summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/old/8sxys10h.htm
blob: c4ff4936f51eeb424a2e36b8e1190c15badffb28 (plain) 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
1167
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
1184
1185
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
1192
1193
1194
1195
1196
1197
1198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
1235
1236
1237
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
1321
1322
1323
1324
1325
1326
1327
1328
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
1334
1335
1336
1337
1338
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
1361
1362
1363
1364
1365
1366
1367
1368
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
1381
1382
1383
1384
1385
1386
1387
1388
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
1394
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
1401
1402
1403
1404
1405
1406
1407
1408
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
1417
1418
1419
1420
1421
1422
1423
1424
1425
1426
1427
1428
1429
1430
1431
1432
1433
1434
1435
1436
1437
1438
1439
1440
1441
1442
1443
1444
1445
1446
1447
1448
1449
1450
1451
1452
1453
1454
1455
1456
1457
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
1465
1466
1467
1468
1469
1470
1471
1472
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
1491
1492
1493
1494
1495
1496
1497
1498
1499
1500
1501
1502
1503
1504
1505
1506
1507
1508
1509
1510
1511
1512
1513
1514
1515
1516
1517
1518
1519
1520
1521
1522
1523
1524
1525
1526
1527
1528
1529
1530
1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
1540
1541
1542
1543
1544
1545
1546
1547
1548
1549
1550
1551
1552
1553
1554
1555
1556
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
1564
1565
1566
1567
1568
1569
1570
1571
1572
1573
1574
1575
1576
1577
1578
1579
1580
1581
1582
1583
1584
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
1604
1605
1606
1607
1608
1609
1610
1611
1612
1613
1614
1615
1616
1617
1618
1619
1620
1621
1622
1623
1624
1625
1626
1627
1628
1629
1630
1631
1632
1633
1634
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
1640
1641
1642
1643
1644
1645
1646
1647
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
1656
1657
1658
1659
1660
1661
1662
1663
1664
1665
1666
1667
1668
1669
1670
1671
1672
1673
1674
1675
1676
1677
1678
1679
1680
1681
1682
1683
1684
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
1694
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
1711
1712
1713
1714
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
1720
1721
1722
1723
1724
1725
1726
1727
1728
1729
1730
1731
1732
1733
1734
1735
1736
1737
1738
1739
1740
1741
1742
1743
1744
1745
1746
1747
1748
1749
1750
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
1770
1771
1772
1773
1774
1775
1776
1777
1778
1779
1780
1781
1782
1783
1784
1785
1786
1787
1788
1789
1790
1791
1792
1793
1794
1795
1796
1797
1798
1799
1800
1801
1802
1803
1804
1805
1806
1807
1808
1809
1810
1811
1812
1813
1814
1815
1816
1817
1818
1819
1820
1821
1822
1823
1824
1825
1826
1827
1828
1829
1830
1831
1832
1833
1834
1835
1836
1837
1838
1839
1840
1841
1842
1843
1844
1845
1846
1847
1848
1849
1850
1851
1852
1853
1854
1855
1856
1857
1858
1859
1860
1861
1862
1863
1864
1865
1866
1867
1868
1869
1870
1871
1872
1873
1874
1875
1876
1877
1878
1879
1880
1881
1882
1883
1884
1885
1886
1887
1888
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
1894
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
1914
1915
1916
1917
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
1932
1933
1934
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
2050
2051
2052
2053
2054
2055
2056
2057
2058
2059
2060
2061
2062
2063
2064
2065
2066
2067
2068
2069
2070
2071
2072
2073
2074
2075
2076
2077
2078
2079
2080
2081
2082
2083
2084
2085
2086
2087
2088
2089
2090
2091
2092
2093
2094
2095
2096
2097
2098
2099
2100
2101
2102
2103
2104
2105
2106
2107
2108
2109
2110
2111
2112
2113
2114
2115
2116
2117
2118
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
2124
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
2131
2132
2133
2134
2135
2136
2137
2138
2139
2140
2141
2142
2143
2144
2145
2146
2147
2148
2149
2150
2151
2152
2153
2154
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
2164
2165
2166
2167
2168
2169
2170
2171
2172
2173
2174
2175
2176
2177
2178
2179
2180
2181
2182
2183
2184
2185
2186
2187
2188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
2194
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
2204
2205
2206
2207
2208
2209
2210
2211
2212
2213
2214
2215
2216
2217
2218
2219
2220
2221
2222
2223
2224
2225
2226
2227
2228
2229
2230
2231
2232
2233
2234
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
2240
2241
2242
2243
2244
2245
2246
2247
2248
2249
2250
2251
2252
2253
2254
2255
2256
2257
2258
2259
2260
2261
2262
2263
2264
2265
2266
2267
2268
2269
2270
2271
2272
2273
2274
2275
2276
2277
2278
2279
2280
2281
2282
2283
2284
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
2291
2292
2293
2294
2295
2296
2297
2298
2299
2300
2301
2302
2303
2304
2305
2306
2307
2308
2309
2310
2311
2312
2313
2314
2315
2316
2317
2318
2319
2320
2321
2322
2323
2324
2325
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
2334
2335
2336
2337
2338
2339
2340
2341
2342
2343
2344
2345
2346
2347
2348
2349
2350
2351
2352
2353
2354
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
2364

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<title>'Tis Sixty Years Since</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" />
<style type="text/css">
body {	font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
		background-color: #ffffff;}
a:link {color:#000000}
a:visited {color:#000000}
a:hover {color:#000000}

</style>
</head>
<!-- Converted to HTML for the Gutenberg Project by Sjaani -->
<body>


<pre>

Project Gutenberg's 'Tis Sixty Years Since, by Charles Francis Adams

Copyright laws are changing all over the world. Be sure to check the
copyright laws for your country before downloading or redistributing
this or any other Project Gutenberg eBook.

This header should be the first thing seen when viewing this Project
Gutenberg file.  Please do not remove it.  Do not change or edit the
header without written permission.

Please read the "legal small print," and other information about the
eBook and Project Gutenberg at the bottom of this file.  Included is
important information about your specific rights and restrictions in
how the file may be used.  You can also find out about how to make a
donation to Project Gutenberg, and how to get involved.


**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**

**eBooks Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**

*****These eBooks Were Prepared By Thousands of Volunteers!*****


Title: 'Tis Sixty Years Since

Author: Charles Francis Adams

Release Date: February, 2006 [EBook #9996]
[Yes, we are more than one year ahead of schedule]
[This file was first posted on November 6, 2003]

Edition: 10

Language: English

Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 'TIS SIXTY YEARS SINCE ***




Produced by Afra Ullah, Sjaani and PG Distributed Proofreaders





</pre>


<table width="80%" border="0" align="center">
  <tr>
    <td>
      <h1 align="center">&quot;'TIS SIXTY YEARS SINCE&quot;</h1>
      <h3 align="center">ADDRESS OF <br />
        CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS </h3>
      <div align="center">* * * * * </div>
      <h4 align="center">FOUNDERS' DAY, JANUARY 16, 1913</h4>
    </td>
  </tr>
</table>
<br />
<hr align="center" width="40%" />

<table width="80%" border="0" align="center">
  <tr>
    <td>
      <h1 align="center">&quot;'TIS SIXTY YEARS SINCE&quot;</h1>


<p>In the single hour self-allotted for my part in this
occasion there is much ground to cover,--the time is
short, and I have far to go. Did I now, therefore, submit
all I had proposed to say when I accepted your
invitation, there would remain no space for preliminaries.
Yet something of that character is in place.
I will try to make it brief.<a href="#one"><sup>[1]</sup></a></p>

<p>As the legend or text of what I have in mind to submit,
I have given the words &quot;'Tis Sixty Years Since.&quot;
As some here doubtless recall, this is the second or subordinate
title of Walter Scott's first novel, &quot;Waverley,&quot;
which brought him fame. Given to the world in 1814,--hard
on a century ago,--&quot;Waverley&quot; told of the last
Stuart effort to recover the crown of Great Britain,--that
of &quot;The '45.&quot; It so chances that Scott's period of
retrospect is also just now most appropriate in my case,
inasmuch as I entered Harvard as a student in the year
1853--&quot;sixty years since!&quot; It may fairly be asserted
that school life ends, and what may in contradistinction
thereto be termed thinking and acting life begins, the
day the young man passes the threshold of the institution
of more advanced education. For him, life's
responsibilities then begin. Prior to that confused,
thenceforth things with him become consecutive,--a
sequence. Insensibly he puts away childish things.</p>

<p><a name="one"></a>[1] Owing to its length, this &quot;Address&quot; was compressed in delivery,
occupying one hour only. It is here printed in the form in which it was
prepared,--the parts omitted in delivery being included.</p>

<p>In those days, as I presume now, the college youth
harkened to inspired voices. Sir Walter Scott belonged to
a previous generation. Having held the close attention
of a delighted world as the most successful story-teller
of his own or any preceding period, he had passed off the
stage; but only a short twenty years before. Other voices
no less inspired had followed; and, living, spoke to us.
Perhaps my scheme to-day is best expressed by one of
these.</p>

<p>When just beginning to attract the attention of the
English-speaking world, Alfred Tennyson gave forth
his poem of &quot;Locksley Hall,&quot;--very familiar to those
of my younger days. Written years before, at the time
of publication he was thirty-three. In 1886, a man of
seventy-five, he composed a sequel to his earlier effort,--the
utterance entitled &quot;Locksley Hall Sixty Years
After.&quot; He then, you will remember, reviewed his
young man's dreams,--dreams of the period when he</p>

<p>&quot; ... dip't into the future, far as human eye could see,
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be,&quot;</p>

<p>--threescore years later contrasting in sombre verse
an old man's stern realities with the bright anticipations
of youth. Such is my purpose to-day. &quot;Wandering
back to living boyhood,&quot; to the time when I first
simultaneously passed the Harvard threshold and the
threshold of responsible life, I propose to compare the
ideals and actualities of the present with the ideals,
anticipations and dreams of a past now somewhat remote.</p>

<p>To say that in life and in the order of life's events it
is the unexpected which is apt to occur, is a commonplace.
That it has been so in my own case, I shall presently
show. Meanwhile, not least among the unexpected
things is my presence here to-day. If, when I entered
Harvard in 1853, it had been suggested that in 1913, I,--born
of the New England Sanhedrim, a Brahmin Yankee
by blood, tradition and environment--had it been suggested
that I, being such, would sixty years later stand
by invitation here in Columbia before the faculty and
students of the University of South Carolina, I should
under circumstances then existing have pronounced the
suggestion as beyond reasonable credence. Here, however,
I am; and here, from this as my rostrum, I propose
to-day to deliver a message,--such as it is.</p>

<p>And yet, though such a future outcome, if then foretold,
would have seemed scarcely possible of occurrence,
there, after all, were certain conditions which would
have rendered the contingency even at that time not only
possible, but in accordance with the everlasting fitness of
things. For, curiously enough, personal relations of a
certain character held with this institution would have
given me, even in 1853, a sense of acquaintance with it
such as individually I had with no other institution of
similar character throughout the entire land. It in this
wise came about. At that period, preceding as it did the
deluge about to ensue, it was the hereditary custom of
certain families more especially of South Carolina and of
Louisiana,--but of South Carolina in particular--to
send their youth to Harvard, there to receive a college
education. It thus chanced that among my associates
at Harvard were not a few who bore names long familiarly
and honorably known to Carolinian records,--Barnwell
and Preston, Rhett and Alston, Parkman and
Eliot; and among these were some I knew well, and even
intimately. Gone now with the generation and even
the civilization to which they belonged, I doubt if any of
them survive. Indeed only recently I chanced on a grimly
suggestive mention of one who had left on me the memory
of a character and personality singularly pure, high-toned
and manly,--permeated with a sense of moral
and personal obligation. I have always understood he
died five years later at Sharpsburg, as you call it, or
Antietam, as it was named by us, in face-to-face conflict
with a Massachusetts regiment largely officered by Harvard
men of his time and even class,--his own familiar
friends. This is the record, the reference being to a marriage
service held at St. Paul's church in Richmond,
in the late autumn of 1862: &quot;An indefinable feeling
of gloom was thrown over a most auspicious event when
the bride's youngest sister glided through a side door
just before the processional. Tottering to a chancel pew,
she threw herself upon the cushions, her slight frame
racked with sobs. Scarcely a year before, the wedding
march had been played for her, and a joyous throng
saw her wedded to gallant Breck Parkman. Before
another twelvemonth rolled around the groom was killed
at the front.&quot;<a href="#two"><sup>[2]</sup></a> Samuel Breck Parkman was in the
Harvard class following that to which I belonged. Graduating
in 1857, fifty-five years later I next saw his name
in the connection just given. It recorded an incident of
not infrequent occurrence in those dark and cruel days.</p>

<p>It was, however, in Breck Parkman and his like that
I first became conscious of certain phases of the South
Carolina character which subsequently I learned to bear
in high respect.</p>

<p>So far as this University of South Carolina was concerned,
it also so chanced that, by the merest accident,
I, a very young man, was thrown into close personal
relations with one of the most eminent of your professors,--Francis
Lieber. Few here, I suppose, now personally
remember Francis Lieber. To most it gives indeed
a certain sense of remoteness to meet one who, as in my
case, once held close and even intimate relations with a
German emigrant, distinguished as a publicist, who as a
youth had lain, wounded and helpless, a Prussian recruit,
on the field above Namur. Occurring in June, 1815,
two days after Waterloo, the affair at Namur will soon
be a century gone. Of those engaged in it, the last
obeyed the fell sergeant's summons a half score years
ago. It seems remote; but at the time of which I speak
Waterloo was appreciably nearer those in active life than
are Shiloh and Gettysburg now. The Waterloo campaign
was then but thirty-eight years removed, whereas those
last are fifty now; and, while Lieber was at Waterloo, I
was myself at Gettysburg.</p>

<p><a name="two"></a>[2] DeLeon, &quot;Belles, Beaux and Brains of the Sixties,&quot; p. 158.</p>
<p>
Subsequently, later in life, it was again my privilege
to hold close relations with another Columbian,--an
alumnus of this University as it then was--in whom I
had opportunity to study some of the strongest and most
respect-commanding traits of the Southern character.
I refer to one here freshly remembered,--Alexander
Cheves Haskell,--soldier, jurist, banker and scholar,
one of a septet of brothers sent into the field by a South
Carolina mother calm and tender of heart, but in silent
suffering unsurpassed by any recorded in the annals
whether of Judea or of Rome. It was the fourth of the
seven Haskells I knew, one typical throughout, in my
belief, of what was best in your Carolinian development.
With him, as I have said, I was closely and even intimately
associated through years, and in him I had occasion to
note that almost austere type represented in its highest
development in the person and attributes of Calhoun.
Of strongly marked descent, Haskell was, as I have always
supposed, of a family and race in which could be observed
those virile Scotch-Irish and Presbyterian qualities
which found their representative types in the two
Jacksons,--Andrew, and him known in history as &quot;Stonewall.&quot;
To Alec Haskell I shall in this discourse again
have occasion to refer.</p>

<p>Thus, though in 1853, and for long years subsequent
thereto, it would not have entered my mind as among the
probabilities that I should ever stand here, reviewing the
past after the manner of Tennyson in his &quot;Locksley Hall
Sixty Years After,&quot; yet if there was any place in the
South, or, I may say, in the entire country, where, as a
matter of association, I might naturally have looked so
to stand, it would have been where now I find myself.</p>

<p>But I must hasten on; for, as I have said, if I am to
accomplish even a part of my purpose, I have no time
wherein to linger.</p>

<p>Not long ago I chanced, in a country ramble, to be
conversing with an eminent foreigner, known, and favorably
known, to all Americans. In the course of leisurely
exchange of ideas between us, he suddenly asked if I
could suggest any explanation of the fact that not only
were the publicists who had the greatest vogue in our
college days now to a large extent discredited, but that
almost every view and theory advanced by them, and
which we had accepted as fixed and settled, was, where
not actually challenged, silently ignored. Nor did the
assertion admit of denial; for, looking back through the
vista of threescore years, of the principles of what may
be called &quot;public polity&quot; then advanced as indisputable,
few to-day meet with general acceptance. To review
the record from this point of view is curious.</p>

<p>When in 1853 I entered Harvard, so far as this country
and its polity were concerned certain things were matters
of contention, while others were accepted as axiomatic,--the
basic truths of our system. Among the former--the
subjects of active contention--were the question
of Slavery, then grimly assuming shape, and that of
Nationality intertwined therewith. Subordinate to this
was the issue of Free Trade and Protection, with the school
of so-called American political economy arrayed against
that of Adam Smith. Beyond these as political ideals
were the tenets and theories of Jeffersonian Democracy.
That the world had heretofore been governed too much
was loudly acclaimed, and the largest possible individualism
was preached, not only as a privilege but as a right.
The area of government action was to be confined within
the narrowest practical limits, and ample scope was to
be allowed to each to develop in the way most natural
to himself, provided only he did not infringe upon the
rights of others. Materially, we were then reaching
out to subdue a continent,--a doctrine of Manifest
Destiny was in vogue. Beyond this, however, and most
important now to be borne in mind, compared with the
present the control of man over natural agencies and latent
forces was scarcely begun. Not yet had the railroad
crossed the Missouri; electricity, just bridled, was still
unharnessed.</p>

<p>I have now passed in rapid review what may perhaps
without exaggeration be referred to as an array of conditions
and theories, ideals and policies. It remains to
refer to the actual results which have come about during
these sixty years as respects them, or because of them;
and, finally, to reach if possible conclusions as to the
causes which have affected what may not inaptly be
termed a process of general evolution. Having thus, so
to speak, diagnosed the situation, the changes the situation
exacts are to be measured, and a forecast ventured. An
ambitious programme, I am well enough aware that the not
very considerable reputation I have established for myself
hardly warrants me in attempting it. This, I
premise.</p>

<p>Let us, in the first place, recur in somewhat greater
detail to the various policies and ideals I have referred
to as in vogue in the year 1853.</p>

<p>First and foremost, overshadowing all else, was the
political issue raised by African slavery, then ominously
assuming shape. The clouds foreboding the coming tempest
were gathering thick and heavy; and, moreover, they
were even then illumined by electric flashes, accompanied
by a mutter of distant thunder. Though we of the North
certainly did not appreciate its gravity, the situation
was portentous in the extreme.</p>

<p>Involved in this problem of African slavery was the
incidental issue of Free Trade and Protection,--apparently
only economical and industrial in character, but
in reality fundamentally crucial. And behind this lay
the constitutional question, involving as it did not only
the conflicting theories of a strict or liberal construction
of the fundamental law, but nationality also,--the right
of a Sovereign State to withdraw from the Union created
in 1787, and developed through two generations.</p>

<p>These may be termed concrete political issues, as opposed
to basic truths generally accepted and theories
individually entertained. The theories were constitutional,
social, economical. Constitutionally, they turned
upon the obligations of citizenship. There was no such
thing then as a citizen of the United States of and by itself.
The citizen of the United States was such simply
because of his citizenship of a Sovereign State,--whether
Massachusetts or Virginia or South Carolina; and, of
course, an instrument based upon a divided sovereignty
admitted of almost infinitely diverse interpretation.
It is a scriptural aphorism that no man can serve two
masters; for either he will hate the one and love the
other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the
other. And in the fulness of time it literally with us
so came about. The accepted economical theories of
the period were to a large extent corollaries of the
fundamental proposition, and differing material and
social conditions. Beyond all this, and coming still
under the head of individual theories, was the doctrine
enunciated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration
of Independence,--the doctrine that all men were created
equal,--meaning, of course, equal before the law. But
the theorist and humanitarian of the North, accepting
the fundamental principle laid down in the Declaration,
gave to it a far wider application than had been intended
by its authors,--a breadth of application it would not
bear. Such science as he had being of scriptural origin,
he interpreted the word &quot;equal&quot; as signifying equal in
the possibilities of their attributes,--physical, moral,
intellectual; and in so doing, he of course ignored the
first principles of ethnology. It was, I now realize, a
somewhat wild-eyed school of philosophy, that of which I
myself was a youthful disciple.</p>

<p>But, on the other hand, beside these, between 1850
and 1860 a class of trained and more cautious thinkers,
observers, scientists and theologians was coming to the
front. Their investigations, though we did not then
foresee it, were a generation later destined gently to subvert
the accepted fundamentals of religious and economical
thought, literary performance, and material existence.
The work they had in hand to do was for the next fifteen
years to be subordinate, so far as this country was concerned,
to the solution of the terrible political problems
which were first insistent on settlement; yet, as is now
apparent, an initial movement was on foot which foreboded
a revolution world-wide in its nature, and one in
comparison with which the issues of slavery and American
constitutionality became practically insignificant,--in
a word, local and passing incidents.</p>

<p>Finally, it remains to consider specifically the political
theories then in vogue in their relation to the individual.
In this country, it was the period of the equality of man
and individuality in the development of the type. It
was generally believed that the world had hitherto been
governed too much,--that the day of caste, and even
class, was over and gone; and finally, that America was
a species of vast modern melting-pot of humanity, in
which, within a comparatively short period of time, the
characteristics of all branches of Indo-Aryan origin would
resolve themselves. A new type would emerge,--the
American. These theories were also in their consequences
far-reaching. Practically, 1853 antedates all our present
industrial organizations so loudly in evidence,--the
multifarious trades-unions which now divide the population
of the United States into what are known as the
&quot;masses&quot; and the &quot;classes.&quot; As recently as a century
ago, it used to be said of the French army under the Empire,
that every soldier carried the baton of the Field-Marshal
in his knapsack. And this ideal of equality and
individuality was fixed in the American mind.</p>

<p>Not that I for a moment mean to imply that in my
belief the middle of the last century, or the twenty years
anterior to the Civil War, was a species of golden age in
our American annals. On the contrary, it was, as I
remember it, a phase of development very open to criticism;
and that in many respects. It was crude, self-conscious
and self-assertive; provincial and formative,
rather than formed. Socially and materially we were,
compared with the present era of motors and parlor-cars,
in the &quot;one-hoss shay&quot; and stove-heated railroad-coach
stage. Nevertheless, what is now referred to as &quot;predatory
wealth&quot; had not yet begun to accumulate in few
hands; much greater equality of condition prevailed;
nor was the &quot;wage-earner&quot; referred to as constituting
a class distinct from the holders of property. Thus the
individual was then encouraged,--whether in literature,
in commerce, or in politics. In other words, there being
a free field, one man was held to be in all respects the
equal of the rest. Especially was what I have said true
of the Northern, or so-called Free States, as contrasted
with the States of the South, where the presence of
African slavery distinctly affected individual theories, no
matter where or to what extent entertained.</p>

<p>Such, briefly and comprehensively stated, having been
the situation in 1853, it remains to consider the practical
outcome thereof during the sixty years it has been my
fortune to take part, either as an actor or as an observer,
in the great process of evolution. It is curious to note
the extent to which the unexpected has come about. In
the first place, consider the all-absorbing mid-century
political issue, that involving the race question, to which I
first referred,--the issue which divided the South from
the North, and which, eight years only after I had entered
college, carried me from the walks of civil life into the
calling of arms.</p>

<p>And here I enter on a field of discussion both difficult
and dangerous; and, for reasons too obvious to require
statement, what I am about to say will be listened to with
no inconsiderable apprehension as to what next may be
forthcoming. Nevertheless, this is a necessary part of
my theme; and I propose to say what I have in mind to
say, setting forth with all possible frankness the more
mature conclusions reached with the passage of years.
Let it be received in the spirit in which it is offered.</p>

<p>So far, then, as the institution of slavery is concerned,
in its relations to ownership and property in those of the
human species,--I have seen no reason whatever to revise
or in any way to alter the theories and principles I
entertained in 1853, and in the maintenance of which I
subsequently bore arms between 1861 and 1865. Economically,
socially, and from the point of view of abstract
political justice, I hold that the institution of slavery,
as it existed in this country prior to the year 1865, was
in no respect either desirable or justifiable. That it had
its good and even its elevating side, so far at least as the
African is concerned, I am not here to deny. On the contrary,
I see and recognize those features of the institution
far more clearly now than I should have said would have
been possible in 1853. That the institution in itself,
under conditions then existing, tended to the elevation
of the less advanced race, I frankly admit I did not then
think. On the other hand, that it exercised a most pernicious
influence upon those of the more advanced race,
and especially upon that large majority of the more advanced
race who were not themselves owners of slaves,--of
that I have become with time ever more and more
satisfied. The noticeable feature, however, so far as I
individually am concerned, has been the entire change
of view as respects certain of the fundamental propositions
at the base of our whole American political and
social edifice brought about by a more careful and intelligent
ethnological study. I refer to the political equality
of man, and to that race absorption to which I have alluded,--that belief that any foreign element introduced
into the American social system and body politic would
speedily be absorbed therein, and in a brief space thoroughly
assimilated. In this all-important respect I do
not hesitate to say we theorists and abstractionists of the
North, throughout that long anti-slavery discussion which
ended with the 1861 clash of arms, were thoroughly
wrong. In utter disregard of fundamental, scientific facts,
we theoretically believed that all men--no matter what
might be the color of their skin, or the texture of their
hair--were, if placed under exactly similar conditions,
in essentials the same. In other words, we indulged in
the curious and, as is now admitted, utterly erroneous
theory that the African was, so to speak, an Anglo-Saxon,
or, if you will, a Yankee &quot;who had never had a chance,&quot;--a
fellow-man who was guilty, as we chose to express it,
of a skin not colored like our own. In other words, though
carved in ebony, he also was in the image of God.</p>

<p>Following out this theory, under the lead of men to
whom scientific analysis and observation were anathema
if opposed to accepted cardinal political theories as enunciated
in the Declaration as read by them, the African
was not only emancipated, but so far as the letter of the
law, as expressed in an amended Constitution, would
establish the fact, the quondam slave was in all respects
placed on an equality, political, legal and moral, with those
of the more advanced race.</p>

<p>I do not hesitate here,--as one who largely entertained
the theoretical views I have expressed,--I do not hesitate
here to say, as the result of sixty years of more careful
study and scientific observation, the theories then entertained
by us were not only fundamentally wrong, but
they further involved a problem in the presence of which
I confess to-day I stand appalled.</p>

<p>It is said,--whether truthfully or not,--that when
some years ago John Morley, the English writer and
thinker, was in this country, on returning to England he
remarked that the African race question, as now existing
in the United States, presented a problem as nearly, to
his mind, insoluble as any human problem well could be.
I do not care whether Lord Morley made this statement
or did not make it. I am prepared, however, to say
that, individually, so far as my present judgment goes,
it is a correct presentation. To us in the North, the
African is a comparatively negligible factor. So far as
Massachusetts, for instance, or the city of Boston more
especially, are concerned, as a problem it is solving itself.
Proportionately, the African infusion is becoming less--never
large, it is incomparably less now than it was in
the days of my own youth. Thus manifestly a negligible
factor, it is also one tending to extinction. Indeed, it
would be fairly open to question whether a single Afro-American
of unmixed Ethiopian descent could now be
found in Boston. That the problem presents itself with
a wholly different aspect here in Carolina is manifest.
The difference too is radical; it goes to the heart of the
mystery.</p>

<p>As I have already said, the universal &quot;melting-pot&quot;
theory in vogue in my youth was that but seven, or at
the most fourteen, years were required to convert the
alien immigrant--no matter from what region or of what
descent--into an American citizen. The educational influences
and social environment were assumed to be not only
subtle, but all-pervasive and powerful. That this theory
was to a large and even dangerous extent erroneous the observation
of the last fifty years has proved, and our Massachusetts
experience is sadly demonstrating to-day. It was
Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, years ago, when asked by an
anxious mother at what age the education of a child ought
to begin, remarked in reply that it should begin about one
hundred and fifty years before the child is born. It has so
proved with us; and the fact is to-day in evidence that this
statement of Dr. Holmes should be accepted as an undeniable
political aphorism. So far from seven or fourteen years
making an American citizen, fully and thoroughly impregnated
with American ideals to the exclusion of all others,
our experience is that it requires at least three generations
to eliminate what may be termed the &quot;hyphen&quot; in citizenship.
Not in the first, nor in the second, and hardly
in the third, generation, does the immigrant cease to be
an Irish-American, or a French-American, or a German-American,
or a Slavonic-American, or yet a Dago.
Nevertheless, in process of tune, those of the Caucasian
race do and will become Americans. Ultimately their
descendants will be free from the traditions and ideals, so
to speak, ground in through centuries passed under other
conditions. Not so the Ethiopian. In his case, we find
ourselves confronted with a situation never contemplated
in that era of political dreams and scriptural science in
which our institutions received shape. Stated tersely
and in plain language, so far as the African is concerned--the
cause and, so to speak, the motive of the great
struggle of 1861 to 1865--we recognize the presence in
the body politic of a vast alien mass which does not
assimilate and which cannot be absorbed. In other
words, the melting-pot theory came in sharp contact
with an ethnological fact, and the unexpected occurred.
The problem of African servitude was solved after a
fashion; but in place of it a race issue of most uncompromising
character evolved itself.</p>

<p>A survivor of the generation which read &quot;Uncle Tom's
Cabin&quot; as it week by week appeared,--fresh to-day from
Massachusetts with its Lawrence race issues of a different
character, I feel a sense of satisfaction in discussing here
in South Carolina this question and issue in a spirit the
reverse of dogmatic, a spirit purely scientific, observant
and sympathetic. And in this connection let me say I
well remember repeatedly discussing it with your fellow-citizen
and my friend, Colonel Alexander Haskell, to
whom I have already made reference. Rarely have I
been more impressed by a conclusion reached and fixed
in the mind of one who to the study of a problem had
obviously given much and kindly thought. As those
who knew him do not need to be told, Alexander Cheves
Haskell was a man of character, pure and just and
thoughtful. He felt towards the African as only a Southerner
who had himself never been the owner of slaves
can feel. He regarded him as of a less advanced race than
his own, but one who was entitled not only to just and
kindly treatment but to sympathetic consideration.
When, however, the question of the future of the Afro-American
was raised, as matter for abstract discussion,
it was suggestive as well as curious to observe the fixed,
hard expression which immediately came over Haskell's
face, as with stern lips, from which all suggestion of a
smile had faded away, he pronounced the words:--&quot;Sir,
it is a dying race!&quot; To express the thought more fully,
Colonel Haskell maintained, as I doubt not many who
now listen to me will maintain, that the nominal Afro-American
increase, as shown in the figures of the national
census, is deceptive,--that in point of fact, the
Ethiop in America is incurring the doom which has ever
befallen those of an inferior and less advanced race when
brought in direct and immediate contact, necessarily and
inevitably competitive, with the more advanced, the
more masterful, and intellectually the more gifted. In
other words, those of the less advanced race have a fatal
aptitude for contracting the vices, both moral and physical,
of the superior race, in the end leading to destruction;
while the capacity for assimilating the elevating qualities
and attributes which constitute a saving grace is denied
them. Elimination, therefore, became in Haskell's belief
a question of time only,--the law of the survival
of the fittest would assert itself. The time required
may be long,--numbered by centuries; but, however
remotely, it nevertheless would come. God's mill grinds
slowly, but it grinds uncommon small; and, I will add,
its grinding is apt to be merciless.</p>

<p>The solution thus most pronouncedly laid down by
Colonel Haskell may or may not prove in this case correct
and final. It certainly is not for me, coming from the
North, to undertake dogmatically to pass upon it. I
recur to it here as a plausible suggestion only, in connection
with my theme. As such, it unquestionably merits
consideration. I am by no means prepared to go the
length of an English authority in recently saying that
&quot;emancipation on two continents sacrificed the real welfare
of the slave and his intrinsic worth as a person, to
the impatient vanity of an immediate and theatrical
triumph.&quot;><sup><a href="#three">[3</a>]</sup> This length I say, I cannot go; but so far
as the present occasion is concerned, with such means of
observation as are within my reach, I find the conclusion
difficult to resist that the success of the abolitionists in
effecting the emancipation of the Afro-American, as unexpected
and sweeping as it was sudden, has led to phases
of the race problem quite unanticipated at least. For
instance, as respects segregation. Instead of assimilating,
with a tendency to ultimate absorption, the movement
in the opposite direction since 1865 is pronounced. It
has, moreover, received the final stamp of scientific
approval. This implies much; for in the old days of
the &quot;peculiar institution&quot; there is no question the relations
between the two races were far more intimate,
kindly, and even absorptive than they now are.</p>

<p><a name="three"></a>[3]Bussell's (Dr. F.W.) &quot;Christian Theology and Social Progress.&quot;
Bampton Lectures, 1905.</p>


<p>That African slavery, as it existed in the United States
anterior to the year 1862, presented a mild form of servitude,
as servitude then existed and immemorially had almost
everywhere existed, was, moreover, incontrovertibly proven
in the course of the Civil War. Before 1862, it was confidently
believed that any severe social agitation within,
or disturbance from without, would inevitably lead to a
Southern servile insurrection. In Europe this result was
assumed as of course; and, immediately after it was
issued, the Emancipation Proclamation of President
Lincoln was denounced in unmeasured terms by the entire
London press. Not a voice was raised in its defence.
It was regarded as a measure unwarranted in civilized
warfare, and a sure and intentional incitement to the
horrors which had attended the servile insurrections of
Haiti and San Domingo; and, more recently, the unspeakable
Sepoy incidents of the Indian mutiny. What
actually occurred is now historic. The confident anticipations
of our English brethren were, not for the first
time, negatived; nor is there any page in our American
record more creditable to those concerned than the attitude
held by the African during the fierce internecine
struggle which prevailed between April, 1861, and April,
1865. In it there is scarcely a trace, if indeed there is
any trace at all, of such a condition of affairs as had
developed in the Antilles and in Hindustan. The attitude
of the African towards his Confederate owner was
submissive and kindly. Although the armed and masterful
domestic protector was at the front and engaged
in deadly, all-absorbing conflict, yet the women and
children of the Southern plantation slept with unbarred
doors,--free from apprehension, much more from molestation.</p>

<p>Moreover, as you here well know, during the old days
of slavery there was hardly a child born, of either sex,
who grew up in a Southern household of substantial
wealth without holding immediate and most affectionate
relations with those of the other race. Every typical
Southern man had what he called his &quot;daddy&quot; and his
&quot;mammy,&quot; his &quot;uncle&quot; and his &quot;aunty,&quot; by him familiarly
addressed as such, and who were to him even closer
than are blood relations to most. They had cared for
him in his cradle; he followed them to their graves. Is
it needful for me to ask to what extent such relations
still exist? Of those born thirty years after emancipation,
and therefore belonging distinctly to a later generation,
how many thus have their kindly, if humble, kin of
the African blood? I fancy I would be safe in saying
not one in twenty.</p>

<p>Here, then, as the outcome of the first great issue I
have suggested as occupying the thought and exciting
the passions of that earlier period, is a problem wholly
unanticipated,--a problem which, merely stating, I
dismiss.</p>

<p>Passing rapidly on, I come to the next political issue
which presented itself in my youth,--the constitutional
issue,--that of State Sovereignty, as opposed to the
ideal, Nationality. And, whether for better or worse,
this issue, I very confidently submit, has been settled.
We now, also, looking at it in more observant mood, in
a spirit at once philosophical and historical, see that it
involved a process of natural evolution which, under the
conditions prevailing, could hardly result in any other
settlement than that which came about. We now have
come to a recognition of the fact that Anglo-Saxon nationality
on this continent was a problem of crystallization,
the working out of which occupied a little over two centuries.
It was in New England the process first set in,
when, in 1643, the scattered English-speaking settlements
under the hegemony of the colony of Massachusetts
Bay united in a confederation. It was the initial step.
I have no time in which to enumerate successive steps,
each representing a stage in advance of what went
before. The War of Independence,--mistakenly denominated
the Revolutionary War, but a struggle distinctly
conservative in character, and in no way revolutionary,--the
War of Independence gave great impetus
to the process, resulting in what was known as Federation.
Then came the Constitution of 1787 and the formation
of the, so called, United States as a distinct nationality.
The United States next passed through two definite processes
of further crystallization,--one in 1812-1814, when
the second war with Great Britain, and more especially
our naval victories, kindled, especially in the North,
the fire of patriotism and the conception of nationality;
the other, half a century later, presented the stern issue
in a concrete form, and at last the complete unification
of a community--whether for better or for worse is no
matter--was hammered by iron and cemented in blood.
It is there now; an established fact. Secession is a lost
cause; and, whether for good or for ill, the United States
exists, and will continue to exist, a unified World Power.
Sovereignty now rests at Washington, and neither in
Columbia for South Carolina nor in Boston for Massachusetts.
The State exists only as an integral portion of the
United States. That issue has been fought out. The
result stands beyond controversy; brought about by a
generation now passed on, but to which I belonged.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, the ancient adage, the rose is not without
its thorn, receives new illustration; for even this great
result has not been wrought without giving rise to considerations
suggestive of thought. Speaking tersely and
concentrating what is in my mind into the fewest possible
words, I may say that in our national growth up to the
year 1830 the play of the centrifugal forces predominated,--that
is, the necessity for greater cohesion made itself
continually felt. A period of quiescence then followed,
lasting until, we will say, 1865. Since 1865, it is not
unsafe to say, the centripetal, or gravitating, force has
predominated to an extent ever more suggestive of increasing
political uneasiness. It is now, as is notorious,
more in evidence than ever before. The tendency to
concentrate at Washington, the demand that the central
government, assuming one function after another, shall
become imperial, the cry for the national enactment of
laws, whether relating to marital divorce or to industrial
combinations,--all impinge on the fundamental principle
of local self-government, which assumed its highest
and most pronounced form in the claim of State Sovereignty.
I am now merely stating problems. I am not
discussing the political ills or social benefits which possibly
may result from action. Nevertheless, all, I think, must
admit that the tendency to gravitation and attraction
is to-day as pronounced and as dangerous, especially
in the industrial communities of the North, as was the
tendency to separation and segregation pronounced and
dangerous seventy years ago in the South.</p>

<p>To this I shall later return. I now merely point out
what I apprehend to be a tendency to extremes--an
excess in the swinging of our political pendulum.</p>

<p>We next come to that industrial factor which I have
referred to as the issue between the Free Trade of Adam
Smith and Protection, as inculcated by the so-called
American school of political economists. The phases
which this issue has assumed are, I submit, well calculated
to excite the attention of the observant and thoughtful.
I merely allude to them now; but, in so far as it is in my
power to make it so, my allusion will be specific. I
frankly acknowledge myself a Free-Trader. A Free-Trader
in theory, were it in my power I would be a
Free-Trader in national practice. There has been, so
far as I know, but one example of absolute free trade on
the largest scale in world history. That one example,
moreover, has been a success as unqualified as undeniable.
I refer to this American Union of ours. We have
here a country consisting of fifty local communities,
stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from
tropical Porto Rico to glacial Alaska, representing every
conceivable phase of soil, climate and material conditions,
with diverse industrial systems. With a Union
established on the principle of absolutely unrestricted
commercial intercourse, you here in South Carolina, and
more especially in Columbia, are to-day making it, so to
speak, uncomfortable for the cotton manufacturer in
New England; and I am glad of it! A sharp competition
is a healthy incentive to effort and ingenuity, and the
brutal injunction, &quot;Root hog or die!&quot; is one from which
I in no way ask to have New England exempt. When
Massachusetts is no longer able to hold its own industrially
in a free field, the time will, in my judgment,
have come for Massachusetts to go down. With communities
as with children, paternalism reads arrested
development. One of the great products of Massachusetts
has been what is generically known as &quot;footwear.&quot;
Yet I am told that under the operation of absolute
Free Trade, St. Louis possesses the largest boot
and shoe factory in its output in the entire world. That
is, the law of industrial development, as natural
conditions warrant and demand, has worked out its
results; and those results are satisfactory. I am aware
that the farmer of Massachusetts has become practically
extinct; he cannot face the competition of the great
West: but the Massachusetts consumer is greatly advantaged
thereby. So far as agricultural products are
concerned, Massachusetts is to-day reduced to what is
known as dairy products and garden truck; and it is
well! Summer vegetables manufactured under glass in
winter prove profitable. So, turning his industrial
efforts to that which he can do best, even the Massachusetts
agriculturalist has prospered. On the other
hand, wherever in this country protection has been most
completely applied, I insist that if its results are analyzed
in an unprejudiced spirit, it will be pronounced to have
worked unmitigated evil,--an unhealthy, because artificially
stimulated and too rapid, growth. Let Lawrence,
in Massachusetts, serve as an example. Look at the industrial
system there introduced in the name of Protection
against the Pauper Labor of Europe! No growth is so
dangerous as a too rapid growth; and I confidently
submit that politically, socially, economically and industrially,
America to-day, on the issues agitating us, presents
an almost appalling example of the results of hot-house
stimulation.</p>

<p>Nor is this all, nor the worst. There is another article,
and far more damaging, in the indictment. Through
Protection, and because of it, Paternalism has crept in;
and, like a huge cancerous growth, is eating steadily into
the vitals of the political system. Instead of supporting
a government economically administered by money contributed
by the People, a majority of the People to-day
are looking to the government for support, either
directly through pension payments or indirectly through
some form of industrial paternalism. Incidentally, a profuse
public expenditure is condoned where not actually
encouraged. Jeffersonian simplicity is preached; extravagance
is practised. As the New York showman long
since shrewdly observed: &quot;The American people love to
be fooled!&quot;</p>

<p>But I must pass on; I still have far to go. As respects
legislation, I have said that sixty years ago, when my
memories begin, the American ideal was the individual,
and individuality. This, implied adherence to the Jeffersonian
theory that heretofore the world had been
governed too much. The great secret of true national
prosperity, happiness and success was, we were taught,
to allow to each individual the fullest possible play, provided
only he did not infringe on the rights of others.
How is it to-day? America is the most governed and
legislated country in the world! With one national law-making
machine perpetually at work grinding out edicts,
we have some fifty provincial mills engaged in the same
interesting and, to my mind, pernicious work. No one
who has given the slightest consideration to the subject
will dispute the proposition that, taking America as a
whole, we now have twenty acts of legislation annually
promulgated, and with which we are at our peril supposed
to be familiar, where one would more than suffice. Then
we wonder that respect for the law shows a sensible decrease!
The better occasion for wonder is that it survives
at all. We are both legislated and litigated out of
all reason.</p>

<p>Passing to the other proposition of individuality, there
has been, as all men know and no one will dispute, a
most perceptible tendency of late years towards what is
known as the array of one portion of the community--the
preponderating, voting portion--against another--the
more ostentatious property-holding portion. It is
the natural result, I may say the necessary as well as
logical outcome, of a period of too rapid growth,--production
apportioned by no rule or system other or higher
than greed and individual aptitude for acquisition. I
will put the resulting case in the most brutal, and consequently
the clearest, shape of which I am capable. Working
on the combined theories of individualism controlled
and regulated by competition, it has been one grand game
of grab,--a process in which the whole tendency of our
legislation, national or state, has during the last twenty
years been, first, to create monopolies of capital and,
later, to bring into existence a counter, but no less privileged,
class, known as the &quot;wage-earner.&quot;</p>

<p>Of the first class it is needless to speak, for, as a class,
it is sufficiently pilloried by the press and from the hustings.
Much in evidence, those prominent in it are known
as the possessors of &quot;predatory wealth&quot;; &quot;unjailed malefactors,&quot;
they are subjects of continuous &quot;grilling&quot; in
the congressional and legislative committee rooms. The
effort to make them &quot;disgorge&quot; is as continual as it is
noisy, and, as a rule, futile. It constitutes a curious and
in some respects instructive exhibition of misdirected
popular feeling and legislative incompetence. None the
less, the existence of a monopolist class calls for no proof
at the bar of public opinion. Not so the other and even
more privileged class,--the so-called &quot;wage-earner&quot;;
for, disguise it as the trades-unionist will, angrily deny it
as he does, the fact remains that to-day under the operation
of our jury system and of our laws, the Wage-earner
and the member of the Trades-Union has become, as
respects the rest of the community, himself a monopolist
and, moreover, privileged as such. Practically, crimes
urged and even perpetrated in behalf of so-called &quot;labor&quot;
receive at the hands of juries, and also not infrequently
of courts, an altogether excessive degree of merciful consideration.
At the same time, both here and in Europe,
Organized Labor is instant in its demand that immunity,
denied to ordinary citizens, and those whom it terms
&quot;the classes,&quot; shall by special exemption be conferred
upon the Labor Union and upon the Wage-earner. The
tendency on both sides and at each extreme to inequality
in the legislature and before the law is thus manifest.</p>

<p>Viewing conditions face to face and as they now are,
no thoughtful observer can, in my judgment, avoid the
conviction that, whether for good or ill, for better or for
worse, this country as a community has, within the last
thirty years--that is, we will say, since our centennial
year, 1876--cast loose from its original moorings. It
has drifted, and is drifting, into unknown seas. Nor is
this true of English-speaking America alone. I have
already quoted Lord Morley in another connection.
Lord Morley, however, only the other day delivered, as
Chancellor of Manchester University, a most interesting
and highly suggestive address, in which, referring to conservative
Great Britain, he thus pictured a phase of
current belief: &quot;Political power is described as lying
in the hands of a vast and mobile electorate, with scanty
regard for tradition or history. Democracy, they say,
is going to write its own programme. The structure of
executive organs and machinery is undergoing half-hidden
but serious alterations. Men discover a change of attitude
towards law as law; a decline in reverence for institutions
as institutions.&quot;</p>

<p>While, however, the influences at work are thus general
and the manifestations whether on the other side of the
Atlantic or here bear a strong resemblance, yet difference
of conditions and detail--constitutional peculiarities,
so to speak--must not be disregarded. One form
of treatment may not be prescribed for all. In our case,
therefore, it remains to consider how best to adapt this
country and ourselves to the unforeseeable,--the navigation
of uncharted waters; and this adaptation cannot
be considered hi any correct and helpful, because scientific,
spirit, unless the cause of change is located. Surface
manifestations are, in and of themselves, merely deceptive.
A physician, diagnosing the chances of a patient,
must first correctly ascertain, or at least ascertain with
approximate correctness, the seat of the trouble under
which the patient is suffering. So, we.</p>

<p>And here I must frankly confess to small respect for
the politician,--the man whose voice is continually
heard, whether from the Senate Chamber or the Hustings.
There is in those of his class a continual and most noticeable
tendency to what may best be described as the <i>post
ergo propter</i> dispensation. With them, the eye is fixed on
the immediate manifestation. Because one event preceded
another, the first event is obviously and indisputably
the cause of the later event. For instance, in the present
case, the cause or seat of our existing and very manifest
social, political and financial disturbances is attributed
as of course to some peculiarity of legislation, either a
subtreasury bill passed in the administration of General
Jackson, or a tariff bill passed in the administration of
Mr. Taft, or the demonetization of silver in the Hayes
period,--that &quot;Crime of the Century,&quot; the Crucifixion
of Labor on the Cross of Gold! Once for all, let me say,
I contemplate this school of politicians and so-called
&quot;thinkers&quot; with sentiments the reverse of respectful.
In plain language, I class them with those known in professional
parlance as quacks and charlatans. Not always,
not even in the majority of cases, does that which preceded
bear to that which follows the relation of cause and
effect. A marked example of this false attribution is
afforded in more recent political history by the everlasting
recurrence of the statement that American prosperity
is the result of an American protective system. Yet in
the Protectionist dispensation, this has become an article
of faith. To my mind, it is undeserving of even respectful
consideration.</p>

<p>If I were asked the cause of that change, little short of
revolutionary, if indeed in any respect short of it, which
has occurred in the material condition of the American
people, and consequently in all its theories and ideals,
within the last thirty years, I should attribute it to a
wholly different cause. Mr. Lecky some years ago, in
his book entitled &quot;Liberty and Democracy,&quot; made the
following statement, in no way original, but, as he put it,
sufficiently striking: &quot;The produce of the American
mines [incident to the discoveries made by Columbus]
created, in the most extreme form ever known in Europe,
the change which beyond all others affects most deeply
and universally the material well-being of men: it revolutionized
the value of the precious metals, and, in consequence,
the price of all articles, the effects of all contracts,
the burden of all debts.&quot;</p>

<p>In other words, referring to the first half of the sixteenth
century,--the sixty years, we will say, following the land-fall
of Columbus,--the historian attributed the great
change which then occurred and which stands forth so
markedly in history, to the increased New-World production
of the precious metals, combined with the impetus
given to trade and industry as a consequence of that discovery,
and of the mastery of man over additional globe
areas. Now, dismissing from consideration the so-called
American protective system, likewise our currency issues
and, generally, the patchwork, so to speak, of crazy-quilt
legislation to which so much is attributed during the
last thirty years, I confidently submit that in the production
of the results under discussion, they are quantities
and factors hardly worthy of consideration. The
cause of the change which has taken place lies far deeper
and must be sought in influences of a wholly different
nature, influences developed into an increased and still
ever increasing activity, over which legislation has absolutely
no control. I refer, of course, to man's mastery
over the latent forces of Nature. Of these Steam and
Electricity are the great examples, which, because always
apparent, at once strike the imagination. These, as
tools, it is to be remembered, date practically from within
one hundred years back. It may, indeed, safely be asserted
that up to 1815, the end of the Wars of Napoleon
and the time of your Professor Lieber, steam even had
not as yet practically affected the operations of man,
while electricity, when not a terror, was as yet but a toy.
Commerce was still exclusively carried on by the sailing
ship and canal-boat. The years from the fall of Napoleon
to our own War of Secession--from Waterloo to Gettysburg--were
practically those of early and partial development.
Not until well after Appomattox, that is, since
the year 1870,--a period covering but little more than
the life of a generation,--did what is known to you here
as the Applied Sciences cover a range difficult to specialize.
As factors in development, it is safe to say that those
three tremendous agencies--Steam, Electricity, Chemistry--have,
so to speak, worked all their noticeable
results within the lifetime of the generation born since
we celebrated the Centennial of Independence. The
manifestations now resulting and apparent to all are the
natural outcome of the use of these modern appliances,
become in our case everyday working tools in the hands
of the most resourceful, adaptive, ingenious and energetic
of communities, developing a virgin continent of undreamed-of
wealth. Naturally, under such conditions,
the advance has been not only general and continuous,
but one of ever increasing celerity. So Protection and
the Currency become flies on the fast revolving wheel!</p>

<p>But what has otherwise resulted?--An unrest, social,
economical, political. Not contentment, but a lamentation
and an ancient tale of wrong! We hear it in the
continual cry over what is known as the increased cost
of living, and feel its pressure in the higher standard of
living. What was considered wealth by our ancestors
is to-day hardly competence. What sufficed for luxury
in our childhood barely now supplies what are known as
the comforts of life. Take, for instance, the motor,--the
automobile. I speak within bounds, I think, when I
say there are many fold more motors to-day racing over
the streets, the highways and the byways of America
than there were one-horse wagons thirty-five years ago.
Six hundred, I am told, are to be found within the immediate
neighborhood of Columbia; and, since I have
been here I have seen in your streets just one man on
horse-back! These figures and that statement tell the
tale. A few years only back, every Carolinian rode to
town, and the motor was unknown. A single illustrative
example, this could be duplicated in innumerable ways
everywhere and in all walks of life.</p>

<p>The result is obvious, and was inevitable. Entered
on a new phase of existence, the world is not as it was in
the days of Columbus, when a single new continent was
discovered containing in it what we would now regard as
a limited accumulation of the precious metals. It is,
on the contrary, as if, in the language of Dr. Johnson, &quot;the
potentiality of wealth&quot; had been revealed &quot;beyond the
dreams of avarice&quot;; together with not one or two, but a
dozen continents, the existence and secrets of which are
suddenly laid bare. The Applied Sciences have been the
magicians,--not Protection or the Currency.</p>

<p>And still scientists are continually dinning in our ears
the question whether this state of affairs is going to continue,--whether
the era of disturbance has reached its
limit! I hold such a question to be little short of childish.
That era has not reached its limits, nor has it even approximated
those limits. On the contrary, we have just entered
on the uncharted sea. We know what the last thirty
years have brought about as the result of the agencies
at work; but as yet we can only dimly dream of what the
next sixty years are destined to see brought about.
Imagination staggers at the suggestion.</p>

<p>What, then, has been of this the inevitable consequence,--the
consequence which even the blindest should have
foreseen? It has resulted in all those far-reaching changes
suggested in the earlier part of what I have said to-day,
as respects our ideals, our political theories, our social
conditions. In other words, the old era is ended; what
is implied when we say a new era is entered upon?</p>

<p>To attempt a partial answer to the query implies no
claim to a prophetic faculty. Whether we like to face
the fact or not, far-reaching changes in our economical
theories and social conditions are imminent, involving
corresponding readjustments in our constitutional arrangements
and political machinery. Tennyson foreshadowed
it all in his &quot;Locksley Hall&quot; seventy years ago:--&quot;The
individual withers, and the world is more and more.&quot;
The day of individualism as it existed in the American
ideal of sixty years since is over; that of collectivism
and possibly socialism has opened. The day of social
equality is relegated to what may be considered a somewhat
patriarchal past,--that patriarchal past having
come to a close during the memory of those still in active
life.</p>

<p>And yet, though all this can now be studied in the
political discussion endlessly dragging on, strangely and
sadly enough that discussion carries in it hardly a note
of encouragement. It is, in a word, unspeakably shallow.
And here, having sufficiently for my present purpose
though in hurried manner, diagnosed the situation,--located
the seat of disturbance,--we come to the question
of treatment. Involving, as it necessarily does, problems
of the fundamental law, and a rearrangement and different
allocation of the functions of government, this challenges
the closest thought of the publicist. That the problem
is here crying aloud for solution is apparent. The publications
which cumber the counters of our book-stores,
those for which the greatest popular call to-day exists--treatises
relating to trade interests, to collectivism, to
socialism, even to anarchism--tell the tale in part; in
part it is elsewhere and otherwise told. Only recently,
in once Puritan Massachusetts, processions paraded the
streets carrying banners marked with this device, more
suggestive than strange:--&quot;No master and no God!&quot;</p>

<p>What are the remedies popularly proposed? In that
important branch of polity known as Political Ethics,
or, as he termed them, Hermeneutics, which your Professor
Lieber sixty years ago endeavored to treat of, what advance
has since his time been effected?--Nay! what
advance has been effected since the time, over two thousand
years, of his great predecessor, Aristotle? I confidently
submit that what progress is now being made in
this most erudite of sciences is in the nature of that of
the crab--backwards! In the discussions of Aristotle,
the problem in view was, how to bring about government
by the wisest,--that is, the most observant and expert.
In other words, government, the object of politics, was
by Aristotle treated in a scientific spirit. And this is as
it should be. Take, for example, any problem,--I do
not care whether it is legal or medical or one of engineering: How
successfully dispose of it? Uniformly, in
one way. Those problems are successfully solved, if at
all, only when their solution is placed in the hands of the
most proficient. Judged by the discussions of to-day,
what advance has in politics been effected? Do the
<i>Outlook</i> and the <i>Commoner</i> imply progress since the
Stagirite? Not to any noticeable extent. We are,
on the contrary, fumbling and wallowing about where
the Greek pondered and philosophized.</p>

<p>Democracy, as it is called, is to-day the great panacea,--the
political nostrum; as such it is confidently advocated
by statesmen and professors and even by the presidents
of our institutions of the advanced education. &quot;Trust
the People&quot; is the shibboleth! &quot;Let the People rule!&quot;
&quot;The cure for too much Liberty is more Liberty!&quot; To
Democracy plain and simple--Composite Wisdom--I
frankly confess I feel no call,--no call greater than, for
instance, towards Autocracy or Aristocracy or Plutocracy.
Taken simply, and applied as hitherto applied, all and
each lead to but one result,--failure! And that result,
let me here predict, will, in the future, be the same in the
case of pure Democracy that, in the past, it was in the
case of the pure Autocracy of the Caesars, or the case of
the pure Aristocracy of Rome or of the so-called Republics
of the Middle Ages. A political edifice on shifting sands.</p>

<p>Yet, to-day what do we see and hear in America? Tell
it not in Gath; publish it not in the streets of Askalon I
Two thousand years after the time of Aristotle, we see a
prevailing school working directly back to the condition
of affairs which existed in the Athenian agora under the
disapproving eyes of the father of political philosophy.
Panaceas, universal cure-alls, and quack remedies--the
Initiative, the Referendum, and the Recall are paraded
as if these--nostrums of the mountebanks of the county
fair--would surely remedy the perplexing ills of new and
hitherto unheard-of social, economical, and political conditions.
Democracy! What is Democracy? Democracy,
as it is generally understood, I submit, is nothing
but the reaching of political conclusions through the frequent
counting of noses; or, as Macaulay two generations
ago better phrased it, &quot;the majority of citizens told by
the head&quot;;--the only question at just this juncture
being whether, in order to the arriving at more acceptable
results, both sexes shall be &quot;told,&quot; instead of one
sex only. Moreover, I with equal confidence make bold
to suggest that while conceded, and while men have even
persuaded themselves that they have faith in it, and
really do believe in this &quot;telling&quot; of noses as the best
and fairest attainable means of reaching correct results,
yet in so doing and so professing they simply, as men are
prone to do, deceive themselves. In other words, victims
of their own cant, they preach a panacea in which they
really do not believe. Nor of this is proof far to seek.
<i>Vox populi, vox Dei</i>! If you extend the application of
this principle by a single step, its loudest advocates draw
back in alarm from the inevitable. They seek refuge
in the assertion--&quot;Oh! That is different!&quot; For instance,
take a concrete case; so best can we illustrate.</p>

<p>One of the greatest scientific triumphs reached in modern
times--perhaps I might fairly say the greatest--is
the discovery of the cause of yellow fever, and its consequent
control. As a result of the studies, the patient
experimentation and self-sacrifice of the wisest,--that
is, the most observant and expert,--the amazing conclusion
was reached that not only the yellow fever but the
innumerable ills of the flesh known under the caption of
&quot;malarial,&quot; were due to causes hitherto unsuspected,
though obvious when revealed,--to the existence in the
atmosphere of a venomous insect, in comparison with the
work of which the ravages on mankind of the entire carnivorous
and reptile creation were of comparatively small
account. The mosquito flew disclosed, the atmospheric
viper,--a viper most venomous and deadly. How was
the disclosure brought about? What was the remedy
applied? Was the discovery effected through universal
suffrage? Was the remedy sought for and decided upon
by the Initiative, or through a Referendum at an election
held on the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday of a
certain month and year? Had recourse in this case been
had to the panacea now in greatest political vogue, we
all know perfectly well what would have followed. History
tells us. The quarantine, as it is called, would have
been decreed, and a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer
appointed. The mosquito, quite ignored, would then
have gone on in his deadly work. We all equally well
know that the man, even the politician or the statesman,
who had suggested a solution of that problem by a count
of noses would have been effaced with ridicule. Even
the most simple minded would have rejected that method
of reaching a result. Yet the ilia of the body politic,
too, are complicated. Indeed, far more intricate in their
processes and more deceitful in their aspects, they more
deeply affect the general well-being and happiness than
any ill or epidemic which torments the physical being,
even the mosquito malaria. Yet the ills of the body
politic, the complications which surround us on every
side,--for these the unfailing panacea is said to lie in
universal suffrage, that remedy which is immediately
and of course laughed out of court if suggested in case of
the simpler ills of the flesh.</p>

<p>This, I submit, is demonstration. The true remedy is
not to be sought in that direction in the one case any
more than the other.</p>

<p>There is a considerable element of truth, though possibly
a not inconsiderable one of exaggeration, in this
statement from a paper I recently chanced upon in the
issue of the sober and classical <i>Edinburgh Review</i> for
October last,--a paper entitled &quot;Democracy and Liberalism&quot;:--&quot;History
testifies unmistakably and unanimously
to the passion of democracies for incompetence. There
is nothing democracy dislikes and suspects so heartily as
technical efficiency, particularly when it is independent
of the popular vote.&quot; But to-day, what is politically proposed
by our senatorial charlatans and the mountebanks
of the market-place? The Referendum, the constant and
easy Recall, the everlasting Initiative are dinned into
our ears as the cure-alls of every ill of the body politic.
On the contrary, I submit that, while in the absence of
any better method as yet devised and accepted, the process
of reaching results by a count of the &quot;majority told
by the head&quot; of the citizens then present and voting has
certain political advantages, yet, for all this, as a final,
scientific, political process, it is unworthy of consideration.
A passing expedient, it in no degree reflects credit
on twentieth-century intelligence.</p>

<p>And now I come to the crux of my discussion. Thus
rejecting results reached by the ballot as now in practical
use, a query is already in the minds of those who listen.
At once suggesting itself and flung in my face, it is asked
as a political poser, and not without a sneer,--What else
or better have I to propose? Would I advise a return
to old and discarded methods,--Heredity, Caste, Autocracy,
Plutocracy? I respectfully submit this is a question
no one has a right to put, and one I am not called
upon to answer. Again, let me take a concrete case.
Once more I appeal to the yellow fever precedent. The
first step towards a solution of a medical, as of a political,
problem is a correct diagnosis. Then necessarily follows
a long period devoted to observation, to investigation
and experiment. If, in the case of the yellow fever,
a score of years only ago an observer had pointed out the
nature of the disease and the manifest inadequacy of
current theories and prevailing methods of prevention
and treatment, do you think others would have had a
right to turn upon him and demand that he instantly
prescribe a remedy which should be not only complete,
but at once recognized as such and so accepted? In the
present case, as I have already observed, from the days
of Aristotle down through two and twenty centuries, men
had been experimenting in all, to them, conceivable ways,
on the government of the body politic, exactly as they
experimented on the disorders of the physical body. But
only yesterday was the source of the yellow fever, for
instance, diagnosed and located, and the proper means
of prevention applied. The cancer and tuberculosis are
to-day unsolved problems. By analogy, they are inviting
subjects for an Initiative and a Referendum!
Yet would any person who to-day, standing where I stand,
expressed a disbelief, at once total and contemptuous,
of such a procedure as respects them, be met by a demand
for some other panacea of immediate and guaranteed
efficiency? And so with the body politic. I here to-day
am merely attempting a diagnosis, pointing out the disorders,
and exposing as best I can the utter crudeness and
insufficiency of the market-place remedies proposed.
Have you a right, then, to turn on me, and call for some
other prescription, warranted to cure, in place of the
nostrums so loudly advertised by the sciolists and the
dabblers of the day, and by me so contemptuously set
aside? I confess I am unable to respond, or even to
attempt a response to any such demand. I am not altogether
a quack, nor is this a county fair.</p>

<p>&quot;Paracelsus,&quot; so denominated, was one of Robert
Browning's earlier poems. In it he causes the fifteenth-century
alchemist and forerunner of all modern pharmaceutical
chemistry, to declare that as the result of
long travel and much research</p>

&quot;I possess<br />
Two sorts of knowledge: one,--vast, shadowy,<br />
Hints of the unbounded aim....<br />
The other consists of many secrets, caught<br />
While bent on nobler prize,--perhaps a few<br />
Prime principles which may conduct to much:<br />
These last I offer.&quot;<br />

<p>So, <i>longo intervallo</i>, I have a few suggestions,--the
result of an observation extending, as I said at the beginning,
over the lives of two generations and a connection
with many great events in which I have borne a part,--a
part not prominent indeed, and more generally, I acknowledge,
mistaken than correct. My errors, however,
have at least made me cautious and doubtful of my own
conclusions. I submit them for what they are worth.
Not much, I fear.</p>

<p>What, then, would I do, were it in my power to prescribe
alterations and curatives for the ills of our American
body politic, of which I have spoken; or, more
correctly, the far-reaching disturbances manifestly due
to the agencies at work, to which I have made reference?
Let us come at once to the point, taking the existing
Constitution of the United States as a concrete example,
and recognizing the necessity for its revision and readjustment
to meet radically changed conditions,--conditions
social, material, geographical, changed and still
changing.</p>

<p>It was Mr. Gladstone who, years ago, made the often-quoted
assertion that the Constitution of the United States
was &quot;the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given
time by the brain and purpose of man.&quot; I do not think
he was far wrong; though we, of course, realize that the
Federal Constitution was a growth and in no degree an inspiration.
That Constitution has through a century and
a quarter stood the test of time and stress of war, during
a period of almost unlimited growth of the community
for which it was devised. It has outlasted many nationalities
and most of the dynasties in existence at the time of
its adoption; and that, too, under conditions sufficiently
trying. I, therefore, regard it with profound respect;
and, so regarding it, I would treat it with a cautious and
tender hand. Not lightly pronouncing it antiquated,
what changes would I make in it if to-morrow it were
given me to prescribe alterations adapting it to the
altered conditions which confront us? I do not hesitate
to say, and I am glad to say, the changes I would suggest
would be limited; yet, I fancy, far-reaching.</p>

<p>And, in the first place, let us have a clear conception
of the end in view. That end is, I submit, exactly the
same to-day which Aristotle had in view more than twenty
centuries ago. It is, not to solve all political problems,
but to put political problems as they arise in the hands
of those whom he termed the &quot;best,&quot;--but whom we
know as the most intelligent, observant and expert,--to
be, through their agency, in the way of ultimate solution.
If, adopting every ill-considered and half-fledged
measure of so-called reform which might be the fancy of
the day, we incorporated them in our fundamental law,
but one thing could result therefrom,--ultimate confusion.
The Constitution is neither a legislative crazy-quilt
nor a receptacle of fads. To make it such is in every
respect the reverse of scientific. The work immediately
in hand, therefore, is to devise such changes in the fundamental
law as will tend most effectually to bring about
the solution of issues as they may arise, by the most expert,
observant and reliable. This accomplished, if
its accomplishment were only practicable, all possible
would have been done; and the necessary and inevitable
readjustment of things would, in politics as in medicine
and in science, be left to solve itself as occasion arose.
Provision cannot be made against every contingency.</p>

<p>This premised, the Constitution of the United States
is an instrument through which powers are delegated by
several local communities to a central government. The
instrument, it was originally held, should be strictly construed
and the powers delegated limited; and in this respect,
with certain alterations made obviously necessary
to meet changed conditions, I would return to the fundamental
idea of the framers.</p>

<p>In saying this I feel confidence also that here in South
Carolina at least I shall meet with an earnest response.
The time is not yet remote when local self-government
worked salvation for South Carolina, as for her sister
States of the Confederacy. You here will never forget
what immediately followed the close of our Civil War.
As an historic fact, the Constitution was then suspended.
It was suspended by act of an irresponsible Congress,
exercising revolutionary but unlimited powers over a
large section of the common country. You then had an
illustration, not soon to be forgotten, of concentration
of legislative power. An episode at once painful and discreditable,
it is not necessary here to refer to it in detail.
Appeal, however, was made to the principle of local self-government,--it
was, so to speak, a recurrence to the
theory of State Sovereignty. The appeal struck a responsive,
because traditional, chord; and it was through
a recurrence to State Sovereignty as the agency of local
self-government that loyalty and contentment were restored,
and, I may add, that I am here to-day. Ceasing
to be a Military Department, South Carolina once more
became a State. Not improbably the demand will in a not
remote future be heard that State lines and local autonomy
be practically obliterated. In that event, I feel
a confident assurance that, recurring in memory to the
evil days which followed 1865, the spirit of enlightened
conservatism will assert itself here and in the sister States
of what was once the Confederacy; and again it will
prevail. In the future, as in the past, you in South Carolina
at least will cling to what in 1876 proved the ark of
your social and political salvation.</p>

<p>Taking another step in the discussion of changes, the
Constitution is founded on that well-known distribution
and allocation of powers first theoretically suggested by
Montesquieu. There is a division, accompanied by a
mutual limitation of authority, through the Judiciary,
the Executive, and the Legislative. As respects this allocation,
how would I modify that instrument? I freely
say that the tendency of my thought, based on observation,
is to conservatism. I have never yet in a single instance
found that when the people of this or any other
country accustomed to parliamentary government desired
a thing, they failed to obtain it within a reasonable
limit of time. Hasty changes are wisely deprecated; but
I think I speak within limitation when I say that neither in
the history of Great Britain,--the mother of Parliaments--nor
in the history of the United States, has any modification
which the people, on sober second thought, have considered
to be for the best, long been deferred. Action, revolutionary
in character, has not, as a rule, been needful, or,
when taken, proved salutary. This is a record and result
that no careful student of our history will, I take it, deny.</p>

<p>Such being the case, so far as our Judiciary is concerned,
I do not hesitate to say I would adhere to older, and, as
I think, better principles, or revert to them where they
have been experimentally abandoned. It took the Anglo-Saxon
race two centuries of incessant conflict to wrest
from a despotic executive, practically an autocracy, judicial
independence. That was effected through what is
known as a tenure during good behavior, as opposed to a
tenure at the will of the monarch. This, then, for two
centuries, was accepted as a fundamental principle of
constitutional government. Of late, a new theory has
been propounded, and by those chafing at all restraint--constitutionally
lawless in disposition--it is said the
Recall should also be applied to the Judiciary. Having,
therefore, wrested the independence of the Judiciary from
the hand of the Autocrat, we now propose to place it,
in all trustfulness, in the hands of the Democrat. To me
the proposition does not commend itself. It is founded
on no correct principle, for the irresponsible democratic
majority is even more liable to ill-considered and vacillating
action than is the responsible autocrat. In that matter
I would not trust myself; why, then, should I trust
the composite Democrat? In the case of the Judiciary,
therefore, I would so far as the fundamental law is concerned
abide by the older and better considered principles
of the framers.</p>

<p>Next, the Executive. Again, we hear the demand of
Democracy,--the Recall! Once more I revert to the
record. This Republic has now been in working operation,
and, taken altogether, most successful operation, for a
century and a quarter. During that century and a quarter
we have had, we will say, some five and twenty different
chief magistrates. There is an ancient and somewhat
vulgar adage to the effect that the proof of a certain
dietary article is in its eating. Apply that homely adage to
the matter under consideration. What is the lesson taught?
It is simply this,--during a whole century and a quarter
of existence there has not been one single chief executive
of the United States to whom the arbitrary Recall could
have been applied with what would now be agreed upon
as a fortunate result. In the Andrew Johnson impeachment
case was it not better that things were as they were?
On the other hand, every one of the seven independent,
self-respecting Senators who then by a display of high
moral courage saved the country from serious prejudice
would have been recalled out-of-hand had the Recall now
demanded been in existence. Its working would have
received prompt exemplification; as it was, the recall was
effected in time, and after due deliberation. The delay
occasioned no public detriment. In this life, experience
is undeniably worth something; and the experience here
referred to is fairly entitled to consideration. No political
system possible to devise is wholly above criticism,--not
open to exceptional contingencies or to dangers possible
to conjure up. Such have from time to time arisen in the
past; in the future such will inevitably arise. This consideration
must, however, be balanced against a general
average of successful working; and I confidently submit
that, weighing thus the proved advantage of the system we
have against the possibilities of danger which hereafter may
occur, but which never yet have occurred, the scale on which
are the considerations in favor of change kicks the beam.</p>

<p>In view, however, of the growth of the country, the
vastly increased complexity of interests involved, the
intricacy and the cost of the election processes to which
recourse is necessarily had, I would substitute for the present
brief tenure of the presidential office--a tenure well
enough perhaps in the comparatively simple days which
preceded our Civil War--a tenure sufficiently long to enable
the occupant of the presidential chair to have a policy
and to accomplish at least something towards its adoption.
As the case stands to-day, a President for the first time
elected has during his term of four years, one year, and one
year only, in which really to apply himself to the accomplishment
of results. The first year of his term is necessarily
devoted to the work of acquiring a familiarity with
the machinery of the government, and the shaping of a
policy. The second year may be devoted to a more or
less strenuous effort at the adoption of the policy thus
formulated. As experience shows, the action of the third
and fourth years is gravely affected--if not altogether
perverted from the work in hand--by what are known as
the political exigencies incident to a succession. Manifestly,
this calls for correction. The remedy, however,
to my mind, is obvious and suggests itself. As the presidency
is the one office under our Constitution national in
character, and in no way locally representative, I would
extend the term to seven years, and render the occupant
of the office thereafter ineligible for re&euml;lection.
Seven years is, I am aware, under our political system,
an unusual term; and here my ears will, I know, be assailed
by the great &quot;mandate&quot; cackle. The count of
noses being complete, the mind of the composite Democrat
is held to be made up. It only remains to formulate
the consequent decree; and, with least possible delay,
put it in way of practical enforcement. Again, I, as a
publicist, demur. It is the old issue, that between
instant action and action on second thought, presented
once more. Briefly, the experience of sixty years
strongly inclines me to a preference of matured and
considerate action over that immediate action which
notoriously is in nine cases out of ten as ill-advised as it
is precipitate. Only in the field of politics is the expediency
of the latter assumed as of course; yet, as in
science and literature and art so in politics, final, because
satisfactory, results are at best but slowly thrashed out.
As respects wisdom, the modern statute book does not
loom, monumental. Its contemplation would indeed
perhaps even lead to a surmise that reasonable delay in
formulating his &quot;mandate&quot; might, in the case of the
composite Democrat as in that of the individual Autocrat,
prove a not altogether unmixed, and so in the end
an intolerable, evil.</p>

<p>Thus while a change of the Executive and Legislative
branches of the government might not be always simultaneously
effected, by selecting seven years as the presidential
term the election would be brought about, as frequently
as might be, by itself, uncomplicated by local
issues connected with the fortunes or political fate of
individual candidates for office, whether State, Congressional,
or Senatorial; and during the seven years
of tenure, four, at least, it might reasonably be anticipated,
would be devoted to the promotion of a definite policy,
in place of one year in a term of four, as now. If also
ineligible for reelection, there is at least a fair presumption
that the occupant of the position might from start to
finish apply himself to its duties and obligations, without
being distracted therefrom by ulterior personal ends
as constantly as humanly held in view.</p>

<p>Having thus disposed of the Judiciary and the Executive,
we come to the Legislative. And here I submit is
the weak point in our American system,--manifestly
the weak point, and to those who, like myself, have had
occasion to know, undeniably so. I am here as a publicist;
not as a writer of memoirs: so, on this head, I do not now
propose to dilate or bear witness. I will only briefly
say that having at one period, and for more than the lifetime
of a generation, been in charge of large corporate
and financial interests, I have had much occasion to deal
with legislative bodies, National, State and Municipal.
That page of my experiences is the one I care least to recall,
and would most gladly forget. I am not going to
specify, or give names of either localities or persons; but,
knowing what I know, it is useless to approach me on this
topic with the usual good-natured and optimistic, if
somewhat unctuous and conventional, commonplaces on
general uprightness and the tendency to improved conditions
and a higher standard. I know better! I have
seen legislators bought like bullocks--they selling themselves.
I have watched them cover their tracks with a
cunning more than vulpine. I have myself been black-mailed
and sandbagged, while whole legislative bodies
watched the process, fully cognizant at every step of what
was going on. This, I am glad to say, was years ago.
The legislative conditions were then bad, scandalously
bad; nor have I any reason to believe in a regeneration
since. The stream will never rise higher than its source;
but it generally indicates the level thereof. In this case,
I can only hope that in my experience it failed so to do.
Running at a low level, the waters of that stream were
deplorably dirty.</p>

<p>That the legislative branch of our government has fallen
so markedly in public estimation is not, I think, open to
denial. To my mind, under the conditions I have referred
to, such could not fail to be the case. It has, consequently,
lost public confidence. Hence this popular
demand for immediate legislation by the People,--this
twentieth-century appeal to the Agora and Forum methods
which antedate the era of Christ. It is true the world
outgrew them two thousand years ago, and they were
discarded; but, living in a progressive and not a reactionary
period, all that, we are assured, is changed!
The heart is no longer on the right-hand side of the body.
To secure desired results it is only necessary to start quite
fresh, as a mere preliminary discarding all lessons of experience.</p>

<p>Such reasoning does not commend itself to my judgment.
On the contrary, the failure of the American
legislative to command an increasing public confidence,
while both natural and obvious, is, if my observation
guides me to conclusions in any degree correct, traceable
to two reasons. So far as government is concerned, the
law-making branch is assumed to be made up of the wisest
and the most expert. Meanwhile, it is as a matter of
fact chosen by the process I have not over-respectfully
referred to as the counting of noses; and, moreover,
by an unwritten law more binding than any in the Statute
Book, that counting of noses is with us localized. In
other words, when it comes to the choice of our law-makers,
reducing provincialism to a system we make the
local numerical majority supreme, and any one is considered
competent to legislate. He can do that, even
if by common knowledge he is incompetent or untrustworthy
in every other capacity. Localization thus becomes
the stronghold of mediocrity, the sure avenue to
office of the second-and third-rate man,--he who wishes
always to enjoy his share of a little brief authority,
to have, he also, a taste of public life. In this respect our
American system is, I submit, manifestly and incomparably
inferior to the system of parliamentary election
existing in Great Britain, itself open to grave criticism.
In Great Britain the public man seeks the constituency
wherever he can find it; or the constituency seeks its
representative wherever it recognizes him. The present
Prime Minister of Great Britain, for instance, represents
a small Scotch constituency in which he never resided,
but by which he was elected more than twenty years ago,
and through which he has since consecutively remained
in public life. On the other hand, look at the waste and
extravagance of the system now and traditionally in use
with us. To get into public life a man must not only
be in sympathy with the majority of the citizens of the
locality in which he lives, but he must continue to be in
sympathy with that majority; or, at any election, like
Mr. Cannon in the election just held, where for any
passing cause a majority of his neighbors in the locality
in which he lives may fail to support him, he must
go into retirement. I cannot here enlarge on this topic,
vital as I see it; I have neither space nor time, and must,
therefore, needs content myself with the &quot;hints&quot; of
Paracelsus. I will merely say that as an outcome this
localized majority system practically disfranchises the
more intelligent and the more disinterested, the more
individual and independent of every constituency. It
reduces their influence, and negatives their action. It
operates in like fashion everywhere. My field of
observation has been at home, here in America; but it
has been the same in France. For instance, while preparing
this address I came across the following in that
most respectable sheet, the London <i>Athenaum</i>. A very
competent Frenchman was there criticising a recent book
entitled &quot;Idealism in France.&quot; Reference was by him
made to what, in France, is known as the &quot;<i>scrutin
d'arrondissement,&quot;</i> or, in other words, the district representative
system. The critic declares that this system
has there &quot;created a party machine which has brought
the country under the sway of a sort of Radical-Socialist
Tammany, and bound together the voter and the deputy
by a tie of mutual corruption, the candidate promising
Government favors to the elector in return for his vote,
and the elector supporting the candidate who promises
most. Hence a policy in which ideas and ideals are
forgotten for personal and local interests, as each candidate
strives to outbid his rivals in the bribes that he
offers to his constituents. Hence, finally, a general
lowering in the tone of French home politics, every question
being made subservient by the deputies to that of
their re&euml;lection.&quot;</p>

<p>I would respectfully inquire if the above does not apply
word for word to the condition of affairs with which we
are familiar in America.</p>

<p>But let me here again cite a concrete case, still fresh
in memory; nothing in abstract discussion tells so
much. Take the late Carl Schurz. If there was one
man in our public life since 1865 who showed a genius
for the parliamentary career, and who in six short years
in the United States Senate--a single term--displayed
there constructive legislating qualities of the highest
order, it was Carl Schurz. Yet at the end of that
single senatorial term, for local and temporary reasons
he failed to obtain the support of a majority, or the
support of anything approaching a majority, of those
composing the constituency upon which he depended.
Consequently he was retired from that parliamentary position
necessary for the accomplishment, through him, of
best public results. Yet at that very time there was no
man in the United States who commanded so large and
so personal a constituency as Carl Schurz; for he represented
the entire Germanic element in the United States.
Distributed as that element was, however, with its vote
localized under our law, unwritten as well as statutory,
there was no possibility of any constituency so concentrating
itself that Carl Schurz could be kept in the position
where he could continue to render services of the
greatest possible value to the country. I, therefore,
confidently here submit a doubt whether human ingenuity
could devise any system calculated to lead to a greater
waste of parliamentary ability, or more effectually keep
from the front and position of influence that legislative
superiority which was the arm of Aristotle to secure.
&quot;Cant-patriotism,&quot; as your Francis Lieber termed it;
and, on this score, he waxed eloquent. &quot;Do we not live
in a world of cant,&quot; he wrote from Columbia here to a
friend at the North seventy-five years ago, &quot;that cant-patriotism
which plumes itself in selecting men from
within the State confines only. The truer a nation is, the
more essentially it is elevated, the more it disregards
petty considerations, and takes the true and the good
from whatever quarter it may come. Look at history
and you find the proof. Look around you, where you
are, and you find it now.&quot; And, were Lieber living to-day,
he would find a striking exemplification of the consequences
of a total and systematic disregard of this elementary
proposition in studying the United States Senate
from and through its reporters' gallery. The decline in
the standards of that body, whether of aspect, intelligence,
education or character, under the operation of the
local primary has been not less pronounced than startling.
The outcome and ripe result of &quot;cant-patriotism,&quot; it
affords to the curious observer an impressive object-lesson,--provincialism
reduced to a political system; what a
witty and incisive French writer has recently termed the
&quot;Cult of Incompetence.&quot; Speaking of conditions prevailing
not here but in France, this observer says:--&quot;Democracy
in its modern form chooses its' delegates in
its own image.... What ought the character of the
legislator to be? The very opposite, it seems to me, of
the democratic legislator, for he ought to be well-informed
and entirely devoid of prejudice.&quot; Taken as a whole,
and a few striking individual exceptions apart, are those
composing the Senate of the United States conspicuous
in these respects? They certainly do not so impress the
casual observer. That, as a body, they increasingly
fail to command confidence and attention is matter of
common remark. Nor is the reason far to seek. It
would be the same as respects literature, science and art,
were their representatives chosen and results reached
through a count of noses localized, with selection severely
confined to home talent.</p>

<p>I am well aware of the criticism which will at once be
passed on what I now advance. Local representation
through choice by numerical majorities within given confines,
geographically and mathematically fixed, is a system
so rooted and intrenched in the convictions and traditions
of the American community that even to question
its wisdom evinces a lack of political common-sense.
It in fact resembles nothing so much as the attempt
to whistle down a strongly prevailing October wind
from the West. The attempt so to do is not practical
politics! In reply, however, I would suggest that
such a criticism is wholly irrelevant. The publicist has
nothing to do with practical politics. It is as if it were
objected to a physician who prescribed sanitation against
epidemics that the community in question was by custom
and tradition wedded to filth and surface-drainage, and
could not possibly be induced to abandon them in favor
of any new-fangled theories of soap-and-water cleanliness.
So why waste time in prescribing such? Better
be common-sensed and practical, taking things as
they are. In the case suggested, and confronted with
such criticism, the medical adviser simply shrugs his
shoulders, and is silent; the alternative he knows is
inescapable. After a sufficiency of sound scourgings
the objecting community will probably know better, and
may listen to reason; in a way, conforming thereto. So,
also, the body politic. If Ephraim is indeed thus joined to
idols, the publicist simply shrugs his shoulders, and passes
on; possibly, after Ephraim has been sufficiently scourged,
he may in that indefinite future popularly known as &quot;one
of these days&quot; be more clear sighted and wiser.</p>

<p>None the less, so far as our national parliamentary
system is concerned, could I have my way in a revision
of the Constitution, I would increase the senatorial term
to ten years, and I would, were such a thing within the
range of possibility, break down the system of the necessary
senatorial selection by a State of an inhabitant of the
State. If I could, I would introduce the British system.
For example, though I never voted for Mr. Bryan and
have not been in general sympathy with Mr. Roosevelt,
yet few things would give me greater political satisfaction
than to see Mr. Bryan, we will say, elected a Senator
from Arizona or Oregon, Mr. Roosevelt elected from
Illinois or Pennsylvania, President Taft from Utah or
Vermont. They apparently best represent existing feelings
and the ideals prevailing in those communities;
why, then, should they not voice those feelings and ideals
in our highest parliamentary chamber?</p>

<p>As respects our House of Representatives, it would
in principle be the same. I do not care to go into the
rationale of what is known as proportional representation,
nor have I time so to do; but, were it in my power, I
would prescribe to-morrow that hereafter the national
House of Representatives should be constituted on the
proportional basis,--the choice of representatives to be
by States, but, as respects the nomination of candidates,
irrespective of district lines. Like many others, I am very
weary of provincial nobodies, &quot;good men&quot; locally known
to be such!</p>

<p>As I have already said, in parliamentary government all
depends in the end on the truly representative character of
the legislative body. If that is as it should be, the rest
surely follows. The objective of Aristotle is attained.</p>

<p>Exceeding the limits assigned to it, my discussion has,
however, extended too far. I must close. One word
before so doing. Why am I here? I am here,--a man
considerably exceeding in age the allotted threescore and
ten--to deliver a message, be the value of the same
greater or less. I greatly fear it is less. I would, however,
impart the lessons of an experience stretching over sixty
years,--the results of such observation as my intelligence
has enabled me to exercise. I do so, addressing
myself to a local institution of the advanced education.
Why? Because, looking over the country, diagnosing
its conditions as well as my capacity enables me, observing
the evolution of the past and forecasting, in as far
as I may, the outcome, I am persuaded that the future
of the country rests more largely in the hands of such
institutions as this than in those of any other agency or
activity. Do not say I flatter; for, while I can hope for
no advancement, I think I have not overstated the case;
I certainly have not overstated my conviction. There
has been no man who has influenced the course of modern
thought more deeply and profoundly than Adam Smith,
a Professor in a Scotch University of the second class.
So here in Columbia seventy years ago, Francis Lieber
prepared and published his &quot;Manual of Political Ethics.&quot;
Adam Smith and Francis Lieber were but prototypes--examples
of what I have in mind. The days were
when the Senate of the United States afforded a rostrum
from which thinkers and teachers first formulated, and
then advanced, great policies. Those days, and I say
it regretfully, are past. Unless I am greatly mistaken,
however, a new political force is now asserting itself. I
have recently, at a meeting of historical and scientific associations
in Boston, had my attention forcibly called
to this aspect of the situation now shaping itself. I there
met young men, many, and not the least noticeable of
whom, came from this section. They inspired me with
a renewed confidence in our political future. Essentially
teachers,--I might add, they were publicists as well as
professors. Observers and students, they actively followed
the course of developing thought in Europe as in this country.
Exact in their processes, philosophical and scientific in
their methods, unselfish in their devotion, they were broad
of view. It is for them to realize in a future not remote
the University ideal pictured, and correctly pictured, from
this stage by one who here preceded me a short six months
ago. They, constituting the University, are the &quot;hope
of the State in the direction of its practical affairs; in
teaching the lawyer the better standards of his profession,
his duty to place character above money making;
in teaching the legislator the philosophy of legislation,
and that the constructive forces of legislation carefully
considered should precede every effort to change an
existing status; in teaching those in official life, executive
and judicial, that demagogy, and theories of life
uncontrolled by true principles, do not make for success,
when final success is considered, but that, if they did
lead to success, they should be avoided for their inherent
imperfection.... The province of the University is
to educate citizenship in the abstract.&quot;</p>

<p>It is the presence of this class, to those composing which
I bow as distinctly of a period superior to mine, that you
owe my presence to-day,--whatever that presence
may be worth. I regard their existence and their coming
forward in such institutions as this University of South
Carolina, as the arc of the bow of promise spanning the
political horizon of our future.</p>

<p>Through you, to them my message is addressed.</p>
</td></tr></table>







<pre>





End of Project Gutenberg's 'Tis Sixty Years Since, by Charles Francis Adams

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 'TIS SIXTY YEARS SINCE ***

This file should be named 8sxys10h.htm or 8sxys10h.zip
Corrected EDITIONS of our eBooks get a new NUMBER, 8sxys11h.htm
VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, 8sxys10ah.htm

Produced by Afra Ullah, Sjaani and PG Distributed Proofreaders

Project Gutenberg eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the US
unless a copyright notice is included.  Thus, we usually do not
keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

We are now trying to release all our eBooks one year in advance
of the official release dates, leaving time for better editing.
Please be encouraged to tell us about any error or corrections,
even years after the official publication date.

Please note neither this listing nor its contents are final til
midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
The official release date of all Project Gutenberg eBooks is at
Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
and editing by those who wish to do so.

Most people start at our Web sites at:
http://gutenberg.net or
http://promo.net/pg

These Web sites include award-winning information about Project
Gutenberg, including how to donate, how to help produce our new
eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter (free!).


Those of you who want to download any eBook before announcement
can get to them as follows, and just download by date.  This is
also a good way to get them instantly upon announcement, as the
indexes our cataloguers produce obviously take a while after an
announcement goes out in the Project Gutenberg Newsletter.

http://www.ibiblio.org/gutenberg/etext03 or
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/etext03

Or /etext02, 01, 00, 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94, 93, 92, 92, 91 or 90

Just search by the first five letters of the filename you want,
as it appears in our Newsletters.


Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)

We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
time it takes us, a rather conservative estimate, is fifty hours
to get any eBook selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.   Our
projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If the value
per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
million dollars per hour in 2002 as we release over 100 new text
files per month:  1240 more eBooks in 2001 for a total of 4000+
We are already on our way to trying for 2000 more eBooks in 2002
If they reach just 1-2% of the world's population then the total
will reach over half a trillion eBooks given away by year's end.

The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away 1 Trillion eBooks!
This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
which is only about 4% of the present number of computer users.

Here is the briefest record of our progress (* means estimated):

eBooks Year Month

    1  1971 July
   10  1991 January
  100  1994 January
 1000  1997 August
 1500  1998 October
 2000  1999 December
 2500  2000 December
 3000  2001 November
 4000  2001 October/November
 6000  2002 December*
 9000  2003 November*
10000  2004 January*


The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been created
to secure a future for Project Gutenberg into the next millennium.

We need your donations more than ever!

As of February, 2002, contributions are being solicited from people
and organizations in: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

We have filed in all 50 states now, but these are the only ones
that have responded.

As the requirements for other states are met, additions to this list
will be made and fund raising will begin in the additional states.
Please feel free to ask to check the status of your state.

In answer to various questions we have received on this:

We are constantly working on finishing the paperwork to legally
request donations in all 50 states.  If your state is not listed and
you would like to know if we have added it since the list you have,
just ask.

While we cannot solicit donations from people in states where we are
not yet registered, we know of no prohibition against accepting
donations from donors in these states who approach us with an offer to
donate.

International donations are accepted, but we don't know ANYTHING about
how to make them tax-deductible, or even if they CAN be made
deductible, and don't have the staff to handle it even if there are
ways.

Donations by check or money order may be sent to:

Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
PMB 113
1739 University Ave.
Oxford, MS 38655-4109

Contact us if you want to arrange for a wire transfer or payment
method other than by check or money order.

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation has been approved by
the US Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization with EIN
[Employee Identification Number] 64-622154.  Donations are
tax-deductible to the maximum extent permitted by law.  As fund-raising
requirements for other states are met, additions to this list will be
made and fund-raising will begin in the additional states.

We need your donations more than ever!

You can get up to date donation information online at:

http://www.gutenberg.net/donation.html


***

If you can't reach Project Gutenberg,
you can always email directly to:

Michael S. Hart hart@pobox.com

Prof. Hart will answer or forward your message.

We would prefer to send you information by email.


**The Legal Small Print**


(Three Pages)

***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS**START***
Why is this "Small Print!" statement here? You know: lawyers.
They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
your copy of this eBook, even if you got it for free from
someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
fault. So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
disclaims most of our liability to you. It also tells you how
you may distribute copies of this eBook if you want to.

*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS EBOOK
By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
eBook, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
this "Small Print!" statement. If you do not, you can receive
a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this eBook by
sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
you got it from. If you received this eBook on a physical
medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.

ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM EBOOKS
This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBooks,
is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor Michael S. Hart
through the Project Gutenberg Association (the "Project").
Among other things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
distribute it in the United States without permission and
without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth
below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this eBook
under the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.

Please do not use the "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark to market
any commercial products without permission.

To create these eBooks, the Project expends considerable
efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
works. Despite these efforts, the Project's eBooks and any
medium they may be on may contain "Defects". Among other
things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
disk or other eBook medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
[1] Michael Hart and the Foundation (and any other party you may
receive this eBook from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm eBook) disclaims
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

If you discover a Defect in this eBook within 90 days of
receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
time to the person you received it from. If you received it
on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
copy. If you received it electronically, such person may
choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
receive it electronically.

THIS EBOOK IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS". NO OTHER
WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
TO THE EBOOK OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
may have other legal rights.

INDEMNITY
You will indemnify and hold Michael Hart, the Foundation,
and its trustees and agents, and any volunteers associated
with the production and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm
texts harmless, from all liability, cost and expense, including
legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following that you do or cause:  [1] distribution of this eBook,
[2] alteration, modification, or addition to the eBook,
or [3] any Defect.

DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
You may distribute copies of this eBook electronically, or by
disk, book or any other medium if you either delete this
"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
or:

[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
     eBook or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
     if you wish, distribute this eBook in machine readable
     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
     including any form resulting from conversion by word
     processing or hypertext software, but only so long as
     *EITHER*:

     [*]  The eBook, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
          does *not* contain characters other than those
          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
          author, and additional characters may be used to
          indicate hypertext links; OR

     [*]  The eBook may be readily converted by the reader at
          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
          form by the program that displays the eBook (as is
          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
          OR

     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
          eBook in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
          or other equivalent proprietary form).

[2]  Honor the eBook refund and replacement provisions of this
     "Small Print!" statement.

[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Foundation of 20% of the
     gross profits you derive calculated using the method you
     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
     payable to "Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation"
     the 60 days following each date you prepare (or were
     legally required to prepare) your annual (or equivalent
     periodic) tax return.  Please contact us beforehand to
     let us know your plans and to work out the details.

WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
Project Gutenberg is dedicated to increasing the number of
public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed
in machine readable form.

The Project gratefully accepts contributions of money, time,
public domain materials, or royalty free copyright licenses.
Money should be paid to the:
"Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation."

If you are interested in contributing scanning equipment or
software or other items, please contact Michael Hart at:
hart@pobox.com

[Portions of this eBook's header and trailer may be reprinted only
when distributed free of all fees.  Copyright (C) 2001, 2002 by
Michael S. Hart.  Project Gutenberg is a TradeMark and may not be
used in any sales of Project Gutenberg eBooks or other materials be
they hardware or software or any other related product without
express permission.]

*END THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN EBOOKS*Ver.02/11/02*END*



</pre>

</body>
</html>
generated by cgit v1.2.3 (git 2.25.1) at 2026-02-01 22:41:00 +0000