SELF-DEPENDENCE.

By MATTHEW ARNOLD.

“Ah, once more,” I cried, “ye stars, ye waters,On my heart your mighty charm renew;Still, still let me, as I gaze upon you,Feel my soul becoming vast like you!”From the intense, clear, star-sown vault of heaven,Over the lit sea’s unquiet way,In the rustling night-air came the answer:“Wouldst thoubeas these are?Liveas they.“Unaffrighted by the silence round them,Undistracted by the sights they see,These demand not that the things without themYield them love, amusement, sympathy.“And with joy the stars perform their shining,And the sea its long moon-silver’d roll;For self-poised they live, nor pine with notingAll the fever of some differing soul.“Bounded by themselves, and unregardfulIn what state God’s other works may be,In their own tasks all their powers pouring,These attain the mighty life you see.”

“Ah, once more,” I cried, “ye stars, ye waters,On my heart your mighty charm renew;Still, still let me, as I gaze upon you,Feel my soul becoming vast like you!”From the intense, clear, star-sown vault of heaven,Over the lit sea’s unquiet way,In the rustling night-air came the answer:“Wouldst thoubeas these are?Liveas they.“Unaffrighted by the silence round them,Undistracted by the sights they see,These demand not that the things without themYield them love, amusement, sympathy.“And with joy the stars perform their shining,And the sea its long moon-silver’d roll;For self-poised they live, nor pine with notingAll the fever of some differing soul.“Bounded by themselves, and unregardfulIn what state God’s other works may be,In their own tasks all their powers pouring,These attain the mighty life you see.”

“Ah, once more,” I cried, “ye stars, ye waters,On my heart your mighty charm renew;Still, still let me, as I gaze upon you,Feel my soul becoming vast like you!”

“Ah, once more,” I cried, “ye stars, ye waters,

On my heart your mighty charm renew;

Still, still let me, as I gaze upon you,

Feel my soul becoming vast like you!”

From the intense, clear, star-sown vault of heaven,Over the lit sea’s unquiet way,In the rustling night-air came the answer:“Wouldst thoubeas these are?Liveas they.

From the intense, clear, star-sown vault of heaven,

Over the lit sea’s unquiet way,

In the rustling night-air came the answer:

“Wouldst thoubeas these are?Liveas they.

“Unaffrighted by the silence round them,Undistracted by the sights they see,These demand not that the things without themYield them love, amusement, sympathy.

“Unaffrighted by the silence round them,

Undistracted by the sights they see,

These demand not that the things without them

Yield them love, amusement, sympathy.

“And with joy the stars perform their shining,And the sea its long moon-silver’d roll;For self-poised they live, nor pine with notingAll the fever of some differing soul.

“And with joy the stars perform their shining,

And the sea its long moon-silver’d roll;

For self-poised they live, nor pine with noting

All the fever of some differing soul.

“Bounded by themselves, and unregardfulIn what state God’s other works may be,In their own tasks all their powers pouring,These attain the mighty life you see.”

“Bounded by themselves, and unregardful

In what state God’s other works may be,

In their own tasks all their powers pouring,

These attain the mighty life you see.”

By FRANCES POWER COBBE.

I have no sympathy at all with those ladies who are seeking to promote coöperative housekeeping—in other words, to abolish the institution of the home. There may be, indeed, specially gifted women—artists, musicians, literary women—whom I could imagine finding it an interruption to their pursuits to take charge of a house. But, strange to say, though I have had a pretty large acquaintance with many of the most eminent of such women, I have almost invariably found them particularly proud of their housekeeping, and clever at the performance of all household duties, not excepting the ordering of “judicious” dinners. Not to make personal remarks on living friends, I will remind you that the greatest woman mathematician of any age, Mary Somerville, was renowned for her good housekeeping, and, I can add from my own knowledge, was an excellent judge of a well-dresseddéjeuner; while Madame de Staël, driven by Napoleon from her home, went about Europe, as it was said, “preceded by her reputation and followed by her cook.”

Rather, I suspect, it is not higher genius, but feeble inability to cope with the problems of domestic government, which generally inspires the women who wish to abdicate their little household thrones. Some sympathy may be given to them, but I should be exceedingly sorry to see many women catching up the cry and following their leading to the dismaldisfranchisementof the home—the practical homelessness of American boarding-houses or Continentalpensions. I think for a woman to fail to make and keep a happy home is to be a “failure” in a truer sense than to have failed to catch a husband.

The making of a true home is really our peculiar and inalienable right—a right which no man can take from us; for a man can no more make a home than a drone can make a hive. He can build a castle or a palace; but—poor creature!—be he wise as Solomon and rich as Crœsus, he can not turn it into a home. No masculine mortal can do that. It is a woman, and only a woman—a woman all by herself, if she likes, and without any man to help her—who can turn a house into a home. Woe to the wretched man who disputes her monopoly, and thinks, because he can arrange a club, he can make a home! Nemesis overtakes him in his old bachelorhood, when a home becomes the supreme ideal of his desires; and we see him—him who scorned the home-making of alady—obliged to put up with the oppression of his cook or the cruelty of his nurse!

In the first place, if home be our kingdom, it must be our joy and privilege to convert that domain, as quickly and as perfectly as we may, into a little province of the Kingdom of God; for remember that we may look on all our duties in this cheering and beautiful light—first, to set up God’s Kingdom in our own hearts, making them pure and true and loving, and then to make our homes little provinces of the same kingdom, and, lastly, to try to extend that kingdom through the world—the empire of Justice, Truth and Love. We are entirely responsible for our own souls, and very greatly responsible for those of all the dwellers in our homes; and, in a lesser way, we are answerable for each widening circle beyond us. How shall we set about making our homes provinces of the Divine Kingdom?

1. Nobody must be morally the worse for living under our roof, if we can possibly help it. It is theminimumof our duties to make sure that temptations to misconduct or intemperance are not left in any one’s way, or bad feelings suffered to grow up, or habits of moroseness or domineering formed, or quarrels kept hot, as if they were toasts before the kitchen fire. As much as possible, on the contrary, everybody must be helped to be better—not made better by act of the drawing-room, remember—that is impossible—buthelpedto be better. The way to do this, I apprehend, is neither very much to scold, or exhort, or insist on people going to church whether they like it or not, or reading family prayers (excellent though that practice may be), but rather to spread through the house such an atmosphere of frank confidence and kindliness with servants, and of love and trust with children and relations, that bad feelings and doings will really have no place, no temptation, and, if they intrude, will soon die out.

One such point out of many I may cite as specially concerning us women. Is it not absurd for a lady who spends hundreds of pounds and thousands of hours on her toilet, and takes evident pleasure in attracting admiration in fashionable raiment not always perfectly decent, to turn and lecture poor Mary Ann, her housemaid, on sobriety in attire, and set forth to her the peril and folly of flowers in her bonnet? The mistress who dresses modestly and sensibly may reasonably hope in time that her servants will dress modestly and sensibly likewise; but certainly they will not do so while she exhibits to their foolish young eyes the example of extravagance and folly.

2. Next to thevirtueof those who live in our homes, theirhappinessshould occupy us. In the first place, no creature under our roof should ever be miserable, if we can prevent it. In how many otherwise happy homes is there not one such miserable being? Sometimes, it is the sufferers’ own fault; their minds are warped and despairful, and our utmost efforts perhaps can only cheer them a little. But much oftener there is to be found in a large household some poor creature who has fallen, through no fault, into the miserable position of the familybutt—the object of ill-natured and unfeeling jests and rude speeches, the last person to be given any pleasure, and the first person to be made to suffer any privation or ill-temper. Sometimes, it is a poor governess or tutor; sometimes, an old aunt or poor relation; now and then, but rarely in these days, a stupid servant; most often of all, a child, who is, perhaps, a step-child or nephew or niece of the mistress of the house, or, alas! her own child, only deformed in some way, or deficient in intellect. Then, the hapless, frightened creature, afraid of punishment, looks with furtive glances at the frowning faces about it, tries to escape by some little transparent deception, and only incurs the heavier penalty of falsehood and the name of a liar; and so the evil goes on growing day by day. It is astonishing and horrible to witness how the deep-seated, frightful human passion, which I have elsewhere namedheteropathy, develops itself in such circumstances—the sight of suffering and down-trodden misery exciting not pity, but the reverse—a sort of cruelaversionin the bystanders, till the whole household sometimes joins in hating the poor, helpless, and isolated victim.

My friends, if you ever see anything approaching to this in your homes, for God’s sake, set your faces like a flint against it! If you dislike and mistrust the poor victim yourself, as you probably will do at first, never mind! Take my word for it, the first thing to be done in the Kingdom of God is to dojusticeto all—to secure that no creature, however mean or even loathsome, should be treated with injustice. If you are, as I am supposing, mistress of the house, stop this persecution with a high hand; and if you have been in any way to blame in it, if it beyourdislike which you see thus reflected in the faces of your dependants, repent your great fault, and make amends to your victim. If you are not mistress, only a guest perhaps, or a humble friend, even then you can and ought to do much; you can look grave and pained whenever the butt is laughed at and jeered; and you can deliberately fix your eyes on him or her with sympathy, and treat him with respect. Even these little tokens of condemnation of what is going on will have (you may be sure) a startling effect on those whose custom it has become to treat the poor soul with contempt;and they will probably be angry with you for exhibiting them. You will never have borne resentment for a better cause.

Nor is it only human beings who are thus made too often household victims. You must all know houses where some unlucky animal—a cat or dog—beginning by being the object of somebody’s senseless antipathy, becomes the generalsouffre-douleurof masters and servants. The dog or cat (especially if it happens to be cherished by the human victim) is spoken to so roughly, driven out of every room, and perhaps punished for all sorts of offences it has never committed, that the animal assumes a downcast, sneaking aspect, which inevitably produces fresh and freshheteropathy. You attempt, perhaps, to give it a little pat of sympathy, and the poor frightened beast snaps at you, expecting a blow, or runs off to hide under a sofa. Mistresses of homes, don’t let there be a dog or a cat or a donkey or any other creature, in or about your homes, which shrinks when a man or woman approaches it. And here I may add that, without thus specially victimizing the animals through dislike, a household frequently makes the life of some poor brute one long martyrdom through neglect. The responsibility for this neglect lies primarily with the mistress of the house. She must not only direct her servants, butsee that her directions be carried out, in the way of affording water and food and needful exercise. A pretty “Kingdom of Heaven” some houses would be, if the poor brutes could speak—houses, possibly, with prayers going on twice a day, and grace said carefully before long, luxurious meals, and all the time the children’s birds and rabbits left untended in foul cages, without fresh food; mice thrown out of the traps on the fire, aged or diseased cats or superfluous puppies given to boys to destroy in any way their cruel invention may suggest, fowls for the consumption of the house carelessly and barbarously killed; and, worst of all, the poor house-dog, perhaps some loving-hearted little Skye or noble old mastiff or retriever, condemned for life to the penalties which we should think too severe for the worst of malefactors; chained up by the neck through all the long, bright summer days, under a burning sun, with its water-trough unfilled for days, or through the winter’s frost in some dark, sunless corner, freezing with cold and in agonies of rheumatism for want of straw or the chance of warming itself at a fire or by a run in the snow. And all this as a reward for the poor brute’s fidelity! When this kind of thing goes on for a certain time, of course the dog becomes horribly diseased. His longing to bound over the fresh grass, expressed so affectingly by his leaps and bounds when we approach his miserable dungeon, is not merely a longing for his natural pleasure, but for that which is indispensable to his health—namely, exercise and the power to eat grass; and, if refused, he very soon falls into disease; his beautiful coat becomes mangy and red; he is irritable, and becomes revolting to everybody, and the nurse cries to the children, who were his only friends and visitors, “Don’t go near that dog!”

I say it deliberately, the mistress of a house in whose yard a dog is thus kept like aforçat—only worse treated than any murderer is treated in Italy—is guilty of avery great sin; and till she has taken care that the dog has his daily exercise and water, and that the cat and the fowls and every other sentient creature under her roof is well and kindly treated, she may as well, for shame’s sake, give up thinking she is fulfilling her duties by reading prayers and subscribing to missions.

I assume that the master of the house, where there is one, will, as usual, look after the stable department. Where there is no master, or he does not interfere, the mistress is surely responsible for humane treatment of the horses, if she keep any. Further, I think every lady is bound to insist that any horse which draws her shall be free from the misery of a bearing-rein. She ought not to allow her vanity and ambition to be fashionable to induce her to connive at her coachman’s laziness and cruelty.

When the mistress of a house has done all she can toprevent the suffering, mental or physical, of any creature, human or infra-human, under her roof, there remains still a delightful field for her ability in actuallygiving pleasure. We all know that life is made up chiefly of little pleasures and little pains, and how many of the former are in the power of the mistress of a house to provide, it is almost impossible to calculate. But let any clever woman simply take it to heart to make everybody about heras happy as she can, and the result I believe will always be wonderful. Let her see that, so far as possible, they have the rooms they like best, the little articles of furniture and ornament they prefer. Let her order meals with a careful forethought for their tastes and for the necessities of their health, seeing that every one has what he desires, and making him feel, however humble in position, that his tastes have been remembered. Let her not disdain to pay such attention to the position of the chairs and sofas of the family dwelling-rooms as that every individual may be comfortably placed, and feel that he or she has not been left out in the cold. And, after all these cares, let her try not so much to make her rooms splendid and æsthetically admirable as to make them thoroughly habitable and comfortable for those who are to occupy them; regarding their comfort rather than her own æsthetic gratification. A drawing-room bright and clean, sweet with flowers in summer or with dried rose leaves in winter, with tables at which the inmates may occupy themselves, and easy chairs wherever they are wanted, and plenty of soft light and warmth, or else of coolness adapted to the weather—this sort of room belongs more properly to a woman who seeks to make her house a province of the Kingdom ofHeaventhan one which might be exhibited at South Kensington as having belonged to the Kingdom ofQueen Anne!

Then, for the moral atmosphere of the house, which depends so immensely on the tone of the mistress, I will venture to make one recommendation. Let it be as gay as ever she can make it. There are numbers of excellent women—the salt of the earth—who seem absolutely oppressed with their consciences, as if they were congested livers. They are in a constant state of anxiety and care; and perhaps, with the addition of feeble health, find it difficult to get through their duties except in a certain lachrymose and dolorous fashion. Houses where these women reign seem always under a cloud, with rain impending. Now, I conceive that good and even high animal spirits are among the most blessed of possessions—actual wings to bear us up over the dusty or muddy roads of life; and I think that to keep up the spirits of a household is not only indefinitely to add to its happiness, but also to make all duties comparatively light and easy. Thus, however naturally depressed a mistress may be, I think she ought to struggle to be cheerful, and to take pains never to quench the blessed spirits of her children or guests. All of us who live long in great cities get into a sort of subdued-cheerfulness tone. We are neither very sad nor very glad.

One word in concluding these remarks on woman’s duties as aHausfrau. If we can not perform these well, if we are not orderly enough, clear-headed enough, powerful enough, in short, to fulfil this immemorial function of our sex well and thoroughly, it is somewhat foolish of us to press to be allowed to share in the great housekeeping of the State. My beloved and honored friend, Theodore Parker, argued for the admission of women to the full rights of citizenship and share in government, on the express grounds that few women keep house so badly or with such wastefulness as Chancelors of the Exchequer keep the State, and womanly genius for organization applied to the affairs of the nation would be extremely economical and beneficial. But, if we can not keep our houses and manage our servants, this argument, I am afraid, will be turned the other way; and we shall be told that,nothaving used our one talent, it is quite out of question to give us ten. Having shown ourselves incapable in little things, nobody in their senses will trust us with great ones.

By OLIVER W. LONGAN,Adjutant General’s Office, War Department.

Lest the term “military prisoner” should mislead some reader whose recollection of the events of the late civil war, or of the stories concerning the treatment of prisoners brings to mind the captured soldier and his hardships and sufferings, it should be stated that a “prisoner of war” and a “military prisoner” sustain entirely different relations to the authority they serve. The former is a prisoner because of capture and detention by an enemy. The latter is a prisoner undergoing discipline or punishment because of some misdemeanor or crime committed against military law or regulations. In the greatest number of cases the offense is simply anabsence without leave, now calleddesertion, which is the act of one who wilfully absents himself from his proper command with the intention not to return to it again. A military prisoner may be called a convict, and he may be a criminal, but either name is inappropriate in its ordinary sense. It is true the prisoner has been convicted of an offense against a law, but if a single example may be used to illustrate the majority, his offense has not been prompted by a vicious disposition or an evil nature. His guilt is not such as necessarily indicates degraded impulses or base endowments, hence it is manifest that a well defined line of separation may easily be drawn between the military prisoner and the one who may properly be called a criminal or a convict. The reason is also manifest why the institution where he is to be detained for punishment should be one especially set apart for his class.

It has been stated that the majority of military prisoners have been guilty of the one crime of desertion. The fact is the number will reach eighty-five or ninety out of every hundred. It is proper in this connection to refer to some of the causes or supposed causes for the commission of so serious a crime which, if it could be entirely prevented, would reduce the number of “military prisoners” to an exceedingly small percentage of those who now suffer penalty for a crime committed without criminal intent.

The number of men who applied during the last year for enlistment in the military service of United States was nearly thirty thousand. Of the number applying only about one-third were found qualified. The other two-thirds were rejected on account of disqualifications either legal, moral, social, mental, or physical. About one-twelfth of those rejected were boys under the age of twenty-one years. About the same proportion were foreigners who had not sufficient knowledge of the English language to enable them to learn their duties. Now, if the standard for acceptance be ever so high it can not reach absolute perfection, for there are disabilities or disqualifications which it is impossible to discover, particularly under the effort which is apt to be made by the applicant to conceal his defects, until time and conduct develop them. Manifest defects there are in all who are rejected, yet some, in the natural order of things must come very near the standard, some again, who reach the standard and are accepted, have so little margin upon which they succeed that they are separated a very little from those who are rejected.

The motives are various which induce men in time of peace to relinquish the privileges enjoyed as civilians, to give up their freedom of movement and their right of choice in all things which aid in making up the sum of their liberties, and to voluntarily enter into an agreement obligating themselves for a term of years to render any service that may be ordered by proper authority and accept such remuneration and privileges as may be given them by the same authority, and they are perhaps impossible to enumerate, but it is known that many seek the service for a livelihood, others out of a desire for adventure, others to escape some threatened penalty or impending difficulty likely to result from the commission of some crime or misdemeanor. Very few enter the first time with any intention of making a profession so poorly paid their own, and none, it may be, have a good idea of what they are to encounter. They are met at the outset with lessons which teach them subordination to a commander rather than to a duty. They find that food and clothing are measured to them by a rule which makes no discrimination between them, and the one with great expectations is under no better care than the one of smallest desires. They receive treatment at the hands of petty officers which they choose to believe is cause for resentment. They incur sharp rebuke for some error or delinquency and seeking redress in their own way, as for an injury, they learn that “what in the captain is but a choleric word, in the soldier is flat blasphemy.”

Recollections of home, and repentance for the hasty act which separated them from it, and many other reasons, both real and imaginary, make them feel that they must escape from contact with the source of so many woes, and without designing to commit any crime they become “deserters.” It must be admitted that the responsibility rests upon the individual as the cause is primarily in him, and his surrounding circumstances are only secondary, but there is no act called “crime” around which so many mitigating circumstances may be found. We must view the matter as a disease, the conditions for which are favorable in a service into which men are hurried without any instruction in its duties. Theskeletonarmy, of which so much is required, demands the rapid replenishing of new flesh to take the place of the old that has yielded to the disease itself. The important question to follow is, what is the remedy and how is it applied? A preventive has been sought with care and diligence, but none has been found. A remedy then is the only recourse, and this must be applied in the shape of discipline or punishment for the offender. If he is of an inquiring turn of mind he may learn first of all that there is an exact measure of value attached to him as a deserter, and that for his capture and delivery to the military authorities the sum of thirty dollars will be paid in full liquidation of the service.

A few words concerning the instrumentalities through which the “military prisoner” receives his punishment will not be out of place. There are three—more correctly four—kinds of tribunals before which a soldier may be brought to answer for his misdeeds, and to receive judgment and sentence. The first to be mentioned is the “field officer’s court,” which can be appointed only in time of war. This court is one officer, either a colonel, lieutenant-colonel, or major of a regiment, who is detailed by order of a superior officer of the same regiment, or the commander of a brigade, division or corps. The officer so detailed is counsel, jury and judge, and may try the case of any soldier of his own regiment for an offense not capital, and impose sentence. The next in order are the “regimental” and the “garrison” court-martial, differing so little except in the source of appointment, that they need no separate description. They are composed of three officers, and may try and sentence any cases not capital. The authority of these courts with respect to the sentences they may impose is so limited that ordinarily only petty offenses are brought before them, but because of the form of punishment usually imposed the results are anything but beneficial, and it is a question whether it would not be better to wink at the offense than to sensibly degrade the offender and aid him in developing a disposition to repeat breaches of discipline until stronger hands are laid upon him. The last to be mentioned is the “general court-martial,” the appointment of which may be made by the general commanding the army, by the general commanding a military department, or in certain cases by the President of the United States.

The system of the military courts which have been mentioned is no doubt as carefully arranged as can be and contemplates as full recognition of the individual rights of the soldieras can be obtained before a civil court under civil law for a civilian. The selection of the officers to compose the courts is a matter of discretion in the authority appointing them, governed only by the exigencies of the service, but after their appointment they are under no restrictions with reference to the extent of the sentences which they shall impose in the cases of soldiers whom they find guilty of desertion, except that in time of peace the death penalty can not be inflicted, and in nearly all other cases the law declares that the punishment shall be such “as a court-martial may direct.” The result of this has been and still is a variation in the degrees of punishment for the same offense which defies any calculation outside the theory of chances. None can foresee or measure the considerations or influences which shall give to any case, the circumstances of which can not be just like those of an other case, its quality or quantity of punishment. Probably the disposition to administer severe discipline with the expectation that a pruning by the reviewing authority and a mitigation by the executive authority will most likely follow, is the most common cause of inequality in punishments. The remedy for the evil in the law which fixes no limit must be sought in other legislation, but the possibility of a remedy in a special prison system, and a separate prison for military prisoners drew attention to the duty of providing an institution where inequalities might be removed.

June 30, 1871, a board of officers was appointed of the Secretary of War to investigate the subject of army prisons. The report of this board was transmitted to Congress by the honorable Secretary of War January 16, 1872, with a draft of a bill for consideration. The closing sentence of the letter of transmittal reads as follows: “It is of the utmost importance to the efficiency of our army that a thorough and practical system of punishment and military discipline be established, and experience has proven that the one now in use is wholly inadequate to meet the end desired.” After due consideration the Committee on Military Affairs of the House of Representatives made a favorable report to the House May 7, 1872, in which, after mentioning certain facts concerning 384 military prisoners then distributed in the penitentiaries of eleven states, and the guard-houses of thirty-two military posts, these words occur: “Many of these prisoners have been guilty of crimes against military law, and not involving any moral turpitude. They are cast into prison with the basest characters and punished with ‘those stained by every crime known to the law.’ Your committee feel convinced that this can not be done without injury to the prisoner whose offense may have been affected with but slight moral obliquity. To prevent this unnecessary contamination we think a separate prison should be provided.” This was followed within a year by the passage of an act which was approved by the President and became a law March 3, 1873, “to provide for the establishment of a military prison, and for its government.”

The law required that the prison should be established on Rock Island, Illinois, an island in the Mississippi of about 1,000 acres, and about 180 miles west of Chicago. It is now entirely devoted to the purposes of an extensive government arsenal. It also required the appointment of a board of commissioners, to consist of three officers of the army and two persons from civil life,[B]who were to adopt a plan for a prison building and to frame regulations for the prison. Its provisions required frequent inspections—twice each year by the Secretary of War and the board of commissioners, and four times a year by one of the inspectors of the army (monthly inspections are also made by the principal medical officer in the Department of the Missouri), all of which were intended to be, and are, so many safeguards against any neglect or failure in the proper and humane treatment of the prisoners. The law also provided for mitigations of sentence for good conduct and industry, for the care of the health and physical wants of prisoners. It gave the privilege of using newspapers and books, and of writing letters to friends, and directed that they be furnished decent clothing on discharge from the prison. The location was afterward changed from Rock Island, Illinois, to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. This change was authorized by an act of Congress approved May 21, 1874, which placed the prison where it is now situated, on the west bank of the Missouri river, about thirty miles north of Kansas City, Mo., and three miles from the city of Leavenworth, Kansas.

To trace the history of the prison through the first decade of its existence would be more tedious than interesting. Its progress has been similar to that of all other new institutions of this country which are destined to become permanent. The obstacles in the way of its establishment have not been trifling, and amongst those whose duties brought them to take part in its affairs, not all have been favorable to the system undertaken, particularly with reference to the idea of utilizing the labor of the prisoners for the benefit of the army. Prudence and zeal on the part of the commissioners of the prison and the commandant have overcome all difficulties, and if there are to-day any remaining objections of the kind indicated, they are not proclaimed.

The officers of the prison are a commandant, an executive, an adjutant, a commissary, a chaplain, and a surgeon. The guard comprises two officers and one hundred men. Within an enclosure of about five acres, surrounded by a stone wall averaging in height about 18 feet, surmounted at intervals of from two hundred to three hundred feet with brick watch towers, are located the offices, the hospital, the chapel, the library, the dormitories, the workshops and the store-houses of the prison. The buildings, except the hospital, are of stone or brick, and upon all of the new buildings, as well as the wall, the work has been done by prisoners.

The great features of the institution are quiet and decorum under a kind but absolutely firm administration. Its chief object is the reformation of its inmates, to which end the efforts of the authorities are constantly directed.

The labor of the prisoners is devoted to the manufacture of wagons, harness, shoes, boots, clothing, chairs, brooms and brushes, solely for army supplies and prison uses; to the manufacture of doors and windows and their frames, and to the cultivation of a large farm to obtain produce for the prison; also to the incidental work connected with the prison in its buildings and repairs and sanitary condition. During the eight working hours of each day except Sundays and holidays the hum of machinery and the arrival of material and departure of manufactured articles give the place the appearance of a large manufactory, and a tour through the busy workshops may be made with scarcely a sight of anything in dress or appearance to tell of the character of the place as a penal institution. The greater number of prisoners being under sentence for terms of two years (the sentences are equalized as far as possible by executive orders, after the arrival of the men at the prison), the system under which they are brought gives them knowledge in some mechanical pursuit, trains them in habits of cleanliness, regularity, and sobriety, and subjects them to wholesome discipline which, in that length of time, must work a “correction of life and manners” as far as any human rule can govern the matter. A Christian minister fills the office of chaplain and devotes his entire time to the secular and religious instruction of the prisoners. A library of 1,300 volumes is open to the use of the prisoners, from which they obtain books for reading in leisure hours. As an indication of their tastes the kind of books read may be divided by the hundred into—light literature 56, magazines 25, biography 6, history 4, miscellany 4, travels and science each 3, religious 2.

Since the establishment of the prison more than thirty-two hundred men have been received, and the average number constantly present is five hundred. An abatement of five daysfor each month of good conduct is allowed, and only thirty-seven have failed to obtain their liberty prior to the expiration of their full terms. Only twenty-two deaths have occurred, showing that even under the disadvantages always present in prisons, and with the class of men found there, it is possible to reduce the ill effects of prison life upon the physical system to almost nothing. Punishment for bad conduct in the prison is in harmony with the purposes of the prison, and in most cases the abatement above mentioned forms a credit account against which the prisoners are careful not to permit debits to be entered. On discharge from prison each prisoner receives a suit of clothing and five dollars, and, if his conduct has been good, a certificate which may enable him again to enter the service as a soldier, if he so desires.

It is not an idle boast to say that the military prison system embodies more than the good features of other systems, and in holding reformation above punishment, providing food, clothing, treatment and surroundings with as little of the stamp ofprisonupon them as possible, placing the control in the hands of officers thoroughly acquainted with the service from which the prisoners come and the influences which bring them under discipline, shutting out all the evils of thecontract systemunder which prisoners are hired out as beasts of burden to toil for money which they do not receive, and finally offering them the confidence placed only in men intrusted with honorable public service, the military authorities have found the method which shall inflict a penalty sufficient for the offense and yet develop that sense in the prisoner which will, as another self, acknowledge for him that at the end of his term he has not paid that penalty in full and is not at liberty to incur another. He will also feel that he has received something from society and good government which demands from him as a willing subject and copartner with all other good citizens of the commonwealth a more careful restraint, which must be self-imposed until a correct observance of all special obligations and a true attitude in all social relations shall become a matter of natural desire.

[B]The places of the civilian commissioners were discontinued by act of June 22, 1874.

[B]The places of the civilian commissioners were discontinued by act of June 22, 1874.

[B]The places of the civilian commissioners were discontinued by act of June 22, 1874.

By Rev. J. H. VINCENT, D. D.,Superintendent of Instruction.

“Addison Day”—Thursday, May 1.

“Special Sunday”—May 11.

All communications descriptive of local circles and their work should be sent directly to Dr. T. L. Flood, editor ofThe Chautauquan, Meadville, Pa. The organization, name, postoffice address, and names of officers of local circles should be reported to Miss K. F. Kimball, Plainfield, N. J.

The item in this column for April, concerning the badge of the C. L. S. C. furnished by Mr. Henry Hart, has been misunderstood. A regular official badge of the C. L. S. C. has never yet been adopted, nor is it likely that such badge will be chosen for some time to come. The badge prepared by Mr. Henry Hart has been highly approved by many members, and is widely used. I very much like it, and am glad to know that our members like to wear it. Mr. Hart, being an enthusiastic member of the C. L. S. C., has advertised the badge widely, and generously proposed to give the C. L. S. C. a percentage on the sales. There could have been no selfishness in Mr. Hart’s motive in this proposal, and, in declining to receive such percentage, I did not reflect upon him in the slightest degree. He is an amiable, trustworthy, generous-hearted and honorable member of the C. L. S. C., and it will be a long time before another badge will be proposed as a substitute for his. Send to Mr. Henry Hart, Atlanta, Ga., for a C. L. S. C. badge.

New students of the C. L. S. C. beginning with 1884-’85 will devote the most of the year to Greek History and Literature. The “Brief History of Greece,” the “Preparatory Greek Course in English,” the “College Greek Course in English,” and Readings inThe Chautauquanconcerning Greek Mythology and Ancient Greek Life, will make the first year of the new class a “Greek Year.” Members of the classes of ’85, ’86, and ’87, having read the Greek History and the Preparatory Greek Course in English, will be required to read only the College Greek Course in English and the Required Readings inThe Chautauquan.

In addition to the Readings in Greek History and Literature, we shall have Readings in Physical Science, in Chemistry, in Zoölogy, etc. Several admirable features will enter into the new year’s course.

Let me exhort members of the class of ’84 to be ready for the “Opening of the Gate,” August 19, at Chautauqua, or for the “Recognition Services” at Framingham, Lakeside, Island Park, Monona Lake, Monteagle, and elsewhere.

President Seelye, of Amherst College, is to deliver the annual address on the occasion of the “Recognition” of the class of ’84 at Framingham, Mass.

Counselor Wm. Cleaver Wilkinson will probably deliver the address on Commencement Day at Chautauqua, August 19.

Members of the class of 1884 are not required to read the “Hall in the Grove,” the “Outline Study of Man,” and “Hints for Home Reading,” but will receive a seal for the reading of the “Hall in the Grove,” “Hints for Home Reading,” and “Home-College Series” of tracts, price five cents each, as follows: No. 1, Thomas Carlyle; No. 2, William Wordsworth; No. 4, Henry W. Longfellow; No. 8, Washington Irving; No. 13, George Herbert; No. 17, Joseph Addison; No. 18, Edmund Spenser; No. 21, William Hickling Prescott; No. 23, William Shakspere; No. 26, John Milton. These can be obtained of Phillips & Hunt, 805 Broadway, N. Y. City, or of Walden & Stowe, Cincinnati, O., or Chicago, Ill.

If, since joining the Circle, one has had to study certain books in order to prepare for a teacher’s certificate, and then takes up one of the special courses in which some of these books are required, will it be necessary to re-read them? Answer: No.

Where are we to put the White and White Crystal Seals after we get the blank spaces on the base of the pyramid on the diploma filled up? There are only seven spaces at the bottom, and where, after these are filled, will we put the two extra ones we receive each year? Answer: On the spaces of the pyramid. White Seals as well as special may go on the pyramid.

Will a special course in mathematics be added to the list? Answer: There will be such a course before long.

Members of Pacific Branch of the class of 1884 are not required to read Bushnell’s “Character of Christ,” as announced in the superintendent’s address sent out last autumn.

The paragraph quoted from Green, in “Pictures from English History,” pp. 289-290, should appear under the heading “Edward I.,” page 287, instead of as pertaining to “Edward III.”

“My religion is very simple,” said Napoleon to Monge. “I look at this universe so vast, so complex, so magnificent, and I say to myself that it can not be the work of chance, but the work, however intended, of an unknown omnipotent being, as superior to man as the universe is superior to the finest machines of human invention.” Search the philosophers and you will not find a stronger or more decisive argument. But this truth is too succinct for man. He wishes to know respecting himself and respecting his future destiny a crowd of secrets which the universe does not disclose.

The Chautauqua University is a provision for the higher education of persons who, not being able to leave their homes for college, are willing to give much time and labor to the prosecution of college studies at home, by correspondence under the direction of superior professors.

The curriculum is as comprehensive as that of any college in England or America. The memoranda and final written examination are sufficient to test the pupil’s work, attainment, and power.

Pupils may take up one or more departments, spending what time they please upon each, passing the examinations whenever they are ready.

As each course is finished to the satisfaction of the professor a certificate to that effect will be given, and when a required number of certificates is in the possession of the student, he will be entitled to a diploma and a degree.

The University has nothing to do with the C. L. S. C., which is but as an outer court to the temple itself.

The following departments have already been organized:

German—Dr. J. H. Worman.

French—Prof. A. Lalande.

Spanish—Dr. J. H. Worman.

English.

Anglo-Saxon—Prof. W. D. MacClintock.

Greek—Henry Lummis, A. M.

New Testament Greek—A. A. Wright, A. M.

Latin—E. S. Shumway, A. M.

Hebrew—W. R. Harper, Ph. D.

Mathematics—D. H. Moore, A. B.

It will be the aim of the Mathematical Department to aid students in pursuing thoroughly the regular college mathematical course, and thereby in getting the peculiar mental drill derived from the study of pure mathematics and in acquiring a facility in its practical application. Requirements for entrance:

Higher Arithmetic.—Including the Metric system.

Algebra.—The equivalent of Loomis’ Algebra, chapters i-xx, or in other treatises everything with the exception of Logarithms and the Theory of Equations.

Geometry.—The equivalent of Chauvenet’s Geometry, Books i-iii, or other works up to the discussion of the areas of figures, withexercisesillustrative of the principles of the text; such as are appended to Chauvenet, Todhunter’s Euclid, Davies’ Legendre, etc. A readiness in the proof of such theorems, and in the accurate solution of such problems with rule and dividers is necessary.

Algebra.—Logarithms, Theory of Equations.

Geometry.—Plane Geometry finished.

Geometry.—Solid and Spherical.

Trigonometry.—Plane, Analytical and Spherical.

Trigonometry.—Applications to Mensuration, Surveying and Navigation.

Analytical Geometry.

Back to IndexNext