of Hansen. These, like Leverrier's tables of the inner planets, are now more than thirty years old. These tables have been compared with observations, and agree fairly well with those made during the century preceding their publication, but not with those made before or since that time. The theoretical value of the acceleration of the moon's longitude is 6"; that found by Hansen from accounts of ancient total eclipses of the sun, 12". Newcomb, however, considers these accounts as unreliable, and, limiting himself to the Ptolemaic eclipses of the Almagest and the Arabian eclipses of th Table Hakémite, obtains the value 8".3, or, from the Arabian eclipses alone, 7", - a value but little greater than the theoretical value. Dr. Ginzel, from an extended examination of accounts of ancient and mediæval total eclipses of the sun, concludes that Hansen's value requires a change of only a little over I". His solution, however, in reality depends upon the ancient eclipses alone. The only other theory of the moon comparable with Hansen's is that of Delaunay. This theory, however, is limited to a determination of the inequalities in the motion of the moon due to the action of the sun, on the hypothesis that the orbit of the earth is a pure ellipse, and differs from that of Hansen in that the inequalities determined are not expressed numerically, but only symbolically in terms of arbitrary constants.

While the co-efficients of the inequalities upon which Hansen's tables are based seem to be pretty well known, I am not aware that the tables themselves have been sufficiently checked, except by comparison with observations. Apparently the great desideratum now is a set of tables computed from Delaunay's theory in a completed form, or computed in some other way entirely independently of Hansen's. Until Hansen's tables are thus checked, it is questionable whether it can be safely said that the motion of the moon cannot be completely accounted for by the law of gravity.

The detection of the two satellites of Mars by Professor Hall may be considered the most interesting recent achievement in pure discovery. It was not till the discovery of these satellites that a means was offered for the accurate determination of the mass of that planet. No satellites of Venus and Mercury have as yet been detected, and the values at present assumed for the masses of those planets are very uncertain.

In 1788, just one hundred years ago, Laplace published his theory of Jupiter's satellites. This theory is still the basis of the tables now in use. Souillart's analytical theory of these satellites appeared in 1881. The numerical theory was completed only within the last year, and the tables therefrom remain still to be formed.

Bessel made a careful investigation of the orbit of Titan; but the general theory of the Saturnian system which he commenced, he did not live to finish. Our knowledge of the motions of Saturn's satellites, with the exception of Titan, was very meagre until the erection of the great equatorial at Washington. A difficulty in the determination of a correct theory of the motions of Saturn's satellites is the fact that there are a number of cases of approximate commensurability in the ratios of their mean motions. The most interesting case is that of Hyperion, whose mean motion is very nearly three-fourths that of Titan. In this case there is the additional difficulty that their distance from one another is only about one-seventh as great at conjunction as at opposition.

Our knowledge of the motions of the satellites of Uranus and Neptune depends almost entirely on the observations made at Washington. Quite accurate determinations of the masses of these two planets have been obtained. The large secular motion of the plane of Neptune's satellite, to which Marth has called attention, needs confirmation.

The number of the asteroids is so great that they have been the frequent subject of statistical investigation. The systematic grouping of the nodes and perihelia which exists was shown by Newcomb to be the effect of perturbation. Glauser finds that the grouping of the nodes on the ecliptic is a result of a nearly uniform distribution on the orbit of Jupiter. Professor Newton had previously found that the mean plane of the asteroid orbits lies nearer to the plane of Jupiter's orbit than to the orbit plane of any individual asteroid. Eighty-five per cent of the asteroids have mean motions greater than twice and less than three times that of Jupiter; and the mean motions of none approximate closely either of these, the

two simplest ratios possible. The next simplest ratios lie beyond the limits of the zone; that is, there are no asteroids having mean motions nearly equal to or less than one and a half times that of Jupiter, and none nearly equal to or greater than four times that of Jupiter. The labor of determining the general perturbations and computing tables of an asteroid is as great as in the case of a major planet. It is no wonder, therefore, that tables have been prepared for scarce a dozen of these small bodies, and that these are already out of date.

Of well-known comets of short period, Encke's, which has the shortest period of any, possesses the greatest interest to the student of celestial motions, since it was from a discussion of the orbit of this comet that Encke detected evidence of the existence of a resisting medium which produces an acceleration in the comet's mean motion. This acceleration has been confirmed by the inves tigations of Von Asten and Backlund. The investigations of Oppolzer and Haerdt indicate that there is an acceleration also in the mean motion of Winnecke's comet.

We have thus glanced briefly at the present condition of our knowledge of the motions of the principal bodies of the solar system. Only four cases have been found in which we cannot fully explain these motions, so far as known, by Newton's law of gravity. The unexplained discordances are the motion of the perihelion of Mercury, and the accelerations of the mean motions of the moon and the two periodic comets just named.

If we go beyond the solar system, we cannot tell whether Newton's law does or does not apply without modification to all parts of the universe. It is principally in the hope of answering this question that double-star observations are carried on; and, in the case of the many binary systems already detected, Newton's law is satisfied within the errors of observation. Nevertheless, this evidence is purely negative, and its value, it seems to me, not at all commensurate with the labor expended upon it, unless it be in the case of such objects as Sirius, whose observation may assist in the solution of the problem of irregular so-called proper motion. The angles subtended are in general so small that relatively large personal errors are unavoidable; so that, even though their motions be controlled by a law or laws of gravity widely different from that of Newton, it is not likely that such differences can be proved with any degree of certainty. It is rather to the study of the proper motions of the fixed stars and of the nebulæ, and then only after a lapse of hundreds and perhaps thousands of years, that we must look for a solution of this question.

SOME PHASES IN THE PROGRESS OF CHEMISTRY'

SINCE the isolation of oxygen by Priestley, the search for new elements has been carried on vigorously, and the facilities for this pursuit have been much increased by the use of the delicate spectroscopic methods. The result has been to continually extend the list of bodies which are grouped under this head. The announcement of new discoveries during the last ten years has been especially large, over seventy bodies having been added to the list during this time. The largest number added by any observer has resulted from the joint labors of Krüss and Nilson on the absorption spectra of the rare earths, and reaches to over twenty. Should these discoveries be verified, the possible number of compounds which would result is something enormous, but, judging from experience, few are likely to survive a very searching inspection; yet one of them, 'germanium,' discovered by Winkler in 1886, has already been accepted as one of the missing elements in Mendelejeff's scheme, whose existence and properties he predicted.

Since the unit weight of hydrogen is taken as the standard for comparison, while the determination of the atomic weights of a large number of the elements has been made only through the intervention of oxygen, the ratio of the atomic weights of these two elements is the most important one to be determined, and many attempts have been made to solve this problem. The older experiments of Dumas and others were recently subjected to a careful scrutiny, and it was shown that they were not sufficiently exact. As

1 Abstract of an address before the Section of Chemistry of the American Associa tion for the Advancement of Science at Cleveland, O., Aug. 15-22, 1888, by C. E. Munroe, vice-president of the section.

the determination of atomic weights is of the greatest importance for the validity of the modern theories of chemistry, many experimenters of the greatest skill devoted themselves to researches on this subject, and, by means of improved methods, results of great accuracy were obtained. All these researches are of great intrinsic value and interest; but nevertheless they show, that even yet, with all the advantages of purity of material, perfection of apparatus, and precision of methods, united to great skill and extensive attainments on the part of the experimenter, the attractive hypothesis of Prout yet remains experimentally unproved. Many hold that the failure in the proof has been due to constant errors in the experimental processes; but Meyer and Seubert, from an elaborate discussion of the determinations of the atomic weight of silver and of those of the other more important elements calculated by its means, declare that they all contradict Prout's hypothesis in its characteristic original conception, and that it must therefore be looked upon as having been disproved by experiments.

Crookes suggests a hypothesis which may account for certain of the discrepancies in the atomic-weight determinations without resorting to the supposition of constant errors. He supposes that elements, instead of being composed of parts of matter which are identical throughout, are really composed of groups of particles which are only approximately alike, and whose weights only approximate to that average which we call the atomic weight. Hence it is possible that in different portions of such congeries different average values within small limits may obtain. Still it is remarkable that such close coincidences should result as have resulted from the observations made on material obtained from widely separated sources.

The determination of molecular weights is of nearly equal importance with that of the weights of the atoms. Thanks to Avogadro's law, we are able, when the substance can be obtained in the gaseous state, to determine its true molecular formula. When, however, the body cannot be completely volatilized unchanged, we have until recently been dependent upon isomorphism and the laws of molecular volumes and of specific heats, and upon analogical comparisons, to furnish us with estimates of the molecular weights. A new method of determining these weights was discovered by Raoult, who deduced a formula from the depression of the freezingpoint of solutions. He showed, that by knowing the weights of the substance dissolved and of the solvent, and by knowing the depression of the freezing-point, the molecular weight may be calculated. He has examined a large number of substances whose molecular weights had previously been determined by their vapor densities, and the results obtained illustrate in a remarkable manner the accuracy and general application of this new method.

There has long existed a conviction in the minds of chemists that the molecular constitution of bodies in the solid state was much more complex than in the gaseous, owing to polymerization; and the opinion finds support in the diminishing density and increasing molecular simplicity of such bodies as acetic acid and sulphur when subjected to high temperatures. By analogy this aggregation of molecules should proceed as we pass from the gaseous through the liquid to the solid state. Is it not, then, singular that the molecular weights derived from Raoult's method for bodies in a state of solution should be identical, or approximately so, with those deduced from their densities in the state of a gas? This method fails to afford any indication whatever of this molecular complexity in solids and liquids. Must it not, then, be assumed that the solvent has effected the complete dissociation of the complex molecules present in it? If so, this probably extends to all cases of true solution without chemical action, if such there be; and this is assumed in this method, for, although the solvent used has been varied, it has given similar results.

Until recently we have known little precisely about the nature of solution. It has been held by some to differ essentially from chemical combination, but no satisfactory solution was offered until Mendelejeff made his important researches on this subject. He says, solutions may be regarded as strictly definite, atomic, chemical combinations at temperatures higher than their dissociation temperature. Definite chemical substances may be either formed or decomposed at temperatures which are higher than those at which dissociation commences. The same phenomenon occurs in solu

tions: at ordinary temperatures they can be either formed or decomposed. In addition, the equilibrium between the quantity of the definite compound and of its products of dissociation is defined by the laws of chemical equilibrium, which laws require a relation between equal volumes and their dependence on the mass of the active component parts. Therefore, if the above hypothesis of solution be correct, comparisons must be made of equal volumes. The specific gravities are the weights of equal volumes; and, moreover, we must expect the specific gravities of solutions to depend on the extent to which the active substances are produced: therefore the expression for specific gravity, s, as a function of the percentage composition, p, must be a parabola of the second order, while between two definite compounds which exist in solutions we must expect that the differential co-efficient will be a rectilinear function of p.

ds

This theory has been proved by experiment, and not a single case was found in which it did not hold good. Later on, Crompton and Mendelejeff extended this theory to the discussion of electric conductivity of aqueous solutions, and the results have been very encouraging, being entirely in favor of Mendelejeff's theory of solution. Thus it is shown that even this seemingly simple process is very complex, and it is in the study of such processes that probably the most important progress in the theory of chemical processes will be made. This study will lead us to a clearer understanding of the properties of matter.

The evidence supplied by the various branches of chemistry has forced the conviction in the minds of many of the ablest chemists, that all matter is one, and varies only as it is acted upon by force; while, on the other hand, the transformations of energy which are continually to be seen occurring in nature and in art, as continually prove the truth of that glorious conception, the doctrine of the conservation of energy, and equally force the conviction that all energy is one, and varies only in its manifestations.

The belief in the unity of matter is as old as philosophy, and, as has been said, this belief has in recent times been strengthened to conviction by the development of such facts as I have alluded to above; and this conviction has been supported by the more recently discovered evidence that the properties of the elements are functions of their atomic weights, and that the elements, when arranged according to their atomic weights, fall into natural and periodic groups; for it is a fundamental deduction from the law of periodicity, that the various elementary atoms must be aggregations or condensations of one and the same primordial substance. Strong as the conviction resting upon this evidence may be, there is yet lacking the crucial proof; for we have as yet failed to observe the passage of matter from the form of one elementary substance to that of another, or the resolution of any element into or its creation from primordial matter.

The case for the evolution of the elements from periodical matter has been very ably summed up by Crookes, while, in addition, he has brought forward experimental proof of the possible existence of bodies, which, though neither compounds nor mixtures, are not elements in the strictest sense of the word. These bodies, which he styles meta-elements,' consist of different groups, which shade off so imperceptibly the one into the other, that it is impossible to erect a definite boundary between any two adjacent bodies, and to say that the body on this side of the line is an element, while the one on the other side is non-elementary. Yet by means of fractionation these bodies may be separated one from the other, and then they exhibit slight spectral differences.

Finally Grünwald has announced that during a mathematical investigation of the changes which the properties, and especially the spectra, of two bodies undergo when they unite to form a new substance, he discovered a simple and important proposition of a future chemico-mathematical theory of perturbations; and by its means he has shown the compound nature of hydrogen and oxygen, and has demonstrated the dissociation of hydrogen in the The method employed is a spectral one, and requires conditions which cannot be reproduced at the will of man; so that if it stands the tests of criticism, which is doubtful, it will not then enable us to witness the evolutionary process in actual operation.

sun.

Hence we find for the doctrine of evolution in the domain of chemistry, that the tests yield absolute results when applied to

compound matter; but the extension of the doctrine to the genesis of the elements is a pure speculation, and bids fair at present to be incapable of absolute proof.

ON THE INTERNATIONAL GEOLOGICAL CONGRESS, AND OUR PART IN IT AS AMERICAN GEOLOGISTS.'

THIS association, at the meeting in Buffalo in 1876, appointed a committee to consider the propriety of holding an international congress of geologists at Paris during the international exhibition of 1878, for the settling of obscure points relating to geological classification and nomenclature.

Through the efforts and influence of this committee a congress was held in Paris in 1878, at which representatives from this country and from almost all the countries of Europe were present, and the business of the congress as indicated above was fairly begun. A second meeting was held at Bologna, Italy, in 1881; a third at Berlin in 1885, at which some progress was made; a fourth meeting is to be held in London in September of this year, and it is to be presumed that further progress will be made in the two important subjects before it, — classification and nomenclature.

But a meeting of the congress must be held in this country, and American geology must be fully represented, before any conclusions can be reached which will be accepted by the scientific world. At the meeting in London an effort will be made to have the next meeting, that of 1891, held in this country. There is good reason to ask that a meeting be held here before the discussions on the important topics under consideration are closed. We think our field of observation an important one, better than that of any of the countries of Europe, and perhaps better than all combined. This was the opinion of the older geologists; and such, too, is the opinion of many active geologists of the present day. Therefore we may look for the geological congress here three years from this time. With this early notice of what is expected of us, it becomes us to make our preparations to show what we have done in geography and geology, and to enforce their claims to acceptance, as part of the material to be used in providing for uniform classification and names. As a profitable way of beginning our work, we inquire what are the points in each of these sciences which are settled, and what still remain to be worked out.

The foundation of all geological work is a good, reliable map of the country. Our country has greatly suffered from an inaccurate knowledge and description of our boundaries, in the north-east as well as in the south. Similar difficulties were encountered by the inaccuracy of surveys of State boundaries and land grants. It is true, these are not the points of interest in our association; but they furnish most potent reasons for making accurate maps, and they cause the supplies to be granted for making such maps. Good work in this line has been done by the Coast and Geodetic Survey and several other institutions, and its prosecution should be urged as rapidly as possible. But attention must be paid also to the topographic features, which are of equal value to the engineer, the farmer, the business-man, and the geologist.

The United States Geological Survey began systematic topographic work several years since, and it is now in progress in different sections of the United States. The maps are being engraved in the best manner, and issued as fast as they are completed.

We are far behind the countries of Europe in respect to maps of the whole country; but it is believed that our later maps will not suffer in comparison with the best of those of foreign lands, and, from some experience in directing such surveys, I feel warranted in saying that no public expense incurred in carrying on scientific explorations meets with such hearty recognition and approval as that for making and publishing such information in regard to the topographic features of the country in which we reside or travel. To us, however, geography is of most interest, because the forms and features of the earth's surface furnish a guide to direct us in our geological studies, and a means of recording their results with accuracy and clearness.

1 Abstract of an address before the Section of Geology and Geography of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at Cleveland, O., Aug. 15-22, 1888, by George II. Cook, vice-president of the section.

Geology, which treats of the structure of the whole earth, and which includes in its domain facts ascertained and principles deduced from all its parts, was first systematized from a very limited portion of the globe. It is not surprising that a system arranged consistently with the facts in a single country should not be comprehensive enough to meet the circumstances of all others. American geologists began by transferring the German, English, and French systems to this country. It took little time to find they did not fit the circumstances here; but, with that reverence for authority which is due from the younger to the older, we have been trying to make our geology conform to theirs. The effort is only partially successful, and we have to admit that something larger and more far-reaching must be devised before the science can be called a general one, applicable in all places.

It was probably some clear perception of this want in the science which led our fellow-members to move for an international congress of geologists, and now it is our part to see where the deficiency lies, and to do what we can to make preparations for supplying it.

The time is very short since geology was first studied in any systematic way in this country, and the advances have been rapid and large. From the time of Maclure's 'Observations on the Geology of the United States of America,' begun in 1809, and the establishment of Silliman's American Journal of Science and Arts, the growth of American geology has been rapid and plainly marked. The American Journal itself continues to be a repository of the advances of geological science. The Academy of Natural Sciences began the publication of geological papers the same year. During the ensuing twenty-three years, numerous surveys and reports were made, and the progress of geology was rapid.

On April 2, 1840, a meeting was held in Philadelphia, and the American Association of Geologists and Naturalists was organized. Of the eighteen present, thirteen or fourteen were geologists fresh from the field. The proceedings of the meeting, which was continued through a second and third day, are of interest to us as showing the problems which occupied them, something of the questions then settled, and of those on which they sought information and advice. Professor Hitchcock exhibited specimens of fossil footmarks so called,' and the association appointed a committee to visit the localities, and to report at the next meeting. The subject of diluvial action was discussed at this and the subsequent meetings.

Meetings were held by the association in the successive years, 1841 to 1847 inclusive, and it was then resolved into the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the first meeting of which was in 1848. The Section of Geography and Geology, now Section E of the American Association, is the representative of the society organized by American geologists to collate the individual work of each other, and to bring them into harmony of succession and name. It has already done much, and has reached the position from which it is prepared to do much more.

Many and perplexing questions have arisen in the progress of geology, some of which have taxed the powers of our ablest men. By continued efforts they are being solved. The Taconic question, the triassic formation of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the States farther south, the place of the American trias in the geological column, and other problems, received due attention at the meetings of the association. Some of these vexed questions were solved; in others considerable progress was made.

In the International Geological Congress the two topics for examination, and, if possible, for agreement, are the general system of nomenclature, and the colors to be used in making geological maps. It is, however, perfectly obvious, that, before agreeing on names to be used, the objects to be named must first be agreed upon; and it is evidently from the lack of completeness in the geological column in any single country where the geology has been well studied and described that the first difficulty arises. The order of succession of the rocks has been published, and names have been given to them; and, now that these have been in use, it is difficult to so change them as to make them a part of a scheme that shall be of universal application. It was this end which our association aimed at in their resolution passed in 1876; and, while progress has been made in the work at each meeting since held by the congress, it is

still in a very mixed condition. Great difficulties arise from the different languages spoken by the representatives of the several nations represented. Another difficulty arises from unequal representation. The attendance is voluntary, the members pay their own expenses, and the time and money required must hinder many who are deeply interested from attending the meetings; and this hinderance is greater in proportion as the distance from the place of meeting increases. The attendance shows this at the Paris meeting there were 194 Frenchmen and 110 foreigners; at the Bologna meeting there were 149 Italians and 75 foreigners; and at the Berlin meeting, 163 Germans and 92 foreigners. This, it will be seen, does not give general geology a fair representation when questions come up which are to be decided in favor of the majority voting on them. Such votes can only be tentative, and the decisions will hardly be acquiesced in until a more equable representation is brought to act upon the unsettled questions, and many more countries have been fully represented. They do, however, bring out the questions upon which action is to be taken, and prepare the way for a right decision. The congress at Berlin aimed to embody the present condition of European geological science and cartography by preparing a map of Europe in which the legend gave all the larger known divisions of the geological column, and the colors on the map showed their locations.

-

As it stands now in the list of names drawn up by the congress, we are reminded of the remarks of Whewell, made more than fifty years ago, that the advancement of three of the main divisions of geological inquiry has during the last half-century been promoted successively by three different nations of Europe, — the Germans, the English, and the French. The study of mineralogical geology had its origin in Germany; the classification of the secondary formations, each marked by their peculiar fossils, belongs in a great measure to England; the foundation of the third branch, that relating to the tertiary formations, was laid in France.

With the great accessions which have been made to the general stock of geological knowledge by American geologists, and the general publication of it, it becomes necessary that this should be incorporated in a work which is designed to be comprehensive enough to take in the geology of the world. This list of names for the members of the series undoubtedly satisfied the Europeans who voted upon them; but they are too local, too geographic, too strange, to have a place in any general series. Names must be given in describing new kinds or occurrences of rocks; but they should be provisional, and dropped whenever some more characteristic or generally appropriate name can be found. For calling attention to the several divisions, these names will be very useful, and by their general publication they can be brought to the consideration of hundreds of working geologists, who by their contributions and suggestions can throw light on the subject, though they may never be able to attend an international geologial congress. The advancement of science in modern time is brought about much more by the increased number of workers in the cause than it is by the greater attainments of a few men. With attention properly drawn to this position of geological science, with a great body of workers in the field, with an immense territory in which to work, and with a notice of three years in advance, we can prepare the case so as fairly to present the claims of American geology to a representation in a general system of geology. The congress went no farther in the lists of names: those of the fourth, fifth, and sixth order will be still more difficult to generalize, and it may be that it will be found expedient to leave the names of these orders to be given in the languages of the countries where they find their application.

It might tend to a more equitable representation of the views of members from different countries, if the number of votes to which each country should be entitled could be equitably settled, and the representation from each country should be in some way controlled by the whole body of geologists; but in a country like ours, where most geologists have active duties to discharge in the milder seasons when meetings are held, this cannot always be had. Besides, the work calls for an individual sacrifice of money and time, which many persons think they cannot properly make, either for the public good or for the benefit of science.

These are difficulties which attend the present arrangements for

work; and at present I can only bring them to your attention without offering any suggestions for their solution. The objects of the congress are worthy and useful ones, and they will be attained. To us they give direction and point to our investigations and studies, and they will be profitable by leading us to a fuller examination of the whole field of geological science as well as to a more careful and demonstrative study of special fields in which our individual work lies.

ALTRUISM CONSIDERED ECONOMICALLY.'

THE primary motive of human action has always been the care of seif, this being for man nature's first and greatest law. In his unthinking zeal he has often followed this to a degree unnecessary, and consequently harmful to others. In his savage state, and especially in his primeval condition, where he was subject, like all the lower forms of life, to the law of "the survival of the fittest," he could not consider others' interests, because they were so antagonistic to his own. Often one of two must starve, and each would let it be the other one. He did not even become conscious that he was so acting for a very long period of time. It was the progress from a being not human to the being called man when sufficient intelligence had accumulated to make him conscious that he could live and let live. That point was also marked by and synchronous with the acquirement of such weapons and such skill as enabled man to procure food enough to make the starvation of some unnecessary. Then the war for the survival of the fittest, as known to biology, ceased among men. Ever since, so far as there has been a struggle affecting the survival of the fittest (and that struggle continues to the present day in certain ways), it has been of a different sort, and one which must not be confounded with the biologic law of the survival of the fittest. Major Powell has admirably shown how the strictly biologic struggle has ceased in man ; but he has not yet shown, as may be, the character of that struggle, largely intellectual, which still works out certain survivals of the fittest.

Having passed from the point where, if he survive, it must be at the expense of others, man began to recognize and to consider the desires of his fellows; and among others he counted not only his fellows, but mythical and supernatural beings. Thus appeared the greatest natural basis of religion. It is not strange, therefore, that religion should have existed from very early times, and that it should have taught its votaries especially to regard the needs of others. Its mission was to teach a race whose ancestors had been absorbed for untold ages in caring only for self, to adapt itself to a new environment by learning to care for the wants of others. In caring for others the more powerful soon received superior recognition, so it came to pass that supernatural demands took precedence of the rest. When that point had become clear, men were easily tempted to profess to represent the gods, in order that they might share the precedence. In this natural way became established the order of duty which was taught by every religion prior to Christianity; viz., 1. To the gods and their representatives, 2. To self, 3. To others.

Early Christianity must be credited with changing the order of duty to the following: 1. To its one supernatural being, 2. To all others equally with self.

Even under this improved system, many people are led to make great personal sacrifices, in the belief that thereby they are living the noblest life possible to man, when in reality, as it is the object of this paper to show, their sacrifices are either useless, or, what is worse, grossly injurious both to themselves and to the supposed beneficiaries.

During all the untold years in which it was a physical necessity to regard self even to the injury of others, our ancestors acquired a predisposition thereto which heredity has brought down the stream of time. As being no longer a necessity, its practice long since became one of the recognized evils of the world. We apply to it the opprobrious epithet of selfishness.' There is a better term, and one which does not imply a moral quality, for there may be devotion to one's own interests which should not be so characterized. Egoism is such devotion to one's own interests: it may be proper,

1 Abstract of an address before the Section of Economic Science and Statistics of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, at Cleveland, O., Aug. 15-22, 1888, by Charles W. Smiley, vice-president of the section.

and it may be improper. The term does not imply either propriety or impropriety. Let the word 'self-interest' stand for justifiable egoism, and the word selfishness' represent unjustifiable egoism. Egoism, then, was once a necessity; and while it was a condition to existence, it was justifiable, whatever its effects on others might have been. When things changed so as not to render egoism a necessity, man was still as prone to practise it as before. He was acting under the acquired impulses of ages. It was an extremely difficult thing for him to repress his egoism; it was perhaps even more difficult for him to understand that he ought to do so. And yet the change of circumstances had produced a change in its moral quality. From the practice of self-interest he had passed to the practice of selfishness; and he had so passed unconsciously, for the change was in environment, and not in him. The same act that had been a virtue was now a vice. Of course, centuries were needed for this idea to develop and to be disseminated, but at length it came. Although the terms were not in use, the differentiation had taken place. The terms came when needed to express existing ideas.

Long after egoism had differentiated into self-interest and selfishness, came the idea of doing something for others. Man's powers were then so limited that this was not much. Even when he became capable, he was slow to discover it, and slower to act upon it. Heredity bound him. To loosen him was the mission of religion. Whatever its votaries may claim as to its history and purpose, the one great and overwhelming power that religion has had upon the world is this, — it has developed doing for others; it has turned man's attention away from himself to those not himself. A most excellent term to use for this is 'altruism,'- a term first employed only about fifty years ago by Auguste Comte to signify devotion to others or to humanity. Percy Smith, in his Glossary of Terms and Phrases,' defines it as "the doing to another as one would be done by ; opposed to egoism."

Such terms as 'benevolence' and 'charity' have been generally used to cover the idea of altruism; but in the mind of every one ' benevolence' and 'charity' involve the moral quality of goodness. It is of the greatest importance to have a word like 'altruism,' which does not imply any moral quality, and which covers all we do for others regardless of the consequences, just as 'egoism' covers all we do for self regardless of consequences or of moral quality.

That mankind has thus far regarded all altruism as good, is undeniably shown by the fact that neither English nor any other language has words to distinguish proper from improper altruism. This distinction has not been well developed. It was early seen that the motives were of importance. If we do something for others, it should be with a good motive. The act was declared to be of no subjective value unless the motive was lofty: thus, "Do not your alms before men to be seen of them, otherwise you have no reward of your Father which is in heaven." Calling attention thus to motives was doubtless a great advance upon the preceding times. This improved form of altruism was, however, indiscriminate. Nothing was said nor implied, in the above precept, as to the character of the persons to whom alms were to be given. Nothing was hinted nor thought of the ultimate effect upon the recipient of giving alms, much less of taking steps to prevent any needing alms.

For eighteen hundred years the world has had an altruism which failed to discriminate as to the object, and altruism has often been carried to injurious excess, and yet we have had about as good general results as could be expected under the circumstances. The early step from justifiable egoism to that which discriminated was a long one. From the mind resting on self to considering the immediate wants of others was a great advance. From altruism performed with selfish motives to disinterested benevolence was another grand advance. The order of human progress doubtless required a long discipline in indiscriminate altruism before men should learn to differentiate it by observing its results.

And yet, however grandly its maxims may ring in our ears, whatever praises we may bestow upon its advocates, and whatever satisfaction we may express with the past, the day for indiscriminate altruism has gone by, and we are confronted with present duty. To-day the only man who sells all that he has and gives to

the poor is the unfortunate one whom we shut up in the insaneasylum. To-day the only one who takes no thought for the morrow is the tramp or the beggar (the professional beggar has even sense enough to keep a bank account). Those extremes of altruism, non-resistance and self-abnegation, have been discarded. And why? Let us now recognize the virtue in them, and understand also just why they are impracticable.

The virtue of those precepts lies in their power to draw men away from self.

He who sells all he has and gives to the poor, may, if he is very badly eaten up with greed for money, discipline himself in the right direction; but in selling all, he has deprived himself of the means of self-support in sickness, and endangered the care of his family. But all this of subjective wrong might be perpetrated to curb a grasping spirit through the loss of property. That, however, which he had no right to do, he has done. He has pauperized the poor. The evil inflicted upon scores, and perhaps hundreds, is in their lessening of self-respect, the cultivation of indolence, the enfeebling of their already weak determinations, the putting farther away of that day when the poor shall be properly paid for their work, and the fostering of that reckless spirit, "The world owes me a living, and I am going to have it." If the next rich man does not sell out and distribute soon enough, they will thirst for his riches, perhaps for his blood.

Every single precept pointing to non-resistance and self-abnegation, while subjectively attractive, ignores the objective and ultimate effect; that is, they all seem to be of benefit to the doer, but make not an iota of discrimination as to the effect upon others, while in fact, as history has shown, and as we are now beginning to know, both are injured, but the greatest harm is done to the supposed beneficiaries.

But to consider the economic effects of altruism by means of which we are to distinguish justifiable altruism from unjustifiable altruism. Now that we have reached the study of social, political, and economic science, we are called upon to analyze the subject, to define our terms carefully, to be sure that we build our sciences on facts, and to state our conclusions clearly. And our conclusions are most hopeful. They are, that in doing real and not seeming good to ourselves we also benefit the race, that in doing good to others it is not necessary nor wise that we inflict sore deprivation or indignity upon ourselves, that thrift and wisdom consist in taking a reasonable thought for the morrow, and that in nothing so much should we take anxious thought for the morrow as when appealed to for alms or to assist the needy.

Better that they suffer hunger to-day and be made self-respecting and self-supporting to-morrow, than that they be fed to-day and then be forgotten to-morrow. We best help others by securing them full justice, and by refraining from injuring them either through malice or through giving them that for which they return no equivalent.

[Of the different forms in which altruism has been exercised in the past, Mr. Smiley has little to say in praise. As to the relief of the poor, he quotes the results of Mr. Low's investigations in Brooklyn, and of similar investigations in Cleveland and Cincinnati, where it has been found, that, with the cessation of out-door relief, the need of such relief has nearly vanished. He maintains that it should always be regretted when circumstances seem to demand attention to immediate needs, and that, if a friendly visitor is permitted to give alms, his and the minds of the receivers are diverted from the great object, the permanent cure of poverty. Orphanasylums and foundling-asylums he also severely condemns, holding that every foundling-asylum in America should be instantly disorganized; and in speaking of insane-asylums he considers it surprising, that, while rapid progress is being made in treating many forms of disease, so little knowledge is being obtained concerning the nature, causes, and cure of insanity, and insists that doing good to those now insane may not be of half the importance that it is to find means of preventing insanity in the future. Under the heads of Benevolence in Higher Education' and Gifts to Workingmen," he refers to the free education of certain classes of students, which practice he believes to be dying out, and to the fashion which wealthy people have of establishing chapels and libraries for the use of the working-classes. He believes that the working-men