a little of it go to an asylum for the blind, to an educational institution, or to the Church. We can recognize also the same spirit among certain men at the present day, who do not feel quite at liberty to spend all the wealth which has fallen to them by inheritance. It is their private property. And yet somehow they are conscious that it has come to them as a kind of trust, which they should hand down in part to future generations. There is an element of moral opprobrium which especially attaches to the extravagant use of inherited wealth. It is thus we see indications of this principle of the stewardship of property, beginning more and more in a variety of ways to dominate public opinion.

Human society appears, therefore, to be moving towards a solution of the problem. It cannot appeal to the reverence for fixed institutions, as a basis for private property. We do not settle the question by asserting that it was established by the laws of nature or the will of God. We cannot say that it has always existed, and therefore will necessarily survive. We may not even support it on the supposition that a man is entitled to the fruits of his own labor. But it does find better justification than mere expediency. We can believe that it is right to own property because it is sanctioned by the original owner of all wealth,-human society itself. It is thus that we begin to bridge the chasm which seemed to exist between conflicting sentiments of justice. We are still left to battle in mind over all those special scruples as to the ownership of particular kinds of property. Ethical science has in this its first proposition only made a beginning in dealing with the great problem. But until this one issue is settled the whole subject will be in a state of confusion.

A man can still justify himself in refusing to "divide" at the arbitrary demand of another. He may answer, “It is not through you alone that I have been able to acquire these possessions. Your labor has not been the only factor. I hold this, not in trust for you individually, but for all human society. When that authority demands it and will use it justly, I stand ready to give it up. What you yourself possess, though it be only one small coin, is held by the same principle of right.

You, too, when the ideal condition of affairs has arrived, may be called upon to cut that coin in two and share it with the brother who is lower in the scale of being, or less happy and fortunate than yourself. But until that time comes, we each remain the executors of our respective trusts." We are speaking, of course, only with reference to the abstract principle which justifies the idea of private property, and not as to the question how the wealth may have come into one's possession. In that regard each case would have to be judged by itself. We have been using the term "wealth," also, in the economic sense, whether existing as wages, income, or capital.

It might seem at first thought as if this stand-point to which human opinion was drifting, would offer a very insecure basis for private property. Personally I am inclined to take the other view. The institution is far more liable to survive if this attitude of mind rapidly becomes universal. A revolution would occur on this one issue only as a violent reaction, because men refuse to recognize their stewardship as the owners of wealth. What the iconoclast especially desires is that men may show themselves defiantly selfish and regardless of their responsibilities to society. It gives him the basis of his appeal for an overthrow. He is able to say, "This is what private property leads to." Civilization, however, is naturally conservative. If people do show an honest and conscientious desire to be true to their trust, it will be a long, long time before the revolution takes place. Under such conditions the changes would come gradually. Modifications of the principle might be introduced. But the most radical measures will not be tried, unless there is a clear and hopeless misuse of the trust on the part of the present owner.

Under any circumstances an institution can only continue to live for the reason that it is rooted in the convictions and sentiments of the great majority. It is because the wageearner says down in his heart "This is mine" of what is paid him on Saturday night, that the capitalist is secure in thinking "This is mine" of the income from his investments. They both accept the idea of private ownership. Change that sentiment and there will be a revolution. But sentiments of that

kind are most conservative. It requires a violent shock to overthrow them, if they have been long in existence. And so it is often said that if the present civilization were suddenly demolished, society would tend to revive with many of the same institutions. Up to the present time the sense of ownership appears rooted in human nature itself; and that is why the principle of private property dominates our civilization. But if there is an abuse of their trust on the part of the owners of wealth, that will certainly menace the principle.

We cannot prophesy that an institution of this kind will continue throughout all eternity. The same agent which called it into existence, may ultimately change it or remove it altogether. The power rests where it has always held its seat, in the hearts and wills of the people. As Friedrich Paulsen, one of the leading and most conservative writers on ethics in Europe, aptly remarks, "If it is true that expediency supports us in our private property, if it is true that we hold it by the consent of society as a trust for the race, the same expediency may finally demand that we surrender it, the same society may withdraw its consent and ask that the trust be used otherwise." But a change of that kind never comes suddenly. If it should occur, men would not wake up one morning and discover a revolution. They would only recognize it by comparing one century with another.

It is true, in discussing what justifies private ownership, we have not gone very far into the problem of property. Ethical science, like economics, is often very unsatisfactory when it attempts to deal with the burning questions of the day. It has a great deal to say about abstract principles; but on practical issues it is slow to help us out of our difficulties. We almost wish it would leave the cloud-land of speculation for awhile and come down to our every-day life. The human nature which has been becoming more refined in its scruples may by and by harden again, unless it finds some method for interpreting those scruples. The conscience of to-day is remarkably sensitive about some things and singularly callous about others. It appeals for enlightenment to the science of ethics.

It is to be hoped that ethics will respond to the appeal. The unusual sensitiveness which is manifest in reference to the element of right and wrong in the ownership of property, ought not to be allowed to die away. The best and clearest minds of the present time should give it their closest attention. The principle of the stewardship of wealth must receive a definite meaning. We do not recognize it simply by feeling it to be true, but by acting up to it. The main issue is still before us when we ask how to apply the principle. How can men show that they regard what they possess as a trust for human society? Should they hold it, spend it, or give it away? They have to determine what it implies to be an executor of a trust. They themselves are a part of this same organized society. Can they honestly and conscientiously devote a large portion of what is in their lands, to their own uses? Ought they rather distribute it in giving labor to others? Men are groping about for an answer. But it is most encouraging that they care for an answer at all. Even a spasmodic recognition of the principle is of some value.

I have only ventured to suggest the first introductory thought to this great subject. It may seem a dry and barren topic to the idealist. There is something so materialistic about the very idea of property. It appears to contaminate the people who deal with it. Refined natures shrink from the touch of it. And yet by the higher methods used in reference to it we can mark both the ethical and religious progress of mankind. It is of the earth, earthy; but when we say "thine" and "mine" in speaking of it, we make it the temple of ideal forces which are to shape the higher destinies of the world.

We can but hope that writers on ethics will realize more and more the importance of this whole subject. A vast field for the most searching investigation lies before us. The higher life of the race of man hangs in the balance. As yet human society has only just begun to grasp the first principle. Even that, however, is a great deal.

We can still say, "This is mine." But, just as men have been accustomed to look upward and add, "to be used in Thy service because Thou hast given it to me,"-so also, as they

look outward over the race of men to which they belong, while thinking "This is mine," they whisper solemnly, addressing now, on the other hand, that vast human brotherhood, "to be used in thy service because thou hast given it to me." From this attitude we can still justify private property. W. L. SHELDON.

ST. LOUIS.

THE EFFECTS OF HIS OCCUPATION UPON THE PHYSICIAN.

WHAT influence, if any, is exerted upon the mental faculties and moral qualities of members of the medical profession by the special education which they have received, and the peculiar nature of their work? This is the question to which an answer is requested by the INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ETHICS, and it is one which it is much easier to ask than to reply to. It has, however, been answered, more or less directly, by many physicians, in the form of orations, eulogies, and valedictory addresses; and, from one point of view, there is nothing to be said in addition to what is contained in "The Man as Doctor," by Dr. E. W. Emerson, and in "The Conduct of the Medical Life," by Dr. Weir Mitchell. In this paper, therefore, physicians will find no new ideas. The body of men constituting what the world in general knows as "the medical profession" is by no means a homogeneous one in any respect, physically, mentally, or morally, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make any general statement as to the characteristics of this body to which it would not be easy to find exceptions, not merely as to individuals, but as to groups of individuals. The general practitioner or family doctor is subjected to influences, and has interests, which are somewhat different from those which affect the specialist, the investigator and teacher, or the medical official; and while opportunity and circumstance have no doubt much to do in determining to which of these careers a medical man finally devotes himself, yet his own personal characteristics, tastes,