appropriated in Ohio for printing, $63,000; amount appropriated in South Carolina, $450,000; cost of printing in Ohio, per capita, 21 mills; cost of printing in South Carolina, per capita, 431 mills. In Ohio we find that $27,000 of the expense charged was for a kind of printing not required in this State. It is shown that there was appropriated, during the sessions of 1872-73, by this State, $128,094 more than the cost of printing in all the thirteen southern States for the last fiscal year. It will also be seen that there was appropriated $385,000, at the session of 1873-74, for printing in South Carolina, making a total of $835,000 within two years, or an average of $145,594 per annum over and above the cost of printing in all the southern States for the past fiscal year. In the fall or winter of 1870 the Carolina Printing Company was organized by Messrs. J. W. Denny, R. K. Scott, N. G. Parker, D. H. Chamberlain, J. W. Morris, and L. Cass Carpenter."

The committee append a list giving the names of fifteen senators and seven representatives who received sums varying from $50 to $5,000, under what they call "this division and silence arrangement;" they also give a list of those who were bribed to vote for this enormous appropriation for printing. In this black list we find that Gov. F. J. Moses received $20,000, F. L. Cardozo, treasurer, $12,500, Senator B. F. Whittemore, $5,000, Lieut.Gov. Gleavis, $2,500, and so on down to the pitiful amount of $50, for which some senators sold themselves, though they were high-priced even at that sum! Among the distinguished statesmen who fill this roll of honor, Senator Robt. Smalls holds a conspicuous place. He was valued high, for the price paid for him was $5,000. I mention him as a shining example, for after he was convicted of bribery by a jury, half of whom, if I remember aright, were colored men, and was, by a Republican judge, sentenced to the penitentiary, he, after being pardoned by the Democratic governor of the State, was chosen by his admiring friends of the Seventh Congressional District as a fit representative in the lower House of Congress. This was the reward bestowed on him by the people of his own race in recognition of his ability and his honesty! I am happy to say that his constituents, apprised as they have been of his disreputable conduct, and recognizing the shame that attached to them in having such a representative on the floor of Congress, relegated him, at the last election, to the walks of private life, much to their honor. All the other criminals convicted at that time were pardoned, for I expressed the opinion that "the wisest statesmanship consisted of the most general amnesty."

But I confess that I hardly expected to see a convicted and pardoned criminal representing my State as a member of Congress.

The committee go on to show the amount expended in bribes to secure the passage of appropriations for the public printing, and the testimony adduced proves that this was $124,969. Various interesting exhibits are given, sustaining the grave charges of peculation made by the committee, but these are too voluminous to be embodied in this paper. A summary, however, of some of these is given to show the extent of the frauds committed. Under negro rule, from 1868 to 1876, the public printing

"cost $1,326,589; total cost from 1790 to 1868, $609,000; showing an excess of cost for printing, during eight years of Republican administration, over the seventy-eight previous years, of $717,589. . . . Excess of cost of printing, under Republican administration for fifteen months, over that of the old régime for seventy-eight years, as above, $226.000. Cost of printing per month under Republican administration, $55,666; cost per month under Hampton administration, $514.80."

In the session of 1872-73, when an appropriation of $250,000 was made for the public printing, the clerk of the Senate testifies that $112,550 was paid to the secretary and officials as a bribe to secure the passage of the bill; and he gives the names of the following parties, with the amount paid to each, viz.:

"Gov. F. J. Moses, $20,000; J. L. Nagle, $40,000; Melton and Chamberlain, $10,000; F. L. Cardozo (treasurer), $12,500; Senator B. F. Whittemore, $5,000; Senator R. Smalls, $5,000.”

And so on, through a list of twenty-three senators, to poor Senator Ford, who only received $50. It is worthy of remark that when some of these patriots "left their country for their country's good," they received lucrative positions in the departments in Washington. This was notably true of Nagle and Cardozo, the latter of whom, having been convicted in South Carolina of bribery, and sentenced, was afterward pardoned by a Democratic governor. That was a striking example of "civil-service reform" under a Republican administration! It is needless to follow the committee farther in their labor to expose the infamy attending negro supremacy in South Carolina. Wherever the light of investigation was cast, vice, corruption, and crime were exposed. In the words of the committee:

"Now let the curtain drop. For why amplify criticism of such men or such measures? The facts sworn to by so many witnesses must be sufficiently convincing without further comment."

It is scarcely necessary for me, in view of the facts adduced, to reiterate the opinion expressed in the beginning of this article, that negro supremacy would bring disgrace and ruin to any State of the Union, and would be a perpetual menace to our republican institutions. But, before closing, I beg to commend to the earnest consideration of every thoughtful and patriotic man the views of Mr. Lincoln on the subject now under discussion. In the great debates between himself and Mr. Douglas, in Illinois, in 1858, Mr. Lincoln, in his speech of September 18th, used the following language:

While at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me to know whether I really was in favor of producing a perfect equality between the negroes and white people. . . . I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which, I believe, will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior; and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. .. I will add to this, that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. . . . I will add one further word, which is this: that I do not understand that there is any ce where an alteration of the social and political relations of the negro athe white man can be made, except in the State legislature-not the Congress of the United States."

In September, 1859, at Columbus, Ohio, Mr. Lincoln expressed the same views, and even more emphatically than he had previously done; but, while doing this, he was equally emphatic in expressing the utmost kindness for the negro. negro. No one can doubt that he was a sincere friend of the colored race, and hence his views as to the capacity of this people to govern great and free commonwealths are entitled to the highest consideration.

WADE HAMPTON.

POVERTY, SYMPATHY, AND ECONOMICS.

LAST August there was published, in this review, a suggestive article on "The Conditions of Industrial Peace "—" peace," that is, not between nation and nation, but between capital and labor, or the laborers and the employers of labor. Of such conditions the writer, Prof. R. T. Ely, enumerated fourteen; most of them, in his opinion, still waiting to be realized. His list is instructive as illustrating the state of contemporary speculation, rather than valuable as an actual contribution to truth. Thus, among many conditions of doubtful or small importance, he specifies the one which is actually the most essential of all, and which is, at the same time, the least generally appreciated. That condition, in Prof. Ely's words, is "a general diffusion of knowledge in regard to social and political science." Prof. Ely proceeds as follows, and it is impossible too often or with too persistent emphasis to repeat what he says:

"Right action depends on right thinking, and there is as gross ignorance of the elements of political economy among the rich as among the poor; perhaps a denser ignorance, for the poor have lately given more attention to this study, as can be seen by comparing the labor' press with the capitalistic' press."

It seems to me, however, that Prof. Ely himself is, to a certain extent, a victim of the very ignorance which he deplores; not because he commits himself to any false economic theory, but because, having recognized that a true theory is important, he utterly fails to give that importance its due degree. Of his fourteen "conditions of industrial peace," economic knowledge is the eighth; and he places it incidentally between "applied Christianity" and an avoidance of any measures which might make martyrs of anarchists. This is much the same as if a priest, in instructing a penitent as to the various conditions essential to a good communion, were to place contrition between a decent coat and a prayer-book. Prof. Ely in this represents others besides

himself. Many see that economic knowledge is a desirable thing, but they do not see how desirable. They do not see that it is desirable before all other things, and at the present moment beyond all other things. That it is so, and why it is so, is what I shall now endeavor to show.

The extraordinary importance, for its power of practically affecting the situation, which I claim for the study of economic science can be plausibly questioned on various grounds, and it is by considering these that its reality can be most sharply exhibited. The most obvious and most important objections are as follows: It will be said that the labor movement did not originate in scientific theories, does not derive its stimulus from scientific theories, and cannot, accordingly, be controlled by scientific theories; and different people, in urging this, will have foremost in their minds different aspects of the question. To some the main factor in the labor movement will seem to be philanthropy, and the main requisites for bringing it to a successful issue to be a passionate pity for suffering and an indignation against injustice, which will never be appeased till suffering and injustice are done away with. To others, again, the movement will seem mainly due, not to pity for suffering, but to the temper of the sufferers themselves, who, it is said, under the régime of capital, find their condition growing constantly worse and worse, whilst their social tastes at the same time are developing, and their sense of their own power increasing. We shall thus, broadly speaking, be met by two classes of objectors: those who regard the labor movement as depending on sympathy and agitation from above, and those who regard it as the outcome of volcanic passion from below. The first will urge that economic science is a secondary requisite only, and that its frigid speculations can do little for the laboring classes compared with what can be done for them by passion, zeal, and perseverance; whilst the second will urge that such science can never affect the laboring classes at all, not only because its teaching could never be generally brought home to them, but because, even if it were, their conduct and their demands would be limited only by their desires and their own experience of their power, not by the gossamer chains of a philosopher's abstract arguments.