making collections puts his own labor in the gathering. Hence these collections represent his own self. This is why the child will consider collections of old stones, or other objects of little worth, of much more value often than his brightest and most attractive toys. His own labor has given them their value. In our anthropological section it was seen that the first idea of individual ownership arose in those things in which man had put his labor, his inventive genius in making. The stamp of his own personality was on them.

The writers believe that as in labor ownership was conceived, so in labor are its real sweets to be found; and that ownership in general, which does not result from labor of some kind, has an artificiality about it: though it stands for the real thing, it is not. It is this artificial notion of ownership which has created the idea that manual labor is degrading, and which, in fact but a few years back, held that all labor was degrading, beneath a gentleman.

Here lies the true value of manual training in our schools: that the child may learn how much more valuable is the article which he had made with his own hands by his own labor. It gives a knowledge from whence the sweetness of possession derives its source. The technique is of practical use, the learning how is valuable; but much more valuable is it for the child to learn the divinity of labor. No one who has worked with hammer and saw, and learned how rich in pleasure is the possession of an article derived from hard labor, can consider work a degradation. It puts the child in sympathy with labor and the laborer. Looked at from this point of view, no one factor has greater possibilities of developing the child than that of manual training. It puts the child in sympathy with men. He rubs in large grains of the stuff we call humanity, and for this reason it is essential that the child should be allowed to make things he wants, and also that the things made should belong to him.

We have found that the desire to own is one of the strongest passions in child life; that selfishness is the rule; that children steal, cheat, or lie without scruple to acquire property; that they have no idea of a proprietary right. These generalizations will hold almost without exception for children under five years, for many children under ten, and in some cases even up to fifteen years of age. These things are natural in the child. Parents as a rule are continually struggling to keep them down; to teach principles of unselfishness; to teach not to lie, steal, cheat, and beg; to respect the rights of others. This method may meet with more or less success. The writers of this paper are inclined, from reading over the returns and from personal experience, to say less. The problem is, What is the right method? Shall we hold with Calvin that the child is naturally a depraved being, and that by hook or by crook we must take it out of him, or with Rousseau that by nature the child is good, and that nature wills the child to be a child before he is a man, and so "let children be children"?

Do we believe that the child recapitulates the history of the race? If so, we may not be surprised to find the passion for property getting a natural one, nor that the child lies, cheats, and steals to acquire it, nor that selfishness rules the child's actions. Selfishness is the cornerstone of the struggle for existence, deception is at its very foundation, while the acquiring of property has been the most dominant factor in the history of men and nations. These passions of the child are but the pent-up forces of the greed of thousands of years. They must find expression and exercise, if not in childhood, later. Who knows but that our misers are not those children grown up whom fond mothers and fathers forced into giving away their playthings, into the doing of unselfish acts, in acting out a generosity which was neither felt nor understood. Not to let these activities have their play in childhood is to run great risk. It does no good to make the child perform moral acts

when it does not appreciate what right and wrong mean, and to punish a child for not performing acts which his very nature compels him to do is doing that child positive injury.

During the period of adolescence generosity and altruism spring up naturally. Then why try to force the budding plant into blossom? Instruct them by all means, teach them the right; but if this fails, do not punish, but let the child be selfish, let him lie and cheat, until these forces spend themselves. Do not these experiences of the child give to man in later life a moral virility? Is not a man the stronger man for having in childhood done some of these acts? Has he not a more robust personality after them? He knows what it is to have sinned. He knows what he has to meet or stand against. These rank, selfish deeds are giving the child an idea of self. The child must learn by them the idea of ownership before he can appreciate ownership in others.

The next topic discussed was, Describe a child who persists in amassing a special article; also a child with a passion to trade. Very little is brought out in answer to the first of these topics. Cases of girls collecting were much more numerous than those of boys. Trading is peculiarly a boy's trait, very few instances of girls being given. Every return described a boy who had a passion for trade. How strong this passion is among boys everyday experience teaches us.

M., 7. Had a knife he was very proud of, but when T. came to house with a drum H. wanted to trade the knife for the drum. When he obtained the drum he traded it for a bat, then the bat for a toy gun. He did the same way with all his possessions, even wished to trade his clothes. One day he traded his old straw hat for a marble, and was very proud of the deal.

M., 8. Has a great passion for trading. Everything he gets he tries to trade, not for the sake of gaining, for most of the time he loses, but just to satisfy his passion. He one time traded his hat; one warm day after school he traded his shoes. He even speaks of trading his father's house.

Any one who knows boys knows how strong is their passion to trade. It seems necessary for their development. The trading is not so much for gain or for any specific article as it is to satisfy the desire or passion. It but emphasizes again how much property and property getting makes up of life. In the history of the race, when men began to trade it marked the beginning of a great epoch. Dr. Chamberlain says that variations in the race commenced when men began to trade and fight. Trading is certainly a controlling element in the nature of developing the boy. It is an activity which could be used to much advantage in attracting boys to school. What interest it would rouse in the boy, bubbling over with the desire to trade and do business, if there were some system of banks or trading posts connected with the schools! It is these things that the nature of the child goes out to that education needs to discover.

Detailed descriptions of children's quarrels over the ownership of some article were asked for and 187 answers were received,-74 cases being females, 67 males, 42 where quarrel was between male and female, 4 sex not given, ages of children from 3 to 14 years. The quarrels were decided in five ways: (1) by some older person stepping in (78 cases); (2) by strength or force, one child taking possession and holding it (27 cases); (3) by children coming to some agreement, as dividing, neither having article, or by one making some compensation to others (27 cases); (4) by destruction of article either during quarrel or after it, so that neither child becomes the final possessor of it (21 cases); (5) by one child giving in to another because of its persistent selfishness or strong will (17 cases).

1 School savings banks have been established in France with great success, and to some extent in England and America. Some very interesting articles have been written on this subject, showing the advantages of school savings banks.

F., 2, and F., 3. K. and R. were given blocks to play with. One of them kept taking the other's blocks. Then they began to quarrel; neither one would give up her blocks. Finally they became so angry that K. up and danced around the floor in her temper, while R. sat on the floor and cried. The mother heard the noise and came to the rescue. She took the blocks away from them.

M., 7, and M., 8. Walking with me over a field one day these two boys simultaneously found a watermelon. Each, of course, wanted it; it was a very small one and not even ripe. They quarreled until one got it from the other, and taking it, threw it on the ground as much as to say, "There, you got it!" I know many similar cases. Boys quarrel, then one gets it, and instead of keeping it, as one might suppose, he throws it away or destroys it.

In nearly all cases it was found that if one child got the article it did not seem to care about the article itself; and if the other child was not around so that it could show its possession and thus tantalize the other child, it cared no more about it. The object in asking this question was, if possible, to get some light on the problem. What conception of right or privilege of possession in another has the child? How does the conception of proprietary right rise in the child? Is such a conception to be presupposed in the child as Blackstone presupposes it in early man, when he laid down the principle that first possession or first occupation was recognized as the right for an individual to own? Does the conception of proprietary right arise only through laws and restrictions imposed by a ruler, the principle laid down by Hume in the Leviathan; or is this conception a result of evolution, arising gradually in the child, as we attempted to show it did in man, by a gradually increasing intelligence, a closer adaptation of man to his fellow-men, making finer discriminations with the increasing complexity of his surroundings?

The results of the returns in throwing light here were not very satisfactory. That the child at this early age has no such conception to start with is most clear. That out of their