The half-century of discussion of "socialism and socialistic legislation" already referred to has made few things so clear as the fact that the arguments employed on any subject--social subjects in particular--are weakened in almost the exact ratio in which they are allowed to be tinged by passion and excited feeling. It must therefore be regarded as unfortunate that Mr. O'Brien's chapter suffers most emphatically from comparison with the generally high level of calm and unimpassioned argument, characterizing the larger portion of the book. Whether this is to be explained on the basis of the apocryphal legal maxim, "When you have no case, abuse your opponent," or whether Mr. O'Brien entered the lists fresh from some too recent participation in a personal contest over the question, we do not undertake to inquire. The fact remains that not only do the writers of the other chapters of the book appear from a careful reading to state their arguments more effectively, but that the reader is also impressed with the fact that they have a case which admits of more effective argument. Let us glance in succession at the points which Mr. O'Brien has aimed to make. They may be grouped in general under two heads; first, those which relate to the injury (in Mr. O'Brien's view) inflicted on the individual user of a free library from having it aided by public support, and second, those which relate to the tax-payer's grievance (in Mr. O'Brien's view) in helping to support it. The former is of course the side of the question most germane to the general purpose of the book, and it is therefore an occasion for surprise to notice that in Mr. O'Brien's enumeration of arguments those coming under the other class outnumber it in the ratio of six to one. First of all, to use Mr. O'Brien's own language "the argument that if readers were left to pay for their own books, not only would books be more valued, but the moral discipline involved in the small personal sacrifice incurred by saving for such a purpose would do infinitely more good than any amount of culture obtained at other people's expense." And he takes occasion to suggest that "possibly the advocates of literary pauperism will see little force in" this argument. Possibly; we are not familiar with the train of reasoning which leads to an advocacy of "literary pauperism." For ourselves, we have been accustomed, long before the appearance of Mr. O'Brien's chapter, to attach exceptional importance to the principle which he has here indicated, somewhat awkwardly, to be sure. There can be no doubt that the appreciation of any object is in almost the exact ratio of the effort expended to procure it. This is why teachers and librarians--in American communities, at least--have so often had occasion to rejoice at seeing a taste not only for reading, but for owning books inspired in a young man or woman by access to a noble collection of books for the use of the public. For "owning books," we