come a source of profit to communities, if not to the Government.

The field is too broad and the task too great for private enterprise or for any state, but not for the twenty or twenty-five rich commonwealths in interest-still less for the mighty nation of which these states form a half. The end is the manifest destiny of North America, seen vaguely by Thomas Jefferson and clearly by Albert

Gallatin, felt by Lincoln and Grant and James B. Eads, and forecast more or less fairly by the foremost statesmen of each decade in our history. For not until seagoing craft enter into our great commercial artery, so nearly perfected by Nature, ply thence to all ports, and carry our products direct to the ends of the world-not until then will America come to its own.

T

O TRACE the present quarrel between the Church and the State in France, it is not necessary to go back for more than five years. But to understand the origin of the trouble, it must be remembered that for almost a century the nation's relations with Rome were regulated and defined by the Concordat, the original parties to which were Napoleon Bonaparte, as First Consul, and Pope Pius VII. The arrangement was concluded in 1801, but was modified under the Empire, when the Pontiff was a prisoner of Napoleon at Fontainebleau. This compact, dealing partly with the secular relations of the Church in France, was supposed to have all the qualties of an international pact, made between two sovereigns, and as such could not be terminated but by mutual

consent.

There was occasional friction between the Catholic Church and the Government under the Third Republic, as, for instance, in 1881, when the Department of Worship was detached from that of the Interior and re-attached to that of Public Instruction. On this occasion a protest was made against the appointment of M. Bert, on the ground that he was prejudiced against the Church. Pope Leo XIII did his best to encourage the loyalty of French Churchmen to the civil authorities, and with such success that the Royalist party suffered severely. But the pacific policy of the late Pontiff and his successor has been thwarted by certain too enthusiastic clerical politicians, who insisted on regarding the Republic as a foe of religion and religious institutions.

A law was passed in 1881, which had nothing to do with the Church, to prevent corporations

from doing business in France if their responsible heads were outside the jurisdiction of the French courts. The Association law of 1901, however, was aimed directly at the monastic orders, or "regular" clergy, so called to distinguish them from the "secular” or parish clergy. In 1900, La Croix, the organ of the Assumptionist monks, spent a great deal of money and became very virulent in support of Gen. Mercier, a Nationalist candidate for the Senate. The Government turned on the Assumptionists. In a speech at Toulouse, the Premier, M. Waldeck-Rousseau, pointed out that the religious orders owned about $267,250,000 worth of real estate in France. As they were using their wealth to promote discontent with the institutions of the nation, which it was easy for them to do in their capacity as teachers, he proposed that the Parliament curb their power. He insisted that ecclesiastics, who received regular stipends from the national treasury, ought not to be allowed to antagonize the Government.

The Association bill became a law in 1901. It provided that there should not be formed, except by express authorization of the Government, any association except for pecuniary gain either between French subjects and foreigners, or between Frenchmen and Frenchmen-if "the headquarters and directorate are located abroad and intrusted to foreigners." The law directly affected the Jesuits, the Dominicans, the Carmelites, and the Capucins. But it was understood to be aimed at the power exercised by the Vatican over the Catholics of France. Many of the monastic institutions remained undisturbed by accepting the provisions of the law and receiving "authorization."

There was a great exodus, but even the Jesuits found a way to continue their schools under new teachers.

M. Waldeck-Rousseau, the Premier, retired because an agitation arose for a radical application of the law. Having obtained the passage of the bill in the Chamber of Deputies by making assurances that discrimination would be used in the application of the lawin the case of the Sisters of Charity, for instance -he would not break faith. He offered his resignation a number of times, but it was not accepted by President Loubet until his return from his celebrated visit to Russia. On June 6, 1901, M. Combes became Premier, reserving for himself, ominously enough, the portfolios of Minister of the Interior and Minister of Public Worship.

M. Combes proceded at once to enforce the Association law literally. He closed many schools which had gone on the theory that newly constituted associations did not have to apply for authorization. Backed up by Parliament, the Premier warned the 3,000 schools, mostly for girls and conducted by nuns, that still defied the law. Finally it was decided, on Jan. 23, 1902, that unless the religious schools complied with the statute, parents would be compelled to send their children to the State schools. The announcement came as a surprise, for it was not possible to take the necessary legal steps in time. The bishops declared that the Church at large would defend the rights of Catholic families to decide how their children should be educated. There were demonstrations all over the country, especially on the part of the women. The Government, however, stood firm, and was sustained by sixty-five Department Councils in its policy of closing the schools. It was censured by only three, while fifteen recommended authorization and restitution of the schools. The orders applied for authorization, and the work of substituting lay teachers for clergy began.

In October, 1902, soon after the Pope had sent a letter of condolence to French Catholics, a Socialist Deputy carried the struggle further by proposing the abolition of the Concordat, under which the clergy were officials of the State and recipients of annual stipends amounting to $10,000,000. The question was sent to a committee by a vote of 294 to 254. This brought the Pope directly into the controversy, which became more and more bitter. It culminated in the Separation Law of 1905 (which

involved a year's notice), and the termination of the Concordat. In the meantime, the clergy were called upon to permit the making of inventories of church property, in order that the State might decide as to what possessions of the former State Church belonged to the nation.

The Pope's attitude toward the present Clemenceau government is very simple. He holds, as a Sovereign dealing with a foreign State, that the Concordat is still in force, because it was not put an end to in a manner sanctioned by international usage. He has refused to order the heads of the Church in France to submit to the new law because no assurances have been given to him, through any diplomatic channel, as to what will be the status of the Church under the new order of things.

The clergy are to make no resistance to the civil power. They are to wait for the display of force, and then move out. This will place the responsibility for the suspension of worship directly at the door of the Government. It is true that services have been held in the churches within the last few weeks. But the police have been present to take notes. The extremists hold that every priest who celebrates mass is breaking the law, for without submission to the regulations laid down by law, a congregation assembled for worship is an illegal gathering.

"

There is no sign that the Pope will direct the faithful to come to an understanding with the authorities. His appeal to the Powers having representatives at the Vatican, against the violation of the Concordat and the expulsion of his nuncio, Mgr. Montagnini, shows that he is determined to insist on what he regards as his rights as a Sovereign whose representative has been treated in an illegal manner.

If the French Government carries out its policy logically, and if the bishops and priests follow the advice of the head of the Church in the matter of refusing to submit, the country will end by being in the same situation as if it were excommunicated. The social results will be startling. Frenchmen, however they may neglect public worship, like to have their children baptized in a church, married in a church and themselves buried from a church. In the long run, the church may not be available for such purposes. And if this interferes with the ceremonies of family life, it will interfere much more with the routine of feminine existencefor the Frenchwoman, be she fashionable or otherwise, is a habitual church-goer.

A

NIGHT BANK and a bank on wheels is the latest convenience of which New Yorkers may take advantage in their financial transactions. A telephone call brings at once to your door an automobile containing a safe and a clerk, to take your deposit, or to bring you cash to be exchanged for your check. For every practical purpose, this automobile is a part of the bank; and, furthermore, it is at the call of the bank's patrons at almost any hour of the day or evening.

Since the opening of the Night and Day Bank in New York City, on May 1, 1906, these unusual transactions are of daily occur

ence.

And the bank is not a freak nor a fad, for among its directors are several of the foremost financiers of New York, and its offices are in one of the most luxurious of the Fifth Avenue buildings. Its deposits for the first six months were approximately $2,000,000 in seventeen hundred accounts.

The Night and Day Bank is open twentyfour hours of every business day, and is closed only from midnight to midnight of Sundays and legal holidays. Three complete sets of bank officers and employees work in three shifts every day; and fully 60 per cent. of the bank's deposits are made outside of the ordinary banking hours.

The idea of such a bank originated in the necessities of mercantile houses and especially in the peculiar inconveniences of ordinary banking to theatre managers and restaurant keepers. A retail merchant's best business hours are in the afternoon, and it has always been troublesome to make up a deposit at one or two o'clock and to put it in the bank. Then, too, the bulk of the cash receipts of the day have to be kept overnight in the merchant's safe, at the risk of loss by fire or burglary.

The Night and Day Bank has solved these difficulties. Suppose the merchant closes at six o'clock. He makes up his complete cash

account for the day, telephones the bank, and twenty minutes later an automobile stands at his door with a messenger from the bank. This messenger presents the merchant with a leatherbound strong box, to which there are but two keys-one in the merchant's possession and the other in the possession of the receiving teller at the bank. The merchant puts into the box his money and checks and deposit slip, locks the box, and sees the messenger slip it into a safe in the automobile. This safe is bolted to the running body of the automobile, independent of the limousine. The safe is locked with a combination, and the dial is removed before it leaves the bank, so that even a man familiar with the combination could not work the lock to open the safe. The merchant's strong box is put into the safe by means of a device similar to that of an ordinary letter-box, by which a thing may be dropped in but cannot be taken out.

Still further to insure the safety of the safe, the messenger and the safe are separated from the chauffeur by a wire cage, which is locked by an automatic spring lock from the inside. the inside. Furthermore, the automobile cannot be started from the chauffeur's seat until the messenger inside the cage presses a secret spring that is essential to start the mechanism. This device prevents the possibility of kidnapping the automobile by robbers. Thus the merchant's deposit is safer than if he had carried it himself to the bank and passed it through the teller's window.

Similarly, when the merchant needs money Saturday night to pay off his employees, a telephone message to the bank brings him the money he needs, for which he gives the automobile messenger his check on the bank.

Since the bank opened in New York, a similar institution has been opened in Chicago, and in Baltimore the Third National Bank has adopted this method of supplying this latest and most novel accommodation to its patrons.

The painting by Mr. John S. Sargent, recently presented to Johns Hopkins University by Miss Mary Elizabeth Garrett, of Baltimore, who had previously given $500,000 to the medical school on condition that women be admitted on an equality with men