the children, and has equipped them solely for urban occupations. It has been concentrated upon the development of the mental to the exclusion of every other faculty. Stores of information may be accumulated, but little is done to cultivate the powers of accurate observation and correct inference, upon which efficiency in every department of life depends. Intelligence, adaptability, and resourcefulness are quite as necessary for the labourer as for the artisan, and even more so, since the latter relies largely on mechanical contrivances, whereas the former has to control or subdue the forces of nature. The farmer who employs a lad wants exactly the same qualities in him as does any employer of labour. Intelligence, combined with dexterity of hand and eye, is the chief desideratum. The ultimate end of both urban and rural schools is identical-to promote mental alertness, an orderly habit of thinking, and a uniform development of all the faculties. To differentiate the one school from the other involves no fundamental change in their respective curricula. The subjects appropriate to the one are equally appropriate to the other; the difference lies in their treatment and in their orientation towards the immediate and varying surroundings of each school. We need more concrete and less abstract instruction, and a wider appreciation of the maxim 'Learn by doing.' We should teach less from books and more from things. We must bring the child into direct contact with the facts of the living world, leading him to investigate them for himself, telling him as little as possible, and thus stimulating that process of self-instruction which is the foundation of all true education.

In conclusion, there are certain questions by the answers to which the attitude of the statesman, the economist, and the armer towards agricultural education will be finally determined. Has the money hitherto been expended to the best advantage? Are the results commensurate with the cost? Have the various colleges, schools, and classes succeeded in attracting pupils identified with the land and likely to be engaged in agricultural pursuits? Have the prejudice of the farmer and his love of routine been overcome? Does the agriculture of the country show appreciable improvement after the efforts of the past seventeen years? What types of schools and methods of instruction have proved most beneficial? What gaps are there to be filled? The answers to these questions can only be ascertained after such an inquiry and survey of the whole field as that to which Lord Carrington referred last session in the House of Lords.

JOHN C. MEDD.

DIVORCE IN THE UNITED STATES

THE men who made the Constitution of the United States had little realisation of the great benefit which they conferred on the country by leaving so many matters to the decision of the inhabitants of each of the separate States, which were formed of what had been separate colonies under English rule.

The members of the convention were forced to create the Government they did, because of the jealousies existing between the different States, and the desire of the inhabitants of each State to have all matters relating to local interests left to the decision of the local Legislatures. Judicial construction of the Constitution has created a powerful Government out of a document which at the time was generally considered to create merely a confederation, but it is still true that legislation which concerns the interests of the individuals is largely in the hands of the Legislature of each State, and each State decides on its policy, irrespective of the views of the inhabitants of

other States.

To illustrate the situation one might examine the laws respecting the sale of alcoholic beverages. In Maine and Kansas the sale of all alcoholic beverages is prohibited by statute. In South Carolina the sale of liquor is a State monopoly. In New York and some other States there is a high-licence law, which limits the number of drinking-places, while in other States the licence fee is quite nominal. Besides all this, however, all dealers in liquor must take out a licence from the National Government, and the Congress levies a heavy duty on the production of alcoholic beverages.

Considering the vast expanse of the United States, consisting of over three million square miles, and extending west across the continent along the Canadian border for over 3,000 miles and south along the Atlantic coast-line for over 1,600 miles, it is very fortunate that in most matters of local interest each State has been left to work out its own salvation. These interests are varied largely also by great differences of climate, for on the Pacific coast is found an equable climate similar to that of France, while east of the Rocky Mountains one finds in the north greater contrasts of heat and cold than can be found in Russia, in the central region summers like those of Italy

and winters like those of Berlin, and in Florida and Southern California a tropical climate in which palm-trees, pineapples, and grapefruit flourish.

It is interesting in this connection to examine the different views which have been taken of divorce in the various States. It is not proposed to enter into any discussion of the laws of each State as to separation of married couples. Divorce from the bond of matrimony differs from all forms of separation in a very vital matter, for the purpose of an action of divorce as distinguished from separation is to enable one or both of the parties to re-marry. Nor is any examination made of the provision of the statutes for annulling marriage on account of incapacity or condition existing at the time of the performance of the marriage. The condition of the law is substantially as follows:

In South Carolina the courts do not grant decrees of divorce, and a marriage ceremony in that State is of no force when either party has been divorced, although the divorce was legal in the State where granted.

In New York divorce is granted only for adultery. It was found. that there were many cases of collusive divorce, and a short time ago a law was enacted in accordance with the English system, providing that the final decree should not be entered for several months after the decision in favour of divorce was made. No decrees are granted in New York unless satisfactory evidence of infidelity is supplied. The result is that in that State, if either party is faithful to his or her marriage vows and does not wish to be divorced, there is no method by which the other party can procure a divorce valid in the State of New York. The guilty party is forbidden to marry again, but this does not prevent the guilty party from re-marrying in another State. In North Carolina the law is the same as in New York.

In Maryland and New Jersey divorces are granted for adultery as in New York, and also where abandonment for three or two years is shown. This is the rule in Virginia, except that conviction of a crime is also a ground there for divorce.

In New York and some Southern Atlantic Coast States the Episcopal Church, which is the offspring of the Church of England, has always had great influence, and in Maryland the Catholic Church has been powerful.

Abandonment for two or three years has been held in all the other States to be a ground for divorce in addition to the cause universally considered sufficient, and in nearly all of them the courts grant divorces for habitual drunkenness, for conviction of felony and for cruelty, so that it may be said that outside of New York, North and South Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey, and Virginia, State Legislatures are unanimously in favour of divorce for these five causes. Besides these causes there are additional grounds for divorce as follows:

Insanity is a cause in Florida and Idaho.

Neglect to provide for the wife is a sufficient cause in California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North and South Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming.

In Florida, habitual indulgence in a violent temper is a good ground for divorce. In Kansas and Ohio, grave neglect of duty affords a sufficient ground.

In the district of Columbia, the laws of which are made by Congress, the New York rule prevails.

New Yorkers who both wish to escape from an unhappy marriage adopt two courses. Occasionally the husband allows the wife to obtain evidence which permits her to obtain a divorce on the statutory ground with the risk of having the Court find evidence of collusion, but the usual course where both consent to the divorce is for one of the parties to take up a residence in another State, where more liberal views of divorce are popular. The States usually chosen at present are South Dakota and Rhode Island. The wife applying for a divorce spends the better part of a year in the new jurisdiction, and usually procures a divorce on the ground that her husband has neglected to provide for her. Sometimes she is the richer of the two.

The divorces thus obtained are valid in New York if the court of the sister State obtains jurisdiction over the husband, but service of process by publication does not give jurisdiction. The husband must be personally served with process in the sister State granting the decree, or he must appear by attorney.

Statistics as to the number of divorced people in the various parts of the country have not been collected in a very satisfactory way, but the following are the figures furnished by the last census made by the Government in 1900:

The World Almanac, published by a New York daily paper, claims to give the number of decrees of divorce granted in certain cities. These figures are as follows:

The New York figures include only New York County.

In order to compare the effect of liberal laws of divorce, these figures should be considered in respect to the population. The population of these cities can, however, only be computed as at the time of the census of 1900. Taking that year, we find that that part of New York City in which 522 decrees of divorce were entered contained 2,050,600 people. It can therefore be said that th of 1 per cent. of the inhabitants were divorced in 1900. The same method shows the following results for the other cities:

This examination would lead to the conclusion that divorce is more popular in the West than in the East.

While there is a decided advantage in allowing people of each State to decide on all matters relating to domestic relations, and to ensure a husband or wife married within its jurisdiction the continuance of the matrimonial relation, the operation of the law has resulted in many complications.

It has been proposed that the Constitution of the United States should be amended so as to give Congress jurisdiction over marriage and divorce. If this is done, it is likely that the rule of the majorities of the States will be adopted, and that there will be no State in which the strict rules of New York, New Jersey, and Maryland will continue in force.

The complications referred to depend chiefly on questions of jurisdiction. Where one party to a marriage moves into another State and procures a divorce there after service of process on the defendant, by publication or in some other jurisdiction than that in which the action is begun, a much-discussed question of law arises.

If the defendant appears in the action by attorney, thus putting himself or herself within the jurisdiction of the court, the decrees are accepted in every State as settling the status of the parties; but in New York and some of the other States it has always been held that the court granting the divorce does not obtain jurisdiction over the party who is not personally served or represented by attorney before the trial court. This is by analogy with the rule which holds that where the court never obtained actual jurisdiction over the defendant by service of process personally within the jurisdiction,

This is in accord with the English law (Shaw v. Gould, L. R. 3 H. L. 55; Harvey v. Farnie, L. R. 8 App. Cas. 43).