is it desirous of ruling. It leaves the government PUBLIC POLICY. This term, in legal acceptation, denotes the principle of government and law which aims at the general welfare, as distinguished from the welfare of particular individuals, and courts of law do not allow their deci sions to conflict with this public policy. Our tribunals do not confine their justice to the parties before them. As plaintiff and defendant are represented by counsel, so the people is represented by the court, and it is its duty to protect the interests of the people. A litigant might prove the clearest right to relief, so far as his adversary is concerned, and yet if his right would in any way injure the public, it must be denied. There are three kinds of relief which the court is bound to refuse on public grounds, viz.: first, that which conflicts with positive law, the expressed wish and command of the people, e. g., relief based on a leading statesmen and on the destiny of nations. It is almost impossible, with the representative constitutions of to-day, that a system opposed to public opinion should long remain dominant. But the value of public opinion has a deeper cause than the external influence it exercises. Do not all political order and all law, in the last analysis, rest upon the common consciousness of nations? and in this is not the wisdom of the Creator manifest, who has given human nature a moral conscience as well as logical intellectual power, so that it may understandingly and morally discriminate between right and wrong, and decide what is useful or injurious to the public welfare? The public conscience, and particularly public opinion, are chiefly developed in the middle classes, and hence so much importance is to be attached to their judgment, where there is question of the interests of the community, i. e., of the state. "Public opinion," writes Niebuhr, "is that opinion which arises in minds uncontrolled by personal influence-an influence which might mislead those in power-that opinion which, in spite of the difference in individuals and of the very different conditions or situations in which they are placed, is so unanimously expressed, and not merely repeated by one man after another, that it may be taken as an utterance of universal truth and reason, and even as the voice of God himself." Pub-contract to evade the revenue laws by smuggling; lic opinion may be compared to the chorus in ancient tragedy, which, observing the actions and sufferings of the dramatis persona, gives expression to the emotions and opinions of the common consciousness of all. On the whole, it is equivalent to the verdict of a jury in a case of law. Public opinion is formed by innumerable impressions and observations, by deliberations in the various spheres of society. But it is always controlled and determined by the public conscience and the established principles of the nation. It manifests itself in the most varied forms, in free public speech, in the family, in the drawing room and the tavern, in meetings of every kind, and, above all, in the press and the national representations of the people. In the latter it becomes even an organic political expression, while otherwise it manifests itself in a more unorganized and changeable manner. It sometimes fluctuates, like life itself, but it is also susceptible of instruction, and often follows the leaders who are competent to communicate ideas to the educated classes and to influence them. Public opinion courts criticism, while it is not unreceptive of enlightenment offered by superior minds. In the same degree that schools and means for the education of the young are provided, the public sense and love of truth and justice increase. Besides, public opinion is subject to the direction of the prevailing spirit of the age, by which it is determined and moved. But, once its judgment has been fixed, determined by the pressure of some general necessity, it becomes a power which crushes all imprudent resistance and which commands attention. It is not true, that public opinion reigns,since it can neither rule, nor second, that which is immoral or contra bonos mores, i. e., which would have an immoral effect on the public, such as a judgment for rent under the lease of a house for disorderly purposes; third, all other relief which can interfere with the public welfare. Each of these three classes of cases may properly be said to be “against public policy," but this expression is usually confined to the last class, and the claims of positive law and public morality are permitted to stand by themselves. The third class of cases is somewhat indefinite. The common law always strove to be definite, and sought for exact precedents. Hence a general discretionary power in the court to declare that a contract or will is void as against public policy, would seem to be repugnant to the established rules of law. Such a power has, however, been held to exist, and, as might have been expected, it gained currency in an anomalous way. The general principle, that a condition in a contract which is "against the general good" can not be enforced, was recognized in England at a very early date in Sheppard's "Touchstone." Bracton hints at it (book iii., p. 100), and lord Coke seems to regard as void those conditions which are "repugnant to the state." Still, the law on the subject was not developed and formulated until a much later day, when it became closely associated and even identified with the law of wagers. The English judges had by some mischance decided that wagers could be enforced at law, although in other civilized countries the contrary rule prevailed. They discovered afterward how pernicious the effects of betting were, and how much of the time of the courts was wasted in determining trivial questions, but it was too late to retract. They could not then hold all wagers illegal, but they found some relief in the doctrine of public policy. Whenever they could, they decided that particular wagers were invalid, as against public policy, and they displayed considerable ingenuity in extending the number of such cases. Thus, a wager on the sex of a third person was held void, as it tended to call forth indecent evidence, although such evidence would not be considered an objection in any other case. A bet upon an election was not enforced, as it might have influenced votes, and the public is interested in removing such influence from the polls. In short, any wager upon public matters would have been held bad, because it would have created a dangerous interest in public affairs. So in Gilbert cs. Sykes, 16 East, 150, (1812), it appeared that in 1802 Sir Marks Sykes received a hundred guineas from one Gilbert, promising in return to pay Gilbert a guinea a day until the death of Napoleon Bonaparte, who was then first consul. The wager arose out of a conversation upon the probability of his assassination. Lord Ellenborough, the chief justice, said, "Whenever the tolerating of any species of contract has a tendency to produce a public mischief or inconvenience, such a contract has been held to be void." The court decided that this contract was illegal, as it would naturally create a desire to assassinate a public enemy, contrary to the law of nations. In the case of Eltham vs. Kingsman, 1 Barn. & Ald., 683, (1818), the rule was carried to an extreme, although the court disposed of the issue on another point. One proprietor of livery carriages at Cheltenham bet watches with another proprietor that a certain Col. Longford would go to the assembly in his "fly by night" (a vehicle) and no other. The court held that the wager was void, because it would tend to subject Longford to great inconvenience by exposing him to the importunities of the proprietors of these vehicles, one of the judges remarking that "any person who has walked through Piccadilly must be sensible that this is no small inconvenience." Finally, those wagers were held bad, 1, which tended to create an improper bias in the mind of a person with relation to some public duty (as in the election case above mentioned), or, 2, which had a tendency to injure third persons or the public. Such wagers were regarded as "against public policy."- Meanwhile the doctrine of public policy spread through all branches of the law. The courts, after introducing the principle into the law of wagers, soon found that it was applicable to many other subjects of litigation. It has now been definitely settled that any contract or will may be declared void as against public policy, if it be calculated to injure either, 1, the government in its foreign relations, or 2, the government in its domestic relations and the administration of justice, or 3, the public generally by restraining the freedom of individuals. Under the first head, viz., of contracts, etc., injurious to the government in its foreign relations, are included those which benefit an enemy or 150 VOL. III. 31 affront a friendly state. Consequently it is held that "as the presumed object of war is as much to cripple the enemy's commerce as to capture his property, a declaration of war imports a prohibition of commercial intercourse and correspondence with the inhabitants of the enemy's country, and that such intercourse is illegal," (Esposito vs. Bowden, 7 Ellis & Blackb., 763, 779); and a contract between citizens of two countries is annulled by a subsequent war, as it is against public policy to enforce it. "On the principles of the English law, it is not competent to any subject to enter into a contract to do anything which may be detrimental to the interests of his own country." (Furtado vs. Rogers, 3 B. & P., 191, 198.) The second division, viz., of contracts, etc., injurious to the government in its domestic relations and the administration of justice, embraces all agreements contemplating the bribery of public officers, executive, legislative or judicial, or of any person having some public duty to perform, such as voting. The leading English case on the doctrine of public policy is Egerton vs. Earl Brounlow, 4 House of Lords Cases, 1, and it has reference to corrupt influence of this kind. The earl of Bridgewater died leaving a will, in which he left a very | large estate to a certain legatee on condition that he should obtain the title of duke or marquis of Bridgewater. The house of lords held the condition invalid, as it held out a temptation to the legatee to indulge in bribery in endeavoring to obtain the title. In short, contracts creating an interest at variance with a duty are void. The sale of offices is also against public policy. So is the assignment of salary, not yet due, by a public officer. It is for the interest of the public that he should be able to support himself while he is in office, and he can not place his future salary out of his power. Again, it is illegal to compound a felony or misdemeanor, viz., to refrain from its prosecution for any consideration. This is against public policy, because it frustrates justice; and, for the same reason, maintenance and champerty, i. e., the impertinent encouragement and assistance of litigation by persons who are not interested, vitiates contracts. Agreements not to bid at judicial sales are void, and, indeed, all auction sales are carefully scrutinized to prevent frauds upon the public. Under the third class, viz., of contracts, etc., which are injurious to the public generally, as restraining the freedom of individuals, the most important are contracts made in restraint of trade. A man can not bind himself not to carry on his business. The people at large are interested that he should earn a living for himself and his family, and not become a pauper, and that there should be the freest competition in all trades and professions. The enforcement of contracts, taking away the right of men to pursue their callings, would discourage industry, diminish products, prevent competition, enhance prices, and introduce monopoly. A man may bind himself not to trade within certain limits; e. g., a retiring partner may agree with his copartners not to compete with his firm in a certain town, | less to multiply instances. The main point to be remembered is, that the court always protects the interests of the people. Enough examples have been cited to show the nature of that protection in England and America. Our judges are always ready to annul engagements which are "against public policy," but it is probable that the principle will never be extended much further, for, as has been ably said, it is paramount public policy to allow freedom in making contracts, and to enforce them as made. (19 Equity, 462.)- See Pollock on Contracts, 251 et seq.; 1 Story's Equity Jurisprudence, § 259, note 1; Hubbard, J., in Sedgwick vs. Stanton, 14 New York Reports, 289, 291. ERNEST HOWARD CROSBY. the seller of a business with the buyer, or a PUBLIC REVENUES. (See REVENUES, of Quarantine. name implies, forty the time been Q Quarantine is a regulation based upon the reduced at most quarantines, and, during the ab law of self-preservation, by which persons and things coming from an infected region or place are subjected to a period of detention. Quarantine is either maritime quarantine, or land quarantine (cordon sanitaire); the former applicable to water craft, and the latter to all vehicles of transportation on shore or to pedestrians. It is now based upon the principle that all contagious diseases have their origin in a specific, particulate germ or poison, which is capable of being conveyed from place to place. Belief in this theory of contagion is nearly universal, yet the doctrine of the prevention of epidemic diseases by means of quarantine is differently viewed by different nations. Thus, England, for example, by reason of her insular situation, and the length of time required to reach her ports from infected regions, has not heretofore found it necessary to exact the long detention required by most other countries, and the medical profession are divided there, as elsewhere, upon the question whether cleanliness and sanitary measures alone will serve to prevent the introduction of contagious diseases, and their spread from place to place; some holding that if the ports were always perfectly clean and in good hygienic condition, there would then be no need of quarantine; that a clean ship sail ing to and from a clean port could in no case communicate the contagion; a proposition which is self-apparent. But every-day experience teaches us that the millennial period has not yet arrived, when all cities and common carriers are clean. Therefore, until hygiene shall become understood by people of all nations, quarantines in one form or another are necessary, according to the physical characteristics of the port, and the presence or absence of epidemic disease. The period of detention at a quarantine was formerly, as the | sence of epidemics, a simple inspection is all that is practiced or required. But the period of detention varies according to the period of incuba tion of the disease quarantined against, and the time is usually counted from the date of departure from the last port, or the date of termination of the last case of sickness on board. · Practice of quarantine. A quarantine station usually consists of a hospital for the sick (lazaretto), so named from the isolation of St. Lazarus on account of leprosy (mal de Saint Lazare); a boat, usually a steam vessel, to carry the boarding officer and remove the sick, if there be any found on board vessels, coming into port; and quarters for the attendants. On arrival of a vessel at the quarantine, she is boarded by an inspecting officer, her bill of health is examined, the crew and passengers mustered, and the vessel itself inspected in every part to determine whether it be clean or foul. At this day the bill of health is not accepted as prima facie evidence of the sanitary condition of the vessel, but is only corroborative; even if it be stated thereon that the port from which the vessel last sailed was free from infectious disease, the inspector trusts to his own inspection of the vessel, and examination of the persons on board and the cargo, to determine whether or not the vessel should be detained in quarantine. If, however, the vessel is last from an infected port. and the period of incubation of the disease has not elapsed, the vessel is detained in quarantine until the expiration of that time, whether there be sickness on board or not. If there be found contagious sickness, the sick are removed to the hospital, the bedding and other articles in their state rooms or berths removed and destroyed, and the place thoroughly fumigated with the fumes of burning sulphur. In case the vessel is discov upon the statute books, no one is charged with its execution. The appropriation act of March 3, 1883, authorizing an expenditure of $100,000, to be used in case of threatened or actual epidemic, and for maintaining quarantine at points of danger, conferred upon the president of the United States authority to maintain quarantine. In accordance with the discretionary act named, national maritime quarantines have been maintained on the gulf of Mexico, the south Atlantic coast, and the Chesapeake bay. The expenses of state quarantines have heretofore been maintained by a charge upon the vessel, but a recent decision by the civil district court of Louisiana, F. A. Monroe, judge, holds that such fees are in the nature of a tonnage tax, a tax which the constitution has forbidden states from levying, and that, while the state has power to establish quarantine for the protection of her citizens, she has no constitutional right to collect this fee from vessels engaged in commerce. (Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steamship Co. vs. Board of Health of the State of Louisiana.) If therefore, this decision be sustained by the higher courts, it would appear to be necessary for the government to prevent extortionate fees upon shipping, by taking charge of the maritime or external quarantine for economic reasons; but no such constitutional power has been claimed by any administration, or held by any court, in regard to municipal health regulations. JOHN B. HAMILTON. ered to be foul and in an unsanitary condition, whether there is sickness on board or not, the vessel is detained in quarantine for the purpose of cleansing and fumigation, the cargo removed to a warehouse, or to open lighters, the bilge water pumped out, and all parts of the vessel fumigated, and if necessary, painted.- Land Quarantine (cordon sanitaire). A land quarantine consists in stationing a guard around an infected place to prevent the escape of inhabitants until after suitable detention; and as well to prevent the ingress of unacclimated persons likely to furnish fresh material for the disease. Its success depends entirely upon the vigor and inflexibility with which it is maintained, and failure has always followed laxity of administration. In Russia, in 1879, with other measures, the cordon sanitaire was successfully used to prevent the spread of oriental plague; and in Texas, in the United States, the cordon | was successfully maintained against yellow fever in 1882 under the direction of the surgeon general of the marine hospital service; and in the same year by the naval authorities at the Pensacola | navy yard, to prevent the introduction of the disease from the then infected city of Pensacola, and while this is being written (September, 1883), an epidemic of yellow fever has been prevailing on the naval reservation for upwards of forty days, which has been prevented from spreading from the yard by reason of a cordon sanitaire maintained around it. - Laws of Quarantine. The first quarantine regulation in modern times origi nated with viscount Bernabo of Reggio, in Italy, Jan. 17, 1374. In 1448 the first systematic laws of quarantine were enacted by the Venetian senate, Venice being at the time the greatest commercial seaport in the world. The present English | Virginia aspirants should be the successor of Jefquarantine law is based upon the act of 6 Geo. ferson. The politicians of that state had been IV., c. 78, under which act orders in council have in open antagonism to Washington, had yieldbeen adopted from time to time, promulgating reg-ed grudgingly to the overwhelming national ulations necessary to be observed to meet particular exigencies. The passengers act, 1855 (18 and 19 Vict., c. 119), and the public health act (schedule v., part iii.), contain provisions affecting vessels subject to quarantine. In the United States, quarantine enactments were passed by the colonial legislatures, and since that time, until a very recent period, quarantine laws have been enacted by the several states. The United States passed its first act respecting quarantine, Feb. 23, 1799, which was subsequently codified in the Revised Statutes, sections 4792 to 4800, inclusive. This act was supplemental to the state quarantine laws, and required federal officers to aid and assist in the execution of state or municipal quarantine regulations. April 29, 1878, a national quarantine act was passed, authorizing, in certain contingencies, the establishment of national quarantines, and vesting the execution of the law in the surgeon general of the marine hospital service. The portion of the act directing its execution by this officer was repealed by the act of June 2, 1879, which itself expired by limitation June 2, 1883; and although the body of the act of 1878 is still QUIDS (IN U. S. HISTORY), the name applied to the Randolph faction, in 1805-11. The quarrel in which it originated was really only a Virginia difficulty, a contest as to which of the two strength of Jefferson, and many of them were disposed to nominate Monroe for the presidency in 1808, in order at one blow to satisfy their dislike to Jefferson and to Madison, who was Jefferson's choice for the succession. The ostensible opposition to Madison was grounded on the latter's incapacity, his cowardice, his political heresies in the "Federalist," (see that title), and his general lack of energy. The first breach in the dominant party occurred on the reference of the president's message in December, 1805. That part which related to the unfriendly actions of Spain in Florida was referred in the house to Randolph's committee, as he had been the administration leader, and he reported in flat opposition to the president's views. March 5, 1806, he formally declared war upon the administration as governing congress by "back-stairs influence," by "men who bring messages to this house which govern its decisions, although they do not appear on the journals,” and by the pages of the presidential water-closet." From that time the name "quid," meaning either a tertium quid, as distinguished from the two great parties, or a cast out faction, was given to Randolph and a halfdozen supporters in congress. They opposed the restrictive system (see EMBARGO) and Madison's nomination in 1808 (see CAUCUS, CONGRESSIONAL), and nominated Monroe through a caucus of part of the Virginia legislature. Monroe's en trance into Madison's cabinet, April 2, 1811, ended the existence of the faction. - See 3 Benton's Debates of Congress, 426; 1 Garland's Life of Randolph, 215, 277; 4 Jefferson's Works (edit. 1829), 44; 5 Hildreth's United States, 566. ALEXANDER JOHNSTON. ᎡᎪᏟᎬᏚ ACES OF MANKIND. Formerly an article on races would with difficulty have found place in a political encyclopædia, for men had not then come to consider this question as any thing more than one of anthropology and natural history, and did not imagine that the differences which they noticed in the different tribes of the great human family could possess as much interest for the historian and the moralist as for the naturalist or the physiologist. It is only in our own day that general ethnology has become an important branch of the historical sciences, and that men have conceived the idea of seeking, in the physical origin of peoples, for the secret of their destinies and an explanation of the results which they have accomplished, or in which they have participated. Until very recently, historians acknowledged in the history of humanity but one sole physical influence, that of climate, and, as is well known, it is to this incontestable influence alone, that Montesquieu attributed the differences of character which are found among peoples, and, as a consequence, the differences of the laws and institutions that govern them. This notion of climate, formerly so important, is to-day reckoned among the secondary causes, and plays only a secondary part, in the explanation of historical phenomena. The theory of races has taken its place completely. There are those who take alarm at this, and pretend that we have merely exchanged one materialistic theory for another more materialistic still; but such alarm is ill-founded, and true spiritualism, on the contrary, achieved an undeniable victory the day that the theory of races replaced that of the influence of climate in historical science; for it then ceased seeking in the external influences of matter alone for the secret of human destiny, and applied itself to the study of man himself for the explanation of man's moral and political life. Fatality, it is true, ever rules in the theory of races as in the theory of climate, but this fatality has at least the merit of being so intimately united to the being which it governs, that it is mingled with the very fact of his existence, and for man to rebel against it would be as if he were to rebel against himself. — This notion of races is, moreover, moral, and, so to speak, spiritual, in its origin. In fact, it was not the progress of the natural sciences and of physiology that led the philosophers and historians of our time to adopt this theory, which holds that every tribe of the great human family Ꭱ | | carries within itself its own destiny, but rather the progress of the science of philology. From the modern science of comparative philology is drawn, among other general results, this important conclusion, that all the nations that speak languages which can be traced back to a common source, exhibit analogous faculties and aptitudes, and that, with some shades of difference, they have had the same historical development. It is not, therefore, merely physical characteristics, a yellow, black or white skin, smooth or wooly hair, oblique or horizontal eyes, that constitute race: it is language as well. Now, what is language if it be not the expression of the inner man, the instrument of the moral man? It is therefore the mind, which is thus reached through the medium of language, as well as the physical conformation of the body, that determines race. In fact, how can we understand that nations having the same physical characteristics should manifest such unequal abilities and such dissimilar instincts, and should follow such contrary ideals of civilization, if, despite their external points of resemblance, their minds were not radically different? The flesh relationship, which seemed so conclusive, was, after all, but superficial. This is especially true of the white or Caucasian race, which philologists have been obliged to divide into two great families: the Indo-Germanic and the Semitic races. Thus this historical theory of races, which has been subjected to so many accusations of materialism, has resulted from the most profound meditation upon language, the noblest of man's attributes. We have just seen, however, that it sought its principle and starting point far beyond physical man, in invisible and moral man. — Mankind is divided, physically, into three great races, entirely distinct in appearance, color, and even in anatomical structure: the black or Ethiopian race, the yellow or Mongolian race, and the white or Caucasian race. These are the only three pure and simple types of man. All the other races, the red race, the Malayan-Polynesian races, etc., are but varieties and mixtures of these three primitive races. The particular characteristics that distinguish each of these three types are so marked that many of the learned have considered them, not as different modes, so to speak, of the same human type, but as three distinct types, as three patterns of the human form. Here naturally arises the great question of the unity of the human species. Is there but one, or are there several types of |