nor houses of refuge, savings banks, aid societies, economy bake-houses, nor any. thing which may ease life or defend the laborer from distress. Generous attempts, however, have not been wanting.

The French constitution of 1791 proclaimed the right to assistance of all the infirm, unfortunate, or sick. A decree of October, 1793, virtually established the responsibility of the State and that of the communes; the latter were obliged to provide support for the infirm and organize relief for the aged and work for the indigent. Unfortunately, however, resources were wanting and the law was never enforced,

In 1848 new efforts were made, bringing about some few results, among which may be mentioned the excellent laws upon judiciary assistance, almshouses, unhealthy lodgings, etc.; the benefits of legislation concerning foundlings and concerning the insane, both of which classes receive efficient protection, are noticeable. It is for the third Republic to complete and extend this fragmentary legislation. Besides the usual aid among members of a family and private-enterprise charities there is public assistance, conducted by the commune, Department, or State. The commune or village has a duty to perform towards its needy inhabitants which is also of social interest, for when sickness or misery drives the individual towards the city the first step is taken towards mendicity or vagabondage.

Enforced idleness (chomage) is the principle of all misery and often results from illness or from a state of things impossible of prevention; certain communes might remedy this by organization of labor, and all might alleviate it by creating charity bureaux or medical relief. In theory a charity bureau is necessary for each commune, a state of things actually realized in Belgium; unfortunately France has too often yielded to the desire shown by even the smallest village to be erected into communes, and there are now many such agglomerations containing less than 1,000 inhabitants each. For such might be created a single charity bureau by a syndicate or reunion of several. When the sick farmer knows that nourishment is assured him during his illness and that care and remedies will not be wanting there will be an appreciable amelioration in the condition of the rural classes; those thus aided must be under rigorous control so that assistance given shall not be an excuse for idleness. In cases of serious illness, or for incurable patients or for the aged, it has proposed to establish a refuge-hospital in each chef-lieu de canton or principal town; many cantons can not afford such hospitals, but are able to gain admission for their sick to the hospitals of neighboring towns, which always have spare beds and attendance.

As to provident institutions there are, in the first place, the savings banks; these have rendered great service in the country as well as in cities, and the government has neglected nothing in order to encourage them, and, thanks to postal-savings banks, there is now not a commune in France that does not benefit by them. The peasant hesitates to part with his capital and so does not buy shares in stocks, but he willingly places his money in a savings bank, and this is his only method of laying up money; he is utterly ignorant of life insurance, but accepts more willingly societies of mutual aid. Still, in some departments an advance has been made, especially through the agricultural syndicates, and it is not to be despaired of that our farmers will soon accept the grand laws of joint responsibility (solidarité) which govern modern society.

In connection with the above report the following resolutions were passed by the Congress: (1) In default of family the communes should give aid to the sick, infirm, and aged; several communes might unite for such purposes, joining a syndicate, and might be authorized to use their resources to such an end. (2) It would be expedient to establish a bureau of assistance in each commune or

syndicate of communes in order to assure aid at homes or in hospitals. (3) Each Department should organise a general system of public assistance, establishing a budget therefor and determining rules for service. (4) The resources of such a budget should have triple origin; a contingent from each commune in proportion to its resources and the number aided, a departmental subsidy and a subsidy from the State. (5) It is the duty of the State to facilitate by all means societies of mutual relief and pension banks (caisses de retraite) for rural laborers.

(3) Parceling of the Soil.-To an American traveling upon certain French railways the appearance of the fields is peculiar: at first these appear to be of vast extent, but it is soon observed that they are in reality composed of a number of smaller fields and that the almost total absence of fences or hedges, even along the highways. causes their peculiar appearance. Generally these individual fields are of moderate size, but often they are seen to be very small, only a few square yards in extent, or perhaps a ribbon of land two or three yards in width by some twenty or thirty in length; these patches of land are nearly always rectangular. Laid out with mathematical precision, the rows of cultivation seem to have been drawn with a ruler, and there is hardly anything to distinguish the division of one patch from another, except the difference of the crop, and it might be supposed that the whole of one great extent was cultivated by one proprietor did we not know to the contrary.

This question of parceling of the soil has become one of considerable importance within the last few years. The term parceling (morcellement) has two different interpretations: first, land may be divided, i. e., it may be occupied by a large number of proprietors, the size of each field being less as these are more numerous; or it may be dispersed, i. e., several small and disjointed parcels of land may belong to one proprietor, and may be separated from each other by the lands of other proprietors. In a certain way this division, if not too great, may be of benefit, since a large and unproductive lot of land may, by division and cultivation by several tenants, be made productive, and it is true that the more landed proprietors there are in a community the more good citizens there are predisposed to law and order. It is difficult to apply a fixed rule, since the best solution depends upon manifold circumstances, as locality, character of inhabitants, modes of culture, in what lands the capital devoted to agriculture is, etc., though a partial solution seems to have been reached in the German Hof or domain of moderate size. to guarantee the integrity of which several laws have been made since 1874. The Hof may be left integrally by the will of a father to any of his sons, or in default of a will, it goes to the eldest, the heir who receives it paying a certain indemnity (soulte) to the other heirs. This custom is found in Hanover and Westphalia, and has

been adopted by Austria, and seems to have given excellent results, the agricultural crisis in these countries having lost its intensity.

Such a custom might succeed well in Austria, where property is organized upon a basis of feudal origin, but would never succeed in France, where all children inherit equally from the parent.

It has been demanded that this law should be abrogated upon the plea that the rights of succession granted to heirs to the French code civil abnormally develop the individualism of each to the detriment of all idea of family union; and so far as agriculture is concerned it is shown that the right of each heir to claim his share in real estate as well as in personal property has brought about an infinite parceling of property. The remedy proposed for this is to recognize the absolute right of the father of the family to dispose of his property by will, and the Congress considered the question whether the interest of agriculture demands any such modification of the laws of the succession.

Although the division among heirs is one of the chief causes of the parceling of the soil, there are other causes, among which is voluntary division; large domains are sold piecemeal, a system which no doubt brings profit to the seller and often also to the buyer, who can thus invest small amounts of capital. Some writers have held that this custom is a source of future danger, but such danger is a chimerical one, and proprietors need not yet be restrained from retailing their land.

The question of the disposition of property and its consequent danger is to be looked at in a totally different light.

Everyone can see the superiority of a farm cultivated compactly under one tenant over another farm consisting of several parcels of land far apart from each other; in the one supervision and improvement are easy and time need not be lost, while in the other important operations upon isolated fragments of land become almost impracticable, and incurring the necessity for neighboring parcels, all to contain the same crop to avoid complication. Unfortunately, in many regions there are many numbers of such small patches of land irregular in outline, dovetailed into each other, and far from roads, sometimes much time is lost in even reaching them, and complications arise regarding right of way, etc.

Opinions are diverse as to the remedy to be applied for this state of things; it is thought by some that those interested (i. e., the cultivators) should alone take the initiative and should leave to the land owners full latitude to sell, buy, or exchange their parcels, while others are of the opinion that legislative measures are necessary, and maintain that if left to himself the farmer will never take measures energetic enough to accomplish the desired result, and they quote the example of Germany, where good results have been obtained from united action, results which must have been long H. Ex. 410-VOL V-33

known, for at the end of the sixteenth century we find Switzerland attempting to remedy the too great parceling of her soil by a redistribution of land. Numerous similar operations are to be found during the eighteenth century, particularly in England and Bavaria, while since the French revolution this practice has been followed with success in Germany; in several states (Baden, Saxony, etc.), important laws regulate such distributions. Generally a vote of the majority of the inhabitants is required, the lands are appraised, competent persons draw up the new plan of distribution, including roads, etc., and finally a pro rata distribution is made among the land holders; thus in the commune of Hochhaida, in 1865, the number of separate fields was reduced from 774 to 35 almost every one bordering upon a road, the consequence being a considerable increase in the harvest.

Notwithstanding its excellent results, this system is not without serious objections; in the first place, it is only applicable to territories, rare in France, where the parceling has acquired extraordinary development, and, secondly, it is claimed that such forced exchanges are equivalent to veritable dispossessions, and are in manifest violations of the right of property, besides which it would be dangerous to introduce a system which would deeply wound the sentiment of attachment to the soil so strong among the French peasantry.

Certain economists have held that it was possible to arrive at the desired result by inducing voluntary exchange among proprietors by giving them every facility to that end, and in view of this a law was promulgated in 1824 reducing the tax upon exchange of rural property; this law was, however, annulled in great measure ten years later, but restored in principle in 1884 by a law which makes a considerable reduction in the tax upon such exchange.

It is difficult to say whether this will give good results, as it is claimed that the chance for reuniting scattered parcels of land by direct exchange rarely presents itself, and that there is generally a bonus (soulte) to be paid by one side or the other.

Several suggestions have been offered in solution; laws facilitating transfer of property might be passed which were not limited to direct exchange. Syndicates among landholders might be found with a view to promoting mutual exchange or to providing better boundary marks.

Again, it may be determined what are the evils of too great parceling, and these may be remedied by special means, for instance, as parceling produces dovetailing (enclaves) of fields and consequent quarrels concerning right of way, let roads and paths be built, the very making of which may bring about direct exchanges; or let syndicates for drainage or irrigation or other works of public interest be formed. If it be objected that in a territory too divided the small patches of land are difficult of cultivation, let such patches

be cultivated in common, the benefits therefrom being shared in proportion. This last plan has been tried in some countries with good results. Thus it is seen that on every side the remedy for agricultural evils is to be found in association.

The law of May, 1865, upon which the creation of syndicates is based may have imperfections, but these are easy of remedy. Its principle is the obligation for the minority to participate in the syndicate when a common evil is to be overcome (e. g., the Phylloxera), but freedom for all if there is profit to be made or a single improvement to be instituted.

The following resolutions were passed: (1) Division of soil should not be considered as an obstacle to good cultivation, though extreme parceling is an obstacle. (2) In a case where parceling is to be combated it would be well to modify the French law of division of inheritance, and to examine in connection foreign laws and their results; and to allow the courts to compensate lots of real estate with lots of personal property, all from the same inheritance. (3) The reduction of conveyance fees in matter of exchange of rural property will facilitate the free reuniting of parcels of land. (4) The dangers or inconveniences presented by obligatory redistribution are of such a nature that recourse to such procedure should be avoided, notwithstanding the good results which it seems to have given in certain countries. (5) The law upon Sundic associations should be completed so as to apply to the reuniting of parcels of land.

The Congress strenuously opposed any reuniting or redistribution contrary to the wishes of the minority of those concerned. Expropriation might be practiced in the case of great works of public interest, as, for instance, a railway or a canal, but redistributions would in France be held as direct violations of the right of property, and would never become customary there, however they might be regarded in Germany.

The celebrated lawyer, Domat, was of the opinion that should a tenant materially increase the value of his farm by making improvements not required in his lease, as for instance by planting a vineyard or an orchard, he should, at the expiration of his lease, be entitled to compensation for expenses incurred by him, allowance being made for the fruits of such improvements already enjoyed by him. This idea has but partially found its way into the Civil Code, so that if at the expiration of lease a proprietor wishes to keep such improvements he may reimburse the tenant for expenses incurred but without regard to increase in value of the farm. In 1848 a law was proposed by Pégerat based upon the idea of a triple association between capital (represented by the soil) intelligent direction (represented by agriculturist) and manual labor (represented by farm. laborer) each member of which should have an equal third of the profits. This proposition was rejected but was brought up subsequently with modifications.