selUomtVve * teV, scot^. ^Qt PreIates> of

flolTmy °l ^ ^ishop's insincerity and

hardness un&etneatVvaVV «» seemmg kindness, so that in simple iustice to the fects. or -what were to\d me most solemnly as facts, I lost some oi *e regard that I earlier had felt for the Archbishop. But never an unkind word passed between us, only once a little stiffness in our last meeting, which melted in a moment to the old geniality, and when, after some earnest talk, I remarked, "Your Grace, I wish we could both feel as we used to feel toward each other," he said, very frankly, to all appearances, "I know of no reason why we should not do so, Mr. Thome." And so I left him, nearly two years ago, with the old fondness revived.

He was not a broad man. I do not think he was a forgiving man. I think that he cherished a grudge and would not hesitate to use it to the disadvantage of any one who had offended him. Perhaps he cherished such a grudge toward me for words I published years ago touching his conduct in the McGlynn case. If so, I pity him only. I forgive him utterly, and though I have now and again thought him rather hard-hearted in cases of illness, I would gladly have made any sacrifice to have saved or prolonged his life had sacrifice been asked of me.

He was clear-minded on matters regarding the Church, its laws, observances and obedience thereto, but he was not greatminded or sympathetic with men of really exceptional ability among his own priests or among the eminently-gifted men of his vast diocese. He did little or nothing to cultivate their acquaintance or to assist them in their careers. Perhaps, as I have said, the very faculties requisite for such action were not in him, and so he was not and is not to be blamed.

Instead of this he seemed to favor men of mediocre ability, whether in literature, ecclesiastics or politics; men who would fawn upon him and flatter him simply because he was the Archbishop of New York; but if the worst phase of all this view be true, it only shows that nature seeks her own in kind and degree, and those who may have felt slighted, ignored or opposed by him should remember that every Archbishop has his limitations, and has a right to his own choice of confidants and friends.

What if the men who fawned upon him to his face and in his presence simply mimicked and mocked him behind his back, as I have been credibly informed. Theirs, not his, was the loss in such case, and such men, priests or whatnot, in my judgment, deserve to be hung.

He was not a great leader in literature or in politics; if he had been he might have accomplished vastly more good than he ever did accomplish, but, as I have said, no one man can be everything. The gentlemen who excel in larger lines of life are apt to have their larger and corresponding vices.

He managed well the financial affairs of a vast diocese. He had only a few serious difficulties with his priests; and in these, as far as I have been able to learn, the priests were as much as or more to blame than he. And whatever he did or failed to do he always acted with that quiet and unassuming dignity, so becoming to a churchman in these days of universal humanity, universal education and a many-sided Christianity. He was neither a great logician nor a great psychologist. He had no intuitive sight of moral or mental philosophy; nor was his well-trained mind the most discriminating in the very lines and questions for the solution of which he was educated. In the language of a medical charlatan I once met, "You can't put a quart measure into a pint cup." The Archbishop's'faculties were not of the largest quantity or the sharpest quality.

But when I recall the men of his own generation who have often ridiculed the prelate in my hearing, and in my mind's eye place any one of them in Corrigan's position, gad! what a mess they would have made of it. Fluency and brilliancy and readiness of speech are not usually united with soberness and calmness of all-round good judgment, especially in our American hierarchy. He was not brilliant or supremely gifted. What he knew in the lines of worldly wisdom, like what he knew in ecclesiastics, had been learned by careful and plodding study. His greatness, even the greatness of his position, had a sort of refined commonplaceness about it. He was rather a scribe than an apostle; a prophet he never claimed to be. The great tides

AgpbyVtavvJilYvouttoueH^ m his generation seemedtons* ^ a ^ ^ ^ TMTMf hl* °f even ,. j„M -q„v »* /. thousand little things:

Vus eet W ^rmaUotis, corner-stone layings etc all of ordinance, been quite as wett done by some ne k d of t^wToT a* kaSt by ecde^astica\ officials in his employ. The greatW oi w YotV-went bV ^ke a whirlwind, but he was undisturbed. tte ^as a mediocre little man thrust into a very great position, and ii he_did not parade as the great Archbishop of New \ork and gather the leading literary lights about him or use them for all they were worth in the service of the Church, and the leading dramatists and artists in all lines, and help them and make himself popular with the dominating intellectual forces of the land, as some think he might have done, at all events his good sense and his unassuming piety kept him from doing foolish and ridiculous things, not to speak of rascally things, such as certain would-be great Archbishops have done at times.

He had too much good sense, too much sense of human justice and was too mindful of the dignity of his office and the spirit of the Master whom he served, ever to unite with the noisy Potter or the crazy Parkhurst in their persecution of poor ruined women or of saloon keepers, all of whom had the same right to their vocations that Potter or Parkhurst ever had to theirs.

But again we say, every man to his trade.

It is the business of some to enkindle and inflame the world of thought by the great thoughts that arise in their minds and the greatness of their utterance of them. Few Archbishops have ever been smitten with this divine afflatus of mental illumination. Archbishop Corrigan made no pretense to greatness. He knew to the contrary.

The Archbishop of New York was certainly not among the highly-gifted souls. His utterances were rather childish, with a tendency to weakness, but what he said and what he did was always sensible, never stupid or offensive in the sense of loudness or bluffery, and it is something, it is much, to have had an Archbishop of New York during the last decade whose good sense, modesty and quiet self-reliance, the very absence and antithesis of bluster and noise or persecution won and held the common respect of a very large portion of the archdiocese, Protestant and free-thinking as well as Catholic.

It is often what a man avoids or fails to do as well as what he does that commends him to his fellowmen and that builds his life in harmony with the will of God. Let us think well of the dead and hope for a better man to fill his place.

William Henry Thorne.

CHINA SEEN THROUGH CHINESE EYES.

Touching China and the Chinese, our first need is that of honest and unbiased information. It becomes increasingly evident that such information is scarce. In justice to this ancient nation, and also to ourselves, the facts in the case ought to be and must be reached. And why not accept the facts and base our opinions, to some degree at least, upon the documentary evidence these people themselves present to us, upon what we know of China, from the Chinese? Take it with a grain of salt, if you will; but listen to what they have to tell us and give it as much weight as we expect others to give what we tell them about ourselves. And how feeble the light we are apt to receive from that source! Nearly all the information we get is testimony against the party of the second part by the party of the first, the plaintiff in the case. Seldom is there any defense.

Besides considerable study of the Chinese and rather unusual facilities for this study, it has been my good fortune, indeed, my distinguished honor, to know many Chinese gentlemen quite intimately; scholars seeking information, diplomats here in Washington, consuls elsewhere, and merchants everywhere—men of sound judgment and keen insight, who have furnished data of all sorts concerning every point we have to discuss. All this has been checked over by some authorities and corroborated by others until it must be nearly correct. It makes most interesting reading, this assemblage of notes—particularly the terse comparisons between their ways and ours, made by men of such brilliant parts as the present minister to this country, Mr. Wu

xemarto, w» ^ ^ nearly Vvjetvty years ^ trayd studying

- "vthineYw roeetS He **** Earned to think as we do and knows exactly v,^at 7,6 s^ou^d ®Ee to leaTM about his country and its people", a«u ne ^as given us the information unstintingly

^Mayhap you will not begrudge a half-hour spent in looking at the Chinese through these borrowed Chinese eyes. Let us follow Mr.Tcheng about his own country,into his own home. Introduced to his friends, we shall soon appreciate how hospitable and whole-souled they are to invited guests. Let us go about in the provinces, not with a gun in one hand and a Bible in the other, nor in mere idle curiosity, but intent on seeing good where it may be and noting the causes of evil where it, too, may "be. Let us delve into their literature a bit, even into their poetry, •whose harmony will charm us and its depth of sentiment give us new notions of their intelligence. We shall find their civilization to be the final outcome of experience, founded upon all forms of it known to us; a civilization as perfect as our own of to-day, even when old Egypt was a savage land; a civilization, moreover, •which has not deteriorated greatly through all the intervening generations.

In China the family is the foundation of society, of government, of everything. It is and always has been the prime consideration in Chinese affairs. Confucius warned them ages ago that to govern a country well one must have learned to govern a family. In China the family is no small affair; it resembles the religious communities we are familiar with. Each member contributes all he can to the enjoyment and support of the whole. No favoritism exists. There are well-defined rules of conduct; equality and fraternity are not mere words among them, and the family as a whole defers all final decisions to and is subject to its oldest member. We read of one house where nine generations lived and throve in peace and good-will.

Each family has a sort of written constitution. Its lands are portioned off, and have been so for centuries perhaps. One part