text:
User talk:Amaliafeb

Selamat datang
Halo Amalia, selamat bertanding, skoring bisa dilihat di halaman ini. Berdasarkan halaman kontribusi tiga hari tidak menyunting dianggap gugur yah. Siska.Doviana (talk)

Halaman habis - peserta untuk terus menyunting agar tidak gugur
Pengguna Charis, telah memberitahukan pada panitia bahwa halaman sudah habis. Ini panitia sadari beberapa jam yang lalu. Pengumuman beasiswa akan kita matikan lebih cepat dari rencana, karena halaman merah sudah tidak ada atau harus diidentifikasi berapa yang betul di "proofread" (kaji halaman) tetapi belum dikerjakan. Para peserta yang masih bertahan diharapkan untuk terus menyunting baik itu memvalidasi halaman atau memperbaiki halaman hingga tanggal 17 Juli, agar tidak gugur sembari panitia menghitung skornya. Untuk melihat halaman seluruhnya, silahkan klik kamus dalam versi halaman lengkap dan betulkan halaman yang bermasalah untuk terus menyunting. Terima kasih dan semoga yang terbaik yang menang. Siska.Doviana (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Amaliafeb


text:
Author:Samuel ibn Tibbon

Works

 * Eight chapters of Maimonides on Ethics

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

title: Author:Samuel ibn Tibbon


text:
User talk:Samuel Johnson~enwikisource

— billinghurst  sDrewth  14:57, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Samuel Johnson. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Samuel Johnson~enwikisource that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Samuel Johnson~enwikisource


text:
User talk:Luthfan~enwikisource

— billinghurst  sDrewth  15:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Luthfan. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Luthfan~enwikisource that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Luthfan~enwikisource


text:
User talk:Ayudinda

— billinghurst  sDrewth  15:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ayudinda


text:
User talk:Dellya.winda

— billinghurst  sDrewth  15:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

title: User talk:Dellya.winda


text:
Page:The Religion of Ancient Egypt.djvu/94

 Monogamy.

The high position occupied in ancient Egypt by the mother of the family, the "mistress of the house," is absolutely irreconcilable with the existence either of polygamy as a general practice, or of such an institution as the harîm. The plurality of wives does not appear to have been contrary to law, but it certainly was unusual. A few of the Egyptian kings had a large number of wives, but they appear in this respect to have followed foreign rather than native custom. The use of the word harem in the translation of hieroglyphic texts tends to produce an entirely erroneous conception of ancient Egyptian society. The word itself is harmless; but (to say the least) it confounds Egyptian with utterly foreign ideas, Arabian or Turkish; and when it is used to signify an establishment of concubines, I believe the translator has entirely misunderstood the Egyptian text.


text:
Page:The Pathfinder of the Seas.djvu/61

 Rh what he might do in the future. He had begun then to think seriously of resorting to the pen, and after his return home this notion "to take to books and be learned" began to take more definite shape in his mind, though he was greatly discouraged at his ignorance and confused by the wilderness of subjects from which to choose. He did not, however, wish to give the impression that he was shirking active service; so he made application on March 14, 1840 to Secretary of the Navy Paulding for any duty which he could perform in his present condition, "service on crutches" as he expressed it. This, of course, was not granted him, and thus relieved temporarily from active service, he began the writing of his "Scraps from the Lucky Bag", a series of magazine articles which were soon to make his name very widely known.

In the summer of 1838, Maury had written five articles for the Richmond Whig and Public Advertiser under the nom de plume of "Harry Bluff, U.S. Navy". His feelings were at that time raw over the outcome of the Exploring Expedition, and in these fearless, straightforward articles he bitterly criticised the former Secretary of the Navy Dickerson for his inefficiency and called upon his successor, Secretary Paulding, to restore to the navy its former prestige. The appointment of Wilkes to command the expedition was handled without gloves. "There was", wrote Maury, "a cunning little Jacob who had campaigned in Washington a full term of seven years. More prodigal than Laban, you (Secretary of War, Joel R. Poinsett) gave him, for a single term, both the Rachel and the Leah of his heart. A junior lieutenant with scarcely enough service at sea to make him familiar with the common routine of duty on board a man-of-war, and with one or two short interruptions, a

title: Page:The Pathfinder of the Seas.djvu/61


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/152

Rh Her son, that she had presently, was the late Grand Prior of France, who was killed lately at Marseilles,—a sore pity, for he was a very honourable, brave and gallant nobleman, and did show the same clearly at his death. Moreover he was a man of property and sense, and the least tyrannical Governor of a District of his own day or since. Provence could tell us that, and beside that he was a right magnificent Seigneur and of a generous expenditure. He was indeed a man of means, good sense and wise moderation.

The said lady, with others I have heard of, held the opinion that to lie with one's Sovereign was no disgrace; those be harlots indeed which do abandon their bodies to petty folk, but not where great Kings and gallant gentlemen be in question. Like that Queen of the Amazons I have named above, which came a journey of three hundred leagues for to be gotten with child by Alexander the Great, to have good issue therefrom. Yet there be those who say one man is as good as another for this!

After King Henri came Francis II., whose reign however was so short as that spiteful folks had no time even to begin speaking ill of ladies. Not that we are to believe, if he had enjoyed a long reign, that he would have suffered aught of the kind at his Court; for he was a monarch naturally good-natured, frank, and not one to take pleasure in scandal, as well as being most respectful toward ladies and very ready to pay them all honour. Beside he had the Queen his wife and the Queen his mother, and his good uncles to boot, all of which were much for checking these chatterers and loose-tongued gentry. I remember me how once, the King being at Saint-Germain en Laye, about the month of August or September, the


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/153

Rh fancy took him one evening to go see the stags in their rut in that noble forest of Saint-Germain, and he did take with him certain princes, his chief familiars, and some great ladies, both wives and maids, whose names I could very well give, an if I chose. Nor was there lacking one fain to make a talk of it, and say this did not smack of his womankind being exactly virtuous or chaste, to be going to see these lovemakings and wanton ruttings of beasts, seeing how the appetite of Venus must heat them more and more at sight of such doings. In fact, so sore will they be longing to taste, that sure the water or saliva will be coming to their mouth, in such wise that no other remedy will there be thereafter for to get rid of the same except only by some other discharge of saliva, or something else. The King heard of this speech, and the noblemen and ladies which had accompanied him thither. Be well assured, an if the gentleman had not straightway decamped, he had fared very ill; nor did he ever again appear at Court till after that King's death and the end of his reign. Many scandalous pamphlets there were put forth against them which were then in direction of the Government of the Kingdom; but there was never an one that did so hurt and offend as a satire entitled The Tiger —modelled on the first invective of Cicero against Catiline,—especially as it spake freely of the amours of a very great and fair lady, and a great nobleman, her kinsman. An if the gallant author had been caught, though he had had an hundred thousand lives, he had surely lost them every one; for the two great folks, lady and gentleman, were so exceeding vexed and angered as that they did all but die of despair.

This King Francis II. was not subject to love like his


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/154

Rh predecessors; and truly he would have been greatly to blame, seeing he had to wife the fairest woman in all the world and the most amiable. And when a man hath such a wife, he doth not go seeking fortune elsewhere as others use, else is he a wretch indeed. And not so going, little recks he to speak ill of ladies, or indeed to speak well either, or to speak at all about them, except always of his own good lady at home. 'Tis a doctrine I have heard a very honourable personage maintain: natheless have I known it prove false more than once.

King Charles came next to the throne, which by reason of the tenderness of his years, did pay no heed at the beginning of his reign to the ladies, but did rather give his thoughts to spending his time in youthful sports and exercises. Yet did the late deceased M. de Sipierre his Governour and Tutor, a man who was in my opinion and in that of every one else, the most honourable and most courteous gentleman of his time, and the most gentle and respectful toward women, did so well teach the same lesson to the King his master and pupil, as that he was as ready to honour ladies as any of the kings his predecessors. For never, whether as boy or man, did he see a woman, no matter how busied he was in other matters, whether he was hurrying on or standing still, on foot or on horse-back, but he would straight salute the same and most respectfully doff his cap. Whenas he came to an age for love, he did serve several very honourable dames and damsels I have known of, but all this with so great honour and respect as that he might have been the humblest gentleman of the Court.

In his reign the great lampoonists did first begin their vogue, and amongst them even some very gallant


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/155

Rh of the Court, whose names I will not give, did strangely abuse the ladies, both in general and in particular, and even some of the greatest in the land. For this some of them have found themselves entangled in downright fierce quarrels, and have come off second best,—not indeed that they did avow the truth, for they did rather always deny they had aught to do with it. If they had confessed, they had had heavy payment to make, and the King would certainly have let them feel the weight of his displeasure, inasmuch as they did attack ladies of over high a rank. Others did show the best face they could, and did suffer the lie to be cast in their teeth a thousand times over, conditionally as we may say and vaguely, and had to swallow a thousand affronts, drinking the same in as sweetly as though they had been milk, without daring to retort one word, else had their lives been at risk. 'Tis a thing which hath oft given me great surprise that suchlike folks should set them to speak ill of their neighbours, yet suffer others to speak ill of themselves so sorely and to their very face. Yet had these men the repute of being gallant swordsmen; but in this matter they would aye endure all but the extremest insult bravely and without one word of protest.

I do remember me of a lampoon which was made against a very great lady, a widow, fair and of most honourable birth, which did desire to marry again with a very great Prince, a young and handsome man. There were certain persons, (and I have accurate knowledge of the same), who disliking this marriage, and to dissuade the Prince therefrom, did concoct a lampoon on her, the most scandalous I have ever seen, in the which they did compare her to five or six of the chiefest harlots of Antiquity, and


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/156

Rh the most notorious and wanton, declaring how that she did overtop them each and all. The actual authors of the said satire did present it to the Prince, professing however that it did emanate from others, and that themselves had merely been given it. The Prince, having looked at it, gave the lie to its statements and hurled a thousand vague and general insults at them which had writ it; yet did they pass all over in silence, brave and valiant men though they were. The incident however did give the Prince pause a while, seeing the lampoon did contain several definite revelations and point direct at some unpleasant facts; natheless after the lapse of two years more was the marriage accomplished.

The King was so great-hearted and kindly that he was never inclined to favour folks of this kidney. To pass a spicy word or two with them aside, this he did like well enough; but he was always most unwilling the common herd should be fed on such diet, declaring that his Court, which was the best ennobled and most illustrious by reason of great and noble ladies of any in all the world, should never, such being its high repute, be cheapened and foully aspersed by the mouth of suchlike reckless and insolent babblers. 'Twas well enough to speak so of the courtesans of Rome, or Venice, or other the like places, but not of the Court of France; it might be permitted to do the thing, it was not permitted to speak thereof.

Thus do we see how this Sovereign was ever respectful toward ladies, nay! so much so that in his later days when some I know of were fain to give him an evil impression of certain very great, as well as most fair and honourable dames, for that these had intermeddled in some highly important matters of his concern, yet would he never


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/157

Rh credit aught against them; but did accord them as good favour as ever, dying at the last in their very good graces and with many a tear of their shedding to wet his corpse. And they did find good cause to say so too, so soon as ever King Henri III. came to succeed him, who by reason of sundry ill reports he had been told of these ladies when in Poland, did not make near so much of them as he had done aforetime. Both over these and over some others that I know of, he did exercise a very strict censorship, and one we may be sure that made him not more liked; and indeed I do believe they did him no little hurt, and contributed in part to his evil fortune and final ruin. I could allege sundry special facts in proof hereof, but I had rather pass them over,—saying only this much, that women generally are keen set on taking vengeance. It may be long in coming, but they do execute it at the last. On the contrary many men's revenge is just the opposite in its nature, for ardent and hot enough at its first beginning to deceive all, yet by dint of temporising and putting off and long delays it doth grow cool and come to naught. And this is why 'tis meet to guard against the first attempt, and take time by the forelock in parrying the blows; but with women the first fury and attempt, and the temporising and delay, do both last out to the end,—that is in some women, though hardly many.

Some have been for excusing the King for the war he made on women in the way of crying them down, by saying 'twas in order to curb and correct vice,—as if the curb were of any of the slightest use in these cases, seeing woman is so conditioned of nature as that the more this thing is forbid her, the more ardent is she after the same, and to set a watch on her is just labour lost. So in actual


text:
The Civil Service and the Patronage/Chapter 11

the system of competitive examinations was begun so late in the nineteenth century, the beginning of the twentieth found it well established. The annual report of the Civil Service Commission for 1899-1900 showed 90,000 classified positions, and 100,000 unclassified, in the national service; but the salaries of the first amounted to about $75,000,000, while those of the latter amounted to only about $30,000,000. From 1883 to 1900, 78,791 officials had been appointed because of their standing in examinations. In the year 1900, 34,437 took the examinations offered, 22,985 received pass marks, and 9889 were appointed to some position. The appointing officers showed a growing tendency to select, from the three candidates certified to them by the commission as eligible, the one whose mark was highest; in about three-fourths of the cases this was done. That the extension of the system has not reached its limit is indicated by the inclusion of the rural delivery system within the rules in the year 1903.

In the meantime, some states and cities followed the lead of the national government. New York, where the first reform association was formed, adopted, in 1883, a statute resembling that of the nation; Massachusetts, prolific of reform literature, followed in 1884; then, after an interval, the system received some degree of recognition from Illinois, Wisconsin, and Indiana in 1895, from Louisiana in 1896, and from Connecticut in 1897. Various cities forestalled the action of their state legislature — as Philadelphia in 1885 and Denver in 1896; while in many

other places the efforts, though unsuccessful as yet, have been persistent.

The two most notable exceptions to the national classification at present are the fourth-class postmasters and the consular service. For fifteen years efforts have been continuous to apply the merit system to the first of these. March 3, 1890, Henry Cabot Lodge, then a member of the House of Representatives, introduced a bill to bring about this result; this was followed by one prepared by Sherman Hoar of Massachusetts; and the question was presented to Congress by President Cleveland in his message of December 7, 1896. No action has yet been taken, however, except that some minor post-offices have been consolidated with larger ones, and thereby brought within the civil service rules.

The effort to provide for a trained consulate, as has been shown, dates farther back than the movement for competitive examinations. The small force of thirteen consular clerks has been long in existence, but has had no perceptible influence on the service. Nearly every Congress for fifteen years has had before it some measure intended to provide for a comprehensive reorganization; and in this movement, as in that to take the fourth-class postmasters out of politics, Senator Lodge has taken the lead. Unlike the interest in the latter agitation, however, that in the consular service has grown in the last few years, owing to our increased foreign trade and imperialistic proclivities. In 1900 the Cleveland chamber of commerce drew up a particularly good bill, which was presented to the House by Mr. Burton of that city. Action having been earnestly recommended by President Roosevelt, the matter was much debated in the first session of the fifty-seventh Congress; and, although nothing was decided, it may be said, in the congressional phraseology, to have been “ passed over without prejudice.”

Meantime something had been done by the executive. President Cleveland issued rules classifying candidates, and providing for examinations, promotions, and the reinstatement of former consuls in preference to new appointments. In March, 1896, it was reported that since September 20, 1895, four had been promoted, four reinstated, four had passed examinations, and four had been rejected. President McKinley announced that this system would be continued. In July, 1899, it was stated that, of 112 candidates examined, 111 passed; but who can say whether this indicates that the original selections were particularly excellent, or that the examinations had been devitalized?

Besides the attempts to extend the civil service rules, there have been efforts to make them more effective. July 8, 1886, the Civil Service Commission gave its opinion that, according to the laws and regulations governing the service, removals could legally be made for any reason except refusal to make political contributions, to do party service, or to submit to political dictation; but that as the reason for removal need not be stated, they could practically be made for any reason whatever. Now, in the beginning, the reformers were generally supporters of the prerogatives of the executive, and were disinclined to hamper the president's use of the removing power. It was argued that if political appointments were impossible, there could no longer be any temptation to remove men without cause; and this view seemed justified to a great extent, when it was seen that in Cleveland's first administration the removals from the classified service amounted to only six and one-half per cent. Yet in the course of time, sentiment has grown to favor some regulation of the president's prerogative. Legislation has not yet been effective, but the difficulty has been in great measure relieved by the above-mentioned order of President McKinley, requiring written charges to be filed, and giving

the officer the right to answer. The executive itself has provided a definite rule for its own conduct.

Many suggestions for minor improvements have been made from time to time. The proceedings of the National League are filled with them; and every session of Congress sees bills introduced to prevent drunkenness, to prevent congressmen from making recommendations, to regulate applications for office in the unclassified service, and for similar purposes, all indicating a healthy interest in the subject.

For thirty years the system of appointment by competitive examination has been on trial in America, and for twenty years it has been recognized by Congress and operated by an executive on the whole favorable. It is time, then, to form some idea of its success, and to say something definite as to the changes it has wrought. In making such an estimate, it should be borne in mind that the advocates of the system had two objects in view: while they differed from previous reformers in earnestly desiring to improve the service, — making that, in fact, their first object, — they were as anxious as their predecessors of 1836 to purify political conditions, and believed that the competitive system was admirably fitted to that end also.

Of the effect of the system on the service, details and statistics may be found in abundance in the Civil Service Commission reports, of which the fifteenth is particularly valuable, as it contains a general summary of results. In this summary it is estimated that two million dollars a year is saved in the collection of the customs by the merit system, and that the saving through the whole service is ten per cent of the salaries. Such definite statements, however, lack a firm basis. Efficiency cannot be reckoned in figures; and it is certainly improper to attribute to competitive examinations or to the Civil Service Commission all the improvements made since 1883. It is altogether likely that, under any circumstances, the service would have improved in the last twenty years. Much more convincing, therefore, than statistical expositions of benefits is the general testimony of the most trusted executive officers as

to the change for the better; and the more efficient work that these men have been able to do, because relieved in large measure of importunities for office, must be counted among the most important of the gains.

There are other facts which statistics do not show. One is that, under the new conditions, an entirely different class of men is attracted into the service. Under the old lack of system, any position might lead anywhere, and that quickly; removal was constantly impending; government service was speculative, and because of the opportunities it afforded attracted clever, sometimes brilliant, men. Now it offers, in the main, the advantage of steady, light employment, at a moderate remuneration and attracts the steady-going and unimaginative. Government service, moreover, in this country, is not held to be a badge of honor, as it is in Germany and France, and, to a degree, in England; it will never form the basis of a bourgeois aristocracy, and hence will attract of the steady-going only those who have no better financial opportunities. The question as to which of these two classes it is most desirable to secure is one of time and circumstances. During the middle of the century, when the American rotated in other professions, it was natural that he should rotate in office, and rotation and the spoils system probably secured, in most parts of the country, a better corps of civil servants than the present system would have done. To-day our general mode of life is more stable, and it is therefore natural that the government service should become more so; the class that is willing to settle down permanently to the prospect of a small but steady income, and a respectable but not distinguished station, is increasing. It must be acknowledged, however, that as yet the ordinary positions of the civil service — those offering no special inducements for research or travel — do not tempt as able young men as business opportunities of equal grade. It seems, also, that the examinations are so managed, doubtless partly in deference to public sentiment, that men of higher education are not encouraged to enter. In 1891, 62$9/10$ per cent of those who took the examinations on the basis of a common-school education passed, 77$3/10$ per cent f those who had been through high school, and

only 67$1/10$ per cent of the college men. Of course many of the college men took more difficult technical examinations, yet the figures seem to indicate that many of the college-bred men who applied were of inferior capacity. Certainly an infusion of college men would benefit the service.

Until men of more ability are attracted by the examinations that give entrance to the civil service, the system of mechanical promotion cannot be extended up through the service to positions requiring executive power and independent judgment; though if such positions were included within the system, that fact of itself would of course afford an inducement to enter the lower grades which does not now exist. We may well doubt, however, whether, while business continues to hold out such opportunities as at present, the permanent civil service will be able to draw in many men fitted for the highest posts.

When we turn to the political results of the competitive selection of candidates, it is necessary to keep in mind the causa eundi of the spoils system — the fact that it came into being to supply a means of supporting political organization, that its essence lies in making the offices the campaign fund of the different parties. The first point to be considered is whether it has taken the offices out of this category — whether promises of office count less in party warfare, and whether officers are less active party workers, than previously. The mere fact that appointment to so many offices has been taken from the discretion of the executive means that so many the fewer friends can be rewarded. The successive reports of the Civil Service Commission show that, although every campaign brings to light new methods of circumventing the law, assessments are really becoming much less common; and also that

other forms of political activity diminish, in spite of an evident itching on the part of public officers to take the lead in party management. It is noticed, however, that as the number of places disposable has become smaller, the pressure for them has increased; that the desire for this particular method of payment for political service has not diminished as rapidly as civil service reform has advanced; and the tremendous stress brought upon the McKinley administration indicates that civil service reform will not find its further advancement along a pleasant path.

Whether a further withdrawal of the offices from politics will prove to be possible, depends upon circumstances. Practically we may omit the supposition that a modern democracy could exist without parties; it may be possible, but it is a condition which lies far in the future. Under existing conditions the possibility of a complete civil service reform, as generally understood, depends upon whether our parties can be convinced that they can exist without their present elaborate organizations, or can maintain these organizations without the cohesive power of the public offices. If the organizations are maintained, reform is impossible, unless a substitute is found for the spoils system. If the substitute be money, the change is a bad one; if it be argument and the devotion of earnest men, it is good; if it be the drawing of rich men into politics and an approximation of the English aristocratic system, there may be two opinions as to its value; or there might be a simplification of political machinery, as by the introduction of primary elections. All these tendencies are observable, and civil service reform is to be studied in connection with them and with all other political reform movements. Eternal vigilance, and not merely the mechanical selection of public officers, is the price of liberty.

A troublesome minor question in this connection is how far the servants of the state may be allowed to indulge in politics. As has been pointed out, and as every man in middle life knows, the activity of office-holders is much less than it once was; but what are the proper limits? Present public sentiment in America would

not countenance any effort to gag the civil service; and we certainly do not wish the public employees to constitute a separate political body as they come very near doing in Australia. Some reformers have of late been taking very advanced ground; Postmaster-general Heath has been criticised for allowing participation in caucuses and conventions, and Commissioner Foulke for his circular of 1902, which argued that it was not a violation of the spirit of the law for members of the cabinet to take part in a political campaign.

Such extreme criticisms injure a good cause. The ideal condition, doubtless, is that all citizens should participate alike in politics; but it is also true that, in order to discourage officials from taking that undue interest in politics to which they have been accustomed in times past, special repression will be long necessary. It should, however, be recognized that the influence which a collector of customs exerts over his subordinates and that by which a manufacturer controls his employees, are closely akin. Here again it is a broad, general problem that is to be solved.

One interesting result of the law of 1883 has been the more equal sharing of positions between the different states and parties. As a result of the long Republican dominance, the Southern states had a comparatively small number of citizens in the departments at Washington, and an undue proportion of these consisted of negroes, because of the political proclivities of the latter. At present there are no glaring inequalities; and white Democrats from the South are more numerous, while the negroes from the North have increased. Thus a result always aimed at, and especially desirable in a federal republic, has been brought about. It is a very valuble thing to have at the capital a large number of representatives of the different sections; it creates a national atmosphere, and probably exerts an unconscious influence of a most beneficial character on Congress. The reflex influence on the states is, of course, not so great as in the days of rotation. Then the great numbers of men with four years of Washington experience and fresh from

contact with their fellow-citizens from far away, who scattered broadcast over the land, must have carried with them much information that was useful to their friends, and that probably strengthened the bonds of union, which in those days so much needed strengthening. With our present facilities of travel, and our strong national spirit, this function may well be dispensed with; but it can never cease to be important to have at Washington a population drawn in proper proportion from all the states, centring there ties of family interest, and prepared to furnish knowledge of local conditions.

Having examined the advantages and disadvantages of the existing civil service system, we must briefly consider its elements of stability, and first the points of attack, internal and external. It is not the purpose of this study to detail minutely the workings of the system, — the reports of the Civil Service Commission are too candid and too easily available to make that necessary, — but certain plausible methods of evading restrictions must be mentioned. One of the most dangerous is reinstatement. It seems just that, if a man be dismissed without just cause or because of a reduction in force, he should be readmitted without having to run the gantlet as a novice. When, however, one recalls the conditions in the forties and fifties, it becomes obvious that, if this practice were freely allowed, rotation would be again introduced, each party turning out its opponents and reinstating the martyrs of its own faith. There would be two sets of men, one in office, and the other working to obtain it by a party success. The civil service rules formerly allowed reinstatement within one year of dismissal, but not thereafter. President Harrison, as has been shown, provided that veterans might be taken back without regard to time. President McKinley, in his order of April 26, 1899, extended this provision to all officers in the classified service, with the restriction that those separated from the government for more than twelve months should take a pass-examination. The Civil Service Commission, in its seventeenth report, earnestly recommends that the former rule be reëstablished.

Transfers form another vexing problem. Constant attempts are made to obtain permission for men to be transferred from the unclassified service to positions included under the rules. The commission has recently recommended stricter regulations, and has thus far been able to prevent any serious encroachments. Another method of evasion is illustrated by the abolition of the office of superintendent of the binding division, carrying a salary of nineteen hundred dollars, and the establishment of a chief of the division at the same salary. A new man was of course appointed. Thus far the enforcement of the law has been practically always in the hands of friends. If it fell into those of its enemies, it could probably be much relaxed without any great surface changes; in fact, the conditions in some of our states and cities show that the working of the law depends almost entirely upon the animus of the controlling political forces.

A well-known American statesman once said, — of course in private, apropos of a pension bill, that the fact was that the grand army of the republic saved the country, and now it wanted it. It has been shown, from time to time, that military service has been thought to entitle a man to civil office. This sentiment was naturally strengthened by the Civil War; Lincoln felt it, and in 1865 it was provided by law that soldiers discharged “by reason of disability resulting from wounds or sickness incurred in the line of duty” should “be preferred for appointments to civil offices, provided they are found to possess the business capacity necessary.” In 1876 they were given preference when reductions in force were to be made. There is a certain justice in such provisions, and civil service reformers have been somewhat chary of opposing them; but since 1883 there has been a constant effort to extend their scope, and an equally steady effort to prevent this extension. The division has tended to lie between those favorable and those unfavorable to civil service reform.

Congress has been flooded with bills to make the road to office easy for the soldier: in one session four such bills were presented to the Senate and thirteen to the House. Reports have been called for, chiefly by the Senate, to show how far the preference already provided for is observed. Bills have passed the Senate to extend the preference to all soldiers honorably discharged; bills have been introduced to extend it to Confederates. Just when such measures were becoming less dangerous because of the age of the veterans of the great conflict, the Spanish War brought new candidates for recognition, and renewed interest in war and warriors, and since then new floods of measures have been presented. President McKinley, without waiting for legislation, properly extended to our new veterans the privileges of the old; but preference is still restricted to the wounded and sick, and in the classified service of course applies only to those who receive a pass mark. The inclusion of all those honorably discharged would be most unwise, at a time when three hundred thousand young veterans have just come into existence; but the agitation will undoubtedly continue while there are men in Congress whose sympathy for the soldier, and appreciation of the soldier vote, is stronger than their desire for civil service reform. In the past the South has on obvious grounds consistently opposed such legislation; but her position can no longer be predicted, as she now has Spanish War veterans of her own who might profit by the privileges to be granted. The problem is thus an open one.

Not all the dangers of the present system are internal: from the very first direct attack has not been lacking. The session of Congress next after the passage of the law of 1883 saw two

bills to repeal it, and three or four such bills have been introduced in every succeeding Congress. These bills for repeal are seldom debated, being reported adversely by the civil service reform committee of the House, or the civil service and retrenchment committee of the Senate; but every Congress witnesses a debate over the appropriation for the expenses of the commission. It was the intention of the framers of the law that these expenses should be made a permanent charge; but precedent was lacking for such a course, and thus the entire system is in constant danger of being impaired, if not destroyed, by a hostile vote. Nevertheless, supplies have not failed, and have grown increasingly liberal.

The debates on these appropriations are not usually very edifying. Epithets are freely hurled: the Civil Service Commission has been called a “Republican, Pecksniffian, political machine”; the reformers, “eunuchs and sissiri of American politics, canting prelates and Pharisees”; while the system has been described as “conceived in iniquity and born of hypocrisy . . ., administered infamously, and sustained by cowardice and demagogy.” Mr. Eaton was attacked because in a bill of expenses were included thirty cents for lemonade and a dollar for supper, gin, and ale; another commissioner for expending forty cents for “porter,” but apprehension was relieved when it proved to be a Pullman car porter. By saner critics the system is said to disregard a man's moral character, or to allow no chance to size a man up.

Mr. Bailey of Texas touched a politically weak point when he said, “If the civil service law continues on the statute books of the United States for twenty years it will be followed by a civil pension list, and that itself is objection enough to the system.” General Grosvenor also, prompt to see the unpopularity of civil pensions, has insisted that under present conditions humanity demands them. This, indeed, seems to be one of the rocks threatening the progress of the movement. Now, as before 1830, the tendency is for clerks to remain in

office to extreme old age; and the question arises as to how long they can be retained without detriment to the service, and whether it is just to dismiss them without providing for their last days. Of late this problem has been attracting much attention. Bills have been introduced fixing an age limit for retirement, providing for insurance systems, for civil pensions, and for the payment of a lump sum on retirement. Secretary Gage formulated a plan for an “honor roll,” in which the names of clerks who had passed seventy were to be included; they were to be retained in the service, but their salaries were to be reduced to a nine-hundred-dollar basis. The scheme was not popular and has never been put completely into operation. Among the clerks themselves there have been attempts to form insurance arrangements; but as yet none of these schemes have seemed to offer inducements superior to those of the regular companies.

It may seem inconsistent that a government so profuse with its military pensions should not grant them to the civil service. It is probably true, moreover, that in the long run a civil service pension system properly related to salaries would not cost the government one cent; for, when pensions are not given, pay must be high enough to allow of individual saving. Still, it cannot be denied that such a provision would be unpopular, and would indeed denote a change in the spirit of American institutions, which have been so strongly individualistic and so insistent that each man should take care of himself. On the other hand, American individualism is being modified; and if many private corporations follow the example of the Pennsylvania Railroad, of Harvard University, and of other employers, the idea of pensions for the servants of the government will become less strange, and therefore less unpopular.

Many attempts, more or less avowed, have been made to

cripple the merit system before destroying it; for instance, bills have been introduced to allow the appointing officers to choose any applicant who has passed the examination, “to improve the civil service by affording advancement to those in the classified service who have been denied advancement through circumstances beyond their control,” to suspend the law during the first year of every presidential term. Perhaps the most notable effort of this kind was that to place the employees of the bureau of the twelfth census, who had been appointed on pass-examinations, within the pale of the classified service. Senator Lodge pointed out that this would carry over, and place ahead of the highest eligibles, a thousand or twelve hundred names. An amendment was of course offered, giving a preference to those of them who had been soldiers in any of our wars, or who were the widows of soldiers. After a long debate it was arranged by a conference committee that the employees of the bureau should be admitted to the classified service, but should be eligible only to appointment in the new permanent census bureau; the preference for soldiers was retained.

It is not to be supposed that the assailants of the present system are without a programme of their own. For a long time they seemed to be so, but of late a clearer idea may be obtained of what they desire beyond a return to the old lack of system. One idea that crops out continually is that of the New York constitution of 1820 — to extend the elective system to the minor offices. This is generally urged in regard to postmasters; but one bill has also been introduced providing that the various states and territories elect definite quotas and send them to Washington to work in the departments. More representative, however, is the plan which General Grosvenor of Ohio, who has made himself the leader in attacks on the merit system, set forth in an elaborate speech printed in the appendix to the Congressional Record for the first session of the fifty-fifth Congress. This is a careful and deliberate assault on existing methods, supplemented by suggestions as to what he thinks would prove better. He would divide the service into three

classes, — the executive, advising, and administrative class, the executing or clerical class, and the workman class. He would have a limited term and a strict pass-examination, would have each appointee recommended by his representative as a friend of the government, and would have congressional districts equally represented. He considers that congressmen shirk their duties at present. In other words, he would turn the appointing power over to legislators. At bottom, the present attack on the merit system is, in large part, a reappearance of the old jealousy of the executive so many times illustrated in the history of the patronage.

What has enabled civil service reform to progress, unpopular as it has been because of its foreign origin, and interfering, as it has done, with our established political institutions? Why have not the congressmen, who have been deprived of the means of sustaining their political machines, and more than half of whom are probably hostile to the system, risen in successful revolt? These questions seem more difficult of answer if we consider the character of its advocates. In list after list of the members of civil service reform associations, not a name can be found that does not suggest to one acquainted with the nomenclature of the various localities, education, wealth, or social position; the very list of such societies existing in 1892 shows that centres of learning and wealth, and not of population, are represented. Addresses are occasionally made to workmen, pointing out the value of the reform to them; but the platforms of labor parties do not testify to their interest in it. In the main, it has been an agitation carried on by a comparatively small, educated class.

One great source of success has been the non-partisan character of the movement, at the same time that it has not been unpartisan. The bill was introduced by a Democratic senator, and passed by a Republican Congress; its supporters have come from both parties, and in the commission both parties

have been represented by stalwart supporters, by men like Theodore Roosevelt and Governor Thompson of South Carolina, whose honest partisanship could not be mistrusted. This fortunate condition was seriously threatened when, in 1896 and 1900, the national platform of the Democratic party condemned the movement. Many advocates of reform were still in the Democratic ranks however, and the platform of 1904 once more pledged the party to the support of the reform measures undertaken by the government, and has thus prevented them from becoming an issue between the parties. As a result of this appeal to both parties, the progress of reform has received no serious check through the mutations of party fortunes. It has had constantly that support from the several presidents and from most of the heads of departments, which is a necessary condition of its success. This has given an unusual opportunity to test its value and demonstrate its merits to the public.

Another element of strength has been the publicity and candor which has characterized the movement from its initiation. The reformers have proceeded straightforwardly in the belief that, if the people saw what the system they proposed was, and how it worked, they would support it. By that truly democratic method they have taken the sting out of the gibes directed at the system as aristocratic, and have demonstrated that what the people can see and touch and find good they will have.

Not, however, to the members of civil service reform associations can we attribute the whole or the greater influence in bringing about the result, any more than we can attribute to the abolitionists the abolition of slavery. The civil service will ever assimilate itself to surrounding conditions. Before 1828 it tended to be staid and aristocratic. At that date tendencies which had long been gaining strength obtained the mastery; and the civil service shared in the blatant democracy, the dazzling confidence in results to be obtained, the lofty carelessness as to the methods of obtaining them, and all the other characteristics of the ruling class in the United States between 1830 and 1870. Since that time there has been a growing civic consciousness, an appreciation of the serious duties of citizenship, which has furnished the energy to start numerous reforms on

the road to ultimate adoption. Most significant, however, are the two facts that the balance of power has for some time been held by the business class, and that business methods have, since the crisis of 1873, become more careful and systematic. To call competitive examinations businesslike in 1850 would have been absurd; yet that has been constantly and increasingly the most effective argument in favor of the system. As long as the controlling element in the country manage their private affairs in a careful, systematic manner, we may expect the government to conduct its business on approximately the same principles.


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/158

Rh fact myself have seen how, for all he could do, they were never turned out of their natural road.

Several ladies that I wot well enough, did he love and serve with all due respect and very high honour,—and even a certain very great and fair Princess, of whom he had fallen so deep in love before his going into Poland, that after he became King, he did resolve to wed the same, although she was already married to a great and gallant Prince, but one that was in rebellion against him and had fled to a foreign land to gather an army and make war upon him. But at the moment of his return to France, the lady died in child-birth. Her death alone did hinder the marriage, for he was firm set thereon. He would certainly have married her by favour and dispensation of the Pope, who would not have refused him his consent, being so great a Monarch as he was, and for sundry other reasons that may be readily imagined.

Others again he did make love to only for to bring the same into disparagement. Of such I wot of one, a great lady, in whose case, for the displeasures her husband had wrought him, and not able otherwise to get at him, the King did take his revenge on his wife, whom he did after publish abroad for what she was in the presence of a number of folk. Yet was this vengeance mild and merciful after all, for in lieu of death he did give her life.

Another I wot of, which for overmuch playing the wanton, as also for a displeasure she did the King, the latter did of set purpose pay court to. Anon without any vast deal of persuasion, she did grant him an assignation in a garden, the which he failed not to keep. But he would have naught else to do with her (so some folk say, but be sure he did find something to do with her right enough)


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/159

Rh but only to have her so seen offering herself in open market, and then to banish her from the Court with ignominy.

He was anxious and exceeding inquisitive to know the life of all and every fair lady of his Court, and to penetrate their secret wishes. 'Tis said he did sometimes reveal one or other of his successes with women to sundry of his most privy intimates. Happy they! for sure the leavings of suchlike great monarchs must needs be very tasty morsels.

The ladies did fear him greatly, as I have myself seen. He would either reprimand them personally, when needful, or else beg the Queen his mother so to do, who on her part was ready enough at the work. 'Twas not however that she did favour scandal-mongers, as I have shown above in the little examples I have there given. And paying such heed as she did to these and showing so great displeasure against them, what was she not bound to do others which did actually compromise the good name and honour of her ladies?

This monarch again was so well accustomed from his earliest years, as myself have seen, to hear tales of ladies and their gallantries (and truly myself have told him one or two such), and to repeat them too,—yet alway in secret, for fear the Queen his mother should learn thereof, for she would never have him tell such stories to any others than herself, that she might check the same,—so well accustomed was he to all this, that coming to riper years and full liberty, he did never lose the habit. And in this wise he did know how they did all live at his Court and in his Kingdom,—or at the least many of them, and especially the great ladies of rank, as well as if he had frequented them every one. And if any there were which


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/160

Rh were new come to Court, accosting these most courteously and respectfully, yet would he tell them over such tales as that they would be utterly amazed at heart to know where he had gotten all his information, though all the while denying and protesting against the whole budget to his face. And if he did divert himself after this fashion, yet did he not fail, in other and more weighty matters, to apply his visit to such high purpose as that folk have counted him the greatest King which for an hundred years hath been in France, as I have writ elsewhere in a chapter composed expressly upon this Sovereign.

Accordingly I do now say no more about him, albeit it may be objected to me that I have been but chary of examples of his character on this point, and that I should say more, an if I be so well informed. Yea! truly, I do know tales enough, and some of them high-spiced; but I wish not to be a mere chronicler of news whether of the Court or of the world at large. Beside, I could never cloak and cover up these my tales so featly but that folk would see through them, and scandal come therefrom.

Now these traducers of fair ladies be of divers sorts. Some do speak ill of women for some displeasure these have done them, though all the while they be as chaste as any in all the world, and instead of the pure and beauteous angel they really resemble do make out a picture of a devil all foul and ugly with wickedness. Thus an honourable gentleman I have both seen and known, did most abominably defame a very honourable and virtuous lady for a slight affront she had put upon him, and did sorely wreak his displeasure on her. He would say thus: "I know quite well I am in the wrong, and do not deny the lady to be really most chaste and virtuous. But be


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/161

Rh it who it may, the woman which shall have affronted me in the smallest degree, though she were as chaste and pure as the Blessed Virgin herself, seeing I can in no other way bring her to book, as I would with a man, I will say every evil gallows thing I can think of concerning her." Yet surely God will be angered at such a wretch.

Other traducers there be, which loving ladies and failing to overcome their virtue and get aught out of them, do of sheer despite proclaim them public wantons. Nay! they will do yet worse, saying openly they have had their will of them, but having known them and found them too exceeding lustful, have for this cause left them. Myself have known many gentlemen of this complexion at our French Kings' Courts. Then again there is the case of women quitting right out their pretty lovers and bed favourites, but who presently, following the dictates of their fickleness and inconstancy, grow sick again and enamoured of others in their stead; whereupon these same lovers, in despite and despair, do malign and traduce these poor women, there is no saying how bitterly, going so far even as to relate detail by detail their naughtinesses and wanton tricks which they have practised together, and to make known their blemishes which they have on their naked bodies, to win the better credence to their tale.

Other men there be which, in despite because ladies do give to others what they refuse to them, do malign them with might and main, and have them watched and spied upon and observed, to the end they may afford the world the greater signs and proofs of their true speaking.

Others again there be, which, fairly stung with jealousy, without other cause than this, do speak ill of those men whom women love the most, and of the very women


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/162

Rh whom they themselves love fondly until they see their faults fully revealed. And this is one of the chiefest effects of jealousy. Yet are such traducers not so sore to blame as one would at first say they were; for this their fault must be set down to love and jealousy; twin brother and sister of one and the same birth.

Other traducers there be which are so born and bred to backbiting, as that rather than not backbite some one or other, they will speak ill of their own selves. Now, think you 'tis likely ladies' honour will be spared in the mouth of folks of this kidney? Many suchlike have I seen at the Courts of our Kings, which being afeared to speak of men by reason of their sword play, would raise up scandal around the petticoats of poor weak women, which have no other means of reprisal but tears, regrets and empty words. Yet have I known not a few which have come off very ill at this game; for there have been kinsmen, brothers, friends, lovers of theirs, even husbands, which have made many repent of their spite, and eat and swallow down their foul words.

Finally, did I but tell of all the diverse sorts of detractors of ladies, I should never have done.

An opinion I have heard many maintain as to love is this: that a love kept secret is good for naught, an if it be not in some degrees manifest,—if not to all, at the least to a man's most privy friends. But an if it cannot be told to all, yet at the least must some show be made thereof, whether by display of favours, wearing of fair ladies' liveries and colours, or acts of knightly prowess, as tiltings at the ring, tourneys, mascarades, fights in the lists, even to fights in good earnest when at the wars.


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/164

Rh in his inmost heart he did curse his fate an hundred times over, which has so constrained him not to reveal, like the rest of them, his success and triumph, ever more sweet to tell of than defeat.

Another I once knew, and a right gallant gentleman, by reason of his presumption and overmuch freedom of speech in proclaiming of his mistress' name, the which he should have held sacred, as much by signs and tokens as by actual words, did come parlous near his death in a murderous attack he but barely escaped from. Yet afterward on another count he did not so escape the assassins' swords, but did presently die of the hurt they gave him.

Myself was at Court in the time of King Francis II. when the Comte de Saint-Aignan did wed at Fontainebleau with young Madame la Bourdaisière. Next day, the bridegroom having come into the King's apartment, each and all of the courtiers present did begin to vent their japes on him. Amongst others a certain great Lord and very gallant soldier did ask him how many stages he had made. The husband replied five. As it fell out, there was also there present an honourable gentleman, a Secretary, which was then in the very highest favour with a very great Princess, whose name I will not give, who hereupon declared,—'twas nothing much, considering the fair road he had travelled and the fine weather he had, for it was summer-time. The great Lord then said to him, "Ho! My fine fellow, you 'ld be for having birds enough toyour bag, it seems!"—"And prithee, why not?" retorted the Secretary. "By God! Why! I have taken a round dozen in four and twenty hours on the most fairest meadow is in all this neighbourhood, or can be anywhere in all France." Who more astounded than the said Lord,


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/163

Rh Verily the content of a man is great at these satisfactions.

For to tell truth, what would it advantage a great Captain to have done a fine and signal exploit of war, if not a word were said and naught known thereof? I ween 'twould be a mortal vexation to him. The like would rightly seem to be the case with lovers which do love nobly,—as some at any rate maintain. And of this opinion was that prince of lovers, M. de Nemours, the paragon of all knighthood; for truly if ever Prince, great Lord or simple gentleman, hath been fortunate in love, 'twas he. He found no pleasure in hiding his successes from his most privy friends, albeit from the general he did keep the same so secret, as that only with much difficulty could folk form a judgment thereanent.

In good sooth, for married ladies is the revealing of such matters highly dangerous. On the other hand for maids and widows, which are to marry, 'tis of no account; for that the cloak and pretext of a future marriage doth cover up all sins.

I once knew a very honourable gentleman at Court, which being lover of a very great lady, and finding himself one day in company of a number of his comrades in discourse as to their mistresses, and agreeing together to reveal the favours received of them to each other, the said gentleman did all through refuse to declare his mistress, and did even feign quite another lady to be his dear, and so threw dust in their eyes, and this although there was present in the group a great Prince, which did conjure him to tell the truth, having yet some suspicion of the secret intrigue he was engaged in. But neither he nor his companions could draw anything more out of him,


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Tariff

TARIFF (OF., Fr. tariffe, Fr. tarif, from Sp. tarifa, price-list, rate-book, from Ar. ta'rĭfa, ta'rīf, notification, inventory, from ‘arafa, to know). A schedule of duties or imposts levied upon goods as they pass from one State to another. A tariff may be levied upon foreign goods: (1) simply as a means of augmenting the revenues of a government, in which case it is a form of taxation (see ; ); or (2) as a means of retaliating upon foreign governments for similar restrictions imposed by them, in which ease it becomes an instrument of warfare serving a temporary purpose and designed in the end to secure commercial

or (3) as a means of fostering artificially particular industries by protecting them wholly or in part against foreign competition. See.

. Tariffs for revenue seem to have been usual among the civilized nations of antiquity. Among the Greeks, especially the Athenians, a tariff was regularly resorted to as a means of revenue. This tariff was laid upon both exports and imports, and an additional tax was collected from vessels engaged in foreign traffic for the use of the harbors in which they anchored. The regular export and import duty at Athens was 2 per cent., though in time of war, when the State was in pressing need of large sums of money, it was often considerably augmented.

Import and export duties were regularly levied by the Roman State also for revenue. The name for this tax used by the Latin writers is portorium, a name applied likewise to transit duties and bridge tolls. In the provinces and in newly conquered countries, duties were collected by Roman officials known as portitores and publicani, and the sums were transmitted to the Roman treasury. In some cases, however, the central Government, as a particular favor, allowed the subject State to make its own customs laws, stipulating only that Roman citizens should be exempted from paying any duties that might be imposed. In B.C. 60 all portoria were abolished by the Lex Cæcilia so far as concerned the ports of Italy; but Julius Cæsar soon after restored them. Augustus Cæsar still further increased the number of dutiable commodities, and a long list of those which under the later emperors were subject to the payment of a duty is given in the Digest of Justinian. The rate of duty at Rome seems generally to have been 5 per cent., but under the later emperors a duty of 12½ per cent. (octava) is mentioned as the ordinary tax on imports.

In the Middle Ages the feudal lords individually claimed and exercised the right of imposing transit duties levied on all goods that passed by or through their possessions. Hence, says a recent writer, “the rivers and high-roads were fairly lined with custom-houses and toll-gates.” When feudalism gave way to monarchy and strong central government, the kings transferred to themselves the rights that had previously been exercised by the barons. They, too, erected custom-houses at all their frontiers, and even on the boundaries of their different provinces. So universal did these duties, local and national, become, that every Continental nation was covered with a network of customs lines. Various cities also had their local customs duties, of which the octroi collected at the entrance to several cities on the Continent, notably Paris, is a survival.

In England we first hear of a tariff for revenue under King Ethelred in or about the year 980. At that time duties on ships and goods were levied and ordered to be paid at Billingsgate, London. They were first acknowledged as a part of the King's revenue in the reign of Edward I., who received them by regular grant from Parliament, if we may accept the assertion of Sir Edward Coke, quoted by Blackstone. But wool, skins, and leather were taxable at the royal

pleasure, these being the ‘hereditary customs’ of the Crown, known in the law-Latin as custuma antiqua. Subsequently, under the same King, special duties to be paid by foreign merchants only were levied (custuma nova), which were protective in their nature and not merely for revenue. The duty on ordinary goods in this reign was sixpence in the pound, which was raised to one shilling (5 per cent.) under Richard II., reduced to sixpence and again raised to eightpence, and finally fixed at the shilling rate, where it remained as late as the ninth year of the reign of William III. (1697). The King also had the right of prisage, i.e. of taking from every wine-importing vessel of twenty tuns two tuns for the royal use. This duty was called ‘tunnage’ to distinguish it from the other duties called ‘foundage.’ Customs duties were originally granted ‘for the defense of the realm,’ and especially for the protection of traffic on the high seas, and were at first given for a fixed period. To Henry VI., Edward IV., and their successors, they were given for life, until the reign of Charles I. whose unconstitutional levy of these duties without grant of Parliament formed one of the grievances against him. On the restoration of Charles II. the duties were again granted for life, and under William and Mary they were made perpetual and assigned to the payment of the national debt.

From an early period it was the custom in England to base tariff duties upon official valuations of imports and exports. A ‘book of rates’ containing such valuations is known to have been printed in 1545. The struggle between the first Stuarts and Parliament over questions of taxation was precipitated by the arbitrary action of James I. in raising the official rates without the consent of Parliament. In 1642 the latter body itself issued a book of rates without the assent of the sovereign. After the Restoration a new book of rates was issued in 1668 with the assent of both authorities. This enumerated as many as 212 articles for taxation ‘outward’ (i.e. export duties) and 1139 articles for import duties. Official valuations continued to be the basis for tariff purposes all through the eighteenth century, and this is one circumstance which makes it difficult to estimate correctly the value of England's exports and imports during that period. Another confusing practice which prevailed until as late a date as 1787 was that of assigning the proceeds from the duties on imports and exports to a variety of different purposes or ‘funds.’ As a consequence it was often very difficult even for customs officials to determine what was the aggregate rate to which a particular article was subject. Pitt's Customs Consolidation Act of 1787 did away with the separate funds by assigning all revenue from duties to the ‘consolidated fund.’ In this act some 1200 articles were rated for import duties and 50 for export duties. Another important achievement of Pitt's Ministry was the negotiation of a commercial treaty with France (1786) which went far toward freeing trade between the two countries from the restrictions by which it had long been hampered. The struggle against Napoleon caused the abrogation of this treaty, but it is no exaggeration to describe it as the first definite step in the direction of that free trade policy which England was to adopt some sixty

years later. The next simplifications of the English tariff were those effected by Huskisson in 1824 and 1825, which consolidated some 450 trade and tariff acts into eleven and reduced the rates of duty on many articles, particularly exports. One of the most important results of the long struggle for the abolition of the ../Corn Laws/ (q.v.) was to simplify still further the English tariff. From 1842 to 1846, 390 duties, including all those on exports, were abolished and 503 were reduced; in 1846, 54 were abolished and 112 were reduced; in 1853, 123 were abolished, and finally, in 1860, 371 more were abolished and virtual free trade was achieved. An important incident of the latter year was the negotiation with France of a new commercial treaty which lowered the duty on wine and placed such important French products as silks, gloves, etc., on the free list. For both countries the treaty marked a long step in the direction of free trade, but in the case of France the policy appears to have lacked the support of public opinion and was followed after the Franco-Prussian War by a reaction toward protection. The reduction and abolition of duties continued in England after 1860, the next important change being the placing of sugar on the free list at a sacrifice of some £6,000,000 revenue in 1872. On the outbreak of the Boer War the English tariff included only nine principal items, cocoa, coffee, chicory, dried fruit, tea, tobacco, wine, beer, and spirits. The extraordinary revenue required in connection with that struggle led to the restoration of the duty on sugar, to the imposition of an export duty on coal, and finally to the restoration of light registration duties on grain and flour (3d. and 5d. per cwt. respectively).

In the tariff history of France the two commercial treaties with Great Britain that have been referred to stand out as prominent features. Down to the time of the first (1786) the tariff policy of the country had been dictated by extreme mercantilist views of trade. The importation of many commodities was prohibited altogether, while others were admitted only on payment of high duties. Nor was the tariff confined to foreign trade. Each petty province of France had its system of duties, with the result that it was not unusual for the prices of even such common articles as the grains and salt to differ by 100 per cent. or more on the same day in different parts of the country. It required nothing less than the Revolution (decree of 1790) to free the land from these restrictions on internal trade. The bitter national hostilities which grew out of the Revolution and the brilliant years of Napoleon's ascendency effectually stifled the aspirations for freer trade which ushered in the period. From 1815 until the negotiation of the second commercial treaty with Great Britain in 1860, the tariff policy of France was highly protectionist. The latter treaty was one of the fruits of the Anglomania of Napoleon III. and was followed by treaties drafted on equally liberal lines with the more important Continental States of Europe, including the German Zollverein (1865). These reduced the rates of duty on French imports to from 10 to 15 per cent. ad valorem. The same liberal policy was continued substantially until 1881, when an act was passed substituting specific for ad valorem, duties and

incidentally increasing somewhat the rates. Protectionist sentiment increased alter 1881 and by 1892, when many of the commercial treaties negotiated at an earlier period expired, the country was ready for an out-and-out protectionist tariff, including not only high duties on agricultural products and manufactures, but also moderate bounties to producers of silk, flax, and hemp. At this time also the policy of providing maximum and minimum duties (see ) was introduced. Since 1892 there has been no perceptible abatement in the demand for protection in France, and while French duties are moderate in comparison with those of the United States, she must be included among protectionist countries.

The tariff policy of the States now forming the German Empire first assumed definite form in the German Zollverein (q.v.). The importance of this early federation for tariff purposes in preparing the way for the German Empire is generally conceded. From the point of view of tariff history it is interesting because it enabled Prussia, which was inclined toward free trade during this period, to dominate the tariff policies of her smaller neighbors. A treaty negotiated with Austria in 1853 reduced the duties on trade between that country and the Zollverein and the even more liberal treaty with France, already referred to, secured the same result for trade with that country in 1865. On the eve of the Franco-Prussian War the tariff of the Zollverein was practically a tariff for revenue only. After the war a reaction toward protection set in. This is clearly indicated in the tariff adopted in 1879, by which the duties on both agricultural and manufactured articles were increased. The policy continued to be only moderately protective until 1902, when an act was passed which made very substantial concessions to the advocates of protection to agricultural interests. Among the most notable changes were an increase in the duties on grains (the duty on wheat was raised from 32 cents per cwt. to 90 cents) and on draught animals (the duty on horses valued at $250 or less was raised from $2.50 to $22.50).

The changes in the tariff policies of France and Germany that have been described have been paralleled pretty closely in the other countries of Continental Europe. England's example and other influences caused a movement in favor of free trade to extend all over Europe in the decade from 1860 to 1870. This was followed by a reaction toward protection in the more important countries, which has gained in volume until in Germany and Russia, at least, the movement is comparable with the protectionist movement in the United States.

Outside of Europe England's free trade example has been followed only by two or three of her own dependencies (e.g. India). Protective tariffs are found in Canada, in the Australian colonies, and in Cape Colony, and are well-nigh universal among the independent sovereignties. No country has, however, gone further in this direction than the United States.

. The earliest tariff in the history of the United States was that approved July 4, 1789. It is interesting to note that the preamble of the act establishing it states that

one of its objects is “the encouragement and protection of manufactures,” at this early period laying down a principle afterwards adopted as the tenet of a political party. In 1817, at the beginning of President Monroe's administration. Congress abolished the internal taxes that had been made necessary by the cost of the War of 1812, and in his message the President recommended the imposition of a protective tariff pure and simple. A temporary protective duty had in 1816 been laid upon cottons and woolens, and in 1818 this was continued for a period of eight years. The rise of the party of Loose Construction, headed by Henry Clay, was favorable to the principle of protection, as the Strict Constructionists held that Congress could impose a tariff only for revenue. In 1819 a protective tariff bill passed the Lower House, but was rejected by the Senate. The election as Speaker, in 1820, of John W. Taylor, of New York, a declared high-tariff man, gave great encouragement to the Eastern manufacturers, and indicates the increasing influence of the protectionists, although in 1822 the Strict Constructionists were able again to defeat bills embodying the protective principle. In 1824, however, the friends of that principle secured a working majority in Congress, and after a prolonged debate adopted a bill whose essential principle was the exclusion from the American market of such foreign goods as competed with those manufactured in the United States.

In 1827 a convention held at Harrisburg, Pa. (July 30th), discussed at length the principle of protection. Only four of the slave States sent delegates. The result of the convention was a petition to Congress praying for an increase of duties on certain articles then manufactured in the United States, a request which the Secretary of the Treasury made prominent in his report of the following December. By this time a strong party had been founded to support the protective system, or the ‘American system,’ as it was popularly called. The famous ‘Tariff of 1828,’ adopted by Congress after a debate of six weeks, was the immediate result of this party's propaganda. This went further than any act had previously done in the direction of prohibitive duties. The chief articles on which protective duties were laid were woolen and cotton fabrics. At that time the value of the cotton goods annually imported from Great Britain was fully $8,000,000, and that of woolen goods about the same. The exports to Great Britain, on the other hand, of rice, raw cotton, and tobacco (the chief products of the South), reached the sum of $24,000,000 per annum. The Southern producers naturally feared that if the United States should by a high tariff practically prohibit the importation of a large proportion of British goods, retaliatory measures might lead to a diminution of the Southern exports to Great Britain. It was dissatisfaction with the tariff that led to the famous nullification movement in the South in 1832, in which year Congress, while modifying the act of 1828, distinctly recognized and retained the protective principle.

On March 3, 1833, the so-called Compromise Tariff, introduced by Henry Clay, was passed. It provided for the gradual reduction of the existing tariff until 1842, after which year the duties on all goods were to be 20 per cent. This

measure for the time allayed the excitement in the South; but by the year 1842 it was seen that the financial consequences of the steady reduction of the tariff were extremely serious, since the Government revenues had decreased to such an extent as to be less than the expenses. A new tariff was manifestly necessary. The majority in Congress passed a bill which continued the duties imposed by the tariff of 1833, and provided for the division of any surplus revenue among the States. This was vetoed by President Tyler as being a violation of the compromise reached in 1833. A revenue tariff was also vetoed, because it contained the distribution clause, but on its being again passed, with this clause omitted, the President signed it (August 9, 1842). In 1846 a revenue tariff that eliminated altogether the principle of protection was passed, its aim being merely to provide an adequate revenue for the expenses of the Government. A still further reduction of duties was made by the tariff of 1857, which fixed them at the lowest figures shown by any tariff since that of 1816.

In 1861 the Republican Party passed the ‘Morrill Tariff,’ intended primarily to protect American manufactures. Twice in the same year (August 5th and December 24th) the duties were still further increased, less for protection, however, than in order to meet the expenses entailed by the Civil War.

The problems that were injected into politics by the war, and by the conditions resulting from it, relegated the tariff question to the background for many years. During this period duties were raised with little opposition to an unprecedented level. After the close of the war other questions still absorbed public attention, and it was not until 1880 that the tariff again became an important issue. The Republicans in nominating General Garfield embodied in their platform a strong declaration in favor of maintaining a scale of duties that should continue to protect American industries against foreign competition. The Democrats began to urge the expediency of modifying a tariff which had been framed to meet the conditions of a time of war, and which, they claimed, was not merely hampering commerce, excluding the United States from the markets of the world, but fostering monopolies by preventing healthful competition. They therefore declared for ‘a tariff for revenue only,’ which was afterwards explained as a tariff that should give ‘incidental protection.’ In 1882 provision was made by Congress for the appointment of a commission to report upon the expediency of a reduction of the tariff. This reduction became a question of pressing importance, since the revenues of the Government had so far exceeded its expenses as to accumulate in the treasury a very large and increasing surplus, which threatened to disturb seriously the financial system of the country. The Tariff Commission made its report, and in accordance with its recommendations the act of 1882, a distinctly protectionist measure, was passed. In 1884, the House being Democratic, the bill known as the ‘Morrison Horizontal Reduction Bill’ for lowering the tariff was hotly debated, but by a combination between the Republicans and the Democratic protectionists led by Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania, it was defeated. The campaign of that year turned to some extent upon the tariff

question, for the Democratic platform, while evading the question of protection, demanded a real reduction of tariff duties, as well as legislation to check the aggression of great corporations. The election of Mr. Cleveland appeared to show that the cry of ‘free trade’ had ceased to alarm the great body of voters, and that they were willing to hear argument upon the questions at issue. The new President's first message (December 16, 1885) recommended a reduction of the tariff, and his message in December, 1887, was devoted exclusively to this topic. In it he stated that the surplus in the treasury was nearly $140,000,000, demanded as a remedy the immediate abolition of the duties upon wool and other raw materials, and characterized the existing tariff laws as “vicious, inequitable, and illogical.” In accordance with the views of this message a new tariff measure, the ‘Mills Bill,’ removing the duty on wool, and aiming at an estimated annual reduction of revenue of fully $50,000,000, passed the House. The Republican Senate offered a substitute repealing the tax upon tobacco and reducing the duty on sugar one-half, thus securing an estimated reduction of $65,000,000 per annum. Neither bill became a law.

The defeat of the Democrats in the Presidential election of 1888 was possibly due to the prominence of the tariff question, but as the majority of the popular vote was on their side, it was seen that a reform or, at any rate, a revision of the tariff was sooner or later inevitable. Therefore, the Fifty-second Congress took up the matter in earnest, with the result that the famous McKinley Bill passed both Houses of Congress and was signed by President Harrison (September, 1890). By its provisions the annual reduction of revenue was estimated to be some $66,000,000, of which $6,000,000 was due to a reduction of internal revenue taxes, chiefly on tobacco. A bounty was provided to compensate producers of raw sugar for the abolition of the duty on that commodity.

One very important feature of the McKinley Act was the section added through the influence of James G. Blaine, then Secretary of State, and known as the reciprocity section. This provided that whenever the President shall be satisfied that the Government of any country producing and exporting sugars, molasses, coffee, tea, and hides, or any such articles, imposes duties upon products of the United States which in view of the free introduction of such sugar, molasses, etc., into the United States, he may deem to be reciprocally unequal and unreasonable, he shall have the power to suspend by proclamation the free introduction into the United States of such sugars, etc., from the country in question. See ; .

On the return of the Democratic Party to power in 1893, an effort was made to carry out its promise of tariff reform. A bill framed by William L. Wilson passed the House, and after much amendment by the Senate became a law without the President's signature, August 27, 1894. It made a considerable reduction in many duties, admitted wool free, and provided for an income tax. It was still in the main, however, a protective measure. As a revenue law this act was a failure, partly because the

Supreme Court declared the income tax feature unconstitutional and partly because of the business depression which began in the summer of 1893 and caused a marked falling off in imports. The dominant issue in the next Presidential campaign (1896) was the silver rather than the tariff question, but the election of the author of the McKinley Act was naturally construed as a popular verdict in favor of the policy with which his name was identified. A special session of Congress was called in March, 1897, and after prolonged debate the Dingley Act, copied closely in its leading provisions after the McKinley Act, became a law. The duties on wool, woolen goods, cutlery, pottery, and a few other articles were made even higher in this act than they had been in the act of 1890. Lumber was restored to the dutiable list, and hides, which had heretofore been admitted free, were taxed, out of deference to the wishes of the so-called ‘Silver Republicans’ in the Senate, who made this concession a condition to their adhesion. The sugar bounty provision of the McKinley Act was not revived, but the reciprocity provisions were, in modified form.

"in 1898 (June 13th) the so-called ‘War Revenue Law’ was passed to supply the revenue required in consequence of the war with Spain. An interesting feature of this law was that it relied upon increased internal revenue duties and a purely revenue duty of ten cents a pound on imported tea rather than on changes in the general tariff to secure the additional revenue required. The war taxes were repealed by the acts of March 2, 1901, and April 12, 1902 (except those on ‘mixed flour’). During the session of 1902 to 1903 earnest efforts were made in Congress by members of the Republican Party representing some of the States of the Middle West (e.g. Wisconsin) to effect a revision of those clauses of the Dingley Act supposed to be favorable to the ‘trusts,’ but without success.

. There is a marked difference in form between purely revenue tariffs, such as that of Great Britain, and protective tariffs like those of the United States and Germany. In the former only the few articles subject to duty are enumerated and unenumerated articles are admitted free. In the latter all articles that may claim free admission are expressly enumerated in the so-call ‘free list,’ and other articles are subject to duty either under the special schedules or under the so-called ‘drag-net clause,’ which imposes a certain rate of duty on unenumerated articles. The German tariff of 1902 enumerated nearly one thousand different classes of commodities, while in the American tariff of 1897 the free list alone contains nearly two hundred and fifty separate items.

Another difference that has frequently characterized protective and revenue tariffs in the United States is that the duties in the former are mainly specific, that is based on the quantities or the number of units of the commodities imported, while in the latter they are mainly ad valorem, that is a certain per cent. of the value of the commodities imported. The preference of protectionists for specific duties is to be explained partly by the greater certainty of such duties, since they cannot be evaded by undervaluations, and partly by their conviction that

since protection rather than revenue is the object sought, the ordinary canons of taxation, which prescribe that taxes shall be in proportion to the value of the property taxed, may be disregarded. The identification of specific duties with protection appears to be confined to the United States, since even in free-trade England all the duties now imposed are specific. The administrative advantage of such duties, which are practically self-assessing, need scarcely be dwelt upon.

McCulloch, On Taxation (London, 1845); Sumner, Lectures on the History of Protection in the United States (New York, 1877); Ayers, Review of the Tariff Legislation of the United States (Newark, 1883); Mason, A Short Tariff History of the United States (Chicago, 1884); Hall, A History of Customs Revenue in England from the Earliest Times to the Year 1827 (London, 1885); Wagner, Finanzwissenschaft, especially the section on “Das Zollwesen Frankreichs und Englands” (Leipzig, 1883-1901); Bolles, The Financial History of the United States (New York, 1886); Dowell, History of Taxation and Taxes in England (London, 1888); Say, Dictionnaire des finances, articles “Entrepôt,” “Douane” (Paris, 1889); Goss, The History of Tariff Administration in the United States (New York, 1891); Taussig, Tariff History of the United States (New York, 1892); Leroy-Beaulieu, Traité de la science des finances (6th ed., Paris, 1899); Palgrave, Dictionary of Political Economy (London, 1899), articles “Import Duties,” “Export Duties;” Conrad, Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften (Jena, 1900), articles “Zölle,” “Zollverein;” Dewey, Financial History of the United States (New York, 1903). See ;


text:
Author:Adrian John France Collins

Works

 * On the Use and Abuse of History for Life (translator, 1909)
 * The Inequality of Human Races (translator, 1915)

title: Author:Adrian John France Collins


text:
Wikisource talk:Authority control

Where to search for an authors number
Can we add a column for where to search for an authors number? Or someway to search them all at once with the authors name. As an example the LCCN links either take me to Wikipedia or Albert Einstein's page neither of which are helpful when I am looking for a specific author. I still have not figured out how to find someone's number. JeepdaySock (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try to add something to the page. Briefly, however, WorldCat Identities is a good place to start, closely followed by VIAF.  There is also a gadget that can help a lot.  It is under "In development" with the description "Add a toolbox link to select and import a variety of authority control data from VIAF". - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Adam, that helped a lot. I have added the gadget and it seems to be very helpful, finding things in a couple minutes that I was spending nearly an hour not finding. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Template placement
This change, stating that "It should be placed at the end of the page, before the license." is not how it is in most pages I have checked.— Mpaa (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers.com paper ID
Could Newspapers.com paper ID (d:Property:P7259) be added? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

 * ✅, see The_Schuyler_Sun for example. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 17:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Vatican Library ID
There are two Vatican library ID properties in Wikidata: Vatican Library VcBA ID and Vatican Library ID (former scheme). The latter one is probably stored just for historical interest, it does not seem to work anymore. However, English Wikisource still uses it. Could it be replaced? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

 * @Jan.Kamenicek ✅. E.g. Author:George_Washington now has a VcBA link. Inductiveload— talk/contribs 11:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Worldcat identities ID not properly generated from Wikidata
If a Wikidata element contains a on it, but doesn't contain a VIAF ID or LCCN, authority control doesn't link the worldcat identities ID. An example is Author:Edgar Greenwood /. It does work when using, but it would be nice if the property also worked on its own. (This page also says that the parameter is just, but Module:Authority control says  ). --Pokechu22 (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've fixed this: diff. I've also enabled HTTPS for several links.  (See also: User talk:EncycloPetey) --Pokechu22 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

title: Wikisource talk:Authority control


text:
Page:Lives of Fair and Gallant Ladies Volume II.djvu/165

Rh who did learn by these words a thing he had longwhile suspected? And seeing that himself was deep in love with this same Princess, he was exceeding mortified to think how he had so long hunted in this quarter without ever getting aught, whereas the other had been so lucky in his sport. This the Lord did dissimulate for the moment; but later, after long brooding over his resentment, he had paid him back hot and strong in his own coin but for a certain consideration that I prefer not to mention. Yet did he ever after bear him a secret grudge. Indeed, an if the Secretary had been really well advised, he would never have so boasted of his bag, but would rather have kept the thing very secret, especially in so high and brilliant an adventure, whereof trouble and scandal were exceeding like to arise.

What should we say of a certain gentleman of the great world, which for some displeasure his mistress had done him, was so insolent as that he went and showed her husband the lady's portrait, which she had given him, and which he carried hung at his neck. The husband did exhibit no small astonishment, and thereafter showed him less loving toward his wife, who yet did contrive to gloze over the matter as well as she could.

Still more to blame was a great Lord I wot of, who disgusted at some trick his mistress had played on him, did stake her portrait at dice and lose it to one of his soldiers, for he was in command of a large company of infantry. Hearing thereof, the lady came nigh bursting with vexation, and was exceeding angered. The Queen Mother did presently hear of it, and did reprimand him for what he had done, on the ground that the scorn put on her was far too extreme, so to go and abandon to the chance of


text:
User:SriWahyuni

Sri Wahyuni is a science-teacher in a Junior High School: SMP Negeri 1 Kedawung; located in Cirebon, a town in West Java, Indonesia. One of her hobbies is reading. She loves to share knowledge, information, and experience with everyone all-over the world. Now, she is contributing in proofreading A Dictionary of The Sunda Language of Java was written by Jonathan Rigg in 1862.

title: User:SriWahyuni


text:
The New International Encyclopædia/Hagenbach, Karl Rudolf

HAGENBACH, hä'gen-bäG, (1801-74). A German theologian. He was born March 4, 1801, at Basel, where his father was professor of anatomy and botany. After being professor extraordinary at Basel (1824), he became full professor in 1828. He lectured to public audiences, and afterwards published several courses of lectures on the nature and history of the Reformation, on the early history of the Church, and on the Church history of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, which were gathered into a collected edition (1869-72), and after his death edited by F. Nippold (Leipzig, 1885-87). The portion relating to the history of the Reformation in Germany and Switzerland was translated by E. Moore (Edinburgh, 1878-79), and that on the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by J. F. Hurst (New York, 1869). Two other of his popular yet scholarly works have been translated — A Text-Book of the History of Doctrine (orig. Leipzig, 1840; 6th ed. by Benrath, 1888; trans. from the 5th ed., Edinburgh, 1880); and his Theological Encyclopædia and Methodology (orig. Leipzig, 1833; 12th ed. by Reischle, 1889; worked over by Crooks and Hurst, New York, 1884; new ed. 1891). He was an admired preacher (Predigten, Basel, 1858-75), and a poet (Gedichte, Basel, 1846). He edited the Kirchenblatt für die reformierte Schweiz (from 1845 to 1868); also the valuable series of biographies of the reformers of the Reformed Church, with selections from their writings (Leben und Schriften der Väter und Begründer der reformierten Kirche, Elberfeld, 1857-62, 10 vols.), to which he contributed the lives of Œcolampadius and Myconius (1859). He died in Basel, June 7, 1874. Consult his brief autobiography in Erinnerungen an K. R.

(Basel, 1874); and the fuller sketch by Eppler (Gütersloh, 1875).