Regarding the first objection, the narrowness and lack of cooperation, we think there is a good deal of truth in it. The Army has made a great success as an organization, and the work of its founder and his assistants is one of the most remarkable achievements of the age. Things apparently impossible have been accomplished, and obstacles apparently unsurmountable have been overcome. The result is a self-confidence and assurance, amounting in many cases to bigotry. The members of the organization look upon it as especially favored by God, and as above any other organization. Hence, we find many of the leaders far from humble in their bearings, whatever their profession may be, and entirely uninclined to cooperate with other organizations. This fact has been brought to the foreground of late years in England and America by a certain amount of antagonism between the Army and the Charity Organization Society, the Army claiming that it can do its work along its own lines and get along without any alliance with the Society, and the latter claiming that much economy would result if the Army would unite its efforts along social lines with the Charity Organization Society. The controversy cannot be discussed here, but it seems a pity that some sort of union cannot be entered into in which both organizations would be represented in a manner satisfactory to both. One great difficulty, evidently, is the religious element in the social work of the Army, which tends to prejudice the Charity Organization Society in some degree against the Army, and tends to keep the Army aloof from any organization considered secular. However, we find many leading officers in both organizations with friendly feeling, and there is hope that the time will come, when the controversy will be at an end.