"TIS SIXTY YEARS SINCE"

ADDRESS OF

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS

FOUNDERS' DAY, JANUARY 16, 1913

"'TIS SIXTY YEARS SINCE"

In the single hour self-allotted for my part in this occasion there ismuch ground to cover, --the time is short, and I have far to go. Did Inow, therefore, submit all I had proposed to say when I accepted yourinvitation, there would remain no space for preliminaries. Yet somethingof that character is in place. I will try to make it brief. [1]

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

[1] Owing to its length, this "Address" was compressed in delivery, occupying one hour only. It is here printed in the form in which it wasprepared, --the parts omitted in delivery being included. 

In those days, as I presume now, the college youth harkened to inspiredvoices. Sir Walter Scott belonged to a previous generation. Having heldthe close attention of a delighted world as the most successfulstory-teller of his own or any preceding period, he had passed off thestage; but only a short twenty years before. Other voices no lessinspired had followed; and, living, spoke to us. Perhaps my schemeto-day is best expressed by one of these. 

When just beginning to attract the attention of the English-speakingworld, Alfred Tennyson gave forth his poem of "Locksley Hall, "--veryfamiliar to those of my younger days. Written years before, at the timeof publication he was thirty-three. In 1886, a man of seventy-five, hecomposed a sequel to his earlier effort, --the utterance entitled"Locksley Hall Sixty Years After. " He then, you will remember, reviewedhis young man's dreams, --dreams of the period when he

" . . . Dip't into the future, far as human eye could see, Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be, "

--threescore years later contrasting in sombre verse an old man's sternrealities with the bright anticipations of youth. Such is my purposeto-day. "Wandering back to living boyhood, " to the time when I firstsimultaneously passed the Harvard threshold and the threshold ofresponsible life, I propose to compare the ideals and actualities of thepresent with the ideals, anticipations and dreams of a past nowsomewhat remote. 

To say that in life and in the order of life's events it is theunexpected which is apt to occur, is a commonplace. That it has been soin my own case, I shall presently show. Meanwhile, not least among theunexpected things is my presence here to-day. If, when I entered Harvardin 1853, it had been suggested that in 1913, I, --born of the New EnglandSanhedrim, a Brahmin Yankee by blood, tradition and environment--had itbeen suggested that I, being such, would sixty years later stand byinvitation here in Columbia before the faculty and students of theUniversity of South Carolina, I should under circumstances then existinghave pronounced the suggestion as beyond reasonable credence. Here, however, I am; and here, from this as my rostrum, I propose to-day todeliver a message, --such as it is. 

And yet, though such a future outcome, if then foretold, would haveseemed scarcely possible of occurrence, there, after all, were certainconditions which would have rendered the contingency even at that timenot only possible, but in accordance with the everlasting fitness ofthings. For, curiously enough, personal relations of a certain characterheld with this institution would have given me, even in 1853, a sense ofacquaintance with it such as individually I had with no otherinstitution of similar character throughout the entire land. It in thiswise came about. At that period, preceding as it did the deluge about toensue, it was the hereditary custom of certain families more especiallyof South Carolina and of Louisiana, --but of South Carolina inparticular--to send their youth to Harvard, there to receive a collegeeducation. It thus chanced that among my associates at Harvard were nota few who bore names long familiarly and honorably known to Carolinianrecords, --Barnwell and Preston, Rhett and Alston, Parkman and Eliot; andamong these were some I knew well, and even intimately. Gone now withthe generation and even the civilization to which they belonged, I doubtif any of them survive. Indeed only recently I chanced on a grimlysuggestive mention of one who had left on me the memory of a characterand personality singularly pure, high-toned and manly, --permeated with asense of moral and personal obligation. I have always understood he diedfive years later at Sharpsburg, as you call it, or Antietam, as it wasnamed by us, in face-to-face conflict with a Massachusetts regimentlargely officered by Harvard men of his time and even class, --his ownfamiliar friends. This is the record, the reference being to a marriageservice held at St. Paul's church in Richmond, in the late autumn of1862: "An indefinable feeling of gloom was thrown over a most auspiciousevent when the bride's youngest sister glided through a side door justbefore the processional. Tottering to a chancel pew, she threw herselfupon the cushions, her slight frame racked with sobs. Scarcely a yearbefore, the wedding march had been played for her, and a joyous throngsaw her wedded to gallant Breck Parkman. Before another twelvemonthrolled around the groom was killed at the front. "[2] Samuel BreckParkman was in the Harvard class following that to which I belonged. Graduating in 1857, fifty-five years later I next saw his name in theconnection just given. It recorded an incident of not infrequentoccurrence in those dark and cruel days. 

It was, however, in Breck Parkman and his like that I first becameconscious of certain phases of the South Carolina character whichsubsequently I learned to bear in high respect. 

So far as this University of South Carolina was concerned, it also sochanced that, by the merest accident, I, a very young man, was throwninto close personal relations with one of the most eminent of yourprofessors, --Francis Lieber. Few here, I suppose, now personallyremember Francis Lieber. To most it gives indeed a certain sense ofremoteness to meet one who, as in my case, once held close and evenintimate relations with a German emigrant, distinguished as a publicist, who as a youth had lain, wounded and helpless, a Prussian recruit, onthe field above Namur. Occurring in June, 1815, two days after Waterloo, the affair at Namur will soon be a century gone. Of those engaged init, 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 wasappreciably nearer those in active life than are Shiloh and Gettysburgnow. The Waterloo campaign was then but thirty-eight years removed, whereas those last are fifty now; and, while Lieber was at Waterloo, Iwas myself at Gettysburg. 

[2] DeLeon, "Belles, Beaux and Brains of the Sixties, " p. 158. 

Subsequently, later in life, it was again my privilege to hold closerelations with another Columbian, --an alumnus of this University as itthen was--in whom I had opportunity to study some of the strongest andmost respect-commanding traits of the Southern character. I refer to onehere freshly remembered, --Alexander Cheves Haskell, --soldier, jurist, banker and scholar, one of a septet of brothers sent into the field by aSouth Carolina mother calm and tender of heart, but in silent sufferingunsurpassed 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 throughyears, and in him I had occasion to note that almost austere typerepresented in its highest development in the person and attributes ofCalhoun. Of strongly marked descent, Haskell was, as I have alwayssupposed, of a family and race in which could be observed those virileScotch-Irish and Presbyterian qualities which found theirrepresentative types in the two Jacksons, --Andrew, and him known inhistory as "Stonewall. " To Alec Haskell I shall in this discourse againhave occasion to refer. 

Thus, though in 1853, and for long years subsequent thereto, it wouldnot have entered my mind as among the probabilities that I should everstand here, reviewing the past after the manner of Tennyson in his"Locksley Hall Sixty Years After, " yet if there was any place in theSouth, or, I may say, in the entire country, where, as a matter ofassociation, I might naturally have looked so to stand, it would havebeen where now I find myself. 

But I must hasten on; for, as I have said, if I am to accomplish even apart of my purpose, I have no time wherein to linger. 

Not long ago I chanced, in a country ramble, to be conversing with aneminent foreigner, known, and favorably known, to all Americans. In thecourse of leisurely exchange of ideas between us, he suddenly asked if Icould suggest any explanation of the fact that not only were thepublicists who had the greatest vogue in our college days now to a largeextent discredited, but that almost every view and theory advanced bythem, and which we had accepted as fixed and settled, was, where notactually challenged, silently ignored. Nor did the assertion admit ofdenial; for, looking back through the vista of threescore years, of theprinciples of what may be called "public polity" then advanced asindisputable, few to-day meet with general acceptance. To review therecord from this point of view is curious. 

When in 1853 I entered Harvard, so far as this country and its politywere concerned certain things were matters of contention, while otherswere accepted as axiomatic, --the basic truths of our system. Among theformer--the subjects of active contention--were the question of Slavery, then grimly assuming shape, and that of Nationality intertwinedtherewith. Subordinate to this was the issue of Free Trade andProtection, with the school of so-called American political economyarrayed against that of Adam Smith. Beyond these as political idealswere the tenets and theories of Jeffersonian Democracy. That the worldhad heretofore been governed too much was loudly acclaimed, and thelargest possible individualism was preached, not only as a privilege butas a right. The area of government action was to be confined within thenarrowest practical limits, and ample scope was to be allowed to each todevelop in the way most natural to himself, provided only he did notinfringe upon the rights of others. Materially, we were then reachingout 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 andlatent forces was scarcely begun. Not yet had the railroad crossed theMissouri; electricity, just bridled, was still unharnessed. 

I have now passed in rapid review what may perhaps without exaggerationbe referred to as an array of conditions and theories, ideals andpolicies. It remains to refer to the actual results which have comeabout during these sixty years as respects them, or because of them;and, finally, to reach if possible conclusions as to the causes whichhave affected what may not inaptly be termed a process of generalevolution. Having thus, so to speak, diagnosed the situation, thechanges the situation exacts are to be measured, and a forecastventured. An ambitious programme, I am well enough aware that the notvery considerable reputation I have established for myself hardlywarrants me in attempting it. This, I premise. 

Let us, in the first place, recur in somewhat greater detail to thevarious policies and ideals I have referred to as in vogue in theyear 1853. 

First and foremost, overshadowing all else, was the political issueraised by African slavery, then ominously assuming shape. The cloudsforeboding the coming tempest were gathering thick and heavy; and, moreover, they were even then illumined by electric flashes, accompaniedby a mutter of distant thunder. Though we of the North certainly did notappreciate its gravity, the situation was portentous in the extreme. 

Involved in this problem of African slavery was the incidental issue ofFree Trade and Protection, --apparently only economical and industrial incharacter, but in reality fundamentally crucial. And behind this laythe constitutional question, involving as it did not only theconflicting theories of a strict or liberal construction of thefundamental law, but nationality also, --the right of a Sovereign Stateto withdraw from the Union created in 1787, and developed through twogenerations. 

These may be termed concrete political issues, as opposed to basictruths generally accepted and theories individually entertained. Thetheories were constitutional, social, economical. Constitutionally, theyturned upon the obligations of citizenship. There was no such thing thenas a citizen of the United States of and by itself. The citizen of theUnited States was such simply because of his citizenship of a SovereignState, --whether Massachusetts or Virginia or South Carolina; and, ofcourse, an instrument based upon a divided sovereignty admitted ofalmost infinitely diverse interpretation. It is a scriptural aphorismthat no man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one andlove 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. Theaccepted economical theories of the period were to a large extentcorollaries of the fundamental proposition, and differing material andsocial conditions. Beyond all this, and coming still under the head ofindividual theories, was the doctrine enunciated by Thomas Jefferson inthe Declaration of Independence, --the doctrine that all men were createdequal, --meaning, of course, equal before the law. But the theorist andhumanitarian of the North, accepting the fundamental principle laid downin the Declaration, gave to it a far wider application than had beenintended by its authors, --a breadth of application it would not bear. Such science as he had being of scriptural origin, he interpreted theword "equal" as signifying equal in the possibilities of theirattributes, --physical, moral, intellectual; and in so doing, he ofcourse ignored the first principles of ethnology. It was, I now realize, a somewhat wild-eyed school of philosophy, that of which I myself was ayouthful disciple. 

But, on the other hand, beside these, between 1850 and 1860 a class oftrained and more cautious thinkers, observers, scientists andtheologians was coming to the front. Their investigations, though we didnot then foresee it, were a generation later destined gently to subvertthe accepted fundamentals of religious and economical thought, literaryperformance, and material existence. The work they had in hand to do wasfor the next fifteen years to be subordinate, so far as this country wasconcerned, to the solution of the terrible political problems which werefirst insistent on settlement; yet, as is now apparent, an initialmovement was on foot which foreboded a revolution world-wide in itsnature, and one in comparison with which the issues of slavery andAmerican constitutionality became practically insignificant, --in a word, local and passing incidents. 

Finally, it remains to consider specifically the political theoriesthen in vogue in their relation to the individual. In this country, itwas the period of the equality of man and individuality in thedevelopment of the type. It was generally believed that the world hadhitherto been governed too much, --that the day of caste, and even class, was over and gone; and finally, that America was a species of vastmodern melting-pot of humanity, in which, within a comparatively shortperiod of time, the characteristics of all branches of Indo-Aryan originwould resolve themselves. A new type would emerge, --the American. Thesetheories were also in their consequences far-reaching. Practically, 1853antedates all our present industrial organizations so loudly inevidence, --the multifarious trades-unions which now divide thepopulation of the United States into what are known as the "masses" andthe "classes. " As recently as a century ago, it used to be said of theFrench army under the Empire, that every soldier carried the baton ofthe Field-Marshal in his knapsack. And this ideal of equality andindividuality was fixed in the American mind. 

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

Such, briefly and comprehensively stated, having been the situation in1853, it remains to consider the practical outcome thereof during thesixty years it has been my fortune to take part, either as an actor oras an observer, in the great process of evolution. It is curious to notethe extent to which the unexpected has come about. In the first place, consider the all-absorbing mid-century political issue, that involvingthe race question, to which I first referred, --the issue which dividedthe South from the North, and which, eight years only after I hadentered college, carried me from the walks of civil life into thecalling of arms. 

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 tosay will be listened to with no inconsiderable apprehension as to whatnext may be forthcoming. Nevertheless, this is a necessary part of mytheme; and I propose to say what I have in mind to say, setting forthwith all possible frankness the more mature conclusions reached with thepassage of years. Let it be received in the spirit in which itis offered. 

So far, then, as the institution of slavery is concerned, in itsrelations to ownership and property in those of the human species, --Ihave seen no reason whatever to revise or in any way to alter thetheories and principles I entertained in 1853, and in the maintenance ofwhich I subsequently bore arms between 1861 and 1865. Economically, socially, and from the point of view of abstract political justice, Ihold that the institution of slavery, as it existed in this countryprior to the year 1865, was in no respect either desirable orjustifiable. That it had its good and even its elevating side, so far atleast as the African is concerned, I am not here to deny. On thecontrary, I see and recognize those features of the institution far moreclearly now than I should have said would have been possible in 1853. That the institution in itself, under conditions then existing, tendedto the elevation of the less advanced race, I frankly admit I did notthen think. On the other hand, that it exercised a most perniciousinfluence upon those of the more advanced race, and especially uponthat large majority of the more advanced race who were not themselvesowners of slaves, --of that I have become with time ever more and moresatisfied. The noticeable feature, however, so far as I individually amconcerned, has been the entire change of view as respects certain of thefundamental propositions at the base of our whole American political andsocial edifice brought about by a more careful and intelligentethnological study. I refer to the political equality of man, and tothat race absorption to which I have alluded, --that belief that anyforeign element introduced into the American social system and bodypolitic would speedily be absorbed therein, and in a brief spacethoroughly assimilated. In this all-important respect I do not hesitateto say we theorists and abstractionists of the North, throughout thatlong anti-slavery discussion which ended with the 1861 clash of arms, were thoroughly wrong. In utter disregard of fundamental, scientificfacts, we theoretically believed that all men--no matter what might bethe color of their skin, or the texture of their hair--were, if placedunder exactly similar conditions, in essentials the same. In otherwords, we indulged in the curious and, as is now admitted, utterlyerroneous theory that the African was, so to speak, an Anglo-Saxon, or, if you will, a Yankee "who had never had a chance, "--a fellow-man whowas guilty, as we chose to express it, of a skin not colored like ourown. In other words, though carved in ebony, he also was in the imageof God. 

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

I do not hesitate here, --as one who largely entertained the theoreticalviews I have expressed, --I do not hesitate here to say, as the result ofsixty years of more careful study and scientific observation, thetheories then entertained by us were not only fundamentally wrong, butthey further involved a problem in the presence of which I confessto-day I stand appalled. 

It is said, --whether truthfully or not, --that when some years ago JohnMorley, the English writer and thinker, was in this country, onreturning to England he remarked that the African race question, as nowexisting in the United States, presented a problem as nearly, to hismind, insoluble as any human problem well could be. I do not carewhether Lord Morley made this statement or did not make it. I amprepared, however, to say that, individually, so far as my presentjudgment goes, it is a correct presentation. To us in the North, theAfrican is a comparatively negligible factor. So far as Massachusetts, for instance, or the city of Boston more especially, are concerned, asa problem it is solving itself. Proportionately, the African infusion isbecoming less--never large, it is incomparably less now than it was inthe days of my own youth. Thus manifestly a negligible factor, it isalso one tending to extinction. Indeed, it would be fairly open toquestion whether a single Afro-American of unmixed Ethiopian descentcould now be found in Boston. That the problem presents itself with awholly different aspect here in Carolina is manifest. The difference toois radical; it goes to the heart of the mystery. 

As I have already said, the universal "melting-pot" theory in vogue inmy youth was that but seven, or at the most fourteen, years wererequired to convert the alien immigrant--no matter from what region orof what descent--into an American citizen. The educational influencesand social environment were assumed to be not only subtle, butall-pervasive and powerful. That this theory was to a large and evendangerous extent erroneous the observation of the last fifty years hasproved, and our Massachusetts experience is sadly demonstrating to-day. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, years ago, when asked by an anxiousmother at what age the education of a child ought to begin, remarked inreply that it should begin about one hundred and fifty years before thechild is born. It has so proved with us; and the fact is to-day inevidence that this statement of Dr. Holmes should be accepted as anundeniable political aphorism. So far from seven or fourteen yearsmaking an American citizen, fully and thoroughly impregnated withAmerican ideals to the exclusion of all others, our experience is thatit requires at least three generations to eliminate what may be termedthe "hyphen" in citizenship. Not in the first, nor in the second, andhardly in the third, generation, does the immigrant cease to be anIrish-American, or a French-American, or a German-American, or aSlavonic-American, or yet a Dago. Nevertheless, in process of tune, those of the Caucasian race do and will become Americans. Ultimatelytheir descendants will be free from the traditions and ideals, so tospeak, ground in through centuries passed under other conditions. Not sothe Ethiopian. In his case, we find ourselves confronted with asituation never contemplated in that era of political dreams andscriptural science in which our institutions received shape. Statedtersely and in plain language, so far as the African is concerned--thecause and, so to speak, the motive of the great struggle of 1861 to1865--we recognize the presence in the body politic of a vast alien masswhich 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 solvedafter a fashion; but in place of it a race issue of most uncompromisingcharacter evolved itself. 

A survivor of the generation which read "Uncle Tom's Cabin" as it weekby week appeared, --fresh to-day from Massachusetts with its Lawrencerace issues of a different character, I feel a sense of satisfaction indiscussing here in South Carolina this question and issue in a spiritthe reverse of dogmatic, a spirit purely scientific, observant andsympathetic. And in this connection let me say I well rememberrepeatedly discussing it with your fellow-citizen and my friend, ColonelAlexander Haskell, to whom I have already made reference. Rarely have Ibeen more impressed by a conclusion reached and fixed in the mind of onewho to the study of a problem had obviously given much and kindlythought. As those who knew him do not need to be told, Alexander ChevesHaskell was a man of character, pure and just and thoughtful. He felttowards the African as only a Southerner who had himself never been theowner of slaves can feel. He regarded him as of a less advanced racethan his own, but one who was entitled not only to just and kindlytreatment but to sympathetic consideration. When, however, the questionof the future of the Afro-American was raised, as matter for abstractdiscussion, it was suggestive as well as curious to observe the fixed, hard expression which immediately came over Haskell's face, as withstern lips, from which all suggestion of a smile had faded away, hepronounced the words:--"Sir, it is a dying race!" To express the thoughtmore fully, Colonel Haskell maintained, as I doubt not many who nowlisten to me will maintain, that the nominal Afro-American increase, asshown in the figures of the national census, is deceptive, --that inpoint of fact, the Ethiop in America is incurring the doom which hasever befallen those of an inferior and less advanced race when broughtin direct and immediate contact, necessarily and inevitably competitive, with the more advanced, the more masterful, and intellectually the moregifted. In other words, those of the less advanced race have a fatalaptitude for contracting the vices, both moral and physical, of thesuperior race, in the end leading to destruction; while the capacity forassimilating the elevating qualities and attributes which constitute asaving grace is denied them. Elimination, therefore, became in Haskell'sbelief a question of time only, --the law of the survival of the fittestwould assert itself. The time required may be long, --numbered bycenturies; but, however remotely, it nevertheless would come. God's millgrinds slowly, but it grinds uncommon small; and, I will add, itsgrinding is apt to be merciless. 

The solution thus most pronouncedly laid down by Colonel Haskell may ormay not prove in this case correct and final. It certainly is not forme, coming from the North, to undertake dogmatically to pass upon it. Irecur to it here as a plausible suggestion only, in connection with mytheme. As such, it unquestionably merits consideration. I am by no meansprepared to go the length of an English authority in recently sayingthat "emancipation on two continents sacrificed the real welfare of theslave and his intrinsic worth as a person, to the impatient vanity ofan immediate and theatrical triumph. "[3] This length I say, I cannot go;but so far as the present occasion is concerned, with such means ofobservation as are within my reach, I find the conclusion difficult toresist that the success of the abolitionists in effecting theemancipation of the Afro-American, as unexpected and sweeping as it wassudden, has led to phases of the race problem quite unanticipated atleast. For instance, as respects segregation. Instead of assimilating, with a tendency to ultimate absorption, the movement in the oppositedirection since 1865 is pronounced. It has, moreover, received the finalstamp of scientific approval. This implies much; for in the old days ofthe "peculiar institution" there is no question the relations betweenthe two races were far more intimate, kindly, and even absorptive thanthey now are. 

That African slavery, as it existed in the United States anterior to theyear 1862, presented a mild form of servitude, as servitude then existedand immemorially had almost everywhere existed, was, moreover, incontrovertibly proven in the course of the Civil War. Before 1862, itwas confidently believed that any severe social agitation within, ordisturbance from without, would inevitably lead to a Southern servileinsurrection. In Europe this result was assumed as of course; and, immediately after it was issued, the Emancipation Proclamation of President[3] Bussell's (Dr. F. W. ) "Christian Theology and Social Progress. "Bampton Lectures, 1905. Lincoln was denounced in unmeasured terms bythe entire London press. Not a voice was raised in its defence. It wasregarded as a measure unwarranted in civilized warfare, and a sure andintentional incitement to the horrors which had attended the servileinsurrections of Haiti and San Domingo; and, more recently, theunspeakable Sepoy incidents of the Indian mutiny. What actually occurredis now historic. The confident anticipations of our English brethrenwere, not for the first time, negatived; nor is there any page in ourAmerican record more creditable to those concerned than the attitudeheld by the African during the fierce internecine struggle whichprevailed between April, 1861, and April, 1865. In it there is scarcelya trace, if indeed there is any trace at all, of such a condition ofaffairs as had developed in the Antilles and in Hindustan. The attitudeof the African towards his Confederate owner was submissive and kindly. Although the armed and masterful domestic protector was at the front andengaged in deadly, all-absorbing conflict, yet the women and children ofthe Southern plantation slept with unbarred doors, --free fromapprehension, much more from molestation. 

Moreover, as you here well know, during the old days of slavery therewas hardly a child born, of either sex, who grew up in a Southernhousehold of substantial wealth without holding immediate and mostaffectionate relations with those of the other race. Every typicalSouthern man had what he called his "daddy" and his "mammy, " his"uncle" and his "aunty, " by him familiarly addressed as such, and whowere to him even closer than are blood relations to most. They had caredfor him in his cradle; he followed them to their graves. Is it needfulfor me to ask to what extent such relations still exist? Of those bornthirty years after emancipation, and therefore belonging distinctly to alater generation, how many thus have their kindly, if humble, kin of theAfrican blood? I fancy I would be safe in saying not one in twenty. 

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

Passing rapidly on, I come to the next political issue which presenteditself in my youth, --the constitutional issue, --that of StateSovereignty, as opposed to the ideal, Nationality. And, whether forbetter or worse, this issue, I very confidently submit, has beensettled. We now, also, looking at it in more observant mood, in a spiritat once philosophical and historical, see that it involved a process ofnatural evolution which, under the conditions prevailing, could hardlyresult in any other settlement than that which came about. We now havecome to a recognition of the fact that Anglo-Saxon nationality on thiscontinent was a problem of crystallization, the working out of whichoccupied a little over two centuries. It was in New England the processfirst set in, when, in 1643, the scattered English-speaking settlementsunder the hegemony of the colony of Massachusetts Bay united in aconfederation. It was the initial step. I have no time in which toenumerate successive steps, each representing a stage in advance of whatwent before. The War of Independence, --mistakenly denominated theRevolutionary War, but a struggle distinctly conservative in character, and in no way revolutionary, --the War of Independence gave great impetusto the process, resulting in what was known as Federation. Then came theConstitution of 1787 and the formation of the, so called, United Statesas a distinct nationality. The United States next passed through twodefinite processes of further crystallization, --one in 1812-1814, whenthe second war with Great Britain, and more especially our navalvictories, kindled, especially in the North, the fire of patriotism andthe conception of nationality; the other, half a century later, presented the stern issue in a concrete form, and at last the completeunification of a community--whether for better or for worse is nomatter--was hammered by iron and cemented in blood. It is there now; anestablished fact. Secession is a lost cause; and, whether for good orfor ill, the United States exists, and will continue to exist, a unifiedWorld Power. Sovereignty now rests at Washington, and neither inColumbia for South Carolina nor in Boston for Massachusetts. The Stateexists only as an integral portion of the United States. That issue hasbeen fought out. The result stands beyond controversy; brought about bya generation now passed on, but to which I belonged. 

Meanwhile, the ancient adage, the rose is not without its thorn, receives new illustration; for even this great result has not beenwrought without giving rise to considerations suggestive of thought. Speaking tersely and concentrating what is in my mind into the fewestpossible words, I may say that in our national growth up to the year1830 the play of the centrifugal forces predominated, --that is, thenecessity for greater cohesion made itself continually felt. A period ofquiescence then followed, lasting until, we will say, 1865. Since 1865, it is not unsafe to say, the centripetal, or gravitating, force haspredominated to an extent ever more suggestive of increasing politicaluneasiness. It is now, as is notorious, more in evidence than everbefore. The tendency to concentrate at Washington, the demand that thecentral government, assuming one function after another, shall becomeimperial, the cry for the national enactment of laws, whether relatingto marital divorce or to industrial combinations, --all impinge on thefundamental principle of local self-government, which assumed itshighest and most pronounced form in the claim of State Sovereignty. I amnow merely stating problems. I am not discussing the political ills orsocial benefits which possibly may result from action. Nevertheless, all, I think, must admit that the tendency to gravitation andattraction is to-day as pronounced and as dangerous, especially in theindustrial communities of the North, as was the tendency to separationand segregation pronounced and dangerous seventy years ago in the South. 

To this I shall later return. I now merely point out what I apprehend tobe a tendency to extremes--an excess in the swinging of ourpolitical pendulum. 

We next come to that industrial factor which I have referred to as theissue between the Free Trade of Adam Smith and Protection, as inculcatedby the so-called American school of political economists. The phaseswhich this issue has assumed are, I submit, well calculated to excitethe attention of the observant and thoughtful. I merely allude to themnow; but, in so far as it is in my power to make it so, my allusion willbe specific. I frankly acknowledge myself a Free-Trader. A Free-Traderin theory, were it in my power I would be a Free-Trader in nationalpractice. There has been, so far as I know, but one example of absolutefree trade on the largest scale in world history. That one example, moreover, has been a success as unqualified as undeniable. I refer tothis American Union of ours. We have here a country consisting of fiftylocal communities, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, fromtropical Porto Rico to glacial Alaska, representing every conceivablephase of soil, climate and material conditions, with diverse industrialsystems. With a Union established on the principle of absolutelyunrestricted commercial intercourse, you here in South Carolina, andmore especially in Columbia, are to-day making it, so to speak, uncomfortable for the cotton manufacturer in New England; and I am gladof it! A sharp competition is a healthy incentive to effort andingenuity, and the brutal injunction, "Root hog or die!" is one fromwhich I in no way ask to have New England exempt. When Massachusetts isno longer able to hold its own industrially in a free field, the timewill, in my judgment, have come for Massachusetts to go down. Withcommunities as with children, paternalism reads arrested development. One of the great products of Massachusetts has been what is genericallyknown as "footwear. " Yet I am told that under the operation of absoluteFree Trade, St. Louis possesses the largest boot and shoe factory in itsoutput 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 ofMassachusetts has become practically extinct; he cannot face thecompetition of the great West: but the Massachusetts consumer is greatlyadvantaged thereby. So far as agricultural products are concerned, Massachusetts is to-day reduced to what is known as dairy products andgarden truck; and it is well! Summer vegetables manufactured under glassin winter prove profitable. So, turning his industrial efforts to thatwhich he can do best, even the Massachusetts agriculturalist hasprospered. On the other hand, wherever in this country protection hasbeen most completely applied, I insist that if its results are analyzedin an unprejudiced spirit, it will be pronounced to have workedunmitigated evil, --an unhealthy, because artificially stimulated and toorapid, growth. Let Lawrence, in Massachusetts, serve as an example. Lookat the industrial system there introduced in the name of Protectionagainst the Pauper Labor of Europe! No growth is so dangerous as a toorapid growth; and I confidently submit that politically, socially, economically and industrially, America to-day, on the issues agitatingus, presents an almost appalling example of the results of hot-housestimulation. 

Nor is this all, nor the worst. There is another article, and far moredamaging, in the indictment. Through Protection, and because of it, Paternalism has crept in; and, like a huge cancerous growth, is eatingsteadily into the vitals of the political system. Instead of supportinga government economically administered by money contributed by thePeople, a majority of the People to-day are looking to the governmentfor support, either directly through pension payments or indirectlythrough some form of industrial paternalism. Incidentally, a profusepublic expenditure is condoned where not actually encouraged. Jeffersonian simplicity is preached; extravagance is practised. As theNew York showman long since shrewdly observed: "The American peoplelove to be fooled!"

But I must pass on; I still have far to go. As respects legislation, Ihave said that sixty years ago, when my memories begin, the Americanideal was the individual, and individuality. This, implied adherence tothe Jeffersonian theory that heretofore the world had been governed toomuch. The great secret of true national prosperity, happiness andsuccess was, we were taught, to allow to each individual the fullestpossible play, provided only he did not infringe on the rights ofothers. How is it to-day? America is the most governed and legislatedcountry in the world! With one national law-making machine perpetuallyat work grinding out edicts, we have some fifty provincial mills engagedin the same interesting and, to my mind, pernicious work. No one who hasgiven the slightest consideration to the subject will dispute theproposition that, taking America as a whole, we now have twenty acts oflegislation annually promulgated, and with which we are at our perilsupposed to be familiar, where one would more than suffice. Then wewonder that respect for the law shows a sensible decrease! The betteroccasion for wonder is that it survives at all. We are both legislatedand litigated out of all reason. 

Passing to the other proposition of individuality, there has been, asall men know and no one will dispute, a most perceptible tendency oflate years towards what is known as the array of one portion of thecommunity--the preponderating, voting portion--against another--the moreostentatious property-holding portion. It is the natural result, I maysay the necessary as well as logical outcome, of a period of too rapidgrowth, --production apportioned by no rule or system other or higherthan greed and individual aptitude for acquisition. I will put theresulting case in the most brutal, and consequently the clearest, shapeof which I am capable. Working on the combined theories of individualismcontrolled and regulated by competition, it has been one grand game ofgrab, --a process in which the whole tendency of our legislation, national or state, has during the last twenty years been, first, tocreate monopolies of capital and, later, to bring into existence acounter, but no less privileged, class, known as the "wage-earner. "

Of the first class it is needless to speak, for, as a class, it issufficiently pilloried by the press and from the hustings. Much inevidence, those prominent in it are known as the possessors of"predatory wealth"; "unjailed malefactors, " they are subjects ofcontinuous "grilling" in the congressional and legislative committeerooms. The effort to make them "disgorge" is as continual as it isnoisy, and, as a rule, futile. It constitutes a curious and in somerespects instructive exhibition of misdirected popular feeling andlegislative incompetence. None the less, the existence of a monopolistclass calls for no proof at the bar of public opinion. Not so the otherand even more privileged class, --the so-called "wage-earner"; for, disguise it as the trades-unionist will, angrily deny it as he does, thefact remains that to-day under the operation of our jury system and ofour 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 evenperpetrated in behalf of so-called "labor" receive at the hands ofjuries, and also not infrequently of courts, an altogether excessivedegree of merciful consideration. At the same time, both here and inEurope Organized Labor is instant in its demand that immunity, deniedto ordinary citizens, and those whom it terms "the classes, " shall byspecial exemption be conferred upon the Labor Union and upon theWage-earner. The tendency on both sides and at each extreme toinequality in the legislature and before the law is thus manifest. 

Viewing conditions face to face and as they now are, no thoughtfulobserver can, in my judgment, avoid the conviction that, whether forgood 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 centennialyear, 1876--cast loose from its original moorings. It has drifted, andis drifting, into unknown seas. Nor is this true of English-speakingAmerica alone. I have already quoted Lord Morley in another connection. Lord Morley, however, only the other day delivered, as Chancellor ofManchester University, a most interesting and highly suggestiveaddress, in which, referring to conservative Great Britain, he thuspictured a phase of current belief: "Political power is described aslying in the hands of a vast and mobile electorate, with scanty regardfor tradition or history. Democracy, they say, is going to write its ownprogramme. The structure of executive organs and machinery is undergoinghalf-hidden, but serious alterations. Men discover a change of attitudetowards law as law; a decline in reverence for institutions asinstitutions. "

While, however, the influences at work are thus general and themanifestations whether on the other side of the Atlantic or here bear astrong resemblance, yet difference of conditions and detail--constitutional peculiarities, so to speak--must not bedisregarded. One form of treatment may not be prescribed for all. In ourcase, therefore, it remains to consider how best to adapt this countryand 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. Aphysician, diagnosing the chances of a patient, must first correctlyascertain, or at least ascertain with approximate correctness, the seatof the trouble under which the patient is suffering. So, we. 

And here I must frankly confess to small respect for thepolitician, --the man whose voice is continually heard, whether from theSenate Chamber or the Hustings. There is in those of his class acontinual and most noticeable tendency to what may best be described asthe _post ergo propter_ dispensation. With them, the eye is fixed on theimmediate manifestation. Because one event preceded another, the firstevent is obviously and indisputably the cause of the later event. Forinstance, in the present case, the cause or seat of our existing andvery manifest social, political and financial disturbances is attributedas of course to some peculiarity of legislation, either a subtreasurybill passed in the administration of General Jackson, or a tariff billpassed in the administration of Mr. Taft, or the demonetization ofsilver in the Hayes period, --that "Crime of the Century, " theCrucifixion of Labor on the Cross of Gold! Once for all, let me say, Icontemplate this school of politicians and so-called "thinkers" withsentiments the reverse of respectful. In plain language, I class themwith those known in professional parlance as quacks and charlatans. Notalways, not even in the majority of cases, does that which preceded bearto that which follows the relation of cause and effect. A marked exampleof this false attribution is afforded in more recent political historyby the everlasting recurrence of the statement that American prosperityis the result of an American protective system. Yet in the Protectionistdispensation, this has become an article of faith. To my mind, it isundeserving of even respectful consideration. 

If I were asked the cause of that change, little short ofrevolutionary, if indeed in any respect short of it, which has occurredin the material condition of the American people, and consequently inall its theories and ideals, within the last thirty years, I shouldattribute it to a wholly different cause. Mr. Lecky some years ago, inhis book entitled "Liberty and Democracy, " made the following statement, in no way original, but, as he put it, sufficiently striking: "Theproduce of the American mines [incident to the discoveries made byColumbus] created, in the most extreme form ever known in Europe, thechange which beyond all others affects most deeply and universally thematerial well-being of men: it revolutionized the value of the preciousmetals, and, in consequence, the price of all articles, the effects ofall contracts, the burden of all debts. "

In other words, referring to the first half of the sixteenthcentury, --the sixty years, we will say, following the land-fall ofColumbus, --the historian attributed the great change which then occurredand which stands forth so markedly in history, to the increasedNew-World production of the precious metals, combined with the impetusgiven to trade and industry as a consequence of that discovery, and ofthe mastery of man over additional globe areas. Now, dismissing fromconsideration the so-called American protective system, likewise ourcurrency issues and, generally, the patchwork, so to speak, ofcrazy-quilt legislation to which so much is attributed during the lastthirty years, I confidently submit that in the production of the resultsunder discussion, they are quantities and factors hardly worthy ofconsideration. The cause of the change which has taken place lies fardeeper and must be sought in influences of a wholly different nature, influences developed into an increased and still ever increasingactivity, over which legislation has absolutely no control. I refer, ofcourse, to man's mastery over the latent forces of Nature. Of theseSteam and Electricity are the great examples, which, because alwaysapparent, at once strike the imagination. These, as tools, it is to beremembered, date practically from within one hundred years back. It may, indeed, safely be asserted that up to 1815, the end of the Wars ofNapoleon and the time of your Professor Lieber, steam even had not asyet practically affected the operations of man, while electricity, whennot a terror, was as yet but a toy. Commerce was still exclusivelycarried on by the sailing ship and canal-boat. The years from the fallof Napoleon to our own War of Secession--from Waterloo toGettysburg--were practically those of early and partial development. Notuntil well after Appomattox, that is, since the year 1870, --a periodcovering but little more than the life of a generation, --did what isknown to you here as the Applied Sciences cover a range difficult tospecialize. As factors in development, it is safe to say that thosethree tremendous agencies--Steam, Electricity, Chemistry--have, so tospeak, worked all their noticeable results within the lifetime of thegeneration born since we celebrated the Centennial of Independence. Themanifestations now resulting and apparent to all are the natural outcomeof the use of these modern appliances, become in our case everydayworking tools in the hands of the most resourceful, adaptive, ingeniousand energetic of communities, developing a virgin continent ofundreamed-of wealth. Naturally, under such conditions, the advance hasbeen not only general and continuous, but one of ever increasingcelerity. So Protection and the Currency become flies on the fastrevolving wheel!

But what has otherwise resulted?--An unrest, social, economical, political. Not contentment, but a lamentation and an ancient tale ofwrong! We hear it in the continual cry over what is known as theincreased cost of living, and feel its pressure in the higher standardof living. What was considered wealth by our ancestors is to-day hardlycompetence. What sufficed for luxury in our childhood barely nowsupplies what are known as the comforts of life. Take, for instance, themotor, --the automobile. I speak within bounds, I think, when I say thereare many fold more motors to-day racing over the streets, the highwaysand the byways of America than there were one-horse wagons thirty-fiveyears ago. Six hundred, I am told, are to be found within the immediateneighborhood of Columbia; and, since I have been here I have seen inyour streets just one man on horse-back! These figures and thatstatement tell the tale. A few years only back, every Carolinian rodeto town, and the motor was unknown. A single illustrative example, thiscould be duplicated in innumerable ways everywhere and in all walksof life. 

The result is obvious, and was inevitable. Entered on a new phase ofexistence, the world is not as it was in the days of Columbus, when asingle new continent was discovered containing in it what we would nowregard as a limited accumulation of the precious metals. It is, on thecontrary, as if, in the language of Dr. Johnson, "the potentiality ofwealth" had been revealed "beyond the dreams of avarice"; together withnot one or two, but a dozen continents, the existence and secrets ofwhich are suddenly laid bare. The Applied Sciences have been themagicians, --not Protection or the Currency. 

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

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

To attempt a partial answer to the query implies no claim to a propheticfaculty. Whether we like to face the fact or not, far-reaching changesin our economical theories and social conditions are imminent, involvingcorresponding readjustments in our constitutional arrangements andpolitical machinery. Tennyson foreshadowed it all in his "Locksley Hall"seventy years ago:--"The individual withers, and the world is more andmore. " The day of individualism as it existed in the American ideal ofsixty years since is over; that of collectivism and possibly socialismhas opened. The day of social equality is relegated to what may beconsidered a somewhat patriarchal past, --that patriarchal past havingcome to a close during the memory of those still in active life. 

And yet, though all this can now be studied in the political discussionendlessly dragging on, strangely and sadly enough that discussioncarries in it hardly a note of encouragement. It is, in a word, unspeakably shallow. And here, having sufficiently for my presentpurpose though in hurried manner, diagnosed the situation, --located theseat of disturbance, --we come to the question of treatment. Involving, as it necessarily does, problems of the fundamental law, and arearrangement and different allocation of the functions of government, this challenges the closest thought of the publicist. That the problemis here crying aloud for solution is apparent. The publications whichcumber the counters of our book-stores, those for which the greatestpopular call to-day exists--treatises relating to trade interests, tocollectivism, to socialism, even to anarchism--tell the tale in part; inpart it is elsewhere and otherwise told. Only recently, in once PuritanMassachusetts, processions paraded the streets carrying banners markedwith this device, more suggestive than strange:--"No master and no God!"

What are the remedies popularly proposed? In that important branch ofpolity known as Political Ethics, or, as he termed them, Hermeneutics, which your Professor Lieber sixty years ago endeavored to treat of, whatadvance has since his time been effected?--Nay! what advance has beeneffected since the time, over two thousand years, of his greatpredecessor, Aristotle? I confidently submit that what progress is nowbeing made in this most erudite of sciences is in the nature of that ofthe crab--backwards! In the discussions of Aristotle, the problem inview was, how to bring about government by the wisest, --that is, themost observant and expert. In other words, government, the object ofpolitics, was by Aristotle treated in a scientific spirit. And this isas it should be. Take, for example, any problem, --I do not care whetherit is legal or medical or one of engineering: How successfully disposeof it? Uniformly, in one way. Those problems are successfully solved, ifat all, only when their solution is placed in the hands of the mostproficient. Judged by the discussions of to-day, what advance has inpolitics been effected? Do the _Outlook_ and the _Commoner_ implyprogress since the Stagirite? Not to any noticeable extent. We are, onthe contrary, fumbling and wallowing about where the Greek pondered andphilosophized. 

Democracy, as it is called, is to-day the great panacea, --the politicalnostrum; as such it is confidently advocated by statesmen and professorsand even by the presidents of our institutions of the advancededucation. "Trust the People" is the shibboleth! "Let the People rule!""The cure for too much Liberty is more Liberty!" To Democracy plain andsimple--Composite Wisdom--I frankly confess I feel no call, --no callgreater than, for instance, towards Autocracy or Aristocracy orPlutocracy. Taken simply, and applied as hitherto applied, all and eachlead 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, inthe past, it was in the case of the pure Autocracy of the Caesars, orthe case of the pure Aristocracy of Rome or of the so-called Republicsof the Middle Ages. A political edifice on shifting sands. 

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 thetime of Aristotle, we see a prevailing school working directly back tothe condition of affairs which existed in the Athenian agora under thedisapproving 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 ofthe county fair--would surely remedy the perplexing ills of new andhitherto 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 throughthe frequent counting of noses; or, as Macaulay two generations agobetter phrased it, "the majority of citizens told by the head";--theonly question at just this juncture being whether, in order to thearriving at more acceptable results, both sexes shall be "told, " insteadof one sex only. Moreover, I with equal confidence make bold to suggestthat while conceded, and while men have even persuaded themselves thatthey have faith in it, and really do believe in this "telling" of nosesas 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, theypreach a panacea in which they really do not believe. Nor of this isproof far to seek. _Vox populi, vox Dei_! If you extend the applicationof this principle by a single step, its loudest advocates draw back inalarm from the inevitable. They seek refuge in the assertion--"Oh! Thatis different!" For instance, take a concrete case; so best can weillustrate. 

One of the greatest scientific triumphs reached in modern times--perhapsI might fairly say the greatest--is the discovery of the cause of yellowfever, and its consequent control. As a result of the studies, thepatient experimentation and self-sacrifice of the wisest, --that is, themost observant and expert, --the amazing conclusion was reached that notonly the yellow fever but the innumerable ills of the flesh known underthe caption of "malarial, " were due to causes hitherto unsuspected, though obvious when revealed, --to the existence in the atmosphere of avenomous insect, in comparison with the work of which the ravages onmankind of the entire carnivorous and reptile creation were ofcomparatively small account. The mosquito flew disclosed, theatmospheric viper, --a viper most venomous and deadly. How was thedisclosure brought about? What was the remedy applied? Was the discoveryeffected through universal suffrage? Was the remedy sought for anddecided upon by the Initiative, or through a Referendum at an electionheld on the Tuesday succeeding the first Monday of a certain month andyear? Had recourse in this case been had to the panacea now in greatestpolitical vogue, we all know perfectly well what would have followed. History tells us. The quarantine, as it is called, would have beendecreed, and a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer appointed. Themosquito, quite ignored, would then have gone on in his deadly work. Weall equally well know that the man, even the politician or thestatesman, who had suggested a solution of that problem by a count ofnoses would have been effaced with ridicule. Even the most simple mindedwould have rejected that method of reaching a result. Yet the ilia ofthe body politic, too, are complicated. Indeed, far more intricate intheir processes and more deceitful in their aspects, they more deeplyaffect the general well-being and happiness than any ill or epidemicwhich torments the physical being, even the mosquito malaria. Yet theills of the body politic, the complications which surround us on everyside, --for these the unfailing panacea is said to lie in universalsuffrage, that remedy which is immediately and of course laughed out ofcourt if suggested in case of the simpler ills of the flesh. 

This, I submit, is demonstration. The true remedy is not to be sought inthat direction in the one case any more than the other. 

There is a considerable element of truth, though possibly a notinconsiderable one of exaggeration, in this statement from a paper Irecently chanced upon in the issue of the sober and classical _EdinburghReview_ for October last, --a paper entitled "Democracy andLiberalism":--"History testifies unmistakably and unanimously to thepassion of democracies for incompetence. There is nothing democracydislikes and suspects so heartily as technical efficiency, particularlywhen it is independent of the popular vote. " But to-day, what ispolitically proposed by our senatorial charlatans and the mountebanks ofthe market-place? The Referendum, the constant and easy Recall, theeverlasting Initiative are dinned into our ears as the cure-alls ofevery ill of the body politic. On the contrary, I submit that, while inthe absence of any better method as yet devised and accepted, theprocess of reaching results by a count of the "majority told by thehead" of the citizens then present and voting has certain politicaladvantages, yet, for all this, as a final, scientific, politicalprocess, it is unworthy of consideration. A passing expedient, it in nodegree reflects credit on twentieth-century intelligence. 

And now I come to the crux of my discussion. Thus rejecting resultsreached by the ballot as now in practical use, a query is already in theminds of those who listen. At once suggesting itself and flung in myface, it is asked as a political poser, and not without a sneer, --Whatelse or better have I to propose? Would I advise a return to old anddiscarded methods, --Heredity, Caste, Autocracy, Plutocracy? Irespectfully submit this is a question no one has a right to put, andone 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 towardsa solution of a medical, as of a political, problem is a correctdiagnosis. Then necessarily follows a long period devoted toobservation, to investigation and experiment. If, in the case of theyellow fever, a score of years only ago an observer had pointed out thenature of the disease and the manifest inadequacy of current theoriesand prevailing methods of prevention and treatment, do you think otherswould have had a right to turn upon him and demand that he instantlyprescribe a remedy which should be not only complete, but at oncerecognized as such and so accepted? In the present case, as I havealready observed, from the days of Aristotle down through two and twentycenturies, men had been experimenting in all, to them, conceivable ways, on the government of the body politic, exactly as they experimented onthe disorders of the physical body. But only yesterday was the source ofthe yellow fever, for instance, diagnosed and located, and the propermeans of prevention applied. The cancer and tuberculosis are to-dayunsolved problems. By analogy, they are inviting subjects for anInitiative and a Referendum! Yet would any person who to-day, standingwhere I stand, expressed a disbelief, at once total and contemptuous, ofsuch a procedure as respects them, be met by a demand for some otherpanacea of immediate and guaranteed efficiency? And so with the bodypolitic. I here to-day am merely attempting a diagnosis, pointing outthe disorders, and exposing as best I can the utter crudeness andinsufficiency of the market-place remedies proposed. Have you a right, then, to turn on me, and call for some other prescription, warranted tocure, in place of the nostrums so loudly advertised by the sciolists andthe dabblers of the day, and by me so contemptuously set aside? Iconfess I am unable to respond, or even to attempt a response to anysuch demand. I am not altogether a quack, nor is this a county fair. 

"Paracelsus, " so denominated, was one of Robert Browning's earlierpoems. In it he causes the fifteenth-century alchemist and forerunner ofall modern pharmaceutical chemistry, to declare that as the result oflong travel and much research

"I possessTwo sorts of knowledge: one, --vast, shadowy, Hints of the unbounded aim. . . . The other consists of many secrets, caughtWhile bent on nobler prize, --perhaps a fewPrime principles which may conduct to much:These last I offer. "

So, _longo intervallo_, I have a few suggestions, --the result of anobservation extending, as I said at the beginning, over the lives of twogenerations and a connection with many great events in which I haveborne a part, --a part not prominent indeed, and more generally, Iacknowledge, mistaken than correct. My errors, however, have at leastmade me cautious and doubtful of my own conclusions. I submit them forwhat they are worth. Not much, I fear. 

What, then, would I do, were it in my power to prescribe alterations andcuratives for the ills of our American body politic, of which I havespoken; or, more correctly, the far-reaching disturbances manifestly dueto the agencies at work, to which I have made reference? Let us come atonce to the point, taking the existing Constitution of the United Statesas a concrete example, and recognizing the necessity for its revisionand readjustment to meet radically changed conditions, --conditionssocial, material, geographical, changed and still changing. 

It was Mr. Gladstone who, years ago, made the often-quoted assertionthat the Constitution of the United States was "the most wonderful workever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man. " I donot think he was far wrong; though we, of course, realize that theFederal Constitution was a growth and in no degree an inspiration. ThatConstitution has through a century and a quarter stood the test of timeand stress of war, during a period of almost unlimited growth of thecommunity for which it was devised. It has outlasted many nationalitiesand most of the dynasties in existence at the time of its adoption; andthat, too, under conditions sufficiently trying. I, therefore, regard itwith profound respect; and, so regarding it, I would treat it with acautious and tender hand. Not lightly pronouncing it antiquated, whatchanges would I make in it if to-morrow it were given me to prescribealterations adapting it to the altered conditions which confront us? Ido not hesitate to say, and I am glad to say, the changes I wouldsuggest would be limited; yet, I fancy, far-reaching. 

And, in the first place, let us have a clear conception of the end inview. That end is, I submit, exactly the same to-day which Aristotle hadin view more than twenty centuries ago. It is, not to solve allpolitical problems, but to put political problems as they arise in thehands of those whom he termed the "best, "--but whom we know as the mostintelligent, observant and expert, --to be, through their agency, in theway of ultimate solution. If, adopting every ill-considered andhalf-fledged measure of so-called reform which might be the fancy of theday, we incorporated them in our fundamental law, but one thing couldresult therefrom, --ultimate confusion. The Constitution is neither alegislative crazy-quilt nor a receptacle of fads. To make it such is inevery respect the reverse of scientific. The work immediately in hand, therefore, is to devise such changes in the fundamental law as will tendmost effectually to bring about the solution of issues as they mayarise, by the most expert, observant and reliable. This accomplished, ifits accomplishment were only practicable, all possible would have beendone; and the necessary and inevitable readjustment of things would, inpolitics as in medicine and in science, be left to solve itself asoccasion arose. Provision cannot be made against every contingency. 

This premised, the Constitution of the United States is an instrumentthrough which powers are delegated by several local communities to acentral government. The instrument, it was originally held, should bestrictly construed and the powers delegated limited; and in thisrespect, with certain alterations made obviously necessary to meetchanged conditions, I would return to the fundamental idea ofthe framers. 

In saying this I feel confidence also that here in South Carolina atleast I shall meet with an earnest response. The time is not yet remotewhen local self-government worked salvation for South Carolina, as forher sister States of the Confederacy. You here will never forget whatimmediately followed the close of our Civil War. As an historic fact, the Constitution was then suspended. It was suspended by act of anirresponsible Congress, exercising revolutionary but unlimited powersover a large section of the common country. You then had anillustration, not soon to be forgotten, of concentration of legislativepower. An episode at once painful and discreditable, it is not necessaryhere to refer to it in detail. Appeal, however, was made to theprinciple of local self-government, --it was, so to speak, a recurrenceto the theory of State Sovereignty. The appeal struck a responsive, because traditional, chord; and it was through a recurrence to StateSovereignty as the agency of local self-government that loyalty andcontentment were restored, and, I may add, that I am here to-day. Ceasing to be a Military Department, South Carolina once more became aState. Not improbably the demand will in a not remote future be heardthat State lines and local autonomy be practically obliterated. In thatevent, I feel a confident assurance that, recurring in memory to theevil days which followed 1865, the spirit of enlightened conservatismwill assert itself here and in the sister States of what was once theConfederacy; 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 arkof your social and political salvation. 

Taking another step in the discussion of changes, the Constitution isfounded on that well-known distribution and allocation of powers firsttheoretically suggested by Montesquieu. There is a division, accompaniedby a mutual limitation of authority, through the Judiciary, theExecutive, and the Legislative. As respects this allocation, how would Imodify that instrument? I freely say that the tendency of my thought, based on observation, is to conservatism. I have never yet in a singleinstance found that when the people of this or any other countryaccustomed to parliamentary government desired a thing, they failed toobtain it within a reasonable limit of time. Hasty changes are wiselydeprecated; but I think I speak within limitation when I say thatneither in the history of Great Britain, --the mother of Parliaments--norin the history of the United States, has any modification which thepeople, on sober second thought, have considered to be for the best, long been deferred. Action, revolutionary in character, has not, as arule, been needful, or, when taken, proved salutary. This is a recordand result that no careful student of our history will, I take it, deny. 

Such being the case, so far as our Judiciary is concerned, I do nothesitate to say I would adhere to older, and, as I think, betterprinciples, or revert to them where they have been experimentallyabandoned. It took the Anglo-Saxon race two centuries of incessantconflict to wrest from a despotic executive, practically an autocracy, judicial independence. That was effected through what is known as atenure during good behavior, as opposed to a tenure at the will of themonarch. This, then, for two centuries, was accepted as a fundamentalprinciple of constitutional government. Of late, a new theory has beenpropounded, and by those chafing at all restraint--constitutionallylawless in disposition--it is said the Recall should also be applied tothe Judiciary. Having, therefore, wrested the independence of theJudiciary from the hand of the Autocrat, we now propose to place it, inall trustfulness, in the hands of the Democrat. To me the propositiondoes not commend itself. It is founded on no correct principle, for theirresponsible democratic majority is even more liable to ill-consideredand vacillating action than is the responsible autocrat. In that matterI would not trust myself; why, then, should I trust the compositeDemocrat? In the case of the Judiciary, therefore, I would so far as thefundamental law is concerned abide by the older and better consideredprinciples of the framers. 

Next, the Executive. Again, we hear the demand of Democracy, --theRecall! Once more I revert to the record. This Republic has now been inworking operation, and, taken altogether, most successful operation, for a century and a quarter. During that century and a quarter we havehad, we will say, some five and twenty different chief magistrates. There is an ancient and somewhat vulgar adage to the effect that theproof of a certain dietary article is in its eating. Apply that homelyadage to the matter under consideration. What is the lesson taught? Itis simply this, --during a whole century and a quarter of existence therehas not been one single chief executive of the United States to whom thearbitrary Recall could have been applied with what would now be agreedupon as a fortunate result. In the Andrew Johnson impeachment case wasit not better that things were as they were? On the other hand, everyone of the seven independent, self-respecting Senators who then by adisplay of high moral courage saved the country from serious prejudicewould have been recalled out-of-hand had the Recall now demanded been inexistence. Its working would have received prompt exemplification; as itwas, the recall was effected in time, and after due deliberation. Thedelay occasioned no public detriment. In this life, experience isundeniably worth something; and the experience here referred to isfairly entitled to consideration. No political system possible to deviseis wholly above criticism, --not open to exceptional contingencies or todangers possible to conjure up. Such have from time to time arisen inthe past; in the future such will inevitably arise. This considerationmust, however, be balanced against a general average of successfulworking; and I confidently submit that, weighing thus the provedadvantage of the system we have against the possibilities of dangerwhich hereafter may occur, but which never yet have occurred, the scaleon which are the considerations in favor of change kicks the beam. 

In view, however, of the growth of the country, the vastly increasedcomplexity of interests involved, the intricacy and the cost of theelection processes to which recourse is necessarily had, I wouldsubstitute for the present brief tenure of the presidential office--atenure well enough perhaps in the comparatively simple days whichpreceded our Civil War--a tenure sufficiently long to enable theoccupant of the presidential chair to have a policy and to accomplish atleast something towards its adoption. As the case stands to-day, aPresident 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 theaccomplishment of results. The first year of his term is necessarilydevoted to the work of acquiring a familiarity with the machinery of thegovernment, and the shaping of a policy. The second year may be devotedto a more or less strenuous effort at the adoption of the policy thusformulated. As experience shows, the action of the third and fourthyears is gravely affected--if not altogether perverted from the work inhand--by what are known as the political exigencies incident to asuccession. Manifestly, this calls for correction. The remedy, however, to my mind, is obvious and suggests itself. As the presidency is theone office under our Constitution national in character, and in no waylocally representative, I would extend the term to seven years, andrender the occupant of the office thereafter ineligible for reëlection. 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 "mandate"cackle. The count of noses being complete, the mind of the compositeDemocrat is held to be made up. It only remains to formulate theconsequent decree; and, with least possible delay, put it in way ofpractical enforcement. Again, I, as a publicist, demur. It is the oldissue, that between instant action and action on second thought, presented once more. Briefly, the experience of sixty years stronglyinclines me to a preference of matured and considerate action over thatimmediate action which notoriously is in nine cases out of ten asill-advised as it is precipitate. Only in the field of politics is theexpediency of the latter assumed as of course; yet, as in science andliterature and art so in politics, final, because satisfactory, resultsare at best but slowly thrashed out. As respects wisdom, the modernstatute book does not loom, monumental. Its contemplation would indeedperhaps even lead to a surmise that reasonable delay in formulating his"mandate" might, in the case of the composite Democrat as in that of theindividual Autocrat, prove a not altogether unmixed, and so in the endan intolerable, evil. 

Thus while a change of the Executive and Legislative branches of thegovernment might not be always simultaneously effected, by selectingseven years as the presidential term the election would be broughtabout, as frequently as might be, by itself, uncomplicated by localissues connected with the fortunes or political fate of individualcandidates for office, whether State, Congressional, or Senatorial; andduring the seven years of tenure, four, at least, it might reasonably beanticipated, would be devoted to the promotion of a definite policy, inplace of one year in a term of four, as now. If also ineligible forreelection, there is at least a fair presumption that the occupant ofthe position might from start to finish apply himself to its duties andobligations, without being distracted therefrom by ulterior personalends as constantly as humanly held in view. 

Having thus disposed of the Judiciary and the Executive, we come to theLegislative. And here I submit is the weak point in our Americansystem, --manifestly the weak point, and to those who, like myself, havehad occasion to know, undeniably so. I am here as a publicist; not as awriter of memoirs: so, on this head, I do not now propose to dilate orbear witness. I will only briefly say that having at one period, and formore than the lifetime of a generation, been in charge of largecorporate and financial interests, I have had much occasion to deal withlegislative bodies, National, State and Municipal. That page of myexperiences is the one I care least to recall, and would most gladlyforget. I am not going to specify, or give names of either localities orpersons; but, knowing what I know, it is useless to approach me on thistopic with the usual good-natured and optimistic, if somewhat unctuousand conventional, commonplaces on general uprightness and the tendencyto improved conditions and a higher standard. I know better! I have seenlegislators bought like bullocks--they selling themselves. I havewatched them cover their tracks with a cunning more than vulpine. I havemyself been black-mailed and sandbagged, while whole legislative bodieswatched the process, fully cognizant at every step of what was going on. This, I am glad to say, was years ago. The legislative conditions werethen bad, scandalously bad; nor have I any reason to believe in aregeneration since. The stream will never rise higher than its source;but it generally indicates the level thereof. In this case, I can onlyhope that in my experience it failed so to do. Running at a low level, the waters of that stream were deplorably dirty. 

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

Such reasoning does not commend itself to my judgment. On the contrary, the failure of the American legislative to command an increasing publicconfidence, while both natural and obvious, is, if my observation guidesme to conclusions in any degree correct, traceable to two reasons. Sofar as government is concerned, the law-making branch is assumed to bemade up of the wisest and the most expert. Meanwhile, it is as a matterof fact chosen by the process I have not over-respectfully referred toas the counting of noses; and, moreover, by an unwritten law morebinding than any in the Statute Book, that counting of noses is with uslocalized. In other words, when it comes to the choice of ourlaw-makers, reducing provincialism to a system we make the localnumerical majority supreme, and any one is considered competent tolegislate. He can do that, even if by common knowledge he is incompetentor untrustworthy in every other capacity. Localization thus becomes thestronghold of mediocrity, the sure avenue to office of the second-andthird-rate man, --he who wishes always to enjoy his share of a littlebrief authority, to have, he also, a taste of public life. In thisrespect our American system is, I submit, manifestly and incomparablyinferior to the system of parliamentary election existing in GreatBritain, itself open to grave criticism. In Great Britain the public manseeks the constituency wherever he can find it; or the constituencyseeks its representative wherever it recognizes him. The present PrimeMinister of Great Britain, for instance, represents a small Scotchconstituency in which he never resided, but by which he was elected morethan twenty years ago, and through which he has since consecutivelyremained in public life. On the other hand, look at the waste andextravagance of the system now and traditionally in use with us. To getinto public life a man must not only be in sympathy with the majority ofthe citizens of the locality in which he lives, but he must continue tobe in sympathy with that majority; or, at any election, like Mr. Cannonin the election just held, where for any passing cause a majority of hisneighbors in the locality in which he lives may fail to support him, hemust go into retirement. I cannot here enlarge on this topic, vital as Isee it; I have neither space nor time, and must, therefore, needscontent myself with the "hints" of Paracelsus. I will merely say that asan outcome this localized majority system practically disfranchises themore intelligent and the more disinterested, the more individual andindependent of every constituency. It reduces their influence, andnegatives their action. It operates in like fashion everywhere. Myfield of observation has been at home, here in America; but it has beenthe same in France. For instance, while preparing this address I cameacross the following in that most respectable sheet, the London_Athenaum_. A very competent Frenchman was there criticising a recentbook entitled "Idealism in France. " Reference was by him made to what, in France, is known as the "_scrutin d'arrondissement, "_ or, in otherwords, the district representative system. The critic declares that thissystem has there "created a party machine which has brought the countryunder the sway of a sort of Radical-Socialist Tammany, and boundtogether the voter and the deputy by a tie of mutual corruption, thecandidate promising Government favors to the elector in return for hisvote, and the elector supporting the candidate who promises most. Hencea policy in which ideas and ideals are forgotten for personal and localinterests, as each candidate strives to outbid his rivals in the bribesthat he offers to his constituents. Hence, finally, a general loweringin the tone of French home politics, every question being madesubservient by the deputies to that of their reëlection. "

I would respectfully inquire if the above does not apply word for wordto the condition of affairs with which we are familiar in America. 

But let me here again cite a concrete case, still fresh in memory;nothing in abstract discussion tells so much. Take the late CarlSchurz. If there was one man in our public life since 1865 who showed agenius for the parliamentary career, and who in six short years in theUnited States Senate--a single term--displayed there constructivelegislating qualities of the highest order, it was Carl Schurz. Yet atthe end of that single senatorial term, for local and temporary reasonshe failed to obtain the support of a majority, or the support ofanything approaching a majority, of those composing the constituencyupon which he depended. Consequently he was retired from thatparliamentary position necessary for the accomplishment, through him, ofbest public results. Yet at that very time there was no man in theUnited States who commanded so large and so personal a constituency asCarl Schurz; for he represented the entire Germanic element in theUnited States. Distributed as that element was, however, with its votelocalized under our law, unwritten as well as statutory, there was nopossibility of any constituency so concentrating itself that Carl Schurzcould be kept in the position where he could continue to render servicesof the greatest possible value to the country. I, therefore, confidentlyhere submit a doubt whether human ingenuity could devise any systemcalculated to lead to a greater waste of parliamentary ability, or moreeffectually keep from the front and position of influence thatlegislative superiority which was the arm of Aristotle to secure. "Cant-patriotism, " as your Francis Lieber termed it; and, on thisscore, he waxed eloquent. "Do we not live in a world of cant, " he wrotefrom Columbia here to a friend at the North seventy-five years ago, "that cant-patriotism which plumes itself in selecting men from withinthe State confines only. The truer a nation is, the more essentially itis elevated, the more it disregards petty considerations, and takes thetrue and the good from whatever quarter it may come. Look at history andyou find the proof. Look around you, where you are, and you find itnow. " And, were Lieber living to-day, he would find a strikingexemplification of the consequences of a total and systematic disregardof this elementary proposition in studying the United States Senate fromand through its reporters' gallery. The decline in the standards of thatbody, whether of aspect, intelligence, education or character, under theoperation of the local primary has been not less pronounced thanstartling. The outcome and ripe result of "cant-patriotism, " it affordsto the curious observer an impressive object-lesson, --provincialismreduced to a political system; what a witty and incisive French writerhas recently termed the "Cult of Incompetence. " Speaking of conditionsprevailing not here but in France, this observer says:--"Democracy inits modern form chooses its' delegates in its own image. . . . What oughtthe character of the legislator to be? The very opposite, it seems tome, of the democratic legislator, for he ought to be well-informed andentirely devoid of prejudice. " Taken as a whole, and a few strikingindividual exceptions apart, are those composing the Senate of theUnited States conspicuous in these respects? They certainly do not soimpress the casual observer. That, as a body, they increasingly fail tocommand confidence and attention is matter of common remark. Nor is thereason far to seek. It would be the same as respects literature, scienceand art, were their representatives chosen and results reached through acount of noses localized, with selection severely confined tohome talent. 

I am well aware of the criticism which will at once be passed on what Inow advance. Local representation through choice by numerical majoritieswithin given confines, geographically and mathematically fixed, is asystem so rooted and intrenched in the convictions and traditions of theAmerican community that even to question its wisdom evinces a lack ofpolitical common-sense. It in fact resembles nothing so much as theattempt to whistle down a strongly prevailing October wind from theWest. The attempt so to do is not practical politics! In reply, however, I would suggest that such a criticism is wholly irrelevant. Thepublicist has nothing to do with practical politics. It is as if it wereobjected to a physician who prescribed sanitation against epidemics thatthe community in question was by custom and tradition wedded to filthand surface-drainage, and could not possibly be induced to abandon themin favor of any new-fangled theories of soap-and-water cleanliness. Sowhy waste time in prescribing such? Better be common-sensed andpractical, taking things as they are. In the case suggested, andconfronted with such criticism, the medical adviser simply shrugs hisshoulders, and is silent; the alternative he knows is inescapable. Aftera sufficiency of sound scourgings the objecting community will probablyknow better, and may listen to reason; in a way, conforming thereto. So, also, the body politic. If Ephraim is indeed thus joined to idols, thepublicist simply shrugs his shoulders, and passes on; possibly, afterEphraim has been sufficiently scourged, he may in that indefinite futurepopularly known as "one of these days" be more clear sighted and wiser. 

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 increasethe senatorial term to ten years, and I would, were such a thing withinthe range of possibility, break down the system of the necessarysenatorial selection by a State of an inhabitant of the State. If Icould, I would introduce the British system. For example, though I nevervoted for Mr. Bryan and have not been in general sympathy with Mr. Roosevelt, yet few things would give me greater political satisfactionthan to see Mr. Bryan, we will say, elected a Senator from Arizona orOregon, Mr. Roosevelt elected from Illinois or Pennsylvania, PresidentTaft from Utah or Vermont. They apparently best represent existingfeelings and the ideals prevailing in those communities; why, then, should they not voice those feelings and ideals in our highestparliamentary chamber?

As respects our House of Representatives, it would in principle be thesame. I do not care to go into the rationale of what is known asproportional representation, nor have I time so to do; but, were it inmy power, I would prescribe to-morrow that hereafter the national Houseof Representatives should be constituted on the proportional basis, --thechoice of representatives to be by States, but, as respects thenomination of candidates, irrespective of district lines. Like manyothers, I am very weary of provincial nobodies, "good men" locally knownto be such!

As I have already said, in parliamentary government all depends in theend on the truly representative character of the legislative body. Ifthat is as it should be, the rest surely follows. The objective ofAristotle is attained. 

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 threescoreand 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 anexperience stretching over sixty years, --the results of such observationas my intelligence has enabled me to exercise. I do so, addressingmyself to a local institution of the advanced education. Why? Because, looking over the country, diagnosing its conditions as well as mycapacity enables me, observing the evolution of the past andforecasting, in as far as I may, the outcome, I am persuaded that thefuture of the country rests more largely in the hands of suchinstitutions as this than in those of any other agency or activity. Donot say I flatter; for, while I can hope for no advancement, I think Ihave not overstated the case; I certainly have not overstated myconviction. There has been no man who has influenced the course ofmodern thought more deeply and profoundly than Adam Smith, a Professorin a Scotch University of the second class. So here in Columbia seventyyears ago, Francis Lieber prepared and published his "Manual ofPolitical Ethics. " Adam Smith and Francis Lieber were butprototypes--examples of what I have in mind. The days were when theSenate of the United States afforded a rostrum from which thinkers andteachers first formulated, and then advanced, great policies. Thosedays, 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 myattention forcibly called to this aspect of the situation now shapingitself. I there met young men, many, and not the least noticeable ofwhom, came from this section. They inspired me with a renewed confidencein our political future. Essentially teachers, --I might add, they werepublicists as well as professors. Observers and students, they activelyfollowed 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 torealize in a future not remote the University ideal pictured, andcorrectly pictured, from this stage by one who here preceded me a shortsix months ago. They, constituting the University, are the "hope of theState in the direction of its practical affairs; in teaching the lawyerthe better standards of his profession, his duty to place characterabove money making; in teaching the legislator the philosophy oflegislation, and that the constructive forces of legislation carefullyconsidered should precede every effort to change an existing status; inteaching those in official life, executive and judicial, that demagogy, and theories of life uncontrolled by true principles, do not make forsuccess, when final success is considered, but that, if they did lead tosuccess, they should be avoided for their inherent imperfection. . . . Theprovince of the University is to educate citizenship in the abstract. "

It is the presence of this class, to those composing which I bow asdistinctly of a period superior to mine, that you owe my presenceto-day, --whatever that presence may be worth. I regard their existenceand their coming forward in such institutions as this University ofSouth Carolina, as the arc of the bow of promise spanning the politicalhorizon of our future. 

Through you, to them my message is addressed.