fortunately exists largely throughout certain puritanical territories and in newer geographical sections that have been settled by the descendants of these puritans. It is a system handed down from the old country-school and academy, and has no excuse for any longer being in

existence.

"A deep difference in constitution expresses itself in the distinction between male and female, whether these be physical or mental. The difference may be exaggerated or lessened, but to obliterate them it would be necessary to have all the evolution over again on a new basis. What was decided amongst the prehistoric protozoa cannot be amended by an act of congress. The biologic difference between the sexes result in physiologic

and social differentiation. We must in

sist on the biologic conditions underlying

the relation of the sexes."*

There are many more reasons based on biologic laws which should make it plain to the understanding of all normal men and women why the sexes should be separated during the adolescent period. A successful educational plan must be based upon rational sex differences. This plan must be free from that antisocial being, the woman of "advanced ideas," and undeveloped maternal instincts. It is not possible for this individual to recognize any sex differentiation in her adolescent scholars. Also, the male teacher who has long been associated with a certain class of women teachers, girl pupils, and a few boys, is not apt to comprehend this differentiation which is so marked during adoles

cence.

It must be generally recognized, if we wish our future men and women to be normal, that there is a difference in fundamental sex ideas, feelings and emotions, —in the nervous organization of men and women, and that we cannot blindly mix them up in one educational hopper and expect to get the best results.

*Geddes and Thompson.

A certain subject in literature will leave opposite, or at least different, impressions in the minds of the youth and young woman hearing the same lecture, or after reading a certain lesson, these divergent interpretations being dependent upon the psychic and emotional differentiation existing at the time. A teacher wellinformed on the psychology of sex, when teaching a class of girls will state a fact in a different mood and manner, will express it in other colors than he would to a class of young men. When it has to be indifferently stated it ceases to leave a true and individual impression. The youth's view of life is distinct from that of the adolescent girl. At this time the difference between the sexes is greater is in every tissue, organ and faculty. than at any other period. The difference

which parents and teachers of the past It is a few of the foregoing facts, to have been blind, that has brought about the gradual feminization of the highschool. Other facts are, the greater number of girls over boys in the schools, and the unfortunate tendency towards feminization of the male teachers in consequence of being constantly in an atmosphere unnatural to male instincts. This demoralization is subtle, but certain, and also has its insidious effect upon the boys. Ambiguas in vulgam spargere voces.

On account of the large number of young women, as compared to boys, in high-schools, a great injustice is done to the boys who are obliged to remain. Boys need to be held to a different standard of conduct,-need a different sympathy and a separate knowledge of hygiene than girls; hence, if the school is regulated to the physiologic and psychologic necessities of girls, the boys do not get the personal care and instruction due them. If the differentiation of the sexes is ignored all the scholars are falsely taught, and with these the physicians will in later life have to deal. Many boys who are so unfortunate as to remain in high schools where no sex distinction is made, that is, where boys and girls

are taught in the same classes, become unnatural in spirit and ideals.

The women teachers do not appeal in any way to the virile or feral qualities of the youth. The want of rapport naturally causes the boys to remain indifferent to their lessons, and establishes a barrier for sympathetic relations between pupils and teachers. Many now go to boys' schools where teachers and scholars can come together in a bloody football contest or sympathetically in the study. This rational movement is rapidly producing an aristocracy in educational circles, but such a condition is preferable to feminization.

As President Stanley Hall remarks: "The present approximation of matter and methods in high-schools has at least certain elements of degeneration for both sexes. It repels boys from the upper high-school grades and virifies the tastes and ideals of girls, many of whom wish they had been born boys when our need is to push sex distinction to the uttermost and make man even more manly and woman more womanly."

Physicians for several years past have recognized the wrong done in mixed high-schools to the physiologic blossoming of the young woman. The fault has easily been traced to ignorance due to prurient prudery which has kept hidden the plain facts necessary to give parent and teacher warning. These facts have long been known to physicians, who have published their opinions, but unfortunately, these do not get outside of the medical journals.*

When a girl leaves school at eighteen she should be thoroughly prepared to become the best possible wife and mother. What is the consensus of opinion among medical men?—“that the majority of educated women in America reach a marriageable age in such a poor condition of health that it is a hardship for them to *Adolescence, President Stanley Hall, Appleton, 2 vol.

"The Present Method of Educating Girls,” Professor Lapthorn Smith. Read before the Amer

perform the normal natural duties of wifehood and motherhood."+

The male teacher is not competent to understand the varying moods of the young woman, nor should such an effeminate trait be wanted in a male teacher. Let the man teach along the lines of manly craft, woman in womanly craft. It is safe to say that a girl graduate of a mixed high-school has not learned one womanly craft of specific use to her sex. Many have no knowledge of the hygiene and physiology of their sex; many have perverted ideas, and some, ruinous emotions due to the abnormal atmosphere ever present when the sexes are mixed in daily social contact during the adolescent period.‡

This high-school atmosphere of feminity for adolescent boys is against all the laws of Nature and Man. Girls of sixteen to eighteen years of age are matured, are women ready to be married. What of the boys of that age? Rough, developing adolescents; healthy young cubs. They have different moods, desires and ideas. There is yet no psychologic change. They have not learned to apply their minds to books, and the healthy boy of seventeen must be expected to be far behind girls of the same age in this matter. Healthy-minded boys are young animals and should be allowed the freedom and license of rough play that their energy demands. This excessive physical energy directed into proper channels is the making of a man.

The

Two years or more in a classroom with girls changes this healthy spirit. boy tires of being told that the girls beat him in his studies. He realizes that his woman teacher thinks his nose needs washing, when in reality it is a bad bruise from football or a fight. Under these conditions he becomes indifferent and leaves school. If he stays, he runs great risk of becoming feminized.

Force the boy to constant association ican Academy of Medicine; Dominion Medical Monthly, December, 1904.

"Education and Sex Differentiation," William Lee Howard, M.D., New York Medical Journal, February 20, 1904.

and mental competition with young women and the tendency will be to develop unfortunate elements of maturity, and a too eager desire for the completeness of life. He believes he has laid the foundation of life, for his associations with young women have misled him. He has seen them mature, accepts their acknowledged condition of finished education, and also wishes to step into real life. Such has been the unfortunate results of the false education given the boy. All schools for girls and boys over thirteen years of age should be adjusted to sex needs and growth. This adjustment is impossible where the sexes are mixed in one school, and there cannot be that personal attention given where the teacher gradually degenerates into sex negativeness.

The young male teacher whose surroundings are marked by female boundaries soon finds himself in unpleasant fields. He is wrongly set in external circumstances and in the false perspective of social laws and physiologic demands. He is expected to instruct young women in material matters or abstract science at an age when there is the most spontaneous variation in all their womanly attributes.

The boys in the same classes are going through the age when the real boy's mind is figuring out baseball averages or building a canoe for next summer's camp. One portion of the teacher's class is romantic, curious and interested in the poets, or else dreaming of the knight to

come; another small portion of the class owns no manicure set, can understand the poetry in the English lesson as well upside down as right side up, and is thinking only of the practical, the business of the day, fishing or football.

The virile teacher under such conditions chafes and soon becomes disgusted and looks for his proper place, among boys whose mental attitude and physical desires he can appreciate and mingle with.

It is for this reason that the high-school seldom has a male teacher who makes any impression on the real boy, or any female teacher whom the boy does not treat as one whom he must tolerate but inwardly looks upon her as he does his young sister: "Oh, you're a girl! You would n't understand."

It must not be lost sight of that at the dawn of adolescence the boy makes for specialization, while the girl much more matured at the same age is generic. Certain studies which she will enjoy and easily learn, are hard and discouraging to the boy who has certain mental inclinations and probably already picked his calling for life. Man makes for proficiency in his investigations, not sterile erudition. The man must go to the sturm and drang of practical life. Even in the high-school the teacher must deal with the spirit of men,-" realizing the perceptions of the mind for a broad and catholic view of life."

WILLIAM LEE HOWARD.

Baltimore, Md.

IT

T HAS become a platitude among students of current events that the greatest issue before this and every other civilized country is not political in its nature, nor religious, nor judicial, but industrial. The evils afflicting modern society proceed from its economic organization, and not from its political, religious or judiciary institutions. This fact is becoming more obvious to the mass of people every day. It is seen that notwithstanding democratic forms of government and liberal education the most enlightened nations are suffering from the very same diseases that are prevalent under despotism, namely, luxury on the one hand, poverty on the other, and degeneration of the people as a whole. Hence the clamor for economic reform. The social problem is pushed to the fore. Radical measures are demanded. Curtailment of corporate greed, diminution of military expenditures, the housing of the poor, the establishment of national workshops for the unemployed, publicownership of natural monopolies, these and even more radical undertakings are beginning to agitate the minds of men and women. To the party who can satisfy this craving for reform belongs the future.

None of the old historical parties seem likely to take upon themselves the incubus of solving the social problem. Indeed, their chief care seems to be to evade it. At best they effect reforms calculated to satisfy the public for a time, but which are seldom, if ever, fundamental. The opinion is gaining ground throughout the labor community that nothing adequate need be expected from any of the old established parties. In England this fact is demonstrated by the remarkable gains of labor at the recent general elections, in Europe by the increasing

allegiance of the working-class to SocialDemocracy, and in America by the phenomenal growth within recent years of the Socialist party. And the Socialist vote is destined to increase by leaps and bounds. This is evident to persons avowedly opposed to the principles of Socialism. For weal or for woe, Socialism is developing apace in every country where industrialism has created a propertyless proletariat. The movement everywhere is growing, growing. It has long ceased to be an academic question, and must now be reckoned with in the practical world. The party possesses a vitality unsurpassed by that of any other organization. Though young politically, it is distinguishing itself in the arena of politics. In Germany it is the largest single party, that is, in point of votes, but not in point of representatives in the Reichstag; while in the legislatures of France, Austria, Italy, Belgium and Denmark Social-Democracy is an expanding factor. In this country the movement has not as yet made much headway, but its growth in the last half-decade has been very rapid. At the presidential election in 1900, the Socialist party polled 97,730 votes; in 1904, 391,587. There is no reason to believe that this rate of progress will not continue. Mark Hanna predicted that the two great contending parties in this country will be, not Republican and Democrat, but Republican and Socialist. Lord Rosebery is reported to have said that the impending struggle in England is between the "haves" and "have nots." Yerkes and other great financiers, besides many shrewd observers whose opinions are valued, have warned us that Socialism is the issue on the political and industrial horizon.

With these statements in mind, it is to be regretted that the principles and aims

of Social-Democracy are not more widely and better understood. The greatest revolutionary movement of all time, for such the Socialist movement is, surely merits the investigation of the publicspirited citizen. A party which comes forward with a definite economic programme and claims that in its programme is contained the solution of the social problem, a party which is gaining the ear of the people and threatens to revolutionize our civilization, that party is either a blessing or a menace to the State, and should not be ignored. If it is to be opposed, it should be opposed intelligently and with fairness. If it is to be sup ported, it should be supported rationally In either case an examination of its form ulated principles and objects, to say nothing of its personnel and literature, is desirable.

Lying before the writer are the programmes of the Social-Democratic parties of Germany, France, Austria, Belgium, England, the United States and Canada. Guided by a familiarity with socialist thought, he proposes to give a concise and lucid summary of these programmes. Some of the demands of the European Socialists would, of course, be superfluous in the platform of the Socialist party of America, but I have nevertheless embodied them in the summary. As Social-Democracy is avowedly international, I have deemed it better not to omit the items which have no application to American institutions.

PREAMBLE.

In the declaration of principles of all Social-Democratic parties is set forth the scientific basis of the movement. It is pointed out that the development of machinery and the factory system involved the suppression of the small or cottage industries and the consequent alienation of the worker from the tools of production. The effect of this industrial evolution has been the creation of propertyless wage-earners, who are dependent for their subsistence entirely on

their ability to sell their labor-power. Expropriation of the mass of the people from the sources of wealth production continues apace. The concentration of wealth and industry under the control of trusts and a privileged minority is sinking the middle-class-small employers, traders and middlemen-into wage-earners. Hence arises the division of society into two classes: the Bourgeoisie or capitalist class on the one hand, and the Proletariat or laboring class on the other. Between these two classes there is an irreconcilable conflict-a class-struggle, a struggle over the division of wealth between capital and labor. But labor is the producer of all wealth, and to labor, therefore, all wealth should belong.

Production to-day, owing to the minute division of labor, is social in its nature, but the ownership of the tools of production and the appropriation of the surplus value produced is individual. Thus it is that the labor of the many is exploited to the enrichment of the few. This injustice can only be corrected by the socialization of industry.

The competitive system is the root of all evil. The fact that large sections of the community are condemned to struggle for an ignominious existence, that insecurity has come to be the normal condition of society, that large bodies of men and women are unable to procure work, that widespread misery is periodically endured because of crises, that morality and life are unsparingly sacrificed for profit, that strikes and warfare are inevitable under capitalism, the fact that these things are the natural corollary of competition and individual ownership of the sources of wealth suffices to show the necessity of the economic reörganization of society.

The historic mission of the proletariat is the emancipation of labor from all forms of exploitation. This emancipation must be the work of the proletarians themselves. It must be based upon the principle of the class-struggle and be achieved through the exercise of political