Men cannot cause what is bad to bring forth what is good. Truth does not come out of error, light out of darkness, love out of hate, justice out of injustice, liberty out of slavery. No, error produces more error, darkness more darkness, hate more hate, injustice more injustice, slavery more slavery. That which we do is that which we are, and that which we shall be.

The great law of reproduction which applies without shadow of change to individual life, applies equally to the life of that aggregation of individuals called a race or nation. Not any more than an individual can they do wrong with impunity, can they commit a bad deed without reaping in return the results in kind. There is nothing more certain than that the wrong done by a people shall reappear to plague them, if not in one generation, then in another. For the consummation of a bad thought in a bad act puts what is bad in the act beyond the control of the actor. The evil thus escapes out of the Pandora-box of the heart, of the mind, to reproduce and to multiply itself a hundredfold and in a hundred ways in the complex relationships of men with men in human society. And then it returns not as it issued singly, but with its related brood of ill consequences:

"But in these cases,

We still have judgment here; that we but teach Bloody instructions, which being taught return To plague the inventor: this even-handed justice Commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice To our own lips."

The ship which landed at Jamestown in 1619 with a cargo of African slaves for Virginia plantations, imported at the same time into America with its slavecargo certain seed-principles of wrong. As the slaves reproduced after their kind, so did these seed-principles of wrong reproduce likewise after their kind. Wherever slavery rooted itself, they rooted themselves also. The one followed the other with the regularity of a law of nature, the invariability of the law of cause and effect. As slavery grew and multiplied and spread itself over the

land, the evils begotten of slavery grew, and multiplied, and spread themselves over the life of the people, black and white alike. The winds which blew North carried the seeds, and the winds which blew South; and wherever they went, wherever they fell, whether East or West, they sprang up to bear fruit in the characters of men, in the conduct of a growing people.

The enslavement of one race by another produces necessarily certain moral effects upon both races, moral deterioration of the masters, moral degradation of the slaves. The deeper the degradation of the one, the greater will be the deterioration of the other, and vice versa. Indeed, slavery is a breeding-bed, a sort of compost heap, where the best qualities of both races decay and become food for the worst. The brute appetites and passions of the two act and react on the moral natures of each race with demoralizing effects. The subjection of the will of one race under such circumstances to the will of another begets in the race that rules cruelty and tyranny, and in the one that is ruled, fear, cunning and deceit. The lust, the passions, of the master-class act powerfully on the lust, the passions, of the slave-class, and those of the slave-class react not less powerfully on those of the master-class. The greater the cruelty, tyranny and lust of the one, the greater will be the cunning, deceit and lust of the other. And there is no help for this so long as the one race rules and the other race is ruled, so long as there exists between them in the state inequality of rights, of conditions, based solely on the racehood of each.

If two races live together on the same land and under the same government as master and slave, or as superior and inferior, there will grow up in time two moral standards in consequence of the two races living together under such conditions. The master or superior race will have one standard to regulate the conduct of individuals belonging to it in respect to one another, and another

standard to regulate the conduct of those selfsame individuals in respect to individuals of the slave or inferior race. Action which would be considered bad if done by an individual of the former race to another individual of the same race, may not be regarded as bad at all, or at least in anything like the same degree, if done to an individual of the latter race. On the other hand, if the same offence were committed by an individual of the slave or inferior race against an individual of the master or superior race, it would not only be deemed bad, but be treated as very bad./

With the evolution of the double moral standard and its application to the conduct of these two sets of individuals in the state, there grows up in the life of both classes no little confusion in respect to moral ideas, no little confusion in respect to simple questions of right and wrong. Nor is this surprising. The results of such a double standard of morals could not possibly be different so long as human nature is what it is. The natural man takes instinctively to the double standard, to any scheme of morals which makes it easy for him to sin and difficult for a brother or an enemy to do likewise. And this is exactly what our American double standard does practically in the South for both races, but especially for the dominant race, for example, in regard to all that group of actions which grows out of the relations of the sexes in Southern society.

What relations do the Southern males of the white race sustain to the females of both races? Are these relations confined strictly to the females of their own race? Or, do they extend to the females of the black race? Speaking frankly, we all know what the instinct of the male animal is, and man, after all, is physically a male animal. He is by nature one of the most polygamous of male animals. There goes on in some form among the human males, as among other males, a constant struggle for the females. In polygamous countries each man obtains

as many wives as he can purchase and support. In monogamous countries he is limited by law to one wife, whether he is able to maintain a plurality of wives or not. When he marries this one woman the law defines his relations to her and also to the children who may issue from such a union. But the man-I am talking broadly-is at heart a polygamist still. The mere animal instinct in his blood inclines him to run after, to obtain possession of other wives. To give way to this inclination in monogamous countries he knows to be attended with danger, to be fraught with sundry grievous consequences to himself. He is liable to his wife, for example, in an action for divorce on the ground of adultery. He is liable to be prosecuted criminally on the same charge by the state, and to be sent to prison for a term of years. But this is not the end of his troubles. Public opinion, society, falls foul of him also in consequence of his misconduct. He loses social recognition, the respect of his fellows, becomes in common parlance a disgraced man. The one-wife country is grounded on the inviolability of the seventh commandment. All the sanctions of law, of morals, and of religion conspire to protect the wife against the roving propensities of the husband, combine to curb his male instinct to run after many women, to practice plural marriages. There thus grows up in the breast of the race, is transmitted to each man with the accumulated strength of social heredity, a feeling of personal fear, a sense of moral obligation, which together war against his male instinct for promiscuous sexual intercourse, and make for male purity, for male fidelity to the one-wife idea, to the one-wife institution. The birth of this wholesome fear in society is the beginning of wisdom in monogamous countries. And unless this sense of moral obligation is able to maintain its ascendancy in those countries, the male sexual instinct to practice plural marriages will reassert itself, will revert, if not openly then secretly, to a state of

nature, to illicit relations. But every tendency to such reassertion, or reversion, is effectively checked in a land where national morals are sound, are pure, by wise laws which a strong, an uncompromising public sentiment makes and executes impartially against all offend

ers.

That is the case in respect to monogamous countries inhabited by a homogeneous population. In such countries where there exist no differences of race, where there is no such thing as a dominant and a subject race, the national standard of morals is single, the sexual problem is accordingly simple and yields readily, uniformly, to the single standard regulation or treatment. The "Thou shalt not" of the law applies equally to all males in their relations to all females in general, and to the one female in particular. No confusion ensues in law or in fact in respect to the subject, to the practical application of the rule to the moral conduct of individuals. Fornication, adultery, marriage and concubinage are not interpreted by public sentiment to mean one thing for one class of individuals, and another thing for another class under the same law. There are no legal double standards, no moral double standards. The moral eye of society, under these circumstances, is single, the legal eye of the state is likewise single, and the eye of the whole people becomes in consequence full of moral light. Marriage is held to be sacred by the state, by society, and adultery or the breach of the marriage-vow or obliga

tion is held accordingly to be sacrilege, one of the greatest of crimes.

The man who seduces another man's wife in such a society, in such a state, is regarded as an enemy by society, by the state, and is dealt with as such. Likewise the man who seduces another man's daughter. For this crime the law has provided penalties which the wrongdoer may not escape. And it matters not whether the seducer be rich and powerful, or the girl poor and ignorant, the state, society, respects not his wealth nor his power. His status in respect to her is fixed by law, and hers also in respect to him. While in the event of issue arising from such a union, the law establishes certain relations between the child and the putative father. It enables the mother to procure a writ against him, and in case of her success he will be thereupon bound to support the child during a certain term of years. The state, society, does not yet compel him to give his name to the innocent offspring of his illicit act, but it does compel him to provide for it proper maintenance. Thus has the state, society, in monogamous countries restrained within bounds the activity of the sexual instinct of the human male, evolving in the process a code of laws and one of morals for this purpose. These codes are administered impartially, equally, by the state, by society, over all of the males in their relation to all of the females.

(To be continued.)

ARCHIBALD H. GRIMKE.

Boston, Mass.

TH

Part II.

`HE VALUE of the principles of the Mosaic system of Economics must be judged chiefly by the pathologic effect of their violation. This necessity results from the low percentage of observance as compared with the high percentage of violation. Before treating of the evils growing out of this violation, however, it is but fair to the Jewish people and due this discussion to call attention to the good that followed the observance of this ancient law that so sacredly guarded Land and Tools on behalf of all the people.

Most history is so written as to give the impression that the progress and prosperity of a nation is to be measured by the wealth of its predatory classes, the splendor of its palaces, and the magnitude of its cities. Rightly understood, however, such phenomena are but sure symptoms of national decay. This common error has led Biblical commentators to pass over the democratic period of Jewish history as unimportant. They see no greatness in this people until they reach the militarism of David, and the imperialism of Solomon. Indeed, some authors of high repute go so far as to say that there was no settled government during the period of three hundred and fifty years from Joshua to Saul. Some even assert that the political condition of the people during this period was only a sort of intermittent anarchy.

It was during this period that the Mosaic code regulating Land and Tools, as given in our preceding article of this series, was more or less dominant.

This is evident from the absence of prophetic denunciation of its breach, and of historical reference to injustice, violence and oppression exercised by the

stronger classes against the weaker, which are the burden of the books of both prophets and historians of later times. It follows, therefore, that either the Biblical commentators referred to are in error, or the Mosaic code of Economics was ineffective.

This issue justifies an examination of such available data as bear upon the case. As to political and social institutions as evidence of national progress, it is true that no splendid national capital was established, standing for centralized government, and no magnificent temple was erected to represent ecclesiastical congestion. Within twenty-five years from the crossing of the Jordan, however, thirty-one powerful chiefs, or kings, as they were called, were conquered and twelve states, as definitely organized and as thickly populated as our thirteen at the time our independence was won, were founded. Six district courts, with equal and final jurisdiction, were instituted in what were known as the "Cities of Refuge," with forty-eight courts of inferior jurisdiction in the Levitical cities. In these same cities were established forty-eight educational centers for advanced instruction, moral and intellectual, while from these institutions there went forth into every village and hamlet, at least twenty-three thousand trained teachers, supported at government expense, to instruct not only the children and youth of the nation, but the adult, as well, in the Mosaic laws, civil and religious, writing them on the gates and posts of the houses.*

A complete account of the achievements can be found in the concluding chapers of Joshua, and in Book V., Chapter I., of Jewish Antiquities, by Josephus.

*See Deut., 6:9, 11:20; Lev., 10:11; Ezra, 7:10; Neh., 8:1-18; II. Chron., 17:7-10.

Here are feats of political and social progress unequaled in either ancient or modern times, and in making this statement the writer does not forget the Pilgrims and Cavaliers of primitive America, nor the marvelous civic experiment stations now operating in Australia and New Zealand.

To attribute these achievements to Divine Providence without reference to the superior economic system adopted by this people at the beginning of their national career is to beg the question, as it is easy to reply that Divine Providence manifests itself to nations, if at all, through the institutions which they adopt or develop.

As to material wealth as a measure of progress and prosperity, achieved during the first quarter-century of this civic and economic Democracy, Josephus in the chapter above cited says:

“They had an affluence of great riches, both all in general and every one in particular, and this of gold and of vestments, and of other furniture, besides a multitude of cattle whose number could not be told."

This quotation indicates that much of the property was held as public possessions for the good "in general." while there were no great fortunes for the few and poverty for the many, since there was private-ownership of what was to be privately used, by "every one in particular." as "vestments," and "furniture" are mentioned as being owned in abundance by all.

While a considerable amount of this wealth was no doubt taken from the conquered Canaanites as spoils of war, the lands had been allotted some years before this, and much had been done towards developing the resources of the country while the conquest was in prog

ress.

Joshua in his farewell address to the tribes whose lands had already been acquired and allotted to them on the east side of the Jordan before the entrance

was made into Canaan, according to Josephus, says:

"For we shall always remember how own happiness for our sakes, and have you have put off the enjoyment of your labored for what we now have by the good will of God obtained, and resolved had afforded us this assistance. not to enjoy your own prosperity till you However you have by joining your labor with ours, gotten great plenty of riches."

It is fair to infer from the above that there was the heartiest coöperation, civic and economic as well as military, during this pioneer period, for Joshua in the same address says:

“We are all the posterity of Abraham, both we that inhabit here and you that inhabit there; and it is the same God that brought our forefathers and yours into the world, whose worship and form of government we are to take care of and are to most carefully observe; because, while you continue in those laws, God will show Himself most merciful and assisting you; but if you imitate the other nations, and forsake those laws, He will reject your nation."

Twenty years later, Joshua testifies to the continued prosperity of the nation in his farewell address to the entire people just before his death, as reported by Josephus:

"He put them in mind of all the benefits God had bestowed on them, which could not but be a great many, since from a lower state they were advanced to such a degree of glory and plenty.”

Thus closes a record of forty-five years of national life under the Mosaic code, in which the wisdom of economic democracy is completely vindicated.

During the remaining three hundred years of the Democracy there developed a struggle between the stronger and the weaker elements of the social body which showed itself from time to time both be tween tribes contending for political