There is nothing of intellectuality about the process, so far as we can perceive. If asked for her reasons, she has either none to give, or those she alleges are altogether irrelevant or insufficient. She is in this respect like the East Indian judge, of whom it was said that his decisions on points of law and equity always commanded respect till he gave his reasons for them, and that then they appeared to be ridiculous.

But whether the results of unexplainable mental vision, unconscious cerebration or of some other mysterious psychical process, intuitions often stand a woman in good stead, and are not to be recklessly disregarded by those for whose benefit they are evolved. Valuable as they are, however, in the absence of any better guides, it would scarcely do for the governor of a State to trust to them in the performance of his official acts, the judge on the bench to rely on them in questions of law, or the mathematician to wait for them to appear when engaged in solving a difficult problem.

But there is a peculiar neurotic condition called the hysterical which is ingrafted on the organization of woman, which, so long as it does not pass certain limits, is a normal feature of her being, and which is met with in a greater or less degree in all females of the human species. It is the result of the advanced development of the emotional part of her nervous system, and has existed, at least, since the earliest historical period with women of all nations, of all degrees of civilization and of all varieties of physical and mental traits. It is the cause of all the most charming features of woman's character and disposition, so long as it does not acquire an undue preeminence. But as it is at any moment, and often from slight causes, liable to burst out into unexpected and uncontrollable paroxysms in which all the mental and physical faculties are perverted from their normal course of action and thrown into a condition of the most astounding turbulence, its possession entirely unfits her for emergencies or difficult situations in general. In every woman there is, therefore, a potentiality for irregular, illogical, incongruous, and altogether inharmonious conduct under circumstances which require the utmost degree of presence of mind and discretion. She is in this respect not unlike a package of dynamite, perfectly harmless till some one disturbs the equilibrium of its particles, but then a power, the precise limit of which it is impossible to predict with accuracy.

At all times disposed to judge rather as she feels than as she thinks,-if she thinks at all on the subject at issue, she is entirely wanting in that type of mental organization known as the "judicial mind." Abstract justice in a case in which her emotions are involved is an impossibility with her, and however much this peculiarity may dispose those whom she loves, and who profit by it, to condone its exercise, it is one which those who are obnoxious or indifferent to her may well regard with fear and trembling. Her likes and dislikes are paramount with her; the question of right or wrong is a secondary consideration. She will sacrifice her own happiness, her life, and all considerations of duty to others and the public at large for some man whom she loves, and punish with merciless severity those who, though innocent of crime, have desecrated her ideals or have otherwise rendered themselves unpleasant to her. And it is also a notable fact that, in matters submitted to her judgment, in which she may originally have had no personal interest, and which, therefore, she would a priori be capable of deciding with impartiality, she becomes biased through some trifling act of kindness or courtesy shown her-a look, a tear will sometimes be sufficient-by one of the parties, and pronounces an opinion at which Justice starts back in dismay. It would not be at all outside of the potentialities for a female judge upon the bench to do all in her power to favor the plausible, handsome, gentlemanly rogue who tenderly cared for his sick mother and lame sister, though evidence as impregnable as Gibraltar showed him to have committed a crime; while the dirty, drunken blackguard and ruffian who cruelly beat his children would go to prison, if she could send him there, for an offense which irrefragable testimony might prove that he could not possibly have committed. Shakespeare, in his portrayal of the character of Portia, shows that he was thoroughly acquainted with the hysterical element as a factor in the mental organization of women.

The conferring of the franchise upon woman ought, in common justice, to carry with it the right to hold any office for which she might have the privilege of voting. Her sex ought, in such an event, to be no bar to her being a governor, a chief justice, or any other functionary named to office by the people or other appointing power. It is to be hoped, however, that matters will not reach a more advanced point than that to which they have already attained. Nothing could be more

derogatory to the true dignity of woman, or more unfortunate for the human race, than the dragging of her from the honorable position which she now occupies and for which her mental and physical peculiarities so eminently fit her, and the imposition upon her of duties which she could not, in the very nature of things, be expected to perform with efficiency and impartiality. There are many offices the functions of which are of a clerical or other routine character, for which she is admirably qualified, and which, therefore, she could fill with advantage to herself and the public. But those in which force of intellect, a power of disinterested judgment, and enlarged views of public policy are required, must ever continue to be occupied by man. While women remain in the sphere of life for which nature intended them we shall continue to see, as the ages roll on, better women, and, above all, better men to look after the interests of humanity according to their natural and unchangeable powers.

WILLIAM A. HAMMOND.

HENRY GEORGE'S SOCIAL FALLACIES.

THE course of economic discussion during the past few months has taken a wholly unexpected turn. Without any cause existing, so far as one can see, in the economical relations of society, the question of private property in land and of the influence of rent upon the distribution of wealth has been precipitated upon us almost as if it were a new question. Whatever may be true of France or Germany, never in England has the discussion of the equities and the economies of landed property been so active and earnest as now; while in the United States we find a large measure of popular attention bestowed upon a work, the fundamental proposition of which is that "the recognition of exclusive property in land is necessarily a denial of the right of property in the products of labor," and the author of which not only appears as a welcome contributor to the press, but is greeted in crowded public meetings as the apostle of great sociological and economical reforms.

Mr. George's work was published in 1879; but, though it had a ready sale and attracted not a little attention, it created its first sensation when reprinted abroad. In Great Britain, the success of this book has been truly remarkable.

"It is not," says the London "Quarterly Review," "the poor, it is not the seditious only, who have been affected by Mr. George's doctrines. They have received a welcome, which is even more singular, amongst certain sections of the really instructed classes. They have been gravely listened to by a conclave of English clergymen. Scotch ministers and non-conformist professors have done more than listen; they have received them with marked approval; they have even held meetings and given lectures to disseminate them. Finally, certain trained economic thinkers, or men who pass for such, in at least one of our universities, are reported to have said that they see no means of refuting them, VOL. CXXXVII.-NO. 321. 147

11

and thus they probably mark the beginning of a new political epoch."

Such a reception could hardly be accorded an American book abroad without awakening new interest and stimulating a wider demand for the work at home. There is no reason to suppose that Mr. George's doctrines have yet deeply infected the public mind of the country; yet the ingenuity and eloquence of the writer must produce no inconsiderable effect upon any reader, however intelligent and however fortified by economic study.

Mr. George's attack on landed property is twofold: from the side of natural rights, and from the side of the economic interests of society. With the former this paper has nothing to do. The appeal to such considerations, in the discussion of such a subject, is either absurd or impertinent, since, if "the social dividend" be increased by the system of private ownership of land, that system stands approved on economic grounds, and the appeal to natural rights involves a manifest absurdity as an appeal against the interests of the party in whose name the appeal is taken; while if, on the contrary, the system diminishes "the social dividend," then is it condemned on economic grounds, and nothing further is needed to establish either the expediency or the equitableness of a return to common ownership. And this subjection of the tenure of the soil to economic principles is not something to which Mr. George will take exception. On the contrary, he claims to write as an economist. Let us, then, proceed to examine his work from this side.

I shall not enter into any discussion of Mr. George's proposition that "Wages are produced by the labor for which they are paid." Were this proposition false, we could concede him all the benefit to be derived from its use, and still disprove the main positions of his work. But the proposition contains much truth, although the author's efforts to disparage the importance of the contributions made to current production by capital accumulated in the past involve a fearful straining of economic facts and economic conditions.

As we said, the proposition that "wages are produced by the labor for which they are paid" contains much truth. So far, however, as the proposition is true, it is not original with Mr. George. Prof. Stanley Jevons, in 1871, announced the doctrine that "the wages of a workingman are ultimately coincident with what he produces, after the deduction of rent, taxes, and