lent work, and popular concerts are given in many parts of the city. A writer in the New York Evening Post reports that there are probably thirty thousand students of music in New York City; and a recent gift of $500,000 to the Institute of Musical Art, to be used in securing for New York students the best teachers of music in the world, is an evidence of the substantial love of the art in the metropolis. The same writer calls attention to the fact that Chinese tom-toms, Armenian and Turkish players, Greek music, Italian music of the lyric quality, Irish, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, and Hebrew music may all be heard in New York City.

An Early Gospel Text

At a meeting of the Archæological Institute of America, held December 30, Professor H. A. Sanders, of the University of Michigan, reported on four manuscripts

inherit the spiritual indestructible glory of righteousness (which) is in heaven.'" It is now the practically unanimous judgment of all Biblical scholars that the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark (chap. xvi. 9-20) were not a part of Mark's original Gospel, but are an addition with a different origin, and at a very early date were ascribed to Aristion. It is therefore quite certain that the paragraph quoted above is not a part of Mark's Gospel. Whether it was a part

of the so-called Aristion addition or was added by another hand to that addition,

or whether both forms of the addition come from an earlier common source, is not certain. The manuscript is of interest especially to those who are students of the early texts of the Gospels. As to whether it contains any words of Jesus or even is developed from any of his actual sayings it is too early to venture an opinion.

Freer, of Detroit, early in 1907, in Egypt. They all certainly antedate 639 A.D., and probably range in date from the third to the sixth century. Of these, the two most interesting are one which contains the Psalms, and which is believed from the present examination to be one of the best manuscripts of the Psalms in existence; the other contains the four Gospels entire. The latter was probably written in the fifth or sixth century, but there is good reason for believing it to represent a text of the Gospels that existed as early as the first part of the second century. The most interesting feature in this manuscript is the following addition to the close of the Gospel of Mark, which is found inserted between the fourteenth and fifteenth verses:

Mark xvi. 14a -" And they answered, say; ing that this age of unrighteousness and unbelief is under the power of Satan, who does not permit the things which are made impure by the (evil) spirits to comprehend the truth of God (and) his power. 'For this reason, reveal thy righteousness now,' they said to Christ; and Christ said to them, 'The limit of the years of the power of Satan has been fulfilled, but other terrible things are at hand, and I was delivered unto death on behalf of those who sinned in order that they may return to the truth and sin no more, to the end that they may

tutional Law

In its issue of December 7 The Outlook suggests a rule of constitutional construction which, it seems to me, differs from that which has been followed by the Supreme Court. In commenting upon the issues presented by Senator Foraker's announcement of his candidacy, The Outlook says (page 753):

Is the Constitution to be treated like the charter of a corporation which possesses no powers not conferred by the charter, or is it the expressed will of the Na

tion, which, because it is a Nation, has all the powers of National sovereignty not expressly denied to it by the Constitution; and are the principles expressed in that document to be applied to the changed conditions of the National life as the National welfare may require?

If by the word "Nation" is meant the people of the United States, then the Constitution need not be examined to ascertain the powers of the Nation, for the Nationthat is, the people-is all-powerful. If by the word "Nation" is meant the United States Government, then I submit The Outlook is in error.

The Constitution is "the expressed will of the Nation;" it is the measure of the powers conferred by the people upon the Federal Government; and in order to ascertain the powers of that Government the Constitution must be examined and construed.

The Constitution is a grant of power, and the test of constitutionality has always been whether within the Constitution there could be found warrant for the act under consider

ation. The Constitution is examined, not to learn whether a power is denied, but to ascertain whether it has been granted.

The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution is as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Cooley, in his "Principles of Constitutional Law" (ed. 1891), says (page 28):

The government created by the Constitution is one of limited and enumerated powers, and the Constitution is the measure and the test of the powers conferred. Whatever is not conferred is withheld, and belongs to the several States or to the people thereof. And on page 29,

From what has just been said, it is manifest that there must be a difference in the presumption that attends an exercise of National and one of State powers. The difference is this. To ascertain whether any power assumed by the government of the United States is rightfully assumed, the Constitution is to be examined in order to see whether expressly or by fair implication the power has been granted, and if the grant does not appear, the assumption must be held unwarranted. To ascertain whether a State rightfully exercises a power, we have only to see whether by the Constitution of the United States it is conceded to the Union, or by that Constitution or that of the State prohibited to be exercised at all. The presumption must be that the State rightfully does what it assumes to do, until it is made to appear how, by constitutional concessions, it has divested itself of the power, or by its own Constitution has for the time rendered the exercise unwarrantable.

This is not a question of strict or liberal construction. It is a question of the fundamental principles of constitutional construction. The method suggested by The Outlook might apply to the Constitution of a State, but, without violating the rules which have been laid down since the foundation of the Government, it cannot apply to the construction of the Federal Constitution. An attempt so to do would be in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the authoritative and final interpreter of the Constitution of the United States. That Constitution is not what The Outlook thinks it is, not what our correspondent thinks it is, not even what Judge Cooley thinks it is, but what the Supreme Court of the United States decides that it is. To determine what is the Constitution under which we are now living, we are to look, not merely at the original document, but at that document as interpreted by over a century of judicial decisions and National actions. We believe that a careful consideration of that century of historical and judicial interpretation establishes the following fundamental principles.

I. The United States is a Nation. By this word "Nation "is meant neither the Federal Government on the one hand nor the people of the United States on the other. The Nation is more than seventy millions of people living together within the limits of one territory; the Nation is this people acting organically. The Constitution did not create this Nation; the Nation created the Constitution. This Nation possesses all the powers of sovereignty possessed by other nations except as they are expressly denied to it by the terms of the instrument; thus, it has no power to establish slavery in any territory under its jurisdiction, because it has expressly denied to itself that

power.

II. This Nation differs from other nations not because it possesses fewer powers, but because they are differently distributed. In most nations the sovereignty is lodged, undivided, in one organization. In the United States it is divided: certain powers of sovereignty are lodged in the Federal Government, certain other powers in the States. The Constitution determines, not what powers the Nation possesses, but how these powers are distributed.

III. The limitations on the power of the Federal Government are solely for the protection of the people of the United States. In dealing with those who are not citizens of the United States, its powers are not limited by the Constitution. An alien in the United States cannot claim the protection of the Constitution. The Federal Government can arrest, try, and deport such an alien without giving him a jury trial. People living in a territory which belongs to the United States, but is not a part of the United States, cannot claim the protection of the Constitution, and the power of the Federal Government over them is not limited by the Constitution. The Federal Government can arrest, try, and imprison such a person residing in the Philippines, though he be a citizen of the United States, without giving him a jury trial.

Neither an alien in the United States nor a citizen residing in territory not a part of the United States can claim anything under the Constitution.

IV. While the powers of the Federal

Government over subjects who are not citizens, and territories which are not part of the United States but belong to it, are practically unlimited, its powers are limited over the States and organized Territories and over citizens resident therein. But in determining what these limitations are, the Constitution is not to be interpreted as a body of rules or a codification of statutes, but as a statement of general principles. The fathers could not foresee and provide for all the exigencies which might arise in the life of the Nation, and they did not attempt to do so. They attempted only to provide certain fundamental principles in accordance with which future generations were themselves to solve the national problems as from time to time they should arise. Thus, the fathers did not and could not foresee the time when the country would be covered with a network of railways extending from ocean to ocean and from the Lakes to the Gulf; but they provided in general terms that all commerce between the States and with foreign nations should be subject to regulation by the Federal Government; and in accordance with that principle the Federal Government is now extending over the railways the regulatory power which it formerly extended over coastwise shipping. So again the fathers never foresaw that the time would arise when a State would claim the right to secede from the Union, and they made no provision for such an exigency. But they foresaw that disorder might arise and republican stability might be threatened in individual States, and they provided that the United States should guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and might call forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, and under these general provisions the United States fought insurrection against the United States and compelled the seceding States. to return to the Union. Doubtless some of our readers still think, as in 1860 many citizens of the United States thought, that the Federal Government has no authority under the Constitution to coerce a State. But we are here stating, not what the construction of

the Constitution ought to be, but what historically it has been; and for every statement in these paragraphs authoritative decisions of the Supreme Court or authoritative action of the people can be cited.

V. The Federal Government possesses such powers as are not only by express terms, but also such as are by necessary implications, conferred upon it. What powers are conferred by necessary implication has been matter of frequent debate. Eminent lawyers, eminent jurists, have often been found divided in opinion upon this question. Yet we think it clear that a study of the course of Federal jurisprudence will show that under this principle of necessary implication very extensive powers have been exercised by the Federal Government and either tacitly approved or expressly sanctioned. Thus the Constitution nowhere gives the courts power to declare unconstitutional and so set aside a law enacted by Congress and approved by the President; but ever since the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 this has been habitually done; and this exercise of power not expressly conferred but only necessarily implied, though received with an outburst of indignation at the time by the Jefferson party, has for over a century been universally acquiesced in. This power of the Supreme Court, derived, not from express terms, but by necessary implication only, was strikingly illustrated a few years ago when its decision, first that the income tax was constitutional and then on a rehearing of the same case that it was unconstitutional, was universally accepted and acted upon by the entire people of the country. A not less striking illustration, though less dramatic, of the implied powers of the Federal Government is afforded by the protective tariff. The Constitution confers on Congress no express power to promote special industries; but the general power to tax imports has, with few dissidents, come to be regarded as conferring implied power to levy taxes for the purpose of promoting manufactures.

The reader who has on hand a file of The Outlook will find in Vol. 77, 1904, pp. 336 and 446, Vol. 83, 1906, pp. 478-481, and Vol. 85, 1906, pp. 595-6,

to go no further back, decisions of the Supreme Court referred to, illus trating and sustaining the general principles laid down in this editorial. Those principles may be summed up as follows: The United States is a Nation, with all the powers of National sovereignty not expressly denied to it by the Constitution; these powers over territory not a part of the United States, and over persons not citizens of the United States, are practically unlimited; over States and organized Territories and citizens resident therein the Federal Government possesses only those powers which are expressly conferred or necessarily implied; as new territory is added to and incorporated in the Union, the powers granted to the Federal Government are extended over such territory; and in an analogous manner, as new conditions arise in the Union, these powers are extended over the new conditions; finally, in determining what powers are implied, the courts and the people of the United States are inclined to a liberal rather than to a strict construction; that is, to an extension rather than to a limitation of Federal powers.

tion from Harvard, his greatest academic distinction-highest final honors—in the theory and composition of music.

As his text Mr. Wister took the fact, derived from the report of the Secretary of Agriculture, that America not only supplies itself with foodstuffs, but supplies the rest of the world with foodstuffs to the enormous total value, for the last year, of four hundred and forty-four millions of dollars. Then he asked, What is our balance of trade in the native harvest of the intellect? His answer was, "Minus 100 per cent." In other words, “Who, in short, sits in some American academic chair, to whose feet the students of the whole world come as to the supreme authority in his chosen subject?" Taking up one subject after another, he searched the world for authorities. Although Mr. Wister's list is not final, it is perhaps more profitable to make such a list than to make one of an All-America Football Team. In physics he found the late Lord Kelvin; in botany, De Vries; zoölogy, Haeckel; psychology, Wundt; philosophy, Windelband or Cohen; Semitic philology, Noeldeke; classic philology, Wilamowitz-Moellendorf; Egyptology, Maspero; Assyriology, Delitzsch; Romance languages, Tobler or Schuchardt'; archæology, the late Adolf Furtwaengler; mathematics, Poincaré; Sanscrit, Pichel or Oldenburg; pathology, Metchnikoff; economics, Brentano and Schmoller; astronomy, Struve; geology, Geikie. All these are Europeans. Then Mr. Wister

in Scholarship

Every year in Sanders Theater at Harvard is held a meeting for the Award of Academic Distinctions. As there are no athletic honors distributed, no social prizes announced, but only distinctions. for achievements in scholarship awarded, it has not been necessary to provide an elaborate system for keeping tickets of admission out of the hands of speculators. The meeting for the present university year took place a week before Christmas. On that occasion the address was delivered by Mr. Owen Wister. It is worth noting in passing that this American novelist received, on gradua

Bloomfield, of Johns Hopkins; in chemistry, Richards, of Harvard, who ranks. in Europe almost with Ramsay, von Baeyer, and Fischer; in physics, Michaelson, of Chicago. Of these Mr. Wister

says:

We can study under three Americans, and the rest of the world will tell us that we

could have found only three or four other teachers who were, perhaps, more universally accepted as masters in their line. To put it more shortly, no American university possesses one single teacher of undisputed preeminence.

This fact, he says, ought not to be a wet blanket, but a challenge to our patriotism.

Of course this does not end the list of American scholars. Mr. Wister

names many. As "masters in their chosen fields. each in a class by himself," Mr. Wister names Henry C. Lea, Horace Howard Furness, S. Weir Mitchell, Wolcott Gibbs, Charles Eliot Norton. To these names he adds a larger and an honorable group: E. F. Smith, Chandler, John B. Clark, Hadley, Sumner, Lounsbury, Osborn, Young, Newcomb, Wilson, McMaster, Rhodes, Flexner, Welch, Loeb, T. C. Chamberlain, E. H. Moore, Haupt, Remsen, Gildersleeve, and, to cap all, this roll of Harvard men, Goodwin, James, Pickering, William Davis, Kittredge, Lanman, Gross, Toy, and G. F. Moore. In spite of this list, and in spite of our supremacy in applied science, however, "in the symposium of the purest and highest scholarship, our chair would be vacant, our voice silent."

American brains, he believes, can fill not only our wastes of earth with crops of grain but also our wastes of scholarship with high authorities. This, how ever, the Government cannot do; "from ourselves we must generate the force to put behind the scholar." We must give him other pay than bare subsistence and loneliness. We are beginning to do this. Mr. Wister honors Mr. Pinchot for his activities on behalf of forestry, and Mr. Carnegie for his generosity to learning. Yet he hints of something more needed. His hint is illustrated in this paragraph:

When I was in college, I obeyed the instinct to flock with my feather. Forgive me if I say with regret, now, that those birds we used to call "grinds" had no attraction for me; doubtless, I was despised by them. It was all a mistake, a natural mistake, to be sure, but one to beware of. When I look back now, I am sorry that fate or intention did not bring me more into contact with a certain "grind" in my class, whose name was George Lyman Kittredge. We must flock together more if we would get the best results.

Mr. Wister's concluding appeal was for greater honor and support for the scholar. "You do not need to be told," he said, "of those who in these years go to Berlin and Paris to represent American thought at foreign universities; or of the booksabout France, and about Shakespeare, and Chaucer, for instance-with which your Bakers and your Wendells and your

Schofields are winning further laurels for this place; they continue the shelf where other books stand, by Goodwin, by Norton, by James, by Royce, by Perry. But these commissioned officers of your army can do nothing unless backed by the enlisted men."

Mr. Wister has not covered the whole subject of intellectual life in this country, but he has struck a strong note at an opportune moment; for never, probably, in the history of American colleges have there been so many expressions of discouragement from college teachers touching the lack of enthusiasm for scholarship and of respect for intellectual ability among undergraduates. There has come about a curious disarrangement of values among college men, so that the qualities in a student which make him a man of distinction and give him intellectual eminence and influence in after life almost entirely fail to give him rank among his fellows. There is a great deal of thorough work done in our colleges, but there is probably far less general intellectual enthusiasm, passion for general culture, intellectual aspiration, than a generation ago. There is an element of truth in the probably fabulous answer of a Yale undergraduate to the question, "Who are the first men in the University?" "The captain of the football team, the captain of the baseball team, the captain of the crew, and Dr. Hadley."

The usurpation of the undergraduate mind by athletics to the exclusion of other interests is not wholly responsible for this state of affairs. The root of the trouble is to be looked for in the home. Boys are now sent to American colleges who are astoundingly ignorant regarding some of the greater interests of life. Many of them are as innocent of any knowledge of literature, the arts, music, or history as if they had come from Central Africa. Their preparation has been confined exclusively to the subjects on which they have to pass examination, and they are as devoid of intellectual aspiration and quality as the average professional baseball player. This is largely due to the absorption of their fathers in business and to the abdication of both fathers and mothers of any control or direction