was buried by way of concealment; that of the woman was packed by the prisoner in a box, which he requested a carrier to rope and cord. During the performance of his task, the carrier noticed that blood was oozing from the box, and this circumstance excited suspicion, and led to the discovery of the crime. In 1871 a suit was raised to decide the disposal of Huelin's belongings. If the housekeeper were proved to have survived the master, then the bequest to her would take effect; while, assuming the opposite view, the heirs of Huelin would claim the entire property. Here medical evidence assisted the decision of the Vice-Chancellor's court, by declaring that the signs of death were more recent in the case of the woman than in that of Huelin; and circumstantial evidence lent its aid toward substantiating that of the experts. The court decided in favor of the heirs of the unfortunate housekeeper. A case has also been related in

which, during a quarrel between husband and wife, the latter in an ungovernable passion rushed from the house across a lawn and flung herself into a pond. Her husband tried to rescue her, but both were drowned. Evidence failed to elicit any satisfactory details regarding the priority of death, and the suit which had been entered into was compromised accordingly.

Little need exists for expatiation on the curious nature of such studies in the shady paths of life, or on the singular blending of fact and romance in certain phases of human existence. But one idea may be fairly expressed by way of conclusion: namely, that science and law together, while often achieving veritable triumphs in the patient pursuit and discovery of the truth, are yet unable to save humanity from one of its worst enemies-its contorted and debased self. All the Year Round.

[We have from the Count de Lesseps a reply to the article in our last number on the SUEZ CANAL, which we subjoin. That article, as M. de Lesseps suspects, was written by Judge Philip H. Morgan, lately member of the "Tribunal de Première Instance" of Egypt, and recently appointed Minister from this country to Mexico.]

To the Editor of Appletons' Journal.

SIR: In your April number I find an article entitled "The Suez Canal: a History," and signed P. H. M., which initials I understand are those of Judge Philip H. Morgan, of the United States; and, deeply sensible of the falseness of the accusations he has made against the Suez Canal Company, of which I was and am president and managing director, I feel it a duty to myself and to those so long associated with me to send you the following article in reply to his charges.

On November 30, 1854, M. de Lesseps was empowered to form an Egyptian and Universal Company, by virtue of the concession which was given him to open a ship-canal between the Mediterranean and the Red Seas. At the same time the Viceroy, Saïd Pasha, decreed the building of the railroad between Cairo and Suez in order to please the English, who were clamorous for it. The railroad had to be built at the expense of Egypt, while the Suez Canal was to be constructed without any subvention, at the expense of the company, which was to call upon

VOL. VIII.-30

all countries to take part in the work without any government aid. M. de Lesseps, with his family and friends, got together the first money necessary to begin the preliminary studies. A rough plan was drawn up by two of the Viceroy's engineers, Messrs. Mougel Bey and Linaut Bey. A superior committee, composed of twelve famous engineers selected from England, France, Holland, Austria, Germany, Italy, and Spain, examined the rough plan, and sent a sub-committee to Egypt and published its final report. As the result of this publication, the Viceroy, Saïd Pasha, renewed in January, 1856, his concession of 1854, but, as the policy of Lord Palmerston threatened Egypt with serious complications on account of the canal, the Viceroy thought it best to put off seeking subscriptions to form the company. He then undertook to furnish himself a monthly sum of 30,000 francs, in order to have control of the enterprise until he should judge it advisable to apply for capital. M. de Lesseps, on his part, agreed to give him back the concession without any indemnity if political events should prevent him from carrying it out. The preliminary work was continued until the end of 1858. The time was then considered favorable to ask for a subscription of 200,000,000 francs, the sum fixed by the superior international committee, but the Viceroy requested M. de Lesseps not to have all the stock taken by France alone, but to reserve a part for other countries, holding

himself ready to retain that portion for distribution later, as it might be, in order that it should not be said that the canal company was only composed of French capital. This first sum amounted to 120,000,000 francs, represented by 240,000 shares of five hundred francs each; and the part reserved for the Viceroy was 80,000,000 francs, represented by 160,000 shares. The company was thus regularly formed. The first care of the Council of Administration was to decide upon reimbursing the sums expended in the study of the preliminary works, about 3,000,000 francs, which was at once done, to the profit of the Viceroy and the founders of the company.

At the time of the first steps taken by English diplomacy against the canal, one of Lord Palmerston's arguments was that France would send Zouaves disguised as canal workmen in order later to attempt to take possession of Egypt. It was then that the Viceroy, in harmony with M. de Lesseps, decreed that four fifths of the workmen on the canal should be Egyptians. As a corollary to this agreement he bound himself, after having disbanded twenty thousand men from his army, which then numbered sixty thousand, to send every month the workmen necessary for the undertaking to the number of twenty thousand men. The decree as to the employment of fellahs, which appeared in the first volume of the documents of the history of the Suez Canal (published by the house of Didier, 55 Quai des Augustins, Paris), is considered a model of justice, humanity, and wise foresight. It has now been published a long while, and has closed the mouth of English attacks, which were founded upon supposed forced labor. I challenge Judge Morgan to prove what he has falsely written in relation to the mortality of the fellahs, the bad treatment of which they were victims, and a barbarous system of forcing the children to work. What he has said is a pure invention. Among the many Americans who visited the Suez Canal during its construction, one can easily inquire of the former agent and Consul-General of the United States of America, Mr. Edwin de Leon, and also of Dr. Washington M. Ryer, now a resident of San Francisco.

At the death of Saïd Pasha, his successor Ismaïl declared, on entering office, before the representatives of the foreign nations, that he had no other wish than to carry out faithfully the agreements of his predecessor toward the Suez Canal Company, and consequently workmen continued to be sent to the ground, receiving in accordance with the above-mentioned decree a daily pay greater than that given to workmen on private estates in Egypt, their ration of bread, vegetables, water, etc. A circular from

the President informed them that any employee of the company who should strike an Arab should be dismissed, whatever might be his services or his rank. As for the imagined mortality of the workmen, the reports of the doctors, published at the annual meetings of the company at Paris, have proved that the figures of mortality were less than in the healthiest garrisons of France, and that it was less among the natives of the country than among the Europeans.

Everything, therefore, was going on smoothly, when Lord Palmerston sent to Egypt Sir Henry Bulwer, her Majesty's ambassador at Constantinople, who obtained from the Viceroy the promise to take away from the company the Egyptian contingent of workmen, the canal of fresh water, built at the expense of the above-mentioned company, and the sixty thousand hectares of land granted along this canal. The object was to ruin the company, and to prevent it from going on with the work. The game was first to violate our contracts, without in any way indemnifying the company. The President and the members of the Council of Administration of the company very naturally resisted such pretensions, and even had condemned by the tribunals an Egyptian Minister who had come to Paris to sustain the idea of robbing the company by means of the press.

In the face of our resistance, and to put an end to a painful struggle, the Viceroy spontaneously wrote to the Emperor Napoleon III. to ask him to be the arbiter in the differences existing between the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal Company. The Emperor accepted the position, and the Council of Administration was also invited to accept it.

The Emperor delegated the examination of the questions presented to him to a Committee of Inquiry, chosen from the Council of State, the Senate, and the Chamber of Deputies, under the presidency of M. Thouvenel, former ambassador at Constantinople, and former Minister of Foreign Affairs. This committee, after an exhaustive study and a minute examination, declared that indemnities were due the company in compensation for the new conditions imposed upon it, and which it refused to accept. It made it understood that it preferred the execution of the original contract, and the continuation of the work as already begun, to any kind of indemnity, but that, at the same time, it would respect the decision of the Emperor. The committee, in its report, proposed to indemnify the company in the following

manner:

I. For the cession of the freshwater canal; this figure was estimated from the exact expenses of the com

pany, as made out by M. Voisin Bey,

enterprise, were mistaken in their calculations in

4. Loss of time to the company by changing the kind of labor-minimum estimate..

Total indemnity.....

14,000,000 84,000,000 frs. Later on the Viceroy, wishing to acquire the property of Ouady, bought it of the company at public auction, from the succession of the late Viceroy, Abbas Pasha, and was very well satisfied at the moderate terms of the company, who accepted the price of 10,000,000 francs for a piece of land of ten thousand hectares that he had cultivated, and which was already partly let out on rent at a yearly sum of 850,000 francs.

Such is the exact recital of the financial relations of the company to the Egyptian Government. Now, when Judge Morgan pretends that the Suez Canal Company has ruined Egypt, it can be said, in reply, that it is the canal that has given to Egypt the credit it never had before, and that later it made a bad use of this credit. It is enough to compare the state of Egypt in 1854 with its present condition.

It is another error to suppose that formerly Egypt had the carrying trade of the Indies and China, which entirely was done by the Cape of Good Hope until the opening of the canal, as the railroad only went from Alexandria to Cairo. As regards this railroad, when opened through to Suez a few years before the completion of the canal, its business has since that time increased tenfold, and to-day it is considered as one of the best assets of the Egyptian creditors.

What has burdened the finances of Egypt is, I repeat, the abuse of the credit given by the canal. This abuse was not occasioned to pay the expenses of the canal, which, on the contrary, have brought into the Egyptian Treasury, first, the interest at five per cent. on its stock, from the formation of the company in 1858 down to the present time; second, the fifteen per cent. stipulated in the act of concession from the net profits of the company, which fifteen per cent. was pledged by the Viceroy to the Credit Foncier of France, and was paid into that company for the account of the Egyptian Government, in a lump sum of 1,631,000 francs; and this fifteen per cent. was demanded of the Egyptian Government by different groups of creditors, but with it was paid the syndicate, called that of the hundred and five millions.

Judge Morgan pretends that the great European engineers, the authors of the Suez Canal

Entire capital......... 424,000,000 frs.

The difference between this sum and that of 457,000,000 which represents the actual cost of the canal with the interest paid to stockholders, comes from the interest on the money belonging to the company and invested by it during the execution of the work.

It must also be noted that the 30,000,000 francs above mentioned (4) did not come out of the Egyptian Treasury, the Viceroy having given to the public for this sum the coupons cut off his bonds up to the year 1895.

If the Egyptian finances have been burdened, if a liquidation has recently become necessary which would satisfy the creditors, the cause of this deficit will be found in the large sums sent to Constantinople, besides the annual tribute, during the war between Turkey and Russia; in the sad war between Egypt and Abyssinia; in the multiplication of railroads and telegraphs and irrigating canals all through Egypt as far as Soudan; in the fortunate but expensive submission of the people bordering the Nile as far as the equator, and their freedom from slavery; in the establishment of large sugar-factories in Upper Egypt, which have cost more than 100,000,000 francs, but which will later be remunerative; in a great number of palaces and public edi

[We have received from Judge Morgan a long article, written before the above reply came to hand, giving the official authority for every statement made

by him so far as regards the expenditures of the Suez Canal Company; but, as we do not see that M. de Lesseps really disproves the figures given by Judge Morgan, we do not now print it, but hold ourselves ready to do so should it become necessary or desirable. We append, however, a note from Judge Morgan, glancing briefly at the points made by M. de Lesseps.]

To the Editor of Appletons' Journal.

SIR: I see little in M. de Lesseps's article to answer. I did not pretend to write "a history" of the Suez Canal. The main object of my effort was to show what the canal cost Egypt. The methods employed to that end were purely incidental, as was also my reference to them.

To substantiate my statements I have furnished you with all the data upon which I could, at the moment, lay my hands. But they are not denied, and this is my justification.

As to the effect which the canal has had upon the commerce of Egypt, I only expressed the opinion which was repeated to me, by every person not interested in the canal, with whom I conversed while I was in Egypt. The fact that the railroad from Cairo to Suez is good stock does not disprove the statement. The ships with their passengers, passing through the canal,

substantiate it.

As regards the "pure invention " about the workmen, it was not my invention. I only stated what I had heard from persons who were on the spot when they were at work. You will observe that the mode of working these people and the pay which they were to receive are not denied, and the statement that 4,500,000 francs had been curtailed out of the pay which was due to them has not even been alluded to. The effect upon them, physically, is more graphically described in an article which I find in the "Springfield Republican," which was intended, it would seem, as a defense of the company: "Villages were cut off, families were destroyed, the prosperity of Egypt was lessened by the fearful sacrifice of life." If any official statistics have been kept of the number of people who perished on the work, they are, or should be, within reach of the officers of the company. Let them produce them.

The judgment of the Emperor was criticised

by me, and it is no answer to what I have written upon the subject to say that it was the result of the investigations of a Committee of Inquiry, chosen from the Council of State, under the presidency of an important man.

I do not remember to have stated that all the money which the canal cost Egypt went into the treasury of the company. I simply endeavored to show the cost thereof, and I said in the article, and I repeat it now: 'In so far as Egypt is concerned, it matters not where it went; it is sufficient to know that Egypt had to pay it.”

The amount which the last 30,000,000 francs cost is not denied. It is no answer to say that the sum was not taken from the Egyptian Treasury. The Government is paying it now in yearly installments to England in sums of about £200,000 each.

I have not said that the canal was the only cause of Egypt's financial ruin-I said and I repeat it, that it was one of the causes thereofand a principal one besides; and it can be shown by authentic documents that the enterprise which was to have cost Egypt nothing has resulted in having taken from her, first and last, some 500,000,000 francs; that the money it has cost her would have built it, and that she has no canal. And in what way the money was spent by the company, whether in the payment of interest or not, is nothing to the purpose., The cost of the work is in the near neighborhood of what I stated it to be.

But I regret to see that upon a question of fact-though not of figures, or, as I believe, of law or justice-I have made a mistake.

On p. 308 ("Journal " for April) you will find, "But inasmuch as the company claimed interest on the sums which they had paid to laborers, up to the time when their further employment was prohibited, amounting, as they stated the sum, to 9,000,000 francs," etc.

In reality, the interest claimed was upon the ground that the change in the labor would protract the work a year, and what was claimed was interest on the capital which would be employed for that additional time; and it was with this sum, prospectively due, that the Emperor compensated the 4,500,000 francs which had been reserved from the laborers.

The fact is worse than the statement, and the result is always the same, for the Government was awarded to pay for capital, the expenditure of which had not been made, and which in no case was due.

I take this occasion to say that the article was written while I was in Egypt, and long before I was appointed Minister to Mexico. Very truly yours,

WASHINGTON, April 1, 1880.

P. H. MORGAN.

SHAM ADMIRATION.

art; and consequently many readers will rejoice in a recent paper by Mr. James Payn, in which he protests cogently against this form of subjection and cowardice. There has arisen, he declares, “a wellnigh universal habit of literary lying-of a pretense of admiration for certain works of which in reality we know very little, and for which, if we knew more, we should perhaps care less," which he in part attributes to the English system of compulsory classic education. But, while there is a great deal of bastard admiration for the Greek and Latin poets, the English classics are only a little less made objects of pretended liking.

There are certain books which are standard, and as it were planted in the British soil, before which the great majority of us bow the knee and doff the cap with a reverence that, in its ignorance, reminds one of fetichworship, and, in its affectation, of the passion for High Art. The works without which, we are told at bookauctions, "no gentleman's library can be considered complete," are especially the objects of this adoration. "The Rambler," for example, is one of them. I was once shut up for a week of snow-storms in a mountain inn, with "The Rambler" and one other publication. The latter was a "Shepherd's Guide," with illustrations of the way in which sheep are marked by their various owners for the purpose of identification: "Cropped near ear, upper key bitted far, a pop on the head and another at the tail head, ritted, and with two red strokes down both shoulders," etc. It was monotonous, but I confess that there were times when I felt it some comfort in having that picture-book to fall back upon, to alternate with

"The Rambler."..

A good deal of this mock worship is of course due to abject cowardice. A man who says he doesn't like "The Rambler " runs, with some folks, the risk of being thought a fool; but he is sure to be thought that, for something or another, under any circumstances; and, at all events, why should he not content himself, when "The Rambler" is belauded, with holding his tongue and smiling acquiescence? It must be conceded that there are a few persons who really have read "The Rambler," a work, of course, I am merely using as a type of its class. In their young days it was used as a schoolbook, and thought necessary as a part of polite education; and, as they have read little or nothing since, it is only reasonable that they should stick to their colors.

Mr. Payn thinks that it is women who have the most courage in the expression of their literary opinions, citing as evidence Harriet Martineau, who confessed to him that she found "Tom Jones " a wearisome book; and Charlotte Brontë, who declared that she could not read Jane Austen's novels with pleasure. He adds:

It may here be said that there are many English authors of old date, some of whose beauties are unintelligi

of an

to those who are not scholars as the spectacle of a burThis is still more the case with our old poets, especially lesque is to those who have not seen the original play. Milton. I very much doubt, in spite of the universal chorus to the contrary, whether "Lycidas" is much admired by readers who are only acquainted with English literature; I am quite sure it never touched their hearts as, for example, "In Memoriam " does.

I once beheld a young lady, of great literary taste and of exquisite sensibility, torn to pieces (figuratively) and trampled upon by a great scholar for venturing to make to the Muses and the general classical air which pervades a comparison between those two poems. Its invocation it had destroyed for her the pathos of "Lycidas," whereas to her antagonist those very imperfections appeared to enhance its beauty. I did not interfere, because the wretch was her husband, and it would have been worse for her if I had, but my sympathies were entirely with her. Her sad fate-for the massacre took place in public-would, I was well aware, have the effect of making people lie worse than ever about Milton. On that same evening, while some folks were talking about Mr. Morris's "Earthly Paradise," I heard a scornful voice exclaim, "Oh! give ME 'Paradise Lost,'" and with that gentleman I did have it out. I promptly subjected him to cross-examination, and drove him to that extremity that he was compelled to admit he had never read a word of Milton for forty years, and even then only in extracts from "Enfield's Speaker."

This habit of adhesion to received opinions strikes, as Mr. Payn well says, at the root of all independence of thought, and is peculiarly unjust to living authors.

But, if there is far too much sham admiration in literature, it is yet fairly insignificant beside the would-be passion for old art, and, in truth, for all kinds of art. In nothing is Pretense so flagrant, so unblushing, so radically ignorant, so free with pat but meaningless terms, so wholly senile and artificial. There is a class of art-admirers who are pedants, not merely without independent thought, but utterly without thought of any kind. They have become learned in names and catalogues; they know the place which artists fill in the estimation of connoisseurs; they know where certain noted pictures are, who painted them, and when they were painted; they can rattle off names of artists and talk about periods of art with astonishing ease. But they have works of art they praise so freely. Parrot-like, they never in their lives been really stirred by any of the echo the commonly received opinions and criticisms, theories that have come down to us, but, being igand repeat with frigid exactness the traditional their lives detect unaided the essential or genuine norant of the true principles of art, they can not for quality of any work before them. Everything with these people that is old is necessarily good, and everything new is necessarily bad. From this class come