the public money without the intermediary action of banks, State or national, adopted by the United States in 1846. The Act of Aug. 6, 1846, provided, in brief, that the public revenues should be held, until actually paid out, in the vaults of the Treasury at Washington or in the several subtreasuries in the larger cities created by the act. Prior to this date the government receipts had been deposited in banks. The first Bank of the United States (see BANK, BANKING) was established in 1791, largely with the view of facilitating the fiscal operations of the government. In it or its branches were deposited the government funds, and from it were obtained temporary loans in anticipation of the revenue. When the bank charter expired, in 1811, the government funds were deposited in the State banks throughout the country. With the subsequent suspension of specie payments, in 1814, the gov ernment not only suffered with other creditors, but was seriously embarrassed by the fact that there was no standard national currency. In 1816 the second bank of the United States was chartered for a period of 20 years, and for the greater part of its existence it acted as the fiscal agent of the government. Its effort, beginning in 1829, to obtain a renewal of its charter led to a violent political contest, in which the opponents of the bank, led by President Jackson, won the victory. Though the charter did not expire until 1836, the President in 1833 ordered that no further deposits of government funds be made in the bank, and that the funds of the government be gradually withdrawn. This order for the "removal of the deposits" was made on the alleged ground that the bank was unsound and that the public money was in danger.

Beginning October, 1833, the government funds were deposited in State banks. Contracts were entered into between the Secretary of the Treasury and the several banks fixing the conditions upon which deposits were to be received. The refusal to recharter the Bank of the United States, together with the deposit of government funds in the State banks, led to an ominous expansion of these institutions. A speculative era, marked especially by enormous sales of public lands, and the deposit or distribution of the government surplus with the States (1837), now set in, which culminated in the panic of 1837. The government funds were tied up in the nonspecie paying banks, and Congress was called together in September, 1837, to devise measures of relief. President Van Buren favored a complete separation of the government from the banks, the establishment of an independent treasury, and a requirement that all debts due the government be paid in specie. It was the latter provision which caused the defeat of the measure, as it appeared to the friends of the banks as a discrimination against the bank note. Towards the close of Van Buren's administration (June 30, 1840) the measure for which the President had fought valiantly was enacted into law, but not without the concession that in the first year of its operation only one-fourth of the govern ment receipts need be in specie, a further fourth being added each year until the whole should be so payable. The victory was dearly bought, for the party went down to defeat at the polls in November. The new administration promptly repealed the law (Aug. 13, 1841), but in the fruitless controversy with President Tyler over the Bank Law failed to provide any substitute

for it. Public officials were left to their own devices in the custody of the public funds, and it was not until a new political revolution had occurred that the independent treasury system was finally established by the Act of Aug. 6, 1846.

The spirit of the measure was an absolute divorce of the Treasury from the banks. The gov ernment was henceforth to keep its own funds, and to recognize only money issued by Federal authority, specie and Treasury notes, in the gov ernment operations. The vaults and safes provided for keeping the money of the government at Washington, and at such other places of deposit as were fixed by the law, were declared to constitute the Treasury of the United States. The Treasurer of the United States and assistant treasurers, and all other officials, were required to keep safely, without lending, using, depositing in banks, or exchanging for other funds, except as allowed by the act, all public money received by them or otherwise in their custody, until the same was ordered by proper authority to be transferred or paid out. In the early experience of the system some embarrassment was created by the failure to provide at once the necessary protection for the money in all the places where it was kept. But in general the system has worked well, and loss by theft or defalcation has been slight compared to the loss suffered through dealings with unsound banks in earlier

years.

The isolation of the Treasury contemplated by the act soon proved illusory, and little by little inroads have been made upon the principle. The spectacle of the Treasury coming to the "relief of the money market" has become familiar. The "relief" thus afforded consists of placing in circulation money which the law accumulates in the hands of the government. Operating with a surplus of revenue over expenditure, the government balances may and do grow to such a size as materially to affect the volume of money in circulation. This, then, is a Treasury reserve which may be unloosed when a stringency in the money market occurs, and the fact that the Secretary of the Treasury is called upon for such relief is evidence of the futility of attempting utterly to separate the government's operations from all business affairs. The independent Treasury was not 10 years old before the possible dangers of an accumulation of funds were perceived, and in 1853 large redemptions of bonds were made to avoid them. In the panic of 1857 the government escaped unscathed, and this added to the popularity of the independent treasury system.

But with the fiscal necessities of the Civil War the principle of isolation was broken down. The banks became essential to the support of the government. The Secretary of the Treasury secured their aid in making the first loans of the war. He would not recognize their notes in the government operations, but soon brought forward his plans for transforming the banks into national institutions under Federal control, with power to issue notes of a kind which could be recognized by the government. When the national banking system was organized, in 1863, the banks were allowed to become depositories of the public money, except the receipts from customs, under regulations established by the Treas ury Department. Customs receipts, being in spe cie, were excluded from the funds capable of

being deposited, since banks were not then paying specie. These deposits in the banks are secured by United States bonds deposited with the Treasury Department. The extent to which the banks have been used as places of deposit has varied with the state of the Treasury and the nature of its operations. When loans have been made, the money has been paid in through banks and allowed to remain there until expended. In the refunding operations of 1879 the banks sold nearly $400,000,000 worth of bonds and held at one time (May, 1879) as much as $279,544,645. On June 20, 1914, the deposits in national banks amounted to $93,388,666, as compared with $324,852,056 held in subtreasuries.

The idea of the Independent Treasury Law was that the banks should not interfere with the Treasury, while in its practical administration, with the enormous growth of government revenue, the problem has been for the Treasury so to conduct its operations that it shall interfere as little as possible with the banks and the ordinary course of business. In principle the government pays cash, demands cash, and keeps its funds in a strong box-a method of conducting business entirely at variance with the usual practice in mercantile life. The income and outgo of the government have not, moreover, the regularity which frequently characterizes mercantile affairs. Money accumulating in the Treasury in anticipation of future payments is withdrawn from circulation. Such withdrawal may accentuate a stringency, while the subsequent payment may aggravate a plethora. As an offset to these disadvantages of the system, it has been contended that it equalizes conditions by permitting the Secretary of the Treasury to come to the "relief" of the money market. This is a questionable advantage. The relief is contingent upon a plethoric Treasury; it is, moreover, largely in the discretion of one man, the Secretary of the Treasury, whose impulsiveness or conservatism may materially affect the relief afforded. Finally, when determined upon, it is not always as speedy as desired. The requirement that government deposits should be secured by United States bonds worked sometimes serious hardship in time of stringency, since such bonds commanded a high price and were not always immediately attainable. By an order of the Secretary, dated Oct. 4, 1902, banks were permitted, under certain conditions, to substitute specified State and municipal bonds for the national bonds hitherto required. It was hoped that in this way the Treasury would be able to give a larger measure of relief than formerly. In the Banking Act of Dec. 23, 1913, was incorporated a provision by the terms of which the independent Treasury may, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, be practically abolished. Moneys held in the general fund of the Treasury, with the exception of funds for the redemption of national bank notes and for the redemption of Federal reserve notes, may be deposited in the Federal reserve banks; and these banks may be required to act as fiscal agents of the United States. No deposit of securities with the Treasury against moneys thus deposited with the Federal reserve banks is required by the law. The Secretary of the Treasury may deposit funds in member banks also. Consult: David Kinley, Independent Treasury System of the United States and its Relations to the Banks of the Country (Washington, 1910); M. S. Wildman,

we find that λ

-

-

— 22, λ = · 11, and hence, from equation (6), y = 2. It may similarly be found that z = 3.

INDETERMINATE PROBLEMS. See DIOPHANTINE ANALYSIS. A sen

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE. tence of a person convicted of crime to an indefinite period of imprisonment. Up to a very recent date the policy of the criminal law has been to prescribe for each crime committed a definite period of imprisonment or to leave it to the judge under whom the wrongdoer was convicted to fix the period within limits prescribed by statute. Under laws providing for the indeterminate sentence the judge no longer fixes the period of detention, but sentences the prisoners for an indeterminate time between limits prescribed by him within the limits fixed by law, as, e.g., for a term of not less than three nor more than 10 years.

The indeterminate sentence represents a new principle in penology, based on the view that the object of imprisonment is not punishment for the crime committed, but the reformation of the offender and his restoration to society as soon as he has demonstrated his fitness to lead a free and responsible life. This view is based on the principle which is slowly coming to dominate the thought of civilized society, that the sole aim of a rational penal system is the protection of society and not vengeance or retributive punishment. This conception involves the corollaries that no wrongdoer should be imprisoned longer than is necessary for the protection of the community, nor be released until he has

by his course of life demonstrated that he can
safely be rehabilitated as a free member of the
community. In order to make the indeterminate
sentence an effective means of attaining these
ends it is obviously necessary, first, that prison
administration shall be such as to give the
convict opportunity to demonstrate his fitness
or unfitness for release, and, second, in the
case of wrongdoers who have formed criminal
habits, that they shall be enabled to work out
their salvation under reformative conditions.
Unfortunately neither of these conditions is real-
ized in the present prison system, with the
consequence that the indeterminate sentence has
thus far failed to meet the expectations with
which it was introduced. It has not, however,
proved a complete failure, even under present
conditions, and, having secured a foothold in
the penal system, it furnishes a powerful in-
centive for the reformation of that system. In
the meantime, coupled with the principle of con-
ditional release and supervision of the discharged
convict under probation, it has proved its value
even in the case of inmates of the ordinary
prisons, though it has naturally attained its
greatest success in the case of young persons
committed to institutions of a pronounced re-
formatory character. The system was first em-
ployed in connection with the celebrated Elmira
Reformatory of New York in 1876, but it was
not till 1889 that it was applied in a cautious,
tentative way to commitments to the State
prisons. Since that date it has gradually spread
to other States and was in 1914 in force in 22

of them. It has not, however, been adopted in
European countries. Foreign penologists ap-
prove it "in principle," but, except in rare in-
stances, deem it inapplicable in their own coun-
tries for the reasons (1) that the prevailing
conceptions of guilt and punishment, which are
still largely based on the vindictive theory, are
incompatible with the principle of the indeter-
minate sentence; (2) that for its successful
working an individualized treatment of the of-
fender is necessary, and that this is in practice,
under present conditions, impossible to obtain;
and (3) that the difficulties in the way of secur-
ing a proper and impartial administration of the
function of discharging prisoners are too great
to warrant the experiment. It is likely that it
will be necessary for America, through the re-
form of her prison system, to make a more satis-
fying demonstration of the value of the indeter-
minate sentence in order to secure its acceptance
in foreign countries.

Nowhere, as yet, has the principle of the inde-
terminate sentence been carried to its logical
conclusion-of a sentence unlimited in duration,
with no maximum or minimum limits imposed
by law or by judicial discretion. This is the
goal of the more advanced penologists and prison
reformers, and it is evident that that system
cannot fully accomplish the purposes which it
is designed to effect without such extension; but
it is not likely to commend itself to legislatures
or to the public except as a part of a sweeping
measure of prison reform. See IMPRISONMENT;
SENTENCE; PUNISHMENT; PRISONS; PENOLOGY.
INDETERMINISM. See INDIFFERENTISM.
INDEX (Lat., indicator). An alphabetical
list of names, topics, words, and the like, treated
in a book, with indications of the passages in
which they occur. The index usually comes at
the end of the book; the analytical table of con-

tents is normally placed at the beginning, except
in the case of French, Italian, and Spanish
books.

As books began to multiply after the inven-
tion of printing, the need of indexes was felt,
and their value was recognized. Many books
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries have
well-made indexes of such fullness and value as
put to shame the farcical substitutes issued by
many modern publishers when they give any
at all. Numerous authorities might be cited as
to the worth of a good index in enhancing the
value and usefulness of a good book. Long and
loud have been and are the complaints against
the publication of books of knowledge without
indexes, emphasizing Carlyle's growl against
"books born of Chaos, which want all things,
even an index." Lord Campbell of England,
and Horace Binney of Philadelphia, each advo-
cated withholding copyright from any author
who published a book without an index.
"I
have come," says the latter, "to regard a good
book as curtailed of half its value if it has not

a pretty full index. It is almost impossible,
without such a guide, to reproduce on demand
the most striking thoughts or facts the book
may contain, whether for citation or further
consideration." The value still put by many
scholars on the old Delphin edition of the
classics is based solely on its copious indexes.
An incalculable amount of time has been lost
to students and scholars in fruitless search for
much wanted bits of information buried from
sight in unindexed pages of books of value and
authority. What the seeker demands is a com-
plete index, and it is essential that this should
not only refer to the letter, but should also
embody the spirit of the work indexed. To
this end the indexer must possess intelligence,
quickness of perception, the power of analysis
and condensation, and the ability to put himself
en rapport with the author and his work, of
the subject of which he must himself have a
very considerable knowledge. Any index is val-
uable in proportion as it is concise in expres-
sion and accurately exhaustive, not only of the
broader statements of fact or of opinion, but
also of the small points of detail, the incidental
and illustrative references contained in the
book or volumes to which it aims to be the guide
or key.

Minuteness of indexing must vary according
to character and uses of books indexed. Before
beginning to make entries, an indexer should
read the entire book, usually in the "page"
proof. He may then indicate by underlining
words in the text or writing chosen headings
in the margins against the topics to be indexed.
Before entering on the actual work of prepar-
ing entries he must determine the general char-
acter of the index he is to make. For a book
may require a general index of quite obvious
subjects treated in it, as Bryce's American Com-
monwealth; a name or word index, as for
atlases, botanies, genealogies, etc.; an index of
ideas more or less difficult to reduce to alpha-
betic key words, as Emerson's Essays, Holmes's
Autocrat. The indexer cannot be too careful
in choosing headings or catchwords, which must
not only represent the subject treated, but also
be such as would occur to the seeker who has
not the text before him. In form these should
approach the subject headings in a good li
brary catalogue, and the indexer should in the
main be governed by the well-known principles

of subject cataloguing. Entries on the same subject should not be scattered among various synonymous headings. Each subject must be indexed every time it occurs, and related matter should be indicated by cross references. If entries under headings are few, it is sometimes advisable to repeat them under each heading needed to make reference easy and complete; if many, a single heading may be chosen for entries and cross references made from other possible headings. Entries should invariably be concise, definite, and specific. Scattered page references should not be massed under a heading without clew to the character of the information given. Where matter relating to a single subject is given consecutively and is brief, a single reference may suffice, but if extended it should be analyzed under headings. In a book on municipal affairs, e.g., the seeker must not be forced to examine several pages on the mayor of New York to ascertain his salary. Specific rather than general headings should be chosen; e.g., entry should be under potatoes, not tubers, sparrows rather than birds, cross reference being made only when necessary. In general, indexing under the main subject of the book should be avoided. This brings too great a mass together and renders the heading practically useless. The excellent index of Fiske's American Revolution has but seven entries under "Revolution." A work in several volumes should have a general index to all in the last one. Separate indexes to each volume (except for serials) are seldom afforded.

Each entry should be written on a separate slip, and the slips alphabeted in trays. Library supply houses make slips 5 X 7.5 or 7.5 X 12.5 centimeters, and trays to fit. Careful, final editing of entries is necessary to assure consistency, proper cross reference, clear punctuation, and absolute accuracy. Words alike in spelling but different in meaning should be repeated as headings. Entries like the following are to be avoided:

Lead, copper metallurgy kindly light poisoning

Entries should be arranged in alphabetic order, following the rules for arrangement given in Cutter's Rules for a Dictionary Catalogue, or some other standard authority. When verified and edited, slips may be sent to the printer either pasted in order on large sheets, or numbered, punched, and tied together, or the entries may be copied on sheets. Great care is essential in verifying both the original entries and the printer's work, an index error being serious. Bibliography. A paper on "Indexing," by J. B. Nichols, in Library Journal (New York, October, 1892), gives very excellent directions and suggestions for would-be indexers. H. B. Wheatley's How to Make an Index (London, 1902) is entertaining reading and valuable in suggestion; it contains the rules of the English Index Society. More recent treatises are: Petherbridge, Technique of Indexing (ib., 1904); Clarke, Manual of Practical Indexing (ib., 1905); Wheeler, Indexing: Rules and Examples (Albany, 1905; rev. ed., 1913); Kaiser, Systematic Indexing (New York, 1911).

INDEX, IN MATHEMATICS. See EXPONENT. INDEX (more fully INDEX LIBRORUM PROHIBITORUM). A catalogue published by papal authority in the Roman Catholic church of

books the reading of which is prohibited to members of that church, whether on doctrinal, moral, or religious grounds. A natural consequence of the claim of the church to authority in matters of religion is the right or the duty of watching over the faith of its members, and of guarding it against every danger of corruption from books believed to be injurious to faith or to morality. The earliest recorded exercise of this restrictive authority is the prohibition of the Thalia of Arius; and a council of Carthage, in the year 398, issued, even for bishops, a similar prohibition of Gentile books, although it permitted to them the reading of the works of heretics. The earliest example of a prohibitory catalogue is found in the decree of a council held at Rome (494), under Pope Gelasius, which, having enumerated the canonical books of Scripture and other approved works, recites also the apocryphal books, together with a long list of heretical authors, whose writings it prohibits. The medieval popes and councils pursued the same course as to the heterodox or dangerous writings of their respective periods, and the multiplication of such books after the invention of printing led to a more stringent as well as more systematic procedure. Henry VIII of England published a list of prohibited books in 1526, and a larger one (containing 85 titles) in 1529, in which year Charles V published for the Netherlands his most noteworthy edict against dangerous reading, with a long list, which was included in that issued by the university press of Louvain in 1546 and again in 1550. Similar lists appeared by authority at Venice, Paris, and Cologne, and Paul IV issued in 1557 and 1559 what may be regarded as properly the first Roman Index. One of the gravest undertakings of the Council of Trent was a complete and authoritative enumeration of all those books the use of which it was expedient to prohibit to the faithful. A committee was appointed for the purpose and had made great progress in the work; but it was found impossible to bring the examination of the books to an end before the close of the council, and all the papers of the committee were handed over by the council to the Pope. When the work was completed, the result, known as the Tridentine Index, was issued with the bull Dominici Gregis Custodiam, by Pius IV in 1564. From this time the burning of dangerous books fell into disuse, and the church contented herself with warning her children against their use, under penalty of purely ecclesiastical censure. Further additions and certain modifications of the rules of this Index were made by Sixtus V, Clement VIII, Alexander VII, and Benedictine XIV. It was published in 1595, and, with the addition of such books as from time to time it was deemed expedient to prohibit, in several subsequent editions, the most remarkable of which are those of Brasichelli (Rome, 1607); Quiroga, Index Librorum Expurgandorum (Salamanca, 1601); and Sotomayor, Novissimus Index (Madrid, 1648). In the intervals between the editions the decrees which make further additions to the Index are published at Rome and circulated in the various countries. The latest edition of the Index is by Leo XIII (Rome, 1900; reprinted under Pius X in 1904 and in 1907).

re

The prohibitions of the Roman Index are of two classes, either absolute and total or partial and provisional, until the books shall have been

corrected. The edition of Quiroga, mentioned above, gives a list of the latter class, known as Index Expurgatorius. The ground of the prohibition may be either the authorship of the work or its subject, or both together. Under the first head are prohibited all the writings of heresiarchs-i.e., the first founders of heresies no matter what may be the subject. Under the second head are prohibited all books confessedly immoral, and all books on magic, necromancy, etc. Under the third are prohibited all books of heretical authorship treating on doctrinal subjects; all versions of the Bible by heretical authors; and all books, no matter by whom written, which contain statements, doctrines, or insinuations prejudicial to the Catholic religion. Formerly only books were examined against which complaint had been made, but in 1908 Pius X extended the care of the congregation to all published books that are likely to do harm. The preparation of the Index, in the first instance, was committed to the care of the Congregation of the Inquisition in Rome; but a special Congregation of the Index was established by Pius V and more fully organized by Sixtus V. This congregation consists of a prefect (who is always a cardinal), of consulters, and of examiners of books (quali ficatores). Its proceedings are governed by rules which have been authoritatively laid down by several popes, especially by Benedict XIV, in a constitution issued July 10, 1753, which is the best and most authentic exposition of a subject on which much misconception exists. The edition of the Index by Brasichelli was reprinted, with an English preface, by Richard Gibbings (Dublin, 1837). By far the most elaborate study of its contents is by F. H. Reusch, Der Index der verbotenen Bücher (2 vols., Bonn, 1883-85). The same author also

reprinted all accessible indexes of the sixteenth century in the Bibliothek des Stuttgarter litterarischen Vereins, vol. clxxvi (Stuttgart, 1886).

Consult Haven, Censorship of the Church of Rome (New York, 1907), and Hurley, Commentary on the Present Index Legislation (Dublin, 1908).

INDEX, CEPHALIC, CRANIAL, PELVIC, ETC. A term employed by anthropologists to mark the proportions of certain related parts of the human body, or skeleton, in order to distinguish racial varieties in mankind. An important one, and easy to obtain, is the ratio of the width of the head to the length, called cranial index for the skull and cephalic index for the living subject. To avoid the decimal point at the beginning of the index, the smaller measure of any two concerned in an index is multiplied by 100 and divided by the larger one. For the index of the skull or that of the head the Width x 100 formula would be thus: = I. The Length extreme length of the skull is between the glabella (the protruding ridge of the forehead between and just above the orbits) and the extremum occiput (the most prominent portion of the occiput), and the width is the greatest breadth, wherever that may be. All appliances necessary for these measurements, and for all direct ones of the head or skull, are a set of calipers, a sliding scale, and a tape measure. The metric system has been adopted for all anthropological measurements. For the convenience of anthropologists, printed index tables have been compiled, from which indices may

be read off without loss of time. The instruments for measuring other parts of the body, or skeleton, are of great variety and constantly undergoing improvements.

Those

Three terms are applied by anthropologists to heads, according to these measures. having cephalic indices with a ratio below 77 are called dolichocephalic, those between 77 and 81.9 are mesocephalic, and those above 82 are brachycephalic. For crania, or skulls of the dead, the indices are about two points lower. In the numerous cases where a finer subdivision is necessary a quinary method of nomenclature is followed-the Germans adopting a series called the Frankfort Agreement; the French, the scheme of Broca, modified by Deniker, as follows:

Dolichocephalic skulls of exceptional length have reached an index of 58, the lowest limit, while brachycephalic examples have gone as high as 90 or even 100.

Before proceeding to other indices it should be stated that the cranial and cephalic indices just described are far from being a perfect guide to the classification of mankind, for the subdivisions of the human species have no governing rule and are not subspecies, but separate varieties and mixtures, as with domestic animals.

Again, the ratio between the width and the length of the skull does not give complete information as to its shape. The measurements therefore lead to uncertain conclusions, since precisely the same figures would be obtained from crania or heads of widely different cross section, so that one having an almost rectangular shape, an oval with a narrow end far in front, and a long ellipse would lead to the same index. Unless a large number of skulls among thing like a uniform result, the measurements the same people are measured and give someare an unsafe guide. Very little good arises from adding a small number of indices and number of observations. The dividing by a average result might be a number to which not a single head in the whole series measured would correspond. It is customary therefore to tabulate results by coördinates. Frequently, when such a plan is pursued, there arise several apexes, as in Italy, the higher number representing the brachycephalic northern Italians with Celtic blood in their veins, and the lower number the southern long-headed Mediterranean type.

The cranial and cephalic indices are not precisely coördinated with purely descriptive characteristics of the human body. It cannot be said that any one of the subspecies of man is either dolichocephalic or brachycephalic, but tendencies towards one or the other exist, as the following table of cephalic indices shows: