and good law-makers, compared to its fate with good machinery and bad law-makers! Here is a comment upon THE OVERLAND's last month's comment on the misuse of the word "practical." The civilization that is so shrewd and quick to master the mechanical powers of nature and the processes of commerce stands confessedly helpless before the more important and more profoundly practical problem of getting for itself an even fairly satisfactory government: so helpless as to be even hopeless; to believe that there is no other way to do than to get along as we are doing. There are those who say that the process of popular education will mend matters of its own accord; but a bad State government is able to cripple public education at its source, and so cut off the possibility of much reforming power coming from the schools; it can, for instance, cut off from school officers the liberty to select from out the world's supply the few good text-books that the world affords, and compel them to patronize home industry, good or bad. There are many who say that a government must represent the character of its people, and cannot be better or worse than they; and, therefore, if it is bad, we must simply bow our heads and conclude that the people are bad. But does any body pretend that many of our State governments are the true representatives of the people? Every one knows that most of them represent well-organized cliques, who may be much below the average of the people in integrity and intelligence. It is the commonest thing in the world to hear people in private conversation express their sense of being absolute outsiders as to State government. There are two oligarchies, they feel, and between them, back and forth, the power is passed; the average citizen can do nothing but choose between them. And in very many cases in this State, the average citizen has little choice between them, unless the mere party name holds him.

AND all the time there are simple and practical remedies for very much of this. Not for all of it-all evils are complex, and the fact will always remain that the professional politician will have many advantages over the plain citizen in getting control of governments. The tap-root, however, of his power, is in sight and within reach of the ax. It is not by "attending primaries" that it can be severed: Eastern cities have tried that experiment for us, and have found that very little came of it. The professional politician has too much the advantage at primaries. Nor is it in any State third-party movement. A third party can never succeed in a State or nation, except upon some exciting issue. Upon the general ground of intelligence, patriotism, and integrity, it has no chance. Both the old parties exclaim, "Why, we are intelligent, patriotic, and honorable, and our nominees are as good as the third party's." And though the nominees of the one party were Hyperion to a satyr beside those of the others, bow could the mass of the voters know that the

praises were true of them which were false of their rivals? But, come down from nation and State to counties and cities. Here it is possible for the community to know its candidates; and here is the place where party should be cut off. No practical man would endure for a week in his machinery or his business so grotesque an absurdity as the extension of national party lines to city and county governments is. The present party lines, even in national affairs, are shadowy enough, heaven knows; and in State affairs they have just exactly this right, and no more ore--that State legislatures elect United States senators. It is hard to see what possible difference it could make in California or Pennsylvania which party sent the senators: either Republican or Democrat goes committed to the same doctrine. But as there are many good people who could not be persuaded that it did not make an enormous difference, we will pass by that point. Suppose we grant, then, that State legislatures should in ordinary cases be elected by party votes, in order that the State's representation in United States Senate may be true to Republican principles" or "Democratic principles," as the State prefers. For convenience's sake, and also because an innovation in this respect would not be practicable at present, let the whole State ticket be likewise partisan (except the judiciary and educational part of it, where partisan nominations are serious abuses, and ought not to be long put up with). But are there many good people who honestly think it can make a shadow's difference whether their supervisors, and county treasurers, and boards of education, and mayors, and city councils are Republicans or Democrats? Let us grant all that our party-loving friends maintain as to the distinction between the parties: and even then, what possible difference can it make in the conduct of our city government, whether our mayor holds views on centralization of national power directly opposite to ours? or will our roads be any worse built if the roadmaster is unsound as to tariff? We had understood it was settled, four years ago, that the tariff was not a local issue: yet, with a grotesque fatuity, we make one of it in every ward and township. It is true that our good friends in either party maintain when cornered as to the absence of national "issues" in local matters, that all members of the other party are a priori fools or rogues; and though some escape this fate by uncovenanted mercies, the chances are so strongly against them that a ticket of the righteous party should always be put up, that, by voting this straight, a man may be on the safe side. It is actually on this theory, droll as it sounds, that the party voting in county and city is done. And it is a theory that the voter may be allowed to hold in general, if he likes, for it can always be demolished in the particular case by producing a man of the other party whom he admits to be sensible and honest, for his vote. Since my neighbor Smith is (by uncovenanted mercies) sensible and honest, though a Publocrat,

and since I must admit that his pernicious views on the collection of the national revenue cannot possibly, affect his action as a county supervisor, then what earthly reason can I have for opposing him as a supervisor, because he chances to be a Publocrat? Just as much as I have for opposing him because he chances to belong to a different church from myself.

WE say that reform in this is practicable. We do not say it is easy. It is practicable, because it is possible to convince the majority of voters of its desirability. It is hard, because it would cut into numerous personal interests that are in conflict with the public good. Even the bringing of the people to waive their Guelf and Ghibelline prejudices in the matter, though practicable, would require work. But with any sort of serious and concerted effort on the part of the people who already see, or are capable of seeing, the wisdom of it, it could be done. The rudiments of the idea of local non-partisanship, nature herself has planted in the simplest voter's mind: within his own township or ward a man frequently stands on his own character, and not on his party; within his own school-district, almost invariably. We believe that in the small but intelligent town of Berkeley, Republican or Democratic town-tickets are never put up. There is power enough in the sensible part of the community, if they would put half the attention on it that they put on clearing the course of trade, or systematizing business interests, to create a general public sentiment in favor of non-partisan local tickets. The Californian population has always shown itself flexible in this matter, and not greatly attached to party. Local excitements have repeatedly abolished the old parties even in State elections, and in State or national ones our majorities swing easily from one side to the other, according to local questions. Our party contingents do not hesitate to go with their section against their party whenever the two are opposed. They really do not care nearly as much about party as they think they do. This flexibility would make the task of abolishing national distinctions in local elections comparatively easy. It might be impossible to persuade a Vermont country town that a Democrat could possibly make a good mayor, or a Texas one that a Republican could: but there is the material for independence of tradition in all Californian communities.

Two great good results would follow from this reform.

The first and most obvious is that in the cities, once the dividing line of national parties was withdrawn, the tickets would almost inevitably divide upon the line of standing and character: the grogshop, and the ward-politician, and even the criminal class, would put up their ticket against that of the reputable business men. Sometimes special questions of city administration would divide honest men; but the general result of shaking off party shackles in city elections has proved, wherever it has been

tried, to be the ranging of the respectable and conservative men of both parties against the demoraliz ing elements of cities. Disunited, these better elements in cities have always succumbed to the worse ones; united, they either can hold their own, or else republican government in cities is a failure. In counties the same result would follow in a less de gree: there would be a greater freedom of choice, and character would become a more important point. The second good result is the one we mentioned in commenting upon the possibility of improving our State politics: the removal of the cities and counties from politics would cut off at a blow the main source of power by which professional politicians get control of the two great party organizations, and practically disfranchise the people. Without these local feeders, these tap-roots of strength, they would become very much less formidable, and the extent to which the non-political classes would find themselves able to control State politics would be very greatly increased. It is for just this reason that all the local machines would unite to fight any such reform. But machines are powerless to say No when public opinion says Yes. Every voter in this State has it in his power to strike a small blow at their tyranny at his own will, without waiting for Independent conventions or nonpartisan tickets. He can make a non-partisan ticket for himself out of the two regular tickets. THE OVERLAND knows of young men who consider it a simple public duty never to vote a straight local ticket except for cause; to take both tickets and compile their own according to their best knowledge of the men and measures concerned. When such compilations become numerous, the day of judgment draws near for the machines. Wherever intelligence and political knowledge spreads, scratching spreads too; and even

a considerable distance to the south of the Bay of Pisco. I recollect this circumstance, as I was in Peru at the time. The day after the Piérola party ran away with the "Huascar" from Callao Bay, I arrived in port (Callao) on board the English Mail steamer " Santiago," from Panama; and as we were entering port we picked up one of the "Huascar's" boats, which had got adrift from that vessel in her hasty flight. I am, yours respectfully, Fred Hohnes.

SAN FRANCISCO.

Liszt and his Pupils. [The following, from a private letter of one of Liszt's American pupils, has been put in our hands, as of interest to musical readers.]

64

"FORTUNE brings in some boats that are not steered." Perhaps this was my case, when I came to Weimar, and contrary to my expectations found that, through Miss Augusta Fischer, of Brooklyn, I could gain admittance to the lessons at the house of the Meister," as Franz Liszt is called. We first visited him one bright morning. It is only ten minutes' walk from our house, the road taking us through a portion of the park to his garden gate, which opens into a straight, long path, at the end of which can be seen the very modest cottage which is Liszt's Weimar home. His rooms are in the second story, which is reached by a carpeted staircase. Everything is very plain, but homelike. In a small ante-room sits the man who takes care of the old Meister. He is, in fact, his "Major-domo": travels with him, attends to his affairs in general, receives all the guests; and it is well to get on good terms with him.

On this particular morning the Meister was very fatigued. Miss Fischer greeted him as an old acquaintance, while I stood at the curtained doorway looking into the sanctum of this really great man. The weight of his years impresses one at first, but his intense animation when intent upon the interpre tations of his pupils, or when explaining to them the merits of a measure here and there, causes one to forget his great age. The expression of his face is marvelous when he enters into conversation; his voice is deep, musical, and finely modulated. He is a most amiable man, and has an extraordinary personal magnetism, which one feels in spite of himself. One moment more, and we had said adieu. The curtains closed behind us, and we retraced the path through the park of which Weimar is so proud, because of its close associations with Goethe, Schiller, and their contemporaries.

The same afternoon we attended one of the lessons, and as Miss Fischer had nothing prepared, we listened to the others. There was some excellent playing, but to my astonishment, also some which was not of the best. Two of these audacious young persons should have been sent away to some couservatory to learn to play without striking so many false keys. The patience of the Meister is inexhaustible. He sits by the piano, taking as much pains with those

who come to him as if each possessed talent of the highest order. I believe that Genius alone knows how to be charitable and forgiving. If in a piece, miserably played, there are two measures indicating that the player has really grasped a portion of the composer's idea, he immediately recognizes this one little bit of good, and tells one of it. It is not owing to his endless good nature that he endures so much torture inflicted upon his sensitive musical organization, but a desire to help others on keeps him interested. One suggestion, one word from him, is an inspiration, throwing remarkable light on the music which is being played. One could meet him for years and never receive the impression that he was conscious of his own greatness. His memory for persons whom he he has met only a few times is defective. If he doesn't recognize one at first, he sometimes says, "Ich bin so alt; das können sie nicht verlangen" (I am so old; this you cannot expect). But as far as music is concerned his intellect is as

bright as ever, his wonderful hearing and perception of tones unimpaired.

He is extremely particular that one should play clearly. The slightest defect in this respect displeases him. Though not in favor of conservatories, he likes Stuttgart pupils because of their exactness in playing, and the exquisite shading and tone coloring which probably nowhere else in Europe are so thoroughly studied.

One must get the mechanical part of playing, God gives the rest. This is Liszt's idea. The music studied in his classes embraces that of all composers, from Bach to the compositions of the present day. His own music is, of course, played very much. Beethoven he dislikes to teach, because the compositions of this great master are so rarely played to his (Liszt's) satisfaction. But his teaching of Beethoven is highly interesting, as he is so extremely particular. For example: the Sonata, Opus 90, was brought to him twice. The last time he astonished his pupils by inviting four or more of those nearest the piano to sit down in turn and give an interpretation of the first page. Consternation was depicted upon the faces of all present, no one wishing to incur the severe criticism sure to follow each performance, and a general retreat was made behind window curtains and all available pieces of furniture, much to the Meister's amusement. He requires all classical music to be played quietly: gestures and mannerisms of any kind he dislikes. One afternoon, abruptly leaving the room, he returned with a head-rest, which the photographer had forgotten to remove in the morning, and gravely adjusted it to the head of the lady then performing. When his own sparkling rhapsodies are played, he often says "Mehr witz!" (more grit), and "Let the notes jingle like gold pieces being counted out."

That is a motley assemblage found in Liszt's salon! All nationalities are represented: peculiar people— peculiar faces; and he treats every one alike, whereas each is longing to be first in his regard. Some

curious expedients are resorted to by many to bring themselves under his notice. He doesn't always allow one to kiss his hand-very often looks bored and tired. There have been reports in various American papers to the effect that he is blind. There are no indications at present of possible blindness, even. His hours are filled with work, musical and literary: it is his intention to work until the last moment. At the recent festival in Weimar, his seventy-two years did not prevent his attending every concert and

every rehearsal, besides occasionally conducting the orchestra himself.

Liszt is fond of his American pupils, and in celebration of the "glorious Fourth," they honored him with a presentation of our national flag, in the shape of a fine flower piece, consisting of fresh flowers arranged in excellent imitation of the stars and stripes. This attention apparently touched him deeply. Evelyn Philip. WEIMAR, Sept. 4, 1884.

Congressional Government.1

THE justification for the appearance of this volume may be found in the fact that while our financial literature abounds in works descriptive of the government as defined by its fundamental law, there exists no adequate account of it in the form into which it has grown since the adoption of the Constitution. There is here clearly a deficiency in our literature, and under the title of Congressional Government, as indicating a contrast to cabinet government, Mr. Wilson offers his contribution towards supplying this deficiency. He undertakes "to point out the most characteristic practical features of the federal system," and to show the differences between this system and that type of government which finds its best illustration in the central government of England. He appears to have a firm grasp on the details of his subject, but a feeble hold on general fundamental principles. For example, on page 331, he says: "That we have had, and continue to have, only two national parties of national importance or real power is fortunate rather than natural." This is a somewhat surprising statement to come from one who sets out to criticize our national government in its very foundations. If "natural" has any meaning in this connection, no event of our political life or no circumstance of our government is more natural. The conditions under which parties exist in the United States, their relation to the power exercised by the Federal government, make two national parties inevitable, and more than two, for any great length of time, impossible.

The merit of this "Study in American Politics" cannot be questioned, but it must be sought in its analysis of the organization and practical methods of the legislative and executive departments of the Federal government, rather than in the propositions which it contains for remedying the defects discovered.

The ideal in accordance with which these prop

1 Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics. By Woodrow Wilson, Fellow in History, Johns Hopkins University. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. For sale in San Francisco by Chilion Beach.

ositions are shaped is a government in which the completest responsibility to party is realized: in other words, the parliamentary government of Great Britain. The crying defect to be remedied is the too great authority exercised in legislation by the several committees of the two houses. There is no doubt that many crude and ill-advised laws are passed under the existing methods; still it is not altogether clear that the one-committee system of England would bring the desired relief, or that direct responsibility of the governing agents to the voters is a sure balm for all our political woes. The English system, it is true, would prevent the introduction of the great mass of useless and foolish bills which annually choke the channels of legislative activity in this country; but this is only a doubtful good. The right or privilege to formulate all manner of absurd notions in a legislative bill is justified by essentially the same reasons as the right or privilege of free speech in regard to political affairs. It is a way, and perhaps the surest way in the long run, to render half knowledge harmless. Whoever has had full liberty to expound his favorite ideas to the public, or to present them in the form of a legislative bill, only to find them neglected by the community or mercilessly ridiculed in legislative debate, will find it very hard to make himself or others believe that he is a leader in a great but persecuted cause. The best way for a political society to relieve itself of disagreeable members is to make conditions that will favor their political suicide. Our problem, then, in matters of legislation is not how to prevent the large crop of bills, but to discover some rapid and efficient method of harvesting them, so that the few sound grains of wheat may be separated from the loads of chaff. Mr. Wilson finds a solution in bringing the Congress to adopt, as nearly as may be, the practice of the English parliament. If our members of Congress were to become a great deal more wise, honest, and free from prejudice, the existing system of many committees would work admirably; if they were not to become more wise, honest, and free from prejudice, it is hard to see how our affairs would be improved by adopting the English