medicine, and still retains its place in the pharmacopoeias, although comparatively neglected. The root has a faint aromatic odor; and a bitter, acrid, and somewhat camphor-like taste. It acts as a gentle stimulant to the organs of secretion, promotes expectoration, and is diuretic and sudorific. It contains a peculiar principle called inulin, which resembles starch, but is deposited unchanged from its solution in boiling water on its cooling, and gives a yellowish instead of a blue color with iodine; also another peculiar principle called helenin, or elecampane camphor, which resembles camphor in some of its properties.

ELECTION denotes, in theological language, the divine act by which certain individuals are chosen to salvation in Christ, and the doctrine of election is the doctrine of "God's everlasting purpose, whereby He hath constantly decreed by his secret counsel to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He has chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honor." These words, taken substantially from the articles of religion of the church of England, may be said to represent, in a moderate form of expression, the orthodox doctrine on the subject of election. Besides this form of the doctrine, there is a lower and a higher form of it, which, apart from technical and polemical language, may be said to spring-the one from the supposed subordination of the divine act or purpose to the divine foreknowledge of human conduct-the other from the exaltation of the divine act or purpose into an absolute and arbitrary supremacy, having no relation whatever to human will or conduct. The former of these extremes corresponds to the Pelagian or Arminian doctrine of election, the latter to the hyper-Augustinian or Calvinistic. The Arminian aims to condition or limit the absolute character of the divine act in redemption in some way or another; the Calvinist aims to give to this act the most arbitrary and irresponsible character. The one, while not altogether repudiating a doctrine of election, yet gives such prominence to the human conditions of the elective purpose, as (in the view of Calvinists) to destroy it altogether; the other maintains not only a doctrine of election or predestination, but also the correlative doctrine of reprobation. In the view of the Arminian, salvation is within the choice of the human will; in the view of the Calvinist, the human will is of little or no account-the decree of God is everything—and this decree (which Calvin admitted to be a "decretum horribile”) absolutely determines some to everlasting life and some to everlasting death. The separation has its source in the will of God, and not in the moral conditions of mankind.

It is obvious, in the mere statement of such views, how audaciously theology has sought to settle questions beyond all human scrutiny and settlement. In the nature of things, the relations between the divine and human will appear indeterminable; and, notwithstanding all the labor of inquiry devoted to such subjects in the past history of opinion, it cannot be said that any advance of thought has been made regarding them. If the mere logic of the question be kept in view, the Calvinistic opinion has the advantage over the Arminian-setting out, as it does, from the recognition of the divine will as absolutely supreme, and the source, consequently, of all subordinate action-a thought which is in the highest degree logically consistent. But then the moral perplexities which arise out of the practical application of this view, and the ease with which it may be perverted into a fanatical and dangerous error, will always repel many minds from its adoption.

Although the expressions election, elect, etc., are frequent in Scripture, it cannot be said that what is known as the theological doctrine of E. was acknowledged by the Christian church till the time of Augustine. The Greek fathers confined their attention almost entirely to questions purely theological-that is to say, relating to the character and constitution of the Godhead. Gnosticism and Arianism, the two main forms of heretical opinion before Augustine, indicate the channels into which theological discussion had previously run. It was not till the Latin mind had taken up this discussion, that the more practical question of the relation of the divine and human will in redemption came to receive special attention. The controversy between Pelagius and Augustine in the beginning of the 5th c., brought out almost all the aspects of the question which have since, at successive epochs in the history of the church, risen into renewed prominence. The contests between the Scotists and Thomists in the 14th c., between the Arminians and Calvinists, and, within the Roman church, between the Jansenists and Molinists in the 17th c., are recurring expressions of the same radical conflict or divergency of opinion. The spirit of modern theology is adverse to the logical disputations engendered by such discussions, and finds its more appropriate and useful field of labor in the province of critical and historical inquiry.

ELECTION, in law, the choice between alternating and incompatible rights or claims; as when an insurance company, according to the terms of its policies, elects whether it will pay in cash for property insured and destroyed, or replace the same in kind and value. This right of alternative choice is of special importance in equity practice, in which instances are constantly occurring.

ELECTION, in politics, is the choice of public officers by popular suffrage, in distinction from appointment" of those in a lower by those in a higher grade. Popular elections were not unknown in ancient times and in the middle ages. The system has Lad a slow development in England, and has been imitated and improved by other

countries. In the United States, elections are of three grades-1. Local or municipal; 2. State; 3. National. State elections are for executive and legislative, and sometimes for judicial officers. National elections are held once in two years for the choice of members of congress, and once in four years for the choice of electors of president and vice-president of the United States. Elections are also sometimes held for the adoption or rejection of state constitutions or of amendments of the same. The provisions for local, municipal, and state elections are made in each state by the legislature thereof. The arrangements of national elections are made in part by state and in part by the national authority, the latter being supreme within its sphere, defined by the constitution.

ELECTION CAKE, A rich loaf-cake, which, in the days when Connecticut held an annual election, formed an important part of the refreshments offered to visitors to the state capital. The influx of relatives and friends at that time was the occasion of a generous hospitality, and inasmuch as the preparation of large batches of "election cake" was usually begun a week beforehand, and the ambitious housewife often had to sit up all night to watch her oven, no more important event, so far as the kitchen was con cerned, occurred during the year.

ELECTION COMMITTEE. See PARLIAMENT

ELECTION LAWS. See PARLIAMENT ; Ballot.

ELECTION OF SCOTTISH PEERS. See PARLIAMENT, PEER.

ELECTIVE STUDIES in colleges and universities are required studies of which the student must choose one or more, in distinction from prescribed studies in which there is no choice; sometimes, less properly, called optional studies, the latter name being better applied to extra studies which may be taken or not. In view of the modern additions to the departments of knowledge some colleges have established separate courses in arts, science, letters, philosophy, etc., with corresponding degrees. Other colleges, while giving the old degree of Bachelor of Arts, allow the student a choice of equivalent studies leading to this degree. According as the college regards its training as real rather then gymnastic it will admit electives, consideration being had of the age of the students as a factor in their ability to judge for themselves and in their fitness to pursue special studies. The univ. of Virginia, founded 1819, was one of the first to give electives. Harvard college, during the period 1825-56, made about one-fourth of the studies elective, beginning with Latin, Greek, and modern languages, and enlarging the list to include in the senior year also mathematics and the sciences. The system was again introduced, 1867, and has been continued with enlargement, and (as is claimed) with success. At present prescribed studies occupy the larger part of the Freshman year, but in the last three years only certain written exercises are prescribed. In Johns Hopkins univ. the student selects his studies under the guidance of a member of the faculty who acts as his adviser, without whose consent he may not enter any class. At Cornell there are no electives in the Freshman year; in the Sophomore year four hours a week out of 15 are elective; in the Junior and Senior years an average of 11 hours. Electives are also given in the scientific and other courses. In the univ. of Michigan, 24 "full courses" are required for the degree of A.B.; of these 103 are prescribed. Of the 26 "full courses required for the other degrees, 13 are prescribed for science, 10 for philosophy, etc. At Columbia, Princeton, and Yale, the electives are practically confined to the last two years of the course. In Yale, the plan introduced, 1885, enlarges the range of electives, but not by permitting immature students to choose or refuse every separate study. Instead of this, the studies are arranged in groups balanced and adjusted according to long experience, and these groups, varying widely in their total effect, are at the due time offered to the student's choice. From this new elective system much is expected, as combining the advantages of the old and the new. The whole question of elective studies in our colleges must be regarded as in a state of flux: distinguished authorities are ranged on either side. See COLLEGES, AMERICAN.

ELECTORAL COLLEGE, in the political system of the U. S., is the name given to the body of electors in each state who have been chosen to vote for a president and vice-president. These electors are chosen simultaneously by the people of every state on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November. Their number is equal to the whole number of representatives which the state sends to both branches of congress; they are to meet at some place designated by the legislature of their state on the second Monday in January, and vote by ballot for president and vicepresident, of whom one, at least, shall not be a resident of the same state with themselves. Each electoral college then makes a list of the names of all its candidates for president and vice-president, with the number of votes for each; the list is signed and certified by every member of the college, is authenticated by the governor of the state, and transmitted to the president of the senate of the U. S. On the second Wednesday in February the electoral votes are opened and counted in presence of both houses of congress, assembled in the chamber of Representatives, and the result is announced by the president of the senate. The persons who receive the highest number of votes, respectively, for the offices of president and vice-president are declared elected, provided they have received a majority of all the votes. In case of a

tie, the house of representatives, voting by states, each state having one vote, is to choose between the equal candidates for president, a majority of all the states being necessary to a choice. The senate has the power to choose in case of a tie on vicepresident. In the same way, in case there is no tie, but the leading candidates fail to receive a majority of all the votes, the election for president is thrown into the house, and that for vice-president into the senate. Under the constitution as originally framed the electoral colleges did not designate their choice for president or vicepresident, but when the total votes were counted by the president of the U. S. senate, the candidate receiving the highest number of votes was declared to be elected president, and his nearest competitor vice-president. But the 12th amendment to the constitution changed the mode of voting for the two officers, the electors being required to vote separately for president and vice-president.

The constitution states that "each state shall appoint" the electors "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct ;" and it had not been expected that they would be voted for. The electors, too, were to name and vote for such candidates as they individually preferred; but, never exercising this power, they always cast their votes in bulk for the candidates previously nominated in the national convention of their respective parties. The people, consequently, elect the president and vice-president in their state capacity, and the college is a cumbrous machine for formally conveying to Washington the wishes of the majority. The immediate cause of this change was the passage, 1801, of the 12th amendment, ostensibly to minimize the chances of a tie, but the result was that the president and vice-president were both chosen from the same party, and thus the fact of the existence of parties received its first constitutional recognition. Since 1801 the vote of an elector has been known with certainty several weeks before it is cast, and several months before it is officially announced. The electoral system has constantly endangered the state, on account of the absence, until recently, of any general law to govern the president of the senate in his canvass of the votes, and the tendency of congress to decide every case of doubt or disputed returns arbitrarily as it arose. Nothing was accomplished, however, until 1887, when a law was passed (approved February 3, 1887) to cover the contingency of rival electoral colleges and disputed returns. Under the terms of this act, each state is conceded to have the right of determining all controversies or contests regarding the appointment of its own presidential electors; and in case of any such contest, congress is to accept the state's settlement of the same as conclusive, and it cannot reject any electoral vote, duly certified, unless both houses concurrently decide that that vote has been irregularly given. If more than one return from a state is received, only those votes are to be counted which the state itself has endorsed as regular; but if the state has been unable to settle the question, owing to its having two or more rival sets of authorities, or from any other cause, then the two houses are to decide the dispute. In other words, the new law aims at preventing congress from setting aside or interfering in any way with the electoral returns from the various states, except in extreme cases, where the states have neglected or shown themselves unable to exercise their sovereign prerogatives in the matter. It is hoped that the law will prove an ample defense against all absolute danger pertaining to the electoral system; but no emendations can rid the system of its inherent faults. See CONVENTIONS, NATIONAL POLITICAL.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION, the body of men provided for by act of Congress, Jan. 29, 1877, to settle certain disputed questions in regard to the electoral votes of several states in the presidential election of 1876. The commission was composed of 5 senators, chosen by the senate; 5 members of the house of representatives, chosen by that body; and 5 associate justices of the supreme court, 4 of whom were designated by the act of congress, and the fifth selected by the four. The senate at the time was controlled by the republican party, the house of representatives by the democratic party, and there was thought to be danger of civil commotion in regard to certain questions likely to arise in the counting of the electoral votes of the several states in presence of the two houses. In these circumstances, a majority of each of the two political parties in congress, acting in a spirit of patriotism honorable to themselves and the country, agreed to create a commission to be constituted as above described, to which should be referred for judgment and decision the question which of two or more conflicting certificates received from any state of the votes cast by the electoral college of such state for president and vice-president in the election of 1876 was the certificate provided for in the constitution of the United States: the judgment of said commission in any matters referred to it, unless set aside by the concurrent action of the two houses of congress, was to be final. The proposed law was thereupon enacted, and in conformity with an understanding between the two political parties, the senate appointed 3 republicans, and 2 democrats, and the house of representatives 3 democrats and 2 republicans as members of the commission. Of the 4 associates of the supreme court who were named in the law, 2 were understood to be democrats and 2 republicans; and these selected, as the fifth associate justice to serve with them upon the commission, Mr. Justice Bradley, a republican. The commission was constituted as follows: Justices Clifford, Strong, Miller, Field, and Bradley; Senators Edmunds, Morton, Frelinghuysen, Thurman, and Bayard; and Representatives Payne, Hawton, Abbott, Garfield, and Hoar. Justice Clifford, by seniority of appointment to the bench, was by law president of the commission. As the counting of the electoral votes in the presence

Electric.

of the two houses of congress proceeded according to custom, it was found that there were conflicting certificates from four different states-Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, and South Carolina; and the two houses were unable to agree in either case which certificate should be received as genuine. The certificates and accompanying papers were therefore successively referred to the commission, who proceeded to hear argument upon the questions involved. The result in each case was a decision of the commission, by a vote of 8 to 7-the vote following the exact line of party division in the body-that the certificate of the electoral votes cast for Hayes and Wheeler, the republican candidates for president and vice-president of the United States, was the certificate which contained the lawful electoral vote of said state, and that the other certificates were illegal and void. The republican senate concurred in this judgment in each case, while the democratic house of representatives dissented. The decision of the commission, therefore, according to the terms of the statute, became irrevocable, and the said electoral votes were counted accordingly; and Rutherford B. Hayes and William A. Wheeler were found duly elected, by a majority of one electoral vote, respectively president and vice-president of the United States for the term of 4 years, from the 4th of Mar., 1877. The controlling question before the commission was whether an electoral certificate being in form confessedly according to law, it was competent for congress or the commission to go behind the same and take evidence aliunde in support of alleged irregularities and frauds committed before such certificate was issued. Upon this question the democrats in congress and in the commission took the affirmative, while the republicans took the negative.

ELECTORAL VOTES, as counted Monday, April 6, 1789, were as follows: George Washington, 69 John Adams, 34; Samuel Huntington, 2; John Jay, 9; John Hancock, 4; Robert H. Harrison, 6; George Clinton, 3; John Rutledge, 6; John Milton, 2; James Armstrong, Edward Telfair, Benjamin Lincoln, each 1.-The votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 13, 1793, were: George Washington, 132; John Adams, 77; George Clinton, 50; Thomas Jefferson, 4; Aaron Burr, 1.-The votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 8, 1797, were: John Adams, 71; Thomas Jefferson, 68; Thomas Pinckney, 59; Aaron Burr, 30; Samuel Adams, 15; Oliver Ellsworth, 11; George Clinton, 7; John Jay, 5; James Iredell, 3; Samuel Johnston, George Washington, John Henry, each, 2; Chas. C. Pinckney, 1.-The votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 11, 1801, were: Thomas Jefferson, Aaron Burr, each, 73; John Adams, 65; C. C. Pinckney, 64; John Jay, 1.-The votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 13, 1805, were: for President, Thomas Jefferson, 162; C. C. Pinckney, 14; for Vice-President, George Clinton, 162; Rufus King, 14.-The votes, as counted Wednesday, Feb. 10, 1813, were: for President, James Madison, 128; De Witt Clinton, 89; for Vice-President, Elbridge Gerry, 131; Jared Ingersoll, 86.-The votes, as counted Feb. 12, 1817, were: for Presi dent, James Monroe, 183; Rufus King, 34; for Vice-President, Daniel D. Tompkins, 183; John E. Howard, 22; James Ross, 5; John Marshall, 4; Robert G. Harper, 3.The votes, as counted Feb. 14, 1821, were: for President, James Monroe, 231; John Q. Adams, 1; for Vice-President, Daniel D. Tompkins, 218; Richard Stockton, 8; Daniel Rodney, 4; Robert G. Harper, Richard Rush, each, 1.-The votes, as counted Feb. 9, 1825, were for President, John Q. Adams, 84; William H. Crawford, 41; Andrew Jackson, 99; Henry Clay, 37; for Vice-President, John C. Calhoun, 182; Nathan Sanford, 30; Nathaniel Macon, 24; Andrew Jackson, 13; Martin Van Buren, 9; Henry Clay, 2.-The votes, as counted Feb. 11, 1829, were: for President, Andrew Jackson, 178; John Quincy Adams, 83; for Vice-President, John C. Calhoun, 117; Richard Rush, 83; William Smith, 7.-The votes, as counted Feb. 13, 1833, were: for President, Andrew Jackson, 219; Henry Clay, 49; John Floyd, 11; William Wirt, 7; for VicePresident, Martin Van Buren, 189; John Sergeant, 49; William Wilkins, 30; Henry Lee, 11; Amos Ellmaker, 7.-The votes, as counted Feb. 8, 1837, were: for President, Martin Van Buren, 170; William H. Harrison, 73; Hugh L. White, 26; Daniel Webster, 14; Willie P. Mangum, 11; for Vice-President, Richard M. Johnson, 147; Francis Granger, 77; John Tyler, 47; William Smith, 23.-The votes, as counted Feb. 10, 1841, were for President, William H. Harrison, 234; Martin Van Buren, 60; for Vice-Presi dent, John Tyler, 234; Richard M. Johnson, 48; Lyttleton W. Tazewell, 11; James K. Polk, 1.-The votes, as counted Feb. 12, 1845, were: for President, James K. Polk, 170; Henry Clay, 105; for Vice-President, George M. Dallas, 170; Theodore Frelinghuysen, 105.-The votes, as counted Feb. 14, 1849, were: for President, Zachary Taylor, 163; Lewis Cass, 127; for Vice-President, Millard Fillmore, 163; William O. Butler, 127. The votes, as counted Feb. 9, 1853, were: for President, Franklin Pierce, 254; Winfield Scott, 42; for Vice-President, William R. King, 254; William A. Graham, 42. The votes, as counted Feb. 11, 1857, were: for President, James Buchanan, 174; John C. Fremont, 114; Millard Fillmore, 8; for Vice-President, John C. Breckinridge, 174; William Dayton, 114; A. J. Donelson, 8.-The votes, as counted Feb. 12, 1861, were for President, Abraham Lincoln, 180; John C. Breckinridge, 72; Stephen A. Douglass, 12; John Bell, 39; for Vice-President, Hannibal Hamlin, 180; Joseph Lane, 72; Herschel V. Johnson, 12; Edward Everett, 39.-The votes, as counted Feb. 8, 1865, were for President, Abraham Lincoln, 212; George B. McClellan, 21; for VicePresident, Andrew Johnson, 212; George H. Pendleton, 21.-The votes, as counted Feb. 10 1869, were: for President, Ulysses S. Grant, 214; Horatio Seymour, 80; for Vice-President Schuyler Colfax, 214; Frank P. Blair, Jr., 80.-The votes, as counted Feb. 12, 1873, were: for President, Ulysses S. Grant, 286; Thomas A. Hendricks, 42; Horace Greeley, 18; Charles J. Jenkins, 2; David Davis, 1; for Vice-President, Henry

Wilson, 286; B. Gratz Brown, 47: G. W. Julian, A. H. Colquitt, each, 5; J. M. Paliner, T. E. Bramlette, each, 3; W. S. Groesbeck, W. B. Machen, N. P. Banks, each, 1.The votes, as counted Feb. 14, 1877, were: for President, Rutherford B. Hayes, 185; Samuel J. Tilden, 184; for Vice-President, William A. Wheeler, 185; Thomas A. Hendricks, 184.-The votes, as counted Feb. 9, 1881, were: for President, James A. Garfield, 214; Winfield S. Hancock, 155; for Vice-President, Chester A. Arthur, 214; William H. English, 155.-The votes, as counted Feb. 11, 1885, were: for President, Grover Cleveland, 219; James G. Blaine, 182; for Vice-President, Thomas A. Hendricks, 219; John A. Logan, 182.-The votes, as counted Feb. 13, 1889, were: for President, Benjamin Harrison, 233; Grover Cleveland, 168; for Vice-President, Levi P. Morton, 233; Allen G. Thurman, 168; as counted in 1893, for President, Grover Cleveland, 277; Benjamin Harrison, 145; J. B. Weaver, 22; for Vice-President, A. E. Stevenson, 277, W. Reid, 145; J. G. Field, 22; as counted Feb. 10, 1897, for President, William McKinley, 271: William J. Bryan, 176; for Vice-President, Garret A. Hobart, 271; Arthur Sewall, 149; Thomas E. Watson, 27.

ELECTORS, in the German empire, were those great princes who had the right of electing the emperor or king. In the earliest times under the Carlovingians, the crown was hereditary; afterwards, Germany became formally an elective monarchy, but the election was practically almost limited to the reigning family. Under the emperor Charles IV., the right of election became limited to the holders of the highest ecclesiastical and civil offices, some of which gradually became hereditary, and connected with territorial principalities, as in the case of the Hohenstaufens and of the dukes of Bavaria, Saxony, Suabia, etc. Thus there arose seven E., those of Mayence, Treves, and Cologne (as being the chief primates and chancellors of the empire), the E. of the Palatinate and of Bavaria long exercising the right by turns, and the E. of Brandenburg, Saxony, and Bohemia. From 1400 to 1708, the right was never exercised on the part of Bohemia, but otherwise no change took place from the middle of the 14th c. to the peace of Westphalia. By the peace of Westphalia, an eighth electorate was established, Bavaria and the palatinate being each allowed the full right; and in 1692, a ninth was added, that of Brunswick-Lüneburg, but not without resistance by the E and states of the empire, so that the new electorate was not fully recognized till 1710. In 1777, the number was again reduced to eight, the elector palatine inheriting Bavaria. The E. held a high and very peculiar position in the German empire. The Golden Bull describes them as "the seven pillars and lamps of the holy empire.' They had certain important rights and privileges. They were leagued from the year 1338 for the maintenance of their freedom of election against the pope. ELECTRA. See AGAMEMNON; ORESTES.

ELECTRICAL EXECUTION. See CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.

ELECTRIC BELLS. The arrangement required to ring a bell or system of bells by electricity is simple. Some form of galvanic battery requiring little attention is placed in any convenient corner, and from it an insulated wire, with the necessary branches, is conducted to the various rooms, thence to perhaps as many bells, and, finally, back to the battery to complete the circuit. Each single bell is provided with a clapper, to which is fixed a piece of soft iron. Near this is fastened an electro-magnet, wound with a quantity of insulated wire, to which the main wire is connected, so that upon the pas sage of the signal current the magnet attracts the piece of iron fastened to the clapper, and the clapper strikes the bell. In this way any number of bells may be rung at once by sending a powerful current through the wire to which they are all connected. Such arrangements of bells are used very extensively for giving signals simultaneously in a number of rooms or buildings-for example, for striking the hours in all of the rooms of a school building; for sounding alarms of fire throughout hotels or large buildings, etc. Bells for continuous vibratory ringing, such as are used for summoning servants, etc., are of the same construction as those previously described, excepting that they are provided with a device for continuously vibrating the current while the bell is being rung, The wire, instead of being connected directly to the coil around the magnet, is connected to a post, against which the clapper rests after striking the bell. The coil is connected to the clapper, and the current passes through the post, and the clapper to the coil. When a signal on the wire causes the magnet to attract the clapper and strike the bell, the connection is immediately severed by the clapper leaving the post, and no more current can pass until the clapper has returned after striking the bell. Instantly when this occurs the connection is re-established, the clapper reattracted, and the bell again struck. Thus a continuous ringing is produced as long as the person presses the calling button. This button, or 'push button,' now found in all well-appointed houses, is simply an ornamental cap covering the terminals of the wires leading to the bells. A slight pressure of the hand upon the button in the center forces the spring-shaped terminals of the wires into contact with each other, and allows the current to pass from the battery to the bell.

"

ELECTRIC BURGLAR ALARM. The use of wires and electric bells for giving alarms has been very successful. The simplest and most common arrangement consists in an electric bell with wires leading to all of the windows, doors, and other parts of the building to be guarded. The terminals of these wires are set in the framing of the windows and doors, so that if either is opened the action presses the springs together, and rings the bell in precisely the same way as in pressing the ordinary push button. See ELECTRIC BELLS.