that men's right to suffrage answers to their military duty. For my part, I have never connected these two questions, since I consider that the duty of paying taxes, equal for men and women, corresponds to their equal rights of suffrage, and, besides, that society's need of the women's point of view as well as of that of men fully justifies their eligibility to office. And, if we seek a parallel to man's sacrifice of life and limb or health on the battlefield, we find it in child-bearing, a battlefield where many women give their lives or become invalids for the rest of their days./

The duty of a training for social service as mother or soldier naturally follows, in my opinion, the education that society has given the young, an education which, in regard to professional training, they repay by efficient work in their various professions, but in other respects by preparing themselves to defend and promote the culture of which they are beneficiaries. The natural division of labor will then be that the men prepare themselves to defend the country in case of an impending peril, and deliver it from danger, while the women prepare themselves to defend and care for the new generation on which the future depends.

In the distant future, when military service shall no longer be needed, and at present, in countries where it is not enforced, all young people ought to have some such training as that of which the Scout movement is, in a certain sense, a beginning — a training in readiness and ability to assist in case of natural calamities and other accidents which may befall society or individuals. Even now, it is the soldiers and seamen who, at times of fire, railroad and mine accidents, floods and earthquakes, show themselves the best helpers, because of their habits of discipline, and of swift and efficient action.

Both men and women ought also, as a matter of course, to have some knowledge of the essential features of the structure of society. This may be done already during the school period — as has very successfully been tried at an excellent coeducational reform school in Sweden - if the knowledge be not imparted through dry discourses, but the young people are allowed, under the guidance of an expert teacher, to play at parliament some hours a week during several years — playing at elections, committee-meetings, party divisions, motions, and discussions, just as in the national legislature. Even the rudiments of national economy ought in some such manner to be made living and interesting.

That all of this directly belongs to woman's education for social motherhood, and indirectly also to her vocation as the mother of future servants of society, needs no further proof. "For men, as well as for women, the socialservice year would not be wasted even if many would have no occasion personally to use for their own individual benefit all the knowledge gained. There exists no woman, who does not, in some way or other, come into contact with children. And it is increasingly rare for women not to find opportunities in social work to use the knowledge gained during a year's instruction in the care of children, hygiene, eugenics, and domestic science. But far beyond and above the benefits which understanding of this or that individual case

would bring, is the awakening to social responsibility and the leveling of class distinction which such a year of obligatory social service would bring to the daughter of the millionaire and the factory girl alike. As guides in the instruction of young women, I would choose noble matrons, serene as priestesses, who themselves have fulfilled the mission of motherhood - women ripened into sweetness of wisdom, and with power to impart vividly the fruits of their experience to the young who, some day standing before the serious task of making a home and bringing up children, may perhaps by a single word of advice remembered in time save life's happiness for themselves.

As a transition toward a legally established social-service year for women, I think it might be a good plan to make a course in housekeeping and the care of children a condition of the right to marry. This would result in the private establishment of such courses everywhere. But, on the one hand, the state would have no control over their character, and on the other, these courses would mostly be taken during the above-mentioned and least appropriate age, while in cases when this would not be true, they might come as an unwelcome compulsion later on. In consideration of all these reasons, it is best for us to fix our eyes upon an obligatory year of service for women as a goal to be realized in the near future. The nation which tried this out would find its health and prosperity increased after a few generations in a measure that would thoroughly compensate for the cost involved. Such a cost need not, however, be as great as it is for the compulsory military training of men. To be sure, certain buildings would have to be erected, suitable homes for the teachers and students, who were not living in the neighborhood of the training centres,

but appropriate lecture-halls would, in most cases, already be found on the spot. And while the service of the men does not confer any direct benefit to society in times of peace, the service of the women would place a large working force at the disposal of society for the care of the sick and of children and of all in need. In each centre, various energy-saving combinations would be possible. As an example may be mentioned that in Stockholm the feeding of poor children has been combined with the schools of domestic science. These embrace not only cooking, and similar subjects but also a course in the care of children, which in turn is combined with day-nurseries. Diningrooms for working women are also combined with the cooking-school. By wise, womanly organization, there are consequently not less than six socially useful enterprises which directly support each other./

These suggestions suffice to show in what direction one must go in order to make practicable the use of the year of social service for women. Different conditions in different nations, and in various districts within each country, would dictate a variety of applications, and a detailed programme would be as impossible as unnecessary.

Only certain essential conditions would need to be established everywhere. First, the making of the legal marriage age for women the same as for men, as it now is in most European countries, -twenty-one, which in the United States of America, as well as in Europe, has been proved to be conducive to the betterment of society and the race; and that the year between twenty and twenty-one be established as the year for social service/ although as is now the case for men - an earlier or later entering into service for valid reasons might be allowed. Secondly, that complete freedom from

service be granted for reasons similar to those which now exempt men from military service.

In analogy with men, the women under obligation to serve ought to have free choice, within certain limits, in regard to the place of training, and also in regard to the selection of the practical and theoretic courses in which they would participate. For example, it would be foolish to waste time on such courses as may have already been taken during medical or normal-school studies, and so forth. And, similarly, it would be a great waste of energy if one already graduated as a trained nurse were commanded to do duty in a hospital, or if a capable and well-informed child-nurse were sent to a children's home, and so on. The object should be so to arrange the training that each one would fill up the gaps in her knowledge to the greatest possible extent.

After some generations of such earnest education it would be found that, just as now, the training for the teacher's calling has supplied the countries with good teaching forces, while the same forces untrained have remained insignificant; the education for motherhood would supply the various nations with many good mothers well able to fulfill the duties of the home, while such 'born educators' as did not become mothers would find work enough in institutions where children must be cared for by society because of the death or the viciousness of their parents.

The attitude of the women, once they have gained full suffrage, toward the questions herein dealt with, will be the great test of the nature of their 'social motherliness.' If they comprehend that the education of the mothers, and the rendering secure the functions of the mothers, is the life-question of the race, they will then succeed in finding the means of meeting these demands.

Did humanity ever halt helplessly before any of its vital needs? Least of all could this happen in America, where the very air reverberates with songs of faith in the power of will, with the hope of realization of most wonderful dreams? From the Pilgrim Fathers, from the wars of independence and secession, we have strong evidence of the power of will over the destiny of the world. Ever since, in my youth, I listened to Emerson's prophetic words, and Whitman's songs of the creative power of the soul and of the pliability of life in the moulding grasp of this power, I have again and again received new impressions through thinkers, moralists, and sectsmoralists, and sects-of this typically American spirit. To be sure, it may sometimes lapse into boastfulness or degenerate into superstition as, for instance, when it is believed that the will can conquer every disease and even abolish death. But in itself this sovereign assurance of the victory of will, faith, and hope is the world's greatest power for overcoming evil with good.

It was more than twenty-five years ago that my attention was first attracted to the causation of crime. I was a young magistrate then, trying my first cases, very nervous, very conscientiously desirous to fulfill all the legal requirements as laid down in the codes. It had never occurred to me then that there was any gulf between justice and law; I supposed that they were one, that law was only codified and systemized justice; therefore in fulfilling the Law I thought that I was surely administering Justice.

I was trying a theft case. I cannot remember now what it was that had been stolen, but I think it was a bullock. The accused was undefended and I, as the custom is, questioned him about the case, not with the view of getting him to commit himself, but in order to try to elicit his defense if any. He had none. He admitted the theft, described the circumstances quite fully and frankly, and said he was guilty. I asked him if he knew when he took the bullock from the grazing ground that he was stealing it, and he answered yes. I asked him if he knew that the punishment for cattle theft was two years' imprisonment, which practically meant ruin for life, and he replied that he knew it would be heavy.

"Then,' I asked, 'why did you do it?' He moved uneasily in the dock without answering, looked about him, and seemed puzzled.

I repeated the question. Evidently he was trying to remember why he had done it and found it

difficult. He had not considered the point before, and introspection was new to him. 'Why did I do it?' he was saying to himself.

'Well?' I asked.

He looked me frankly in the face. 'I don't know,' he said, 'I suppose I could not help it. I did not think about it at all; something just made me take it.'

He was convicted, of course, and I forgot the case.

But I did not forget what he had said. It remained in my mind and recurred to me from time to time, I did not know why. For I had always been taught that crime was due to an evil disposition which a person could change, only he would not, and I had as yet seen no reason to question this view. Therefore the accused man's defense appealed to no idea that was consciously in my mind. I did not reflect upon it. I can only suppose that, unconsciously to myself, these words reached some instinct within me which told me that they were true. And at last, from the very importunity of their return, I did begin to think about them, and, in consequence, of the causation of crime in general. A curiosity awoke which has never abated, has indeed but grown as in some small ways I was able to satisfy it.

What causes crime? Is it a purely individual matter? If so, why does it follow certain laws of increase or de

crease, or maintain an average? That looks more like general results following on general causes than the result of individual qualities.

Why is it not curable? It should have been cured centuries ago. Why does punishment usually make the offender worse instead of better? If his crime were within the individual's control, punishment certainly would deter. Any deterrent effect it may have is rarely on him who is punished, but on the outside world, and that is but little. So much I saw very clearly in practice, and every book I read on the subject confirmed this. The infamous penal laws of England a hundred years ago did not stop crime; flogging did not stop garroting, it ceased for other causes. I began to think and to observe.

Some three years later my attention was still more strongly drawn to this subject. I was then for a short time the governor of the biggest jail in the world, that in Rangoon. It was crowded with prisoners, under sentence for many different forms of crime, from murder or 'dacoity' - that is, gang robbery to petty theft. The numbers were abnormal, and they were so not only here but in all the jails of both the upper and lower provinces. The average of crime had greatly risen. Why was this?

The reason was obvious. The annexation of the upper province six years before had caused a wave of unrest, not only there but in the delta districts as well, which found its expression in many forms of crime. There was no doubt about the cause. But this cause was a general cause, not individual. The individual criminals there in the jail did not declare the war. That was the consequence of acts by the King of Burma, and the government of India controlled by the English Cabinet, and these in turn were consequent on acts of the French government. Therefore

half of these individuals had become criminals because of the disagreements of three governments, two of which were six thousand miles away from Rangoon.

There was no getting out of that. In normal times the average of convicts would have been only half what it was. The abnormality was not due to the convicts themselves.

Thus if A and B and C were suffering punishment in the jail, the fault was primarily not theirs. A special strain was set up from without which they could not stand, and they fell. But if this be true of half the prisoners, why not of the other half? There was no dividing line between the two classes. Political offenses apart, you could not walk into the jail and, dividing the convicts into two parts, say, "The crime of this half being due to external causes, they must be pardoned; the crimes of the other half being due to their own evil disposition, they must continue to suffer.' There was no demarcation.

Therefore general causes are occasionally the cause of crime. Here was a long step in advance.

Again, five years later, I was on famine duty in the upper province, and the same phenomenon occurred. There was an increase in certain forms of crime. Thefts doubled. Other crimes, such as cheating and fraudulent dealings with money, decreased. Here was again a general cause. Half of those thieves would have remained honest men all their lives, would have been respected by their fellow men, and according to religion have gone to heaven when they died, but for the famine.

The causes of the famine were want of rain acting on the economic weakness of the people, increased by the inability of Government. Thus, had rain fallen as usual, had the people been able to cultivate other resources, had Government been more advanced and