EDITOR'S TABLE. 



559 



judges, it is evident that the enactment of 

 laws by women, to be executed by men, is 

 government " by women alone." It was in 

 this sense that I used that expression, and 

 not as a question of arithmetic. 



Government is in fact the government of 

 men by men. It is men who do tilings, and, 

 among other things, they are the most fre- 



quent law-breakers. It takes men to govern 

 men, and what governs the greater force will 

 control the lesser. It is not necessary to cut 

 two holes in the gate, the one for the large, 

 the other for the small cat. The small cat 

 can go through the large hole. 



E. D. Cope. 

 PniLADELPniA, December 26, 1SS3. 



EDITOR'S TABLE. 



ALTRUISM AND EGOISM. 



THE question of the proper balance 

 to be maintained between altruism 

 and egoism is one of much practical im- 

 portance. A certain view of the subject 

 was presented in the paper by Mr. Charles 

 W. Smiley, published in our November 

 number, and a different, to some extent 

 an antagonistic one, was maintained in 

 the letter from Prof. Bulkier, of Wash- 

 ington, which appeared in our number 

 for January. We have already expressed 

 a general approval of Mr. Smiley's posi- 

 tion; but, in view of the counter-argu- 

 ments of our recent correspondent, we 

 may perhaps be allowed a few additional 

 ■words of explanation. 



The question, as it seems to us, is not 

 which is the higher principle of action 

 — altruism or egoism — but the much 

 more practical one as to the extent to 

 which, and the circumstances under 

 which, one liuman being should gratui- 

 tously supplement by his own industry 

 or capacity the deficiencies in one or 

 both these respects of another human 

 being. The early Christians, we read, 

 had all things in common : no one said 

 anything was his own ; all individual 

 property was abolished, as completely 

 as P. J. Proudhon himself could have 

 wished. Somehow or other this state 

 of things did not continue long ; and 

 Christians of the nineteenth century 

 show no particular desire to revert to 

 this feature of the early church. We 

 may therefore claim that personal own- 

 ership of property is recognized to-day 

 as a good thing. If, then, any one is 

 called upon to part with a portion of 



his goods for the benefit of others, 

 some adequate reason should be shown 

 for his doing so. It is not enough to 

 tell him that altruism is a virtue; for 

 that argument, unchecked by other 

 considerations, would lead to the re- 

 establishment of the very system of 

 communism upon which it has been de- 

 cided not to re-enter. Before he parts 

 with his money for alleged benevo- 

 lent objects, a reasonable man will re- 

 quire to have it demonstrated to him that 

 its application in the manner proposed 

 will cure more evil than it will, either 

 directly or indirectly, cause. In order 

 to judge the matter rightly, we should 

 take the case of a man who, possessing 

 wealth, is employing it in a prudent and 

 useful manner, and, so far, helping for- 

 ward the prosperity of the community ; 

 not the case of one who is squandering 

 large sums of money in idle ostentation 

 or vicious pleasures. In the latter case 

 the man is doing harm with his money 

 \ already, and possibly more harm than 

 would be done even by injudicious be- 

 nevolence. The former case, therefore, 

 is the only one that enables us to bring 

 a proper criticism to bear upon a sug- 

 gestion for an " altruistic " application 

 of wealth. The money is now being 

 usefully employed in the industry of the 

 country; and, so far as applied to the 

 personal expenditure of its owner, is 

 being used in maintaining a type of liv- 

 ing that simply inspires respect, chal- 

 lenging neither the stupid admiration 

 of the vulgar nor the envious regards 

 of the poorer classes. It is evident that 

 nothing short of a very satisfactory 



