active members of the socialist party should warmly support the fellowship was incomprehensible.

Equally strange was the fact that the Christian socialists did not begin a propaganda to christianize the socialists, but confined themselves to doing socialist propaganda among the Christians—not the propaganda of a diluted socialism, but the same straight, uncompromising socialism for which the socialist party stood. Filled with hatred and distrust of Christian socialism, many went to the lectures and meetings arranged by the fellowship, expecting to detect the cloven hoof of their devil. They were dumbfounded to discover that, except for some devotional exercises, and the use of a somewhat strange theological jargon, the meetings were just like those arranged by the party. Often there were the same speakers-prominent socialists of undoubted integrity, not Christians, often, indeed, Jews! The burden of the speeches was the same: men were urged to support the socialist party; the "class struggle" was clearly enunciated; sometimes the red flag was much in evidence. Christian ministers preached openly in support of the socialist party, and urged their hearers to vote for Mr. Debs, the socialist-party candidate!

Here was a miracle: an inexplicable thing. The socialists of Europe heard of it and read about it and were staggered by the new phenomenon. Professor Ragaz, a theological professor of Zurich, himself a socialist, declares that there was intense astonishment on the part of the social democrats of Europe at the socialist orthodoxy displayed at the Christian-socialist conferences held in various American cities. They could not understand the union of Christian belief with the most uncompromising adherence to the Marxian philosophy. "How can that sort of regular party doctrine come from Christians?" they asked. One of the most prominent social democrats in Freiburg, Germany, exclaimed with amazement: "Why, good straight party. members, who have worked for socialism for years, have left here to go to America, and we hear after a while that he or she actually goes to church, and one has even joined a church. What kind of a church, and what kind of a socialist movement have you got over there, anyhow?"

In fact the fellowship is not a Christian-socialist organization

at all. The name is a misnomer, and, in the opinion of many of its members, should be changed. "Fellowship of Socialist Christians" would be much more nearly descriptive of the aims and spirit of the organization, but not entirely so. For there are Jews among its membership, and even agnostics and atheists. The object of the organization is to "permeate churches and other religious institutions with the social message of Jesus"by which socialism is understood. All who agree with the necessity of that are welcome to membership.

The position of the fellowship has been clearly and unequivocally stated in a "Declaration of Principles," adopted at the national convention last June. This statement, written by a prominent socialist writer active in the socialist party, sets forth that the fellowship "does not stand for a socialism that is distinctively Christian;" that it has no connection with, or relation to, the so-called Christian-socialist movement in Europe which antagonizes the socialist parties; that it stands for uncompromising socialism as represented by the great international socialist movement and by the socialist party of the United States; that its aim is "not to christianize socialism," but simply to spread a knowledge of, and belief in, socialism among people of religious belief and affiliation.

In this spirit, the fellowship has held meetings all over the United States. Many of its most active members are equally active in the socialist party itself. Just prior to the last election, some two hundred ministers, all in actual charge of parishes, and representing all the leading Protestant sects, signed a manifesto pledging themselves to the socialist cause, and it is said that upward of two thousand other ministers have signified their general sympathy and support.

Whatever one's views of socialism may be, it cannot be gainsaid that this development of socialism in America is a most remarkable phenomenon. Will the union of socialism and Christianity continue, or will a split inevitably occur upon the religious issue? Time alone can answer that question with certainty, but it must be said that there are fewer signs of such a split today than at any time in the history of the movement. Rash, incautious, tactless men on either side may provoke a

division at any time, but with a continuance of the broad, wise tolerance which has hitherto prevailed upon both sides the permanence of the union would seem to be secured.

The fact is that socialism has entered upon a new phase, both in Europe and this country. Modern socialism had its roots in the scientific renascence which began with Darwin, and it naturally and inevitably partook of the resultant rationalism. It was inevitably drawn into the phase of the long warfare of science and theology which the new theories provoked. Just as a belief in the new theories of evolution was, for a long time, regarded, on both sides of the controversy, as being synonymous with atheism, so belief in socialism, for a long time, was held by friends and foes alike as being synonymous with atheism. It is a far cry from Liebknecht's statement in 1875, that no one is worthy of the name of a socialist "who does not consecrate himself to the spread of atheism," and the wild diatribes of Bebel in the same period, to the declaration of the German socialdemocratic party, in the Erfurt Programm, in 1891, that religious belief is a private matter, and to Bebel's action in advising the wide circulation of Pastor Kutter's book, They Must!-an exhortation to Christians to support the social democracy because they are Christians.

The tide of crude materialism which was at its height in the late sixties and early seventies of the nineteenth century has receded, largely because its battles against equally crude dogmas have won. Christianity has thrown off the shackles of dogma, to a large extent, and returned to its primal social ideals. On the other hand, the blind faith of the early rationalism, with its bitter intolerance, has been modified. When a bishop of the Protestant Episcopal church in America can carry the red card of membership in the socialist party, and when, as at the last convention in Chicago, delegates to the national convention of the socialist party, as loyal Catholics, without any shame or apology to any of their comrades, can go directly from mass to the work of shaping the policy of the socialist party, it is obvious that we are in the presence of a new socialism of a quality and temper undreamed of by Marx and Engels.

THE IMMIGRANT'S BILL OF RIGHTS

ALCOTT W. STOCKWELL

U. S. Immigration Service, Boston

Much of the opposition which at one time threatened to prevent the ratification of the Constitution, framed at the memorable convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, was justified by a most serious omission in the structure of that instrument. The omission was nothing less than a failure essentially to recognize the ultimate object for which constitutions are created. The attention of the delegates had been concentrated on the frame while the foundation, corresponding with the individual rights of the citizens for whom the government was to be erected, seemingly had been ignored. It became necessary to supply the deficiency. Instead of altering the completed structure, however, it was proposed to add a series of amendments which should adequately recognize and guard the claims of the common people. The socalled Bill of Rights was accordingly framed. Presented in the form of ten amendments this Bill of Rights became a part of the Constitution as finally adopted.

The prime object in the minds of the delegates, as reflected in the preamble of the Constitution, was to secure the blessings of liberty to the "people of the United States" and their "posterity." Little did they conceive, however, of the future development of the nation that they were founding. In the strongest flights of imagination they could scarcely have grasped the eventual significance of the term posterity which now relates to a population of eighty-five millions. Nor would they have believed that the Constitution might one day protect millions who could not, technically speaking, be called the "people of the United States." Nevertheless it is true that our vast immigrant population enjoys on a practical basis of equality the rights guaranteed to the citizens that compose the nation. It is not enough to say, however, that immigration legislation has been inspired by the spirit of the Constitution. The active manifestation of that

spirit in recent years has culminated in the Immigration Act approved February 20, 1907, which in effect constitutes the immigrant's bill of rights.

To acknowledge this fact is merely to recognize a notable expression of that universally advancing spirit of humanity which, despite many appearances to the contrary, is the distinguishing mark of modern civilization. Nevertheless the example of the United States is unique among the great nations in respect to its attitude toward the individual immigrant and toward the immigrant as an individual. It would hardly be possible, for example, elsewhere to secure the enactment of such an elaborate legal system for safeguarding the interests of the alien immigrant as is found in the act of Congress to which reference is made.

This statement does not necessarily imply a corresponding neglect of the rights of the citizens of the United States nor the omission of measures designed to guard their interests. Those classes of aliens, in other words, that are deemed by general consent to be totally undesirable, are excluded from admittance. Thus provision is made for the absolute exclusion of aliens afflicted with tuberculosis or with a loathsome or dangerous, contagious disease, as well as idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons, persons who have been insane within five years previously, persons who have had two or more attacks of insanity at any time previous to arrival, and persons certified to have a mental defect which may affect their ability to earn a living. From the excluding decision of the immigration officers at the port of arrival, in the case of an alien found to be within any of the foregoing classes, there is no appeal. But an alien debarred for other cause-such as pauperism or as being a contractlaborer-has the right of appeal to the Secretary of the Depart

There is an exception within the first class mentioned in the case of an alien who has, after landing, filed his declaration of intention to become a citizen of the United States. Thus it is provided that if his wife or any of his children, for whom he may thereafter send, is found to be "affected with any contagious disorder," admittance may be secured if it shall be determined that the "disorder is easily curable" or if "they can be permitted to land without danger to other persons."