Persons thoroughly familiar with his habits of thought are not over-much surprised at his practical common-sense in many departments of life. Tell him for instance that, according to the modern "high-toned" view, you must seek political wisdom, not from educated and disciplined thought, but from the fresh impressions of the most ignorant people you can find. He replies: "If the poor white trash up in the piney woods know more than the bosses at Washington who are studying all the time, he guesses that it is not much good to starve himself to send the boys to school." It would no doubt be easy for a competent debater to demonstrate on the spot that fresh impressions, being free from the restraints imposed by knowledge of facts are more trustworthy guides to the wise solution of difficult problems than the conclusions of educated reasoning. An eminent wit of old is reputed to have shrunk from reading a book before reviewing it, "because it prejudiced a fellow so." In short, the real difficulty of handling a subject would seem to arise from the limitations imposed by knowledge rather than from those imposed by ignorance. This view is somewhat disappointing to old-fashioned people who had supposed that, by disbursing the tax-payer's money for compulsory education, they were converting capricious political aptitudes into permanent and valuable habits, and eventually promoting the cause of sound government.

Though the coloured labourer of the South is very apt to be both lazy and thriftless, the gradual acquisition of a little property has tended to steady and develope him. He is physically strong, remarkably enduring under the strain of a semi-tropical climate, very light-hearted, and almost entirely free from apprehensions concerning the future. His wants are extremely few and simple, and

he is willing to labour for a rate of compensation which his white brethren in the East or Far West would decline or resent. If, on the whole, he is a less competent labourer than the better class of white men, it is by no means clear that his labour is not better worth having at the price for which it can be obtained. The rate of wages which he demands is appreciably lower, and in the case of the farm labourer a good deal of it is paid in kind. On the whole, it is reassuring to persons interested in Southern undertakings to note that, if their enterprises are in other respects sound and well conceived, their success will not be imperilled by the mere colour of the labour which they employ. From the point of view of the investor of new capital, a reasonable prospect of progressive increase in the value of his securities is a consideration of the first importance.

CHAPTER XVIII.

SOME IMPORTANT DECISIONS.

WITHOUT going so far as to say that the American Constitution is the investor's Bible, it would seem that a few salient provisions contained in it are of such importance as to deserve some consideration on the part of an enquirer interested in American railroad securities. Where any note has been appended to cited cases, it is not the purpose of the writer to attempt an analysis or summary of a case, but merely to direct the investor's attention to some one point which may seem to bear directly on a specific phase of his interest. For the purposes of convenient reference, short extracts are set forth.

1. Constitution of the United States, Art. I., Sec. 10.No State shall . . . make any ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.

2. Id., Art. V.-No person shall

be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

JURISDICTION.

3. Id., Art. III., Sec. 2.—The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to

all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens, or subjects.

4. Id., Art. XI. [amendment].-The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.

5. Art. XIV., Sec. 4.-The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void.

REMOVAL.

6. Sec. 639, R. S. U. S.-Any suit commenced in any State court, wherein the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of five hundred dollars, to be made to appear to the satisfaction of said court, may be removed for trial, into the circuit court, for the district where such suit is pending, next to be held after the filing of the petition for such removal

hereinafter mentioned, in the cases and in the manner stated in this section.

First. When the suit is against an alien, or is by a citizen of the State wherein it is brought, and against a citizen of another State, it may be removed on the petition of such defendant, filed in said State court at the time of entering his appearance in said State court.

Second. When the suit is against an alien and a citizen of the State wherein it is brought, or is by a citizen of such State against a citizen of the same, and a citizen of another State, it may be so removed, as against said alien or citizen of another State, upon the petition of such defendant filed at any time before the trial or final hearing of the cause, if, so far as it relates to him, it is brought for the purpose of restraining or enjoining him, or is a suit in which there can be a final determination of the controversy, so far as concerns him, without the presence of the other defendants as parties in the cause. But such removal shall not take away or prejudice the right of the plaintiff to proceed at the same time with the suit in the State court as against the other defendants.

Third. When a suit is between a citizen of the State in which it is brought and a citizen of another State, it may be so removed on the petition of the latter, whether he be plaintiff or defendant, filed at any time before the trial or final hearing of the suit, if before or at the time of filing said petition he makes and files, in said State court, an affidavit, stating that he has reason to believe, and does believe, that, from prejudice or local influence, he will not be able to obtain justice in such State court.

Ayres v. Watson, 113 U. S. Rep.; Gregory, v. Hartly, 113 U. S. Rep.

Stone v. South Carolina, 117 U. S. Rep., 430. A State