diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/66905-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/66905-0.txt | 7885 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 7885 deletions
diff --git a/old/66905-0.txt b/old/66905-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index c3aad93..0000000 --- a/old/66905-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,7885 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce, -Volume 11, by Ambrose Bierce - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: The Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce, Volume 11 - -Author: Ambrose Bierce - -Release Date: December 8, 2021 [eBook #66905] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Emmanuel Ackerman, Robert Tonsing and the Online - Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This - file was produced from images generously made available by - The Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COLLECTED WORKS OF -AMBROSE BIERCE, VOLUME 11 *** - - - - - - THE COLLECTED WORKS - OF AMBROSE BIERCE - - VOLUME XI - - [Illustration: N] - - - - - THE COLLECTED - WORKS OF - AMBROSE BIERCE - - VOLUME XI - - ANTEPENULTIMATA - - [Illustration] - - NEW YORK & WASHINGTON - THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY - 1912 - - _FREDERICK_ _POLLEY_ - - COPYRIGHT, 1912, BY - The Neale Publishing Company - - - - - PUBLISHERS’ NOTE - - -The greater part of the contents of this volume is published in -admirable form by A. M. Robertson, of San Francisco, with the title -_The Shadow on the Dial and Other Essays_. When the prospectus of Mr. -Bierce’s _Collected Works_ was issued by our house in 1908 no allowance -was made for this matter, but through the generosity of Mr. Robertson, -and of Mr. S. O. Howes, the book’s compiler and editor, we are now -able to include it in our scheme, with revisions and additions by the -author. For this courtesy we are greatly indebted to Messrs. Robertson -and Howes. - - THE NEALE PUBLISHING COMPANY. - -April, 1912. - - - - - CONTENTS - - THE SHADOW ON THE DIAL - CIVILIZATION - THE GAME OF POLITICS - A POSSIBLE BENEFACTOR - WARLIKE AMERICA - SOME FEATURES OF THE LAW - ARBITRATION - THE GIFT O’ GAB - NATURA BENIGNA - INDUSTRIAL DISCONTENT - WRITERS OF DIALECT - CRIME AND ITS CORRECTIVES - ON KNOWING ONE’S BUSINESS - A TRADE OF REFUGE - THE DEATH PENALTY - RELIGION - IMMORTALITY - A ROLLING CONTINENT - CHARITY - EMANCIPATED WOMAN - THE OPPOSING SEX - A MAD WORLD - THE AMERICAN SYCOPHANT - DOG - THE ANCESTRAL BOND - THE RIGHT TO WORK - TAKING ONESELF OFF - A MONUMENT TO ADAM - HYPNOTISM - AT THE DRAIN OF THE WASH-BASIN - GODS IN CHICAGO - FOR LAST WORDS - THE CHAIR OF LITTLE EASE - A GHOST IN THE UNMAKING - THE TURN OF THE TIDE - FAT BABIES AND FATE - CERTAIN AREAS OF OUR SEAMY SIDE - FOR BREVITY AND CLARITY - GENIUS AS A PROVOCATION - A BIVOUAC OF THE DEAD - - - - - ANTEPENULTIMATA - - - - - THE SHADOW ON THE DIAL - - - I - -There is a deal of confusion and uncertainty in the use of the words -“socialist,” “anarchist,” and “nihilist.” Even the ’ist himself -commonly knows with as little accuracy what he is as the rest of -us know why he is. The socialist believes that most human affairs -should be regulated and managed by the state—the government—that is -to say, the majority. Our own system has many socialist features and -the trend of republican government is all that way. The anarchist -favors abolition of all law and frequently belongs to an organization -that secures his allegiance by solemn oaths and dreadful penalties. -“Nihilism” is a name given by Turgenieff to the general body of Russian -discontent which finds expression in antagonizing authority and killing -authorities. Constructive politics would seem, as yet, to be a cut -above the nihilist’s intelligence; he is essentially a destructionary. -He is so diligently engaged in unweeding the soil that he has not given -a thought to what he will grow there. Nihilism may be defined as a -policy of assassination tempered by reflections on Siberia. American -sympathy with it is the offspring of an unholy union between the tongue -of a liar and the ear of a dupe. - -Upon examination it will be seen that political dissent, when it -takes any form more coherent than the mere brute dissatisfaction of -a mind that does not know what it wants to want, finds expression in -one of but two ways—in Socialism or in Anarchism. Whatever methods -one may think will best replace a system gradually evolved from our -needs and our natures with a system existing only in the minds of -dreamers, one is bound to choose between these two dreams. Yet such -is the intellectual delinquency of many who most strenuously denounce -the system that we have that we not infrequently find the same man -advocating in one breath, Socialism, in the next, Anarchism. Indeed, -few of these sons of darkness know that even as coherent dreams the -two are incompatible. With Anarchy triumphant the socialist would be a -thousand years further from realization of his hope than he is to-day. -Set up Socialism on a Monday and on Tuesday the country would be _en -fête_, gaily hunting down anarchists. There would be little difficulty -in trailing them, for they have not so much sense as a deer, which, -running down the wind, sends its tell-tale fragrance on before. - -Socialism and Anarchism are parts of the same thing, in the sense that -the terminal points of a road are parts of the same road. Between them, -about midway, lies the system that we have the happiness to endure. -It is a “blend” of Socialism and Anarchism in about equal parts: all -that is not one is the other. Coöperation is Socialism; competition is -Anarchism. Competition carried to its logical conclusion (which only -coöperation prevents or can prevent) would leave no law in force, no -property possible, no life secure. - -Of course the words “coöperation” and “competition” are not here used -in a merely industrial and commercial sense; they are intended to cover -the whole field of human activity. Two voices singing a duet—that is -coöperation—Socialism. Two voices singing each a different tune and -trying to drown each other—that is competition—Anarchism: each is a -law unto itself—that is to say, it is lawless. Everything that ought to -be done the socialist hopes to do by associated endeavor, as an army -wins battles; Anarchism is socialist in its means only: by coöperation -it tries to render coöperation impossible—combines to kill combination. -Its method says to its purpose: “Thou fool!” - - - II - -Everything foretells the doom of authority. The killing of kings is -no new industry; it is as ancient as the race. Always and everywhere -persons in high place have been the assassin’s prey. We have ourselves -lost three presidents by murder, and shall doubtless lose many another -before the book of American history is closed. If anything is new in -this activity of the regicide it is found in the choice of victims. The -contemporary “avenger” slays, not the merely “exalted,” but the good -and the inoffensive—an American president who had struck the chains -from millions of slaves; a Russian czar who against the will and work -of his own powerful nobles had freed their serfs; a French president -from whom the French people had received nothing but good; a powerless -Austrian empress, whose weight of sorrows had touched the world to -tears; a blameless Italian king beloved of his people; such is a part -of the recent record of the regicide, whose every entry is a tale of -infamy unrelieved by one circumstance of justice, decency or good -intention. - -This recent uniformity of malevolence in the choice of victims is not -without significance. It points unmistakably to two facts: first, that -the selections are made, not by the assassins themselves, but by some -central control inaccessible to individual preference and unaffected -by the fortunes of its instruments; second, that there is a constant -purpose to manifest an antagonism, not to any individual ruler, but to -rulers; not to any system of government, but to government. The issue -is defined, the alignment made, the battle set: Chaos against Order, -Anarchy against Law. - - - III - -M. Vaillant, the French gentleman who lacked a “good opinion of the -law,” but was singularly rich in the faith that by means of gunpowder -and flying nails humanity could be brought into a nearer relation -with reason, righteousness and the will of God, is said to have been -nearly devoid of nose. Of this privation M. Vaillant made but slight -account, as was natural, seeing that for but a brief season did he need -even so much of nose as remained to him. Yet before its effacement by -premature disruption of his own petard it must have had a certain value -to him—he would not wantonly have renounced it; and had he foreseen -its extinction by the bomb the iron views of that controversial -device would probably have been denied expression. Albeit (so say the -scientists) doomed to eventual elimination from the scheme of being, -and to the anarchist even now something of an accusing conscience, the -nose is indubitably an excellent thing on man. - -We have grown so accustomed to the presence of this feature that we -take it as a matter of course; its absence is one of the most notable -phenomena of our observation—“an occasion long to be remembered,” as -the society reporter hath it. Yet “abundant testimony sheweth” that -but a few centuries ago noseless men and women were so common all -over Europe as to provoke but little comment when seen and (in their -disagreeable way) heard. They abounded in all the various walks of -life: there were honored burgomasters without noses; wealthy merchants, -great scholars, artists, teachers. Amongst the humbler classes nasal -destitution was almost as frequent as pecuniary—in the humblest of all, -the most common of all. Writing in the thirteenth century, a chronicler -mentions the retainers and servants of certain Suabian noblemen as -having hardly a whole ear among them—for until a comparatively recent -period man’s tenure of his ears was even more precarious than that -of his nose. In 1436, when a Bavarian woman, Agnes Bernaurian, wife -of Duke Albert the Pious, was dropped off the bridge at Prague, she -persisted in rising to the surface and trying to escape; so the -executioner gave himself the trouble to put a long pole into her hair -and hold her under. A contemporary account of the matter hints that her -disorderly behavior at so solemn a moment was due to the pain caused -by removal of her nose; but as her execution was by order of her own -father it seems more probable that this “extreme penalty of the law” -was not imposed. Without a doubt, though, possession of a nose was an -uncommon (and rather barren) distinction in those days among “persons -designated to assist the executioner,” as the condemned were civilly -called. Nor, as already said, was it any too common among persons not -as yet consecrated to that service: “Few,” says the chronicler, “have -two noses, and many have none.” - -Man’s firmer grasp upon his nose in this our day and generation is -not altogether due to invention of the handkerchief. The genesis and -development of his right to his own nose have been accompanied with a -corresponding advance in possessory rights all along the line of his -belongings—his ears, his fingers and toes, his skin, his bones, his -wife and her young, his clothes and his labor—everything that is (and -that once was not) his. In Europe and America to-day these things can -not be taken away from even the humblest and poorest without somebody -wanting to “know the reason why.” In every decade the nation that is -most powerful upon the seas incurs voluntarily a vast expense of blood -and treasure in suppressing a slave trade which in no way is injurious -to her interests, nor to the interests of any but the slaves. - -To-day even the lowliest incapable of all Nature’s aborted has a nose -that he dares to call his own and bite off at his own sweet will. -Unfortunately, with an unthinkable fatuity we permit him to be told -that but for the very agencies that have put him in possession he could -successfully assert a God-given and world-old right to the noses of -others. At present the honest fellow is mainly engaged in refreshing -himself upon his own nose, consuming that comestible with avidity -and precision; but the Vaillants, Ravechols, Mosts and Hearsts are -pointing his appetite to other snouts than his, and inspiring him with -rhinophagic ambition. Meantime the rest of us are using these imperiled -organs to snore with. - -’Tis a fine, resonant and melodious snore, but it is not going to last: -there is to be a rude awakening. We shall one day get our eyes open to -the fact that scoundrels like Vaillant are neither few nor distant. -We shall learn that our blind dependence upon the magic of words is a -fatuous error; that the fortuitous arrangement of consonants and vowels -which we worship as Liberty is of slight efficacy in disarming the -lunatic brandishing a bomb. Liberty, indeed! The murderous wretch loves -it a deal better than we, and wants more of it. Liberty! one almost -sickens of the word, so quick and glib it is on every lip—so destitute -of meaning. - -There is no such thing as abstract liberty; it is not even thinkable. -If you ask me, “Do you favor liberty?” I reply, “Liberty for whom to -do what?” Just now I distinctly favor the liberty of the law to cut -off the noses of anarchists caught red-handed or red-tongued. If they -go in for mutilation let them feel what it is like. If they are not -satisfied with the way that things have been going on since the wife of -Duke Albert the Pious was held under water with a pole, and since the -servitors of the Suabian nobleman cherished their vestigial ears, it is -to be presumed that they favor reversion to that happy state. There is -grave objection, but if we must we will. Let us begin (with moderation) -by reverting _them_. - -I favor mutilation for anarchists convicted of killing or inciting to -kill—mutilation followed by death; for those who merely deny the right -and expediency of law, plain mutilation—which might advantageously take -the form of removal of the tongue. Why not? Where is the injustice? -Surely he who denies men’s right to make laws will not invoke the laws -that they have wickedly made! That were to say that they must not -protect themselves, yet are bound to protect him. What! if I beat him -will he call the useless and mischievous constabulary? If I draw out -his tongue shall he (in the sign-language) demand it back, and failing -of restitution (for surely I should cut it clean away) shall he have -the law on me—the naughty law, instrument of the oppressor? Why, that -“goes neare to be fonny!” - - - IV - -Two human beings can not live together in peace without laws—many -laws. Everything that either, in consideration of the other’s wish or -welfare, abstains from is inhibited by law, tacit or expressed. If -there were in all the world none but they—if neither had come with any -sense of obligation toward the other, both clean from creation, with -nothing but brains to direct their conduct—every hour would evolve an -understanding, that is to say, a law; every act would suggest one. They -would have to agree not to kill nor harm each other. They must arrange -their work and all their activities to secure the best advantage. These -arrangements, agreements, understandings—what are they but laws? To -live without law is to live alone. Every family is a miniature state -with a complicate system of laws, a supreme authority and subordinate -authorities down to the latest babe. And as he who is loudest in -demanding liberty for himself is sternest in denying it to others, -you may confidently go to the Maison Vaillant, or the Mosthaus, for a -flawless example of the iron hand. - -Laws of the state are as faulty and as faultily administered as -those of the family. Most of them have to be speedily and repeatedly -“amended,” many repealed, and of those permitted to stand, the greater -number fall into disuse and are forgotten. Those who have to be -entrusted with the duty of administering them have all the limitations -of intelligence and defects of character by which the rest of us also -are distinguished from the angels. In the wise governor, the just -judge, the honest sheriff or the patient constable we have as rare a -phenomenon as the faultless father. The good God has not given us a -special kind of men upon whom to devolve the duty of seeing to the -observance of the understandings that we call laws. Like all else -that men do, this work is badly done. The best that we can hope for -through all the failures, the injustice, the disheartening damage to -individual rights and interests, is a fairly good general result, -enabling us to walk abroad among our fellows unafraid, to meet even the -tribesmen from another valley without too imminent a peril of braining -and evisceration. Of that small security the anarchist would deprive -us. But without that nothing is of value and we shall be willing to -renounce the anarchist. - -Our system of civilization, being the natural outgrowth of our moral -and intellectual natures, is open to criticism and subject to revision. -Our laws, being of human origin, are faulty and their application -is disappointing. Dissent, dissatisfaction, deprecation, proposals -for a better system fortified with better laws more intelligently -administered—these are permissible and should be welcome. The decent -socialist (when he is not carried away by zeal to pool issues with the -anarchist) may have that in him which it does us good to hear. Wrong in -all else, he may be right in showing us wherein we ourselves are wrong. -Anyhow, his desire is amendment, and so long as his paths are peace -he has the right to walk therein, exhorting as he goes. The French -communist who does not preach Petroleum and It Rectified is to be -regarded with more than amusement, more than compassion. There is room -for him and his fad; there are hospitable ears for his boast that Jesus -Christ would have been a communist if there had been communes. They -really “did not know everything down in Judee.” But for the anarchist, -whose aim is not amendment, but destruction—not welfare to the race, -but mischief to a part of it—not happiness for the future, but revenge -for the past—for that animal there should be no close season, for that -savage no reservation. Society has not the right to grant life to -one who denies the right to live. The proponent of reversion to the -_régime_ of lacking noses should lack a nose. - - - V - -Of all the wild asses that roam the plain, the wildest wild ass that -roams the plain is indubitably the one that lifts his voice and heel -against that Socialism known as “public ownership of public utilities,” -on the ground of “principle.” There may be honest, and in some degree -intelligent, opposition on the ground of expediency. Many persons -whom it is a pleasure to respect believe that a government railway, -for example, would be less efficiently managed than the same railway -in private hands, and that political dangers lurk in the proposal so -enormously to increase the number of Federal employees as government -ownership of railways would entail. They think, in other words, that -the policy is inexpedient. It is a duty to reason with them, which, -as a rule, one can do without being insulted. But he who greets the -proposal with a howl of derision as “Socialism!” is not a respectable -opponent. Eyes he has, but he sees not; ears—O, very abundant ears—but -he hears not the still, small voice of history, nor the still smaller -voice of common sense. - -Obviously to those who, having eyes, do see, public ownership of -anything is a step in the direction of Socialism, for perfect Socialism -means public ownership of everything. But “principle” has nothing to -do with it. The principle of public ownership is already accepted and -established. It has no visible opponents except in the camp of the -anarchists, and fewer of them are visible there than soap and water -would reveal. Antagonists of the principle of Socialism lost their -fight when the first human government held the dedicatory exercises of -a cave of legislation. Since then the only question about the matter -has been how far the extension of Socialism is expedient. Some would -draw the limiting line at one place, some at another; but only a fool -thinks there can be government without it, or good government without a -great deal of it. (The fact that we have always had a great deal of it, -yet never had good government, affirms nothing that it is worth while -to consider.) The word-worn example of our postal department is only -one of a thousand instances of pure Socialism. If it did not exist, -how bitter an opposition a proposal to establish it would evoke from -adversaries of the Red Rag! The government builds and operates bridges -with general assent; but, as the late General Walker pointed out, it -may under some circumstances be more economical, or better otherwise, -to build and operate a ferry boat, which is a floating bridge. But that -is opposed as rank Socialism. - -The truth is that the men of “principle” are a pretty dangerous class, -generally speaking—and they are generally speaking. It is they that -hamper us in every war. It is they who, preventing concentration and -regulation of unabolishable evils, promote their distribution and -liberty. Moral principles are pretty good things—for the young and -those not well grounded in goodness. If one have an impediment in -his thought, or is otherwise unequal to emergencies as they arise, -it is safest to be provided beforehand with something to refer to in -order that a right decision may be made without taking thought. But -spirits of a purer fire prefer to decide each question as it comes up, -and to act upon the merits of the case, unbound and unpledged. With a -quick intelligence, a capable conscience and a habit of doing right -automatically, one has little need to burden one’s mind and memory with -a set of solemn principles formulated by owlish philosophers who do not -happen to know that what is right is merely what, in the long run and -with regard to the greater number of cases, is expedient. Principle -is not always an infallible guide. For illustration, it is not always -expedient—that is, for the good of all concerned—to tell the truth, -to be entirely just or merciful, to pay a debt. I can conceive a case -in which it would be right to assassinate one’s neighbor. Suppose him -to be a desperate scoundrel of a chemist who has devised a means of -setting the atmosphere afire. The man who should go through life on -an inflexible line of principle would border his path with a havoc of -human happiness. - -What one may think perfect one may not always think desirable. By -“perfect” one may mean merely complete, and the word was so used in -my reference to Socialism. I am not myself an advocate of “perfect -Socialism,” but as to government ownership of railways, there is -doubtless a good deal to be said on both sides. One argument in its -favor appears decisive; under a system subject to popular control the -law of gravitation would be shorn of its preëminence as a means of -removing personal property from the baggage car. - - - VI - -When M. Casimir-Perier resigned the French presidency there were -those who regarded the act as weak, cowardly, undutiful and otherwise -censurable. It seems to me the act, not of a feeble man, but of a -strong one—not that of a coward, but that of a gentleman. Indeed, -I hardly know where to look in history for an act more entirely -gratifying to my sense of the “fitness of things” than this dignified -notification to mankind that in consenting to serve one’s country one -does not relinquish the right to decent treatment—to immunity from -factious opposition and abuse—to at least as much civil consideration -as is due from the church to the devil. - -M. Casimir-Perier did not seek the presidency of the French republic; -it was thrust upon him against his protestations by an apparently -unanimous mandate of the French people in an emergency which it was -thought that he was the best man to meet. That he met it with modesty -and courage was testified without dissent. That he afterward did -anything to forfeit the confidence and respect that he then inspired is -not true, and nobody believes it true. Yet in his letter of resignation -he said, and said truly: - -“For the last six months a campaign of slander and insult has been -going on against the army, magistrates, Parliament and the hierarchical -Chief of State, and this license to disseminate social hatred continues -to be called ‘liberty of thought.’” - -And with a dignity to which it seems strange that any one could be -insensible, he added: - -“The respect and ambition which I entertain for my country will not -allow me to acknowledge that the servants of the country, and he who -represents it in the presence of foreign nations, may be insulted every -day.” - -These are manly words. Have we any warrant for demanding or expecting -that men of clean life and character will devote themselves to the good -of ingrates who pay, and ingrates who permit them to pay, in flung mud? -It is hardly credible that among even those persons most infatuated -by contemplation of their own merit as pointed out by their thrifty -sycophants “liberty of thought” has been carried to that extreme. The -right of the State to demand the sacrifice of the citizen’s life is a -doctrine as old as the patriotism that concedes it, but the right to -require him to forego his good name—that is something new under the sun. - -“Perhaps in laying down my functions,” said M. Casimir-Perier, “I shall -have marked out a path of duty to those who are solicitous for the -dignity, power and good name of France in the world.” - -We may be permitted to hope that the lesson is wider than France and -more lasting than the French republic. It is well that not only France -but all other countries with “popular institutions” should learn that -if they wish to command the services of men of honor they must accord -them honorable treatment; the rule now is for the party to which they -belong to give them a half-hearted support while suffering all other -parties to slander and insult them. The action of the president of -the French republic in these disgusting circumstances is exceptional -and unusual only in respect of his courage in expressly resenting his -wrong. Everywhere the unreasonable complaint is heard that good men -will not “go into politics;” everywhere the ignorant and malignant -masses and their no less malignant and hardly less ignorant leaders -and spokesmen, having sown the wind of reasonless obstruction and -partisan vilification, are reaping the whirlwind of misrule. So far as -concerns the public service, gentlemen are mostly on a strike against -introduction of the mud-machine. This high-minded political workman, -Casimir-Perier, never showed to so noble advantage as in gathering up -his tools and walking out. - -It may be, and a thousand times has been, urged that abstention from -activity in public affairs by men of brains and character leaves the -business of government in the hands of the incapable and the vicious. -In whose hands, pray, in a republic, does it logically belong? What -does the theory of “representative government” affirm? What is the -lesson of every netherward extension of the suffrage? What do we -mean by permitting it to “broaden slowly down” to lower and lower -intelligences and moralities?—what but that stupidity and vice, equally -with virtue and wisdom, are entitled to a voice in political affairs? - -A person that is fit to vote is fit to be voted for. He who is -competent for the high and difficult function of choosing an officer -of the state is competent to serve the state as an officer. To deny -him the right is illogical and unjust. Participation in government -can not be at the same time a privilege and a duty, and he who claims -it as a privilege must not speak of another’s renunciation (whereby -himself is more highly privileged) as “shirking.” With every retirement -from politics increased power passes to those who remain. Shall they -protest? Who else is to protest? The complaint of “incivism” would be -more reasonable if there were some one by whom it could reasonably be -made. - -The public officials of this favored country, Heaven be thanked, are -infrequently slandered: they are, as a rule, so bad that calumniation -is a compliment. Our best men, with here and there an exception, have -been driven out of public life, or made afraid to enter it. Even our -spasmodic efforts at reform fail ludicrously for lack of leaders -unaffiliated with “the thing to be reformed.” Unless attracted by the -salary, why should a gentleman “aspire” to the presidency of the United -States? During his canvass (and he is expected to “run,” not merely to -“stand”) he will have from his own party a support that should make -him blush, and from all the others an opposition that will stick at -nothing to accomplish his satisfactory defamation. After his election -his partition and allotment of the loaves and fishes will estrange an -important and thenceforth implacable faction of his following without -appeasing the animosity of any one else. At the finish of his term the -utmost that he can expect in the way of reward not expressible in terms -of the national currency is that not much more than one-half of his -countrymen will believe him a scoundrel to the end of their days. - - - VII - -The trend of political thought and action in all civilized countries -toward absolute Socialism is so conspicuous a phenomenon that it not -only impresses that rare and execrated intelligence, the impartial -observer, “the looker-on at the game,” but is seen with greater or -less distinctness by the innumerable company of players. A political -faith is a kind of mental disability; the patient dimly discerns some -of the more salient of the “opposing facts,” but those grateful to -his disorder loom large indeed. The proposition that the established -order of things is in peril, has, therefore, both a stammering and a -stentorian assent and needs no proof. Whether that is for better or for -worse is not to be answered in an epigram, nor in a paragraph, but from -the viewpoint of the looker-on with no more than an observer’s interest -in the matter, little is seen to encourage the optimist—little even of -the little that he requires. - -Down to date the world never has had good government. For forms of -government fools have contested from the dawn of history, but no form -has given good and wise administration. Government is like medicine; -those who administer it are, as a rule, wiser than those to whom it is -administered, though not much. In point of conscience there is little -to choose between them. - -There are two forms of real government; absolute Monarchy and absolute -Democracy; all others are bastard forms attesting the failure of these, -and themselves doomed to fail. The cause of failure lies in the -essential folly and badness of human nature. From a stupid and selfish -people there is no certainty of getting a wise and conscientious -sovereign. Even when that miracle has been wrought, good government has -not resulted, for the sovereign, however absolute in theory, however -good and wise in fact, is compelled to work through shallow and selfish -officials. Democracy suffers the same disability, with the added -disadvantage of a sovereign that is never wise and never just. - -As to limited Monarchies and constitutional Democracies, they -are similarly and equally futile. Divided authority is divided -responsibility. Restraint of the power to do evil is restraint of -the power to do good. Under the “one-man power” (a name, by the way, -that our good forefathers singularly chose to give to the rule of the -British ministry and parliament) it is at least known who is to blame -for sins of administration, and to whom is due the credit for what is -creditable. The autocrat can not hide behind his own back. - -In all the various and vain experiments in government the one cause -of failure is eternally manifest; the general moral and intellectual -delinquency that makes government necessary—the folly and depravity of -human nature. - -Do the socialists think that they can alter that?—do they believe that -after all these centuries of thought and experiment in government in -all possible conditions, it has remained for them to devise a system -powerful to chain or persuasive to charm the hitherto indomitable and -vigilant selfishness to which, despite its ghastly perversions, the -race owes its continued existence? Do they believe that under Socialism -the laws will execute themselves without human agency; that less than -to-day the state will require a vast and complex administration, with -the same and greater temptations and opportunities to ambition and -cupidity? - -Under any conceivable system the cleverest, most enterprising and least -scrupulous men will be at the head of affairs, and they will not be -there “for their health.” You cannot keep them down, and you cannot -keep the others up. If the socialist thinks that can be done, he must -hold in hope a better kind of ballot than the kind that works him -present woe, or a brand-new infallibility for its casting. - - - VIII - -A government that does not protect life is a flat failure, no matter -what else it may do. Life being almost universally regarded as the -most precious possession, its security is the first and highest -essential—not the life of him who takes life, but the life which -is exposed defenceless to his hateful hand. In no country in the -world, civilized or savage, is life so insecure as in this. In no -country in the world is murder held in so light reprobation. In no -battle of modern times have so many lives been taken as are lost -annually in the United States through public indifference to the -crime of homicide—through disregard of law, through bad government. -If American self-government with its ten thousand homicides a year -is good government there is no such thing as bad. Self-government? -What monstrous nonsense! Who governs himself needs no government, -has no governor, is not governed. If government has any meaning it -means the restraint of the many by the few—the subordination of -numbers to brains. It means denial to the masses of the right to cut -their own throats and ours. It means grasp and control of all social -forces and material enginery—a vigilant censorship of the press, a -firm hand upon the churches, keen supervision of public meetings and -public amusements, command of the railroads, telegraph and all means -of communication. It means, in short, ability to make use of all -beneficent influences of enlightenment for the general good, and to -array all the powers of civilization against civilization’s natural -enemies—“the masses.” Government like this has a thousand defects, but -it has one merit: it is government. - -Despotism? Yes. It is the despotisms of the world that have been the -conservators of civilization. It is the despot who, most powerful for -mischief, is alone powerful for good. It is conceded that government is -necessary—even by the “fierce democracies” that madly renounce it. But -in so far as government is not despotic it is not government. In Europe -for the last one hundred years, the trend of government has been toward -liberalization. Sovereign after sovereign has surrendered prerogative -after prerogative; the nobility, privilege after privilege. Mark -the result: society honeycombed with treason; property menaced with -partition; assassination studied as a science and practiced as an art; -everywhere powerful secret organizations sworn to demolish the social -fabric that the slow centuries have but just erected, and unmindful -that themselves will perish in the wreck. No heart can beat tranquilly -under clean linen. Such is the gratitude, such is the wisdom, such the -virtue of “The Masses.” - -That ancient and various device, “a republican form of government,” -appears to be too good for all the peoples of the earth excepting -one. It is partly successful in Switzerland; in France and America, -where the majority is composed of persons having dark understandings -and criminal instincts, it has broken down. In our case, as in every -case, the momentum of successful revolution carried us too far. We -rebelled against tyranny and having overthrown it, overthrew also the -governmental form in which it had happened to be manifest. In their -anger and their triumph our good grandfathers acted somewhat in the -spirit of the Irishman who cudgeled the dead snake until nothing of -it was left, in order to make it “sinsible of its desthruction.” They -meant it all, too, honest souls! For a long time after the setting up -of the republic the republic meant active hatred to kings, nobles, -aristocracies. It was held, and rightly held, that a nobleman could -not breathe in America—that he left his title and his privileges on -the ship that brought him over. Do we observe anything of that in this -generation? On the landing of a foreign king, prince or nobleman—even -a miserable “knight”—do we not execute sycophantic genuflexions? -Are not our newspapers full of flamboyant descriptions and qualming -adulation? Nay, does not our president himself—successor to Washington -and Jefferson!—greet and entertain the “nation’s guest”? Is not the -American young woman crazy to mate with a male of title? Does all -this represent no retrogression?—is it not the backward movement of -the shadow on the dial? Doubtless the republican idea has struck -strong roots into the soil of the two Americas, but he who rightly -considers the tendencies of events, the causes that bring them about -and the consequences that flow from them, will not be hot to affirm -the perpetuity of republican institutions in the Western Hemisphere. -Between their inception and their present stage of development there -is scarcely the beat of a pendulum; and already, by corruption and -lawlessness, the people of both continents, with all their diversities -of race and character, have shown themselves about equally unfit. -To become a nation of scoundrels all that any people needs is -opportunity; and what we are pleased to call by the impossible name of -“self-government” supplies it. - -The capital defect of republican government is inability to repress -internal forces tending to disintegration. It does not take long for a -“self-governed” people to learn that it is not really governed—that an -agreement enforcible by nobody but the parties to it is not binding. -We are learning this very rapidly: we set aside our laws whenever we -please. The sovereign power—the tribunal of ultimate jurisdiction—is -a mob. If the mob is large enough (it need not be very large), even -if composed of vicious tramps, it may do as it will. It may destroy -property and life. It may without proof of guilt inflict upon -individuals torments unthinkable by fire and flaying, mutilations -that are nameless. It may call men, women and children from their -beds and beat them to death with cudgels. In the light of day it may -assail the very strongholds of law in the heart of a populous city, -and assassinate prisoners of whose guilt it knows nothing. And these -things—observe, O victims of kings—are habitually done. One would as -well be at the mercy of one’s sovereign as of one’s neighbor. - -The anarchist himself is persuaded of the superiority of our plan of -dealing with him; he likes it and “comes over” in quantity, impesting -the political atmosphere with the “sweltered venom” engendered by -centuries of “oppression”—comes over here, where he is not oppressed, -and sets up as oppressor. His preferred field of malefaction is the -country that is most nearly anarchical. He comes here, partly to better -himself under our milder institutions, partly to secure immunity -while conspiring to destroy them. There is thunder in Europe, but if -the storm ever break it is in America that the lightning will first -fall. Here is a great vortex into which the decivilizing agencies are -pouring without obstruction. Here gather the eagles to the feast, -for the quarry is defenceless. Here is no power in government, -no government. Here an enemy of order is thought to be the least -dangerous when most free. And here is nothing between him and his -task of subversion—no pampered soldiery to repress his rising, no -iron authority to lay him by the heels. The militia is fraternal, the -magistracy elective. Europe may hold out a little longer. The great -powers may make what stage-play they will, but they are not maintaining -their incalculable armaments solely for aggression upon one another -and protection from one another, nor for fun. These vast forces are -mainly constabular—creatures and creators of discontent—phenomena of -decivilization. Eventually they will fraternize with Disorder or become -themselves Praetorian Guards more dangerous than the perils that have -called them into existence. - -It is easy to forecast the first stages of the End’s approach: Rioting. -Disaffection of constabulary and troops. Subversion of the Government. -A policy of decapitation. Parliament of the people. Divided counsels. -Pandemonium. The man on horseback. Gusts of grape. ——? - -The gods kept their secrets by telling them to Cassandra, whom nobody -believed. I am entrusted with the secret that the shadow on the dial -of civilization is moving backward. Believe or disbelieve—what matter? -Revelers with wine-dipped wreaths upon their heads do not care to know -the hour. Yet there are signs and portents—whispers and cries in the -air; stealthy tread of invisible feet along the ground; sudden clamor -of startled fowls at dead o’ the night; crimson dew-drops on the -roadside grass of a morning. But pray do not disturb yourselves: eat, -drink and be merry, for to-morrow comes Logical Democracy. - - - - - CIVILIZATION - - - I - -The question “Does civilization civilize?” is a fine example of -_petitio principii_, and decides itself in the affirmative; for -civilization must needs do that from the doing of which it has its -name. But it is not necessary to suppose that he who propounds is -either unconscious of his lapse in logic or desirous of digging a -pitfall for the feet of those who discuss; I take it he simply wishes -to put the matter in an impressive way, and relies upon a certain -degree of intelligence in the interpretation. - -Concerning uncivilized peoples we know but little except what we are -told by travelers—who, speaking generally, can know very little but -the fact of uncivilization, as shown in externals and irrelevances, -and are moreover, greatly given to lying. From the savages we hear -very little. Judging them in all things by our own standards in -default of a knowledge of theirs, we necessarily condemn, disparage -and belittle. One thing that civilization certainly has not done is -to make us intelligent enough to understand that the contrary of a -virtue is not necessarily a vice. Because, as a rule, we have but one -wife and several mistresses each it is not certain that polygamy is -everywhere—nor, for that matter, anywhere—either wrong or inexpedient. -Because the brutality of the civilized slave owners and dealers -created a conquering sentiment against slavery it is not intelligent -to assume that slavery is a maleficent thing amongst Oriental peoples -(for example) where the slave is not oppressed. Some of these same -Orientals whom we are pleased to term half-civilized have no regard -for truth. “Takest thou me for a Christian dog,” said one of them, -“that I should be the slave of my word?” So far as I can perceive, -the “Christian dog” is no more the slave of his word than the True -Believer, and I think the savage—allowing for the fact that his -inveracity has dominion over fewer things—as great a liar as either of -them. For my part, I do not know what, in all circumstances, is right -or wrong; but I know that, if right, it is at least stupid, to judge an -uncivilized people by the standards of morality and intelligence set -up by civilized ones. Life in civilized countries is so complex that -men there have more ways to be good than savages have, and more to be -bad; more to be happy, and more to be miserable. And in each way to be -good or bad, their generally superior knowledge—their knowledge of more -things—enables them to commit greater excesses than the savage can. The -civilized philanthropist wreaks upon his fellows a ranker philanthropy, -the civilized rascal a sturdier rascality. And—splendid triumph of -enlightenment!—the two characters are, in civilization, frequently -combined in one person. - -I know of no savage custom or habit of thought which has not its mate -in civilized countries. For every mischievous or absurd practice of the -natural man I can name you one of ours that is essentially the same. -And nearly every custom of our barbarian ancestors in historic times -persists in some form to-day. We make ourselves look formidable in -battle—for that matter, we fight. Our women paint their faces. We feel -it obligatory to dress more or less alike, inventing the most ingenious -reasons for doing so and actually despising and persecuting those who -do not care to conform. Almost within the memory of living persons -bearded men were stoned in the streets; and a clergyman in New York -who wore his beard as Christ wore his, was put into jail and variously -persecuted till he died. - -Civilization does not, I think, make the race any better. It makes -men know more: and if knowledge makes them happy it is useful and -desirable. The one purpose of every sane human being is to be happy. -No one can have any other motive than that. There is no such thing as -unselfishness. We perform the most “generous” and “self-sacrificing” -acts because we should be unhappy if we did not. We move on lines of -least reluctance. Whatever tends to increase the beggarly sum of human -happiness is worth having; nothing else has any value. - -The cant of civilization fatigues. Civilization is a fine and beautiful -structure. It is as picturesque as a Gothic cathedral, but it is -built upon the bones and cemented with the blood of those whose part -in all its pomp is that and nothing more. It cannot be reared in the -ungenerous tropics, for there the people will not contribute their -blood and bones. The proposition that the average American workingman -or European peasant is “better off” than the South Sea islander, -lolling under a palm and drunk with overeating, will not bear a -moment’s examination. It is we scholars and gentlemen that are better -off. - -It is admitted that the South Sea islander in a state of nature is -overmuch addicted to the practice of eating human flesh; but concerning -that I submit: first, that he likes it; second, that those who -supply it are mostly dead. It is upon his enemies that he feeds, and -these he would kill anyhow, as we do ours. In civilized, enlightened -and Christian countries, where cannibalism has not yet established -itself, wars are as frequent and destructive as among the maneaters. -The untitled savage knows at least why he goes killing, whereas our -private soldier is commonly in black ignorance of the apparent cause -of quarrel—of the actual cause, always. Their shares in the fruits of -victory are about equal, for the chief takes all the dead, the general -all the glory. - - - II - -Transplanted institutions grow slowly; civilization can not be put into -a ship and carried across an ocean. The history of this country is a -sequence of illustrations of these truths. It was settled by civilized -men and women from civilized countries, yet after two and a half -centuries, with unbroken communication with the mother systems, it is -still imperfectly civilized. In learning and letters, in art and the -science of government, America is but a faint and stammering echo of -Europe. - -For nearly all that is good in our American civilization we are -indebted to the Old World; the errors and mischiefs are of our own -creation. We have originated little, because there is little to -originate, but we have unconsciously reproduced many of the discredited -systems of former ages and other countries—receiving them at second -hand, but making them ours by the sheer strength and immobility of the -national belief in their novelty. Novelty! Why, it is not possible to -make an experiment in government, in art, in literature, in sociology, -or in morals, that has not been made over, and over, and over again. - -The glories of England are our glories. She can achieve nothing that -our fathers did not help to make possible to her. The learning, the -power, the refinement of a great nation, are not the growth of a -century, but of many centuries; each generation builds upon the work -of the preceding. For untold ages our ancestors wrought to rear that -“reverend pile,” the civilization of England. And shall we now try to -belittle the mighty structure because other though kindred hands are -laying the top courses while we have elected to found a new tower in -another land? The American eulogist of civilization who is not proud -of his heritage in England’s glory is unworthy to enjoy his lesser -heritage in the lesser glory of his own country. - -The English are undoubtedly our intellectual superiors; and as the -virtues are solely the product of intelligence and cultivation—a -rogue being only a dunce considered from another point of view—they -are our moral superiors likewise. Why should they not be? Theirs is a -land, not of ugly schoolhouses grudgingly erected, containing schools -supported by such niggardly tax levies as a sparse and hard-handed -population will consent to pay, but of ancient institutions splendidly -endowed by the state and by centuries of private benefaction. As a -means of dispensing formulated ignorance our boasted public school -system is not without merit; it spreads out education sufficiently thin -to give everyone enough to make him a more competent fool than he -would have been without it; but to compare it with that which is not -the creature of legislation acting with malice aforethought, but the -unnoted outgrowth of ages, is to be ridiculous. It is like comparing -the laid-out town of a western prairie, its right-angled streets, prim -cottages, and wooden a-b-c shops, with the grand old town of Oxford, -topped with the clustered domes and towers of its twenty-odd great -colleges, the very names of many of whose founders have perished from -human record, as have the chronicles of the times in which they lived. - -It is not only that we have had to “subdue the wilderness;” our -educational conditions are adverse otherwise. Our political system is -unfavorable. Our fortunes, accumulated in one generation, are dispersed -in the next. If it takes three generations to make a gentleman one -will not make a thinker. Instruction is acquired, but capacity for -instruction is transmitted. The brain that is to contain a trained -intellect is not the result of a haphazard marriage between a clown -and a wench, nor does it get its tractable tissues from a hard-headed -farmer and a soft-headed milliner. If you confess the importance of -race and pedigree in a horse and a dog how dare you deny it in a man? - -I do not hold that the political and social system that creates an -aristocracy of leisure is the best possible kind of human organization; -I perceive its disadvantages clearly enough. But I do hold that -a system under which most important public trusts, political and -professional, civil and military, ecclesiastical and secular, are held -by educated men—that is, men of trained faculties and disciplined -judgment—is not an altogether faulty system. - -It is a universal human weakness to disparage the knowledge that we do -not ourselves possess, but it is only my own beloved country that can -justly boast herself the last refuge and asylum of the impotents and -incapables who deny the advantage of all knowledge whatsoever. It was -an American senator who declared that he had devoted a couple of weeks -to the study of finance, and found the accepted authorities all wrong. -It was another American senator who, confronted with certain hostile -facts in the history of another country, proposed “to brush away all -facts, and argue the question on considerations of plain common sense.” - -Republican institutions have this disadvantage: by incessant changes in -the _personnel_ of government—to say nothing of the manner of men that -ignorant constituencies elect; and all constituencies are ignorant—we -attain to no fixed principles and standards. There is no such thing -here as a science of politics, because it is not to any one’s interest -to make politics the study of his life. Nothing is settled; no truth -finds general acceptance. What we do one year we undo the next, and -do over again the year following. Our energy is wasted in, and our -prosperity suffers from, experiments endlessly repeated. - -Every patriot believes his country better than any other country. Now, -they cannot all be the best; indeed, only one can be the best, and it -follows that the patriots of all the others have suffered themselves -to be misled by a mere sentiment into blind unreason. In its active -manifestation—it is fond of killing—patriotism would be well enough -if it were simply defensive; but it is also aggressive, and the same -feeling that prompts us to strike for our altars and our fires impels -us over the border to quench the fires and overturn the altars of our -neighbors. It is all very pretty and spirited, what the poets tell us -about Thermopylæ, but there was as much patriotism at one end of that -pass as there was at the other. - -Patriotism deliberately and with folly aforethought subordinates the -interests of a whole to the interests of a part. Worse still, the -fraction so favored is determined by an accident of birth or residence. -The Western hoodlum who cuts the tail from a Chinaman’s nowl, and would -cut the nowl from the body if he dared, is simply a patriot with a -logical mind, having the courage of his opinions. Patriotism is fierce -as a fever, pitiless as the grave and blind as a stone. - - - III - -There are two ways of clarifying liquids—ebullition and precipitation; -one forces the impurities to the surface as scum, the other sends them -to the bottom as dregs. The former is the more offensive, and that -seems to be our way; but neither is useful if the impurities are merely -separated but not removed. We are told with tiresome iteration that our -social and political systems are clarifying; but when is the skimmer to -appear? If the purpose of free institutions is good government where -is the good government?—when may it be expected to begin?—how is it to -come about? Systems of government have no sanctity; they are practical -means to a simple end—the public welfare; worthy of no respect if they -fail of its accomplishment. The tree is known by its fruit. Ours is -bearing crab-apples. If the body politic is constitutionally diseased, -as I verily believe; if the disorder inheres in the system; there is -no remedy. The fever must burn itself out, and then Nature will do -the rest. One does not prescribe what time alone can administer. We -have put our criminals and dunces into power; do we suppose they will -efface themselves? Will they restore to _us_ the power of governing -_them_? They must have their way and go their length. The natural -and immemorial sequence is: tyranny, insurrection, combat. In combat -everything that wears a sword has a chance—even the right. History -does not forbid us to hope. But it forbids us to rely upon numbers; -they will be against us. If history teaches anything worth learning -it teaches that the majority of mankind is neither good nor wise. -When government is founded upon the public conscience and the public -intelligence the stability of states is a dream. - -In that moment of time that is covered by historical records we have -abundant evidence that each generation has believed itself wiser and -better than any of its predecessors; that each people has believed -itself to have the secret of national perpetuity. In support of this -universal delusion there is nothing to be said; the desolate places of -the earth cry out against it. Vestiges of obliterated civilizations -cover the earth; no savage but has camped upon the sites of proud and -populous cities; no desert but has heard the statesman’s boast of -national stability. Our nation, our laws, our history—all shall go down -to everlasting oblivion with the others, and by the same road. But I -submit that we are traveling it with needless haste. - -It can be spared—this Jonah’s-gourd civilization of ours. We have -hardly the rudiments of a true one; compared with the splendors -of which we catch dim glimpses in the fading past, ours are as an -illumination of tallow candles. We know no more than the ancients; -we only know other things, but nothing in which is an assurance of -perpetuity, and little that is truly wisdom. Our vaunted _elixir vitæ_ -is the art of printing. What good will that do when posterity, struck -by the inevitable intellectual blight, shall have ceased to read what -is printed? Our libraries will become its stables, our books its fuel. - -Ours is a civilization that might be heard from afar in space as -a scolding and a riot; a civilization in which the race has so -differentiated as to have no longer a community of interest and -feeling; which shows as a ripe result of the principles underlying it -a reasonless and rascally feud between rich and poor; in which one is -offered a choice (if one have the means to take it) between American -plutocracy and European militocracy, with an imminent chance of -renouncing either for a stultocratic republic with a headsman in the -presidential chair and every laundress in exile. - -I have not a “solution” to the “labor problem.” I have only a story. -Many and many years ago lived a man who was so good and wise that none -in all the world was so good and wise as he. He was one of those few -whose goodness and wisdom are such that after some time has passed -their foolish fellowmen begin to think them gods and treasure their -words as divine law; and by millions they are worshiped through -centuries of time. Amongst the utterances of this man was one -command—not a new nor perfect one—which has seemed to his adorers so -preëminently wise that they have given it a name by which it is known -over half the world. One of the sovereign virtues of this famous law -is its simplicity, which is such that all hearing must understand; and -obedience is so easy that any nation refusing is unfit to exist except -in the turbulence and adversity that will surely come to it. When a -people would avert want and strife, or, having them, would restore -plenty and peace, this noble commandment offers the only means—all -other plans for safety or relief are as vain as dreams, as empty as the -crooning of hags. And behold, here it is: “All things whatsoever ye -would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” - -What! you unappeasable rich, coining the sweat and blood of your -workmen into drachmas, understanding the law of supply and demand as -mandatory and justifying your cruel greed by the senseless dictum that -“business is business;” you lazy workmen, railing at the capitalist -by whose desertion, when you have frightened away his capital, you -starve—rioting and shedding blood and torturing and poisoning by way -of answer to exaction and by way of exaction; you foul anarchists, -applauding with untidy palms when one of your coward kind hurls a -bomb amongst powerless and helpless women and children; you imbecile -politicians with a plague of remedial legislation for the irremediable; -you writers and thinkers unread in history, with as many “solutions -to the labor problem” as there are among you those who can not -coherently define it—do you really think yourselves wiser than Jesus -of Nazareth? Do you seriously suppose yourselves competent to amend -his plan for dealing with evils besetting nations and souls? Have you -the effrontery to believe that those who spurn his Golden Rule you can -bind to obedience of an act entitled an act to amend an act? Bah! you -fatigue the spirit. Go get ye to your scoundrel lockouts, your villain -strikes, your blacklisting, your boycotting, your speeching, marching -and maundering; but if ye do not to others as ye would that they do to -you it shall occur, and that right soon, that ye be drowned in your own -blood and your pickpocket civilization quenched as a star that falls -into the sea. - - - - - THE GAME OF POLITICS - - - I - -If one were to declare himself a Democrat or a Republican and the claim -should be contested he would find it a difficult one to prove. The -missing link in his chain of evidence would be the major premise in -the syllogism necessary to the establishment of his political status—a -definition of “Democrat” or “Republican.” Most of the statesmen in -public and private life who are poll-parroting these words, do so with -entire unconsciousness of their meaning, or rather without knowledge -that they have lost whatever meaning they once had. The words are mere -“survivals,” marking dead issues and covering present allegiances of -the loosest character. On any question of importance each party is -divided against itself and dares not formulate a preference. There is -no question before the country upon which one may not think and vote as -he likes without seriously affecting his standing in the denomination -of political saints of which he professes himself a member. “Party -lines” are as terribly confused as parallels of latitude and longitude -after a twisting earthquake, or those aimless lines representing -competing railroads on a map published by a company operating “the -only direct route.” It is not probable that this state of things can -last; if there is to be “government by party”—and we should be sad to -think that so inestimable a boon were soon to return to Him who gave -it—men must begin to let their angry passions rise and take sides. “Ill -fares the land to hastening ills a prey,” where the people are too wise -to dispute and too good to fight. Let us have the good old political -currency of bloody noses and cracked crowns; let the yawp of the -demagogue be heard in the land; let ears be pestered with the spargent -cheers of the masses. Give us a whoop-up that shall rouse us like a -rattling peal of thunder! Will nobody be our Moses—there should be two -Moseses—to lead us through this detestable wilderness of political -stagnation? - - - II - -Nowhere is so much insufferable stuff talked in a given period of -time as in an American political convention. It is there that all -those objectionable elements of the national character which evoke -the laughter of Europe and are the despair of our friends find freest -expression, unhampered by fear of any censorship more exacting than -that of “the opposing party”—which takes no account of intellectual -delinquencies, but only of moral. The “organs” of the “opposing -party” will not take the trouble to point out—even to observe—that -the “debasing sentiments” and “criminal views” uttered in speech and -platform are expressed in sickening syntax and offensive rhetoric. -Doubtless an American politician, statesman, what you will, could -go into a political convention and signify his views with simple, -unpretentious common sense, but doubtless he never does. - -Every community is cursed with a number of “orators”—men regarded as -“eloquent”—“silver tongued” men—fellows who to the common American -knack at brandishing the tongue add an exceptional felicity of -platitude, a captivating mastery of dog’s-eared sentiment, a copious -and obedient vocabulary of eulogium, an iron insensibility to the -ridiculous and an infinite affinity to fools. These afflicting -Chrysostoms are always lying in wait for an “occasion.” It matters -not what it is: a “reception” to some great man from abroad, a popular -ceremony like the laying of a corner-stone, the opening of a fair, the -dedication of a public building, an anniversary banquet of an ancient -and honorable order (they all belong to ancient and honorable orders) -or a club dinner—they all belong to clubs and owe dues. But it is in a -political convention that they come out particularly strong. By some -imperious tradition having the force of unwritten law it is decreed -that in these absurd bodies of our fellow citizens no word of sense -shall be uttered from the platform; whatever is uttered in set speeches -shall be addressed to the meanest capacity present. As a chain can be -no stronger than its weakest link, so nothing said by the speakers at a -political convention must be above the intellectual reach of the most -pernicious idiot having a seat and a vote. I don’t know why it is so. -It seems to be thought that if he is not suitably entertained he will -not attend the next convention. - -Here are the opening sentences of the speech in which a man was -recently nominated for governor: - -“Two years ago the Republican party in state and nation marched to -imperial triumph. On every hilltop and mountain peak our beacons -blazed and we awakened the echoes of every valley with songs of our -rejoicings.” - -And so forth. Now, if I were asked to recast these sentences so that -they should conform to the simple truth and be inoffensive to good -taste I should say something like this: - -“Two years ago the Republican party won a general election.” - -If there is any thing in this inflated rigmarole that is not adequately -expressed in my amended statement, what is it? As to eloquence, it will -hardly be argued that nonsense, falsehood and metaphors which were old -when Rome was young are essential to that. The first man (in early -Greece) who spoke of awakening an echo did a felicitous thing. Was it -felicitous in the second? Is it felicitous now? As to that military -metaphor—the “marching” and so forth—its inventor was as great a fool -as any one of the incalculable multitude of his plagiarists. - -In withdrawing his own name from before a convention, a Californian -politician once made a purely military speech of which a single sample -passage is all that I shall allow myself the happiness to quote: - -“I come before you to-day as a Republican of the Republican banner -county of this great state of ours. From snowy Shasta on the north -to sunny San Diego on the south; from the west, where the waves of -the Pacific look upon our shores, to where the barriers of the great -Sierras stand clad in eternal snow, there is no more loyal county to -the Republican party in this state than the county from which I hail. -Its loyalty to the party has been tested on many fields of battle and -it has never wavered in the contest. Wherever the fate of battle was -trembling in the balance Alameda county stepped into the breach and -rescued the Republican party from defeat.” - -Translated into English, this military mouthing would read somewhat -like this: - -“I live in Alameda county, where the Republicans have uniformly -outvoted the Democrats.” - -The orators at the Democratic convention a week earlier had been no -better and no different. Their rhetorical stock-in-trade was the same -old shop-worn figures of speech in which their predecessors have -dealt for ages, and in which their successors will traffic to the -end of—well, to the end of that imitative quality in the national -character, which, by its superior intensity, serves to distinguish us -from the apes that perish. - - - III - -“What we most need, to secure honest elections,” says a well-meaning -reformer, “is the voting machine.” Why, truly, here is a hopeful -spirit—a rare and radiant intelligence suffused with the conviction -that men can be made honest by machinery—that human character is a -matter of gearing, ratchets and dials! One would give something to -know how it feels to be like that. A mind so constituted must be happy -in its hope. It lives in rapturous contemplation of a world of its -own creation—a world where public morality and political good order -are to be had by purchase at the machine-shop. In that delectable -world, religion is superfluous; the true high priest is the mechanical -engineer; the minor clergy are the village blacksmiths. It is rather a -pity that so fine and fair a sphere should swim only in the attenuated -ether of a simpleton’s misunderstanding. - -The voting-machines are doubtless well enough; they save labor and -enable the statesmen of the street to know the result within a few -minutes of the closing of the polls—whereby many are spared to their -country who would otherwise incur fatal disorders by exposure to the -night air while assisting in awaiting the returns. But a voting-machine -that human ingenuity can not pervert, human ingenuity can not invent. -Honesty has no monopoly of inspiration. - -That is true, too, of laws. Your statesman of a mental stature -somewhat overtopping that of the machine-person puts his faith in law. -Providence has deigned to permit him to be persuaded of the efficacy of -statutes—good, stringent, carefully drawn statutes annulling all the -laws of nature in conflict with any of their provisions. So the poor -devil (I am writing of Mr. Legion) turns for relief from law to law, -ever on the rocks of repentance, yet ever unfouling the anchor of hope. -By no power on earth can his indurated understanding be penetrated by -the truth that his woful state is due, not to any laws of his own, nor -to any lack of them, but to his rascally refusal to obey the Golden -Rule. How long is it since we were all clamoring for the Australian -ballot law, which was to make a new Heaven and a new earth? We have the -Australian ballot law and the same old earth smelling to the same old -Heaven. Writhe upon the triangle as we may, groan out what new laws -we will, the pitiless thong will fall upon our bleeding backs as long -as we deserve it. If our sins, which are scarlet, are to be washed as -white as wool it must be in the tears of a genuine contrition: our -crocodile deliverances will profit us nothing. We must stop chasing -dollars, stop lying, stop cheating, stop ignoring art, literature -and all the refining agencies and instrumentalities of civilization. -We must subdue our detestable habit of shaking hands with prosperous -rascals and fawning upon the merely rich. It is not permitted to our -employers to plead in justification of low wages the law of supply -and demand when it is giving them high profits. It is not permitted -to discontented employees to break the bones of contented ones and -destroy the foundations of social order. It is dishonest to look upon -public office with the lust of possession; it is disgraceful to solicit -political preferment, to strive and compete for “honors” that are -sullied and tarnished by the touch of the reaching hand. Until we amend -our personal characters we shall amend our laws in vain. Though Paul -plant and Apollos water, the field of reform will grow nothing but the -figless thistle and the grapeless thorn. - -The state is an aggregation of individuals. Its public character is the -expression of their personal ones. By no political prestidigitation can -it be made better and wiser than the sum of their goodness and wisdom. -To expect that men who do not honorably and intelligently conduct their -private affairs will honorably and intelligently conduct the affairs -of the community is to be a fool. We are told that out of nothing God -made the heavens and the earth; but out of nothing God never did, and -man never can, make a public sense of honor and a public conscience. -Miracles are now performed on only one day of the year—the twenty-ninth -of February; and in leap years God is forbidden to perform them. - - - IV - -Ye who hold that the power of eloquence is a thing of the past and -the orator an anachronism; who believe that the trend of political -events and the results of parliamentary action are determined by -committees in cold consultation and the machinations of programmers -in holes and corners, consider the ascension of Bryan and be wise. A -week before the convention of 1896 William J. Bryan had never heard -of himself; upon his natural obscurity was superposed the opacity of -a congressional service that effaced him from the memory of even his -faithful dog, and made him immune to dunning. A week afterward he -was pinnacled upon the summit of the tallest political distinction, -gasping in the thin atmosphere of his unfamiliar environment and fitly -astonished by the mischance. To the dizzy elevation of his candidacy -he was hoisted out of the shadow by his own tongue, the longest and -liveliest in Christendom. Had he held it—which he could not have done -with a blacksmith’s tongs—there had been no Bryan. His creation was the -unstudied act of his own larynx; it said, “Let there be Bryan,” and -there was Bryan. Even in these degenerate days there is a hope for the -orators when one can make himself a presidential peril by merely waving -the red flag in the cave of the winds and tormenting the circumjacence -with a brandish of abundant hands. - -To be quite honest, I do not entirely believe that Orator Bryan’s -tongue had everything to do with it. I have long been convinced that -personal persuasion is a matter of animal magnetism—what in its more -obvious manifestation we now call hypnotism. At the back of the words -and the postures, and independent of them, is that secret, mysterious -power, addressing, not the ear, not the eye, nor, through them, the -understanding, but, through its kindred quality in the auditor, -captivating the will and enslaving it. That is how persuasion is -effected; the spoken words merely supply a pretext for surrender. They -enable us to yield without loss of our self-esteem, in the delusion -that we are conceding to reason what is really extorted by control. -The words are necessary, too, to point out what the orator wishes us -to think, if we are not already apprised of it. When the nature of -his power is better understood and frankly recognized, he can spare -himself the toil of talking. The parliamentary debate of the future -will probably be conducted in silence, and with only such gestures as -go by the name of “passes.” The chairman will state the question before -the house and the side, affirmative or negative, to be taken by the -honorable member entitled to the floor. That gentleman will rise, train -his compelling orbs upon the miscreants in opposition, execute a few -passes and exhaust his alloted time in looking at them. He will then -yield to an honorable member of dissenting views. The preponderance in -magnetic power and hypnotic skill will be manifest in the voting. - -The advantages of the method are as plain as the nose on an elephant’s -face. The “arena” will no longer “ring” with anybody’s “rousing -speech,” to the irritating abridgment of the unalienable right to the -pursuit of sleep. Honorable members will lack provocation to hurl -allegations and cuspidors. Pitchforking statesmen and tosspot reformers -will be unable to play at pitch-and-toss with reputations not submitted -for the performance. In short, the congenial asperities of debate -will be so mitigated that the honorable member from Hades will retire -permanently from the hauls of legislation. - - - V - -“Public opinion,” says Buckle, “being the voice of the average man, is -the voice of mediocrity.” Is it therefore so very wise and infallible -a guide as to be accepted without other credentials than its name and -fame? Ought we to follow its light and leading with no better assurance -of the character of its authority than a count of noses of those -following it already, and with no inquiry as to whether it has not on -many former occasions led them and their several sets of predecessors -into bogs of error and over precipices to “eternal mock?” Surely “the -average man,” as every one knows him, is not very wise, not very -learned, not very good; how is it that his views of so intricate and -difficult matters as those on which public opinion makes pronouncement -through him are entitled to so great respect? It seems to me that the -average man is very much a fool, and something of a rogue as well. -He has only a smattering of education, knows virtually nothing of -political history, nor history of any kind, is incapable of logical, -that is to say clear, thinking, is subject to the suasion of base and -silly prejudices, and selfish beyond expression. That such a person’s -opinions should be so obviously better than my own that I should accept -them instead, and assist in enacting them into laws, appears to me most -improbable. I may “bow to the will of the people” as gracefully as a -defeated candidate, and for the same reason, namely, that I can not -help myself; but to admit that I was wrong in my belief and flatter -the power that subdues me—no, that I will not do. If nobody would do -so the average man would not be so cock-sure of his infallibility, and -might sometimes consent to be counseled by his betters. - -In any matter of which the public has imperfect knowledge, public -opinion is as likely to be erroneous as is the opinion of an individual -equally uninformed. To hold otherwise is to hold that wisdom can be got -by combining many ignorances. A man who knows nothing of algebra can -not be assisted in the solution of an algebraic problem by calling in -a neighbor who knows no more than himself, and the solution approved -by the unanimous vote of a million such men would count for nothing -against that of a competent mathematician. To be entirely consistent, -gentlemen enamored of public opinion should insist that the text books -of our common schools should be the creation of a mass meeting, and all -disagreements arising in the course of the work settled by a majority -vote. That is how all difficulties incident to the popular translation -of the Hebrew Scriptures were composed. It should be admitted, however, -that most of those voting knew a little Hebrew, though not much. A -problem in mathematics is a very simple thing compared with many of -those upon which the people are called to pronounce by resolution and -ballot—for example, a question of finance. - -“The voice of the people is the voice of God”—the saying is so -respectably old that it comes to us in the Latin. He is a strange, -an unearthly, politician who has not a score of times publicly and -solemnly signified his faith in it. But does anyone really believe -it? Let us see. In the period between 1859 and 1885, the national -Democratic party was defeated six times in succession. The voice of -the people pronounced it in error and unfit to govern. Yet after each -overthrow it came back into the field gravely reaffirming its faith in -the principles that God had condemned. Then God twice reversed Himself, -and the Republicans set about beating Him with as firm a confidence -of success (justified by the event) as they had known in the years of -their prosperity. Doubtless in every instance of a political party’s -defeat there are defections, but doubtless not all are due to the voice -that spoke out of the great white light that fell about Saul of Tarsus. -By the way, it is worth observing that that clever gentleman was -under no illusion regarding the origin of the voice that wrought his -celebrated “flop;” he did not confound it with the _vox populi_. The -people of his time and place had no objection to the persecution that -he was conducting, and could persecute a trifle themselves on occasion. - -Majorities rule, when they do rule, not because they ought, but because -they can. We vote in order to learn without fighting which party is -the stronger; it is less disagreeable to learn it that way than the -other way. Sometimes the party that is numerically the weaker is by -possession of the government actually the stronger, and could maintain -itself in power by an appeal to arms, but the habit of submitting when -outvoted is hard to break. Moreover, we all recognize in a subconscious -way, the reasonableness of the habit as a practical method of getting -on; and there is always the confident hope of success in the next -canvass. That one’s cause will succeed because it ought to succeed -is perhaps the most general and invincible folly affecting the human -judgment. Observation can not shake it, nor experience destroy. Though -you bray a partisan in the mortar of adversity till he numbers the -strokes of the pestle by the hairs of his head, yet will not this -foolish notion depart from him. He is always going to win the next -time, however frequently and disastrously he has lost before. And -he can always give you the most cogent reasons for the faith that -is in him. His chief reliance is on the “fatal mistakes” made by -the other party since the last election. There never was a year in -which the party in power and the party out of power did not make bad -mistakes—mistakes which, unlike eggs and fish, seem always worst when -freshest. If idiotic errors of policy were always fatal, no party would -ever win an election and there would be a hope of better government -under the benign sway of the domestic cow. - - - VI - -Each political party accuses the “opposing candidate” of refusing to -answer certain questions which somebody has chosen to ask him. I think -myself it is discreditable for a candidate to answer any questions at -all, to make speeches, declare his policy, or do anything whatever to -get himself elected. If a political party choose to nominate a man -so obscure that his character and his views on all public questions -are not known or inferable he ought to have the dignity to refuse to -expound them. As to the strife for office being a pursuit worthy of -a noble ambition, I do not think so; nor shall I believe that many do -think so, until the term “office seeker” carries a less opprobrious -meaning and the dictum that “the office should seek the man, not the -man the office,” has a narrower currency among all manner of persons. -That by acts and words generally felt to be discreditable a man may -evoke great popular enthusiasm is not at all surprising. The late -Mr. Barnum was not the first nor the last to observe that the people -love to be humbugged. They love an impostor and a scamp, and the best -service that you can do for a candidate for high political preferment -is to prove him a little better than a thief, but not quite so good as -a thug. - - - VII - -The view is often taken that a representative is the same thing -as a delegate; that he is to have, and can honestly entertain, no -opinion that is at variance with the whims and the caprices of his -constituents. This is the very _reductio ad absurdum_ of representative -government. That it is the dominant theory of the future there can be -little doubt, for it is of a piece with the progress downward which is -the invariable and unbroken tendency of republican institutions. It -fits in well with manhood suffrage, rotation in office, unrestricted -patronage, assessment of subordinates, an elective judiciary, the -initiative, the referendum, the recall, and the rest of it. This -theory of representative institutions is the last and lowest stage in -our pleasant performance of “shooting Niagara.” When it shall have -universal recognition and assent we shall have been fairly engulfed in -the whirlpool, and the buzzard of anarchy may hopefully whet his beak -for the national carcass. - -A man holding office from and for the people is in conscience and -honor bound to do what seems to his judgment best for the general -welfare, respectfully regardless of any and all other considerations. -This is especially true of legislators, to whom such specific -“instructions” as constituents sometimes send are an impertinence and -an insult. Pushed to its logical conclusion, the “delegate” policy -would remove all necessity of electing men of brains and judgment; -one man properly connected with his constituents by telegraph would -make as good a legislator as another. Indeed, as a matter of economy, -one representative could act for many constituencies, receiving his -instructions how to vote from mass meetings in each. This, besides -being logical, would have the added advantage of widening and hardening -the power of the local “bosses,” who, by properly managing the show -of hands could have the same beneficent influence in national affairs -that they now enjoy in municipal. The plan would be a pretty good one -if there were not so many other ways for the nation to go to the devil -that it appears needless. - - - VIII - -The purpose of the legislative custom of “eulogizing” dead members of -congress is not apparent unless it is to add a terror to death and make -honorable and self-respecting members rather bear the ills they have -than escape through the gates of death to others that they profess to -know a good deal about. If a member of that kind, who has had the bad -luck to “go before,” could be consulted he would indubitably say that -he is sorry to be dead; and that is not a natural frame of mind in one -who is exempt from the necessity of himself “delivering a eulogy.” - -It may be urged that the congressional “eulogy” expresses in a general -way the eulogist’s notion of what he would like to have somebody say -of himself when he is by death elected to the Lower House. If so, then -Heaven help him to a better taste; but meanwhile it is a patriotic -duty to prevent him from indulging at the public expense the taste -that he has. There have been a few men in congress who could speak -of the character and services of a departed member with truth and -even eloquence. Of many others, the most charitable thing that one -can conscientiously say is that one would a little rather hear a -“eulogy” by them than of them. Considering that there are many kinds -of brains and only one kind of no brains, their diversity of gifts is -remarkable, but one characteristic they have in common: they are all -poets. Their efforts in the way of eulogium illustrate and illuminate -Pascal’s obscure saying that poetry is a particular sadness. If not sad -themselves, they are at least the cause of sadness in others, for no -sooner do they take to their legs to remind us that life is fleeting, -and to make us glad that it is, than they burst into bloom as poets -all! Some one has said that in the contemplation of death there is -something that belittles. Perhaps that explains the transformation. -Anyhow the congressional eulogist takes to verse as naturally as a moth -to a candle, and with about the same result to his reputation for sense. - -The poetry is commonly not his own; when it violates every law of -sense, fitness, metre, rhyme and taste it is. But nine times in ten it -is some dog’s-eared, shop-worn quotation from one of the “standard” -bards, usually Shakspeare. There are familiar passages from that poet -which have been so often heard in “the halls of legislation” that they -have acquired an infamy which unfits them for publication in a decent -family newspaper; and Shakspeare himself, reposing in Elysium on his -bed of asphodel, omits them when reading his complete works to the -shades of Kit Marlowe and Ben Jonson, for their sins. - -This whole “business” ought to be “cut out.” It is not only a waste -of time and a trial to the patience of the country; it is immoral. It -is not true that a member of congress, who while living was a most -ordinary mortal, becomes by the accident of death a hero, a saint, -“an example to American youth.” Nobody believes these “eulogies,” -and nobody should be permitted to utter them in the time and place -designated for another purpose. A “tribute” that is exacted by custom -and has not the fire and light of spontaneity is without sincerity -or sense. A simple resolution of regret and respect is all that the -occasion requires and would not inhibit any further utterance that -friends and admirers of the deceased might be moved to make elsewhere. -If any bereaved gentlemen, feeling his heart getting into his head, -wishes to tickle his ear with his tongue by way of standardizing his -emotion let him rent a hall and do so. But he should not be permitted -to make the capitol a Place of Wailing and the _Congressional Record_ a -book of bathos. - - - - - A POSSIBLE BENEFACTOR - - -From Paris comes the terrible news that M. Verneuil, a chemist, has -succeeded in making rubies at no considerable cost. This will doubtless -prove a sharp affliction to many persons addicted to display of rubies -on their surfaces, as well as to some who have them under lock and key -for sale to the others; for of course the value of the natural stones -must eventually fall to that of the artificial, if the two kinds are -identical in composition, hardness and color. Rubies will perhaps go -out of use altogether, for gems accessible to the poor are worthless to -the rich, and gems worthless to the rich are not wanted by the poor. -The beauty of the ruby will remain, but so will human nature. - -Having few rubies and, I trust, not much human nature, I am disposed -to regard M. Verneuil’s crime as a public benefaction. If he will -pursue his experimentation to its “logical conclusion,” giving us cheap -diamonds, pearls, emeralds, turquoises and the rest, many of us will -rise up (from our seats away back) and call him blest. - -Victims of the habit of wearing pretty pebbles have always accounted -for their affliction by affirming the beauty of the pebbles. If that -is why they wear them they will continue to wear them when they are -common and cheap—when M. Verneuil and his anarchist co-workers in -the laboratory have put them “within the reach of all.” Does any one -believe that they will? Why do they not now wear (and confess it) the -paste jewels that are every bit as beautiful as the genuine? Why would -the “society woman” consider herself dishonored if caught red-handed in -a necklace of wax beads distinguishable from pearls by the microscope -only? - -The “preciousness” of these things is their cost. A woman “ablaze with -diamonds” is a woman silently shouting: “I am rich!” If her jewels did -not say this, and say it plainly, she would throw them into the nearest -gutter—nay, her contempt of them might receive such avowal as giving -them to the poor. - -Lo, the poor Indian whose untutored taste persuades him to personal -adornment with porcupine quills, eagle feathers, bear-claws and the -tail of a wildcat! They are lovely—no doubt of that—but if porcupines, -eagles, bears and wildcats were abundant, accessible and amiable he -would make himself a thing of glory and consequence with something less -easily acquired. Please to consider the peculiar significance lurking -in the good old word “bravery” applied to the fine attire and ornaments -of the lowly. Does it not distinctly point to a primitive state when -personal adornment was the prize of courage in the chase? “Bravery” is -the finery of persons not far removed from a state of nature; our own -finery we do not call so, not even in poetry. A fairly good name for it -is “pursery.” - -In the progress of the race away from primitive conditions and barbaric -modes of thought and feeling, the female contingent does not walk at -the head of the procession. Women are more “conservative” than men: -they are last to renounce the habits and customs of the ancestral -savage. Witness their addiction to powder and paint. We have all -inherited the tendency to daub our faces, a once useful custom, for -by differing designs tribes and families were distinguished from one -another at a glance. Attentive to other matters, mostly nonsense and -mischief, men have suffered the practice to fall into disuse, but -women—whom God bless!—continue it as when frighthood was in flower, -accounting for it by hardily affirming its service to the complexion. -Let it go at that; that is a better reason than can be urged for -defacing the female periphery with pebbles, candidly inutile and in -open apostasy to the gospel of Beauty Unadorned. Wherefore, that we may -have surcease of the pretty-pebble habit in the otherwise supportable -female of our species as she has been handed down to us from her noisy -sessions in primeval tree-tops, let us pray for success of M. Verneuil -and his accomplices in their hardy effort to discredit and vulgarize -the product of gem farm and pearl pool. - -1902. - - - - - WARLIKE AMERICA - - - I - -In a speech at Huntsville, Alabama, President McKinley said: - -“We are not a military people. We are not dedicated to arms. We love -peace, and the United States never goes to war except for peace, and -only where it can have it in no other way. We have never gone to war -for conquest, for exploitation or for territory, but always for liberty -and humanity, and in our recent war with Spain the people of the whole -United States as one man marched with the flag for the honor of the -nation, to relieve the oppressed people in Cuba.” - -The American people are a singularly “cantankerous” people. True we are -not “military,” but that was not what the president meant to affirm; -he meant that we are not “warlike,” which is a very different thing. -The Germans are military, the North American Indians are warlike. To be -warlike is to be fond of war; to be military is to cultivate the arts -and sciences of war, to make the arts of peace subservient to them, to -maintain a powerful standing army, with armaments of high efficiency. -A people may be both warlike and military, or it may be either and not -the other. The distinction was evidently not in the president’s mind, -for he said that we love peace, that we go to war only to assure it, -and so forth. What are the facts? - -There have been four generations of politically independent Americans. -Each of the four fought a war of magnitude, not counting the small -affairs and the “continuous performance” against the Indians. There -were the war of 1812 against Great Britain, the war against Mexico, the -war among ourselves, the war against Spain. We may say that all these -were fought to assure peace, and that is true—peace on our terms. No -war is undertaken for any other purpose. It was for that that Alexander -invaded Asia and Hannibal Italy. It was for that that the Turks laid -siege to Vienna. It was for that that Napoleon overran Europe. - - - II - -It seems that “we have never gone to war for conquest, for -exploitation, nor for territory;” we have the word of a president for -that. Observe, now, how Providence overrules the intentions of the -truly good for their advantage. We went to war with Mexico for peace, -humanity and honor, yet emerged from the contest with an extension -of territory beyond the dreams of political avarice. We went to war -with Spain for relief of an oppressed people, and at the close found -ourselves in possession of vast and rich insular dependencies and with -a pretty tight grasp upon the country for relief of whose oppressed -people we took up arms. We could hardly have profited more had -“territorial aggrandizement” been the spirit of our purpose and the -heart of our hope. - -The slightest acquaintance with history shows that powerful republics -are the most warlike and unscrupulous of nations. They insist upon -having their own way, and in dealing with vanquished enemies are -without conscience. If it were not for the restraints that powerful -European sovereigns are able to put upon their subjects, Europe would -be a theater of continuous war. We lack that element of restraint. -Happily we lack, also, many of the hereditary animosities that inflame -the jealous peoples of the Old World; but when the fire is kindled it -burns; there is nobody to quench it. We have always a hand upon the -sword, and if we do not more frequently strike, it is because, in the -first place, it is not much of a sword, and, in the second, the enemy -is commonly out of reach. In our navy we have now a sword that is a -trifle longer and stronger, but our army is still a dull and clumsy -weapon. - -In the future, as in the past, we shall have wars and enough of -them—wars of honor, wars of conquest, wars of hatred and revenge. War -has never found us ready. War has never found any modern nation ready, -excepting Prussia, and her only once. If we will learn nothing by -experience, let us try observation. Let us cease our hypocritical cant, -rise from our dreams of peace and of the love of it, confess ourselves -the warlike people that we are, and become the military people that we -are not. - - - III - -The notion that a standing army of whatever strength could be a “menace -to American liberty” is one of the crudest and most discreditable -of errors. It is an outgrowth of ignorance, and rooted in a false -analogy. It assumes that the “common people” of the Old World -monarchies are oppressed, discontented, ripe for revolt and republican -government; that they are held in subjection by the powerful armies -that serve their tyrants. Of course all this is mere moonshine, but if -true it would hold no such lesson for us as we think we read in it, -namely, that all armies are serviceable tools to tyrants and usurpers. -A European army, recruited by conscription and officered by noblemen -and the sons of relatives of noblemen, is an entirely different thing -from what we have, and very different indeed from what we may have if -we choose. The monarchical army sustains the monarchy, not because an -army is naturally and necessarily monarchist, but because monarchy is -the constitutional government; and armies, more generally than other -human organizations, are faithful to duty and obedient to law. For -the same reasons an American army will sustain the republic. Whenever -a monarchical army has _not_ sustained the monarchy—has assisted to -overthrow it and set up a republic—then, indeed, have we been given a -reason to distrust “the military”—of a monarchy. - -An army of raw volunteers springing to the colors to meet some -unforeseen emergency is an inspiring spectacle, but that kind of army -is good for nothing when pitted against trained and seasoned troops. -Every military man knows this, although there are no large recent -instances free from obscuring elements, like “the war of 1812.” - -In European countries that have universal conscription the years that -the young men pass in the army are the best spent years of their lives. -Those who enter the service as ignorant peasant lads, brutally stupid, -leave it well set up in body and mind—with better health, better morals -and better intelligence. The American peasant is of course perfect -in respect of all that, but perhaps his refining society would be of -advantage to his officers. - - - - - SOME FEATURES OF THE LAW - - - I - -There is a difference between religion and the amazing circumstructure -which, under the name of theology, the priesthoods have builded round -about it, which for centuries they made the world believe was the true -temple, and which, after incalculable mischiefs wrought, immeasurable -blood spilled in its extension and consolidation, is only now beginning -to crumble at the touch of reason. There is the same difference between -the laws and the law,—the naked statutes (bad enough, God knows) and -the incomputable additions made to them by lawyers. This immense body -of superingenious writings it is that we all are responsible to in -person and property. In it is unquestionable authority for setting -aside any statute that any legislative body ever passed or can pass. In -it are dictates of recognized validity for turning topsy-turvy every -principle of justice and reversing every decree of reason. There is -no fallacy so monstrous, no deduction so hideously unrelated to common -sense, as not to receive, somewhere in the myriad pages of this awful -compilation, a support that any judge in the land would be proud to -recognize with a decision if ably persuaded. I do not say that the -lawyers are altogether accountable for the existence of this mass of -disastrous rubbish, nor for its domination of the laws. They only -create and thrust it down our throats; we are guilty of contributory -negligence in not biting the spoon. - - - II - -As long as there exists the right of appeal there is a chance of -acquittal. Otherwise the right of appeal would be a sham and an insult -more intolerable, even, than, to the man convicted of murder, the right -to say why he should not receive the sentence which nothing he may say -will avert. So long as acquittal may ensue guilt is not established. -Why, then, are men sentenced before they are proved guilty? Why are -they punished in the middle of proceedings against them? A lawyer can -reply to these questions in a thousand ingenious ways; but there is -no answer. Let the “legal fraternity” reflect that a lawyer is one -whose profession it is to circumvent the law; that it is a part of his -business to mislead and befog the court of which he is an officer; that -it is considered right and reasonable for him to live by a division of -the spoils of crime and misdemeanor; that the utmost atonement he ever -makes for acquitting a man whom he knows to be guilty is to convict -a man whom he knows to be innocent. The methods of our courts, the -traditions of bench and bar, exist and are perpetuated, altered and -improved, for the purpose of enabling lawyers as a class to exact the -greatest amount of money from the rest of mankind. The laws are mostly -made by lawyers, and so made as to encourage and compel litigation. -By lawyers they are interpreted and by lawyers enforced for their own -profit and advantage. The over-intricate and interminable machinery -of precedent, overrulings, writs of error, motions for new trials, -appeals, reversals, affirmations and the rest of it, is mostly a -transparent and iniquitous system of exaction. What remedy would I -propose? None. There is none to propose. The lawyers have us and mean -to keep us. - -The villainy of making men suffer for crimes of which they may -eventually be acquitted is consistent with our entire system of laws—a -system so complicated and contradictory that a judge simply does as he -pleases, subject only to the custom of giving for his action reasons -which at his option may or may not be derived from the statutes. He may -sternly affirm that he sits there to interpret the law as he finds it, -not to make it accord with his personal notions of right and justice. -Or he may declare that it could never have been the legislature’s -intention to do wrong, and so, shielded by the useful phrase _contra -bonos mores_, pronounce that illegal which he chooses to consider -inexpedient. Or he may be guided by either of any two inconsistent -precedents, as the better suits his purpose. Or he may throw aside both -statute and precedent, disregard good morals, and justify the judgment -that he wishes to deliver by what other lawyers have written in books, -and still others, without anybody’s authority, have chosen to accept -as a part of the law. I have in mind judges whom I have observed to -do all these things in a single term of court, and could mention one -who has done most of them in a single decision. The amazing feature -of the matter is that all these methods are lawful—made so, not by -legislative enactment, but by the judges. Language can not be used with -sufficient lucidity and positiveness to bind them. - - - III - -The legal purpose of a preliminary examination is not the discovery of -a criminal; it is the ascertaining of the probable guilt or innocence -of the person already charged. To permit that person’s counsel to -insult and madden the various assisting witnesses in the hope of making -them seem to incriminate themselves instead of him by statements that -may afterward be used to confuse a jury—that is perversion of law -to defeat justice. The character of the practice is seen to better -advantage contrasted with the tender consideration enjoyed by the -person actually accused and presumably guilty—the presumption of -his innocence being as futile a fiction as that a sheep’s tail is a -leg when called so. Actually, the prisoner in a criminal trial is -the only person supposed to have full knowledge of the facts who is -not compelled to testify. And this exemption is given him by way of -immunity from the snares and pitfalls with which the paths of all -witnesses are wantonly beset. To a visiting Lunarian it would seem -strange indeed that in a Terrestrial court of justice it is not deemed -desirable for an accused person to incriminate himself, and that it is -deemed desirable for a subpœna to be more dreaded than a warrant. - -When a child, a wife, a servant, a student—any one under personal -authority—is accused or suspected an explanation is demanded, and -refusal to testify is held, and rightly held, a confession of guilt. -To question the accused—rigorously and sharply to examine him on all -matters relating to the offense, and even trap him if he seem to be -lying—that is Nature’s method of criminal procedure; why in our public -trials do we forego its advantages? It may annoy; a person arrested for -crime must expect annoyance. It can not make an innocent man, even a -mere witness, incriminate himself, but it can make a rogue do so, and -therein lies its value. - -This ancient and efficient safeguard to rascality, the right of a -witness to refuse to testify when his testimony would tend to convict -him of crime, has been strengthened by a recent decision of the United -States Supreme Court. That will probably add another century or two to -its mischievous existence, and possibly prove the first act in such -an extension of it that eventually a witness can not be compelled to -testify at all. In fact it is difficult to see how he can be compelled -to now if he has the hardihood to exercise his constitutional right -without shame and with an intelligent consciousness of its limitless -application. - -The case in which the Supreme Court made the decision was one in which -a witness refused to say whether he had received from a defendant -railway company a rate on grain shipments lower than the rate open to -all shippers. The trial was in the United States District Court for the -Northern District of Illinois, and Judge Gresham chucked the scoundrel -into jail. He naturally applied to the Supreme Court for relief, and -that high tribunal gave joy to every known or secret malefactor in the -country by deciding—according to law, no doubt—that witnesses in a -criminal case can not be compelled to testify to anything that “_might -tend_ to criminate them _in any way_, or subject them to _possible_ -prosecution.” The italics are my own and indicate about as clearly -as extended comment could the boundless immunity that the decision -confirms or confers. It is to be hoped that some public-spirited -gentleman called to the stand in some celebrated case may point the -country’s attention to the state of the law by refusing to tell his -name, age or occupation, or answer any question whatever. And it would -be a fitting _finale_ to the farce if he would threaten the too curious -attorney with an action for damages for compelling a disclosure of -character. - - - IV - -Most lawyers have made so profound a study of human nature as to -think that if they have shown a man to be of loose life with regard -to women they have shown him to be one that would tell needless lies -to a jury—a conviction unsupported by the familiar facts of life and -character. Different men have different vices, and addiction to one -kind of “upsetting sin” does not imply addiction to an unrelated kind. -Doubtless a rake is a liar in so far as is needful to concealment, but -it does not follow that he will commit perjury to save a horsethief -from the penitentiary or send a good man to the gallows. As to lying, -generally, he is not conspicuously worse than the mere lover, male -or female; for lovers have been liars from the beginning of time. -They deceive when it is necessary and when it is not. Schopenhauer -would say that it is because of a sense of guilt—they contemplate the -commission of a crime and, like other criminals, cover their tracks. -I am not prepared to say if that is the true explanation, but to the -fact to be explained I am ready to testify with lifted arms. Yet no -cross-examining attorney tries to break the credibility of a witness by -showing that he is in love. - -An habitual liar, if disinterested, makes about as good a witness -as anybody. There is really no such thing as “the lust of lying:” -falsehoods are told for advantage—commonly a shadowy and illusory -advantage, but one distinctly enough had in mind. Discerning no -opportunity to promote his interest, tickle his vanity or feed a -grudge, the habitual liar will tell the truth. If lawyers would study -human nature with half the assiduity that they give to resolution of -hairs into their longitudinal elements they would be better fitted for -service of the devil than they have now the usefulness to be. - - - V - -I affirm the right and expediency of cross-examining attorneys in -court, with a view to testing their credibility. An attorney’s relation -to the trial is closer and more important than that of a witness. He -has more to say and more opportunities to deceive the jury, not only -by naked lying, but by both _suppressio veri_ and _suggestio falsi_. -Why is it not important to ascertain his credibility; and if an inquiry -into his private life and public reputation will assist, as himself -avers, why should he not be put upon the grill and compelled to sweat -out the desired incrimination? I should think it might give good -results, for example, to compel him to answer a few questions touching -his professional career. Somewhat like this: - -“Did you ever defend a client, knowing him to be guilty?” - -“What, precisely, was your motive in doing so?” - -“But in addition to your love of fair play had you not also the hope -and assurance of a fee?” - -“In defending a client known to you to be guilty did you declare your -belief in his innocence?” - -“Yes, I understand, but necessary as it may have been (in that it -helped to defeat justice and earn your fee) was not your declaration a -lie?” - -“Do you believe it right to lie for the purpose of circumventing -justice?—yes or no?” - -“Do you believe it right to lie for personal gain—yes or no?” - -“Then why did you do both?” - -“A man who lies to beat the laws and fill his purse is—what?” - -“In defending a murderer did you ever misrepresent the character, acts, -motives and intentions of the man that he murdered—never mind the -purpose and effect of such misrepresentation—yes or no?” - -“That is what we call slander of the dead, is it not?” - -“What is the most accurate name you can think of for one who slanders -the dead to defeat justice and promote his own fortune?” - -“Yes, I know—such practices are allowed by the ‘ethics’ of your -profession, but can you point to any evidence that they are allowed by -Jesus Christ?” - -“If in former trials you have obstructed justice by slander of the -dead, by falsely affirming the innocence of the guilty, by cheating -in argument, by deceiving the court whom you are sworn to serve and -assist, and have done all this for personal gain, do you expect, and -is it reasonable for you to expect, the jury in this case to believe -you?” - -“One moment more, please. Did you ever accept an annual or other -fee conditioned on your not taking any action against a certain -corporation?” - -“While in receipt of such refrainer—I beg your pardon, retainer—did you -ever prosecute a blackmailer?” - -It will be seen that in testing the credibility of a lawyer it is -needless to go into his private life and his character as a man and -a citizen: his professional practices are an ample field in which to -search for offenses against man and God. - -The moral sense of the laymen is dimly conscious of something wrong in -the ethics of the “noble profession;” the lawyers affirming, rightly -enough, a public necessity for them and their mercenary services, -permit their thrift to construe it vaguely as personal justification. -But nobody has blown away from the matter its brumous encompassment and -let in the light upon it. It is very simple. - -Is it honorable for a lawyer to try to clear a man that he knows -deserves conviction? That is not the entire question by much. Is -it honorable to pretend to believe what you do not believe? Is it -honorable to lie? I submit that these questions are not answered -affirmatively by showing the disadvantage to the public and to -civilization of a lawyer refusing to serve a known offender. The -popular interest, like any other good cause, can be and commonly is, -served by foul means when served at all. Justice itself may be promoted -by acts essentially unjust. In serving a sordid ambition a powerful -scoundrel may by acts in themselves wicked augment the prosperity of -a whole nation. I have not the right to deceive and lie in order to -advantage my fellow men, any more than I have the right to steal or -murder to advantage them; nor have my fellow men the power to grant me -that indulgence. - -The question of a lawyer’s right to clear a known criminal (with the -several questions involved) is not answered affirmatively by showing -that the law forbids him to decline a case for reasons personal -to himself—not even if we admit the statute’s moral authority. -Preservation of conscience and character is a civic duty, as well as -a personal; one’s fellowmen have a distinct interest in it. That, I -admit, is an argument rather in the manner of an attorney; clearly -enough the effect of this statute is to compel an attorney to cheat -and lie for any rascal that wants him to. In that sense it may be -regarded as a law softening the rigor of all laws; it does not mitigate -punishments, but mitigates the chance of incurring them. The infamy -of it lies in forbidding an attorney to be a gentleman. Like all laws -it falls something short of its intent: many attorneys, even some who -defend the law, are as honorable as is consistent with the practice of -deceit to serve crime. - -It will not do to say that an attorney in defending a client is not -compelled to cheat and lie. What kind of defense could be made by any -one who did not profess belief in the innocence of his client?—did -not affirm it in the most serious and impressive way?—did not lie? -How would it profit the defense to be conducted by one who would not -meet the prosecution’s grave asseverations of belief in the prisoner’s -guilt by equally grave assurances of faith in his innocence? And in -point of fact, when was counsel for the defense ever known to forego -the advantage of that solemn falsehood? If I am asked what would -become of accused persons if they had to prove their innocence to the -lawyers before making a defense in court, I reply that it is not for -the public interest that a rogue have the same freedom of defense as -an honest man; it should be a good deal harder for him. His troubles -should begin, not when he seeks acquittal, but when he seeks counsel. -It would be better for the community if he could not obtain the -services of a reputable attorney, or any attorney at all. A defense -that can not be made without his attorney’s knowledge of his guilt -should be impossible to him. - - - VI - -As to the general question of a judge’s right to inflict arbitrary -punishment for words that he may be pleased to hold disrespectful to -himself or another judge, I do not myself believe that any such right -exists; the practice seems to be merely a survival—a heritage from the -dark days of irresponsible power, when the scope of judicial authority -had no other bounds than fear of the king’s gout or indigestion. If in -these modern days the same right is to exist it may be necessary to -revive the old checks upon it by restoring the throne. In freeing us -from the monarchical chain, the coalition of European Powers commonly -known in American history as the valor of our forefathers stripped us -starker than they knew. - -Suppose an attorney should find his client’s interests imperiled by a -prejudiced or corrupt judge—what is he to do? Denied the right to make -representations to that effect, supporting them with evidence where -evidence is possible and by inference where it is not, what means of -protection shall he venture to adopt? If it be urged in objection that -judges are never prejudiced nor corrupt I confess that I shall have no -answer: the proposition will deprive me of breath. - -If contempt is not a crime it should not be punished; if a crime -it should be punished as other crimes are punished—by indictment -or information, trial by jury if a jury is demanded, with all the -safeguards that secure an accused person against judicial blunders -and judicial bias. The necessity for these safeguards is even greater -in cases of contempt than in others—particularly if the prosecuting -witness is to sit in judgment on his own grievance. That should, of -course, not be permitted: the trial should take place before another -judge. - -The public ear is served with rather more than just enough of nonsense -about “attacks upon the dignity of the Bench,” “bringing the judiciary -into disrepute” and the rueful rest of it. I crave leave to remind -the solicitudinarians sounding these loud alarums on their several -larynges that by persons of understanding a man is respected, not for -the office that he holds, but for what he is, and that one public -functionary will stand as high in their esteem as another if as high -in character. The dignity of a wise and righteous judge needs not the -artificial safeguarding which is a heritage of the old days when if -dissent found a tongue the public executioner cut it out. The Bench -will be sufficiently respected when it is no longer a place where -dullards dream and rogues rob—when its _personnel_ is no longer chosen -in the back-rooms of tipple-shops, forced upon yawning conventions and -confirmed by the votes of men who know neither what the candidates -are nor what they should be. With the gang that we have, and under -our system must continue to have, respect is out of the question. The -judges are entitled to just as much of its forms and observances as is -needful to maintenance of order in their courts and fortification of -their lawful power—no more. As to their silence under criticism, that -is as they please. Nobody but themselves is holding their tongues. - - - VII - -A law under which the unsuccessful respondent in a divorce proceeding -may be forbidden to marry again during the life of the successful -complainant, the latter being subject to no such disability, is -unrighteous. If the disability is intended as a punishment it is -exceptional among legal punishments in that it is inflicted without -conviction, trial or arraignment, the divorce proceedings being quite -another and different matter. It is exceptional in that the period -of its continuance, and therefore the degree of its severity, are -indeterminate; they are dependent on no limiting statute, and on -neither the will of the power inflicting nor the conduct of the person -suffering. To sentence a person to a punishment that is to be mild -or severe according to chance or—which is even worse—circumstances -which but one person, and that person not officially connected with -administration of justice, can partly control, is a perversion of the -main principles that are supposed to underlie the laws. - -It can be nothing to the woman—possibly herself remarried—whether the -man remarries or not; that is, can affect only her feelings, and only -such of them as are least creditable to her. Yet her self-interest is -enlisted against him to do him incessant disservice. By merely caring -for her health she increases the sharpness of his punishment—for -punishment it is if he feels it such; every hour that she wrests from -death is added to his “term.” The expediency of preventing a man from -marrying, without having the power to prevent him from making his -marriage desirable in the interest of the public and vital to that of -some woman, is not discussable here. If a man is ever justified in -poisoning a woman who was once his wife it is when, by way of making -him miserable, the state has given him a direct and distinct interest -in her death. - - - VIII - -With a view, possibly, to promoting respect for law by making the -statutes so to conform to public sentiment that none will fall into -dis-esteem and disuse, it has been proposed that there be recognition -of sex in the penal code, by making a difference in the punishment of -men and of women for the same crimes and misdemeanors. The argument -is that if women were “provided” with milder punishment juries would -sometimes convict them, whereas they now commonly get off altogether. - -The plan is not so new as might be thought. Many of the nations of -antiquity of whose laws we have knowledge, and nearly all the European -nations until within a comparatively recent time, punished women -differently from men for the same offenses. As recently as the period -of the Early Puritan in New England women were punished for some -offenses which men might commit without fear if not without reproach. -The ducking-stool, for example, was an appliance for softening the -female temper only. In England women used to be burned at the stake for -crimes for which men were hanged, roasting being popularly regarded -as the milder punishment. In point of fact, it was not punishment at -all, the victim being carefully strangled before the fire touched her. -Burning was simply a method of disposing of the body so expeditiously -as to give no occasion and opportunity for the unseemly social rites -commonly performed about the scaffold of the erring male by a jocular -populace. As lately as 1763 a woman named Margaret Biddingfield was -burned in Suffolk, England, as an accomplice in the crime of “petty -treason.” She had assisted in the murder of one of the king’s subjects -(her husband), the actual killing being done by a man; and he was -hanged, as no doubt he deserved to be. For “coining,” too (which, also, -was “treason”) men were hanged and women burned. This distinction -between the sexes was maintained until the year of grace 1790, after -which female offenders ceased to have “a stake in the country,” and -like Hood’s martial hero, “enlisted in the line.” - -In still earlier days, before the advantages of fire were understood, -our good grandmothers who sinned were admonished by water—they were -drowned; but in the reign of Henry III a woman was hanged—without -strangulation, apparently, for after a whole day of it she was cut -down and pardoned. Sorceresses and unfaithful wives were smothered in -mud, as also were unfaithful wives among the ancient Burgundians. The -punishment of unfaithful husbands is not of record; we only know that -there were no austerely virtuous editors to direct the finger of scorn -to their dark misdeeds and personal unworth. - -Among the Anglo-Saxons, women who had the bad luck to be detected in -theft were drowned, while men meeting with the same mischance died a -dry death by hanging. By the early Danish laws female thieves were -buried alive, whether or not from motives of humanity is not now known. -This seems to have been the fashion in France also, for in 1331 a woman -named Duplas was scourged and buried alive at Abbeville, and in 1460 -Perotte Mauger, a receiver of stolen goods, was inhumed by order of the -Provost of Paris in front of the public gibbet. In Germany in the good -old days certain kinds of female criminals were “impaled,” a punishment -too grotesquely horrible for description, but likely enough considered -by the simple German of the period conspicuously merciful. - -It is, in short, only recently that the civilized nations have placed -the sexes on an equality in the matter of the death penalty for -crime, and the new system is not yet by any means universal. That -it is a better system than the old, or would be if enforced, is a -natural presumption from human progress, out of which it is evolved. -But coincidently with its evolution has developed also a sentiment -adverse to punishment of women at all. This sentiment appears to be -of independent growth; in no way a reaction against that which caused -the change. To mitigate the severity of the death penalty for women to -some pleasant form of euthanasia, such as drowning in rose-water, or -in their case to abolish the death penalty altogether and make their -capital punishment consist in a brief internment in a jail with a -softened name, would probably do no good, for whatever form it might -take, it would be, so far as woman is concerned, the “extreme penalty” -and crowning disgrace, and jurors would be as reluctant to inflict it -as they now are to inflict death. - - - IX - -Testators should not, from the snug security of the grave, be -permitted to utter a perpetual threat of disinheritance, or any other -uncomfortable fate, to deter a living citizen, even one of their own -legatees, from applying to the courts of his country for redress of -any wrong from which he may consider himself as suffering. The courts -of law ought to be open to any one conceiving himself a victim of -injustice, and it should be unlawful to abridge the right of complaint -by making its exercise more hazardous than it naturally is. Doubtless -the contesting of wills is a nuisance, generally speaking, the -contestant devoid of moral worth and the verdict unrighteous; but as -long as some testators really _are_ daft, or subject to interested -suasion, or wantonly sinful, all should be denied the power to stifle -dissent by fining the luckless dissenter. The dead have too much to say -in this world, at the best, and it is tyranny for them to stand at the -door of the temple of justice to drive away the suitors that themselves -have made. - -Obedience to the commands of the dead should be conditional upon their -good behavior, and it is not good behavior to set up a censure of -action at law among the living. If our courts are not competent to -say what actions are proper to be brought and what are unfit to be -entertained let us improve them until they are competent, or abolish -them altogether and resort to the mild and humane arbitrament of the -dice; but while courts have the civility to exist they should refuse -to surrender any part of their duties and responsibilities to such -exceedingly private persons as those under six feet of earth, or -sealed up in habitations of hewn stone. Persons no longer affectable -by human events should be denied a voice in determining the character -and trend of them. Respect for the wishes of the dead is a tender -and beautiful sentiment, certainly. Unfortunately, it can not be -ascertained that they have any wishes. What commonly go by that name -are wishes once entertained by living persons who are now dead, and -who in dying renounced them, along with everything else. Like those -who entertained them, the wishes are no longer in existence. “The -wishes of the dead” are not wishes, and are not of the dead. Why they -should have anything more than a sentimental influence upon those still -in the flesh, and be a factor to be reckoned with in the practical -affairs of the supergraminous world, is a question to which the merely -human understanding can find no answer, and it must be referred to the -lawyers. When “from the tombs a doleful sound” is vented, and “thine -ear” is invited to “attend the cry,” an intelligent forethought will -suggest that you inquire if it is anything about property. If so pass -on—that is no sacred spot. - - - X - -Much of the testimony in French courts, civil and martial, appears to -consist of personal impressions and opinions of the witnesses. All -very improper and mischievous, no doubt, if—if what? Why, obviously, -if the judges and jurors are unfit to sit in judgment. By designating -them to sit, the designating power assumes their fitness—assumes that -they know enough to take such things for what they are worth, to make -the necessary allowances; if needful, to disregard a witness’s opinion -altogether. I do not know that they are fit. I do not know that they -do make the needful allowances. It is by no means clear to me that -any judge or juror, French, American or Patagonian, is competent to -ascertain the truth when lying witnesses are trying to conceal it under -the direction of skilled and conscienceless attorneys licensed to -deceive. But his competence is a basic assumption of the law vesting -him with the duty of deciding. Having chosen him for that duty, the -French law very logically lets him alone to decide for himself what -is evidence and what is not. It does not trust him a little, but -altogether. It puts him under conditions familiar to him—makes him -accessible to just such influences as he is accustomed to when making -conscious and unconscious decisions in his personal affairs. - -There may be a distinct gain to justice in permitting a witness to -say whatever he wants to say. If he is telling the truth he will not -contradict himself; if he is lying, the more rope he is given the more -surely he will entangle himself. - -In giving hearsay evidence, for example, he may suggest a new and -important witness of whom the counsel for the other side would not -otherwise have heard, and who can then be brought into court. By some -unguarded and apparently irrelevant statement he may open an entirely -new line of inquiry, or throw upon the case a flood of light. Everyone -knows what revelations are sometimes evoked by apparently the most -insignificant remarks. Why should justice be denied a chance to profit -that way? - -There is a still greater advantage in “the French method.” By giving a -witness free rein in expression of his personal opinions and feelings -we should be able to calculate his frame of mind, his good or ill will -to the prosecution or defense and, therefore, to a certain extent his -credibility. In our courts he is able by a little solemn perjury to -conceal all this, even from himself, and pose as an impartial witness, -when in truth, with regard to the accused he is full of rancor or -reeking with compassion. - -In theory our system is perfect. The accused is prosecuted by a public -officer, who having no interest in his conviction, will serve the -state without mischievous zeal and perform his disagreeable task with -fairness and consideration. He is permitted to entrust his defense -to another officer, whose duty it is to make a rigidly truthful and -candid presentment of his case in order to assist the court to a just -decision. The jurors, if there are jurors, are neither friendly nor -hostile, are open-minded, intelligent and conscientious. As to the -witnesses, are they not sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth (in -so far as they are permitted) and nothing but the truth? What could -be finer and better than all this?—what could more certainly assure -justice? - -How close the resemblance is between this ideal picture and what -actually occurs all know, or should know. The judge is frequently -an ignoramus incapable of logical thought and with little sense of -the dread and awful nature of his responsibility. The prosecuting -attorney thinks it due to his reputation to “make a record” and tries -to convict by hook or crook, even when he is himself persuaded of the -defendant’s innocence. Counsel for the defense is equally unscrupulous -for acquittal, and, both having industriously coached their witnesses, -they contend against each other in deceiving the court by every art -of which they are masters. Witnesses on both sides perjure themselves -freely and with almost perfect impunity if detected. At the close -of it all the poor weary jurors, hopelessly bewildered and dumbly -resentful of their duping, render a random or compromise verdict, or -one which best expresses their secret animosity to the lawyer they like -least, or their faith in the newspapers which they have diligently and -disobediently read every night. Commenting upon Rabelais’ old judge -who, when impeached for an outrageous decision, pleaded his defective -eyesight which made him miscount the spots on the dice, the most -distinguished lawyer of my acquaintance seriously assured me that if -all the cases with which he had been connected had been decided with -the dice substantial justice would have been done more frequently than -it was done. If that is true, or nearly true, and I believe it, the -American’s right to sneer at the Frenchman’s “judicial methods” is an -open question. - - - XI - -It is urged that the corrupt practices in our courts of law be -uncovered to public view, whenever that is possible, by that impeccable -censor, the press. Exposure of rascality is good—better, apparently -for rascals than for anybody else, for it usually suggests something -rascally which they had overlooked, and so familiarizes the public -with crime that crime no longer begets loathing. If the newspapers of -the country are really concerned about corrupter practices than their -own and willing to bring our courts up to the English standard there -is something better than exposure—which fatigues. Let the newspapers -set about creating a public opinion favorable to non-elective judges, -well paid, powerful to command respect and holding office for life or -good behavior. That is the only way to get good men and great lawyers -on the Bench. As matters are, we stand and cry for what the English -have, and rail at the way they get it. Our boss-made, press-ridden and -mob-fearing judges give us as good a quality of justice as we merit. A -better quality awaits us whenever the will to have is attended by the -sense to take. - - - - - ARBITRATION - - -The universal cry for industrial arbitration is either dishonest or -unwise. For every evil there are quack remedies galore—especially -for every evil that is irremediable. Of this order of remedies is -arbitration, for of this order of evils is the inadequate wage of -manual labor. Since the beginning of authentic history everything has -been tried in the hope of divorcing poverty and labor, but nothing has -parted them. It is not conceivable that anything ever will; success -of arbitration, antecedently improbable, is demonstrably impossible. -Most of the work of the world is hard, disagreeable, requiring little -intelligence. Most of the people of the world are unfit to do any -other work. If it were not done by them it would not be done, and it -is the basic work. Withdraw them from it and the whole superstructure -would topple and fall. Yet there is so little of the work, and so many -incapable of doing anything else, that adequate return is out of the -question. For the laboring _class_ there is no hope of an existence -that is comfortable in comparison with that of the other class; the -hope of an individual laborer lies in the possibility of fitting -himself for higher employment—employment of the head; not manual but -cerebral labor. While selfishness remains the main ingredient of human -nature (and a survey of the centuries accessible to examination shows -but a slow and intermittent decrease) the cerebral workers, being the -wiser and not much better, will manage to take the greater profit. In -justice it must be said of them that they extend a warm and sincere -invitation to their ranks, and take “apprentices;” every opportunity -for education that the other class enjoys is proof of that. - -Let us, then, look at arbitration more nearly; in our time it is, in -form at least, something new. It began as “international arbitration,” -which already, in settling a few disputes of no great importance, -has shown itself a dangerous remedy. In the necessary negotiation to -determine exactly what points to submit, to whom, and how, and where, -and when to submit them, scores of questions are raised, upon each of -which it is as easy to disagree and fight as upon the original issue. -International arbitration may be defined as the substitution of many -burning questions for a smouldering one; for disputes that have reached -a really acute stage are not submitted. Nor, despite all “treaties,” -will a powerful nation arbitrate anything that it considers vital to -its honor or welfare. - -Industrial arbitration is no better; it is manifestly worse, and any -law enforcing it, and enforcing compliance with its decisions, is -absurd and mischievous. “Compulsory arbitration” is not arbitration; -the essence of which is voluntary submission of differences and -voluntary submission to judgment. If reference or obedience is enforced -the arbitrators are simply a court with no powers to do anything but -apply the law. Proponents of the fad would do well to consider this: -If a party to a labor dispute is _compelled_ to invoke and obey a -decision of arbitrators, that decision must follow strictly the line -of law; the smallest invasion of any constitutional, statutory or -common-law right will enable him to upset the judgment. No legislative -body can establish a tribunal empowered to make and enforce illegal -or extra-legal decisions; for making and enforcing legal ones the -tribunals that we already have are sufficient. This talk of “compulsory -arbitration” is the maddest nonsense that the industrial situation has -yet evolved. Doubtless it is sent upon us for our sins; but had we not -already a plague of strikes? - -Arbitration of labor disputes means compromise with the unions. It -can, in this country, mean nothing else, for the law would not survive -a half-dozen failures to concede some part of the workmen’s demands, -however reasonless. By repeated strikes they would eventually get all -their original demand and as much more as on second thought they might -choose to ask for. Each concession would be, as it is now, followed by -a new importunity and the first arbitrators might as well allow them -all that they demand and all that they mean to demand hereafter. - -Would not employers be equally unscrupulous? They would not. They -could not afford the disturbance, the stoppage of the business, the -risk of unfair decisions in a country where it is “popular” to favor -and encourage, not the just, but the poor. The labor leaders have -nothing to lose, not even their employment, for their work is labor -leading. Their dupes, by the way, would not be dupes forever, for with -enforced arbitration the game of “follow my leader” would pay only -until there should be nothing to follow him to but empty treasuries of -dead industries in an extinct civilization. If there must be compulsory -arbitration it should at least not apply to that sum of all impudent -rascalities, the “sympathy strike.” - -As to the men who have set up the claim asserted by the “sympathy -strike,” I shall refer to the affair of 1904. If it was creditable in -them to feel so much concern about a few hundred aliens in Illinois, -how about the grievances of the whole body of their countrymen in -California? When their employers, who they confessed were good to them, -were plundering the public, they did not strike, sympathetically nor -otherwise. Year after year the railway monopoly picked the pockets -of the Californians; corrupted their courts and legislatures; laid -its Briarean hands in exaction upon every industry and interest; -filled the land with lies and false reasoning; threw honest men into -prisons and locked the gates of them against thieves and assassins; -by open defiance of the tax collector denied to children of the poor -the advantages of education—did all this and more; and these honest -working men stood loyally by it, sharing in wages its dishonest gains, -receivers, in one sense, of stolen goods. The groans of their neighbors -were nothing to them; even the wrongs of themselves, their wives and -their children did not stir them to revolt. On every breeze that blew, -a great chorus of cries and curses was borne past their ears unheeded. -Why did they not strike then? Where then were the fiery altruists and -storm-petrels of industrial disorder? The ingenious gods who have -invented the Debses and Gomperses, and humorously branded them with -names that would make a cat laugh, have never put it into their cold -selfish hearts to order out their followers to redress a public wrong, -but only to inflict one—to avenge a personal humiliation, gratify an -appetite for notoriety, slake a thirst for the intoxicating cup of -power, or punish the crime of prosperity. - -It is a practical, an illogical, a turbulent time, yes; it always is. -The age of Jesus Christ was a practical age, yet Jesus Christ was -sweetly impractical. In an illogical period Socrates reasoned clearly, -and logically died for it. Nero’s time was a time of turbulence, yet -Seneca’s mind was not disturbed, nor his conscience perverted. Compare -their fame with the everlasting infamy that time has fixed upon the -names of the Jack Cades, the Robespierres, the Tomaso Nielos—guides -and gods of the “fierce democracies” which rise with a sickening -periodicity to defile the page of history with a quickly fading mark of -blood and fire, their own awful example their sole contribution to the -good of mankind. To be a child of your time, imbued with its spirit and -endowed with its aims—that is to petition Posterity for a niche in the -Temple of Shame. - -No strike of any prominence ever takes place in this country without -the concomitants of violence and destruction of property, and -usually murder. These cheerful incidents one who does not personally -suffer them can endure with considerable fortitude, but hypocritical -condemnation of them by the press that has instigated them and the -strikers who have planned and executed them, and who invariably ascribe -them to those whom they most injure; the solemn offers of the leaders -to assist in protecting the imperiled property and avenging the dead, -while openly employing counsel for every incendiary and assassin -arrested in spite of them—these are pretty hard to bear. A strike -means (for it includes as its main method) violence, lawlessness, -destruction of the property of others than the strikers, riot and, if -necessary, bloodshed. Even when the strikers themselves have no hand in -these crimes they are morally liable for the foreknown consequences of -their act. Nay, they are morally liable for _all_ the consequences—all -the inconveniences and losses to the community, all the sufferings -of the poor entailed by interruptions of trade, all the privations -of other workingmen whom a selfish attention to their own supposed -advantage throws out of the closed industries. They are liable in -morals and should be made so in law—only that strikes are needless. -It is not worth while to create a multitude of complex criminal -responsibilities for acts which can, possibly, be prevented by a single -and simple one. How? - -First, I should like to point out that we are hearing a deal too much -about a man’s inalienable right to work or play, at his own sovereign -will. In so far as that means—and it is always used to mean—his -right to quit any kind of work at any moment, without notice and -regardless of consequences to others, it is false; there is no such -moral right, and the law should have at least a speaking acquaintance -with morality. What is mischievous should be illegal. The various -interests of civilization are so complex, delicate, intertangled and -interdependent that no man, and no set of men, should have power to -throw the entire scheme into confusion and disorder for promotion of a -trumpery principle or a class advantage. In dealing with corporations -we recognize that. If for any selfish purpose a trade union of railway -managers had done what their sacred brakemen and divine firemen did—had -decreed that “no wheel should turn” until Mr. Pullman’s men should -return to work—they would have found themselves all in jail the second -day. _Their_ right to quit work was not conceded: they lacked that -authenticating credential of moral and legal irresponsibility, an -indurated palm. In a small lockout affecting a mill or two the offender -finds a half-hearted support in the law if he is willing to pay enough -deputy sheriffs; but even then he is mounted by the hobnailed populace, -at its back the daily newspapers, clamoring and spitting like cats. -But let the manager of a great railway discharge all its men without -warning and “kill” its own engines! Then see what you will see. To -commit a wrong so gigantic with impunity a man must wear overalls. - -How prevent anybody from committing it? How break up this _régime_ of -strikes and boycotts and lockouts, more disastrous to others than to -those at whom the blows are aimed—than to those, even, who deliver -them? How make all those concerned in the management and operation of -great industries, about which have grown up tangles of related and -dependent interests, conduct them with some regard to the welfare of -others? Before committing ourselves to the dubious and irretraceable -course of “government ownership,” or to the infectious expedient of -“regulation,” is there anything of promise yet untried?—anything of -superior simplicity and easier application? - -There are few simple remedies for social or political ills. It is a -familiar truth that no law was ever passed that did not have unforeseen -results; but of these results, by far the greater number are never -recognized as of its creation. The best that can be said of any -“measure” is that the sum of its perceptible benefits seems so to -exceed the sum of its perceptible evils as to constitute a balance of -advantage. Yet the statesman or philosopher to whose understanding -“the whole matter lies in a nutshell”—who thinks he can formulate a -practical political or social policy within the four corners of an -epigram is constantly to the fore with a simple specific for ills whose -causes are complex, constant and obscure. - -Nevertheless, it would be wise to make a breach of labor contract by -either party to it a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment. “Fine -or imprisonment” will not do—the employee, unable to pay the fine, -would commonly go to jail, the employer seldom. That would not be fair. - -The need of such a law is apparent: labor contracts would then be -drawn for a certain time, securing both employer and employee and -(which is more important) helpless persons in related and dependent -industries—the whole public, in fact—against sudden and disastrous -action by either “capital” or “labor” for accomplishment of a purely -selfish and frankly impudent end. A strike or lockout compelled to -announce itself thirty days in advance would be comparatively innocuous -to the public, whilst securing to the party of initiation all the -advantages that anybody professes to want—all but the advantage of -ruining others and successfully defying the laws. - -Under the present _régime_ labor contracts are useless; either party -can violate them with impunity. They offer redress only through a civil -suit for damages, and the employee commonly has nothing with which -to conduct an action or satisfy a judgment. The consequence is seen -in the incessant and increasing industrial disturbances, with their -ever-attendant crimes against property, life and liberty—disturbances -which, by driving capital to investments in which it needs employ no -labor, do more than all the other causes so glibly enumerated by every -newspaper and politician, though by no two alike, to bring about the -“hard times”—which in their turn cause further and worse disturbances. - - - - - THE GIFT O’ GAB - - -A book entitled _Forensic Eloquence_, by Mr. John Goss, appears to have -for purpose to teach the young idea how to spout, and that purpose, -I dare say, it will accomplish if something is not done to prevent. -I know nothing of the matter myself, a strong distaste for forensic -eloquence, or eloquence of any kind implying a man mounted on his -legs and doing all the talking, having averted me from its study. The -training of the youth of this country to utterance of themselves after -that fashion I should regard as a disaster of magnitude. So far as I -know it, forensic eloquence is the art of saying things in such a way -as to make them pass for more than they are worth. Employed in matters -of importance (and for other employment it were hardly worth acquiring) -it is mischievous because dishonest and misleading. In the public -service Truth toils best when not clad in cloth-of-gold and bedaubed -with fine lace. If eloquence does not beget action it is valueless; but -action which results from the passions, sentiments and emotions is -less likely to be wise than that which comes of a persuaded judgment. -For that reason I cannot help thinking that the influence of Bismarck -in German politics was more wholesome than is that of Mr. John Temple -Graves. - -For eloquence _per se_—considered merely as an art of pleasing—I -entertain something of the respect evoked by success; for it always -pleases at least the speaker. It is to speech what an ornate style -is to writing—good and pleasant enough in its time and place and, -like pie-crust and the evening girl, destitute of any basis in common -sense. Forensic eloquence, on the contrary, has an all too sufficient -foundation in reason and the order of things: it promotes the ambition -of tricksters and advances the fortunes of rogues. For I take it that -the Ciceros, the Mirabeaus, the Burkes, the O’Connells, the Patrick -Henrys and the rest of them—pets of the text-bookers and scourges of -youth—belong in either the one category or the other, or in both. -Anyhow I find it impossible to think of them as high-minded men and -rightforth statesmen—with their actors’ tricks, their devices of the -countenance, inventions of gesture and other cunning expedients having -nothing to do with the matter in hand. Extinction of the orator I hold -to be the most beneficent possibility of evolution. If Mr. Goss has -done anything to retard that blessed time when the Bourke Cockrans -shall cease from troubling and the weary be at rest he is an enemy of -his race. - -“What!” exclaims the thoughtless reader—I have but one—“are not the -great forensic speeches by the world’s famous orators good reading? -Considering them merely as literature do you not derive a high and -refining pleasure from them?” I do not: I find them turgid and tumid -no end. They are bad reading, though they may have been good hearing. -In order to enjoy them one must have in memory what, indeed, one is -seldom permitted to forget: that they were addressed to the ear; and -in imagination one must hold some shadowy simulacrum of the orator -himself, uttering his work. These conditions being fulfilled there -remains for application to the matter of the discourse too little -attention to get much good of it, and the total effect is confusion. -Literature by which the reader is compelled to bear in mind the -producer and the circumstances under which it was produced can be -spared. - - - - - NATURA BENIGNA - - -It is not always on remote islands peopled with pagans that great -disasters occur, as memory witnesseth. Nor are the forces of nature -inadequate to production of a fiercer throe than any that we have -known. The situation is this: we are tied by the feet to a fragile -shell imperfectly confining a force powerful enough under favoring -conditions, to burst it asunder and set the fragments wallowing and -grinding together in liquid flame, in the blind fury of a readjustment. -Nay, it needs no such stupendous cataclysm to de-people this uneasy -orb. Let but a square mile be blown out of the bottom of the sea, or a -great rift open there. Is it to be supposed that we would be unaffected -in the altered conditions generated by a contest between the ocean and -the earth’s molten core? These fatalities are not only possible but in -the highest degree probable. It is probable, indeed, that they have -occurred over and over again, effacing all the more highly organized -forms of life, and compelling the slow march of evolution to begin -anew. Slow? On the stage of Eternity the passing of races—the entrances -and exits of Life—are incidents in a brisk and lively drama, following -one another with confusing rapidity. - -Mankind has not found it practicable to abandon and avoid those -places where the forces of nature have been most malign. The track -of the Western tornado is speedily repeopled. San Francisco is still -populous, despite its earthquake, Galveston despite its storm, and -even the courts of Lisbon are not kept by the lion and the lizard. In -the Peruvian village straight downward into whose streets the crew -of a United States warship once looked from the crest of a wave that -stranded her a half mile inland are heard the tinkle of the guitar and -the voices of children at play. There are people living at Herculaneum -and Pompeii. On the slopes about Catania the goatherd endures with -what courage he may the trembling of the ground beneath his feet as -old Enceladus again turns over on his other side. As the Hoang-Ho goes -back inside its banks after fertilizing its contiguity with hydrate of -Chinaman the living agriculturist follows the receding wave, sets up -his habitation beneath the broken embankment, and again the Valley of -the Gone Away blossoms as the rose, its people dicing with Death. - -This matter can not be amended: the race exposes itself to peril -because it can do no otherwise. In all the world there is no city of -refuge—no temple in which to take sanctuary, clinging to the horns of -the altar—no “place apart” where, like hunted deer, we can hope to -elude the baying pack of Nature’s malevolences. The dead-line is drawn -at the gate of life: Man crosses it at birth. His advent is a challenge -to the entire pack—earthquake, storm, fire, flood, drought, heat, cold, -wild beasts, venomous reptiles, noxious insects, bacilli, spectacular -plague and velvet-footed household disease—all are fierce and tireless -in pursuit. Dodge, turn and double how he can, there’s no eluding them; -soon or late some of them have him by the throat and his spirit returns -to the God who gave it—and gave them. - -We are told that this earth was made for our inhabiting. Our dearly -beloved brethren in the faith, our spiritual guides, philosophers and -friends of the pulpit, never tire of pointing out the goodness of -God in giving us so excellent a place to live in and commending the -admirable adaptation of all things to our needs. - -What a fine world it is, to be sure—a darling little world, “so suited -to the needs of man.” A globe of liquid fire, straining within a shell -relatively no thicker than that of an egg—a shell constantly cracking -and in momentary danger of going all to pieces! Three-fourths of this -delectable field of human activity are covered with an element in which -we can not breathe, and which swallows us by myriads: - - With moldering bones the deep is white - From the frozen zones to the tropics bright. - -Of the other one-fourth more than one-half is uninhabitable by reason -of climate. On the remaining one-eighth we pass a comfortless and -precarious existence in disputed occupancy with countless ministers of -death and pain—pass it in fighting for it, tooth and nail, a hopeless -battle in which we are foredoomed to defeat. Everywhere death, terror, -lamentation and the laughter that is more terrible than tears—the fury -and despair of a race hanging on to life by the tips of its fingers! -And the prize for which we strive, “to have and to hold”—what is it? -A thing that is neither enjoyed while had, nor missed when lost. So -worthless it is, so unsatisfying, so inadequate to purpose, so false to -hope and at its best so brief, that for consolation and compensation we -set up fantastic faiths of an aftertime in a better world from which -no confirming whisper has ever reached us across the void. Heaven is a -prophecy uttered by the lips of despair, but Hell is an inference from -analogy. - - - - - INDUSTRIAL DISCONTENT - - - I - -The time seems to have come when the two antagonistic elements of -American society should, and could afford to, throw off their disguises -and frankly declare their principles and purposes. But what, it may -be asked, are the two antagonistic elements? Dividing lines parting -the population into two camps more or less hostile may be drawn -variously; for example, one may be run between the law-abiding and -the criminal class. But the elements to which reference is here made -are those immemorial and implacable foes which the slang of modern -economics roughly and loosely distinguishes as “capital” and “labor.” -A more accurate classification—as accurate a one as it is possible to -make—would designate them as those who do muscular labor and those who -do not. The distinction between rich and poor does not serve: to the -laborer, the rich man who works with his hands is not objectionable; -the poor man who does not, is. Consciously or unconsciously, and alike -by those whose necessities compel them to perform it and those whose -better fortune enables them to avoid it, manual labor is considered the -most insufferable of human pursuits. It is a pill that the Tolstois, -the “communities” and the “Knights” of Labor can not sugar-coat. We may -prate of the dignity of labor; emblazon its praise upon banners; set -apart a day on which to stop work and celebrate it; shout our teeth -loose in its glorification—and, God help our foolish souls to better -sense, we think we mean it all! - -If labor is so good and great a thing let all be thankful, for all -can have as much of it as may be desired. The eight-hour law is not -mandatory to the laborer, nor does possession of leisure entail -idleness. It is permitted to the clerk, the shopman, the street -peddler—to all who live by the light employment of keeping the wolf -from the door without eating him—to abandon their ignoble callings, -seize the shovel, the axe and the sledge-hammer and lay about them -right sturdily, to the ample gratification of their desire. And those -who are engaged in more profitable vocations will find that with a part -of their incomes they can purchase the right to work as hard as they -like in even the dullest times. - -Manual labor has nothing of dignity, nothing of beauty. It is a hard, -imperious and dispiriting necessity. He who is condemned to it feels -that it sets upon his brow the sign of intellectual inferiority. And -that brand of servitude never ceases to burn. In no country and at -no time has the laborer had a kindly feeling for the rest of us, for -everywhere and always he has fancied that he heard in our patronizing -platitudes the note of contempt. In his repression, in the denying him -the opportunity to avenge his real and imaginary wrongs, government -finds its main usefulness, activity and justification. Governments -are evolved out of the necessity of protecting from the hand-worker -the life and property of the brain-worker and the idler. The first -of the trio is the most dangerous because the most numerous and the -least content. Take from the science and the art of government, and -from its methods, whatever has had its origin in the consciousness of -his ill-will and the fear of his power and what have you left? A pure -republic—that is to say, no government. - -I should like it understood that, if not absolutely devoid of political -prejudices, I at least believe myself to be; that except as to -result I think no more of one form of government than of another; and -that with reference to results all forms seem to me bad, but bad in -different degrees. If asked my opinion as to the results of our own, -I should point to Homestead, to Wardner, to Buffalo, to Coal Creek, -to the interminable tale of unpunished murders by individuals and by -mobs, to legislatures and courts unspeakably corrupt and executives -of criminal cowardice, to the prevalence and immunity of plundering -trusts and corporations and the multiplication of unhappy millionaires. -I should invite attention to the abuses of the pension roll, to the -similar and incredible extravagance of Republican and Democratic -“Houses”—a plague o’ them both! If addressing Democrats only, I should -mention the protective tariff; if Republicans, the hill-tribe clamor -for free coinage of silver. I should call to mind the existence and -prosperous activity of a thousand lying secret societies having -for their main object mitigation of republican simplicity by means -of pageantry, costumes grotesquely resembling those of kings and -courtiers, and titles of address and courtesy exalted enough to draw -laughter from an ox. - -In contemplation of these and a hundred other “results,” no less -shameful in themselves than significant of the deeper shame beneath, -and prophetic of the blacker shame to come, I should say: “Behold the -outcome of hardly more than a century of government by the people! -Behold the superstructure whose foundations our forefathers laid upon -the unstable overgrowth of popular caprice surfacing the unplummeted -abysm of human depravity! Behold the reality behind our dream of the -efficacy of forms, the saving grace of principles, the magic of words! -We have believed in the wisdom of majorities and are fooled; trusted to -the good honor of numbers, and are betrayed. Lo, this is the beginning -of the end of the dream!” - -Our no government has broken down at every point, and the two -irreconcilable elements whose suspensions of hostilities are mistaken -for peace are to try their hands at each other’s tempting display of -throats. There is no longer so much as a pretense of amity; apparently -there will not much longer be a pretense of regard for mercy and -morals. Already “industrial discontent” has attained to the magnitude -of war. It is important, then, that there be an understanding of -principles and purposes. As the combatants will not define their -position truthfully by words, let us see if it can be inferred from -the actions which are said to speak more plainly. If one of the men -“directing the destinies” of the labor organizations in this country, -could be enticed into the Palace of Truth and “examined” by a skilful -catechist he would indubitably say something like this: - -“Our ultimate purpose is effacement of the distinction between employer -and employee, which is but a modification of that between master and -slave. - -“We purpose that the laborer shall be chief owner of all the property -and profits of the enterprise in which he is engaged, and have through -his union a controlling voice in all its affairs. - -“We purpose overthrowing the system under which a man can grow richer -by working with his head than with his hands, and preventing the man -who works with neither from having anything at all. - -“In the attainment of these ends any means is to be judged, as to its -fitness for our use, with sole regard to its efficacy. We shall punish -the innocent for the sins of the guilty. We shall destroy property and -life under such circumstances and to such an extent as may seem to us -expedient. Falsehood, treachery, arson, assassination, all these we -look upon as legitimate if effective. - -“The rules of ‘civilized warfare’ we shall not observe, but shall put -prisoners to death or torture them, as we please. - -“We do not recognize a non-union man’s right to labor, nor to live. The -right to strike includes the right to strike _him_.” - -Doubtless all that (and the half is not told) sounds to the unobservant -like a harsh exaggeration, an imaginative travesty of the principles -of labor organizations. It is not a travesty; it has no element of -exaggeration. Not in the last twenty-five years has a great strike or -lockout occurred in this country without supplying facts, notorious -and undisputed, upon which some of these confessions of faith are -founded. The war is practically a servile insurrection, and servile -insurrections are to-day what they ever were: the most cruel and -ferocious of all manifestations of human hate. Emancipation is rough -work; when he who would be free, himself strikes the blow, he does -not consider too curiously with what he strikes it nor upon whom it -falls. It will profit you to understand, my fine gentlemen with the -soft hands, the character of that which is confronting you. You are not -threatened with a bombardment of roses. - -Let us look into the other camp, where General Hardhead is so engrossed -with his own greatness and power as not clearly to hear the shots on -his picket line. Suppose we hypnotize him and make him open his “shut -soul” to our searching. He will say something like this: - -“In the first place, I claim the right to own and enclose for my own -use or disuse as much of the earth’s surface as I am desirous and able -to procure. I and my kind have made laws confirming us in the occupancy -of the entire habitable and arable area as fast as we can get it. To -the objection that this must eventually, here, as it has actually done -elsewhere, deprive the rest of you of places upon which legally to be -born, and exclude you, after surreptitious birth as trespassers, from -all chance to procure directly the fruits of the earth, I reply that -you can be born at sea and eat fish. - -“I claim the right to induce you, by offer of employment, to colonize -yourselves and families about my factories, and then arbitrarily, by -withdrawing the employment, break up in a day the homes that you have -been years in acquiring where it is no longer possible for you to -procure work. - -“In determining your rate of wages when I employ you, I claim the right -to make your necessities a factor in the problem, thus making your -misfortunes cumulative. By the law of supply and demand (God bless its -expounder!) the less you have and the less chance to get more, the more -I have the right to take from you in labor and the less I am bound to -give you in wages. - -“I claim the right to maintain a private army to subdue you when you -rise. - -“I claim the right to make you suffer, by creating for my advantage an -artificial scarcity of the necessaries of life. - -“As to falsehood, treachery and the other military virtues with which -you threaten me, I shall go, in them, as far as you; but from arson and -assassination I recoil with horror. You see you have very little to -burn, and you are not more than half alive anyhow.” - -That, I submit, is a pretty fair definition of the position of the -rich man who works for himself with his head. It seems worth while to -put it on record while he is extant to challenge or verify; for the -probability is that unless he mend his ways he will not much longer be -rich, nor work, nor have a head. - - - II - -In discussion of such murderous misdoings as those at Homestead and -Coeur d’Alene it is amusing to observe all the champions of law and -order gravely prating of “principles” and declaring with all the -solemnity of owls that these sacred things have been violated. On that -ground they have the argument all their own way. Indubitably there is -hardly a fundamental principle of law and morals that rioting laborers -have not footballed out of the field of consideration. Indubitably, -too, in doing so they have forfeited, as they must have expected to -forfeit, all the “moral support” for which they do not care. If there -were any question of their culpability this solemn insistence upon it -would lack something of the humor with which it is now invested, and -which saves the observer from death by dejection. - -It is not only in discussions of the “labor situation” that we hear -this eternal babble of “principles.” It is never out of ear, and in -politics is especially clamant. Every success in an election is yawped -of as “a triumph of Republican (or Democratic) principles.” But neither -in politics nor in the quarrels of laborers and their employers have -principles a place as factors in the problem. Their use is to supply -to both combatants a vocabulary of accusation and appeal. All the -fierce talk of an antagonist’s violation of those eternal principles -upon which organized society is founded—and the rest of it—what is it -but the cry of the dog with the chewed ear? The dog that is chewing -foregoes the advantage of song. - -Human contests engaging any number of contestants are struggles, not -of principles but of interests; and this is no less true of those -decided by the ballot than of those in which the franker bullet gives -judgment. Nor, but from considerations of prudence and expediency, will -either party hesitate to transgress the limits of the law and outrage -the sense of right. At Homestead and Wardner the laborers committed -robbery, pillage and murder, as striking workmen invariably do when -they dare, and as cowardly newspapers and politicians encourage them -in doing. But what would you have? They conceive it to be to their -interest to do these things. If capitalists conceived it to be to -theirs they too would do them. They do not do them, for their interest -lies in the supremacy of the law—under which they can suffer loss but -do not suffer hunger. - -“But they do murder,” say the labor unions; “they bring in gangs of -armed mercenaries who shoot down honest workmen striving for their -rights.” This is the baldest nonsense, as they know very well who utter -it. The “Pinkerton men” are mere mercenaries and have no right place -in our system, but there have been no instances of their attacking -men not engaged in some unlawful prank. In the fight at Homestead the -workmen were actually intrenched on premises belonging to the other -side, where they had not the shadow of a legal right to be. American -working men are not fools; they know well enough when they are rogues. -But confession is not among the military virtues, and the question, Is -roguery expedient? is not so simple that it can be determined by asking -the first preacher that you meet. - -It would be fair and fine all around if idle workmen would not riot -nor idle employers meet force with force, but invoke the impossible -sheriff. When the Dragon has been chained in the Bottomless Pit and -we are living under the rule of the saints things will be so ordered, -but in these evil times “revolutions are not made with rosewater,” and -this is a revolution. What is being revolutionized is the relation -between our old friends, Capital and Labor. The relation has already -been altered many times, doubtless; once, we know, within the period -covered by history, at least in the countries that we call civilized. -The relation was formerly a severely simple one—the capitalist owned -the laborer. Of the difficulty and the cost of abolishing that system -it is needless to speak at length. Through centuries of time and with -an appalling sacrifice of life the effort has gone on, a continuous -war characterized by monstrous infractions of law and morals, by -incalculable cruelty and crime. Our own generation has witnessed the -culminating triumphs of this revolution, and now, while still the -clank of the falling chains is echoing through the world, and still a -diminishing multitude of the world’s workers is in bondage under the -old system, the others, for whose liberation was all this “expense of -spirit in a waste of shame,” are sharply challenging the advantage -of the new. The new is, in truth, breaking down at every point. -The relation of employer and employee is giving but little better -satisfaction than that of master and slave. The difference between -the two is, indeed, not nearly so broad as we persuade ourselves to -think it. In many industries there is virtually no difference, and the -tendency is more and more to effacement of the difference where it -exists. - - - III - -The “labor question”—how to get half enough to eat by working for it—is -as old as appetite. It burned in Assyrian bosoms and tormented the soul -of the ancient Egyptian. In his day and country the medium of exchange -was grain. The banks—all except those of the Nile—were granaries, and -a check was an order for so much grain. Taxes were paid in grain, -salaries and bribes of state officials, soldiers’ wages, pensions, -nearly everything. The wages of laborers and other persons improvident -enough to work by the day were commonly paid in loaves of bread, as -is shown by an account-book of the steward of an “Abode of Rameses,” -which was possibly the Ramesseum at Thebes. Among the entries are such -as this: “Phamenoth the 8th day. Paid out the bread to the folk, 40 -persons, each 2 loaves, making 80”—which shows, too, that the worthy -steward had a very pretty knack at arithmetic. When paid by the month, -and sometimes when paid by the day, the laborer receiving his wages in -corn got also a certain stated quantity of oil, which, however, was not -considered as money, but as rations. In a _papyrus_ preserved at Turin -one Hanefer imparts some directions to one Hora concerning certain -characteristic work of these old pyramid and temple builders: “Note -that the men be divided into three gangs, each gang under its captain: -six hundred men, making for each gang two hundred. Make them drag the -three great blocks which are before the gate of the temple of Maut, and -not for one single day let it be omitted to give out their portions -of corn and oil.... Also let oil be given to each driver of a pair of -oxen.” - -Strikes and other “remedial measures” appear to have been as common -then as they are now. The unions, like those of Rome later, were -turbulent and insurgent. - -In the twenty-ninth year of Rameses III a deputation of workmen -employed in the Theban necropolis met the superintendent and the -priests with a statement of their grievances. “Behold,” said the -spokesman, “we are brought to the verge of famine. We have neither -food, nor oil, nor clothing; we have no fish; we have no vegetables. -Already we have sent up a petition to our sovereign lord the Pharaoh, -praying that he will give us these things, and we are going to appeal -to the governor that we may have the wherewithal to live.” The response -to this complaint was one day’s rations of corn. This appears to have -been enough only while it lasted, for a few weeks later the workmen -were in open revolt. Thrice they broke out of their quarter, rioting -like mad and defying the police. Whether they were finally shot full of -arrows by the Pinkerton men of the period the record does not state. - -“Organized discontent” in the laboring population is no new thing under -the sun, but in this century and country it has a new opportunity, and -Omniscience alone can forecast the outcome. Of one thing we may be very -sure, and the sooner the “capitalist” can persuade himself to discern -it the sooner will his eyes guard his neck: the relations between those -who are able to live without physical toil and those who are not are a -long way from final adjustment, but are about to undergo a profound -and essential alteration. That this is to come by peaceful evolution -is a hope which has nothing in history to sustain it. There are to -be bloody noses and cracked crowns, and the good persons who suffer -themselves to be shocked by such things in others will have a chance -to try them for themselves. The working man is not troubling himself -greatly about a just allotment of these blessings; so that the greater -part go to those who do not work with their hands, he will not consider -too curiously any one’s claim to exemption. It would perhaps better -harmonize with his sense of the fitness of things if the disadvantages -of the transitional period fell mostly to the share of his benefactors; -but almost any distribution that is sufficiently objectionable as a -whole to the other side will be acceptable to the distributor. In the -meantime it is to be wished that the moralizers and homilizers who -prate of “principles” may have a little damnation dealt out to them on -account. The head that is unable to entertain a philosophical view of -the situation would be notably advantaged by removal. - - - IV - -It is the immigration of “the oppressed of all nations” that has made -this country one of the most lawless on the face of the earth. The -change from good to bad took place within a generation—so quickly that -few of us have had the nimbleness of apprehension to “get it through -our heads.” We go on screaming our eagle in the self-same note of -triumph that we were taught at our father’s knees before the eagle -became a buzzard. America is still “an asylum for the oppressed;” and -still, as always and everywhere, the oppressed are unworthy of asylum, -avenging upon those who give them sanctuary the wrongs from which they -fled. The saddest thing about oppression is that it makes its victims -unfit for anything but to be oppressed—makes them dangerous alike to -their tyrants, their saviors and themselves. In the end they turn -out to be fairly energetic oppressors. The gentleman in the cesspool -invites compassion, certainly, but we may be very well assured, -before undertaking his relief without a pole, that his conception of -a prosperous life is merely to have his head above the surface with -another gentleman underfoot. - -All languages are spoken in Hell, but chiefly those of southeastern -Europe. I do not say that a man fresh from the fields or the factories -of Europe—even of southeastern Europe—may not be a good man; I say only -that, as a matter of fact, he commonly is not. Let us not deny him his -grievance: he works—when he works—for men no better than himself. He is -required, in many instances, to take a part of his pay in “truck” at -prices of breathless altitude; and the pay itself is inadequate—hardly -more than double what he could get in his own country. Against all this -his cry is justified; but his rioting and assassination are not—not -even when directed against the property and persons of his employers. -When directed against the persons of other laborers, who choose to -exercise the fundamental human right to work for whom and for what -pay they please—when he denies this right, and with it the right of -organized society to exist, the necessity of shooting him is not only -apparent; it is conspicuous and imperative. That he and his kind, of -whatever nationality, are usually forgiven this just debt of nature and -suffered to execute, like rivers, their annual spring rise constitutes -the most valid of the many indictments that decent Americans by birth -or adoption find against the feeble form of government under which -their country groans. A nation that will not enforce its laws has no -claim to the respect and allegiance of its people. - -This “citizen soldiery” business is a ghastly failure. The National -Guard is not worth the price of its uniforms. It is intended to be a -Greater Constabulary: its purpose is to suppress disorders with which -the civil authorities are too feeble to cope. How often does it do so? -Mostly it fraternizes with, or is cowed or beaten by, the savage mobs -which it is called upon to kill. In a country with a competent militia -and competent men to use it there would be crime enough and some to -spare, but no rioting. Rioting in a republic is without excuse. If we -have bad laws, or if our good laws are not enforced; if corporations -and capital are “tyrannous and strong;” if white men murder one another -and black men outrage white women, all this is our own fault—the fault -of those, among others, who seek redress or revenge by rioting and -lynching. The people of a republic have always as good government, -as good industrial conditions, as effective protection of person, -property and liberty, as they merit. They can have whatever they have -the honesty to desire and the sense to set about getting in the right -way. If as citizens of a republic we lack the virtue and intelligence -rightly to use the supreme power of the ballot so that it really - - executes a freeman’s will - As lightning does the will of God - -we are unfit to be citizens of a republic, undeserving of peace, -prosperity and liberty, and have no right to rise against conditions -due to our moral and intellectual delinquency. There is a simple way, -Messieurs the Masses, to correct public evils: put wise and good men -into power. If you can not do that for you are not yourselves wise, or -will not for you are not yourselves good, you deserve to be oppressed -when you submit and shot when you rise. - -To shoot a rioter or lyncher is a high kind of mercy. Suppose that -twenty-five years ago (the longer ago the better) two or three criminal -mobs in succession had been exterminated in that way, “as the law -provides.” Suppose that several scores of lives had been so taken, -including even those of “innocent bystanders”—though that kind of angel -does not abound in the vicinity of mobs. Suppose that no demagogue -judges had permitted officers in command of the “firing lines” to be -persecuted in the courts. Suppose that these events had writ themselves -large and red in the public memory. How many lives would this have -saved? Just as many as since have been taken and lost by rioters, -plus those that for a long time to come will be taken. Make your own -computation from your own data; I insist only that a rioter shot in -time saves the shooting of nine. - -You know—you, the People—that all this is true. You know that in a -republic lawlessness is villainy entailing greater evils than it -cures—that it cures none. You know that even the “money power” is -powerful only through your own dishonesty and cowardice. You know that -nobody can bribe nor intimidate a legislator or voter who will not -take a bribe nor suffer himself to be intimidated—that there can be no -“money power” in a nation of honorable and courageous men. You know -that “bosses” and “machines” can not control you if you will not suffer -them to divide you into “parties” by playing upon your credulity and -senseless passions. You know all this, and know it all the time. Yet -not a man has the courage to stand forth and say to your faces what you -know in your hearts. Well, Messieurs the Masses, I don’t consider you -dangerous—not very. I have not observed that you want to tear anybody -to pieces for confessing your sins, even if at the same time he confess -his own. From a considerable experience in that sort of thing I judge -that you rather like it, and that he whom, secretly, you most despise -is he who echoes back to you what he is pleased to think you think, -and flatters you for gain. Anyhow, for some reason, I never hear you -speak well of newspaper men and politicians, though in the shadow of -your dis-esteem they get an occasional gleam of consolation by speaking -fairly well of one another. - - - - - WRITERS OF DIALECT - - - I - -With regard to dialect, the literary law, I take it, is about this: To -be allowable in either verse or prose it must be the mother-speech, -not only of the characters using it, but of the writer himself, who, -also, must be unable to write equally well in the larger tongue. This -was the case with Burns. Had he not been to the manner born how absurd -it would have been in him to write for the few who, naturally or by -study and with difficulty, can understand, instead of the many who read -and love good English! For my part, I am unable to read Burns with -satisfaction; and I am steadfast in the conviction that, excepting -among his countrymen, few of those who parrot his praise are better -able than I. Of another thing I am tolerably well assured, albeit it is -nothing to the purpose, namely, that Burns was more wit than poet. Upon -that proposition I am ready to do battle with all Caledonia, the pipers -alone excepted. - -In humorous and satirical work like, for example, _The Biglow Papers_, -the law is relaxed, even suspended; and in serious prose fiction if the -exigencies of the narrative demand the introduction of an unlettered -hind whose speech would naturally be “racy of the soil” he must needs -come in and sport the tangles of his tongue. But he is to be got rid -of as promptly as possible—preferably by death. The making of an -entire story out of the lives and loves and lingoes of him and his -co-pithecans—that is effrontery. If it be urged in deprecation of this -my view that it is incompatible with relish of and respect for, Miss -Mary Wilkins Freeman, Miss Mary Murfree, Mr. Hamlin Garland and other -curled darlings of the circulating libraries, I candidly confess that -it is open to that objection. Of all such offenders against sweetness -and sense I have long cherished a comfortable conviction that it were -better if instead of writing things “racy of the soil” they would till -it. - -The talk of intelligent persons in an unfamiliar language is a -legitimate literary “property,” but the talk of ignorant persons -misusing their own language has value and interest to nobody but other -ignorant persons and, possibly, the philologist. Literature, however, -is not intended for service in advancing the interests of philology. -The “general reader” whose interest in the characters of a tale is -quickened by their faulty speech may reasonably boast that the ties of -affinity connecting him with their intellectual condition have not been -strained by stretching: it is not overfar from where he is to where he -came from. - -For several months the booksellers of the principal cities in this -country reported that the book _David Harum_ sold better than any -other. The sales went into the hundreds of thousands. It was reviewed -with acclamation by all the popular newspapers and magazines, stared -at you from every “centre table” and was flung into your ears whenever -you had the hardihood to enter a “parlor.” _David Harum_ is one of the -most candidly vulgar and stupid books ever proffered to the taste and -understanding of “the general reader.” It is of course largely written -in “dialect”—that is, in the loutly locution of an illiterate clown -making a trial at his mother-speech. Its “dialect” is so particularly -offensive that I suppose it to be a “transcript from nature:” persons -from whom it is possible would certainly not deny themselves the -happiness of speaking it; and the book may have some value to the -hardy philologer tracing backward the line of linguistic evolution to -the grunt of the primeval pig. To record the vocal riddances of the -ignorant may be one of the purposes of popular fiction, for anything -that I know, but at least its authors might, in the interest of art, -charge its horrible words with something that one unaffected by -softening of the brain might think to be thoughts; and perhaps they -would if that pandemic infirmity had not marked them for its own. - -Male and female created He them. Mary E. Wilkins Freeman furnishes -forth her annual output of New-English antiques and detestables, filing -their teeth with their tongues, to the inexpressible uncomforting -of the auditory nerve. Mary Murfree, in perpetual session on the -Delectable Mountains, with a lapful of little clay-eaters and -snuff-rubbers, sweats great beads of blood to build the lofty crime -and endow it with enough galvanic vitality to stand alone while she -reaches for more mud for a new creation. There follows an interminable -line of imitators and imitatresses, causing two “dialects” to grow -where but one grew before, and rabbiting the literary preserve with a -multiplication of impossibles to speak them. And we forbid them not, -for of such is the kingdom of American letters. - -Now, the “dialect” of which these persons are so enamored as to -fill whole volumes with it is not dialect; it is simply English as -spoken by none but uneducated persons and “recorded” by those to whom -ignorance is attractive and seems picturesque. To a sane intelligence -it is neither. Such an intelligence regards it with tolerance or -aversion—that depends on whether in life it is modest or presumptuous; -in letters, subordinate and incidental or dominant and essential. The -writers named—they and their literary co-populists, an innumerable -commonalty—love ignorance for its own sake. They seem to think, and -indubitably do think, that the lives and adventures, the virtues and -vices, joys and sorrows of the illiterate are more interesting than -those prone to grammar and ablution. To those fortuitous collocations -of peasant instincts and pithecan intuitions which these writers call -their understandings a sentiment is deemed to have an added value when -expressed in coarse and faulty speech. So they give us whole books of -it, coddle the resulting popularity as “fame” and prosper abundantly -by their sin. - -There are dialects which in literary work are legitimate and -acceptable—to those who understand. That of Burns, for example, -is spoken by thousands of cultivated persons and was his own -mother-tongue. He erred in writing in it, as do all having command of -the better and more spacious speech that assures a wider attention, -but in so doing, he broke no laws of taste nor of sense. The matter -is simple enough. A true dialect is legitimate; the faulty speech of -an educated person in an unfamiliar tongue is legitimate, as is that -of a child; but the lame locution of the merely ignorant—the language -of the letterless—that is not dialect, and in any quantity in excess -of an amount that may be needful in fiction for _vraisemblance_, or -in verse for humor, is reasonless and offensive. As to poetry, our -literature contains no line of that in any such speech. The muse is not -so feasible; she does not submit herself to the embrace of a yokel—not -even to a Tennyson wearing the smock of a northern farmer. - -In fiction the limits of dialect that is not dialect are plainly -defined, not by usage of the masters, for none than masters go more -often wrong—as none but they can afford to do—but by reason and the -sense of things. If in evolution of his plot the story teller find -it expedient to seek assistance from the “man o’ the people” as a -subordinate character, that worthy person must needs use the speech -of his tribe; as actors, having to wear something—a regrettable -necessity—may garb themselves in the costume of the time of the play, -however hideous it may be. But beyond this the teller of stories that -are not true is denied the right to go. To take for hero or heroine a -person unable to speak the language of the tale, whose conversations -are turbid swirls in the clear stream of the narrative, is an affront -justifiable only by a moral purpose presumably in equal need of -justification. - - - II - - One reads Mr. Hay’s earlier poems with a thrill of pride. They open - glimpses of unselfish courage and sublime devotion compared with - which the prancing pageantry of Homer afflicts us like the cheap - tinsel of the melodrama. - -Such is the serious judgment of a reputable writer living in the -capital of the nation. It has a particular reference to “Little -Breeches” and “Jim Bludso,” which are not poems at all, but formless -blobs of coarse, rank sentimentality in the speech of snuff-rubbers and -clay-eaters—the so-called “dialect.” They are no better and could not -be worse than the “Hoosier” horrors of Riley and the “barrack-room” -afflictions of Kipling. I do not doubt that Hay’s dislike of them -and his wish that they might be forgotten incited him to literary -silence, whereby we are deprived of the poetry that he might have -given us had he remained in the field. There is not a true poet in -this country who has not experienced the deep disgust of observing -the superior “popularity” of his own worst work. That here and there -a few should give up in despair, taking to politics, to business, to -any coarse pursuit “understanded of the people,” is natural and not to -be condemned. These accept their dreadful fame as a punishment fitting -the crime, and promise atonement by resolving to write no more “dialect -poetry” while stealing is more honorable and indigence more interesting. - -John Hay was a true poet; so is Riley; so is Kipling. In addition to -their panderings to peasants all have written well. At their best they -stir the blood and thrill the nerves of all who can be trusted to feel -because taught to think. Yet the late Charles A. Dana, who for years -successfully posed as a judge of poetry, had at last the indiscretion -to disclose himself by a specific utterance of his taste: he pronounced -Kipling’s “Gunga Din” one of the greatest of English poems! After that -there was no more to say about Dana, but Dana had not the reticence -to say it. Poetry, like any other art, is a matter of manner. If the -manner is that of a clown the matter will not redeem it, but, as the -dyer’s hand is “subdued to what it works in,” will itself be smirched -by its environment. English of the cornfield and the slum is suited to -certain kinds of humor and in moderation may itself be amusing, but it -has no place in serious or sentimental composition, either verse or -prose. Persons writing it confess their peasant understandings, and -those who like “dialect poems” like them because they do not know any -better than to like them, and that’s all there is to it. - -The prose writer whom I have quoted probably does know better, but -prefers to march with the procession. Since he mentions Homer and -Tennyson (to affirm the greater glory of the author of “Little -Breeches” and “Jim Bludso”), perhaps he will permit himself to be asked -if he sees no “unselfish courage” in Hector?—no “sublime devotion” in -Penelope?—none in Enid?—nothing magnanimous in Arthur’s tenderness -to Guinevere? Does he think these noble qualities would shine with a -diviner light in the character of a corn-fed lout of the stables, a -whiskey-sodden riverman or a slattern of the slums? - -The higher virtues are not a discovery of yesterday; they were known as -long ago as last week; and some of us who affect an acquaintance with -antiquity profess to have found traces of them in the poetry of an even -earlier period, before all men began to be born equal. In “the glory -that was Greece and the grandeur that was Rome” there were singing -pigs, as there are to-day, and doubtless they had their special wallows -with mud of a particular brew; but they were not permitted to thrust -their untidy muzzles into the sweet water of the Pierian Spring, turn -it into slime and scatter plenty of it o’er a smiling land. It has -remained for the “fierce democracies” of the Brand-New World to impose -upon letters the law of the Dominion of Dirt. - -The leader of the New Movement is indubitably Mr. James Whitcomb Riley, -and here is an example of his work. It is called “His Pa’s Romance,” -and these two passages are quoted with effusion by one of the “critics”: - - Elsie lisps so, she can’t say - Her own name, ist any way - She says ‘Elthy’—like they wuz - Feathers on her words, an’ they - Ist stuck on her tongue like fuzz. - -How charming!—it affects the sensibilities like the ripple of a rill -of buttermilk falling into a pig-trough. “Ist,” by the way, means (to -an idiot) “just”—it is not easy to say why. Here followeth the other -inspiring passage: - - One time - Elsie start to say the rhyme - “Thing a thong o’ thixpenth”—whee! - I ist yell; an’ ma say I’m - Unpolite as I can be. - -If this is not poetry, what kind of an abysmal imbecility has it the -characteristic distinction to be? Mr. Riley turns off this stuff by -the linear mile, it is received with enthusiasm and reviewed with -acclamation by nearly every “literary critic” in America, and the -peasants whose taste they share and ignorance reflect are generous -enough to give him a living. Think not, observer from another land, -whose eye may chance to note these lines, that all these “dialect -poets” wear smocks and toil in the fields; it is the peculiar glory -of this great country that its peasants wear as good clothing, pursue -as high vocations and talk as glibly about art and literature as -anybody. Say not in your lack of light that the American gentleman has -boorish taste; say, rather, that the American boor has visible signs -of the prosperity of a gentleman, and to an alien eye is not readily -distinguishable from his betters. - - - III - -To put a good thought, a tender sentiment, a passionate emotion into -faulty words is to defile it. Does a precious stone acquire an added -value from a setting of brass? Is a rare and excellent wine better when -drunk out of a gourd? - -In Herman Scheffauer’s first book, _Of Both Worlds_, are two little -poems of such naturalness, simplicity and beauty that I hardly know -of anything better in their kind. My purpose in quoting them here is, -partly, to bring them to the attention of those who may be unfamiliar -with Mr. Scheffauer’s work, but chiefly to suggest to the “dialect -poets” that they undertake to give them an added charm by rewriting -them in their own manner. - - - THE SLEEPERS - - The winds lie hushed in the hill - And the waves upon the seas; - The birds are mute and still, - Deep in their dreaming trees; - The earth lies dumb in night, - And the stars in their degrees - Sleep with the suns in space, - With angels, with seraphs bright, - In the light of God His face. - - Softly lie the heads - Of the sleepers in their beds; - But the sleepers in the ground— - They alone sleep sweet and sound, - They alone know rest profound. - Fear not—soon a rest as deep - Comes to thee—thou, too, shalt sleep. - - - MISERERE - - The last few prayers are done, - The pall and shroud are spread; - Seven tapers at thy feet - And seven at thy head. - - Thy hands are crossed upon - Thy bosom white where now - Thy heart is stilled. O Death, - How beautiful art thou! - - - - - CRIME AND ITS CORRECTIVES - - - I - -Sociologists have long been debating the theory that the impulse to -commit crime is a disease, and the ayes appear to have it—the disease. -It is gratifying and profitable to have the point settled: we now know -where we are and can take our course accordingly. It has for a number -of years been known to all but a few old physicians—survivals from -an exhausted _régime_—that all disease is caused by bacilli, which -worm themselves into the organs that secrete health and enjoin the -performance. The medical conservatives attempt to whittle away the -value and significance of this theory by affirming its inadequacy to -account for such disorders as broken heads, sunstroke, superfluous -toes, home-sickness, burns and strangulation on the gallows; but -against the testimony of so eminent bacteriologists as Drs. Koch and -Pasteur their carping is as that of the idle angler. The bacillus is -not to be denied; he has brought his bedding and is here to stay until -evicted. Doubtless we may confidently expect his eventual eviction by -a fresher and more ingenious disturber of the physiological peace, but -the bacillus is now chief among ten thousand evils and it is futile to -attempt to “read him out of the party.” - -It follows that in order to deal intelligently with the criminal -impulse in our afflicted fellow-citizens we must discover the bacillus -of crime. To that end I think that the bodies of hanged assassins and -such persons of low degree as have been gathered to their fathers by -the cares of public office or consumed by the rust of inactivity in -prison should be handed over to the microscopists for examination. The -bore, too, offers a fine field for research, and might justly enough -be examined alive. Whether there is one general—or as the ancient -and honorable orders prefer to say, “grand”—bacillus, producing a -general (or grand) criminal impulse covering a multitude of sins, or -an infinite number of well-defined and several bacilli, each inciting -to a particular crime, is a question to the determination of which the -most distinguished microscopist might be proud to devote the powers -of his eye. If the latter is the case it will somewhat complicate the -treatment, for clearly the patient afflicted with chronic robbery -will require medicines different from those that might be efficacious -in a gentleman suffering from sporadic theft or a desire to represent -his district in the Assembly. But it is permitted to us to hope that -all crimes, like all arts, are essentially one; that murder, arson and -conservitude are but different symptoms of the same physical disorder, -at the back of which is a microbe vincible to a single medicament, -albeit this awaits discovery. - -In the fascinating theory of the unity of crime we may not unreasonably -hope to find another evidence of the brotherhood of man, another -spiritual bond tending to draw the several classes of society more -closely together. - - - II - -By advocating painless removal of incurable idiots and lunatics, -incorrigible criminals and irreclaimable drunkards from this vale of -tears Dr. W. Duncan McKim provoked many a respectable but otherwise -blameless person to convulsions of great complexity and power. Yet -Dr. McKim seemed only to anticipate the trend of public opinion and -forecast its crystalization into law. It is rapidly becoming a -question, not of what we ought to do with these unfortunates, but what -we shall be compelled to do. Study of the statistics of the matter -shows that in all civilized countries mental and moral diseases are -increasing, proportionately to population, at a rate which in the -course of a few generations will make it impossible for the healthy to -care for the afflicted. To do so will require the entire revenue that -it is possible to raise by taxation—will absorb all the profits of -all the industries and professions and make deeper and deeper inroads -upon the capital from which they are derived. When it comes to that -there can be but one result. High and humanizing sentiments are angel -visitants, whom we entertain with pride and pleasure, but when the -entertainment becomes too costly to be borne we “speed the parting -guest” forthwith. And it may happen that in inviting to his vacant -place a less exacting successor—in replacing sentiment with reason—we -shall, in this instance, learn to our joy that we do but entertain -another angel. For nothing is so heavenly as Reason, nothing so sweet -and compassionate as her voice— - - Not harsh and crabbed, as dull fools suppose, - But musical as is Apollo’s lute. - -Is it cruel, is it heartless, is it barbarous to use something of the -same care in breeding men and women as in breeding horses and dogs? -Here is a determining question: Knowing yourself doomed to hopeless -idiocy, lunacy, crime or drunkenness, would you, or would you not, -welcome a painless death? Let us assume that you would. Upon what -ground, then, would you deny to another a boon that you would desire -for yourself? - - - III - -The good American is, as a rule, pretty hard upon roguery, but he -atones for his austerity by an amiable toleration of rogues. His -only requirement is that he must personally know the rogues. We all -“denounce” thieves loudly enough if we have not the honor of their -acquaintance. If we have, why, that is different—unless they have -the actual odor of the slum or the prison about them. We may know -them guilty, but we meet them, shake hands with them, drink with them -and, if they happen to be wealthy, or otherwise great, invite them -to our houses, and deem it an honor to frequent theirs. We do not -“approve their methods”—let that be understood; and thereby they are -sufficiently punished. The notion that a knave cares a pin what is -thought of his ways by one who is civil and friendly to himself appears -to have been invented by a humorist. On the vaudeville stage of Mars it -would probably have made his fortune. - -I know men standing high in journalism who to-day will “expose” -and bitterly “denounce” a certain rascality and to-morrow will be -hobnobbing with the rascals whom they have named. I know legislators -of renown who habitually raise their voices against the dishonest -schemes of some “trust magnate,” and are habitually seen in familiar -conversation with him. Indubitably these be hypocrites all. Between the -head and the heart of a man of this objectionable kind is a wall of -adamant, and neither knows what the other is doing. - -If social recognition were denied to rogues they would be fewer by -many. Some would only the more diligently cover their tracks along the -devious paths of unrighteousness, but others would do so much violence -to their consciences as to renounce the disadvantages of rascality for -those of an honest life. An unworthy person dreads nothing so much as -the withholding of an honest hand, the slow, inevitable stroke of an -ignoring eye. - -We have rich rogues because we have “respectable” persons who are not -ashamed to take them by the hand, to be seen with them, to say that -they know them. In such it is treachery to censure them; to cry out -when robbed by them is to turn state’s evidence. - -One may smile upon a rascal (most of us do so many times a day) if -one does not know him to be a rascal, and has not said he is; but -knowing him to be, or having said he is, to smile upon him is to be a -hypocrite—just a plain hypocrite or a sycophantic hypocrite, according -to the station in life of the rascal smiled upon. There are more -plain hypocrites than sycophantic ones, for there are more rascals -of no consequence than rich and distinguished ones, though they get -fewer smiles each. The American people will be plundered as long as -the American character is what it is; as long as it is tolerant of -successful knaves; as long as American ingenuity draws an imaginary -distinction between a man’s public character and his private—his -commercial and his personal. In brief, the American people will be -plundered as long as they deserve to be plundered. No human law can -stop it, none ought to stop it, for that would abrogate a higher and -more salutary law: “As ye sow ye shall reap.” - -In a sermon by the Rev. Dr. Parkhurst is the passage following: - -“The story of all our Lord’s dealings with sinners leaves upon the mind -the invariable impression, if only the story be read sympathetically -and earnestly, that He always felt kindly towards the transgressor, -but could have no tenderness of regard toward the transgression. There -is no safe and successful dealing with sin of any kind save as that -distinction is appreciated and made a continual factor in our feelings -and efforts.” - -If Dr. Parkhurst will read his New Testament more understandingly he -will observe that Christ’s kindly feeling to transgressors was not -to be counted on by sinners of every kind, and it was not always in -evidence; for example, when he flogged the moneychangers out of the -temple. Nor is Dr. Parkhurst himself any too amiably disposed toward -the children of darkness. It was not by mild words and gentle means -that he hurled the mighty from their seats and exalted them of low -degree. Such revolutions as he set afoot are not made with spiritual -rosewater; there must be the contagion of a noble indignation fueled -with harder wood than abstractions. The people can not be mustered and -incited to action by the spectacle of a man fighting something that -does not fight back. It was men that Dr. Parkhurst was trouncing—not -their crimes—not Crime. He may fancy himself “dowered with the hate of -hate, the scorn of scorn,” but in reality he does not hate hate but -hates the hateful, and scorns, not scorn but the scornworthy. - -It is singular with what tenacity this amusing though mischievous -superstition keeps its hold upon the human mind—this grave, _bona fide_ -personification of abstractions and the funny delusion that it is -possible to hate or love them. Sin is not a thing; there is no existing -object corresponding to any of the mere counter-words that are properly -named abstract nouns. One can no more hate sin or love virtue than -one can hate a vacuum (which Nature—itself imaginary—was once by the -scientists of the period solemnly held to do) or love one of the three -dimensions. We may think that while loving a sinner we hate the sin, -but that is not so; if anything is hated it is other sinners of the -same kind, who are not quite so close to us. - -The French have a saying to the effect that to know all is to pardon -all; and doubtless with an omniscient insight into the causes of -character we should find the field of moral responsibility pretty -thickly strewn with extenuating circumstances very suitable indeed -for consideration by a god who has had a hand in besetting “with -pitfall and with gin” the road we are to “wander in.” But I submit -that universal forgiveness would hardly do as a working principle. -Even those who are most apt and facile with the incident of the woman -taken in adultery commonly cherish a secret respect for the doctrine of -eternal damnation; and some of them are known to pin their faith to the -penal code of their state. Moreover, there is some reason to believe -that the sinning woman, being “taken,” was penitent—they usually are -when found out. - -“But,” says Citizen Goodheart, who thinks with difficulty, “shall I -throw over my friend when he is ‘in trouble’?” Yes, when convinced that -he deserves to be in trouble; throw him all the harder and the further -because he is your friend. In addition to his particular offense -against society he has disgraced _you_. If there are to be lenity and -charity let them go to the criminal who has foreborne to involve you -in his shame. It were a pretty state of affairs if an undetected scamp, -fearing exposure, could make you a co-defendant by so easy a precaution -as securing your acquaintance and regard. Don’t throw the first stone, -of course, but when convinced that your friend is a proper target, -heave away with a right hearty good-will, and let the stone be of -serviceable weight and delivered with a good aim. - -I care nothing for principles—they are lumber and rubbish. What -concerns our happiness and welfare, as affectable by our fellowmen, is -conduct. “Principles, not men,” is a rogue’s cry; rascality’s counsel -to stupidity, the noise of the duper duping on his dupe. He shouts -it most loudly and with the keenest sense of its advantage who most -desires inattention to his own conduct, or to that forecast of it, -his character. As to sin, that has an abundance of expounders and is -already universally known to be wicked. What more can be said against -it, and why go on repeating that? The thing is a trifle wordworn, -whereas the sinner cometh up as a flower every day, fresh, ingenuous -and inviting. Sin is not at all dangerous to society; what does all the -mischief is the sinner. Crime has no arms to thrust into the public -treasury and the private; no hands with which to cut a throat; no -tongue to wreck a reputation withal. I would no more attack it than I -would attack an isosceles triangle, or Hume’s “phantasm floating in a -void.” My chosen enemy must be something that has a skin for my switch, -a head for my cudgel—something that can smart and ache. I have no -quarrel with abstractions; so far as I know they are all good citizens. - - - - - ON KNOWING ONE’S BUSINESS—AN INSTANCE - - -No series of connected and consecutive military events has been so -closely analyzed by military students as those marking the first -Italian campaign of Napoleon Bonaparte. All expounders of the military -art who have had the good fortune to live since its principles were -so wonderfully illustrated by that campaign have delighted to use its -incidents in exposition. Every student has early learned that he could -not afford to neglect it. Even to the “general reader,” unacquainted -with the mysteries of strategy and tactics, who in the darkness of his -ignorance cherishes the error that war is fortuitous fighting loosely -directed to results by physical courage and the will of God, the -history of these brilliant operations can hardly fail, when lucidly -related, to prove interesting and charming beyond the power of fiction. -As related by the mere “historian,” with his port-fire and blood-fumes -to emotionalize the situation, it is doubtless as dull reading as -the literature of the heart generally. What, in brief, _was_ this -remarkable campaign? - -In the month of March, 1796, Bonaparte, a boy of twenty-six, untried in -independent command, was intrusted with an army of some forty thousand -badly clad and inadequately supplied men, with which to invade Italy. -He was opposed by Beaulieu, with a well equipped force, Austrians and -Sardinians, of fifty thousand. The Alps and Apennines were between. -Bonaparte began active operations on the eleventh day of April, 1796. -On the seventh day of April, 1797, at Leoben, near Vienna, he received -the Austrian Emperor’s emissaries, who came to sue for peace, and the -war was at an end. During this period of one year less four days, -with forces averaging forty-six thousand opposed to forces averaging -sixty-one thousand he had in fifteen pitched battles routed one -Sardinian army and the six Austrian armies successively sent to drive -him out of Italy, only to be driven out themselves. His losses during -the campaign in killed, wounded and prisoners were about equal to the -numbers of his army at the outset. The losses that he inflicted upon -the enemy were no fewer than one hundred and twenty thousand men and -vast quantities of _material_. - -How were these astonishing feats of arms performed? Not by the superior -courage of his soldiers, for the Austrians then, as they are now, -were a brave and warlike people. Not by the “will of God,” whose -agency is to the military eye nowhere discernible, and whose political -predilections are still unknown. Nor were these admirable results due -to “luck,” the “favors of fortune,” the “magic” of genius. They were -brought about by the very commonplace method of knowing his business -thoroughly and applying the knowledge. There is nothing miraculous in -that. It is an open secret which Napoleon himself has explained: - -“In war nothing is accomplished but by calculation. During a campaign, -whatever is not profoundly considered in all its details is without -result. Every enterprise should be systematically conducted; chance -alone can not bring success.” - -I should be sorry to be understood as affirming the possibility of such -military success as Napoleon’s to the mere student of military art, -devoid of Napoleon’s genius. On the other hand, Napoleon’s genius would -have been futile without his mastery of the art. Military art is no -exception to art in general; for eminent achievement is required great -natural aptitude, _plus_ a comprehensive and minute knowledge of the -business in hand. Given these two requisites in the commander, and the -army is multiplied by two. For many generations, doubtless, the French -will boast of Montenotte, Marengo, Austerlitz, Jena, and Wagram; but -every intelligent soldier’s view is that on all these historic fields -there was but one victor. To quote his words again: - -“It was not the Roman army that conquered Gaul, but Cæsar; it was not -the Carthaginian army which, at the gates of Rome, made the Eternal -City tremble, but Hannibal; it was not the Macedonian army that marched -as far as the Indus, but Alexander; it was not the Prussian army that -defended Prussia for seven years against the three most powerful states -of Europe, but Frederick.” - -The contrary view—the theory of the insignificance of the individual—so -persistently urged a generation ago by Mill, and so eagerly accepted by -the young philosophers of his period, derives no support from military -history. Tolstoi, it is true, is in full, if somewhat belated, -advocacy of it, and professes to find confirmation in the events that -he relates in his military novels. And it must be confessed that, as -he relates them, they indubitably do seem to justify his view that -leaders do not truly lead. With the splendid irresponsibility of the -fictionist, he shows that the French people having incurred, somehow, -a blind, reasonless impulse to go gadding about Europe, caught up -Napoleon, as a stream bursting out of its banks might catch up a -sheep or a log, and pushed him along before them. A careful study of -the progress through Italy will, I think, show that at least he did -something toward reducing the friction incident to the movement. - -Any one really believing in unimportance of the individual must be -prepared to affirm that a chance bullet finding a lodgment in the brain -of the commander of the Army of Italy at Montenotte would have made but -little difference in the conduct of the campaign and the later history -of Europe; and any one prepared to affirm this may justly boast himself -impregnable to argument, through induration of the understanding. - -The history of the military operations that we have been considering -has never been better told than in a book entitled _Napoleon -Bonaparte’s First Campaign_—it should be remembered that he was then -simply General Bonaparte. The author of the book is Lieutenant Herbert -H. Sargent,[1] of the Army. Nothing could well exceed the clarity with -which the author has told his story; and nothing that I have seen -in military literature is more admirable than his professional but -untechnical comments on its successive stages. Everything is made so -clear that the benighted civilian of the anti-West Point sort, the -fearfully and wonderfully bepistoled swashbuckler of the frontier, the -gilded whiskey-soldier of the National Guard and even the self-taught -strategist of the press can comprehend it all without a special -revelation from Heaven. Those conscious of a desire, however vague and -formless, to acquire such a knowledge of military science and art as -will give them a keener interest in “war news” that is not “bluggy” -than they ever had in that which reeks with gore and “multiplies the -slain” will find in Lieutenant Sargent a guide, philosopher and friend -for whom they cannot be sufficiently thankful to the God that bestowed -him. - -1895. - -[1] After distinguished service as colonel of volunteers in the Cuban - and Philippine wars, this great soldier is now retired as major in - the regular army. Before retirement he published two other books, - _The Campaign of Marengo_ and _The Campaign of Santiago de Cuba_, - both characterized by all the qualities so conspicuous in his - first book—qualities that are themselves a fine result of “knowing - one’s business.” - - 1912. - - - - - A TRADE OF REFUGE - - -There is no security—even the life of a steeple-climber is held by a -precarious tenure. One cannot always be clinging to a spire in “the -intense inane;” one must sometimes descend to “this place of wrath -and tears” in order to eat and write poetry for the newspapers; and -then the manifold perils besetting a surface existence begin their -deadly work, and man that is born of woman is of few days and full of -surprises. - -Once upon a time, ’tis said, a foolhardy steeple-jack took his life -in his hands and ventured down among us. Doubtless he wanted but -little here below; certainly he did not want that little long, for he -made acquaintance with a trolley car and passed away forthwith. If -in the moment of disaster “beneath thy wheels, O Juggernath,” it was -granted to him to hear the comforting “I told you so” of some fellow -craftsman in midheaven, how acutely he must have sympathized with us -unfortunates condemned to dwell in the midst of alarms from the cradle -to the grave! - -Our hard lot must have touched him nearly; participation in its -disadvantages must have brought it home to his business and bosom with -a more compelling compassion than that of the tempest-tossed mariner -who prays, “God help the poor devils on shore such a night as this!” -In the consciousness of that sympathy—transient though it necessarily -had to be—let us take heart and hope, to confront the perils of our -environment. Let us walk our appointed ways among them with no less -circumspection, but a superior resignation. - -We cannot all be steeple-climbers. We cannot all go down to the sea in -ships and know - - The exulting sense, the pulse’s maddening play, - That thrill the wanderer on the trackless way - -as he reflects on his immunity from the insistent vehicle, the stealthy -sewer gas, the subterranean steam boiler, the Conqueror Dog and all the -other maleficent agencies unknown to a life on the ocean wave. - -Some there must be to till the soil (mostly malarial), some to hold -the offices, some to feed the dogs, some to tear up the streets, -and many—oh, so many!—to write poetry for the magazines. Ships must -be built for the happy, happy mariner, and steeples to exalt the -prudent climber above the perilous region of industrial discontent. -The timorous aviator, in pursuit of longevity must be supplied -with his apparatus. By rustic and urban industries soldiers must -be maintained in the security of service _in partibus infidelium_ -where the devastating open coalhole comes not to execute its prank, -and missionaries outfitted to grasp the longevital advantages of -labor among the cannibals. In the formation of trusts to bring the -producer and consumer together in the poor-house we must toil in -the pestilential atmosphere of Wall Street. The necessity of making -“elevators” to dispose of the surplus population in our congested -cities is imperious. - -Most of these needful activities have to be conducted on the surface -of the land, amidst the horrors of peace and the deadly devices of an -advanced civilization. It requires the greater and more courageous -part of the population to carry them on; only a few shrinking souls -can afford to seek safety on the steeples. But the lives of these -have a peculiar value to the millions engaged in the perilous trades -that go on below them. They are survivals of the time that was, -forerunners of the time to be. They serve to remind us of that blessed -barbarism—that golden age when our sylvan forefather gave himself a -chance to live out half his life; and in this dark period of transition -they foreshadow that brighter and better time when the land will be -studded with abundant steeples of refuge for all excepting condemned -criminals and enough ruffian officers of the law to operate, for their -extinction, a few of the more deadly appliances and modern conveniences -of civilization. - -The steeple-jack is a precious possession—let him not be cast out. In -order that he may not be compelled to incur the perils of the street, -let him be clothed and fed with a kite. - - - - - THE DEATH PENALTY - - - I - -“Down with the gallows!” is a cry not unfamiliar in America. There is -always a movement afoot to make odious the just principle of “a life -for a life”—to represent it as “a relic of barbarism,” “a usurpation -of the divine authority,” and the rest of it. The law making murder -punishable by death is as purely a measure of self-defense as is the -display of a pistol to one diligently endeavoring to kill without -provocation. It is in precisely the same sense an admonition, a warning -to abstain from crime. Society says by that law: “If you kill one of us -you die,” just as by display of the pistol the individual whose life -is attacked says: “Desist or be shot.” To be effective the warning in -either case must be more than an idle threat. Even the most unearthly -reasoner among the anti-hanging unfortunates would hardly expect to -frighten away an assassin who knew the pistol to be unloaded. Of -course these queer illogicians can not be made to understand that -their position commits them to absolute non-resistance to any kind -of aggression; and that is fortunate for the rest of us, for if as -Christians they frankly and consistently took that ground we should be -under the miserable necessity of respecting them. - -We have good reason to hold that the horrible prevalence of murder in -this country is due to the fact that we do not execute our laws—that -the death penalty is threatened but not inflicted—that the pistol -is not loaded. In civilized countries where there is enough respect -for the laws to administer them, there is enough to obey them. While -man still has as much of the ancestral brute as his skin can hold -without cracking we shall have thieves and demagogues and anarchists -and assassins and persons with a private system of lexicography who -define murder as disease and hanging as murder, but in all this welter -of crime and stupidity are areas where human life is comparatively -secure against the human hand. It is at least a significant coincidence -that in these the death penalty for murder is fairly well enforced by -judges who do not derive any part of their authority from those for -whose restraint and punishment they hold it. Against the life of one -guiltless person the lives of ten thousand murderers count for nothing; -their hanging is a public good, without reference to the crimes that -disclose their deserts. If we could discover them by other signs than -their bloody deeds they should be hanged anyhow. Unfortunately we -must have a death as evidence. The scientist who will tell us how to -recognize the potential assassin, and persuade us to kill him, will be -the greatest benefactor of his century. - -What would these enemies of the gibbet have?—these lineal descendants -of the drunken mobs that hooted the hangman at Tyburn Tree; this -progeny of criminals, which has so defiled with the mud of its -animosity the noble office of public executioner that even “in this -enlightened age” he shirks his high duty, entrusting it to a hidden -or unnamed subordinate? If murder is unjust of what importance is it -whether its punishment by death be just or not?—nobody needs to incur -it. Men are not drafted for the death penalty; they volunteer. “Then it -is not deterrent,” mutters the gentleman whose rude forefather hooted -the hangman. Well, as to that, the law which is to accomplish more -than a part of its purpose must be awaited with great patience. Every -murder proves that hanging is not altogether deterrent; every hanging, -that it is somewhat deterrent—it deters the person hanged. A man’s -first murder is his crime, his second is ours. - -The socialists, it seems, believe with Alphonse Karr, in the expediency -of abolishing the death penalty; but apparently they do not hold, with -him, that the assassins should begin. They want the state to begin, -believing that the magnanimous example will effect a change of heart -in those about to murder. This, I take it, is the meaning of their -assertion that death penalties have not the deterring influence that -imprisonment for life carries. In this they obviously err: death -deters at least the person who suffers it—he commits no more murder; -whereas the assassin who is imprisoned for life and immune from -further punishment may with impunity kill his keeper or whomsoever he -may be able to get at. Even as matters now are, incessant vigilance -is required to prevent convicts in prison from murdering their -attendants and one another. How would it be if the “life-termer” were -assured against any additional inconvenience for braining a guard -occasionally, or strangling a chaplain now and then? A penitentiary may -be described as a place of punishment and reward; and under the system -proposed, the difference in desirableness between a sentence and an -appointment would be virtually effaced. To overcome this objection a -life sentence would have to mean solitary confinement, and that means -insanity. Is that what these gentlemen propose to substitute for death? - -The death penalty, say these amiables and futilitarians, creates -blood-thirstiness in the unthinking masses and defeats its own ends—is -itself a cause of murder, not a check. These gentlemen are themselves -of “the unthinking masses”—they do not know how to think. Let them try -to trace and lucidly expound the chain of motives lying between the -knowledge that a murderer has been hanged and the wish to commit a -murder. How, precisely, does the one beget the other? By what unearthly -process of reasoning does a man turning away from the gallows persuade -himself that it is expedient to incur the danger of hanging? Let us -have pointed out to us the several steps in that remarkable mental -progress. Obviously, the thing is absurd; one might as reasonably say -that contemplation of a pitted face will make a man wish to go and -catch smallpox, or the spectacle of an amputated limb on the scrap-heap -of a hospital tempt him to cut off his arm or renounce his leg. - -“An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” say the opponents of -the death penalty, “is not justice; it is revenge and unworthy of -a Christian civilization.” It is exact justice: nobody can think -of anything more accurately just than such punishments would be, -whatever the motive in awarding them. Unfortunately such a system is -not practicable, but he who denies its justice must deny also the -justice of a bushel of corn for a bushel of corn, a dollar for a -dollar, service for service. We can not undertake by such clumsy means -as laws and courts to do to the criminal exactly what he has done to -his victim, but to demand a life for a life is simple, practicable, -expedient and (therefore) right. - -“Taking the life of a murderer does not restore the life he took, -therefore it is a most illogical punishment. Two wrongs do not make a -right.” - -Here’s richness! Hanging an assassin is illogical because it does not -restore the life of his victim; incarceration is logical; therefore, -incarceration does—_quod erat demonstrandum_. - -Two wrongs certainly do not make a right, but the veritable thing in -dispute is whether taking the life of a life-taker is a wrong. So -naked and unashamed an example of _petitio principii_ would disgrace a -debater in a pinafore. And these wonder-mongers have the effrontery to -babble of “logic”! Why, if one of them were to meet a syllogism in a -lonely road he would run away in a hundred and fifty directions as hard -as ever he could hook it. One is almost ashamed to dispute with such -intellectual cloutlings. - -Whatever an individual may rightly do to protect himself society may -rightly do to protect him, for he is a part of itself. If he may -rightly take life in defending himself society may rightly take life in -defending him. If society may rightly take life in defending him it may -rightly threaten to take it. Having rightly and mercifully threatened -to take it, it not only rightly may take it, but expediently must. - - - II - -The law of a life for a life does not altogether prevent murder. No -law can altogether prevent any form of crime, nor is it desirable -that it should. Doubtless God could so have created us that our sense -of right and justice could have existed without contemplation of -injustice and wrong; as doubtless he could so have created us that -we could have felt compassion without a knowledge of suffering; but -he did not. Constituted as we are, we can know good only by contrast -with evil. Our sense of sin is what our virtues feed upon; in the thin -air of universal morality the altar-fires of honor and the beacons of -conscience could not be kept alight. A community without crime would be -a community without warm and elevated sentiments—without the sense of -justice, without generosity, without courage, without mercy, without -magnanimity—a community of small, smug souls, uninteresting to God and -uncoveted by the Devil. We can have, and do have, too much of crime, -no doubt; what the wholesome proportion is none can say. Just now we -are running a good deal to murder, but he who can gravely attribute -that phenomenon, or any part of it, to infliction of the death penalty, -instead of to virtual immunity from any penalty at all, is justly -entitled to the innocent satisfaction that comes of being a simpleton. - - - III - -The New Woman is against the death penalty, naturally, for she is -hot and hardy in the conviction that whatever is is wrong. She has -visited this world in order to straighten things about a bit, and is -in distress lest the number of things be insufficient to her need. -The matter is important variously; not least so in its relation to -the new heaven and the new earth that are to be the outcome of woman -suffrage. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of women have -sentimental objections to the death penalty that quite outweigh such -practical considerations in its favor as they can be persuaded to -comprehend. Aided by the minority of men afflicted by the same mental -malady, they will indubitably effect its abolition in the first lustrum -of their political “equality.” The New Woman will scarcely feel the -seat of power warm beneath her before giving to the assassin’s “unhand -me, villain!” the authority of law. So we shall make again the old -experiment, discredited by a thousand failures, of preventing crime by -tenderness to caught criminals. And the criminal uncaught will treat us -to a quantity and quality of crime notably augmented by the Christian -spirit of the new _régime_. - - - IV - -As to painless executions, the simple and practical way to make them -both just and expedient is the adoption by murderers of a system of -painless assassinations. Until this is done there seems to be no -call to renounce the wholesome discomfort of the style of executions -endeared to us by memories and associations of the tenderest character. -There is, I fancy, a shaping notion in the observant mind that the -penologists and their allies have gone about as far as they can safely -be permitted to go in the direction of a softer suasion of the criminal -nature toward good behavior. The modern prison has become a rather more -comfortable habitation than the dangerous classes are accustomed to at -home. Modern prison life has in their eyes something of the charm and -glamor of an ideal existence, like that in the Happy Valley from which -Rasselas had the folly to escape. Whatever advantages to the public may -be secured by abating the rigors of imprisonment and inconveniences -incident to execution, there is this objection: it makes them less -deterrent. Let the penologers and philanthropers have their way and -even hanging might be made so pleasant and withal so interesting a -social distinction that it would deter nobody but the person hanged. -Adopt the euthanasian method of electricity, asphyxia by smothering in -rose-leaves, or slow poisoning with rich food, and the death penalty -may come to be regarded as the object of a noble ambition to the _bon -vivant_, and the rising young suicide may go and kill somebody else -instead of himself, in order to receive from the public executioner a -happier dispatch than his own ’prentice hand can assure him. - -But the advocates of agreeable pains and penalties tell us that in the -darker ages, when cruel and degrading punishment was the rule, and was -freely inflicted for every light infraction of the law, crime was more -common than it is now; and in this they appear to be right. But one and -all, they overlook a fact equally obvious and vastly significant: that -the intellectual, moral and social condition of the masses was very -low. Crime was more common because ignorance was more common, poverty -was more common, sins of authority, and therefore hatred of authority, -were more common. The world of even a century ago was a different world -from the world of to-day, and a vastly more uncomfortable one. The -popular adage to the contrary notwithstanding, human nature was not -by a long cut the same then that it is now. In the very ancient time -of that early English king, George III, when women were burned at the -stake in public for various offenses and men were hanged for “coining” -and children for theft, and in the still remoter period, (_circa_ 1530) -when poisoners were boiled in several waters, divers sorts of criminals -were disemboweled and some are thought to have undergone the _peine -forte et dure_ of cold-pressing (an infliction which the pen of Hugo -has since made popular—in literature),—in these wicked old days crime -flourished, not because of the law’s severity, but in spite of it. It -is possible that our lawmaking ancestors understood the situation as it -then was a trifle better than we can understand it on the hither side -of this gulf of years, and that they were not the reasonless barbarians -that we think them to have been. And if they were, what must have been -the unreason and barbarity of the criminal element with which they had -to deal? - -I am far from thinking that severity of punishment can have the same -restraining effect as probability of some punishment being inflicted; -but if mildness of penalty is to be superadded to difficulty of -conviction, and both are to be mounted upon laxity in detection, the -pile will be complete indeed. There is a peculiar fitness, perhaps, -in the fact that all these pleas for comfortable punishment should -be urged at a time when there appears to be a general disposition -to inflict no punishment at all. There are, however, still a few -old-fashioned persons who hold it obvious that one who is ambitious to -break the laws of his country will not with so light a heart and so -airy an indifference incur the peril of a harsh penalty as he will the -chance of one more nearly resembling that which he would himself select. - - - V - -After lying for more than a century dead I was revived, dowered with a -new body, and restored to society. The first thing of interest that I -observed was an enormous building, covering a square mile of ground. -It was surrounded on all sides by a high, strong wall of hewn stone -upon which armed sentinels paced to and fro. In one face of the wall -was a single gate of massive iron, strongly guarded. While admiring the -cyclopean architecture of the “reverend pile” I was accosted by a man -in uniform, evidently the warden, with a cheerful salutation. - -“Colonel,” I said, “pray tell me what is this building.” - -“This,” said he, “is the new state penitentiary. It is one of twelve, -all alike.” - -“You surprise me,” I replied. “Surely the criminal element must have -increased enormously.” - -“Yes, indeed,” he assented; “under the Reform _régime_, which began -in your day, crime became so powerful, bold and fierce that arrests -were no longer possible and the prisons then in existence were soon -overcrowded. The state was compelled to erect others of greater -capacity.” - -“But, Colonel,” I protested, “if the criminals were too bold and -powerful to be taken into custody, of what use are the prisons? And how -are they crowded?” - -He fixed upon me a look that I could not fail to interpret as -expressing a doubt of my sanity. “What!” he said, “is it possible that -the modern penology is unknown to you? Do you suppose we practise the -antiquated and ineffective method of shutting up the rascals? Sir, the -growth of the criminal element has, as I said, compelled the erection -of more and larger prisons. We have enough to hold comfortably all the -honest men and women of the state. Within these protecting walls they -carry on all the necessary vocations of life excepting commerce. That -is necessarily in the hands of the rogues, as before.” - -“Venerated representative of Reform,” I exclaimed, wringing his hand -with effusion, “you are Knowledge, you are History, you are the Higher -Education! We must talk further. Come, let us enter this benign -edifice; you shall show me your dominion and instruct me in the rules. -You shall propose me as an inmate.” - -I walked rapidly to the gate. When challenged by the sentinel, I turned -to summon my instructor. He was nowhere visible. I turned again to look -at the prison. Nothing was there: desolate and forbidding, as about the -broken statue of Ozymandias, - -The lone and level sands stretched far away. - - - - - RELIGION - - - I - -This is my ultimate and determining test of right—“What, in the -circumstances, would Jesus have done?”—the Jesus of the New Testament, -not the Jesus of the commentators, theologians, priests and parsons. -The test is perhaps not infallible, but it is exceedingly simple -and gives as good practical results as any. I am not a Christian, -but so far as I know, the best and truest and sweetest character in -literature, next to Buddha, is Jesus Christ. He taught nothing new -in goodness, for all goodness was ages old before he came; but with -an almost infallible intuition he applied to life and conduct the -entire law of righteousness. He was a moral lightning calculator: to -his luminous intelligence the statement of the problem carried the -solution—he could not hesitate, he seldom erred. That upon his deeds -and words was founded a religion which in a debased form persists -and even spreads to this day is attestation of his marvelous gift: -adoration is merely a primitive form of approval. - -It seems a pity that this wonderful man had not a longer life under -more complex conditions—conditions more nearly resembling those of -the modern world and of the future. One would like to be able to see, -through the eyes of his biographers, his genius applied to more and -other difficult questions. Yet one can hardly go wrong in inference -of his thought and act. In many of the complexities and entanglements -of modern affairs it is no easy matter to find an answer off-hand to -the question, “What is it right to do?” But put it in another way: -“What would Christ have done?” and lo! there is light! Doubt spreads -her bat-like wings and is away; the sun of truth springs into the sky, -splendoring the path of right and masking that of wrong with a deeper -shade. - - - II - -Gentlemen of the secular press dealt with the Rev. Mr. Sheldon not -altogether fairly. To some very relevant considerations they gave no -weight. It was not fair, for example, to say, as the distinguished -editor of the _North American Review_ did, that in conducting a daily -newspaper for a week as he conceived that Christ would have conducted -it, Mr. Sheldon acted the part of “a notoriety seeking mountebank.” It -seldom is fair to go into the question of motive, for that is something -upon which one has the least light, even when the motive is one’s own. -The motives that dominate us we think simple and obvious; they are in -most instances exceedingly complex and obscure. Complacently surveying -the wreck and ruin that he has wrought, even that great anarch, the -well-meaning person, can not have entire assurance that he meant as -well as the disastrous results appear to him to show. - -The trouble with the editor of the _Review_ was inability to put -himself in another’s place if that happened to be at any considerable -distance from his own place. He made no allowance for the difference -in the point of view—for the difference, that is, between his mind -and the mind of Mr. Sheldon. If the editor had undertaken to conduct -a newspaper as Christ would have done he would indeed have been “a -notoriety seeking mountebank,” or some similarly unenviable thing, for -only a selfish purpose could persuade him to an obviously resultless -work. But Mr. Sheldon was different—his was the religious mind—a mind -having faith in an “overruling” Providence who can, and frequently -does, interfere with the orderly relation of cause and effect, -accomplishing an end by means otherwise inadequate to its production. -Believing himself a faithful servant of that Power, and asking daily -for His interposition in promotion of a highly moral purpose, why -should he not have expected His favor to the enterprise? To expect -this was, in Mr. Sheldon, natural, reasonable, wise; his folly lay in -believing in conditions making it expectable. A person convinced that -the law of gravitation is suspended is no fool for walking into a bog. -His critic may understand, but Mr. Sheldon could not understand, that -Jesus Christ would not edit a newspaper at all. - -The religious mind, it should be understood, is not logical. It may -acquire, as Whateley’s did, a certain familiarity with the syllogism -as an abstraction, but of the syllogism’s practical application, its -real relation to the phenomena of thought, the religious mind can know -nothing. That is merely to say that a mind congenitally gifted with the -power of logic and accessible to its light and leading does not take -to religion, which is a matter, not of reason, but of feeling—not of -the head, but of the heart. Religions are conclusions for which the -facts of nature supply no major premises. They are accepted or rejected -according to the original mental make-up of the person to whom they -appeal for recognition. Believers and unbelievers are like two boys -quarreling across a wall. Each got to his place by means of a ladder. -They may fight if they will, but neither can kick away the other’s -support. - -Believing the things that he did believe, Mr. Sheldon was right in -thinking that the main purpose of a newspaper should be the salvation -of souls. If his religious belief is true that should be the main -purpose, not only of a newspaper, but of everything that has a purpose, -or can be given one. If we have immortal souls and the consequences of -our deeds in the body reach over into another life in another world, -determining there our eternal state of happiness or pain, this is the -most momentous fact conceivable. A man who, believing this to be a -fact, does not make it the one purpose of his life to save his soul -and the souls of others that are willing to be saved is a rogue. If he -think that any part of this only needful work can be done by turning a -newspaper into a pulpit he ought to do so or (preferably) perish in the -attempt. - -The talk of degrading the sacred name, and all that, is mostly -nonsense. If one may not test his conduct in this life by reference to -the highest standard that his religion supplies it is not easy to see -how religion is to be made anything but a mere body of doctrine. I do -not think the Christian religion will ever be seriously discredited -by an attempt to determine, even with too dim a light, what, under -given circumstances, the man miscalled its “founder” would do. What -else is his great example good for? But it is not always enough to ask -oneself, “How would Christ do this?” One should first consider whether -Christ would do it. It is conceivable that certain of his thrifty -contemporaries may have asked him how he would change money in the -Temple. - -If Mr. Sheldon’s critics were unfair his defenders were, as a rule, not -much better. They meant to be fair, but they had to be foolish. For -example, there is the Rev. Dr. Parkhurst, whose defense was published -with the _Review’s_ attack. I shall give a single illustration of how -this more celebrated than cerebrated “divine” is pleased to think -that he thinks. He is replying to some one’s application to this -matter of Christ’s injunction, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures -on earth.” This command, he gravely says, “is not against money, nor -against the making of money, but against the loving it for its own -sake and the dedicating of it to self-aggrandizing uses.” I call this -a foolish utterance, because it violates the good old rule of not -telling an obvious falsehood. In no word nor syllable does Christ’s -injunction give the least color of truth to the reverend gentleman’s -“interpretation;” that is the reverend gentleman’s very own, and -doubtless he feels an honest pride in it. It is the product of a -controversial need—a characteristic attempt to creep out of a hole -in an enclosure which he was not invited to enter. The words need no -“interpretation;” are susceptible to none; are as clear and unambiguous -a proposition as language can frame. Moreover, they are consistent -with all that we think we know of their author’s life and character, -for he not only lived in poverty and taught poverty as a blessing, but -commanded it as a duty and a means to salvation. The probable effect -of universal obedience among those who adore him as a god is not at -present an urgent question. I think even so faithful a disciple as -the Rev. Dr. Parkhurst has still a place to lay his head, a little -of the wherewithal to be clothed, and a good deal of the power of -interpretation to excuse it. - - - III - -There are other hypocrites than those of the pulpit. Dr. Gatling, the -ingenious scoundrel who invented the gun that bears his name with -commendable fortitude, says he has given much thought to the task of -bringing the forces of war to such perfection that war will be no -more. Commonly the man who talks of war becoming so destructive as to -be impossible is only a harmless lunatic, but this fellow utters his -cant to conceal his cupidity. If he thought there was any danger of -the nations beating their swords into plowshares we should see him -“take the stump” against agriculture forthwith. The same is true of -all military inventors. They are lions’ parasites; themselves of cold -blood, they fatten upon hot. The sheep-tick’s paler fare is not at all -to their taste. - -I sometimes wish that I were a preacher: preachers do so blindly -ignore their shining opportunities. I am indifferently versed in -theology—whereof, so help me Heaven, I do not believe one word—but -know something of religion. I know, for example, that Jesus Christ -was no soldier; that war has two features which did not command his -approval—usually: aggression and defense. He taught not only abstention -from aggression but non-resistance. Now what do we see? Nearly all the -so-called Christian nations of the world sweating and groaning under -their burden of debt contracted in violation of these injunctions which -they believe divine—contracted in perfecting their means of offense and -defense. “We must have the best,” they cry; and if armor plates for -ships were better when alloyed with silver, and guns if banded with -gold, such armor plates would be put upon the ships, such guns would -be freely made. No sooner does one nation adopt some costly device for -taking life or protecting it from the taker (and inventors will as -readily sell the product of their malign ingenuity to one nation as to -another) than all the rest either possess themselves of it, or adopt -something superior and more expensive; and so all pay the penalty for -the sins of each. A hundred million dollars is a moderate estimate -of what it has cost the world to abstain from strangling the infant -Gatling in his cradle. - -You may say, if you will, that primitive Christianity—the Christianity -of Christ—is not adapted to these rough-and-tumble times; that it is -not a practical scheme of conduct. As you please; I have not undertaken -to say what it is not, but what it partly is. I am no Christian, though -I think that Christ probably knew what was good for man about as well -as Dr. Gatling or the United States Ordnance Office. It is not for me -to defend Christianity; Christ did not. Nevertheless, I can not forbear -the wish that I were a preacher, in order sincerely to affirm that -the awful burdens borne by modern nations are obvious judgments of -Heaven for disobedience to the Prince of Peace. What a striking theme -to kindle fires upon the heights of imagination—to fill the secret -sources of eloquence—to stir the very stones in the temple of truth! -What a noble subject for the pious gentlemen who serve (with rank, pay -and allowances) as chaplains in the army and the navy, or the civilian -divines who offer prayer at the launching of an ironclad! - - - IV - -A matter of missionaries commonly is to the fore as a cause of quarrel -with nations which have the hardihood to prefer their own religions -to ours. Missionaries constitute, in truth, a perpetual menace to -peace. I dare say the most of them are conscientious men and women -of a certain order of intellect. They believe, and from the way that -they interpret their sacred book have some reason to believe, that in -meddling uninvited with the spiritual affairs of others they perform -a work acceptable to God—their God. They think they discern a moral -difference between “approaching” a man of another religion about the -state of his soul and approaching him on the condition of his linen or -the character of his wife. I think there is a difference; but I have -observed that the person who volunteers an interest in my spiritual -welfare is the same person from whom I must expect an impudent concern -about my temporal affairs. - -No ruler nor government of sense would willingly permit foreigners to -sap the foundation of the national religion. No ruler nor government -ever does permit it except under stress of compulsion. It is through -the people’s religion that a wise government governs wisely—even in -our own country we make only a transparent pretense of officially -ignoring Christianity, and a pretense only because we have so many -kinds of Christians, all jealous and inharmonious. Each sect would -make a Theocracy if it could, and would then make short work of any -missionary from abroad. Happily all religions but ours have the sloth -and timidity of error; Christianity alone, drawing vigor from eternal -truth, is courageous enough and energetic enough to make itself a -nuisance to people of every other faith. The Jew not only does not bid -for converts, but discourages them by imposition of hard conditions; -and the Moslem’s simple, forthright method of reducing error is to -cut off the head holding it. I don’t say that this is right; I say -only that, being practical and comprehensible, it commands a certain -respect from the impartial observer not conversant with scriptural -justification of a less natural practice. - -It is only where the missionaries have made themselves hated that there -is any molestation of Europeans engaged in the affairs of this world. -Chinese antipathy to Caucasians in China is neither a racial animosity -nor a religious; it is an instinctive dislike of persons who will not -mind their own business. China has been infested with missionaries from -the earliest centuries of our era, and they have rarely been molested -when they have taken the trouble to behave themselves. (In the time of -the Emperor Justinian the fact that the Christian religion was openly -preached throughout China enabled that sovereign to wrest from the -Chinese the jealously-guarded secret of silk-making. He sent two monks -to Pekin, who alternately preached seriousness and studied sericulture, -and brought away silkworms’ eggs concealed in sticks.) - -In religious matters the Chinese are more tolerant than we. They let -the religions of others alone, but naturally and rightly demand that -others shall let theirs alone. In China, as in other Oriental countries -where the color line is not drawn and where slavery itself is a light -affliction, the mental attitude of the zealot who finds gratification -in “spreading the light” of which he deems himself custodian, is not -understood. Like most things not understood, it is felt to be bad, and -is indubitably offensive. - - - V - -At a church club meeting a paper was read by a minister, entitled, “Why -the Masses Do Not Attend the Churches.” This good and pious man was -not ashamed to account for it by the fact that there is no Sunday law, -and “the masses” can find recreation elsewhere, even in the drinking -saloons. It is frank of him to admit that he and his professional -brethren have not brains enough to make religious services attractive; -but if it is a fact he must not expect the local government to assist -in spreading the gospel by rounding-up the people and corralling them -in the churches. The truth is, and this gentleman suspects it, that -“the masses” stay out of hearing of his pulpit because there he talks -nonsense of the most fatiguing kind; they would rather do any one of -a thousand other things than go to hear it. These parsons are like -a scolding wife who grieves because her husband will not pass his -evenings with her. The more she grieves the more she scolds, and the -more diligently he stays away from her. Satan is not conspicuously -wise, but he is in the main a good entertainer, with a right pretty -knack at making people come again; but the really reprehensible part -of his performance is not the part that attracts them. The parsons -might study his methods with advantage to religion and morality. - -It may be urged that religious services have not entertainment for -their object. But the people, when not engaged in business or labor, -have it for _their_ object. If the clergy do not choose to adapt their -ministrations to the characters of those to whom they wish to minister, -that is their own affair; but let them accept the consequences. “The -masses” do not really enjoy Sunday at all; they try to get through the -day in the manner that is least wearisome to the spirit. Possibly their -taste is not what it ought to be. If the minister were a physician -of bodies instead of souls, and patients who had not called him in -should refuse to take the medicine which he thought his best and they -his nastiest, he should either offer them another, a little less -disagreeable if a little less efficacious, or let them alone. In no -case is he justified in asking the civil authority to hold their noses -while he plies the spoon. - -“The masses” have not asked for churches and services; they really -do not care for anything of the kind—whether they ought is another -matter. If the clergy choose to supply them, that is well and -worthy. But they should understand their relation to the impenitent -worldling, which is precisely that of a physician without a mandate -from the patient, who may not be convinced that there is very much the -matter with him. The physician may have a diploma and a certificate -authorizing him to practise, but if the patient do not deem himself -bound to be practised upon has the physician a right to make him -miserable until he will submit? Clearly, he has not. If he can not -persuade him to come to the dispensary and take medicine there is an -end to the matter, and he may justly conclude that he is misfitted to -his vocation. - -I am sure that the ministers and the singularly small contingent of -earnest and, on the whole, pretty good persons who cluster about them -do not perceive how alien they are in their convictions, tastes, -sympathies and general mental habitudes to the majority of their fellow -men and women. Their voices are like “the gushing wave” which, to the -ears of the lotus-eaters, - - Far, far away did seem to mourn and rave, - -coming to us as from beyond a great gulf, mere ghosts of sound, almost -devoid of meaning. We know that they would have us do something, -but what it is we do not clearly apprehend. We feel that they are -concerned for us, but why, we are imperfectly able to conceive. In an -unintelligible tongue they tell us of unthinkable things. Here and -there in the discourse we catch a word, a phrase, a sentence—something -which, from ancestors whose mother-speech it was, we have inherited the -capacity to understand; but the homily as a whole signifies nothing. -Solemn and sonorous enough it all is, and not unmusical, but it lacks -its natural accompaniment of shawm and sackbut and the wind-swept harp -in the willows by the waters of Babylon. It is, in fact, something of a -survival—the memory of a dream. - - - VI - -The first week of January is by a certain sect set apart as a week -of prayer. It is a custom of more than a half century’s age, and it -seems that “gracious answers have been received in proportion to the -earnestness and unanimity of the petitions.” That is to say, in this -world’s speech, the more Christians that have prayed and the more -they have meant it, the better the result is known to have been. I -don’t believe all that. I don’t believe that when God is asked to do -something that he had not intended to do he counts noses before making -up his mind whether to do it or not. God probably knows the character -of his work, and knowing that he has made this a world of knaves and -dunces, he must know that the more of them that ask for something, and -the more earnestly they ask, the stronger is the presumption that they -ought not to have it. And I think God is perhaps less concerned about -his popularity than some good folk seem to suppose. - -Doubtless there are errors in the record of results—some things set -down as “answers” to prayer, which came about through the orderly -operation of natural laws and would have occurred anyhow. I am told -that similar errors have been made, or are believed to have been made, -in the past. In 1730, for example, a good Bishop at Auvergne prayed -for an eclipse of the sun as a warning to unbelievers. The eclipse -ensued and the pious prelate made the most of it; but when it was -shown that the astronomers of the period had foretold it he suffered -irreverent gibes. A monk of Treves prayed that an enemy of the church, -then in Paris, might lose his head, and it fell off; but it transpired -that, unknown (or known) to the monk, the man was under sentence of -decapitation when the prayer was made. This is related by one who -piously explains, however, that but for the prayer the sentence might -have been commuted to service in the galleys. I have myself known a -minister to pray for rain, and the rain came. I fear he knew that the -weather bureau had predicted a fair day. - -I do not object to a week of prayer. But why only a week? If prayer -is “answered” Christians ought to pray all the time. That prayer is -“answered” the Scripture affirms as positively and unequivocally as -anything can be affirmed in words: “All things whatsoever ye shall ask -in prayer, believing, that ye shall receive.” Why, then, when for weeks -all the clergy of this country prayed publicly for the recovery of -President Garfield did the man die? Why is it that although two pious -chaplains ask almost daily that goodness and wisdom may descend upon -Congress, Congress remains wicked and unwise? Why is it that although -in all the churches and many dwellings of the land God is continually -asked for good government good government remains what it always -and everywhere has been, a dream? From Earth to Heaven in unceasing -ascension flows a stream of prayer for every blessing that man desires, -yet man remains unblest, the victim of his own folly and passions, the -sport of fire, flood, tempest and earthquake, afflicted with famine -and disease, war, poverty and crime, his world an incredible welter -of evil, his life a curse and his hope a lie. Is it possible that all -this praying is futilized and invalidated by lack of faith?—that the -“asking” is not credentialed by the “believing?” When the anointed -minister of Heaven spreads his palms and uprolls his eyes to beseech -a general blessing or some special advantage is he the celebrant of a -hollow, meaningless rite, or the dupe of a false promise? One does not -know, but if one is not a fool one does know that his every resultless -petition proves him by the inexorable laws of logic to be the one or -the other. - - - VII - -Christ’s Christianity is beautiful exceedingly, and he who admires -not is eyed batly and minded as the mole. “Sell all that thou hast,” -said Christ, “and give to the poor.” All—no less—in order “to be -saved.” The poor were Christ’s peculiar care. Ever for them and their -privations, and not greatly for their spiritual darkness, fell from -his lips the compassionate word, the mandate for their relief and -cherishing. Of foreign missions, of home missions, of mission schools, -of church building, of work among pagans in _partibus infidelium_, of -work among sailors, of communion table, of delegates to councils—of -any of these things he knew no more than the moon man. They are -later inventions, as is the entire florid and flamboyant fabric of -ecclesiasticism that has been reared, stone by stone and century after -century, upon his simple life and works and words. “Founder,” indeed! -He founded nothing, instituted nothing; Paul did all that. Christ -simply went about doing, and being, good—admonishing the rich, whom he -honestly but foolishly regarded as criminals, comforting the luckless -and uttering wisdom with that Oriental indirection wherein our stupid -ingenuity finds imaginary warrant for all our pranks and fads. - - - - - IMMORTALITY - - -The desire for life everlasting has commonly been affirmed to be -universal—at least that is the view taken by those unacquainted -with Oriental faiths and with Oriental character. Those of us whose -knowledge is a trifle wider are not prepared to say that the desire is -universal nor even general. - -If the devout Buddhist, for example, wishes to “live alway,” he has not -succeeded in very clearly formulating the desire. The sort of thing -that he is pleased to hope for is not what we should call life, and not -what many of us would care for. - -When a man says that everybody has “a horror of annihilation,” we may -be very sure that he has not many opportunities for observation, or -that he has not availed himself of all that he has. Most persons go -to sleep rather gladly, yet sleep is virtual annihilation while it -lasts; and if it should last forever the sleeper would be no worse off -after a million years of it than after an hour of it. There are minds -sufficiently logical to think of it that way, and to them annihilation -is not a disagreeable thing to contemplate and expect. - -In this matter of immortality, people’s beliefs appear to go along with -their wishes. The man who is content with annihilation thinks he will -get it; those that want immortality are pretty sure they are immortal; -and that is a very comfortable allotment of faiths. The few of us that -are left unprovided for are those who do not bother themselves much -about the matter, one way or another. - -The question of human immortality is the most momentous that the mind -is capable of conceiving. If it is a fact that the dead live all other -facts are in comparison trivial and without interest. The prospect of -obtaining certain knowledge with regard to this stupendous matter is -not encouraging. In all countries but those in barbarism the powers -of the profoundest and most penetrating intelligences have been -ceaselessly addressed to the task of glimpsing a life beyond this life; -yet to-day no one can truly say that he knows. It is as much a matter -of faith as ever it was. - -Our modern Christian nations profess a passionate hope and belief in -another world, yet the most popular writer and speaker of his time, -the man whose lectures drew the largest audiences, the work of whose -pen brought him the highest rewards, was he who most strenuously strove -to destroy the ground of that hope and unsettle the foundations of that -belief. - -The famous and popular Frenchman, Professor of Spectacular Astronomy, -Camille Flammarion, affirms immortality because he has talked with -departed souls who said that it was true. Yes, monsieur, but surely -you know the rule about hearsay evidence. We Anglo-Saxons are very -particular about that. - -M. Flammarion says: - -“I don’t repudiate the presumptive arguments of schoolmen. I merely -supplement them with something positive. For instance, if you assumed -the existence of God this argument of the scholastics is a good one. -God has implanted in all men the desire of perfect happiness. This -desire can not be satisfied in our lives here. If there were not -another life wherein to satisfy it then God would be a deceiver. _Voila -tout._” - -There is more: the desire of perfect happiness does not imply -immortality, even if there is a God, for - -(1) God may not have implanted it, but merely suffers it to exist, as -he suffers sin to exist, the desire of wealth, the desire to live -longer than we do in this world. It is not held that God implanted all -the desires of the human heart. Then why hold that he implanted that of -perfect happiness? - -(2) Even if he did—even if a divinely implanted desire entail its own -gratification—even if it can not be gratified in this life—that does -not imply immortality. It implies _only_ another life long enough for -its gratification just once. An eternity of gratification is not a -logical inference from it. - -(3) Perhaps God _is_ “a deceiver;” who knows that he is not? Assumption -of the existence of a God is one thing; assumption of the existence of -a God who is honorable and candid according to our conception of honor -and candor is another. - -(4) There may be an honorable and candid God. He may have implanted -in us the desire of perfect happiness. It may be—it is—impossible to -gratify that desire in this life. Still, another life is not implied, -for God may not have intended us to draw the inference that he is going -to gratify it. If omniscient and omnipotent, God must be held to have -intended whatever occurs, but no such God is assumed in M. Flammarion’s -illustration, and it may be that God’s knowledge and power are -limited, or that one of them is limited. - -M. Flammarion is a learned, if somewhat theatrical, astronomer. He -has a tremendous imagination, which naturally is more at home in the -marvelous and catastrophic than in the orderly regions of familiar -phenomena. To him the heavens are an immense pyrotechnicon and he is -the master of the show and sets off the fireworks. But he knows nothing -of logic, which is the science of straight thinking, and his views of -things have therefore no value; they are nebulous. - -Nothing is clearer than that our pre-existence is a dream, having -absolutely no basis in anything that we know or can hope to know. Of -after-existence there is said to be evidence, or rather testimony, -in assurances of those who are in present enjoyment of it—if it is -enjoyable. Whether this testimony has actually been given—and it is -the only testimony worth a moment’s consideration—is a disputed point. -Many persons living this life profess to have received it. But nobody -professes, or ever has professed, to have received a communication of -any kind from one in actual experience of the fore-life. “The souls as -yet ungarmented,” if such there are, are dumb to question. The Land -beyond the Grave has been, if not observed, yet often and variously -described: if not explored and surveyed, yet carefully charted. From -among so many accounts of it that we have, he must be fastidious indeed -who can not be suited. But of the Fatherland that spreads before the -cradle—the great Heretofore, wherein we all dwelt if we are to dwell in -the Hereafter, we have no account. Nobody professes knowledge of that. -No testimony reaches our ears of flesh concerning its topographical or -other features; no one has been so enterprising as to wrest from its -actual inhabitants any particulars of their character and appearance. -And among educated experts and professional proponents of worlds to be -there is a general denial of its existence. - -I am of their way of thinking about that. The fact that we have no -recollection of a former life is entirely conclusive of the matter. -To have lived an unrecollected life is impossible and unthinkable, -for there would be nothing to connect the new life with the old—no -thread of continuity—nothing that persisted from the one life to the -other. The later birth would be that of another person, an altogether -different being, unrelated to the first—a new John Smith succeeding to -the late Tom Jones. - -Let us not be misled here by a false analogy. To-day I may get a -thwack o’ the mazzard which will give me an intervening season of -unconsciousness between yesterday and to-morrow. Thereafter I may live -to a green old age with no recollection of anything that I knew, or -did, or was before the accident; yet I shall be the same person, for -between the old life and the new there will be a _nexus_, a thread -of continuity, something spanning the gulf from the one state to the -other, and the same in both—namely, my body with its habits, capacities -and powers. That is I; that identifies me to others as my former -self—authenticates and credentials me as the person that incurred the -cranial mischance, dislodging memory. - -But when death occurs _all_ is dislodged if memory is; for between -two merely mental or spiritual existences memory is the only _nexus_ -conceivable; consciousness of identity is the only identity. To live -again without memory of having lived before is to live another. -Re-existence without recollection is absurd; there is nothing to -re-exist. - - - - - A ROLLING CONTINENT - - -Like hope, the passion for prophecy springs eternal in the human -breast; man is prone to it, as the sparks fly upward. Stripped of -its several disguises, a considerable part of the world’s writing -and speaking is pure prediction; even the official forecaster of -the weather bureau can not resist the universal urge and maintain a -discreet and dignified silence befitting his office. Eliminate from -politics, for example, all prophecies, expressed or implied—all the -jeremiads based on assumption of the opposite party’s success and all -the assurances of a golden age to ensue from its defeat—and politics -will “look another thing.” - -But of all the cloud of witnesses to the kind of mountain which the -mouse of our country’s future is to bring forth, none seems clearly -to discern the adverse conditions environing the American prophet and -foredooming to futility his vision and his dream. None appears to take -account of the annulling fact that this continent is turning over like -a man in bed; yet it ought to be obvious to the meanest understanding -that if this movement continue it will supply conditions suitable -to neither the reign of terror consequent upon the success of one’s -political opponents nor the golden age dependent on the ascendency of -the principles professed by oneself. - -It has been shown that the Farallon islands, just off the Pacific -coast, are becoming, as Tennyson would put it, “more and more;” the -lighthouse keeper out there is in progressive achievement of the rôle -of “prominent citizen.” The bar at the mouth of San Francisco harbor is -rising faster in fathoms than those farther inland in public esteem. In -the steady ascension of the bottom of the bay lurks a possibility which -without vanity we may affirm will astonish the astronomers of Mars. In -short, the entire Pacific Coast is insurgent. - -On the Atlantic seaboard inundations from marine storms occur every -year. The waves eat farther and farther into the land; the high-water -mark of one decade becomes the low-water mark of the next, and diking -as an agricultural method has a growing importance. It is estimated -that the greater part of Manhattan island will be submerged within -fifty years, and that within an even shorter period the Jersey -mosquito will find no rest for the sole of his foot, and must become a -pelican or quit. - -But the steady subsidence of the Atlantic littoral foreshadows changes -more startling than these—more startling, at least, to some who have -not the advantage to be Jersey mosquitoes. Man himself, the man of the -Eastern states, _Homo smugwumpus_, will find himself face to face with -a problem of supreme scientific interest and personal importance. Will -he travel west and go up with the country, or, staying where he is, -develop into a fish and be mighty quick about it? The ordinary process -of evolution, whereby a million years are required to change a red -worm into a rhinoceros or advance a cave-bat one step in biological -preferment and make it a theologian, will not do for _H. smugwumpus_ -when the wave is at his armpits and his ancestral acres are falling -away from his webless feet. Even the fittest of his species must travel -with uncommon speed along the line of development in order to survive -in the new environment. They must slide nimbly up the scale of being, -passing every intermediate stage between smugwumphood and fishness -without pausing to enjoy its advantages. Probably, however, most of -them will prefer to ascend the new watercourses up the ever-steepening -slope of the great plains, settling eventually on the summit of the -continent, roundabout San Francisco—where it is to be hoped they will -be welcome if they behave themselves. Doubtless they will miss many of -the blessings of their lowland existence, but they will find in the -superior altitude an immunity from sunstroke and the mad dog, which -will be partial compensation for renouncing the fascinating study of -the long thermometer. - -Probably the turning over of the continent will in time be stayed; to -the unscientific mind, at least, its complete subversion is imperfectly -thinkable. But for the next few thousand years, while still the memory -of the purpose and efficacy of Noah’s deluge is fresh and pleasing in -Heaven, the movement will be likely to continue. By the time that it -ceases the Atlantic shore will perhaps be a contour line on the eastern -declivity of the Rocky Mountains, and the Pacific slope comprise all -that region now underlying the “great gulf” between this world and -Hawaii. As a practical settlement of the annexation question on a -staying basis, this unpolitical movement is worthy of the highest -commendation. With the construction of the San Francisco and Honolulu -Pacific Railroad by Government and at the rate of fifty million dollars -a mile in hand paid to the owners of the road, and by them kept for -their honesty, the status of the descendants of Kamehameha and Kalakaua -will be definitely fixed—they will be payers of All That The Traffic -Will Bear. - -The upward tendency of the Pacific side of the continent will be -attended, no doubt, with certain inconveniences. Already the relentless -progress of its ascension has laid “effacing fingers” on the _amour -propre_ of several worthy persons who thought themselves heavy enough -to hold it down. - -1892. - - - - - CHARITY - - -The promoter of organized charity protests against “the wasteful -and mischievous method of undirected relief.” He means, naturally, -relief that is not directed by somebody else than the person giving -it—undirected by him and his kind—professional almoners—philanthropists -who deem it more blessed to allot than to bestow. Indubitably much is -wasted and some mischief done by indiscriminate giving—and individual -givers are addicted to that faulty practice. But there is something to -be said for “undirected relief,” quite the same. It blesses not only -him who receives (when he is worthy; and when he is not, upon his own -head be it) but him who gives. To those uncalculating persons who, -despite the protests of the organized charitable, concede a certain -moral value to the spontaneous impulses of the heart and read in the -word “relief” a double meaning, the office of the mere distributor is -imperfectly sacred. He is even without scriptural authority, and lives -in the perpetual challenge of a moral _quo warranto_. Nevertheless -he is not without his uses. He is a tapper of tills that do not open -automatically. He is almoner to the uncompassionate, who but for -him would give no alms. He negotiates unnatural but not censurable -relations between selfishness and ingratitude. The good that he does is -purely material. He makes two leaves of fat to grow where but one grew -before, lessens the sum of gastric pangs and dorsal chills. All this is -something, certainly, but it generates no warm and elevated sentiments -and does nothing in mitigation of the poor’s animosity to the rich. -Organized charity is an insipid and savorless thing; its place among -moral agencies is no higher than that of root beer. - -Christ did not say, “Sell that thou hast and give to the church to -give to the poor.” He did not mention the Associated Charities of the -period. I do not find the words, “The Little Sisters of the Poor ye -have always with you,” nor, “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least -of these Dorcas societies ye have done it unto me.” Nowhere do I find -myself commanded to enable others to comfort the afflicted and visit -the sick and those in prison. Nowhere is recorded God’s blessing upon -him who makes himself a part of a charity machine—no, not even if he -be the guiding lever of the whole mechanism. - -Organized charity is a delusion and a snare. It enables Munniglut to -think himself a good man for paying annual dues and buying transferable -meal tickets. Munniglut is not thereby a good man. On the Last Great -Day, when he cowers in the Ineffable Presence and is asked for an -accounting it will not profit him to say, “Hearing that A was in want, -I gave money for his need to B.” Nor will it advantage B to say, “When -A was in distress I asked C to relieve him, and myself allotted the -relief according to a resolution of D, E and F.” - -There are blessings and benefactions that one would willingly -forego—among them the poor. Quack remedies for poverty amuse; a real -specific would kindle a noble enthusiasm. Yet the world would lose much -by it; human nature would suffer a change for the worse. Happily and -unhappily, poverty is not abolishable: “The poor ye have always with -you” is a sentence that can never become unintelligible. Effect of a -thousand permanent causes, poverty is invincible, eternal. And since we -must have it let us thank God for it and avail ourselves of all its -advantages to mind and character. He who is not good to the deserving -poor; who knows not those of his immediate environment; who goes not -among them making inquiry of their personal needs; who does not wish -with all his heart and strive with both his hands to relieve them—is -wasteful and improvident. - - - - - EMANCIPATED WOMAN - - -What I should like to know is, how “the enlargement of woman’s sphere” -by her entrance into various activities of commercial, professional -and industrial life benefits the sex. It may please Helen Gougar and -satisfy her sense of logical accuracy to say, as she does: “We women -must work in order to fill the places left vacant by liquor-drinking -men.” But who filled these places before? Did they remain vacant, or -were there then disappointed applicants, as now? If my memory serves, -there has been no time in the period that it covers when the supply -of workers—abstemious male workers—was not in excess of the demand. -That it has always been so is sufficiently attested by the universally -inadequate wage rate. - -Employers seldom fail, and never for long, to get all the workmen they -need. The field into which women have put their sickles was already -overcrowded with reapers. Whatever employment women have obtained -has been got by displacing men—who would otherwise be supporting -women. Where is the general advantage? We may shout “high tariff,” -“combination of capital,” “demonetization of silver,” and what not, but -if searching for the cause of augmented poverty and crime, “industrial -discontent” and the tramp evil, instead of dogmatically expounding it, -we should take some account of this enormous, sudden addition to the -number of workers seeking work. If any one thinks that within the brief -period of a generation the visible supply of labor can be enormously -augmented without profoundly affecting the stability of things and -disastrously touching the interests of wage-workers let no rude -voice dispel his dream of such maleficent agencies as his slumbrous -understanding may joy to affirm. And let our Widows of Ashur unlung -themselves in advocacy of quack remedies for evils of which themselves -are cause; it remains true that when the contention of two lions for -one bone is exacerbated by the accession of a lioness the squabble is -not composable by stirring up some bears in the cage adjacent. - -Indubitably a woman is under no obligation to sacrifice herself to -the good of her sex by foregoing needed employment in the hope that -it may fall to a man gifted with dependent women. Nevertheless our -congratulations are more intelligent when bestowed upon her individual -head than when sifted into the hair of all Eve’s daughters. This -is a world of complexities, in which the lines of interest are so -intertangled as frequently to transgress that of sex; and one ambitious -to help but half the race may profitably know that every effort to that -end provokes a counterbalancing mischief. The “enlargement of woman’s -opportunities” has benefited individual women. It has not benefited the -sex as a whole, and has distinctly damaged the race. The mind that can -not discern a score of great and irreparable general evils distinctly -traceable to “emancipation of woman” is as impregnable to the light as -a toad in a rock. - -A marked demerit of the new order of things—the _régime_ of female -commercial service—is that its main advantage accrues, not to the -race, not to the sex, not to the class, not to the individual woman, -but to the person of least need and worth—the male employer. (Female -employers in any considerable number there will not be, but those that -we have could give the male ones profitable instruction in grinding -the faces of their employees.) This constant increase of the army -of labor—always and everywhere too large for the work in sight—by -accession of a new contingent of natural oppressibles makes the very -teeth of old Munniglut thrill with a poignant delight. It brings in -that situation known as two laborers seeking one job—and one of them a -person whose bones he can easily grind to make his bread; and Munniglut -is a miller of skill and experience, dusted all over with the evidence -of his useful craft. When Heaven has assisted the Daughters of Hope -to open to women a new “avenue of opportunities” the first to enter -and walk therein, like God in the Garden of Eden, is the good Mr. -Munniglut, contentedly smoothing the folds out of the superior slope of -his paunch, exuding the peculiar aroma of his oleaginous personality -and larding the new roadway with the overflow of a righteousness -stimulated to action by relish of his own identity. And ever thereafter -the subtle suggestion of a fat philistinism lingers along that path of -progress like an assertion of a possessory right. - -It is God’s own crystal truth that in dealing with women unfortunate -enough to be compelled to earn their own living and fortunate enough to -have wrested from Fate an opportunity to do so, men of business and -affairs treat them with about the same delicate consideration that they -show to dogs and horses of the inferior breeds. It does not commonly -occur to the wealthy “professional man,” or “prominent merchant,” to -be ashamed to add to his yearly thousands a part of the salary justly -due to his female bookkeeper or typewriter, who sits before him all day -with an empty belly in order to have an habilimented back. He has a -vague, hazy notion that the law of supply and demand is mandatory, and -that in submitting himself to it by paying her a half of what he would -have to pay a man of inferior efficiency he is supplying the world -with a noble example of obedience. I must take the liberty to remind -him that the law of supply and demand is not imperative; it is not a -statute but a phenomenon. He may reply: “It is imperative; the penalty -for disobedience is failure. If I pay more in salaries and wages than -I need to, my competitor will not; and with that advantage he will -drive me from the field.” If his margin of profit is so small that he -must eke it out by coining the sweat of his workwomen into nickels I’ve -nothing to say to him. Let him adopt in peace the motto, “I cheat to -eat.” I do not know why he should eat, but Nature, who has provided -sustenance for the worming sparrow, the sparrowing owl and the owling -eagle, approves the needy man of prey and makes a place for him at -table. - -Human nature is pretty well balanced; for every lacking virtue there -is a rough substitute that will serve at a pinch—as cunning is the -wisdom of the unwise, and ferocity the courage of the coward. Nobody is -altogether bad; the scoundrel who has grown rich by underpaying workmen -in his factory will sometimes endow an asylum for indigent seamen. To -oppress one’s own workmen, and provide for the workmen of a neighbor—to -skin those in charge of one’s own interests while cottoning and oiling -the residuary product of another’s skinnery—that is not very good -benevolence, nor very good sense, but it serves in place of both. The -man who eats _pâté de fois gras_ in the sweat of his girl cashier’s -face, or wears purple and fine linen in order that his typewriter may -have an eocene gown and a pliocene hat, seems a tolerably satisfactory -specimen of the genus thief; but let us not forget that in his own -home—a fairly good one—he may enjoy and merit that highest and most -honorable title on the scroll of woman’s favor, “a good provider.” One -having a claim to that glittering distinction should enjoy immunity -from the coarse and troublesome question, “From whose backs and bellies -do you provide?” - -So much for the material results to the sex. What are the moral -results? One does not like to speak of them, particularly to those who -do not and can not know—to good women in whose innocent minds female -immorality is inseparable from flashy gowning and the painted face; -to foolish, book-taught men who honestly believe in some protective -sanctity that hedges womanhood. If men of the world with years enough -to have lived out of the old _régime_ into the new would testify -in this matter there would ensue a great rattling of dry bones in -bodices of reform-ladies. Nay, if the young man about town, knowing -nothing of how things were in the “dark backward and absym of time,” -but something of the moral distance between even so free-running a -creature as the society girl and the average working girl of the -factory, the shop and the office, would speak out (under assurance of -immunity from prosecution) his testimony would be a surprise to the -cartilaginous virgins, blowsy matrons, acrid relicts and hairy males -of Emancipation. It would pain, too, some very worthy but unobservant -persons not in sympathy with “the cause.” - -Certain significant facts are within the purview of all but the very -young and the comfortably blind. To the woman of to-day the man of -to-day is imperfectly polite. In place of reverence he gives her -“deference;” to the language of compliment has succeeded the language -of raillery. Men have almost forgotten how to bow. Doubtless the -advanced female prefers the new manner, as may some of her less forward -sisters, thinking it more sincere. It is not; our giddy grandfather -talked high-flown nonsense because his heart had tangled his tongue. -He treated his woman more civilly than we ours because he loved her -better. He never had seen her on the “rostrum” and in the lobby, never -had heard her in advocacy of herself, never had read her confessions -of his sins, never had felt the stress of her competition, nor himself -assisted by daily personal contact in rubbing the bloom off her. He did -not know that her virtues were due to her secluded life, but thought, -dear old boy, that they were a gift of God. - - - - - THE OPPOSING SEX - - -Emancipation of woman is not of American invention. The “movement,” -like most others that are truly momentous, began in Europe and has -broken through and broken down more formidable barriers of law, -custom and tradition there than here. It is not true, as dogmatically -affirmed by a noted American writer, that the English married woman -is “virtually a bondwoman” to her husband; that “she can hardly go -and come without his consent, and usually he does not consent;” that -“all she has is his.” If there is such a thing as “the bitterness of -the English married woman to the law,” underlying it there is such a -thing as ignorance of what the law is. The “subjection of woman,” as it -exists to-day in England, is customary and traditionary—a social, not -a legal, subjection. Nowhere has law so sharply challenged that male -dominion whose seat is in the harder muscles, the larger brain and the -coarser heart. And the law, it may be worth while to point out, was -not of woman born; nor was it handed down out of Heaven engraved on -tables of stone. Learned English judges have decided that virtually, -even the term “marital rights” has no longer a legal signification. As -one writer puts it, “The law has relaxed the husband’s control over his -wife’s person and fortune, bit by bit, until legally it has left him -nothing but the power to prevent her, if he is so disposed and arrives -in time, from jumping out of the window.” He will find it greatly to -his interest to arrive in time when he conveniently can, and to be so -disposed, for the husband is still liable for the wife’s torts; and if -she make the leap he may have to pay for the telescoping of a subjacent -hat or two. - -In England it is Tyrant Man himself who is chafing in his chain. Not -only is a husband still liable for the wrongs committed by the wife -whom he has no longer the power to restrain from committing them, but -in many ways—in one very important way—his obligation to her remains -intact after she has had the self-sacrifice to surrender all obligation -to him. Moreover, if his wife has a separate estate he has to endure -the pain of seeing it hedged about from her creditors (themselves not -altogether happy in the contemplation) with restrictions which do -not hamper the right of recourse against his own. Doubtless all this -is not without a softening effect upon his character, smoothing down -his dispositional asperities and endowing him day by day with fresh -accretions of humility; and that is good for him. I do not say that -woman’s autonomy is not among the most efficacious agencies for man’s -reclamation from the sin of pride; I only say that it is not indigenous -to this country, the sweet, sweet home of the assassiness, the happy -hunting ground of the whiplady, the paradise of the vitrioleuse. - -If the protagonists of woman suffrage are frank they are shallow; if -wise, uncandid. Continually they affirm their conviction that political -power in the hands of women will give us better government. To proof of -that proposition they address all the powers that they have and marshal -such facts as can be compelled to serve under their flag. They either -think or profess to think that if they can show that women’s votes will -purify politics they will have proved their case. That is not true; -the strongest objection to woman suffrage would remain untouched. Pure -politics is desirable, certainly, but it is not the chief concern of -the best and most intelligent citizens. Good government is devoutly -to be wished, but more than good government we need good women. If all -our public affairs were to be ordered with the goodness and wisdom -of angels, and this state of perfection were obtained by sacrifice -of any of those qualities which make the best of our women, if not -what they should be, nor what the mindless male thinks them, at least -what they are, we should have purchased the advantage too dearly. The -effect of woman suffrage upon the country is of secondary importance: -the question for profitable consideration is, How will it affect the -character of woman? He who does not see in the goodness and charm -of such women as are good and charming something incalculably more -precious than any degree of political purity or national prosperity may -be a patriot; but also he has the distinction to be a pig. - -I should like to ask the gallant gentlemen who vote for removal of -woman’s political disability if they have observed in the minds and -manners of the women in the forefront of the movement nothing “ominous -and drear.” Are not these women different—I don’t say worse, just -different—from the best types of women of peace who are not exhibits -and audibles? If they are different is the difference of such a nature -as to encourage a hope that activity in public affairs will work an -improvement in Woman? Is “the glare of publicity” good for her growth -in grace and winsomeness? Would a sane and sensible husband or lover -willingly forego in wife or sweetheart all that the colonels of her -sex appear to lack, or find in her all that they appear to have and to -value? - -A few more questions—addressed more particularly to veteran observers -than to those to whom the world is new and strange. Do you think that -when all women are armed with the ballot they will compel a return to -the old _régime_ of reverence and delicate consideration—extorting -by their power the tribute once voluntarily paid to their weakness? -Is there any known way by which women can at the same time be our -political equals and our social superiors, our competitors in the sharp -and bitter struggle for glory, gain or bread, and the objects of our -unselfish and undiminished devotion? The present predicts the future; -of the foreshadow of the coming event all sensitive female hearts feel -the chill. For whatever advantages, real or illusory, some women enjoy -under this _régime_ of partial “emancipation” all women pay. Of the -coin in which payment is made the shouldering shouters of the sex have -not a groat and can bear the situation with tranquillity. They have -either passed the age of masculine attention or were born without the -means to its accroachment. Dwelling in the open bog, they can afford to -defy eviction. - -While men did nearly all the writing and public speaking of the world, -setting so the fashion in thought, women, naturally extolled with -true sexual extravagance, came to be considered, even by themselves, -a very superior order of beings, with something in them of divinity -which was denied to man. Not only were they represented as better, -generally, than men, as indeed anybody could see that they were, but -their goodness was supposed to be a kind of spiritual endowment and -more or less independent of environmental influences. We are changing -all that. Women are beginning to do much of the writing and public -speaking, and they are sure to disclose, even to the unthinking, -certain defects of character in themselves which their silence had -veiled. Their competition, too, in the several kinds of affairs will -slowly but certainly provoke resentment, and moreover expose them to -temptations that will distinctly lower the morality of their sex. All -these changes, and many more having a similar effect and significance, -are occurring with rapidity, and the stated results are already visible -to even the blindest observation. In accurate forecast of the new order -of things conjecture fails, but so much we know: the woman-superstition -has already received its death wound and must soon expire. - -Everywhere, and in no reverential spirit, men are questioning the -dear old idolatry; not “sapping a solemn creed with solemn sneer,” -but dispassionately applying to its basic doctrine the methods -of scientific criticism. In the various movements—none of them -consciously iconoclastic—engaged in overthrowing this oddest of modern -superstitions there is something to deprecate, and even deplore, but -the superstition can be spared. It never had much in it that was either -creditable or profitable, and all through its rituals ran a note of -insincerity which was partly Nature’s protest against the rites, but -partly, too, hypocrisy. There is no danger that good men will ever -cease to respect and love good women, and if bad men ever cease to -adore them for their sex when not beating them for their virtues the -gain in consistency will partly offset the loss in religious ecstasy. - -Let the patriot abandon his fear, his betters their hope, that only -the low class woman will vote—the unlettered wench of the slums, the -raddled hag of the dives, the war-painted _protégée_ of the police. -Into the vortex of politics goes every floating thing that is free to -move. The summons to the polls will be imperative and incessant. Duty -will thunder it from every platform, conscience whisper it into every -ear; pride, interest, the lust of victory—all the motives that impel -men to partisan activity will act with the same power upon women as -upon men; and to all the other forces flowing irresistibly toward the -polls will be added the suasion of men themselves. The price of votes -will not decline because of the increased supply, although it will in -most instances be offered in currencies too subtle to be counted. As -now, the honest and respectable elector will habitually take bribes -in the invisible coin of the realm of Sentiment—a mintage peculiarly -valued by woman. For one reason or another all women will vote, even -those who now view the “right” with aversion. The observer who has -marked the strength and activity of the forces pent in the dark drink -of politics and given off in the act of bibation will not expect -inaction in the victim of the “habit,” be he male or she female. In the -partisan, conviction is compulsion—opinions bear fruit in conduct. The -partisan thinks in deeds, and woman is by nature a partisan—a blessing -for which the Lord has never made her male relatives and friends -sufficiently thankful. Not a mere man of them would have the effrontery -to ask her toleration if she were not. - -Depend upon it, the full strength of the female vote will eventually be -cast at every election. And it would be well indeed for civilization -and the interests of the race if woman suffrage meant no more than -going to the polling-place and polling—which clearly is all that it -has been thought out to mean by the headless horsemen spurring their -new hobbies bravely at the tail of the procession. That would be a -very simple matter; the opposition based upon the impropriety of the -female rubbing shoulders at the polls with such scurvy blackguards -as ourselves may with advantage be retired from service. Nor is it -particularly important what men and measures the women will vote for. -By one means or another Tyrant Man will have his way; the Opposing -Sex can merely obstruct him in his way of having it. And should that -obstruction ever be too pronounced, the party line and the sex line -coinciding, woman suffrage will then and thenceforth be no more, and -the “majority” will again rule. In the politics of this bad world -majorities are of several kinds. One of the most “overwhelming” is made -up of these simple elements: (1) a numerical minority; (2) a military -superiority. - -If not a single election were ever in any degree affected by it, the -introduction of woman suffrage into our scheme of manners and morals -would nevertheless be one of the most momentous and mischievous events -of modern history. Compared with the action of this destructive -solvent, that of all other disintegrating agencies concerned in our -decivilization is as the languorous indiligence of rosewater to the -mordant fury of nitric acid. - -Lively Woman is indeed, as Carlyle would put it, “hell-bent” on -purification of politics by adding herself as an ingredient. It is -unlikely that the injection of her personality into the contention -(and politics is essentially a contention) will allay any animosities, -sweeten any tempers, elevate any motives. The strifes of women are -distinctly meaner than those of men—which are out of all reason mean; -their methods of overcoming opponents distinctly more unscrupulous. -That their participation in politics will notably alter the conditions -of the game is not to be denied; so much, unfortunately, is obvious; -but that it will make the player less malignant and the playing more -honorable is a proposition in support of which one can utter a deal of -gorgeous nonsense with a less insupportable sense of its unfitness than -in the service of almost any other delusion. - -The frosty truth is that except in the home the influence of women is -not elevating, but debasing. When they stoop to uplift men who need -uplifting, they are themselves pulled down, and that is all that is -accomplished. Wherever they come into familiar contact with men who -are not their relatives they impart nothing, they receive all; they -do not affect us with their notions of morality; we infect them with -ours. In the last forty years, in this country, they have entered a -hundred avenues of activity from which they were previously debarred -by unwritten law. They are found in the offices, the shops, the -factories; like Charles Lamb’s fugitive pigs, they have run up all -manner of streets. Does any one think that in that time there has -been an advance in professional, commercial and industrial morality? -Are lawyers more scrupulous, tradesmen more honest? When one has been -served by a “saleslady” does one leave the shop with a feebler sense -of injury than was formerly inspired by a transaction at the counter—a -duller consciousness of being oneself the commodity that has changed -hands? Have actresses elevated the stage to a moral altitude congenial -to the colder virtues? In studios of artists is the “sound of revelry -by night” invariably a deep, masculine bass? In literature are the -immoral books—the books dealing with questionable “questions”—always, -or even commonly, written by men? - -There is one direction in which “emancipation of woman” and enlargement -of her “sphere” have wrought reform: they have elevated the _personnel_ -of the little dinner party in the “private room.” Formerly, as any -veteran man-about-town can testify if he will, the female contingent of -the party was composed of persons altogether unspeakable. That element -now remains upon its reservation; among the superior advantages enjoyed -by the man-about-town of to-day is that of the companionship, at his -dinner _in camera_, of ladies having an honorable vocation. In the -corridors of the “French restaurant” the swish of Pseudonyma’s skirt -is no longer heard; she has been superseded by the Princess Tap-tap -(with Truckle & Cinch), by my lady Snip-snip (from the “emporium” of -Boltwhack & Co.), by Miss Chink-chink, who sits at the receipt of -customs in that severely un-French restaurant, the Maison Hash. That -the man-about-town has been morally elevated by this emancipation of -Girl from the seclusion of home to that of the “private room” is too -obvious for denial. Nothing so uplifts Tyrant Man as the table talk of -good young women who earn their own living. - -I do not wish to be altogether ironical about this rather serious -matter—not so much so as to forfeit anything of lucidity. Let me say, -then, in all earnestness and sobriety and simplicity of speech, what -is known to every worldly-wise male dweller in the cities, to every -scamp and scapegrace of the clubs, to every reformed sentimentalist -and every observer with a straight eye—namely, that in all the several -classes of young women in our cities who support, or partly support, -themselves in vocations that bring them into personal contact with -men, female chastity is a vanishing tradition. In the lives of the -“main and general” of these, all those _desiderata_ which have their -origin in personal purity, and cluster about it, and are its signs -and safeguards, have almost ceased to cut a figure. It is needless to -remind me that there are exceptions—I know that. With some of them I -have personal acquaintance, or think I have, and for them a respect -withheld from any woman of the rostrum who points to their misfortune -and calls it emancipation—to their need and calls it a spirit of -independence. It is not from these good girls that you will hear the -flippant boast of an unfettered life, with “freedom to develop;” nor is -it they who will be foremost and furious in denial and resentment of my -statements regarding the morals of their class. They do not know the -whole truth, thank Heaven, but they know enough for a deprecation too -deep to find relief in a cheap affirmation of woman’s purity, which is, -and always has been, the creature of seclusion. - -The fitness of women for political activity is not in present question; -I am considering the fitness of political activity for women. For -women as men say they are, wish them to be and try to think them, -it is unfit altogether—as unfit as anything else that “mixes them -up” with us, compelling a communication and association that are not -social. If we wish to have women who are different from ourselves in -knowledge, character, accomplishments, manners; as different mentally -as physically—and in these and in all other expressible differences -reside all the charms that they have for us—we must keep them, or they -must keep themselves, in an environment unlike our own. One would think -this obvious to the meanest capacity, and might even hope that it would -be understood by the Daughters of Thunder. Possibly the Advanced One, -hospitably accepting her karma, is not concerned to be charming to -“the likes o’ we”—would prefer the companionship of her blue gingham -umbrella, her corkscrew curls, her epicene audiences and her name in -the newspapers. Perhaps she is content with the comfort of her raucous -voice. Therein she is unwise, for self-interest is the first law. When -we no longer find women charming we may find a way to make them more -useful—more truly useful, even, than the speech-ladies would have them -make themselves by competition. Really, there is nothing in the world -between them and slavery but their power of interesting us; and that -has its origin in the very differences which the colonels of their sex -are striving to abolish. God has made no law of miracles and none of -his laws is going to be suspended in deference to woman’s desire to -achieve familiarity without contempt. If she wants to please she must -retain some scrap of novelty; if she desires our respect she must not -be always in evidence, disclosing the baser side of her character, as -in competition with us she must do—as we do to one another. Mrs. Edmund -Gosse, like “Ouida,” Mrs. Atherton, and all other women of brains, -thinks that the taking of unfair advantages—the lack of magnanimity—is -a leading characteristic of her sex. Mrs. Gosse adds, with reference to -men’s passive acquiescence in this monstrous folly of “emancipation,” -that possibly our quiet may be the calm before the storm; and she -utters this warning, which, also, more strongly, “Ouida” has uttered: -“How would it be with us if the men should suddenly rise _en masse_ and -throw the whole surging lot of us into convents and harems?” - -It is not likely that men will “rise _en masse_” to undo the mischief -wrought by noisy protagonists of woman suffrage working like beavers -to rear their airy fad upon the sandy foundation of masculine tolerance -and inattention. No rising will be needed. All that is required for -the wreck of their hopes is for a wave of reason to slide a little -farther up the sands of time, “loll out its large tongue, lick the -whole labor flat.” The work has prospered so far only because nobody -but its promoters has taken it seriously. It has not engaged attention -from those having the knowledge and the insight to discern beneath its -cap-and-bells and the motley that is its only wear a serious menace to -all that civilized men hold precious in woman. It is of the nature of -men—themselves cheerful polygamists, with no penitent intentions—to set -a high value upon chastity in woman. (We need not point out why they -do so; those to whom the reasons are not clear can profitably remain -in the valley of the shadow of ignorance.) Valuing it, they purpose -having it, or some considerable numerical presumption of it. As they -perceive that in a general way women are virtuous in proportion to the -remoteness of their lives and interests from the lives and interests of -men—their seclusion from the influences of which men’s own vices are -a main part—an easy and peaceful means will doubtless be found for -repression of the shouters. - -In the orchestration of mind, woman’s instruments might have kept -silence without injury to the volume and quality of the music; efface -the impress of her touch upon the world, and by those who come later -the blank must be diligently sought. Go to the top of any large city -and look about and below. It is not much that you will see, but it -represents an amazing advance from the conditions of primitive man. -Nowhere in the wide survey will you see the work of woman. It is all -the work of men’s hands, and before it was wrought into form and -substance, existed as conscious creations in men’s brains. Concealed -within the visible forms of buildings and ships—themselves miracles of -thought—lie such wonder-worlds of invention and discovery as no human -life is long enough to explore, no human understanding capacious enough -to hold in knowledge. If, like Asmodeus, we could rive the roofs and -see woman’s part of this prodigious exhibition—the things that she has -actually created with her brain—what kind of display would it be? It is -probable that all the intellectual energy expended by women from first -to last would not have sufficed, if directed into one channel, for the -genesis and evolution of the modern bicycle. - -“There is no sex in brain,” says the Female Militant. I beg her pardon: -there is sex in every organ, every tissue, every cell and atom of -the human body; but in nothing do men and women differ so widely, so -conspicuously, so essentially as in mind. They think after altogether -different methods; their mental processes are to a clear and competent -observation without resemblance to ours. So different is the mental -constitution of the two sexes that whereas all see not mainly with the -eye, but with the judgment, the understanding, even the outer aspect of -things is, I am persuaded, not the same to a woman that it is to a man. -I have taken some trouble to test this theory, with results of the most -interesting character, which I purpose giving to the world some day. It -is my conviction that if a man who had lived all his life in New York -were to become a woman while passing along Broadway she would be unable -to find her way home without inquiry. - -I once heard a woman who had playfully competed with men in a jumping -match gravely attribute her defeat to the trammeling of her skirt. -Similarly, women are pleased to explain their penury of mental -achievement by repressive education and custom. But even in regions -where they have ever had full freedom of the quarries they have not -builded themselves monuments. Nobody, for example, is holding them from -greatness in poetry, which needs no special education, and music, in -which they have always been specially educated; yet where is the great -poem by a woman? where the great musical composition? In the grammar of -literature what is the feminine of Homer, of Shakspeare, of Goethe, of -Hugo? What female names are the equivalents of the names of Beethoven, -Mozart, Chopin, Wagner? Women are not musicians—they “sing and play.” -In short, if woman had no better claim to respect and affection than -her brain; no sweeter charms than those of her reason; no means of -suasion but her power upon men’s convictions, she would long ago have -been “improved off the face of the earth.” As she is, men accord her -such homage as is compatible with contempt, such immunities as are -consistent with control; but whereas she is not altogether filled with -light, and is, moreover, imperfectly reverent, it is but right that in -obedience to scriptural injunction she keep silence in our churches -while we are worshipping Ourselves. - -She will not have it so, the good, good girl; as moral as the best of -us, she will be as intellectual as the rest of us. She will have out -her little taper and set the rivers of thought all ablaze, legging it -over the land from stream to stream till all are fired. She will widen -her sphere, forsooth, herself no wider than before. It is not enough -that we have edified her a pedestal and perform impossible rites in -celebration of her altitude and distinction. It does not suffice that -with never a smile we assure her that she is the superior sex. That she -is indubitably gifted with pulchritude and an unquestionable genius for -its embellishing; that Nature has endowed her with a prodigious knack -at accroachment, whereby the male of her species is lured to a suitable -doom—this does not satisfy her. No; she has taken unto herself in these -evil days that “intelligent discontent” which giveth its beloved fits. -To her flock of graces and virtues she must add our one poor ewe lamb -of brains. Well, I tell her that intellect is a monster which devours -beauty; that the woman of exceptional mind is exceptionally masculine -in face, figure, action. And so, with a reluctant farewell to Lovely -Woman, I humbly withdraw from her presence and hasten to overtake the -receding periphery of her “sphere.” - -One moment more, mesdames: I crave leave to estop your disfavor—which -were affliction and calamity—by “defining my position” in the words -of one of yourselves, who has said of me (though with reprehensible -exaggeration, believe me) that I hate woman and love women—have an -acute animosity to your sex, adoring each individual member of it. What -matters my opinion of your understandings so long as I am in bondage to -your charms? Moreover, there is one service of incomparable utility and -dignity for which I esteem you eminently fit—to be mothers of men. - - - - - A MAD WORLD - - -Let us suppose that in tracing its cycloidal curves through the -unthinkable reaches of space traversed by the solar system our planet -should pass through a “belt” of attenuated matter having the property -of dementing us! It is a conception easily enough entertained. That -space is full of malign conditions incontinuously distributed; that -we are at one time traversing a zone comparatively innocuous and at -another spinning through a region of infection; that away behind us in -the wake of our swirling flight are fields of plague and pain still -agitated by our passage through them,—all this is as good as known. It -is almost as certain as it is that in our little annual circle round -the sun are points at which we are stoned and brickbatted like a pig -in a potato-patch—pelted with little nodules of meteoric metal flung -like gravel, and bombarded with gigantic masses hurled by God knows -what? What strange adventures await us in those yet untraveled regions -toward which we speed?—into what malign conditions may we not at any -time plunge?—to the strength and stress of what frightful environment -may we not at last succumb? The subject lends itself readily enough to -a jest, but I am not jesting: it is really altogether probable that our -solar system, racing through space with inconceivable velocity, will -one day enter a region charged with something deleterious to the human -brain, minding us all madwise. - -By the way, dear reader, did you ever happen to consider the -possibility that you are a lunatic, and perhaps confined in an asylum? -It seems to you that you are not—that you go with freedom where you -will, and use a sweet reasonableness in all your works and ways; but to -many a lunatic it seems that he is Rameses II, or the Holkar of Indore. -Many a plunging maniac, ironed to the floor of a cell, believes himself -the Goddess of Liberty careering gaily through the Ten Commandments in -a chariot of gold. Of your own sanity and identity you have no evidence -that is any better than he has of his. More accurately, I have none of -mine; for anything I know, you do not exist, nor any one of all the -things with which I think myself familiarly conscious. All may be -fictions of my disordered imagination. I really know of but one reason -for doubting that I am an inmate of an asylum for the insane—namely, -the probability that there is nowhere any such thing as an asylum for -the insane. - -This kind of speculation has charms that get a good neck-hold upon -attention. For example, if I am really a lunatic, and the persons -and things that I seem to see about me have no objective existence, -what an ingenious though disordered imagination I must have! What a -clever _coup_ it was to invent Mr. Rockefeller and clothe him with the -attribute of permanence! With what amusing qualities I have endowed my -laird of Skibo, philanthropist. What a masterpiece of creative humor -is my Fatty Taft, statesman, taking himself seriously, even solemnly, -and persuading others to do the same! And this city of Washington, with -its motley population of silurians, parvenoodles and scamps pranking -unashamed in the light of day, and its saving contingent of the -forsaken righteous, their seed begging bread,—did Rabelais’ exuberant -fancy ever conceive so—but Rabelais is, perhaps, himself a conception. - -Surely he is no common maniac who has wrought out of nothing the -history, the philosophies, sciences, arts, laws, religions, politics -and morals of this imaginary world. Nay, the world itself, tumbling -uneasily through space like a beetle’s ball, is no mean achievement, -and I am proud of it. But the mental feat in which I take most -satisfaction, and which I doubt not is most diverting to my keepers, is -that of creating Mr. W. R. Hearst, pointing his eyes toward the White -House and endowing him with a perilous Jacksonian ambition to defile -it. The Hearst is distinctly a treasure. - -On the whole, I have done, I think, tolerably well, and when I -contemplate the fertility and originality of my inventions, the queer -unearthliness and grotesque actions of the characters whom I have -evolved, isolated and am cultivating, I cannot help thinking that if -Heaven had not made me a lunatic my peculiar talent might have made me -an entertaining writer. - - - - - THE AMERICAN SYCOPHANT - - - I - -An American writer holds this opinion: - -“If republican government had done nothing else than give independence -to American character and preserve it from the servility inseparable -from allegiance to kings, it would have accomplished a great work.” - -I do not doubt that the writer of that sentence believes that -republican government has actually wrought the change in human nature -that challenges his admiration. He is sure that his countrymen are not -servile; that before rank and power and wealth they stand covered, -maintaining “the godlike attitude of freedom and a man” and exulting in -it. It is not true; it is an immeasurable distance from the truth. We -are as abject toadies as any people on earth—more so than any European -people of similar civilization. When a foreign emperor, king, prince or -nobleman comes among us the rites of servility that we execute in his -honor are baser than any that he ever saw in his own land. - -In his blind and brutal scramble for social recognition in Europe, the -traveling American toady and impostor has many chances of success: he -is commonly unknown even to ministers and consuls of his own country, -and these complaisant gentlemen, rather than incur the risk of erring -on the wrong side, take him at his own valuation and push him in -where, his obscurity being again in his favor, he is treated with -kindly toleration and sometimes a genuine hospitality to which he has -no shadow of right nor title, and which, if he were a gentleman, he -would not accept if it were voluntarily proffered. It should be said in -mitigation that all this delirious abasement in no degree tempers his -rancor against the system of which the foreign notable is the flower -and fruit. He keeps his servility sweet by preserving it in the salt of -vilification. In the character of blatant blackguard the American snob -is so happily disguised that he does not know himself. - -An American newspaper once printed a portrait of her whom the -irreverent Briton had a reprehensible habit of designating colloquially -as “The Old Lady.” But the editor in question did not so designate -her—his simple American manhood and republican spirit would not admit -that she was a lady. So he contented himself with labeling the portrait -“Her Most Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria.” This incident raises an -important question. - -Important Question Raised by This Incident: Is it better to be a -subject and a man, or a citizen and a flunkey?—to own the sway of a -“gory tyrant” and retain one’s self-respect, or dwell, a “sovereign -elector,” in the land of liberty and disgrace it? - -However it may be customary for English newspapers to designate the -British sovereign, they are at least not addicted to sycophancy in -designating the rulers of other countries than their own. They would -not say “his Abracadabral Humptidumptiness Emperor William,” nor “his -Pestilency the Speaker of the American House of Representatives.” -They would not think of calling even the most ornately self-bemedaled -American sovereign elector “his Badgesty.” Of a foreign nobleman they -do not say “his lordship;” they will not admit that he is a lord; -nor when speaking of their own noblemen do they spell “lord” with a -capital L, as we do. In brief, when mentioning foreign dignitaries, -of whatever rank in their own countries, the English press is simply -and serviceably descriptive: the king is a king, the queen a queen, the -jack a jack. - -At the foundation of our political system lies the denial of hereditary -and artificial rank. Our fathers created this government as a protest -against all that, and all that it implies. They virtually declared that -kings and noblemen could not breathe here, and no American loyal to the -principles of the Revolution which made him one will ever say in his -own country “your majesty” or “your lordship”—the words would choke -him, and they ought. - -There are a few of us who keep the faith, who do not bow the knee -to Baäl, who hold fast to what is high and good in the doctrine of -political equality; in whose hearts the altar-fires of rational liberty -are kept aglow, beaconing the darkness of that “illimited inane” -where their countrymen, inaccessible to the light, wander witless in -the bogs of political unreason, alternately adoring and damning the -man-made gods of their own stature. Of that bright band fueling the -bale-fires of political consistency I can not profess myself a member -in good standing. In view of this general recreancy and treason to -the principles that our fathers established by the sword—having in -constant observation this almost universal hospitality to the solemn -nonsense of hereditary rank and unearned distinction, my faith in -practical realization of republican ideals is small, and I falter in -the work of their maintenance in the interest of a people for whom -they are too good. Seeing that we are immune to none of the evils -besetting monarchies, excepting those for which we secretly yearn; -that inequality of fortune and unjust allotment of honors are as -conspicuous among us as elsewhere; that the tyranny of individuals is -as intolerable and that of the public more so; that the law’s majesty -is a dream and its failure a fact—hearing everywhere the footfalls of -disorder and the watchwords of anarchy, I despair of the republic, and -catch in every breeze that blows “a cry prophetic of its fall.” - -I have seen a vast crowd of Americans change color like a field of -waving grain, as it uncovered to do such base homage to a petty -foreign princess as in her own country she had never received. I -have seen full-grown, self-respecting American citizens tremble and -go speechless when spoken to by an Emperor of Brazil. I have seen a -half-dozen American gentlemen in evening clothes trying to outdo one -another in the profundity of their bows in the presence of a nigger -King of Hawaii. I have not seen a Chinese “earl” borne in a chair -by four Americans officially detailed for the disgraceful service, -but it was done, and did not evoke a hiss of disapproval. And I did -not—thank Heaven!—observe the mob of American “simple republicans” that -dogged the heels of a disreputable little Frenchman who is a count by -courtesy only, and those of an English duke quietly attending to his -own business of making a living by being a married man. The republican -New World is no less impested with servility than the monarchical Old. -One form of government may be better than another for this purpose, -or for that; all are alike in the futility of their influence upon -human character. None can affect man’s instinctive abasement in the -contemplation of power and rank. - -Not only are we no less sycophantic than the people of monarchical -countries; we are more so. We grovel before their exalted personages, -and perform in addition a special prostration at the clay feet of our -own idols—which _they_ do not revere. The typical subject, hat-in-hand -to his sovereign and his nobleman, is a less shameful figure than -the citizen executing his genuflexion before the public of which he -is himself a part. No European court journal, no European courtier, -was ever more abject in subservience to the sovereign than are the -American newspaper and the American politician in flattery of the -people. Between the courtier and the demagogue I see nothing to choose. -They are moved by the same sentiment and fired by the same hope. Their -method is flattery, and their purpose profit. Their adulation is not a -testimony to character, but a tribute to power, or the shadow of power. -If this country were governed by its criminal idiots we should have the -same attestations of their goodness and wisdom, the same competition -for their favor, the same solemn doctrine that their voice is the voice -of God. Our children would be brought up to believe that an Idiotocracy -is the only natural and rational form of government. And for my part -I’m not at all sure that it would not be a pretty good political -system, as political systems go. I have always, however, cherished -a secret faith in Smithocracy, which seems to combine the advantages -of both the monarchical and the republican idea. If all the offices -were held for life by Smiths—the senior John being President—we should -have a settled and orderly succession to allay all fears of a perilous -interregnum and a sufficiently wide eligibility to feed the fires of -patriotic ambition. All could not be Smiths, but many could marry into -the family. - - - II - -The Harrison “progress” (notable as precursor to many another) left -its heritage of shame, whereof each abaser would gladly have washed -the hands of him in his neighbor’s basin. All this was in due order -of nature, and was to have been expected. It was a phenomenon of the -same character as, in the loves of the low, the squabbling consequent -upon satiety and shame. We could not slink out of sight; we could not -deny our sycophancy, albeit we might give it another name; but we -could somewhat medicine our impaired self-esteem by dealing damnation -round on one another. The blush of shame turns easily to the glow -of indignation, and many a hatred is kindled at the rosy flame of -self-contempt. Persons conscious of having dishonored themselves are -doubly sensitive to any indignity put upon them by others. The vices -and follies of human nature are interdependent; they are not singly -roused to activity. - -In my judgment, this entire incident of the President’s “tour” was -discreditable to President and people. I do not go into the question -of his motive in making it. Be that what it may, the manner of -it seems to me an outrage upon all the principles and sentiments -underlying republican institutions. In all but the name it was a “royal -progress”—the same costly ostentation, the same civic and military -pomp, the same solemn and senseless adulation, the same abasement of -spirit of the Many before the One. According to republican traditions -ten thousand times a year affirmed in every way in which affirmation -is possible, we fondly persuade ourselves that we hold as a true faith -in the hearts of our hearts that the One is the servant of the Many! -And it is no mere political catchphrase: he _is_ their servant; he _is_ -their creature; all that in him to which they grovel (dignifying and -justifying their instinctive and inherited servility by names as false -as anything in ceremonial imposture) they themselves have made, as -truly as the heathen has made the wooden god before which he performs -his unmanly rite. It is precisely this thing—the superiority of the -people to their servants—that constitutes, and was by our fathers -understood to constitute, the essential, fundamental difference between -the system which they uprooted and the one which they planted in its -stead. Deluded men! how little they guessed the length and strength -and vitality of the roots left in the soil of the centuries when the -noxious harvestage had been cast as rubbish to the void! - -I am no contestant for forms of government—no believer in either -the excellence or the permanence of any that has yet been devised. -That all men are created equal, in the best and highest sense of -the phrase, I hold, not as I observe it held by others, but as a -living faith. That an officeholder is a servant of the people; that -I am his political superior, owing him no deference, but entitled to -such deference from him as may be serviceable to keep him in mind of -his subordination—these are propositions which command my assent, -which I _feel_ to be true and which determine the character of my -personal relations with those whom they concern. That I should give my -hand, or bend my neck, or uncover my head to any man in mere homage -to, or recognition of, his office, great or small, is to me simply -inconceivable. These tricks of servility with the softened names -are the vestiges of an involuntary allegiance to power extraneous -to the performer. They represent in our American life obedience -and propitiation in their most primitive and odious forms. The man -who speaks of them as manifestations of a proper respect for “the -President’s great office” is either a rogue, a dupe or a journalist. -They come to us out of a fascinating but terrible past as survivals -of servitude. They speak a various language of oppression and the -superstition of man-worship; they carry forward the traditions of the -sceptre and the lash. Through the plaudits of the people may be heard -always the faint, far cry of the beaten slave. - -Respect? Respect the good. Respect the wise. Let the President look -to it that he belongs to one of these classes. His going about the -country in gorgeous state and barbaric splendor as the guest of a -thieving corporation, but at our expense—shining and dining and -swining—unsouling himself of clotted nonsense in pickled platitudes -calculated for the meridian of Coon Hollow, Indiana, but ingeniously -adapted to each water tank on the line of his absurd “progress,” does -not prove it, and the presumption of his “great office” is against him. - -Can you not see, poor misguided “fellow citizens,” how you permit your -political taskmasters to forge leg-chains of your follies and load you -down with them? Will nothing teach you that all this fuss-and-feathers, -all this ceremony, all this official gorgeousness and brass-banding, -this “manifestation of a proper respect for the nation’s head” has no -decent place in American life and American politics? Will no experience -open your stupid eyes to the fact that these shows are but absurd -imitations of royalty, to hold you silly while you are plundered by the -managers of the performance?—that while you toss your greasy caps in -air and sustain them by the ascending current of your senseless hurrahs -the programmers are going through your blessed pockets and exploiting -your holy dollars? No; you feel secure; power is of the People, and -you can effect a change of robbers every four years. Inestimable -privilege—to pull off the glutted leech and attach the lean one! And -you can not even choose among the lean leeches, but must accept those -designated by the programmers and showmen who have the reptiles in -stock! But then you are not “subjects;” you are “citizens”—there is -much in that. Your tyrant is not a “king;” he is a “president.” He -does not occupy a “throne,” but a “chair.” He does not succeed to it -by inheritance; he is pitchforked into it by the boss. Altogether, you -are distinctly better off than the Russian mujik who wears his shirt -outside his trousers and has never shaken hands with the Czar in all -his life. - - - III - -I hold that kings and noblemen can not breathe in America. When they -set foot upon our soil their royalty and their nobility fall away from -them like the chains of a slave in England. Whatever a man may be in -his own country, here he is only a man. My countrymen may do as they -please, but I make a stand for simple American manhood. I will meet -no man on this soil who expects from me a greater deference than I -could properly accord to a citizen of my own country. My allegiance -to republican institutions is slack through lack of faith in them as -a practical system of governing men as men are; all the same, I will -call no man “your majesty,” nor “your lordship.” For me to meet in my -own country a king or a nobleman would require as much preliminary -negotiation as an official interview between the Mufti of Moosh and -the Ahkoond of Swat. The form of salutation and the style and title of -address would have to be settled definitively and with precision. - -With some of my most esteemed and patriotic friends the matter is more -simple; their generosity in concession fills me with admiration and -their forbearance in demand challenges my astonishment as one of the -seven wonders of American hospitality. In fancy I see the ceremony of -their “presentation,” and as examples of simple republican dignity I -commend their posture to the youth of this fair New World, inviting -particular attention to the grand, bold curves of character shown in -the outlines of the human ham. - - - - - DOG - - - I - -Of all anachronisms and survivals the love of the dog is the most -reasonless. Because, some thousands of years ago, when we all wore -other skins than our own and sat enthroned upon our haunches, tearing -tangles of tendons from raw bones with our teeth, the dog ministered -purveyorwise to our savage needs, we go on cherishing him to this day, -when his only function is to lie sun-soaken on a door mat and insult -us as we pass in and out enamored of his fat superfluity. One dog in a -thousand earns his bread—and takes beefsteak; the other nine hundred -and ninety-nine we maintain in the style suitable to their state by -cheating the poor. - -The trouble with the modern dog is that he is the same old dog. Not -an inch has the rascal advanced along the line of evolution. We have -ceased to squat upon our naked haunches and gnaw raw bones, but this -companion of the childhood of the race, this vestigial remnant of -_juventus mundi_, this dismal anachronism, this veteran inharmony in -the scheme of things, the dog, has abated no jot nor tittle of his -unthinkable objectionableness since the morning stars sang together -and he had sat up all night to deflate a lung at the performance. -Possibly he may some time be improved otherwise than by effacement, -but at present he is still in that early stage of reform that is not -inconsistent with a mouthful of reformer. - -The dog is a detestable quadruped. He knows more ways to be -unmentionable than can be named in seven languages. The word “dog” is -a term of contempt the world over, as in the Scriptures. Poets have -sung and prosaists have prosed of the virtues of individual dogs, but -nobody has had the hardihood to eulogize the species. No man loves the -Dog; one loves his own dog, and there stops; the force of perverted -affection can no further go. He loves his own dog partly because that -thrifty creature, ever cadging when not marauding, tickles his vanity -by fawning upon him as the visible source of steaks and bones; and -partly because the graceless beast insults everybody else, harming as -many as he dares. - -The dog is an encampment of fleas, and a reservoir of sinful smells. -He is prone to bad manners as the sparks fly upward. He has no -discrimination; his loyalty is given to the person that feeds him, -be the same a blackguard or a murderer. He fights for his master -without regard to the justice of the quarrel—wherein he is no better -than a patriot or a soldier. There are men who are proud of a dog’s -love—and dogs love that kind of men. There are men who, having the -privilege of loving women, insult them by loving dogs; and there are -women who forgive and respect their canine rivals. Women, I am told, -are true cynolaters; they adore not only dogs, but Dog—not only their -own horrible little beasts, but those of others. But women will love -anything; they even love men who love dogs. I sometimes wonder how -it is that of all our women among whom the dog fad is prevalent none -has incurred the husband fad, or the child fad. Possibly there are -exceptions, but it seems to be a rule that the female heart which has -a dog in it is without other lodgers. There is not, probably, a very -wild and importunate demand for accommodation. For my part, I do not -know which is the less desirable, the tenant or the tenement. There -are dogs that submit to be kissed by women base enough to kiss them; -but they have a secret, coarse revenge. For the dog is a joker, withal, -gifted with as much humor as is consistent with biting. - -Miss Louise Imogen Guiney has replied to Mrs. Meynell’s proposal to -abolish the dog—a proposal which Miss Guiney has the originality to -call “original.” Divested of its “literature,” Miss Guiney’s plea for -the defendant consists, essentially, of the following assertions: (1) -Dogs are whatever their masters are. (2) They bite only those who fear -them. (3) Really vicious dogs are not found nearer than Constantinople. -(4) Only wronged dogs go mad, and hydrophobia is retaliation. (5) -In actions for damages for dog-bites judicial prejudice is against -the dog. (6) Dogs are continually saving children from death. (7) -Association with dogs begets piety, tenderness, mercy, loyalty, and so -forth; in brief, the dog is an elevating influence: “to walk modestly -at a dog’s heels is a certificate of merit!” As to that last, if -Miss Guiney had ever had the educating good fortune to observe the -dog himself walking modestly at the heels of another dog she would -perhaps have wished that it were not the custom of her sex to seal the -certificate of merit with a kiss. - -In all this absurd woman’s statements, thus fairly epitomized, there -is not one that is true—not one of which the essential falsity is not -evident, obvious, conspicuous to even the most delinquent observation. -Yet with the smartness and smirk of a graduating seminary girl refuting -Epicurus she marshals them against the awful truth that every year in -Europe and the United States alone more than one thousand human beings -die of hydrophobia—a fact which her controversial conscience does not -permit her to mention. The names on this needless death-roll are mostly -those of small folk, the sins of whose parents in cherishing their own -hereditary love of dogs is visited upon their children because these -have not the intelligence and agility to get out of the way. Or perhaps -they lack that tranquil courage upon which Miss Guiney relies to avert -the canine tooth from her own inedible shank. - -Finally this amusing illogician, this type and example of the female -controversialist, has the hardihood to hope that there may be fathers -who can see their children die the horrible death of hydrophobia -without wishing “to exile man’s best ideal of fidelity from the -hearthstones of civilization.” If we must have an “ideal of fidelity” -why not find it, not in the dog that kills the child, but in the father -that kills the dog? The profit of maintaining a standard and pattern -of the virtues (at considerable expense in the case of this insatiable -canine consumer) may be great, but are we so hard pushed that we must -go to the animals for it? In life and letters are there no men and -women whose names kindle enthusiasm and emulation? Is fidelity, is -devotion, is self-sacrifice unknown among ourselves? As a model of the -higher virtues why will not one’s mother serve at a pinch? And what is -the matter with Miss Guiney herself? She is faithful, at least to dogs, -whatever she may be to the hundreds of American children foredoomed to -a death of unthinkable agony from hydrophobia. - -There is perhaps a hope that when the sun’s returning flame shall gild -the hither end of the thirtieth century this savage and filthy brute, -the dog, will have ceased to “banquet on through a whole year” of human -fat and lean; that he will have been gathered to his variously unworthy -fathers to give an account of his deeds done in the body of man. In -the meantime, those of us who have not the enlightened understanding -to be enamored of him may endure with such fortitude as we can command -his feats of tooth among the shins and throats of those who have; we -ourselves are so few that there is a strong numerical presumption of -personal immunity. - -It is well to have a clear understanding of such inconveniences as -may be expected to ensue from dog-bites. That inconveniences and even -discomforts do sometimes flow from, or at least follow, the mischance -of being bitten by dogs, even the sturdiest champion of “man’s best -friend” will admit when not heated by controversy. True, he is -indisposed to sympathy for those incurring the inconveniences and -discomforts, but against this apparent incompassion may be offset his -indubitable sympathy with the dog. No one is altogether heartless. - -Amongst the several disadvantages of a close personal connection with -the canine tooth, the disorder known as hydrophobia has long held an -undisputed primacy. The existence of this ailment is attested by so -many witnesses, many of whom, belonging to the profession of medicine, -speak with a certain authority, that even the breeders and lovers -of snap-dogs are compelled reluctantly to concede it, though as a -rule they stoutly deny that it is imparted by the dog. In their view, -hydrophobia is a theory, not a condition. The patient, even if he is -a babe, imagines himself to have it, and acting upon that unsupported -assumption or hypothesis, suffers and dies in the attempt to square his -conduct with his opinions. It seems there is firmer ground for their -view of the matter than the rest of us have been willing to admit. -There is such a thing, doubtless, as hydrophobia proper, but also there -is such another thing as pseudo-hydrophobia, or hydrophobia improper. - -Pseudo-hydrophobia, the physicians explain, is caused by fear of -hydrophobia. The patient, having been chewed by a healthy and harmless -dog, broods upon his imaginary peril, solicitously watches his -imaginary symptoms and finally persuading himself of their reality, -puts them on exhibition as he understands them. He runs about (when -permitted) on his hands and knees, growls, barks, howls and, in default -of a tail, wags the part of him where it would be if he had it. In a -few days he is gone before, a victim to his lack of confidence in man’s -best friend. - -The number of cases of pseudo-hydrophobia, relative to those of true -hydrophobia, is not definitely known, the medical records having been -imperfectly made and never collated; champions of the snap-dog, as -intimated, believe it is many to nothing. That being so (they argue) -the animal is entirely exonerated and leaves the discussion without a -stain upon his reputation. - -But that is feeble reasoning; even if we grant their premises we can -not embrace their conclusion. In the first place, it hurts to be bitten -by a dog, as the dog himself audibly confesses when bitten by another -dog. Furthermore, pseudo-hydrophobia is quite as fatal as if it were a -legitimate product of the bite, not a result of the terror which that -mischance inspires. - -Human nature being what it is, and well known to the dog to be what -it is, we have a right to expect that the creature will take our -weaknesses into consideration—that he will respect our addiction to -reasonless panic, even as we respect his when, as we commonly do, we -refrain from attaching tinware to his tail. A dog that runs himself -to death to evade a kitchen utensil which could not possibly harm -him, and which if he did not flee would not pursue, is the author -of his own undoing in precisely the same sense as is the victim of -pseudo-hydrophobia. He is slain by a theory. Yet the wicked boy that -set him going is not blameless, and no one would be so zealous and -strenuous in his prosecution as the cynolater, the adorer of dogs, the -person who holds them guiltless of pseudo-hydrophobia. - - - II - -Mr. Nicholas Smith, while United States consul at Liege, wrote, or -caused to be written, an official report, wickedly, wilfully and -maliciously designed to abridge the privileges, augment the ills -and impair the honorable status of the domestic dog. In the very -beginning of this report Mr. Smith manifests his animus by stigmatizing -the domestic dog as an “hereditary loafer;” and having “hurled the -allegation,” affirms “the dawn of a (Belgian) new era” wherein the -pampered menial will loaf no more. There is to be no more sun-soaking -on door mats having a southern exposure, no more usurpation of the -warmest segment of the family semicircle, no more personal solicitation -of cheer at the domestic board. The dog’s place in the social scale -is no longer to be determined by considerations of sentiment, but will -be the result of cold commercial calculation, and so fixed as best to -serve the ends of industrial expediency. All this in Belgium, where -the dog is already in active service as a beast of burden and draught; -doubtless the transition to that humble condition from his present and -immemorial social elevation in less advanced countries will be slow and -characterized by bitter factional strife. America, especially, although -ever accessible to the infection of new and profitable ideas, will be -slow to accept so radical a subversion of a social superstructure that -almost may be said to rest upon the domestic dog as a basic verity. - -The dogs are our only true “leisure class” (even our tramps are -sometimes compelled to engage in such simple industries as are possible -in the county jail) and we are justly proud of them. Dogs toil not, -neither spin, yet Solomon in all his glory was not a dog. Instead of -making them hewers of wood and drawers of water, it would be more -consonant with the Anglomaniacal and general Old World spirit, now -so dominant in the councils of the nation, to make them “hereditary -legislators.” And Mr. Smith must permit me to add, with a special -significance, that history records an instance of even a horse making a -fairly good consul. - -Mr. Smith avers with obvious satisfaction that in Liege twice as many -draught dogs as horses are seen in the streets, attached to vehicles. -He regards “a gaily painted cart” drawn by “a well fed dog” and driven -by a well fed (and gaily painted) woman as a “pleasing vision.” I do -not; I should prefer to see the dog sitting at the receipt of steaks -and chops and the lady devoting herself to the amelioration of the -condition of the universe and the manufacture of poetry and stories -that are not true. A more pleasing vision, too, one endeared to eye -and heart by immemorial use and wont, is that of stranger and dog -indulging in the pleasures of the chase—stranger a little ahead—while -the woman in the case manifests a characteristically compassionate -solicitude lest the gentleman’s trousers do not match Fido’s mustache. -It is, indeed, impossible to regard with any degree of approval the -degradation to commercial utility of two so noble animals as Dog and -Woman; and if Man had joined them together by driving-reins I should -hope that God would put them asunder, even if the reins were held -by Dog. There would no doubt be a distinct gain as well as a certain -artistic fitness in unyoking the strong-minded female of our species -from the chariot of progress and yoking her to the apple-cart or -fish-wagon, but imminence of the draughtwoman is not foreshadowed in -the report of our consul at Liege. - -Mr. Smith’s estimate of the number of dogs in this country at seven -millions is a moderate one, it must be confessed, and can hardly have -been based on observations by moonlight in a suburban village; his -estimate of the effective strength of the average dog at five hundred -pounds is probably about right, as will be attested by any intelligent -boy who in a campaign against an orchard has experienced detention by -the Cerberus of the place. Taking his own figures, Mr. Smith calculates -that we have in this country three-and-a-half billion pounds of “idle -dog power.” But this statement is more ingenious than ingenuous; it -gives, as doubtless it was intended to give, the impression that we -have only idle dogs, whereas of all mundane forces the domestic dog is -most easily stirred to action. His expense of energy in pursuit of the -harmless, necessary flea, for example, is prodigious; and he is not -infrequently seen in chase of his own tail, with an activity scarcely -inferior. If there is anything worth while in accepted theories of the -conversion and conservation of force these gigantic energies are by no -means wasted; they reappear as heat, light and electricity, modifying -climate, reducing gas bills and assisting in propulsion of street cars. -Even in baying the moon and terrifying visitors and bypassers, the dog -releases a certain amount of vibratory force which through various -mutations of its wave-length may do its part in cooking a steak or -gratifying the olfactory nerve by throwing fresh perfume on the violet. -Evidently the commercial advantages of deposing the dog from his -position of Exalted Personage and subduing him to that of Motor would -not be all clear gain. He would no longer have the spirit to send, -Whitmanwise, his barbarous but beneficent yawp over the housetops, -nor the leisure to throw off vast quantities of energy by centrifugal -efforts at the conquest of his tail. As to the fleas, he would accept -them with apathetic satisfaction as preventives of thought upon his -fallen fortunes. - -Having observed with attention and considered with seriousness, a -respectable authority declares his conviction that the dog, as we have -the happiness to know him, is dreadfully bored by civilization. This -is one of the gravest accusations that the friends of progress and -light have been called out to meet—a challenge that it is impossible to -ignore and unprofitable to evade; for the dog as we have the happiness -to know him is the only dog that we have the happiness really to know. -The wolf is hardly a dog within the meaning of the law, nor is the -scalp-yielding coyote, whether he howls or merely sings and plays the -piano; moreover, these are beyond the pale of civilization and outside -the scope of our sympathies. - -With the dog it is different. His place is among us; he is with us and -of us—a part of our life and love. If we are maintaining and promoting -a condition of things that fatigues him it is befitting that we mend -our ways lest, shaking the carpet dust from his feet and the tenderloin -steaks from his teeth, he depart from our midst and connect himself -with the enchanted life of the thrilling barbarian. We can not afford -to lose him. The cynophobes may call him a “survival” and sneer at his -exhausted mandate—albeit, as Darwin points out, they are indebted for -their sneer to his own habit of uncovering his teeth to bite; they -may seek to cast opprobrium upon the nature of our affection for him -by pronouncing it hereditary—a bequest from our primitive ancestors, -for whom he performed important service in other ways than depriving -visitors of their tendons; but quite the same we should miss him at -his meal time and in the (but for him) silent watches of the night. -We should miss his bark and his bite, the feel of his forefeet upon -our shirt-fronts, the frou-frou of his dusty sides against our nether -habiliments. More than all, we should miss and mourn that visible -yearning for chops and steaks, which he has persuaded us to accept as -the lovelight of his eye and a tribute to our personal worth. We must -keep the dog, and to that end find means to abate his weariness of us -and our ways. - -Doubtless much might be done to reclaim our dogs from their uncheerful -state of mind by abstention from debate on the protective tariff; -by excluding them from the churches, at least during the sermons; -by keeping them off the streets and out of hearing when rites of -prostration are in performance before visiting notables; by forbidding -anyone to read aloud in their hearing the more phrenetic articles in -the newspapers, and by educating them to the belief that labor and -capital are illusions. A limitation of the annual output of popular -novels would undoubtedly reduce the dejection, which could be still -further mitigated by abolition of the more successful magazines. If -the dialect story or poem could be prohibited, under severe penalties, -the sum of night-howling (erroneously attributed to lunar influence) -would experience an audible decrement, which, also, would enable the -fire department to augment its own uproar without reproach. There -is, indeed, a considerable number of ways in which we might effect a -double reform—promoting the advantage of Man, as well as medicating the -mental fatigue of Dog. For another example, it would be “a boon and a -blessing to men” if society would put to death, or at least banish, the -millman or manufacturer who persists in apprising the entire community -many times a day by means of a steam whistle that it is time for his -oppressed employees (every one of whom has a gold watch) to go to work -or to leave off. Such things not only make a dog tired, they make a -man mad. They answer with an accented affirmative Truthful James’s -plaintive inquiry, - - Is civilization a failure, - Or is the Caucasian played out? - -Unquestionably, from his advantageous point of view as a looker-on at -the game, the dog is justified in the conviction that they are. - - - - - THE ANCESTRAL BOND - - -A well-known citizen of Ohio once discovered another man of the same -name exactly resembling him, and writing a “hand” which, including -the signature, he was unable to distinguish from his own. The two men -were unable to discover any blood relationship between them. It is -nevertheless almost certain that a relationship existed, though it -may have been so remote a degree that the familiar term “forty-second -cousin” would not have exaggerated the slenderness of the tie. The -phenomena of heredity seem to me to have been inattentively noted, its -laws imperfectly understood, even by Herbert Spencer and the prophets. -My own small study in this amazing field convinces me that a man is -the sum of his ancestors; that his character, moral and intellectual, -is determined before his birth. His environment with all its varied -suasions, its agencies of good and evil; breeding, training, interest, -experience and the rest of it—have less to do with the matter and can -not annul the sentence passed upon him at conception, compelling him -to be what he is. - -Man is the hither end of an immeasurable line extending back to the -ultimate Adam—or, as we scientists prefer to name him, Protoplasmos. -Man travels, not the mental road that he would, but the one that he -must—is pushed this way and that by the resultant of all the forces -behind him; for each member of the ancestral line, though dead, yet -pusheth. In one of what Dr. Holmes calls his “medicated novels,” _The -Guardian Angel_, this truth is most admirably and lucidly set forth -with abundant instance and copious exposition. Upon another work of -his—in which he erroneously affirms the influence of circumstance and -environment—let us lay a charitable hand and fling it into the fire. - -Clearly all a man’s ancestors have not equal power in shaping his -character. Conceiving them, according to our figure, as arranged in -line behind him and influential in the ratio of their individuality, -we shall get the best notion of their method by supposing them to have -taken their places in an order somewhat independent of chronology -and a little different from their arrangement behind his brother. -Immediately at his back, with a controlling hand (a trifle skinny) -upon him, may stand his great-grandmother, while his father may be many -removes arear. Or the place of power may be held by some fine old Asian -gentleman who flourished before the confusion of tongues on the plain -of Shinar; or by some cave-dweller who polished the bone of life in -Bythynia and was perhaps a respectable and honest troglodyte. - -Sometimes a whole platoon of ancestors appears to have been moved -backward or forward _en bloc_, not, we may be sure, capriciously, but -in obedience to some law that we do not understand. I know a man to -whose character not an ancestor since the seventeenth century appears -to have contributed an element. Intellectually he is a contemporary of -John Dryden, whom naturally he reveres as the greatest of poets. There -was another who inherited his handwriting from his great-grandfather, -although trained to “the Spencerian system” that he tried vainly to -acquire. Furthermore, his handwriting followed the same order of -progressive development as that of his great-grandfather. At the age -of twenty he wrote exactly as that ancestor did at the same age, and, -although at forty-five his chirography was nothing like what it was -even ten years before, it was accurately like his great-grandfather’s -at forty-five. Discovery of some old letters showed him how his -great-grandfather wrote, and accounted for the dissimilarity of his own -handwriting to that of any known member of his family, or his teachers. - -To suppose that such individual traits as the configuration of the -body, the color of the hair and eyes, the shape of hands and feet, the -thousand-and-one subtle characteristics that make family resemblances, -are transmissible, and that the form, texture and capacities of -the brain which fix the kind and degree of natural intellect, are -_not_ transmissible, is illogical. We see that certain actions, such -as gestures, gait, and so forth, resulting from the most complex -concurrences of brain, nerves and muscles, are hereditary. Is it -reasonable to suppose that the brain alone of all the organs performs -its work according to its own sweet will, free from congenital -tendencies? Is it not a familiar fact that racial characteristics -are persistent?—that one race is stupid and indocile, another quick -and intelligent? Does not each generation of a race inherit the -intellectual qualities of the preceding generation? How could this be -true of generations if it were not true of individuals? - -As to stirpiculture, the intelligent and systematic breeding of men and -women with a view to improvement of the species—it is a thing of the -far future. It is hardly in sight. Yet, what splendid possibilities -it carries! Two or three generations of as careful breeding as we -bestow on horses, dogs and pigeons would do more good than all the -penal, reformatory and educating agencies of the world accomplish in -a thousand years. It is the one direction in which human effort to -“elevate the race” can be assured of a definitive, speedy and adequate -success. It is hardly better than nonsense to prate of any good coming -to the race through (for example) medical science, which is mainly -concerned in reversing the beneficent operation of natural laws and -saving the inefficient to perpetuate their inefficiency. Our entire -system of charities is open to the same objection; it preserves the -incapables whom Nature is trying to “weed out.” This not only debases -the race physically, intellectually and morally, but constantly -increases the rate of debasement. The proportion of criminals, paupers -and the several kinds of “inmates” augments its horrible percentage -yearly. On the other hand, our wars destroy the capable; so thus we -make inroads upon the vitality of the race from two directions. We -preserve the feeble and extirpate the strong. He who in view of this -amazing folly can believe in a constant, even slow, progress of the -human race toward perfection ought to be happy. He has a mind whose -Olympian heights are inaccessible—the Titans of fact can never scale -them to storm its ancient, solitary reign. - - - - - THE RIGHT TO WORK - - -All kinds of relief, charitable or other, doubtless tend to -perpetuation of pauperism, inasmuch as paupers are thereby kept -alive; and living paupers unquestionably propagate their unthrifty -kind more diligently than dead ones. It is not true, though, that -relief interferes with Nature’s beneficent law of the survival of the -fittest, for the power to excite sympathy and obtain relief is a kind -of fitness. I am still a devotee of the homely primitive doctrine -that mischance, disability or even unthrift, is not a capital crime -justly and profitably punishable by starvation. I still regard the Good -Samaritan with a certain toleration and Jesus Christ’s tenderness to -the poor as something more than a policy of obstruction. - -Who is more truly “deserving” than an able-bodied man out of work -through no delinquency of will and no default of effort? Is hunger to -him and his less poignant than to the feeble in body and mind whom we -support for nothing in almshouse or asylum? Are cold and exposure less -disagreeable to him than to them? Is not his claim to the right to live -as valid as theirs if backed by the will to pay for life with work? -And in denial of his claim is there not latent a far greater peril to -society than inheres in denial of theirs? So unfortunate and dangerous -a creature as a man able and willing to work, yet having no work to do, -should be unknown outside the literature of satire. Doubtless there -would be enormous difficulties in devising a practicable and beneficent -system, and doubtless the reform, like all permanent and salutary -reforms, will have to grow. The growth, naturally, will be delayed by -opposition of the workingmen themselves—precisely as they oppose prison -labor from ignorance that labor makes opportunity to labor. - -It matters not that nine in ten of all our tramps and vagrants are such -from choice, and are irreclaimable degenerates as well; so long as one -worthy man is out of employment and unable to obtain it our duty is to -provide it by law. Nay, so long as industrial conditions are such that -so pathetic a phenomenon is possible we have not the moral right to -disregard that possibility. The right to employment being the right -to life, its denial is, in a sense, homicide. It should be needless -to point out the advantages of its concession. It would preserve the -life and self-respect of him who is needy through misfortune, and -supply an infallible means of detection of his criminal imitator, -who could then be dealt with as he deserves, without the lenity that -finds justification in doubt and compassion. It would diminish crime, -for an empty stomach has no morals. With a wage rate lower than the -commercial, it would disturb no private industries by luring away their -workmen, and with nothing made to sell, there would be no competition -with private products. Properly directed, it would give us much that we -shall not otherwise have. - -It is difficult to say if our laws relating to vagrancy and vagrants -are more cruel or more absurd. If not so atrocious they would evoke -laughter; if less ridiculous we should read them with indignation. Here -is an imaginary conversation: - -THE LAW: It is forbidden to you to rob. It is forbidden to you to -steal. It is forbidden to you to beg. - -THE VAGRANT: Being without money, and denied employment, I am compelled -to obtain food, shelter and clothing in one of these ways, else I -shall be hungry and cold. - -THE LAW: That is no affair of mine. Yet I am considerate—you are -permitted to be as hungry as you like and as cold as may suit you. - -THE VAGRANT: Hungry and cold, yes, and many thanks to you; but if I -go naked I am arrested for indecent exposure. You require me to wear -clothing. - -THE LAW: You’ll admit that you need it. - -THE VAGRANT: But not that you provide a way for me to get it. No one -will give me shelter at night; you forbid me to sleep in a straw stack. - -THE LAW: Ungrateful man! We provide a cell. - -THE VAGRANT: Even when I obey you, starving all day and freezing all -night, and holding my tongue about it, I am liable to arrest for being -“without visible means of support.” - -THE LAW: A most reprehensible condition. - -THE VAGRANT: One thing has been overlooked—a legal punishment for -soliciting work. - -THE LAW: True; I am not perfect. - - - - - TAKING ONESELF OFF - - -A person who loses heart and hope through a personal bereavement is -like a grain of sand on the seashore complaining that the tide has -washed a neighboring grain out of sight. He is worse, for the bereaved -grain can not help itself; it has to be a grain of sand and play -the game of tide, win or lose; whereas he can quit—by watching his -opportunity can “quit a winner.” For sometimes we do beat “the man that -keeps the table”—never in the long run, but infrequently and out of -small stakes. But this is no time to “cash in” and go, for you can not -take your little winning with you. The time to quit is when you have -lost a big stake, your foolish hope of eventual success, your fortitude -and your love of the game. If you stay in the game, which you are not -compelled to do, take your losses in good temper and do not whine about -them. They are hard to bear, but that is no reason why you should be. - -But we are told with tiresome iteration that we are “put here” -for some purpose (not disclosed) and have no right to retire until -“summoned”—it may be by small-pox, it may be by the bludgeon of a -blackguard, it may be by the kick of a cow; the “summoning” Power (said -to be the same as the “putting” Power) has not a nice taste in the -choice of messengers. That argument is not worth attention, for it is -unsupported by either evidence or anything resembling evidence. “Put -here.” Indeed! And by the keeper of the table! We were put here by -our parents—that is all that anybody knows about it; and they had no -authority and probably no intention. - -The notion that we have not the right to take our own lives comes of -our consciousness that we have not the courage. It is the plea of the -coward—his excuse for continuing to live when he has nothing to live -for—or his provision against such a time in the future. If he were not -egotist as well as coward he would need no excuse. To one who does not -regard himself as the center of creation and his sorrows as throes of -the universe, life, if not worth living, is also not worth leaving. The -ancient philosopher who was asked why he did not die if, as he taught, -life was no better than death, replied: “Because death is no better -than life.” We do not know that either proposition is true, but the -matter is not worth considering, for both states are supportable—life -despite its pleasures and death despite its repose. - -It was Robert G. Ingersoll’s opinion that there is rather too little -than too much suicide in the world—that people are so cowardly as to -live on long after endurance has ceased to be a virtue. This view -is but a return to the wisdom of the ancients, in whose splendid -civilization suicide had as honorable place as any other courageous, -reasonable and unselfish act. Antony, Brutus, Cato, Seneca—these -were not of the kind of men to do deeds of cowardice and folly. The -smug, self-righteous modern way of looking upon the act as that of a -craven or a lunatic is the creation of priests, philistines and women. -If courage is manifest in endurance of profitless discomfort it is -cowardice to warm oneself when cold, to cure oneself when ill, to drive -away mosquitoes, to go in when it rains. The “pursuit of happiness,” -then, is not an “unalienable right,” for it implies avoidance of pain. - -No principle is involved in this matter; suicide is justifiable or -not, according to circumstances; each case is to be considered on its -merits, and he having the act under advisement is sole judge. To his -decision, made with whatever light he may chance to have, all honest -minds will bow. The appellant has no court to which to take his appeal. -Nowhere is a jurisdiction so comprehensive as to embrace the right of -condemning the wretched to life. - -Suicide is always courageous. We call it courage in a soldier merely to -face death—say to lead a forlorn hope—although he has a chance of life -and a certainty of “glory.” But the suicide does more than face death; -he incurs it, and with a certainty, not of glory, but of reproach. If -that is not courage we must reform our vocabulary. - -True, there may be a higher courage in living than in dying. The -courage of the suicide, like that of the pirate, is not incompatible -with a selfish disregard of the rights of others—a cruel recreancy to -duty and decency. I have been asked: “Do you not think it cowardly -for a man to end his life, thereby leaving his family in want?” No, -I do not; I think it selfish and cruel. Is not that enough to say -of it? Must we distort words from their true meaning in order more -effectually to damn the act and cover its author with a greater infamy? -A word means something; despite the maunderings of the lexicographers, -it does not mean whatever you want it to mean. “Cowardice” means a -shrinking from danger, not a shirking of duty. The writer who allows -himself as much liberty in the use of words as he is allowed by the -dictionary-maker and by popular consent is a bad writer. He can make -no impression on his reader, and would do better service at the -ribbon-counter. - -The ethics of suicide is not a simple matter; one can not lay down laws -of universal application, but each case is to be judged, if judged -at all, with a full knowledge of all the circumstances, including -the mental and moral make-up of the person taking his own life—an -impossible qualification for judgment. One’s time, race and religion -have much to do with it. Some peoples, like the ancient Romans and -the modern Japanese, have considered suicide in certain circumstances -honorable and obligatory; among ourselves it is held in disfavor. A -man of sense will not give much attention to considerations of this -kind, excepting in so far as they affect others, but in judging weak -offenders they are to be taken into the account. Speaking generally, -I should say that in our time and country the persons here noted (and -some others) are justified in removing themselves, and that in some of -them it is a duty: - -One afflicted with a painful or loathsome and incurable disease. - -One who is a heavy burden to his friends, with no prospect of their -relief. - -One threatened with permanent insanity. - -One irreclaimably addicted to drunkenness or some similarly destructive -or offensive habit. - -One without friends, property, employment or hope. - -One who has disgraced himself. - -Why do we honor the valiant soldier, sailor, fireman? For obedience to -duty? Not at all; that alone—without the peril—seldom elicits remark, -never evokes enthusiasm. It is because he faced without flinching the -risk of that supreme disaster, or what we feel to be such—death. But -look you: the soldier braves the danger of death; the suicide braves -death itself! The leader of the forlorn hope may not be struck. The -sailor who voluntarily goes down with his ship may be picked up -or cast ashore. It is not certain that the wall will topple until -the fireman shall have descended with his precious burden. But the -suicide—his is the foeman that has never missed a mark, his the sea -that gives nothing back; the wall that he mounts bears no man’s weight. -And his, at the end of it all, is the dishonored grave where the wild -ass of public opinion - - Stamps o’er his head but can not break his sleep. - - - - - A MONUMENT TO ADAM - - -It is believed that every just-minded and right-feeling American will -experience a glow of gratification in the assurance that after ages -of indifference, neglect, and even contumelious disparagement, Adam -is at last to have a monument. The proposal to erect a “suitable -memorial” to the good forefather is singularly touching; in a tranquil, -business-like way it gets a tolerably firm footing in the sympathies -and sentiments of the human heart, quietly occupying the citadel of -the affections before the unready conservatisms of habit, prejudice, -and unreason can recover from their surprise to repel it. It will be -difficult for even the most impenitent obstructionist to utter himself -cogently in opposition; the promoters of the filial scheme will have -the argument as much their own way as have the promoters of temperance, -chastity, truth, and honor. The comparison is ominous, but not entirely -discouraging, inasmuch as the builders of monuments are less dependent -on “right reason and the will of God” than the builders of character. -Stones are not laid in logic; even the men of the plains of Shinar, -desperately wrong-headed as in the light of Revelation we now perceive -them to have been, and ghastly incapable of adding an inch to their -moral stature, succeeded in piling up a fairish testimonial to their -own worth, and would no doubt have achieved the top course had it not -happened that suddenly each appeared to be of a different mind, so -that in the multitude of counselors there was little wisdom. Dr. Noah -Webster being dead—heaven rest him!—and the reporters of the press -being easily propitiated with libations of news, there is not likely to -be any tampering with the American tongue that will not be a distinct -advantage to it; so we may reasonably expect the stones of the Adamite -monument to be appropriately inscribed. Many reasons occur why this -ought to be so. Of Adam, even more than of Washington it may justly be -said that he was “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts -of his countrymen.” In truth, he was first in everything and all round. - -To the patriot the plan of erecting to him a fitting memorial will -especially commend itself: it is an American, and therefore a -superior, plan. Contrast its glossy originality with the threadbare -second-handedness of the project to import Cleopatra’s other needle! -The religious mind will not fail to discover in the proposal a kind of -special providence for the arrest and eventual overthrow of Infidelity, -against whose dark disciples it will lift a finger of permanent -admonition. Can even the most flippant scoffer look up at the reverend -pile and doubt the Mosaic account of creation? If the architect have -only the sagacity to omit the date of erection, and the subscribers -the self-denial to forego the glory of displaying their names on it, -will not posterity naturally come to think that he whose virtues it -commemorates “reposes beneath”? True, the wily scientist, alarmed -for his theory, or touched with a sentiment of filial piety as _he_ -understands it, may countercheck by building a similar monument to the -recent Ourang-Outang, the remote Ascidian, or the ultimate Bathybius. -He may even have the prudent audacity to put up a stone to the memory -of that unthinkable, and therefore irrefutable, Missing Link—as the -groping pagan of antiquity with his single gleam of spiritual light -erected an altar “To the Unknown God.” If the hardy Evolutionist -do anything of this kind it will be a clear infringement of the -_leges non scriptæ_ of copyright. Justice, religion, and reason alike -will dictate the upsetting of his profane memorial with as little -compunction as the wave felt for Caliban’s designs in the sea-sand. - -That the Adam monument project is seriously entertained there can be no -intelligent doubt: in the list of its founders is publicly mentioned a -name which, for better or for worse, is inseparably linked with that of -the Great Progenitor—the name of Mark Twain, whose sobs at the paternal -tomb have reverberated through the world with an authenticating energy -that makes the erection of the monument a matter of comparatively -trifling importance, after all. - -1878. - - - - - HYPNOTISM - - -We are all hypnotists. Every human being has in some degree the power -to influence the thought and action of another, or some others, by -what we will consent to call “hypnotic suggestion,” though the term, -while serviceable, is inaccurate. Most of us have the power in varying -degrees of feebleness, but few know how to apply what they have of it; -but some have it so strong as to be able to control an unresisting -will. Assent, however, is not always, nor usually, to be inferred -from consent, even when consent is given in good faith; there is such -a thing as unconscious resistance. In those having no knowledge of -hypnotism, resistance is the natural attitude, for they think that -susceptibility to control implies a weak will or a low intelligence, -which is an error. At least the contrary view is supported by my own -observation; and I accept some things, despite the fact that I have -observed them to be true. - -The mysterious force which in its more spectacular manifestations -we call hypnotism, and one form of which is known as “mind-reading,” -is at the back of all kinds and degrees of affection and persuasion. -Why is one person loved better than another person more worthy of -love? Because he has more “personal magnetism.” This term is an old -acquaintance; for many decades we have been using it to signify an -engaging manner. We thought it a figurative expression; that is why it -commended itself to us. But it denotes a fact with literalness; some -persons have a quality, or rather a property, which actually does draw -other persons toward and to them, as a magnet attracts steel; and it -is the same property in magnet and in man, and can be augmented by -the scientific use of apparatus. A favorite “subject” of mine when -blindfolded and turned loose in a room and commanded to find a hidden -object will sometimes fail. But she never fails if the object is a -horse-shoe magnet. - -Did you ever, by oral argument, convince anyone that he was wrong and -you right? Not often, of course, but sometimes, you think. If you are a -member of Congress you are very sure about it; that is what you are a -member of Congress for. I venture to believe that you never did. It was -by unconscious hypnotism that you did the trick. Your argument (on the -cogency and eloquence of which I congratulate you) served only to hold -your victim’s attention to the matter in hand. Without it he might have -thought you wanted him to become a horse, and would indubitably have -neighed and pranced. - -In the Twenty-first Century, doubtless, a legislator will owe his -election to the confidence of his constituents in his ability to exert -this kind of suasion. The candidate who can not by the power of his -unaided eye compel his opponent to eat shoe-blacking and jump over a -broomstick will not have the ghost of a chance at the polls. - -Suppose, madam, that your husband had relied upon argument to convince -you that you ought to marry him. Of course he did have to plead long -and hard—that is conceded; but suppose that while doing so he had -always worn green spectacles. Or suppose that in all his long and -arduous courtship he had never looked you squarely (and impudently) in -the eyes—gloated upon you. I deem it certain, madam, that you would now -be the wife of a wiser man, probably a deaf mute. - -In our present stage of controversial progress speech is not without -a certain clumsy utility. It enables you to apprise your opponent of -the views to which you invite his allegiance. But for the purpose of -inducing him to accept them it is destitute of effect—is not at all -superior to the plunk-plunking of a banjo, or that favorite political -argument, the braying of a brass band. Your success in convincing -another person depends upon (1) the degree of your hypnotic power, (2) -your opportunities of exerting it and (3) his susceptibility to it. In -brief, the business of converting the several kinds of heathens is a -thing which, like checking the too rapid increase of population, cannot -be done by talking. I have tried to show you how it can be done if you -have the gift. If you have not, be thankful, for you will escape much -defamation from those who believe hypnotism a kind of sorcery liable -to the basest abuses and practised only for purposes of sin. Is it -possible so to practice it? Why, yes, if I can hypnotize a thief I -can make him steal. If I can hypnotize a bad girl—but that would be -needless. Whatever in one’s normal state one is willing to do, or wants -to do, one can be made to do by hypnotic control. That is as far as the -power can go; it cannot make a sinner out of a saint, a demagogue out -of a gentleman, nor a mute out of Theodore Roosevelt. - - - - - AT THE DRAIN OF THE WASH-BASIN - - -The Prohibitionists, good souls, are funny. They are all “down upon” -license—high or low—because it is a legal “recognition” of the liquor -trade. As reasonably they might condemn fines for misdemeanor as legal -recognition of misdemeanor. Until the liquor trade is forbidden it -is legally recognized, whether licensed or not. Why can not militant -aquarians accustom themselves to think of a license fee as an _ante -facto_ fine? I am not loaded down with controversial weapons for the -fray between liquor and water; I love neither the one liquid nor the -other; but I enjoy the quarrels of others, am enamored of effective -means in battle and should be miserable if I had failed to point out to -any combatant in any contention how he could obtain an honest advantage. - -Do I not drink water? Yes, a little—when instigated by thirst. Does -any one drink it under any other circumstances? Does any one drink it -because he likes it?—or rather, does any one like it when not suffering -from a disagreeable disorder? We take water as medicine for the disease -thirst. It is to be considered as a remedial agent—but so vilely -compounded in nature’s laboratory and so distasteful to the normal -palate that the world in all ages has been virtually united in avoiding -it. Nothing has so stimulated human ingenuity and invited such constant -investments as the discovery, invention and manufacture of palatable -substitutes for plain water; and nothing could be more unphilosophical -than to attribute this universal movement to perversity or caprice. -Extravagant as are some of its manifestations, deplorable as are some -of its consequences, at the back of it all, as at the back of every -wide and persistent trend of human activity, is some imperious and -unsleeping necessity. - -Consider, if you will be so good, what “drinking-water” actually is. It -is the world’s sewage. It is what that dirty boy, the earth, has washed -his face with. The wells, rivers and rills are nature’s slop-buckets, -and the lowland springs are not much better; all soluble substances -on or near the surface of the earth eventually get into them. Melted -mountain snow is pure enough, but by the time it reaches the lip of the -flatlander it is a solution of abomination. It is macerated man. It is -hydrate of dead dog with an infusion of all that is untidy—infested -with germs of nameless plagues, carrying ferocious anthropophagi and -loaded with mordant minerals. By many scientists it is held that age -is simply a disease caused, mainly, by cumulative deposits of lime and -other inorganic matter in the organs of the body, most of them taken in -water. If our drink were free of minerals and depeopled of its little -reptiles it is probable that we might live a thousand years and die of -the minerals and reptiles in our food—those of us who are not shot or -hanged. - -The protagonists of water tell us that it is the natural drink of man. -We drink it for economy, from ignorance or inattention, from hereditary -habit bequeathed to us by barbarian ancestors who had nothing else -and knew not the sacred grape. They ate beetles, too, stale fish and -one another. Were these the natural food of man? Man has no natural -food and drink; he takes what he can get. An infant race is like an -infant individual: whatever it can lay its hands on goes into its -dauby mouth. Water, _pure_ water, has one merit—it is cheap; and one -disadvantage—it is not good. - -Mr. Prohibitionist would like to deprive me of wine by law; not because -that would make me happier: it would make _him_ happier. As long as -I cannot prevent him from trying, I fancy that I don’t wish to, and -execute a multitude of fine sentiments about the virtue of tolerance -and the advantages of free speech. But give me the power, and the first -time I catch him rolling his rebuking eye at my wineglass I will fill -up his well. - - - - - GODS IN CHICAGO - - -In the death of Mr. W. J. Gunning theology incurred a serious loss. -The deceased was an intelligent and painstaking collector of gods, and -at the time of his death was in the service of the Committee on Gods, -of the “World’s Fair” in Chicago. He had already got together about -five hundred deities, some of them exceedingly powerful, and was on -his way around the world on the lookout for more. It is believed that -he would have enriched the pantheon of the fair with some singularly -fine exhibits if he had been spared, for he was a most accomplished -theologian, knew exactly where to lay his hand on any deity that he -needed in his business, and whenever he went godding was blessed (under -Providence) with a large take. He was an honest collector, a kind and -considerate provider, and left behind him a wide circle of Celestial -Powers bewailing their loss. - -The advantage of having a first-rate collection of gods at a world’s -fair is obvious. Hitherto the study of comparative theology has been -beset with dispiriting difficulties, many of which will vanish in the -light that such a collection will pour upon the science. In actual -presence of the wood and stone which the heathen in his blindness -bows down to we shall be able to trace resemblances and relationships -hitherto undiscerned and even unsuspected. We shall know, perhaps, -why the religion of the Inquots is somewhat similar to that of the -Abemjees when we see (if such is the fact) that the gods of both these -widely separated tribes have availed themselves of the advantages of -the tail. We shall perhaps find the missing link between the Hindu’s -mild disposition and his adoration of the “idol of hope and slaughter.” -Better than all, we shall by actual scrutiny of the mongrel and measly -gods of other and inferior nations be confirmed in the True Faith, as -in this favored land we have the happiness to know it. - -That the goddery will be a point of chief attraction goes without -saying. A temple in which, satisfying the two mightiest needs of his -spiritual nature, one may both scoff and pray will have a powerful -fascination for the truly religious. There the visiting stranger from -the overseas can perform appropriate rites before the deity of his -fathers and execute feats of contumelious disdain—short of actual -demolition—before the hideous and senseless images adored of those not -delivered from error’s chain. Even to the wicked person who has justly -incurred the ancient reproach that he “tears down but does not build -up,” the god-show will have a certain value as displaying everywhere -the kind of things he tears down and nowhere the kind he is expected -to build up—whereby he shall be put into better esteem and kicked and -cuffed with abated assiduity. There is one disquieting possibility—one -haunting thought that grows amain to apprehension: What will be the -effect of setting up a multitude of gods in a city which has not -hitherto tolerated one? It was well, though, to make the experiment, -even as a missionary measure; and if the lakeside pantheon had served -to lure the world’s pious to their financial doom the Chicagonese might -have become a profoundly religious people, attentive to pilgrims and -blandly assuring them that it was no trouble to show gods. - -1892. - - - - - FOR LAST WORDS - - -The special kind of telephone designed to be affixed to the bedside -of one who may have the bad luck to suffer from some infectious or -contagious disease is a thoughtful provision for a crying need. By -means of the instrument so placed, the patient’s friends are able to -converse to him, read and sing at him, and, in general, give him the -benefit of their society without danger of getting back more than -they bestow. The plan is of admirable simplicity and nothing could -be better—for the friends. There must be a certain satisfaction in -possessing one end of a telephone at the other end of which there is -one who cannot get away—one who has to listen to as many helloes as may -be thought good for him, and to submit to the question, “Is that you?” -when you know that it is he, as frequently as you choose to afflict -him with it. That he is heartily wishing but impotently unable to -transmit his disorder through the wire adds something to the joy of the -situation. - -One of the advantages of the sick-bed telephone lies in the fact that -it can be used for preservation of “last words.” Hitherto those only -of men who died surrounded by attentive friends have had a chance of -getting before the public; those of the unfortunate infectionary, -isolated from his race and dying in a pesthouse, assisted by hireling -physicians and unsympathetic nurses, have been lost to the world. No -matter how many years of his life the patient may have been engaged in -their composition and rehearsal; no matter how “neat and opprobrious” -they were, they fell upon unappreciative ears, and were not recorded. -Under the new _régime_ the patient as his fire fails may summon his -friends to the telephone, launch at them his Parthian platitude and -die in the pleasant consciousness that posterity will have profit of -his death. Whether, like Falstaff, he choose to give his remarks a -reminiscent character and “babble o’ green fields;” confine himself -to the historical method, like Daniel Webster with his memorable “I -still live;” assume the benevolent pose, and, like Charles II, urge -the survivors not to let some “poor Nelly” starve; the exclamatory, -like the late President Garfield, who, according to one Swaim, said -“O Swaim!” and let it go at that; or the merely idiotic, like the -great Napoleon with his “_Tête d’armée_,” the faithful telephone will -be there, ready and willing to transmit (and transmute) the sentiment, -admonition, statement or whatever it may be. - -To persons intending to make this use of the telephone a word of -counsel may not be impertinent. As no human being, however well-eared, -ever understood the telephone until it had repeated itself a number of -times in response to his demands for more light, and as the moribund -are not commonly in very good voice, it will be wise to begin the “last -words” while there is yet a little reserve fund of life and strength -remaining, for repetition and explanation. - - - - - THE CHAIR OF LITTLE EASE - - -Not many years ago, as I remember, a deal of deprecatory talk was in -evolution about a certain Governor of a Persian province, who was -said to have been boiled alive by order of the Shah. Our shouting and -shrilling in this matter were not altogether becoming, considering -whose progeny we are. It is not so very long since all the nations -of Europe practised boiling alive—commonly in oil, which was thought -to impart a fine discomfort to the person so unlucky as to be in the -cauldron. In England boiling was the legal punishment for poisoners for -a long time, beginning in 1531, in the reign of Henry VII. Among those -who suffered this discomfort was a man mentioned in the chronicle of -the Grey Friars, who was let down into the kettle by a chain until he -was done. He, however, was not boiled in oil—just plain. Some of the -items of an expense account relating to the execution of Friar Stone at -Canterbury are interesting in their homely way: - - Paid 2 men that sat by the kettle and parboiled him 1s - To 3 men that carried his quarters to the gates and set them up 1s - For a woman that scoured the kettle 2d - -With regard to that last item one cannot repress the flame of a -consuming curiosity to know if the scouring was done before or -afterward. If afterward, the poor woman seems to have been miserably -underpaid. - -But call it a long time ago, protesting that the tendency to boil one -another has exhausted its impetus, or, if you please, worked itself -out of our clarifying blood. But the year 1790 is not so far back, and -burning at the stake probably generates an uneasiness to which that of -the oil-boiled gentry of the earlier period was nowise superior. It was -in the year mentioned—in the reign of his most gracious Majesty George, -the third of that name—that burning at the stake ceased to be the legal -penalty for “coining,” which was accounted “treason,” and murder of a -husband, which was “petty treason.” But wife-killers and coiners, male, -were hanged. The last woman burned alive departed this life, I think, -in 1789. Men are living to-day whose fathers were living then and may, -as children, have played in the ashes. - -Still (it may be urged) it was not actually we who did it: in our -milder day we have neither the cauldron nor the stake. Ah, but we -have the dynamo. We have the custom of putting a small percentage of -our assassins into an “electrical chair” and doing them to death by -pressing a button—a process to which in defiance of two languages we -have given the name “electrocution.” For encouragement of the rising -young assassin, physicians assure us that this gives a painless death. - -The physicians know nothing about it; for anything they know to the -contrary, death by electricity may be the most frightful torment that -it is possible for any of nature’s forces or processes to produce. -The agony may be not only inconceivably great, but to the sufferer it -may seem to endure for a period inconceivably long. That many of the -familiar physical indications of suffering are absent (though “long, -shuddering sighs” and “straining at the straps” are not certainly -symptoms of joy) is very little to the purpose when we know that -electricity paralyzes the muscles by whose action pain is familiarly -manifested. We know that it paralyzes all the seats of sensation, for -that matter, and puts an end to possibilities of pain. That is only to -say that it kills. But by what secret and infernal pang may not all -this be accompanied or accomplished? Through what unnatural exaltation -of the senses may not the moment of its accomplishing be commuted into -unthinkable cycles of time? Of all this the physicians can have no more -knowledge than so many toads under stones. - -It is probable, at least it is possible, that a “victim’s” sum of -suffering from his instantaneous pervasion with enough of the fluid -to kill him is no less than if it were leisurely rilled through him -a little faster than he could bear until he should die of it that -way. Theories of the painlessness of sudden death appear to be based -mostly upon the fact that those who undergo it make no entries of their -sensations in their diaries. It is to be wished that they would be more -thoughtful and less selfish. The man smitten by lightning, or widely -distributed by a hitch in the proceedings at a powder mill, owes a duty -to his fellow men of which he commonly appears to have but an imperfect -sense. A careful and analytic record of his sensations at every -stage of his mischance would be a precious contribution to medical -literature. Published under some such title as _A Diary of Sudden -Death; by a Public-Spirited Observer on the Inside_ it would serve many -useful purposes, and also profit the publisher. What we most need—next -to more doctors at executions—is some person having experience of the -matter, to tell us fairly in inoffensive English, interlarded with -“Soche-sorte Latin as physickers doe use,” just how it feels to be dead -all over at once. - - - - - A GHOST IN THE UNMAKING - - -Belief in ghosts is natural, general and comforting. In many minds it -is cherished as a good working substitute for religion; in others it -appears to take the place of morality. It is rather more convenient -than either, for it may be disavowed and even reviled without exposing -oneself to suspicion and reproach. As an intellectual conviction it -is, in fact, not a very common phenomenon among people of thought and -education; nevertheless the number of civilized and enlightened human -beings who can pass through a graveyard at midnight without whistling -is not notably greater than the number who are unable to whistle. - -It may be noted here as a distinction with a difference that belief -in ghosts is not the same thing as faith in them. Many men believe in -the adversary of souls, but comparatively few, and they not among our -best citizens, have any faith in him. Similarly, the belief in ghosts -has reference only to their existence, not to their virtues. They are, -indeed, commonly thought to harbor the most evil designs against the -continuity of peaceful thoughts and the integrity of sleep. Their -malevolence has in it a random and wanton quality which invests it with -a peculiarly lively interest: there is no calculating upon whom it -will fall: the just and the unjust alike are embraced in its baleful -jurisdiction and subjected to the humiliating indignity of displaying -the white feather. And this leads us directly back to the incident by -which these remarks have the honor to be suggested. - -A woman living near Sedalia, Missouri, who had recently been married -alive to a widower, was once passing along a “lonely road” which had -been thoughtfully laid out near her residence. It was late in the -evening, and the lady was, naturally, somewhat apprehensive in a land -known to be infested by Missourians of the deepest dye. She was, -therefore, not in a suitable frame of mind for an interview with an -inhabitant of the other world, and it was with no slight trepidation -that she suddenly discovered in the gloom a tall figure, clad all -in white, standing silent and menacing in the road before her. She -endeavored to run away, but terror fastened her feet to the earth; to -shriek, but her lungs refused their office—the first time that an -office was ever refused in that sovereign commonwealth. In short, to -use a neat and graphic locution of the vicinity, she was utterly “guv -out.” The ghost was tremendously successful. Unluckily it could not -hold its ghost of a tongue, and that spectral organ could accomplish -feats of speech intelligible to ears still in the flesh. The apparition -advanced upon its helpless victim and said in hollow accents: “I am the -spirit of your husband’s first wife: beware, beware!” - -Nothing could have been more imprudent. The cowering lady effected a -vertical attitude, grew tall, and expanded. Her terror gave place to -an intrepidity of the most military character, and she moved at once -to the attack. A moment later all that was mortal of that immortal -part, divested of its funeral habiliments, hair, teeth and whatever was -removable—battered, lacerated, gory and unconscious—lay by the roadside -awaiting identification. When the husband arrived upon the scene with -a horrible misgiving and a lantern, his worst fears were not realized; -the grave had bravely held its own; the object by the roadside was what -was left of his deceased wife’s sister. On learning that her victim -was not what she had incautiously represented herself to be, the -victorious lady expressed the deepest regret. - -Such incidents as this go far to account for that strong current of -human testimony to the existence of ghosts, which Dr. Johnson found -running through all the ages, and at the same time throw a new and -significant light upon Heine’s suggestion that ghosts are as much -afraid of us as we of them. It would appear that some of the less -judicious of them have pretty good reason. - - - - - THE TURN OF THE TIDE - - -In the year 1890 I wrote in the San Francisco _Examiner_, _àpropos_ of -Chinese immigration: - -“There is but one remedy—I do not recommend it: to kill the Chinese. -That we shall not do: the minority will not undertake, nor the majority -permit. It would be massacre now; in its own good time (too late) it -will be war. We could kill the Chinese now, as we have killed the -Indians; but fifty years hence—perhaps thirty—the nation that kills -Chinamen will have to answer to China.” - -Twenty-one years later a Chinese warship steamed into the port of Vera -Cruz, Mexico, to back up a demand of the Chinese government for an -indemnity for a massacre of Chinese subjects. She was a little warship, -but she bore a momentous mandate, performed it and steamed away, the -world as inattentive to the event as it had been to the prophecy. - -Perhaps our national indifference to the portentous phenomenon came of -“use and wont;” already an American president had been made to grovel -at the feet of a Japanese emperor, and had truculently threatened a -state of the union with war if it did not adjust its municipal laws -to the will of that Asian sovereign. Clearly, as the hope was then -expressed, “we have reached the end of Asiatic dictation”—the hither -end, unfortunately. - -All Asia is astir, looking East and West. Its incalculable multitudes -are learning war and navigation; and Caucasian powers—“infatuate, -blind, selfsure!”—are their tutors. Their armies are taught by European -officers, their warships are built in European and American ports. All -the military powers unite in maintaining “the integrity of China” and -in awakening her to aggression and dominance. - -Even if it were to our immediate interest to preserve the integrity of -the Chinese Empire a long look ahead might disclose a greater one that -would be best subserved by partition. In a single generation Japan has -performed the astonishing feat of changing civilizations. It has been, -for her, retrogression, for the civilization that she has discarded -was superior to that which she has adopted; but in one important -particular she has been the gainer by the exchange; in the matter, -namely, of military power, and therefore political consequence. As by -a leap, she has advanced from nowhere to the position of a first-rate -power. What she has done China is doing, with this difference: China’s -advance will be to a position that will dominate the world and reduce -the foremost nations of to-day to second place. Trained by European -officers to European methods of warfare, such an army as she can -raise and equip from her four hundred millions of population will be -invincible. It may overrun Europe and extinguish Christian civilization -on that continent, which would not be a very good thing for it on this. -It was only yesterday—a little more than two hundred years ago—that -Europe came within a single battle-hazard of being an Islam dependency. -If John Sobieski had been defeated under the walls of Vienna, that -city, Berlin, Paris and London would to-day be Mohammedan capitals. -History has not exhausted its reserve of astounding events, nor have -civilizations learned the secret of stability. - -It is easy to affirm, in the case of China, the impossibility of any -such racial transformation as the one supposed, but fifty years ago -it would have been easy to point out its impossibility in the case -of Japan—if any human being had had the imagination and hardihood to -suggest it. Japan has made the impossible possible, the possible a -thing to be feared. As a measure of precaution, the partition of China -merits the profoundest consideration. - -Actual forces at the back of a great movement are seldom apparent to -those engaged in directing it. Statesmanship is mostly a matter of -temporary expedients for accomplishment of small purposes, but if -there is to-day a really great statesman of the Caucasian race he -is considering the partition of China among European nations as an -alternative to the partition of European nations among the Chinese. - -Meantime we occupy ourselves with laws and treaties to “exclude” -Chinese and other inevitable Asians from our continent. Successive -relays of American statesmen wreck themselves upon the problem and go -down smiling. To some of us it is given to see that the Asian can not -be excluded—that the course of empire, having taken its way westward -until it has reached its point of departure, is turning backward, an -irresistible “tide in the affairs of men.” But what can we do but -propose further and futile measures of “exclusion”? We supplicate our -Government to forbid us to employ our destroyers, to deny us the fruits -of our cupidity and prohibit us from bringing the hateful race here -in our own ships. Our courts, minded madwise, make in good faith the -monstrous assumption that the writ of _habeas corpus_ is a right which -we, having invented it, are bound to share with races that never heard -of it. Our churches, gone clean daft in pursuit of souls never caught -and not worth the catching, pull the strings of their God to a gesture -of injunction and bid us respect the brotherhood of man. Every moment -and at all points we feel the baffling hand thrusting us roughly down -and back, while this awful invasion pours in upon us with augmenting -power. - -Not for an instant has the refluent wave been stayed. Every American -city has its “Chinatown,” every American village its scouts and -pioneers of the movement. On the Pacific Coast the Japanese have -a foothold everywhere, monopolizing entire industries in cities -and valleys, owning the lands that once they leased and charitably -employing their former employers. And all along the line of every -growing railway in the west may be seen the turbaned Hindu bending to -his work and biding his time to be a “shipper.” - -As it is, it will be: the Oriental races are in motion westward, and -this continent is doomed to their occupancy. A higher, sterner law than -any of man’s devising is in action here. Fate has exercised the right -of eminent domain and condemned this New World to the use of ancient -races. For four hundred years the European has been wresting it from -the Indian; within one-half the time the Asian will have accomplished -its conquest from the European. There is no help for us: as we did unto -others it shall be done unto us, and the Asian shall be master here. It -is comforting to know that we shall have had a hand in our undoing; one -does not like to be a “dead-head” in any enterprise. - -No; we shall not kill the Chinese, nor will they “go” without -killing—nor cease to come. As surely as the sun shall rise each day, -so surely each day will his beams gild the ever advancing flag of this -irresistible migration. Beneath the feet of that mighty host the arts -and sciences of the Aryan, his laws and letters, his religions and -languages, the very body and soul of his civilization will be trampled -out of record, out of memory, out of tradition. It is not a sunny -picture; what need to look upon it? I invite to despair; but there -stands the dear American statesman, parchment in hand—a new exclusion -law! His face shines in the dawning of another hope; in his eyes is the -morning of a new era. Between the two of us—him and me—all patriots may -be united: each with a prophet of his choice. It is clear whom ye will -choose, but I hope I don’t intrude. - - - - - FAT BABIES AND FATE - - -The modern Baby Show is a fruitful source of mischief—a degenerate -successor to that ancient display whose beneficent purpose was to -ascertain what ailing or deformed or merely puny infants might most -advantageously be flung off a cliff. The object of the modern Baby Show -is not improvement of the race by assisting Nature in “weeding out,” -nor is such the practical result. Prizes, we are told, are commonly -bestowed by a committee of matrons, and necessarily fall to the fattest -exhibit. In the matron’s ideal “scale of being” the pudgiest, the most -orbicular, babe holds the summit place, the first adiposition, so to -speak. - -This is not as it should be; no true improvement in the race can be -effected by encouraging our young to bury their noses in their cheeks -and their knuckles under a mass of tissues overlying them like a -boxing-glove. The prize winners do not become better men and women than -their unsuccessful but more deserving competitors; while the latter, -beginning life in the shadow of a great disappointment, retain to the -end of their days a sharp sense of injustice incompatible with warm and -elevated sentiments. The effect on the characters of the beaten mothers -is even more deplorable. Every mother of a defeated babe is convinced -that her exhibit is incomparably superior, physically, intellectually -and morally, to the roly-poly impostors honored by the committee -of matrons. Her wrath at the unjust decision is deep, constant and -lasting; it embitters her life, sours her temper and spoils her beauty. -As to the fathers, the only discernible effect upon them of either -winning or losing is to make them a trifle more ashamed of their -offspring than they were before. “The proud and happy father” had never -the advantage of existing outside the female imagination, but if he -really existed the Baby Show would be fatal to both his pride and his -happiness. - -In enumerating the manifold mischiefs that fly from that Pandora’s-box, -the Baby Show, we are perhaps not justified in mentioning the -desolating effect upon the committee of matrons whose action springs -the lid. It is doubtful if the disasters which themselves incur can -rightly be rated as evils in the larger sense of the word; and, -anyhow, the nature of these is imperfectly known; for after making -their award the unhappy arbiters commonly vanish from the busy haunts -of women. The places which knew them know them no more forever, and -their fate is involved in obscurities pervious only to conjecture. -In view of this regrettable but apparently inevitable fact, it is -desirable (if the Baby Show cannot be averted) that the lady judges be -selected early, in order that our citizens may bestow upon them before -they are taken from us some suitable testimonial of public esteem and -gratitude, attesting the popular sense of their heroism in accepting -the fatal distinction. - - - - - CERTAIN AREAS OF OUR SEAMY SIDE - - -The thrifty person who attends, uninvited, a wedding reception and, -retiring early from the festivities, leaves the unhappy couple poorer -by a few unconsidered trifles of jewelry has a just claim to the -gratitude of mankind. The interests of justice demand his immunity from -detection: the officer who shall molest him is _hostis humani generis_. -Neither grave rebuke nor ridicule has sufficed to overcome and stamp -out the vulgar custom of ostentatiously displaying wedding presents, -with names of givers attached; perhaps it will yield to the silent -suasion of the sneak-thief. To healthy and honest understandings—that -is to say, to the understandings of this present writer and those -who have the intelligence to think as he does—it is but faintly -conceivable how self-respecting persons can do this thing. Display of -any kind is necessarily repugnant to those tastes which distinguish -the well-bred from those whose worth is of another sort. Among the -latter we are compelled (reluctantly) to reckon those amiable beings -who display coats-of-arms, crests and the like, whether they are theirs -by inheritance, purchase or invention; those, we mean, who blazon -them about in conspicuous places for the obvious purpose of declaring -with emphasis whatever merits and advantages may inhere in their -possession. In this class, also, we must place the excellent ladies -and gentlemen who “boast” their descent from illustrious, or merely -remote, ancestors. (The remoter the ancestor—that is to say, the less -of his blood his descendant has—the greater that funny person’s pride -in the distinction.) A person of sense would be as likely to direct -attention to his own virtues as to those of his forefathers; a woman of -modesty, to her own beauty or grace as to the high social position of -her grandmother. - -Nay, we must carry our condemnation to an even greater extreme. The -man who on public occasions covers his breast with decorations, the -insignia of orders, the badges of high service or of mere distinction -such as results from possession of the badge, is guilty of immodesty. -“Why do you not wear your Victoria Cross?” the only recipient of it -who ever failed to wear it was asked. “When I wish people to know how -valiant I am in battle,” was the reply, “I will tell them.” - -But below this lowest deep of vanity there is a lower deep of -cupidity—and something more. The custom of displaying wedding presents -duly labeled with the givers’ names and publishing the list in the -newspapers supplies a very “genteel” method of extortion to those who -have conscientious scruples against highway robbery. That extortion is -very often the conscious intent I am far from affirming; but that such -is the practical effect many a reader inadequately provided with this -world’s goods will pause at this point feelingly to aver. But he is -a lofty soul indeed if at the next silent demand he do not stand and -deliver as meekly as heretofore. Looked at how one may please, it is -a bad business, not greatly superior in point of morality to that of -the sneak-thief who is one of its perils, and with whose intelligent -activity its existence may, one hopes, become in time altogether -incompatible. - - - - - FOR BREVITY AND CLARITY - - -Mr. George R. Sims once “invited proposals” for a brief and convenient -name for the misdemeanor known in England as “traveling in a class -of railway carriage superior to that for which the defendant had -taken a ticket.” It is a ludicrous fact that the offense has never -had another name, nor is it quite easy to invent a better one -off-hand. I should like to know what it is in Esperanto. We have in -this country certain clumsy phrases which might advantageously be -condensed into single words. For example, to “join in the holy bonds -of wedlock” might become to “jedlock.” The society editor would be -spared much labor if he could say of the unhappy couple that they were -“jedlocked,” or “lemaltared,”—the latter word meaning, of course, “led -to the matrimonial altar.” Many of the ordinary reporter’s favorite -expressions could be treated in the same practical fashion. The -familiar “much-needed rest” would become simply “mest.” The “devouring -element” would be “delement,” and have done with it. When it is, as -so very frequently it is, necessary to say that something “reflects -credit” on somebody, the verb “to refledit” would serve an honorable -and useful purpose. Instead of writing of a man freshly dead that he -was “much esteemed by all who knew him,” we should say that he was -“mestewed.” By such simple and rational devices as these the language -would be notably improved, and in a newspaper report of the birth of a -rich man’s child a few lines could be saved for the death of a poet. - -As the words “not either” have been condensed into “neither,” “not -ever” into “never” and “no one” into “none,” why should not the -negative or privative, when followed by a vowel, be always compounded -in the same way? For example, “neven” for “not even,” “nin” and “nout” -for “not in” and “not out.” “Nirish” for “no Irish,” and so forth. -Nay, it is not necessary that a vowel follow the negative: “no Popery” -could be “nopery,” “no matter,” “natter,” and “never-to-be-forgotten,” -“notten,” or “netten.” The principle is pregnant with possibilities. - -While reforming the language I crave leave to introduce an improvement -in punctuation—the snigger point, or note of cachinnation. It is -written thus ◡ and represents, as nearly as may be, a smiling mouth. -It is to be appended, with the full stop, to every jocular or ironical -sentence; or, without the stop, to every jocular or ironical clause of -a sentence otherwise serious—thus: “Mr. Edward Bok is the noblest work -of God ◡.” “Our respected and esteemed ◡ contemporary, Mr. Slyvester -Vierick, whom for his virtues we revere and for his success envy ◡, is -going to the devil as fast as his two heels can carry him.” “Deacon -Harvey, a truly good man ◡, is self-made in the largest sense of the -term; for although he was born great, wise and rich, the deflection of -his nose is the work of his own coat-sleeve.” - -To many a great writer the new point will be as useful as was the -tail to his unlettered ancestor. By a single stroke of his pen at the -finish, the illustrious humorist who reviews books for _The Nation_ can -give to his dismalist plagiarism from Mulgrub’s _Theory of Quaternions_ -all the charm and value of a lively personal anecdote, as he would -relate it. By liberally sprinkling his literary criticism with it, Dr. -Hamilton W. Mabie can give to the work a lilt and vivacity that will -readily distinguish it from a riding-master’s sermon on the mount; the -points will apprise his reader of a humorous intention not otherwise -observable as a factor in the humorous effect. Embellished with this -useful mark, even the writings of that sombre soul, Mr. John Kendrick -Bangs, will have a quality that will at least prevent the parsons from -reading them at the graveside as passages from the burial service. - - - - - GENIUS AS A PROVOCATION - - -In his own honorable tongue Mr. Yoni Noguchi is, I dare say, a poet; -in ours he is a trifle unintelligible. His English prose, too, is of -a kind that one does not write if one has a choice in the matter, yet -sometimes Mr. Noguchi thinks in it with clarity and point. Concerning -the late Lafcadio Hearn and the little tempest that was roaring round -that author’s life and character, Mr. Noguchi wrote: - -“It is perfectly appalling to observe in the Western countries that -when one dies his friends have to rush to print his private letters, -and even an unexpected person volunteers to speak as his best friend, -and presumes to write his biography.” - -No, this is not good prose (barring the “unexpected person,” which is -delicious) but it is obvious truth and righteous judgment. Publication -of letters not written for publication is _prima facie_ evidence of -moral delinquency in the offender. In doing this thing he supplies -the strongest presumption against himself. The burden of proof is -heavy upon him; he is to be held guilty unless he can support it with -positive evidence of a difficult thing to prove—an untainted intention -not related to gain, glory nor gratification of a public appetite -to which there is no honorable purveyance. No evidence less valid -than written permission obviously covering the particular letters -published is acceptable. In all the instances that I have observed this -credential is wanting. True, the scope of my observation is somewhat -narrow, for I would no more read a dead man’s private correspondence -in a book than I would break open his desk to obtain it. From a woman -related to a famous poet and critic then recently deceased I had once a -request for any letters that I might have from him. The lady said that -she wanted them for his biography, already in course of preparation. -The letters related to literary matters only, but as the lady submitted -no authorization from their writer for their publication I civilly -refused and took the consequences—there were consequences. Whether or -not my part of the correspondence appeared in the book I shall not know -unless told. - -The family of a man of genius and renown may be pretty confidently -trusted to make him ridiculous in life with their clumsy tongues, and -after death with their thrifty pens. I think there was never a man of -genius whom all his relatives excepting his immediate offspring did -not, while jealous of his fame, secretly regard as a fool. (Even the -brothers of Jesus of Nazareth did not “believe on him,” and to some of -us who are immune to legends of the Church it is given to know that his -mother was of their way of thinking.) Dumbly resenting the distinction -that seems to accentuate their own obscurity, these worthies are -nevertheless keen to shine by the growing light of his posthumous fame, -if he have it, and to profit by it too, as are his more appreciative -children and children’s children, usually dullards and dolts to the -thirteenth and fourteenth generation. His death is the opportunity of -all. Some of them are very sure to crucify the body of him and thrust a -pen into his side to show that his blood is the same as their own. - -A most disagreeable instance of this most disagreeable practice is that -of a son of Robert Browning, who has won literary renown and popular -commendation by publishing his parents’ love-letters. Doubtless he is -proud of his work, but in the eyes of his sainted father, I fear, -he is one of Mr. Noguchi’s “unexpected persons,” at least in the -sense that he is not expected in Paradise. Another and more recent -illustration is the book _My Soldier_, the sanguinary work of a wife. -Observe with what celerity the forehanded family of Tennyson “improved -the occasion” of his passing. The poor man was hardly cold before they -thrust a volume of Shakspeare into his dead hand, clove it with his -finger at a significant passage chosen by a domestic council, admitted -a consistent ray of moonshine into the death chamber and invited the -world to witness the edifying show. So the man who wrote - - Sunset and evening star, - And one clear call for me - -was made to seem to “pass out to sea” in an impressive pose, -appropriately spectacular and dramatically ridiculous. - -If there is a Better Land it is where a great man can grow up from the -ground like a tree, without human agency, get on without a friend, -write no letters and leave no name at which himself grew pale, to point -a lying anecdote or tale. - -To the perils herein pointed out authors are peculiarly exposed. The -world has apparently agreed that he who writes for publication shall -write for nothing else. I have heard men of decent life and social -repute gravely defend the thesis that the public has a _right_ to all -that an author has written; and as his letters are likely to be rather -more interesting than those of one who works at another trade, they are -held to have a value disproportionate to the mere fame of their writer. -We all concede the virtue of abstention from theft of a paste jewel, -but a real diamond!—that is another matter. - -The people are not pigs; the author of their favorite personal letters -need not have a great personal renown. If he has uttered a sufficient -body of private correspondence they are willing to forgive him for -their inattention to his public work. Their purveyors are even more -liberal in the matter: they do not insist on an excellent epistolary -style nor anything of that kind. An intimate “human document” in -ailing syntax is quite as available for their purpose as one baring -the heart of a grammarian. _The Filial Correspondence of George Ade_ -is foredoomed to as sharp a competition among dealers as _The Love -Letters of Professor Harry Thurston Peck, Stylist._ - -It may be thought that all this is a cry from the deep and dark of a -great fear. Not so; since I became a public writer I have never engaged -in a correspondence in which it has not been distinctly understood -that my letters were never to be printed. Only through an impossible -treachery can the public ever have the happiness and profit of reading -them. As to love-letters I am clean-handed: all mine have been written -in honorable payment for favors and, as Conscience is my willing -witness, I never meant one word of them. - - - - - A BIVOUAC OF THE DEAD - - -Away up in the heart of the Allegheny mountains, in Pocahontas county, -West Virginia, is a beautiful little valley through which flows -the east fork of the Greenbrier river. At a point where the valley -road intersects the old Staunton and Parkersburg turnpike, a famous -thoroughfare in its day, is a post office in a farm house. The name of -the place is Travelers’ Repose, for it was once a tavern. Crowning some -low hills within a stone’s throw of the house are long lines of old -Confederate fortifications, skilfully designed and so well “preserved” -that an hour’s work by a brigade would put them into serviceable shape -for the next civil war. This place had its battle—what was called a -battle in the “green and salad days” of the great rebellion. A brigade -of Federal troops, the writer’s regiment among them, came over Cheat -mountain, fifteen miles to the westward, and, stringing its lines -across the little valley, felt the enemy all day; and the enemy did a -little feeling, too. There was a great cannonading, which killed about -a dozen on each side; then, finding the place too strong for assault, -the Federals called the affair a reconnaissance in force, and burying -their dead withdrew to the more comfortable place whence they had come. -Those dead now lie in a beautiful national cemetery at Grafton, duly -registered, so far as identified, and companioned by other Federal dead -gathered from the several camps and battlefields of West Virginia. The -fallen soldier (the word “hero” appears to be a later invention) has -such humble honors as it is possible to give. - - His part in all the pomp that fills - The circuit of the Summer hills - Is that his grave is green. - -True, more than a half of the green graves in the Grafton cemetery -are marked “Unknown,” and sometimes it occurs that one thinks of the -contradiction involved in “honoring the memory” of him of whom no -memory remains to honor; but the attempt seems to do no great harm to -the living, even to the logical. - -A few hundred yards to the rear of the old Confederate earthworks is a -wooded hill. Years ago it was not wooded. Here, among the trees and -in the undergrowth, are rows of shallow depressions, discoverable by -removing the accumulated forest leaves. From some of them may be taken -(and reverently replaced) small thin slabs of the split stone of the -country, with rude and reticent inscriptions by comrades. I found only -one with a date, only one with full names of man and regiment. The -entire number found was eight. - -In these forgotten graves rest the Confederate dead—between eighty and -one hundred, as nearly as can be made out. Some fell in the “battle;” -the majority died of disease. Two, only two, have apparently been -disinterred for reburial at their homes. So neglected and obscure -in this _campo santo_ that only he upon whose farm it is—the aged -postmaster of Travelers’ Repose—appears to know about it. Men living -within a mile have never heard of it. Yet other men must be still -living who assisted to lay these Southern soldiers where they are, and -could identify some of the graves. Is there a man, North or South, -who would begrudge the expense of giving to these fallen brothers the -tribute of green graves? One would rather not think so. True, there -are several hundreds of such places still discoverable in the track of -the great war. All the stronger is the dumb demand—the silent plea of -these fallen brothers to what is “likest God within the soul.” - -They were honest and courageous foemen, having little in common with -the political madmen who persuaded them to their doom and the literary -bearers of false witness in the aftertime. They did not live through -the period of honorable strife into the period of vilification—did -not pass from the iron age to the brazen—from the era of the sword to -that of the tongue and pen. Among them is no member of the Southern -Historical Society. Their valor was not the fury of the non-combatant; -they have no voice in the thunder of the civilians and the shouting. -Not by them are impaired the dignity and infinite pathos of the Lost -Cause. Give them, these blameless gentlemen, their rightful part in all -the pomp that fills the circuit of the summer hills. - -1903. - - - Transcriber’s Notes: - - - Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). - - Blank pages have been removed. - - A few obvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE COLLECTED WORKS OF AMBROSE -BIERCE, VOLUME 11 *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |