, the incumbent, was disposed of does not appear on the Senate journal. The twenty-seven removals made by Madison would seem to show that not many of these “indigent officers” could have been relieved in the way suggested; and the correspondence between Madison and Dallas would indicate that some reason, at least nominally valid, was required in all such cases. The official record is not, however, entirely truthful, for pressure was sometimes brought to bear which caused officials to resign. On June 18, 1816, Dallas wrote to Madison that the removal of Mr. Du Plessis from the collectorship at New Orleans was asked for, but on general grounds. September 11 he told him that Beverly Chew was recommended for the place, but was insolvent. Madison answered, September 15, that as Du Plessis's accounts were satisfactory and Chew's financial situation was not the best, it would be well to delay, at least until Congress met. Eventually Du Plessis resigned and Chew was appointed.

There is not much evidence that office sought the man under Madison. The death of an officer was looked on with regret, as entailing numberless applications, in deciding between which political quiet would seem to have been the effectual motive, so far as one can judge from Madison's rather vague statements.

William Plummer was made successor to Gardner as loan officer in New Hampshire, because he was recommended by his father, the governor, and because he had planned a history of the War of 1812 to counteract the Federalist publications. Henry Wheaton was made judge advocate, because his “talents are unquestionable, and it is desirable, on many accounts, to gratify him;” and Madison was very sure that the selection of a certain Albany appointee would be “more agreeable” to Albany, and to the state in general, than that of any of his competitors. He could not, however, escape the toils of state politics; and there can be no doubt that the appointment of Dr. Leib to the post-office at Philadelphia, by Granger, still postmaster-general, and the subsequent removal of both of them, were due to political machinations in the faction-ridden state of Pennsylvania.

The abuse of the patronage was a subject much discussed during this period; but, so far as the national civil service was concerned, it consisted rather in lack of vigilance in guarding against favoritism and the influence of local faction, than in any direct misuse for the purpose of party or personal advantage. One practice was gaining ground, however, which was regarded as distinctly dangerous. It has been shown that, because of their local knowledge, the advice of congressmen had from the first been considered important; it is obvious that the congressmen themselves would be better known to the president than any other citizens of the more distant states, and that he would, therefore, often appoint them to office. Jefferson gave places to twenty, and Madison to twenty-nine. The dangers anticipated from this custom led to the first reform movement.

In January, 1811, Nathaniel Macon introduced an amendment to the constitution, by which it was provided that no senator or representative should be appointed to any civil office or “employment, under the authority of the United States, until the expiration of the presidential term in which such person

shall have served as senator or representative.” It has been seen that such a clause was proposed in the Constitutional Convention; and the twenty years of experience had brought the danger more clearly before men's minds. Roger Sherman's idea, that modesty would prevent the presentation even of the name of a relative of a colleague, had been proved delusive. Josiah Quincy moved to amend Macon's amendment by adding, “and no person standing to any Senator or Representative in the relation of father, brother, or son, by blood or marriage, shall be appointed to any civil office under the United States, or shall receive any place, agency, contract, or emolument from or under any department or officer thereof,” a suggestion which Mr. Wright sought to render ridiculous by further amending that every member be required to furnish a genealogical table. The amendments were rejected; the original suggestion received seventy-one votes against forty, but was thrown out, as this was not the two-thirds majority required for a constitutional amendment.

As a reform measure this movement seems aimless and ineffective. It was truly pointed out that it would seriously hamper the president by removing from the list of eligibles those who were presumably the most able and with whom he was best acquainted. The key to the movement lies in the fact that the object was not to secure a more efficient civil service, but to guard against a political danger. Macon was a Republican of the old school, and, in the appointment of members of the legislature by the president, foresaw the destruction of that separation of powers which was so highly prized. Quincy condemned that “consolidation, which has grown and is strengthened under the influence of the office-distributing power, vested in the Executive. A consolidation perceptible to all, and which is the more fixed and inseparable, inasmuch as the cement is constituted by the strongest of all amalgams: that of the precious metals.”

In 1811 there was special reason for dreading this danger, because of the development of the congressional caucus for the nomination of candidates for the presidency, a device which seemed calculated to break down utterly the barriers which separated the departments of government, and to open a wide breach for corruption. In 1808 the caucus for the first time had been really influential in selecting the successful candidate. Opposition at once appeared; and now in 1811, when a new election was approaching, Macon introduced his bill, though he disavowed the intention of attacking the caucus. An amendment to his amendment was introduced, extending the disqualification to any senator or representative “who shall have been such at the time of the election of any President.” Macon objected to this as too broad. He said that the caucus, at which it was aimed, should have no weight in the discussion, as it was unknown to the constitution, and hence could not be a subject of legislation. He would not dignify it by direct attack; but Quincy, who delivered the main speech in favor of the original amendment, was openly fighting the caucus. “The Constitution,” he said, “prohibits the members of this and of the other branch of the Legislature from being Electors of the President of the United States. Yet what is done? The practice of late is so prevalent as to have grown almost into a sanctioned usage of party. Prior to the presidential term of four years, members of Congress having received the privileged ticket of admission assemble themselves in a sort of electoral college, on the floor of the Senate or of the House of Representatives. They select a candidate for the Presidency. To their voice, to their influence, he is indebted for his elevation. So long as this condition of things continues, what ordinary Executive will refuse to accommodate those who in so distinguished a manner have accommodated him? Is there a better reason in the world why a man should give you, Mr. Chairman, an office worth two or

three thousand dollars a year for which you are qualified, and which he could give as well as not, than this, that you had been greatly instrumental in giving him one worth five and twenty thousand for which he was equally qualified? It is in vain to conceal it. So long as the present condition of things continues, it may reasonably be expected that there shall take place regularly between the President of the United States and a portion of both Houses of Congress an interchange, strictly speaking, of good offices.” When the time came for the caucus of 1812, “Messrs. D. R. Williams, Cheves, and Lowndes from South Carolina, and Macon of North Carolina, all Democrats, refused to attend the. . . meeting of members of Congress to nominate a President. . . on the ground that it was improper, inexpedient, indelicate, unconstitutional, and a monstrous usurpation of the rights of the people.”

This attack perhaps tended to make the executive a little cautious. A Mr. Smythe of Virginia, who had voted for the establishment of a new judicial district in that state, was proposed, at the close of his term as congressman, for the new judgeship thus created. President Monroe refused to nominate him, solely because such action seemed against the spirit, though not against the letter, of the constitution. Nevertheless, the appointment of congressmen continued, fostered by the fact that they were such persistent applicants. In 1821 John Quincy Adams said that one-half of the members of Congress were seeking office, and that the other half wanted something for their relatives. In the same year Niles stated that sixty members were applicants, and threatened to publish the names of those who were successful; five senators and forty-five representatives are said to have applied for one auditorship. From time to time congressmen were successful in obtaining places ranging from an important diplomatic mission to a post-office worth one hundred and fifty-five dollars a year. This

appetite for office, far keener among congressmen than it is today, was caused in part by the very small pay that they received for their legislative services. The six dollars a day voted by the first Congress was still the legal rate of compensation, and when the fourteenth Congress changed this to fifteen hundred dollars a year, the popular disapproval was shown by the defeat of many of its members on that issue alone. Clay had to retire from the speakership to recoup his fortunes. To a friend who was thinking of running for Congress he sent a rather dismal picture of the monotony of the life and the expense involved: after the first few months, he said, it retained the interest only of the rival leaders. It was not strange, then, that members were eager to exchange their legislative for civil positions.

Thus fed, the agitation for a constitutional amendment similar to that proposed by Macon continued active. Jackson declared himself emphatically in favor of an amendment, and from 1820 to 1840 almost every session of Congress saw a bill introduced to recommend one. The movement attained its greatest height between 1820 and 1830, and was constantly connected with attacks on the caucus. When the latter was superseded by the convention, the issue became less important and the discussion perfunctory. It was used as an election bogie; many sincerely reprobated the custom, but popular interest had subsided.

When James Monroe became president, he seemed face to face with the vision of universal good-will which Jefferson had seen as through a glass darkly. Only thirty-four Federalist

electors cast their votes against him; and the project of completing the affiliation of parties, by treating all citizens as alike worthy of the favors of the government, seemed feasible. Even before the election had actually taken place, urgent pressure was brought to induce Monroe to adopt such a policy. Andrew Jackson wrote to him, October 23, 1816, recommending Colonel William H. Drayton for the expected vacancy in the position of secretary of war. “I am told,” he said, “before the war he was ranked with the Federalists, but the moment his country was threatened he abandoned private cares and a lucrative position for the tented field. Such acts as these speak louder than words. ‘The tree is best known by its fruits,’ and such a man as this, it matters not what he is called, will always act like a true American.” In another letter, written November 12, before he had received a reply to the first, Jackson again recommended Drayton, and added: “Now is the time to exterminate the monster called party spirit. . . . Consult no party in your choice; pursue the dictates of that unerring judgment which has so long and so often benefited our country and rendered conspicuous its rulers. These are the sentiments of a friend. They are the feelings — if I know my own heart — of an undissembled patriot.”

To these letters, Monroe replied, December 14, with a long dissertation setting forth the rise and growth of the Federalist party, and affirming his belief that government could be conducted without an opposition. He asserted that the administration should rest strongly on the Republican party, using toward the other a spirit of moderation, and evincing a desire to discriminate between its members and to bring the whole into the Republican fold as quickly as possible. He avoided, however, the expression of any opinion distinctly favoring the appointment of any Federalist to office. Cabinet officers, he thought, should certainly be “decided friends, who stood firm in the day of trial.” Moreover, except in “great emergencies” and in case of “transcendent talents, the four heads of departments should represent the four great sections of the country.” In the last month of his administration he did appoint a Federalist

to an important office, — George Izard, to be governor of Arkansas, — and told Adams that he regretted that he could not have done so oftener, but that he had gone as far as he could without forfeiting the confidence of his own supporters and thereby defeating the very object he had at heart.

Monroe was not a man from whom we should expect innovations; and the rather abundant evidence that we possess in regard to the detailed working of his administration shows a careful adherence to the traditional methods of securing the names of candidates, and of judging between them. While this was undoubtedly the intention, it could not, by reason of changed circumstances, be followed in every particular. Though parties seemed dead, politics were not; and three opposing political leaders, three rival candidates for the succession, were members of the cabinet. Under such conditions it is natural that the heads of departments should have played a more prominent part in the distribution of the patronage than ever before or since. The president attempted to avoid friction by giving to each head complete control of his own department. Adams gives an account of the appointment of Solomon Van Rensselaer to the post-office at Albany. The news that Meigs, the postmaster-general, intended to appoint him got abroad, and objections were made; whereupon the case was referred to the president. Crawford and Wirt thought that Meigs should have assumed full responsibility, but that, as the case was now before the president, the latter must act on it, or ground his refusal upon the general principle that he would never interfere in such appointments. Adams differed with them on both points. In the end the president refused to interfere, although he apparently had no high idea of Van Rensselaer. Crawford complained that his appointing power was sometimes interfered with. He wrote to Gallatin that the Florida appointments, even those “connected with my own Department have been made without regard to my wishes, or rather without ascertaining what they were”; and said he surmised that the rumor that

he had influenced the Senate to reject certain military appointments had “soured” Monroe, who favored Calhoun in these new selections. These appointments were doubtless of the presidential class, and were decided upon in cabinet meeting when Crawford happened to be absent. No instance appears where a strictly departmental office was interfered with.

When the question of offices came before the cabinet, the president endeavored to hold an even hand. At one time he announced that he was thinking of Mr. Southard for the vacant post of secretary of the navy; he said that Southard was a good man and that his state had never had a cabinet officer, but added that in view of the rivalry between the members of the cabinet, he would not make the nomination if any of them objected. This seems eminently fair, and that Monroe's intentions were good is beyond question; but Adams, who tells the story, adds that Southard was a Calhoun man. It was, in fact, an impossible task to suit all three of these ambitious men; and the cabinet, with its rivalries, so graphically revealed in Adams's diary and the contemporaneous letters of Crawford and Calhoun, must have been a disagreeable body during the “era of good feeling.”

The relations between the cabinet and the Senate during the administration are illustrated by a further study of the case of Solomon Van Rensselaer. On January 3, 1822, Rufus King and Martin Van Buren, the New York senators, wrote to Postmaster-general Meigs that they heard that a change was necessary in the Albany post-office, and desired “a fit and full opportunity for all concerned to make their representations” to him on that subject. He replied that the name of General Van Rensselaer had been presented and was before the president for consideration, and that a speedy appointment was desirable; and he continued to resist all attempts to delay action. It was a delicate affair, for the general was recommended by twenty-two representatives from New York belonging to both parties. Meigs threw the responsibility on Monroe, who, as has been seen, refused to shoulder it. King dropped out of the

but Van Buren induced many of the representatives who had signed for Van Rensselaer to change sides, and on January 7, 1822, a long letter with many signatures was sent to Meigs, summing up the views of the opposition. They wanted delay; they wanted to consult the citizens of Albany; they recommended Mr. Lansing, a destitute patriot of the Revolution; they accused Van Rensselaer of being a violent partisan; but they rested their case mainly on the question, “Lansing's capacity and integrity are at least equal to Van Rensselaer's; should not preference be given him because he is a Republican?” There is evidence that, when this letter was written, the appointment was known to have been already made, but that the letter was sent to record their opinion that appointments should in the future be confined to Republicans. The administration was able in this instance to resist pressure and appoint the man of its choice. It should, of course, be observed that the appointment, as it was in the post-office department, did not require the confirmation of the Senate; if it had, it might have met with more difficulty.

In 1820 a startling attack was made on the conduct of the civil service. DeWitt Clinton, in what is known as the “green-bag” message to the legislature of New York, and in a subsequent message of January 17, 1821, charged that the officers of the general government were an “organized and disciplined corps.” Speaking of one of them, he said, “When the situation, connexion, education, and political principles of this officer of the United States are considered, there can be no doubt but that he had previously ascertained the sense of his political superiors, and that he was instructed to act accordingly.” He accused Adams of partiality in selecting the newspapers which were to publish the laws, and the postmaster-general of making nine removals for factional reasons. A committee was appointed to investigate, vor rather, as the lower house was hostile to the governor, to disprove these charges. The report shows

that a certain amount of political activity on the part of the government officials was considered proper; and when the question is thus one purely of degree, we certainly cannot presume to pass judgment at this distance of time. The removal of the postmasters is shown to have been at the request of the representatives from their respective districts, the presumption being that, in most cases, the government would not look behind the reports. In at least one case the cause for dismissal was stated to be that the incumbent had lost the confidence of the people, which is another way of saying that he was politically opposed to the person who asked for the change. Several of these removals were secured by Mr. Van Buren on the ground that the incumbents were improperly using their influence against him by tampering with the circulation of certain newspapers.

The general impression left by a study of the papers relating to these charges is that the national offices in New York were being drawn into the whirlpool of state politics. That this was chiefly the work of state politicians, rather than of the national administration, seems clear. Monroe and William Wirt tried to be, and actually were, above faction. Adams, Calhoun, and Clay took a lively interest in New York politics, and were quick to believe in the vices of their enemies and the virtues of their friends; but their letters show little real understanding of local conditions — from a political point of view they are decidedly amateurish.

The case of William H. Crawford, secretary of the treasury, demands more detailed consideration. About no man of equal prominence in American history do we know so little; and the most definite contemporary testimony in regard to his political character is that given by his rival, John Quincy Adams, who was at the time tremblingly eager for the presidency and

nervously imputing to others motives of which he knew himself incapable. Adams certainly thought that Crawford was using the influence of his position to build up a faction, and he was not alone in that opinion; but Crawford believed somewhat the same thing of Adams. In tone, however, they are quite different: Adams is shocked, and seems to say, “God, I thank Thee, that I am not as other men are”; Crawford speaks of such action on Adams's part, as a matter of course, a difficulty to be guarded against, and one might readily suspect Crawford himself of adopting the tactics he so easily takes for granted in the case of his rival.

The special charge against Crawford is that he obtained, for unworthy purposes, the passage of the, famous Four Years' Law. This act was passed in i82O. It established a fixed term of four years, in place of the previous tenure at the pleasure of the president, for district attorneys, collectors of customs, naval officers, and for surveyors of customs, money agents, receivers of public money for lands, registers of land offices, paymasters in the army, the apothecary-general, his assistant, and the commissary-general of purchases. It was introduced into the Senate by Mahlon Dickerson of New Jersey, but Adams says that Crawford acknowledged the authorship. Its ostensible object was to compel the regular submission of accounts; but according to Adams its real purpose was to elect Crawford president by turning all office-holders, their families and friends, and “five or ten times an equal number of ravenous office-seekers,” to his support. This charge was not made until 1828, and Adams then added that the sickness of Crawford during the last eighteen months of Monroe's administration prevented his active use of the weapon he had forged. Fortunately we have Crawford's own statement of the purpose of the bill, in a letter of June 12, 1820, evidently written to the

president. He said that he had told inquirers that reappointment would take place when there were no reasonable grounds of dissatisfaction unless some one was found with stronger claims than the incumbent; and that one advantage of the new system lay in the possibility of discontinuing unsatisfactory public servants without putting any stain upon their characters. The dissimilarity of these two statements demands examination.

Little is to be gleamed from the contemporaneous discussion. The debate in Congress, at least the report of it, is barren; and there was practically no public comment. Jefferson and Madison, however, corresponded rather vigorously on the subject. About this time Tench Coxe applied to both of them for their influence in securing a post. Jefferson, in forwarding Coxe's letter to Madison, said: “This is a sample of the effects we may expect from the late mischievous law vacating every four years nearly all the executive offices of the government. It saps the constitutional and salutary functions of the president, and introduces a principle of intrigue and corruption, which will soon leaven the mass, not only of Senators, but of citizens. It is more baneful than the attempt. . . to make all officers irremovable but with the consent of the Senate”; it puts all appointments under their control every four years, and “will keep in constant excitement all the hungry cormorants for office.” Madison replied, agreeing with Jefferson and claiming that the law was unconstitutional. He wrote also to Monroe in a similar strain, deprecating particularly the increase in the power of the Senate; and Adams says that Monroe regretted that he had signed the bill, and resolved to renominate the incumbent in every instance in which there was no misconduct. This criticism, however, only slightly touches the question of the purpose of the bill; no reflections were cast on Crawford, who was, in fact, the special representative of the old-fashioned Republicans, and a particular friend of Macon,

the watch-dog of the patronage. Madison feared an encroachment on the appointing power of the president, and Jefferson apprehended corruption in general.

The question now arises, Did the bill have any legitimate object? Certainly, in 1820, some method of securing more regular accounts might have seemed advisable. A special report presented at this time by Crawford showed many defalcations; some dating from Washington's administration, and amounting in all to $929,390 uncovered by bonds. This is not surprisingly bad considering the lax business methods of the country, nor yet is it strikingly good. The military accounts showed a deficit of about a million dollars, part of which, it was supposed, could be accounted for. Although there was some general distrust of the integrity of the public service, bills to secure a greater accountability did not pass readily; Crawford refused to accept the secretaryship of the treasury until one that he then prepared had been adopted.

Was this bill, then, calculated to secure a greater sense of responsibility? It was certainly a crude method, one quite inapplicable now; but in a service scattered as was that of 1820, when means of communication were so slow and unreliable, and the individual officer had so large a degree of independence, the prospect of a thorough overhauling at definite periods might well have served as a spur to accuracy and promptness. It would also enable the administration to freshen and invigorate the service by dropping the old and incapable without fixing upon their characters the stain of removal. An especially significant fact, which will be developed at length in the next chapter, is that this practice of limiting the term of office was very common in the states at this time, and was found in both Georgia and South Carolina — states with which Crawford was

most familiar and in which the limited tenure did not lead to actual rotation in office.

It is evident that the law would serve equally well as an incentive to continued political activity, if that was likely to be of account in the day of reckoning, and that it was as aptly framed for the easy dropping of political rivals as for ridding the service of decrepit members. Who were the persons that Crawford mentioned as having stronger claims upon the nation than the incumbents? Were they simply necessitous military officers, such as secured recognition from Madison? were they prominent Republicans? or were they the political supporters of William H. Crawford? It is impossible to answer fully all the questions thus suggested, but some light may be thrown upon them. James A. Hamilton wrote to Crawford, February 25, 1823, that he had just had an interview with Governor Gibbs of Rhode Island to discover the cause of the latter's dissatisfaction with Crawford. Gibbs said that it was based on Crawford's refusal to make certain removals in the customs service of that state, and added that this small matter was likely to turn Rhode Island to Clay in the coming contest. Hamilton argued that it was improper to remove subordinate officials merely because of their political opinion; whereupon Governor Gibbs replied that one of the men complained of not only held incorrect political views, but used the influence of his position to induce others to support them. The man thus mentioned still retained his position in 1825; but part of his duties had been taken from him, and his emoluments had been reduced by a half.

This case is certainly not conclusive as to Crawford's methods of dealing with the patronage; hence resort must be had to indirect evidence. Would the law of 1820 work advantageously to Crawford? Not all the offices affected by it fell within, his department, and, as he believed that his rivals were intriguing against him, he might well have feared lest it prove a

To be sure, the largest share fell to him; but as all presidential appointments were discussed in cabinet meeting, how could he expect to carry on an extensive campaign of personal aggrandizement under the noses of two avowed rivals and President Monroe? As a matter of fact, many of the men appointed to such positions under the secretary of the treasury favored the election of Calhoun. Crawford might reap some slight profit from the law, in that he had a high probability of success; and those who believed that he might be the next president would be nerved to more active service, while those who did not so believe would not support him under any circumstances. Possibly, too, he might have intended thus to bind the New York politicians to him, as his supporters there were men who practised the spoils system in their own state and afterward helped to introduce it into national politics. They would seem, however, for some time after the passage of this act, to have made no real agreement to support him. No definite conclusion seems safe, except that serious doubt is thrown on Adams's statement as to the purpose of the bill. It is a safe conjecture that Crawford expected it to be of value in the conduct of public business, particularly because it increased the flexibility of the service to the profit both of the nation and of the Republican party; that he intended to transform it into an instrument to secure his election and to introduce the spoils system seems distinctly improbable.

As the election of 1824 approached, and the closeness of the contest became more and more apparent, the supporters of the several candidates made efforts to attract the Federalist vote, which, though small, might prove decisive. In the interest of Jackson, his correspondence with Monroe advocating the appointment of Federalists was brought to light and published. The enemies of John Quincy Adams made public his father's correspondence with Mr. Cunningham, filled with invectives

against the Essex junto. Both of these publications had great effect; and when the election by the House of Representatives drew near, there were persistent reports that Adams would proscribe his father's enemies. Under these circumstances, Mr. Warfield of Maryland wrote to Webster that, as the vote of that state might rest with him, he desired certain information with regard to Adams's attitude on the subject.

Webster replied that his own vote would be for Adams, and that this would not be the case did he “not believe that he [Adams] would administer the government on liberal principles, not excluding Federalists, as such, from his regard”; he deprecated the desire to see any particular man in office, and the “portioning” of offices among men of “different denominations,” but thought it “just and reasonable to be expected” that “by some one clear and distinct case, it may be shown that the distinction above alluded to does not operate as cause of exclusion. Some such case will doubtless present itself, and may be embraced, probably, in proper time and manner. . . . It will then be understood that the field is open.” He added a note to the effect that he wrote this letter on his own responsibility, but before sending it showed the draft to Adams, who approved but was afraid that it might seem to refer to a cabinet appointment, a difficulty which Webster obviated by underlining it as above. Adams says that he told Webster that Clay or Crawford would probably pursue the same course as he. On February 16, Webster wrote to his brother: “If there is any faith in man, we shall have a liberal administration. I think it not unlikely that if it were pressed, there might be a Federalist in the cabinet, but our friends are not at all satisfied that such a measure would be discreet. ..

We may be deceived, but if we are, it will be a gross deception.” The “clear and distinct case” was the appointment of Rufus King as minister to Great Britain. In 1827 Webster declared himself satisfied that Adams was fairly living up to the policy thus outlined. The latter could not go as far as he wished, however, because of the opposition of the rank and file of his own party; and he often lamented the fact that he could not appoint more Federalists, as they were usually the best men presented for the various vacancies.

President Adams carried political tolerance to an extreme, even offering to continue Crawford in the cabinet. The latter had the good sense to decline; but Postmaster-general McLean was retained throughout the administration, in spite of Adams's firm belief that the whole patronage of that department was being used to promote the interests of Jackson. The retention of McLean under these circumstances was hardly consonant with the president's determination that offensive partisanship, whether for or against the administration, should be sufficient cause for removal; and as only twelve removals altogether were made during his term, it is quite evident that this determination was not carried out. Adams abhorred the task of selecting officials; and it is not surprising to find him, when first elected, summarily closing an interview with certain senators who urged him not to renominate those whose terms were about to expire under the new Four Years' Law, but to initiate “a principle of change or rotation in office.” The purity of his conduct of the civil service is illustrated by the prominence given to the charge that he interfered with the appointment of a postmaster.

The ferret eyes of the opposition press were a little better rewarded in the case of Henry Clay. Clay advised the president, probably wisely, to remove the most active of his opponents among the office-holders; and himself struck a few newspapers from the list of those paid for printing the laws. The number, however, was very small: a comparison of the last list under Monroe with the first under Adams shows, out of seventy-five papers, ten changes, four being a usual number, and only one was of importance. In the District of Columbia the printing was taken from Gales and Seaton, publishers of the National Intelligencer, and given to Peter Force, who was editing the National Journal. The reason for this change was doubtless political, as the Intelligencer had supported Crawford; but if such a change is ever justifiable, it was in this instance. The printing in the District of Columbia gave a certain prestige to the paper receiving it, which thus became to a certain extent an official organ; it was therefore expedient that this paper should be in hearty sympathy with the administration. That Clay did not exclude opponents in general is seen by the fact that one of the papers he selected was the Jackson Republican of Nashville; he seems, indeed, to have continued the custom of giving the printing to at least one opposition paper in every state.

While the administration gave its enemies but slight basis for criticism, the lack of sympathy between Congress and the executive afforded an excellent opportunity to those who wished to effect a reform in the civil service. Macon, who had never lost sight of the matter since his futile attempt in 1811, once more, in 1826, introduced the subject; but, as his health was poor, Thomas H. Benton was made chairman of the committee appointed to consider it, and was ably assisted by Judge White of Tennessee, who was to be conspicuous in a similar movement ten years later. The report of this committee shows a much broader comprehension of the problem than is found in any of the speeches of fifteen years before, and a vastly more

ambitious attempt to handle it. Accompanying the report were documents showing the value of each office under the government, and indicating to whom the appointment belonged. From these figures, and from predictions as to the future, which have proved not extravagant, the committee deduced the proposition that the appointing power of the president should be reduced.

With this general object in view, six bills were introduced. The first was directed against the control of the press; the number of papers in the several states to which the printing of the laws should be assigned was to be limited to one-half the number of representatives from each state. The essential point of this proposition lay in the provision that these papers were to be selected by the congressional delegation from each state, a majority ruling; if they neglected to make the selection, the secretary of state might do it as before. It is significant that the committee did not show itself eager to reduce the amount of the patronage, but only to shift the control: the first bill would allow, in some states, a considerable increase of subsidized newspapers, three being the customary number. By other bills the president was required to state the cause of each removal of a presidential officer; the appointment of postmasters receiving compensation above a fixed amount was to be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate; and a blow was struck at the executive by the provision that military and naval commissions should read “during good behavior” instead of “at pleasure.” The Four Years' Bill was to be repealed, and in its place was to be substituted a regulation that collectors and disbursers of the public revenues should submit their accounts to Congress once in four years, on penalty of losing their commissions.

This report is certainly not without merit. The repeal of the Four Years' Law was highly desirable, and there was certainly no good reason why the larger post-offices should remain outside the list subject to confirmation while the collectorships and naval offices were on it. It is evident that the ultimate object of the reformers was still not so much to improve the service

as to reduce the power of the president, which they rightly judged was liable to great extension. Their method, however, was different from that advocated by Quincy. In 1811 the functions of the president were respected; the aim then was to reduce his power to control Congress: now the design was to divide the patronage between the executive and legislative departments. This was the first distinctly aggressive act on the part of the Senate in the great struggle between that body and the president for the control of the patronage. There had been friction before: the Four Years' Law Madison believed to be a usurpation on the part of the Senate. In the first Congress the claims of the Senate had been advocated. Now for the first time, however, was presented a well-considered programme of encroachment. The bills reported by this committee were tabled by Macon himself, as he was too feeble to conduct the debate necessary before they could be adopted; but they were not lost sight of. They remained a tangible threat held over the head of any president who should fail to recognize the prerogatives of the Senate.

During no administration before 1828 was there so much contemporary criticism of the civil service as in that of John Quincy Adams, and none has received more praise from posterity. Part of the praise is doubtless due to the fact that Adams was the last of the presidents sometimes called “statesmen” in rather invidious distinction from the “politicians” who succeeded; most of the criticism is explained by the conditions of the time, which will be discussed in the next chapter. A detailed study of actual conditions shows that there was some ground for both.

The efficiency of government service cannot be expected long to maintain a standard much higher than that of the community in which it works. Principles of business promptness and responsibility were not highly developed in the United States during the first fifty years of its existence, and the common belief that the administration of the government before 1828

attained a level of efficiency which it has since sought in vain to recover, seems to be unfounded. Yet of the central offices it was to some extent true: one able, honest man succeeded another in the chief positions of state, and by many years of unbroken service was enabled to master fully the details of his duties. It was impossible, however, to find men of exceptional character for all the minor and local offices. The annual reports of the comptroller of the treasury, and occasional special reports, as that of Crawford in 1820, bring to light a record far from brilliant. Defalcations are shown, beginning with the time of Washington, and amounting in 1820 to $927,390 in the civil service and to about the same in the military; for these, causes are assigned varying from the dishonesty of a trusted clerk to the absconding of the officer himself to the West Indies. It is evident that even the “Fathers” could not wrench the government entirely away from its environment. Under Adams the service was probably more honest than it had been at any time since the War of 1812, as it was able to stand the fiery test of investigation by the Jackson leaders and to reveal only one defaulter; but there was enough irregularity to furnish the small spark that alone was necessary to raise a great smoke of accusation.

Emphasis must again be laid on the fact that honesty and efficiency are not entirely synonymous, and that the latter is not so easily measured as the first. That there were active, able men in office under Adams is evinced by the careers of some of them after they were turned out by Jackson; but it is probable that there was also a certain amount of dead timber. Although Jefferson was the only president as yet to abuse the removing power, none of the others seem to have used it with proper vigor. The neglect to remove officers who were dragging through long sicknesses sure to end in death is certainly to be

condoned; but the continuance of this practice gave strength to the popular impression that officials were beginning to feel a property in office. Less excusable was the failure to prune the service of superfluous officers, of which there was at least one well authenticated case, — that of the Norfolk custom-house, where, with a constantly diminishing revenue, the full staff was retained from the days when its trade had promised to make it the peer of any port in the country. The retention of men whose usefulness had passed was due to the fact that it was inhumane to discharge them without adequate provision, which, in a country as democratic as the United States was at the time, could not be given except in the form of salary. Thus the civil service became a pension fund for its disabled members. This policy would not have been so disastrous if the notion had not extended. Instances have been related already where civil posts were bestowed to reward distinguished success in war or politics; and they might be multiplied, with many a contemporary note of commendation. Thus the idea was gaining ground, among the most intelligent classes too, that past service rather than future efficiency should be the primary reason for appointment. From the political point of view, the question of efficiency was of little moment; there were few complaints of the manner in which the service was conducted, and some of its very best features contributed most to its unpopularity. During the period of twenty-eight years, from 1801 to 1829, there was something like a system of promotion: consuls were transferred to more and more important ports, to become in time, perhaps, chargés d'affaires; naval officers became collectors of customs, and district attorneys, judges. Commendable as this practice was,

it did foster in the service a bureaucratic feeling, and in the public an apprehension lest government officers should consider themselves a class. An examination of the various Blue Books shows, moreover, that sons were often appointed to succeed fathers, which increased the disapprobation. A bureaucracy is always aristocratic; and this tendency was strengthened by the custom, established by Washington and continued in general by his successors, of appointing citizens rather prominent in their communities. Men originally of standing, holding life offices, and with the hope of placing their sons somewhere in the national service, are not likely to be popular in the heat of a democratic revolution; and when the people voted in 1828 that John Quincy Adams should leave office, they undoubtedly intended to vote that most of the civil servants should go with him.


text: Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Cushing, Thomas Humphrey

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text: Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Cushing, Thomas Parkman


text:
User:Anjar Prihatanto Pamilih

Anjar Prihatanto Pamilih is a student in the best college in the field of ICT in Asia: STMIK Amikom Yogyakarta, located in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. He is now learning Programming, Networking, Graphic design and methods of teaching since 2012. On 5 July 2012, he decided to participate in Wikimedia Indonesia competition to travel to Jakarta. Now, he started contributing in proofreading Kamus bahasa Sunda-Inggris.

Links

 * Anjar Prihatanto Pamilih on Facebook
 * Anjar Prihatanto Pamilih on Twitter

Truth in Number Beasiswa Jalan Jakarta

title: User:Anjar Prihatanto Pamilih


text:
Page:Gertrude Stein (1909) Three Lives.djvu/65

 Drehten was herself not well but she came into the city, so that some friend would be with the good Anna. Together, then, they went to this place where the doctor had done so well by Mrs. Drehten.

In a few days they had Anna ready. Then they did the operation, and then the good Anna with her strong, strained, worn-out body died. Mrs. Drehten sent word of her death to Miss Mathilda.

"Dear Miss Mathilda," wrote Mrs. Drehten, "Miss Annie died in the hospital yesterday after a hard operation. She was talking about you and Doctor and Miss Mary Wadsmith all the time.  She said she hoped you would take Peter and the little Rags to keep when you came back to America to live.  I will keep them for you here Miss Mathilda.  Miss Annie died easy, Miss Mathilda, and sent you her love."

FINIS


text:
Page:Gertrude Stein (1909) Three Lives.djvu/61

 PART III

THE DEATH OF THE GOOD ANNA

Every one who had known of Miss Mathilda wanted the good Anna now to take a place with them, for they all knew how well Anna could take care of people and all their clothes and goods. Anna too could always go to Curden to Miss Mary Wadsmith, but none of all these ways seemed very good to Anna.

It was not now any longer that she wanted to stay near Mrs. Lehntman. There was no one now that made any thing important, but Anna was certain that she did not want to take a place where she would be under some new people. No one could ever be for Anna as had been her cherished Miss Mathilda. No one could ever again so freely let her do it all. It would be better Anna thought in her strong strained weary body, it would be better just to keep on there in the little red brick house that was all furnished, and make a living taking in some boarders. Miss Mathilda had let her have the things, so it would not cost any money to begin. She could perhaps manage to live on so. She could do all the work and do everything as she thought best, and she was too weary with the changes to do more than she just had to, to keep living. So she stayed on in the house where they had lived, and she found some men, she would not take in women, who took her rooms and who were her boarders.

Things soon with Anna began to be less dreary. She was very popular with her few boarders. They loved her scoldings and the good things she made for them to eat. They made good jokes and laughed loud and always did whatever Anna wanted, and soon the good Anna got so that she liked it very well. Not that she did not always long for Miss Mathilda. She hoped and waited and was very certain that sometime, in one year or in another Miss Mathilda would come back, and then of course would want her, and then she could take all good care of her again.

Anna kept all Miss Mathilda's things in the best order. The boarders were well scolded if they ever made a scratch on Miss Mathilda's table.

Some of the boarders were hearty good south german fellows and Anna always made them go to mass. One


text: Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography/Huntington, Jabez


text:
Page:Gertrude Stein (1909) Three Lives.djvu/62

 boarder was a lusty german student who was studying in Bridgepoint to be a doctor. He was Anna's special favourite and she scolded him as she used to her old doctor so that he always would be good. Then, too, this cheery fellow always sang when he was washing, and that was what Miss Mathilda always used to do. Anna's heart grew warm again with this young fellow who seemed to bring back to her everything she needed.

And so Anna's life in these days was not all unhappy. She worked and scolded, she had her stray dogs and cats and people, who all asked and seemed to need her care, and she had hearty german fellows who loved her scoldings and ate so much of the good things that she knew so well the way to make.

No, the good Anna's life in these days was not all unhappy. She did not see her old friends much, she was too busy, but once in a great while she took a Sunday afternoon and went to see good Mrs. Drehten.

The only trouble was that Anna hardly made a living. She charged so little for her board and gave her people such good things to eat, that she could only just make both ends meet. The good german priest to whom she always told her troubles tried to make her have the boarders pay a little higher, and Miss Mathilda always in her letters urged her to this thing, but the good Anna somehow could not do it. Her boarders were nice men but she knew they did not have much money, and then she could not raise on those who had been with her and she could not ask the new ones to pay higher, when those who were already there were paying just what they had paid before. So Anna let it go just as she had begun it. She worked and worked all day and thought all night how she could save, and with all the work she just managed to keep living. She could not make enough to lay any money by.

Anna got so little money that she had all the work to do herself. She could not pay even the little Sally enough to keep her with her.

Not having little Sally nor having any one else working with her, made it very hard for Anna ever to go out, for she never thought that it was right to leave a house all empty. Once in a great while of a Sunday, Sally who was now working in a factory would come and stay in the


text:
Page:Gertrude Stein (1909) Three Lives.djvu/63

 house for the good Anna, who would then go out and spend the afternoon with Mrs. Drehten.

No, Anna did not see her old friends much any more. She went sometimes to see her half brother and his wife and her nieces, and they always came to her on her birthdays to give presents, and her half brother never left her out of his festive raisined bread giving progresses. But these relatives of hers had never meant very much to the good Anna. Anna always did her duty by them all, and she liked her half brother very well and the loaves of raisined bread that he supplied her were most welcome now, and Anna always gave her god daughter and her sister handsome presents, but no one in this family had ever made a way inside to Anna's feelings.

Mrs. Lehntman she saw very rarely. It is hard to build up new on an old friendship when in that friendship there has been bitter disillusion. They did their best, both these women, to be friends, but they were never able to again touch one another nearly. There were too many things between them that they could not speak of, things that had never been explained nor yet forgiven. The good Anna still did her best for foolish Julia and still every now and then saw Mrs. Lehntman, but this family had now lost all its real hold on Anna.

Mrs. Drehten was now the best friend that Anna knew. Here there was never any more than the mingling of their sorrows. They talked over all the time the best way for Mrs. Drehten now to do; poor Mrs. Drehten who with her chief trouble, her bad husband, had really now no way that she could do. She just had to work and to be patient and to love her children and be very quiet. She always had a soothing mother influence on the good Anna who with her irritable, strained, worn-out body would come and sit by Mrs. Drehten and talk all her troubles over.

Of all the friends that the good Anna had had in these twenty years in Bridgepoint, the good father and patient Mrs. Drehten were the only ones that were now near to Anna and with whom she could talk her troubles over.

Anna worked, and thought, and saved, and scolded, and took care of all the boarders, and of Peter and of Rags, and all the others. There was never any end to Anna's effort and she grew always more tired, more pale


text:
Page:Gertrude Stein (1909) Three Lives.djvu/64

 yellow, and in her face more thin and worn and worried. Sometimes she went farther in not being well, and then she went to see Dr. Herman who had operated on good Mrs. Drehten.

The things that Anna really needed were to rest some times and eat more so that she could get stronger, but these were the last things that Anna could bring herself to do. Anna could never take a rest. She must work hard through the summer as well as through the winter, else she could never make both ends meet. The doctor gave her medicines to make her stronger but these did not seem to do much good.

Anna grew always more tired, her headaches came oftener and harder, and she was now almost always feeling very sick. She could not sleep much in the night. The dogs with their noises disturbed her and everything in her body seemed to pain her.

The doctor and the good father tried often to make her give herself more care. Mrs. Drehten told her that she surely would not get well unless for a little while she would stop working. Anna would then promise to take care, to rest in bed a little longer and to eat more so that she would get stronger, but really how could Anna eat when she always did the cooking and was so tired of it all, before it was half ready for the table?

Anna's only friendship now was with good Mrs. Drehten who was too gentle and too patient to make a stubborn faithful german Anna ever do the way she should, in the things that were for her own good. Anna grew worse all through this second winter. When the summer came the doctor said that she simply could not live on so. He said she must go to his hospital and there he would operate upon her. She would then be well and strong and able to work hard all next winter.

Anna for some time would not listen. She could not do this so, for she had her house all furnished and she simply could not let it go. At last a woman came and said she would take care of Anna's boarders and then Anna said that she was prepared to go.

Anna went to the hospital for her operation. Mrs.


text: Three Lives/Front matter

title: Three Lives/Front matter


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/31

 declarations in 1872 and 1891 have served both to record progress and to stimulate to new effort. The diocese of New Zealand was founded in 1841, being endowed by the Church Missionary Society through the council, and George Augustus Selwyn was chosen as the first bishop. Since then the increase has gone on, as the result both of home effort and of the action of the colonial churches. Moreover, in many cases bishops have been sent to inaugurate new missions, as in the cases of the Universities’ Mission to Central Africa, Lebombo, Corea and New Guinea; and the missionary jurisdictions so founded develop in time into dioceses. Thus, instead of the ten colonial jurisdictions of 1841, there are now about a hundred foreign and colonial jurisdictions, in addition to those of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States.

It was only very gradually that these dioceses acquired legislative independence and a determinate organization. At first, sees were created and bishops were nominated by the crown by means of letters patent; and in some cases an income was assigned out of public funds. Moreover, for many years all bishops alike were consecrated in England, took the customary “oath of due obedience” to the archbishop of Canterbury, and were regarded as his extra-territorial suffragans. But by degrees changes have been made on all these points.

(1) Local conditions soon made a provincial organization necessary, and it was gradually introduced. The bishop of Calcutta received letters patent as metropolitan of India when the sees of Madras and Bombay were founded; and fresh patents were issued to Bishop Broughton in 1847 and Bishop Gray in 1853, as metropolitans of Australia and South Africa respectively. Similar action was taken in 1858, when Bishop Selwyn became metropolitan of New Zealand; and again in 1860, when, on the petition of the Canadian bishops to the crown and the colonial legislature for permission to elect a metropolitan, letters patent were issued appointing Bishop Fulford of Montreal to that office. Since then metropolitans have been chosen and provinces formed by regular synodical action, a process greatly encouraged by the resolutions of the Lambeth conferences on the subject. The constitution of these provinces is not uniform. In some cases, as South Africa, New South Wales, and Queensland, the metropolitan see is fixed. Elsewhere, as in New Zealand, where no single city can claim pre-eminence, the metropolitan is either elected or else is the senior bishop by consecration. Two further developments must be mentioned: (a) The creation of diocesan and provincial synods, the first diocesan synod to meet being that of New Zealand in 1844, whilst the formation of a provincial synod was foreshadowed by a conference of Australasian bishops at Sydney in 1850; (b) towards the close of the 19th century the title of archbishop began to be assumed by the metropolitans of several provinces. It was first assumed by the metropolitans of Canada and Rupert’s Land, at the desire of the Canadian general synod in 1893; and subsequently, in accordance with a resolution of the Lambeth conference of 1897, it was given by their synods to the bishop of Sydney as metropolitan of New South Wales and to the bishop of Cape Town as metropolitan of South Africa. Civil obstacles have hitherto delayed its adoption by the metropolitan of India.

(2) By degrees, also, the colonial churches have been freed from their rather burdensome relations with the state. The church of the West Indies was disestablished and disendowed in 1868. In 1857 it was decided, in Regina v. Eton College, that the crown could not claim the presentation to a living when it had appointed the former incumbent to a colonial bishopric, as it does in the case of an English bishopric. In 1861, after some protest from the crown lawyers, two missionary bishops were consecrated without letters patent for regions outside British territory: C. F. Mackenzie for the Zambezi region and J. C. Patteson for Melanesia, by the metropolitans of Cape Town and New Zealand respectively. In 1863 the privy council declared, in Long v. The Bishop of Cape Town, that “the Church of England, in places where there is no church established by law, is in the same situation with any other religious body.” In 1865 it adjudged Bishop Gray’s letters patent, as metropolitan of Cape Town, to be powerless to enable him “to exercise any coercive jurisdiction, or hold any court or tribunal for that purpose,” since the Cape colony already possessed legislative institutions when they were issued; and his deposition of Bishop Colenso was declared to be “null and void in law” (re The Bishop of Natal). With the exception of Colenso the South African bishops forthwith surrendered their patents, and formally accepted Bishop Gray as their metropolitan, an example followed in 1865 in the province of New Zealand. In 1862, when the diocese of Ontario was formed, the bishop was elected in Canada, and consecrated under a royal mandate, letters patent being by this time entirely discredited. And when, in 1867, a coadjutor was chosen for the bishop of Toronto, an application for a royal mandate produced the reply from the colonial secretary that “it was not the part of the crown to interfere in the creation of a new bishop or bishopric, and not consistent with the dignity of the crown that he should advise Her Majesty to issue a mandate which would not be worth the paper on which it was written, and which, having been sent out to Canada, might be disregarded in the most complete manner.” And at the present day the colonial churches are entirely free in this matter. This, however, is not the case with the church in India. Here the bishops of sees founded down to 1879 receive a stipend from the revenue (with the exception of the bishop of Ceylon, who no longer does so). They are not only nominated by the crown and consecrated under letters patent, but the appointment is expressly subjected “to such power of revocation and recall as is by law vested” in the crown; and where additional oversight was necessary for the church in Tinnevelly, it could only be secured by the consecration of two assistant bishops, who worked under a commission for the archbishop of Canterbury which was to expire on the death of the bishop of Madras. Since then, however, new sees have been founded which are under no such restrictions: by the creation of dioceses either in native states (Travancore and Cochin), or out of the existing dioceses (Chota Nagpur, Lucknow, &c.). In the latter case there is no legal subdivision of the older diocese, the new bishop administering such districts as belonged to it under commission from its bishop, provision being made, however, that in all matters ecclesiastical there shall be no appeal but to the metropolitan of India.

(3) By degrees, also, the relations of colonial churches to the archbishop of Canterbury have changed. Until 1855 no colonial bishop was consecrated outside the British Isles, the first instance being Dr. MacDougall of Labuan, consecrated in India under a commission from the archbishop of Canterbury; and until 1874 it was held to be unlawful for a bishop to be consecrated in England without taking the suffragan’s oath of due obedience. This necessity was removed by the Colonial Clergy Act of 1874, which permits the archbishop at his discretion to dispense with the oath. This, however, has not been done in all cases; and as late as 1890 it was taken by the metropolitan of Sydney at his consecration. Thus the constituent parts of the Anglican communion gradually acquire autonomy: missionary jurisdictions develop into organized dioceses, and dioceses are grouped into provinces with canons of their own. But the most complete autonomy does not involve isolation. The churches are in full communion with one another, and act together in many ways; missionary jurisdictions and dioceses are mapped out by common arrangement, and even transferred if it seems advisable; e.g. the diocese Honolulu (Hawaii), previously under the jurisdiction of the archbishop of Canterbury, was transferred in 1900 to the Episcopal Church in the United States on account of political changes. Though the see of Canterbury claims no primacy over the Anglican communion analogous to that exercised over the Roman Church by the popes, it is regarded with a strong affection and deference, which shows itself by frequent consultation and interchange of greetings. There is also a strong common life emphasized by common action.

The conference of Anglican bishops from all parts of the world,

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu/31


text: Three Lives/The Good Anna

title: Three Lives/The Good Anna


text: Three Lives/The Good Anna/Part I

title: Three Lives/The Good Anna/Part I


text: Three Lives/The Good Anna/Part II

title: Three Lives/The Good Anna/Part II


text: Three Lives/The Good Anna/Part III

title: Three Lives/The Good Anna/Part III


text:
User:Yudajatnika

Yuda Jatnika is a student in Akademi Teknologi Industri Padang: Akademi Teknologi Industri Padang, located in West Sumatera, Indonesia. He is now learning Analytical Chemistry. On 05 july 2012, he becomes Wikimedia Indonesia member.

Links

 * Yuda Jatnika on Wikimedia Indonesia
 * Yuda Jatnika on Facebook
 * @yudajatnika on Twitter

title: User:Yudajatnika


text:
Page:A dictionary of the Sunda language of Java.djvu/214

Rh Kaluhan, a bit of string or cord passed through the septum of the nose of a buffaloe, and the ends tied behind the horns. All working buffaloes have a tali kaluhan in their snouts, by which they are easily led or guided. (Jav, Kĕluh idem.)

Kaiuiah, the sap wood of a tree, the Alburnum.

Kalun, gone along with, included. To support in swimming; to float any object along water.

Kalung, a necklace, anything worn round the neck by way of ornament. (Jav. Mal. id.) Kalung-dada, a bulwork; something to serve as a defence; a breast-place. An ornament hanging on the breast of young girls, by a string round the neck. This ornament is generally semicircular as a segment of the moon.

Kaluron, to bring forth before time; premature delivery; abortion.

Kalutuk, a poor variety of Plantain, of which the fruit is hardly eatable, see Kulutuk.

Kama, C. 119. The Hindu Cupid, or deity of love.

Kamal, Java acid; the juice of fresh Tamarind, which is used for cleansing metals, especially brass-work. (According to Gericke Kawi for the Tamarind-tree.)

Kamala hiang, words heard in Jampés. Kamalā C. 106 a name of Lakshmi. Hiang, Hyang, divinity; the goddess Lakshmi; see Laksmi. Laksmi is little heard in Java and probably she was more generally known by the name of Kamala-hiang. (And Srî)

Kamaloli, heart-sore, vexed.

Kamanjon, an hermaphrodite. (At Batavia Banji.)

Kamar, arabic, the moon; word used in the composition of proper names. (قَمَرٌ).

Kamarang, a wasp; name of a fly or wasp which stings severely; it is less than the Tijuwan, and also stings less severely.

Kamarudin, a man's name — the moon of the faith — Kamar, moon, uddin of the faith.

Kamas-an, a goldsmith.

Kamayangan, so much the better, that will give so much the more pleasure. Probably derived from Ka preposition, and hayang to desire, to wish, with the peculiar m interposed; see kampung.

Kambang, to float, gnerally heard in the shape of Nyambang, which see. (Jav. id.)

Kambangan, generally called Nusa Kambangan, the floating island, from some old fable. It is situated on the south coast of Java, and adjoins Banyumas; see Ngambang.

Kamboja, name of a tree with white flower, much planted abont burial grounds. Plumeria acuminata. Kamboja, C. 119 the name of a plant, a sort of white Mimosa. Kamboja is the name by which the plant is every where known in Java, both in the Sunda and Javanese districts. At the Eastend of Java, however, it is most frequently seen planted about the graves. With its name it no doubt came from the continent of India. In Ceylon the flowers are much used for placing on the altars before Buddha, where, however, it is called in the colloquial dialect- Ewĕriya.

Kaméja, Port Camisa, a shirt, a shift.

Kamél, ar. the Zodiacal sign Aries. (حَمَلٌ. khamal.)


text: Three Lives/Melanctha

title: Three Lives/Melanctha


text: Three Lives/The Gentle Lena

title: Three Lives/The Gentle Lena


text:
User:Jagunk55

Truth in Number Beasiswa Jalan Jakarta

title: User:Jagunk55


text:
User:Rians rhanx~enwikisource

a wikiman. Truth in Number Beasiswa Jalan Jakarta

title: User:Rians rhanx~enwikisource


text:
Page:Gertrude Stein (1909) Three Lives.djvu/16

 PART II

THE LIFE OF THE GOOD ANNA

ANNA FEDERNER, this good Anna, was of solid lower middle-class south german stock.

When she was seventeen years old she went to service in a bourgeois family, in the large city near her native town, but she did not stay there long. One day her mistress offered her maid that was Anna to a friend, to see her home. Anna felt herself to be a servant, not a maid, and so she promptly left the place.

Anna had always a firm old world sense of what was the right way for a girl to do.

No argument could bring her to sit an evening in the empty parlour, although the smell of paint when they were fixing up the kitchen made her very sick, and tired as she always was, she never would sit down during the long talks she held with Miss Mathilda. A girl was a girl and should act always like a girl, both as to giving all respect and as to what she had to eat.

A little time after she left this service, Anna and her mother made the voyage to America. They came second-class, but it was for them a long and dreary journey. The mother was already ill with consumption.

They landed in a pleasant town in the far South and there the mother slowly died.

Anna was now alone and she made her way to Bridgepoint where an older half brother was already settled. This brother was a heavy, lumbering, good natured german man, full of the infirmity that comes of excess of body.

He was a baker and married and fairly well to do.

Anna liked her brother well enough but was never in any way dependent on him.

When she arrived in Bridgepoint, she took service with Miss Mary Wadsmith.


text:
Page:Gertrude Stein (1909) Three Lives.djvu/17

 Miss Mary Wadsmith was a large, fair, helpless woman, burdened with the care of two young children. They had been left her by her brother and his wife who had died within a few months of each other. Anna soon had the household altogether in her charge.

Anna found her place with large, abundant women, for such were always lazy, careless or all helpless, and so the burden of their lives could fall on Anna, and give her just content. Anna's superiors must be always these large helpless women, or be men, for none others could give themselves to be made so comfortable and free.

Anna had no strong natural feeling to love children, as she had to love cats and dogs, and a large mistress. She never became deeply fond of Edgar and Jane Wadsmith. She naturally preferred the boy, for boys love always better to be done for and made comfortable and full of eating, while in the little girl she had to meet the feminine, the subtle opposition, showing so early always in a young girl's nature.

For the summer, the Wadsmiths had a pleasant house out in the country, and the winter months they spent in hotel apartments in the city.

Gradually it came to Anna to take the whole direction of their movements, to make all the decisions as to their journeyings to and fro, and for the arranging of the places where they were to live.

Anna had been with Miss Mary for three years, when little Jane began to raise her strength in opposition. Jane was a neat, pleasant little girl, pretty and sweet with a young girl's charm, and with two blonde braids carefully plaited down her back.

Miss Mary, like her Anna, had no strong natural feeling to love children, but she was fond of these two young ones of her blood, and yielded docilely to the stronger power in the really pleasing little girl. Anna always preferred the rougher handling of the boy, while Miss Mary found the gentle force and the sweet domination of the girl to please her better.

In a spring when all the preparations for the moving


text:
Forty Years On The Pacific/Classification-Tonnage

CAREFUL owners of ships submit their vessels to Lloyd's every four years for classification in order to obtain valuable recognition from the British Board of Trade, and with a view to intelligence.

"A-l at Lloyd's" is noticed in the classification of American, Canadian and British ships, and corresponds to the French rating in Bureau Veritas.

Great Britain, in describing her tonnage of mercantile marine, refers to gross tonnage of all the enclosed spaces on board the ship, which is the measurement inside the hull at one hundred cubic feet to the ton; that is, when loaded to the Plimsoll mark.

Registered tonnage is all the enclosed cargo spaces and it is on this tonnage that ships pay all claims, such as wharfage, pilotage, light and canal dues. But when describing the tonnage on her naval fleet, England measures displacement, that is, in terms the cubic feet of water the ship would displace.

American mercantile marine in giving tonnage, refers to the displacement which is equivalent to the cubic feet of water the ship displaces at the rate of one hundred cubic feet to the ton. The same method is observed by the American Naval Fleets.

Net tonnage means the dead weight of the ship at 2,000 pounds American, or 2,240 pounds British.

What surprises me most was the care taken in preserving the record of ships. I had heard something about the pedigree of stud books, English and American, which enabled the pedigrees of celebrated horses to be traced, but the marine world had them beaten.

On calling upon Captain Spinks, a Sydney marine adjuster, to obtain some information under this heading, Mr. Blacklock, a South Sea Island merchant, rang up to get the age of a wooden ship that was built many years ago in California, which he desired to purchase. Captain Spinks obtained a book from his library and in about three minutes told Mr. Blacklock where and when the ship was built, material of construction and classification.

Owing to the number of ships falling into her possession and the scarcity of American navigating officers, the United States Government in July, 1917, gave permission for qualified officers, subjects of any nation engaged in war against the Imperial German Government, to take charge of, and navigate, ships sailing under the American flag. Prior to this date the law prescribed that all watch officers should be citizens of the United States.

Shipbuilders on the Clyde are shrewd and surprise shipowners by their watchfulness, even after a ship leaves their yards. An instance came under my notice a few years ago of a big ship on the Pacific, which had a guarantee that she could travel seventeen knots—any repairs to be made good by the builders for a certain time. On one voyage, she broke one of her propellers, near Honolulu, and sent an account to the builders for repairs. The builders ignored the claim, pointing out that while the guarantee was for seventeen knots, the company had driven her nearly eighteen knots! This serves to show the watchfulness builders keep on their output.


text:
Page:Gertrude Stein (1909) Three Lives.djvu/18

 had been made, Miss Mary and Jane went together to the country home, and Anna, after finishing up the city matters was to follow them in a few days with Edgar, whose vacation had not yet begun.

Many times during the preparations for this summer, Jane had met Anna with sharp resistance, in opposition to her ways. It was simple for little Jane to give unpleasant orders, not from herself but from Miss Mary, large, docile, helpless Miss Mary Wadsmith who could never think out any orders to give Anna from herself.

Anna's eyes grew slowly sharper, harder, and her lower teeth thrust a little forward and pressing strongly up, framed always more slowly the "Yes, Miss Jane," to the quick, "Oh Anna! Miss Mary says she wants you to do it so!"

On the day of their migration, Miss Mary had been already put into the carriage. "Oh, Anna!" cried little Jane running back into the house, "Miss Mary says that you are to bring along the blue dressings out of her room and mine." Anna's body stiffened, "We never use them in the summer, Miss Jane," she said thickly. "Yes Anna, but Miss Mary thinks it would be nice, and she told me to tell you not to forget, good-by!" and the little girl skipped lightly down the steps into the carriage and they drove away.

Anna stood still on the steps, her eyes hard and sharp and shining, and her body and her face stiff with resentment. And then she went into the house, giving the door a shattering slam.

Anna was very hard to live with in those next three days. Even Baby, the new puppy, the pride of Anna's heart, a present from her friend the widow, Mrs. Lehntman — even this pretty little black and tan felt the heat of Anna's scorching flame. And Edgar, who had looked forward to these days, to be for him filled full of freedom and of things to eat — he could not rest a moment in Anna's bitter sight.

On the third day, Anna and Edgar went to the Wadsmith country home. The blue dressings out of the two rooms remained behind.

All the way, Edgar sat in front with the colored man and


text:
User:Sheilladifa

Sheilla Difa Ramadhiani,lahir tanggal 8 Januari 1999.Umur saya 13 tahun.Tinggal di Tangerang Selatan,Banten.Sekarang saya bersekolah di SMPN 4 Tangerang Selatan.

title: User:Sheilladifa


text:
User:Joyotyo

joyotyo is a graduation from well-known university: Diponegoro University, located in Central Java, Indonesia. He is being a enterpreneur on coffee now. Now, he started contributing in proofreading Kamus bahasa Sunda-Inggris.

title: User:Joyotyo


text:
Page:A dictionary of the Sunda language of Java.djvu/521

500 failing of the natives, for which they have thus a very appropriate designation).

Titir, to strike a drum so as to beat an alarm. To beat the tocsin.

Tiwar, a scent of information, a suggestion of some occurrence. A hint.

Tiwas, done for, overtaken by some mishap. Severely injured. Killed, worsted, beaten. Irreparably damaged.

Tiwu, sugar-cane. The word is sometimes pronounced Towu. Saccharum Officinarum. This word appears to be derived from the prefix Ti and Wu or Bhu, C. 688, to be, from the nature of its rapid growth up into a stick. In Malay the word is Těbu, which gives the etymon in its other shape. See Tumbu, with which it appears to have much affinity. Taw is suger-cane at Tonga, and To, at the Marquesas and Tahiti. Or it may have come from the Tamil, Tittip, sweet, or Tulugu, ipi, sweet, and Uk, sugar-cane in Singhalese, which is also very likely Sanscrit, and thus sweet-cane. Ook or oog in Formosa, where a Polynesian race is found, means a bambu, and may have originally had a common origin.

Tiwu-ěndog, the egg-sugar-cane, A variety of sugar-cane, of which the tops are boiled and eaten, being a congeries of small round seeds, like the roe of a fish.

Tiyěr, to string, to fix on a string by sticking a bit of stiff bambu string through any objects so as to have them slung together. To fasten together by running a bit of string consecutively through several objects.

Tiyung, a veil; anything thrown over the head to shade the face from sight or from the sun.

Tiyungan, to veil, to cover from sight.

Tiyup, and Tiyupan, to blow, to puff. To sound a musical wind-instrument. Di tiyup angin, it was blown by the wind. Seuněuh kudu di tiyupan, the fire must be blown. Tiyup suling, to blow the flute.

Tiyuwan, a hornet. A large wasp, an inch and one half long, which gives so violent a sting, that it sometimes gives the natives a fit of fever. It builds its nest on trees, of light dry grassy matter cemented together. It is black with a yellow patch round the middle of the lower body. It is most probably an Asilus.

To, a particle of negation, being an abbreviation of Hanto, no, not. To daikkěn, I am unwilling, I won't. To hadé, not good, that will not do. To ngurus, I don't care, that's no matter of mine.

Toa, uncle or aunt when older than our father or mother. The word Toa is only applied to persons of low degree.

Tobat, Arabic, an interjection of surprise, wonderful! mercy on us! To repent of, to rue so as to swear not to do so again. Repentance. Gěus tobat mohal děděuyan, I repent it and will not attempt it again. ''Tobat! sia to ngadeng'i ka parentah'', the deuce take it, won't you listen to orders.

Tobél, a sort of diminutive of Tobat, and expresses a less decisive wonder, aversion, or intention to repent.


text:
Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 75.djvu/59

Rh A little patient of my own (see photograph) was told by her dentist that her upper front teeth would have to be extracted, as they protruded so that she could not close her mouth. On hearing this, I was simply horrified. I induced the parents to consult a competent orthodontist, with the result that on meeting the child on the street about three months afterwards (see photograph), I didn't recognize her. Here are two pictures of a dentist's son "before and after taking" a course of treatment. His father regulated his teeth.

In orthodontia an inconceivably great advance has been made in preserving human beauty, health and efficiency. And the people who have been bewailing nature's inadequacy and asserting that our race is gradually deteriorating so that the coming man will be "edentulous" (toothless) are asked to take a back seat. They belong in the same category with the people in Philadelphia, who objected to opening some playgrounds to children, because the latter shouted when they played. Just as if play without shouting could be any good for young children; even in Philadelphia.

A great and beautiful truth has been taught us by these orthodontists. Every good man, every religious man, and every one who rejoices in beauty, in symmetry, in efficiency and in the comforting reflection that nature does not make mistakes—man makes the mistakes, and is sometimes blasphemous enough to lay the blame upon God—ought to rejoice at the clear proof that there was no mistake made in allotting thirty-two teeth to an adult human being. That the properly shaped jaw can hold all of these teeth, and that modern ideas of the fitness of things demand a full complement of teeth in a properly shaped jaw. That the firm well-rounded chin, the resolute jaw and symmetrical cheeks, and the appearance of decision, vigor and alertness so necessary for either male or female beauty of expression, belong by right to every American man and woman; not to mention the fact that the "laughing pearls" of perfect teeth can be possessed by any one, and some one has sinned, either the man or his parents, if the denture is defective and the jaws ill-developed.


text:
Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 75.djvu/60

56

HE physiological unit in the operations of the nervous system is the reflex. Broadly understood, this consists of the chain of consequences that begins with the reception of a stimulus on the surface of the animal and, leading through the central nervous organs, ends in the excitation of a reaction by some such organ as a muscle. The term reflex is made to apply nowadays to nervous operations involving conscious states as well as to those that are carried out unconsciously. In its greatest simplicity the conventional reflex involves at least two nervous cells or neurones and some form of reacting organ

 (modified from Retzlus). cm, circular muscle; ep, epidermis; lm, longitudinal muscle; mc, motor cell-body; mf, motor nerve-fiber; sc, sensory cell-body; sf, sensory nerve-fiber; vg, ventral ganglion.

such as a muscle-fiber. The first neurone, as exemplified in the nervous structure of such an animal as the earthworm, is often the body of a sense-cell on the surface of the animal and the sensory nerve-fiber to which this cell body gives rise and which leads to the central nervous organ. The second neurone is a nerve-cell whose body lies within the central nervous organ and whose process, a motor nerve-fiber, extends from the central organ to the muscle-cells which it


text:
Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 75.djvu/61

Rh. The first neurone as it enters the central organ breaks tip into a large number of delicate branches which are in physiological continuity with similar branches from the second neurone. It is over these delicate branches that the nerve-impulse passes from one neurone to the other and it is the structure of this system of branches that has been a matter of so much discussion within recent years. Anatomically, then, this simplest form of central nervous organ consists of motor cell-bodies and fibrillations from these bodies and from sensory neurones. Of course most central organs include additional neurones, such for instance as association neurones, which connect one part of the central organ with another and do not participate directly as sensory or motor constituents. The simplest conceivable reflex mechanism, however, does not include these, but only the sensory and the motor neurone as described. Such a chain reaching from the periphery of the animal through its central nervous organ to and including its muscles is usually regarded as the primary type of neuromuscular mechanism.

From a physiological standpoint this simplest type of reflex mechanism falls into three parts. The first of these is the sense organ or receptor, which, as its name implies, receives the external stimulus; the receptor is also the seat of the production of the nerve-impulse. The second is the central nervous organ or, as it may be called, the adjuster, which is concerned with directing the impulse toward the appropriate end-organ and with modifying it in accordance with the particular reaction to be obtained. The third and last is the effector or organ brought into action by the impulse, such as a muscle or gland. Thus a simple reflex may be said to involve at least three special classes of mechanisms: receptors, adjusters and effectors. These mechanisms, however, do not correspond exactly to the three histological elements already named, for, though the receptive function is an activity limited entirely to the first neurone in such an animal as the earthworm, and the effector is the muscle-fiber, the adjuster is a part of the first as well as of the second neurone and is made up of at least the fine fibrillar material contributed by these two neurones to the central nervous organ. The neuromuscular mechanism even in this its simplest type has probably not sprung into being fully formed, but it has had without doubt a slow and gradual growth. It is one of the objects of these articles to trace as far as possible the steps in this growth.

It is to be noted that every reflex mechanism is in the nature of a physiologically continuous span of living substance which reaches from the receptive surface on the one hand to the effector organ on the other. At no point in this span can there be a real interruption, for a physiologically continuous thread of protoplasm must connect the two extremes. It is, therefore, conceivable that a reflex mechanism might


text:
Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 75.djvu/62

58 exist in the body of a protozoan and in fact there is experimental evidence to show that in certain infusorians the superficial protoplasm is somewhat differentiated as a receptive surface and that this protoplasm also serves as a conducting organ whereby, for instance, the activity of certain groups of specialized cilia in these animals is coordinated. These conditions, however, are found within the substance of a single cell and are so remote from those of a true nervous mechanism that, interesting and significant as they are, they had better be termed neuroid than nervous. They show at best that the protoplasm of the protozoan harbors operations that may develop in the multicellular animals into reflex processes rather than that the protozoans possess these processes, and that we must look among the simplest metazoans for the beginnings of a true neuromuscular mechanism.

In making a quest for the first stages in the development of the nervous system, it is important to keep in mind the relative significance of the three physiological elements already pointed out: the receptors, the adjusters and the effectors. A little reflection will show that these three are not likely to prove all of primary significance.

A receptor or sense organ alone would be of no service whatever to an animal; it would resemble a telephone receiver disconnected from the rest of the system. In a similar way the adjustor or central organ is useless without at least some other element in the reflex apparatus. The only mechanism sufficient in itself is the effector, which, if it can be brought into action by direct stimulation, may accomplish something serviceable to the animal. It is therefore improbable that we shall find multicellular animals that possess either receptors or adjusters without effectors, but it is conceivable that primitive metazoans may have effectors without other parts of the typical neuromuscular mechanism.

In a search for the earliest traces of the neuromuscular mechanism,


text:
Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 75.djvu/63

Rh we may turn first to those very primitive metazoans, the sponges. The body of one of the simpler sponges is a more or less goblet-shaped, multicellular mass, whose surface is covered with an enormous number of minute pores; these lead into tubes which in turn communicate with a relatively large central cavity that opens to the exterior by an aperture of considerable size, the osculum. In a living undisturbed sponge, water is continually passing into the lateral pores, through the tubes and central cavity, and out at the osculum. This current is produced by means of numerous cells, the choanocytes, which are provided with vibratile lashes and are variously distributed through the internal chambers and tubes of the sponge. Apparently these choanocytes work incessantly, and the current generated by them carries food, etc., to the sponge and removes waste products. Although frequent efforts have been made to show that nervous structures occur in sponges, nothing of this nature has been conclusively demonstrated and it is now generally believed that these animals are without differentiated nervous organs, either sensory or central. Nevertheless, sponges are capable of a certain amount of response. Merejkowsky (1878) observed that when he pricked with a needle the inner face of the. osculum of Rinalda, this aperture quickly closed, not to open again for several minutes. The same reaction occurs with the lateral pores of many sponges (Vosmaer and Pekelharing, 1898). This power of closing the pores seems to be the only means by which a sponge may check the current which ordinarily flows through its canals, for, as already mentioned, the choanocytes apparently lash the water incessantly.

When a search is made for the organs concerned with the closing of the pores and oscula, they are found to consist of rings of elongated contractile cells or myocytes, which surround these apertures. These rings of cells form veritable sphincters and their action is often efficient enough to bring about a complete temporary closure of the aperture. Whether the pores and oscula open by the counteraction of radial, contractile myocytes or by the simple elasticity of the surrounding tissue does not seem to have been determined.

Since these sphincters lie very close to the epithelium that bounds the surfaces of the pores or oscula and in fact probably often form a part of this very epithelium, and since no nervous mechanism is known to be connected with them, it seems very probable that they are brought into action by direct stimulation and that the sponge is a metazoan in which there are functional effectors unassociated with receptors or adjusters. Thus the sponge would represent the first stage in the differentiation of a neuromuscular mechanism, i. e., one in which the effector in the form of a primitive muscle-cell is the only element present. In my opinion it is around these contractile cells that the nervous organs of the higher metazoans have developed and I therefore