;jaiiw»«Mai{i^'ia a ]Mjiai< m.'ji i; i« >» u au m»4i»ai ' Ti BUB ici aa) u. j. M wn Bm g;f"TTtarg'ar-i!!-g-i-'g-caiiEgia.~ fytmll Uttirmitg pibwg BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME PROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF 1891 AAU.l^^. ^...[kp5.o.] 3081 Cornell University Library arV11629 Citizenship and the duties of a citi 3 1924 031 323 516 nlin anx The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31 924031 32351 6 Btbics jfor tbc l?ouno FOR USE IN THE SCHOOL AND THE HOME FOURTH SERIES CITIZENSHIP AND THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN BY WALTER L. SHELDON W. M. WELCH COMPANY CHICAGO OOPTBIGHT, 1B04 By W. M. welch CO. PREFACE. The author begs to state that this work is submitted as a treatise in Ethics and not in Civil Government. It is designed for the purpose of teaching the young mind how to apply the fundamental principles of right and wrong to the problems of Citizenship and the State. On the other hand, it is intended as lessons for study and not for continuous reading. Each chapter might of itself be elaborated into a volume. By means of an imaginary Dialogue between the teacher and the pupil, the points have been outlined in con- versational form. It is coming to be recognized as of overwhelming importance that the conception of duty should be linked intimately with that of citizenship in the minds of the young. The purpose of the book, therefore, is not to impart knowledge concerning the facts of civil government, but rather to suggest what we ought or ought not to do as Citizens of the State. In the con- viction of the author, this should constitute a separate and most important department in the whole sphere of school instruction. Everything in the volume has been introduced with this purpose in view. The les- sons have been in manuscript form for a number of years and have gone through several revisions. They have been tested repeatedly with classes of boys and girls of various ages. It is only after these trials that the material is now put in final shape and presented in book form. The greatest care has been exercised by the author not to use this treatise as a means for advocating spe- cial theories of his own. He has not striven to add further light on disputed problems, but rather to call the attention of the young to those facts and princi- ples which have been estabhshed by thousands of years of human experience. He has taken pains not to deal 3 4 PREFACE. with party issues in politics, and not to enter in any way into the arena of doctrinal religion. This would have no place in a treatise designed for the instruction of young people coming from every class of society. The effort on his part has been simply to lay down the broad, general principles in the ethics of citizenship on which we all agree. It is inevitable that the style of the Dialogue should be conversational rather than literary, and that col- loquial phrases or forms of speech should be intro- duced from time to time. Hence the language cannot have the finish and elegance which a good teacher of English might prefer. Appended to each chapter will be found Classic Selections from the utterances of eminent writers or statesmen ; Poems, which have become a part of our national literature or the literature of the English- speaking world ; Memory Gems, giving kernels of crystallized wisdom in the form of sentiment; Stories or Narratives by the author, illustrating the points of the Dialogue, from important events in history ; Duties, in concise words to be comitted to memory by the pupil ; an Outline of the Points of the Chapter as they have been worked out in the lesson ; and, lastly, a series of Further Suggestions to the Teacher, giving addi- tional points which could be introduced or elaborated at discretion. It will be seen that a work of this kind can only serve its proper purpose when it is used as lesson material from day to day for a number of months, accompanied by that discussion and drill which should characterize all effective teaching. If we expect to lodge these principles permanently in the mind so that they shall exert an influence for a lifetime, we shall only accomplish our aim by persistent repetition, pro- longed emphasis, and a firm conviction of the importance of our efforts. The mere statement of a fact or principle is not enough. So, too, it is not suf- ficient that young people should read books on this subject. To achieve the end in view, there must be the drill of the school and the steady, arduous labor PREFACE. 5 of the earnest teacher. Those who expect to use this book for educational purposes, are asked to read with painstaking care the introductory "Special Suggestions and Explanations to the Teacher or Parent," and, if possible, to examine the similar introductions to be found in the preceding volumes. In the selection of the "Poems" attached to the various chapters the author has striven to the best of his knowledge, not to infringe on copyright material ; and if inadvertently he has been gtiilty of such error, he regrets it exceedingly. A few quotations or selec- tions he has taken from "Patriotic Citizenship" by Thomas J. Morgan. While this treatise forms one of a group, — all deal- ing with the ethical instruction of the young, it also stands by itself and may be used for educational pur- poses as an independent work. The author is painfully aware of the imperfections of his efforts when considering the important field they are intended to cover. But he can honestly say that he has done the work with rigid conscientiousness, having devoted to it some of his best thinking for a long period of years. When something better is offered, he will gladly retire and give way to others. W. L. Sheldon. 4065 Delmar Ave., St. Louis, Mo. A GRADED COURSE ETHICAL INSTRUCTION FOR THE YOUNG FoK Use in the School and the Home BY WALTER L. SHELDON VoLo I. — The Old Testament Bible Stories for the Young. Cordially endorsed by clergymen and Bcholara of many denominations, including Rev. Washington Gladden, Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio; Rev. George Hodges, Dean of the Episcopal Theological Seminary, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Rev. James W. Lee, St. John's Methodist Church, St. Louis, Missouri; Rabbi J. Leonard Levy, Pittsburg, Pennsyl- vania; Rev. Robert T. Jones, First Baptist Church, Ithaca, New York; Rev. S. M. Crothers, First Church of Cambridge, Massachusetts; Rev. Julius W. Atwood, Trinity Episcopal Church, Columbus, Ohio; Prof. C. H. Toy, Harvard University; Prof. Nathaniel Schmidt, of Cornell University, and others. Vol. II.— Lessons in the Study of Habits. Vol. III. — Duties in the Home and the Family. Vol. IV.— Citizenship and the Duties of a Citizen. OTHBK VOLTJMES IN PKEPAEATIOST. While these works belong together in a graded course of ethical instruction, each one is also distinct by itself. They may he used either as text books to be put into the hands of the young people themselves in the school or the home ; or, on the other hand, as outlines for teachers who may wish to impart the knowledge in their own way. In the second, third and fourth volumes the subjects are treated by means of an imaginary Dialogue carried on between the teacher and the pupil. Appended to the chapters will be found the "Points of the Lesson ;" "Duties," to be committed to memory by the pupils ; "Poems ;" "Memory Gems ;" "Proverbs or Verses ;" "Classic Selections from Literature," and "Further Sugges- tions to the Teacher," At the beginning of each volume, the author has also submitted a series of "Special Suggestions to Teachers or Parents," explaining how the material should be used and what method should be followed. The strictest care has been taken to preserve an attitude of neutrality on all subjects pertaining to religion. The author's aim has been to present to the young mind simply the accumulated ethical experience of the human race, and to avoid as far as possible any effort on his part to teach peculiar theories of his own. It is expected that other volumes will appear later on, in order to make the course complete for individuals from the age of childhood to that of the adult. PRICE PER vol UMF, $I.2S Publisher: W, M. Welch Company Chicago CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. II. III. IV. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XL XII. XIII. XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. XVIII. XIX. XX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. PAGE Introductory Lesson — "O beautiful, my coun- try" 25 Contrasts Between Being a Citizen and Being a Member of a Home or a Family. 41 Love of Country and What It Means 52 Our Country's Duty in Protecting Us from the Attacks of Other Nations 69 Oui Country Which Guards Us at Home in Time of Peace 83 The State as the Servant of Its Citizens 95 Some of the Things Our Country Does for Us 106 One's Country and Money and the Ethics of Money 120 The Right and Duty of Voting 134 Ethics of the Ballot 147 Paying Taxes as the Duty of a Citizen 160 Services a Citizen Owes His Country when He Is in Public Office 176 Obedience to Law as Due to One's Country. . 192 , The State as Something More Than Just Our- selves 207 National Festivals and National Flags 224 The State and Crime 242 The State and the Punishment of Crime 257 How Disputes Between States Arise 273 Arbitration as a Duty Between States or Nations 284 Arbitration Between Citizens Within the State. 299 The Significance of Warfare in the History of Nations 313 The Moral Character of States or Nations 331 How States or Governments Improve 346 How There Came to Be States and Citizenship 366 7 8 CONTENTS. CHAPTER PAGE XXV. Contrasts Between Societies Among Animals and States Among Human Beings 382 XXVI The Struggle for Freedom in the History of the State 393 XXVn. The "Ship of State" 411 XXVni. The Future Industrial State 426 XXIX. National Anthems 437 XXX. The Outlook Toward a Universal State 453 STORIES. Biography of Florence Nightingale — Chap. 1 36 Lincoln at Gettysburg — Chap. HI 65 The Origin of the Magna Charta — Chap. XI 171 The Death of Socrates — Chap. XIII 202 An Incident in the Life of Daniel Webster — Chap. XIV. . 217 The Fall of the Bastille— Chap. XV 236 The Life of John Howard— Chap. XVII 267 About the Alabama Claims — Chap. XIX 294 The Life of William Wilberforce— Chap. XXIII 359 Moses as the Founder of a State — Chap. XXIV 37s Washington at Valley Forge — Chap. XXVI 405 Pericles of Athens — Chap. XXVII 420 CLASSIC SELECTIONS. Passage from Washington's Inaugural Address — Chap. I. 39 Passage from the Inaugural Address of Thomas Jefferson — Chap. II SO The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln — Chap. III. 64 Passage from an Oration by Edward Everett — Chap. IV. . 79 Passage from a Speech by Alexander Hamilton — Chap. V 92 Passage from the Writings of John Ruskin — Chap. VI . . . 104 Passage from the Areopagitica, by John Milton — Chap. VII 117 Passage from Washington's Farewell Address — Chap. VIII 131 Passage from a Speech by Edward Everett — Chap. IX 145 Second Passage from Washington's Farewell Address — Chap. X 156 CONTENTS. 9 PAGE Passage from Jeflferson's Inaugural Address — Chap. XI.. 173 Passage from a Speech by Fisher Ames — Chap. XII 190 Passage from the Writings of John Ruskin — Chap. XIII. 205 Passage from a Speech by Daniel Webster — Chap. XIV. . 221 Passage from the Writings of Joseph Mazzini — Chap. XV 239 Passage from a Speech by John Bright — ^Chap. XVI 254 Passage from a Speech by Daniel Webster — Chap. XVII. 271 Passage from the Writings of John Ruskin — Chap. XVIII 282 Passage from a Speech by Wm. E. Gladstone — Chap. XIX 296 Passage from a Speech by Pericles — Chap. XX 310 Passage from a Speech by John Bright — Chap. XXI 329 Passage from a Speech by Henry Clay— Chap. XXII 343 Passage from a Speech by Lord Macaulay — Chap. XXIII. 362 Passage from a Speech by Edward Everett — Chap. XXIV 378 Passage from a Speech by Johann Gottlieb Fichte — Chap. XXV 390 Passage from a Speech by Charles J. Fox — Chap. XXVI. 408 Passage from a Speech by Pericles — Chap. XXVII 424 Passage from a Speech by Horace Mann — Chap. XXVIII. 434 Passage from a Speech by Patrick Henry — Chap. XXIX. . 450 Passage from a Speech by Henry Clay — Chap. XXX 465 POEMS. "Santa Filomena," by Longfellow — Chap. 1 35 "When freedom from her mountain height." — Joseph Rod- man Drake — Chap. II 49 "Lay down the axe, fling by the spade." — William Cullen Bryant — Chap. Ill 63 "How sleep the brave who sink to rest." — William Collins —Chap. IV 79 "There is a land of every land the pride." — J. Montgomery —Chap. V 92 "Oh, the pleasant days of old." — Frances Brown — Chap. VI 103 "Immortal morn, all hail !" — Hezekiah Butterworth — Chap. VII 116 "Great were the hearts and strong the minds." — Bryant — Chap. VIII 130 lO CO>fTENTS. PAGE "Men of thought, be up and stirring." — Charles Mackey — Chap. IX 144 "The kings of old have shrine and tomb." — F. D. Hemans —Chap. IX 156 "O beautiful our country." — F. L. Hosmer — Chap. XI 170 "The winds that once tjie Argo bore." — Edna Dean Proc- tor—Chap. XII 189 "The land where the banners wave last in the sun." — Oliver Wendell Holmes — ^Chap. XV 235 "O mother of a mighty race." — Bryant — Chap. XVI 253 "Out upon the four winds blow." — Harriet Prescott Spof- ford— Chap. XVIII 281 "Flag of the heroes who left us their glory." — Oliver Wendell Holmes — Chap. XIX 293 "Lo ! we answer, see, we come !" — Chap. XX 309 "Be patient, O be patient." — ^Chap. XXI 329 "Washed in the blood of the brave and the blooming." — Oliver Wendell Holmes — Chap. XXII 343 "Let it idly droop or sway." — Lucy Larcom — Chap. XXIII 358 "Boadicea." — William Cowper — Chap. XXV 374 "Like lightning's flash." — Robert NichoU — Chap. XXVI.. 405 "The Centennial Hymn." — John Greenleaf Whittier — Chap. XXVIII 433 "My country, 'tis of thee." — S. F. Smith — Chap. XXIX. . 450 SPECIAL SUGGESTIONS OR EXPLANA- TIONS TO PARENTS OR TEACHERS IN USING THESE LESSONS DEALING WITH CITIZENSHIP. Please read over carefully the series of "Special Suggestions" at the beginning of each of the pre- ceding series of lessons. Remember that in these lessons our subject is not Civics or Civil Government, but the Ethics of Citi- zenship. For the most part, the facts are to be intro- duced only by ivay of illustration, in order to emphor- size certain general principles or to arouse certain sentiments with regard to Citizenship and love of country. Keep this distinction between a class in Civics and a class in the Ethics of Citizenship, there- fore, very sharply in mind. The teacher zmll be quite sure, in many of the lessons, to Und more subject-material than he can use at one time. It should, therefore, be divided carefully into sections according to his own best judgment. Each chapter might have a number of sub-headings. Be very sure to have the leading points in mind, that are to be developed. It were better to have one principle brought home clearly and ftdly to the young people than to give them miscel- laneous thoughts without coherence or perspective. The material offered in the way of facts or illus- trations will also, at times, be more extensive than II 12 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. would he required. The teacher is, of course, to select from this at his discretion what will he of ser- vice for his purpose. This will depend in part upon the type of young people in his charge. One class of facts or illustrations may he suited to one type of mind and another to another. It zvill also depend upon the average intelligence of the young people and to what extent they have already acquired mis- cellaneous knowledge through outside associations. As a rule, it will be found better to make only a few points and to use only a few illustrations, bring- ing these illustrations and these points out ivith great emphasis. Do not talk too much about the words "Citizenship" or "Love of Country." There is always a danger of making valuable words or phrases commonplace by oft repetition. Our purpose is to build up a mass of sentiment or feeling in the minds of the young with regard to citizenship itself. It is the sense of duty in this relationship which we shoidd work upon, zvithout definitely talking much about duty or making frequest use of the zvord. The main purpose of all these lessons is to influence the sentiments rather than to impart knowledge. This will all the while keep the aim. distinct from the course which would he pursued in classes on Civil Government. One feature of the illustrative material required is very important and should not be overlooked. There ought to he at hand a large Hag of the Stars and Stripes, zvhich should he hung regidarly in the pres- ence of the class in connection with every session. There might he a little formal ceremony on each occasion over hanging the Hag, letting the young people take turns in rendering this service. At the end of the talk there should also he a certain solemn- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 1 3 ity in taking the flag down and putting it away. Not very much should be said in regard to it, save in the one lesson where it forms the subject for the dis- cussion. It should be there as a silent influence or symbol constantly before the attention of the young people, suggestive of the theme of the whole series of lessmis. Every possible means should be used to inculcate a sense of awe or reverence for the Hag as a Hag. It must be taken for granted that the teacher will have read over the entire material very carefully in the whole treatise, before beginning the course of instruction. He will have determined what points or sentiments he wishes most to emphasize through- out the zi'ork. Everything else should be made sub- sidiary to this. He can determine what parts he will omit, if necessary, in order to have more time for the line of discussion he is desirous of bringing out most fully. Where he finds that the young people weary of talking too long about a certain point, he may be able to lay it aside for a time and to return to it again in another zvay on a future occasion. But there should be a few leading thoughts which should stand out conspicuously over all the others, like pegs on zuhich the other points are to hang. The "Dia- logue" in these lessons, as in the other series, is, manifestly, only a skeleton and in a general way merely suggestive of the method to be pursued. Each teacher must use it in his own way. The author has been very carefid throughout the series not to use it as a means of teaching any peculiar theories of his own on the subject of Civics or Political Science. He has aimed rather to gather together the lessons which have been inculcated by ages of experience in the history of all states or all 14 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Christendom. He has sought very carefully to avoid disputed issues or the use of facts or illustrations which might in any way touch on party feeling. It is the duties pertaining to Citisenship rather than any special theory of the state, which he has aimed to bring forward. The most painstaking care has been preserved throughout, in order to avoid agitat- ing for any one special political standpoint or doc- trine. It will at once be apparent that certain of the dis- cussions are more concrete than others. Some of the points will come more closely in touch with the knowledge and experience of the young people, while other points may seem more remote. Here and there the topics inevitably become abstract, while they may be very important; as, for excanple, in the lessons dealing with Arbitration. The teacher is at liberty to pass over these if he prefers, although it may at times be a mistake to surrender to a difficulty rather than try to overcome it. Where the theme is abstract, there may be a roundabout way of coming at it, if the subject is studied carefidly. It is to be expected that on many of these themes the discussion must repeatedly go beyond the actual knowledge or experience of the young people. Yet it may be well to give them a few abstract precepts which shall be fixed in their minds for life. The only opportunity for definite ethical instruction may be at this particular age. It zvere better, under such cir- cumstances, thcut great abstract principles should be instilled at this time than never at all. If there could be a course of ethical education in Citisenship given to young men and women at the very period when they are entering upon the full duties of maturity, it woidd be another matter. But the time is not ripe for this as yet. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 1 5 In this general connection, it may be suggested as advisable, where possible, although not necessary, that the teachers for this line of work be men rather than women. This does not imply that the woman teacher might not impart the knowledge as well, or even better. But the man teacher can drcnv on a zuider range of experience, beccmse of the larger duties and responsibilities involved in male citizen- ship. For a like reason, the young people may be more inclined to attend to zvhat he has to say or give more respect to his assertions, just because they woidd be aware of this fact. This naturally applies more especially to those states where women as yet do not vote or have much active participation in the political life of their community. We are consider- ing only present conditions and what may be Stable to the situation at the present time. On the other hand, it is vitally important that girls, as well as boys, shotdd have a course of instruction of this kind in the duties of Citizenship. They should not be allowed for an instant to assume that only men are citizens. This notion should be em- phatically discouraged in every possible way. They should be made to feel that they have both duties and responsibilities in their connection with the state, even if the relationship here may not be as extensive as it must be for men. TJure should be inculcated in their minds a lifelong respect for law, a knowledge of crime and its punishments, a sentiment for the state as a whole and for the history of the state, a feeling of responsibility for the future of their coun- try, and a horror for any form of corruption in the political life of the community or nation to which they belong. At the same time, the author is inclined to suggest 1 6 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. that instruction in Citizenship should be given to girls and boys in separate classes. The line of work must be somewhat different^ because of the shifting of emphasis according to the class of duties or responsibilities which will devolve upon them. Nat- urally, for the girls in most communities, less should be said about voting and the ballot, about soldiers and soldier life, about holding ofUce; whereas a great deal more could be m.ade of the sentiment of love of coun- try and the importance of being acquainted with its history. Perhaps for the girls' class greater attention might be paid to the historic side. At the same time, beyond any question, the subject as a whole will have less interest for them. But it should be taught to them whether they care for it or not. They should be made to feel the overwhelming importance of it, whether or not it especially appeals to them. But the teacher, according to tl^e methods he uses here, may succeed or fail by the way he adapts the material at his command. He will, however, have a harder task, on the whole, with the class of girls than with the boys. Unless the parents sustain him here, his work may be quite unsatisfactory. It may also be pointed out that certain parts of the material aire more suited to classes of boys or girls in the large cities than in small communities or rural districts. The problem of office holding, political cor- ruption, the ethics of taxation and other themes of this nature, will naturally come home more directly to young people in the larger municipalities. Boys or girls of twelve to sixteen years old, in many of our cities to-day are already well acquainted with the evils in our political life. They have heard of brib- ery,' of corruption in one form or another, and they THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I7 should discuss it with their teachers and have an understanding as to what it implies. But where such lessons are used in smaller com,mMnities, the material must be modiiied and certain portions omitted, while other points may he brought out more emphatically, as coming more luithin the range of the young people who may be receiving the course of instruction. Inasmuch as the author has felt it advisable to introduce the historic side of the subject here and there throughout the course of lessons, it will be readily observed that when this feature is introduced, the method of dialogue becomes less satisfactory. The young people may not possess the knowledge required in order to suggest the points from their own thinking. Under these circumstances it will become necessary in many cases to fall into the didactic method. Yet even here there will be many an opportunity where, by means of an apt question, a point may be drawn out from the young people as if they had themselves suggested it. The author, however, has thought it best to adhere to a uniform system and retain the method of the Dialogue, even in those chapters where the material is, for the most part, of an historic character. He leaves it for the teacher to alter the language and change it at discretion into the didactic form. But a warning must be raised against carrying this method too far. We keep urging the fact that even the his- toric material is introduced not for the purpose of imparting knowledge, but rather with the thought of building up a mass of sentiment in connection with the subject of Citizenship and the state. The material introduced throughout the lessons is varied in the extreme. At the end of each chapter l8 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. there is a selection from some classic speech or docu- ment from great statesmen or great thinkers who have dealt with the subject of Citizenship and the state. Some of these passages are presented with the idea that they should he committed to memory and recited by the young people in the class or before the entire school. But under no circumstances should they he declaimed. This method has been unfortvr note in the extreme. The young people should not be encouraged to undertake to recite them in the style in which these speeches might have been given by the statesmen themselves. This only tends to make the words stilted or grotesque, and mars the associations connected with them after the young people have passed on into maturity. Such passages should never be used as a means for drill in elocution. They should be committed to memory and recited aloud, quietly, in the way one would read such a passage aloud to a group at the family table. It should be done simply and naturally, without any effort at elocution or dis- play. But, inasmuch as these selections are for the most part of great historic significance, and have become a part of classic literature, they shoidd be treated with much consideration. Some of them should be accompanied with explanations by the teacher, describing the occasions when they were delivered and what they mean. It should also be stated to the pupils that the views expressed in these selections represent only the opinions of the speak- ers from whom they come, and are not to be accepted always as necessarily true without qualifi- cation. The "Dialogue" is there, of course, as a skeleton for the teacher to use at his discretion, or to be read by the pupil as a text-book lesson. At the end of each chapter is given a summary of the points, THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I9 mainly as a convenience for the parent or instructor. But at times he may find it advisable to have this outline worked out on the blackboard as it is devel- oped in the discussion. The order in which the points should come, may depend upon individual judgment. The teacher, however, should under no circumstances have a copy of the text-book in his hands when car- rying on the talk with the young people. This zvould be the greatest possible mistake. The thoughts should come as if elicited by actual experience from what everybody ought to know concerning Citizen- ship and the state. On the other hand, the "Duties" appended at the end of certain of the lessons, are very important. They are intended for the pupil himself and should be committed by him to memory. There may be some disagreement on the part of various teachers as to whether one should speak of the state as having duties like the citizen. In that case it may be optional to omit those passages zvhere anything is said con- cerning the "State's Duties," and the attention may be confined to the list of the "Duties of the Citizen." But these shoidd be written out and given to the young people and treated as the all-important feature of the lesson. Attached to most of the lessons will also be found a poem. In many instances it may bear to some extent on the subject of the lesson. In certain other cases the connection here will be somewhat remote. But these poems have been introduced because there is a fitness in connecting them zvith the ethical ele- ment of Citizenship rather than as a part of a course of instruction in Civil Government. Young people should knozv most of these poems by heart. But here, too, the greatest care should be used never to 20 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. use them as drill in elocution. They should never he declaimed, hut only quietly recited with dignity and simplicity. Young people should he made familiar with literature of this kind and he encouraged to have a high regard for it. Unfortunately poetry, for the most part as yet, where it is of a patriotic char- acter, deals too exclusively with the subject of sol- diers and warfare, or with the theme of liberty. There is still to come another type which shall hear on the Industrial State, the duty of loyalty of the citizen in time of peace, the thought of living for one's country rather than being willing to die for one's country. The examples as yet are not numer- ous where this sentiment comes out in verse. We can only hope that another hundred years will pro- vide an abundance of good poetry for future courses of ethical instruction in Citizenship. Here and there short stories have also been in- serted, ivritten mainly by the author, introducing certain historic episodes in connection with the theme for discussion. The method for using these stories will depend a little upon the character of the pupils of the school where the instruction is being given. On the whole, the best course might he to have them read aloiid quietly and simply, without much com- ment. But if the young people are of a restless type, not inclined to listen steadily for ten minutes to a narrative, then the story could be told aloud in shorter form by the parent or teacher. A vast amount of material might be worked out for this purpose or gleaned from books for the young, as these are appearing in large numbers at the present time. There will also be found at the end of each lesson a series of "Suggestions," advising the teacher how THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 21 he may carry on the points further, or what addi- tional material he might introduce. Not much is said, however, on one very important topic, and that is as to pictures which the teachers could use in con- nection zinth the lessons. Such material might be employed to great advantage, especially zvhere the class is small. Wherever possible, the author advises that one or more pictures be used in connection ivith every discussion. If, for example, the Ballot is the theme of the dialogue, there might be a scene where men are voting at a polling place in one of our large cities. If the subject is Arbitration, then, if possible, get. a picture of a Commission in session discussing the points at issue. In connection with the theme of Crime and Punishment, there might be pictures of prison life or reformatories, or of some of the great state prisons of a model kind, which have been con- structed within the last quarter of a century. These are only hint fas to what could be done to an indef- inite extent in this direction. Many a teacher may fail completely by neglecting to secure illustrative material of this character. If he searches hard enough, he can find it. While it has been said repeatedly that these lessons do not deal ■with Civics, yet in many instances facts or figures from this Held may be introduced by way of illustration, although not for the purpose of im- parting knowledge. A teacher, therefore, should be well equipped in this other department. He should have a few of the best text-books on treatises dealing with it, as for instance, "Civil Government," by John Fiske; "The American Citizen," by Charles F. Dole; "The State," by Pres. Woodrow Wilson; "Uncle Sam's Secrets," by Austin. The last one is an excellent little volume in story form. As to the age for which these lessons are adapted, 22 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. this must rest in part with the judgment of the teacher who may use them. The author has intended them mainly for young people from tivelve to sixteen years old. It would be a mistake to introduce sub- jects of this kind by such a method for boys or girls under tzvelve years of age. On the other hand, by some rearrangement the material would answer for young people passing on to maturity, or even for a class of adults. Insofar as the material as a whole is concerned, it zmll be important not to overlook the Memory Gems. These have been selected with much care. Perhaps they coidd be recited aloud by the whole class or the entire school in concert. It would be well, if possible, to talk them over and sometimes to introduce facts of history in connection zvith them. Many of them are of classic significance and form part of the richest political literature of our country. * The teacher is advised, also, if possible, to have the pupils make use of note-books. Young people should be encouraged to write down the leading points and keep them as valuable records. These would serve as review material from time to time. Perhaps what is put in the note-books could be by dictation from the teacher. A great deal might be accomplished by this means if the method is rightly employed. It goes without saying, also, that the blackboard becomes of the greatest importance in connection with this whole series of lessons. Perhaps the Points might be written out in this other form first, and then copied by the pupils into their note-books. Every good teacher will appreciate the fact that simply writing down a point helps to make it important and to fix it in the memory. It will be observed that the author has not adhered to the conventional distinctions in this country in THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 23 capitalising the word "state." His course here is not due to any political theory, but to the circum- stance that the term must inevitably reappear very frequently. He therefore prefers uniformity of method on this point throughout. It will also be noticed that the author has used somewhat indiscriminately the various terms, state, nation, government and country — although this would not be legitimate in a treatise on "Civics." The teacher can explain the distinctions to the pupils if he thinks best. In lessons for *he young dealing with ethical problems, however, it may not be so important to exercise the same precision, in the em- ployment of scientHic terms, that would be required in a volume on Political Science. We use the words, for the most part, as they are employed in every-day speech, and as the average citizen would understand them. One point, however, is very important. la this country we have a complex system, of state and nation with a certain division of sovereignty, which must inevitably be confusing to the young mind. This trouble would not exist if one were teaching ethics of citizenship or dealing with the problems of civil government in many of the countries of Europe. But it should be made very plain to the pupils that in these lessons we tise the term "state" in the broad sense, as applying to the sovereign power, whether it be that of the nation as a whole or that of special states. We must make the young people see that in correct language the nation as a whole is also a "state." In reference to the various selections of poems. Memory Gems, or passages from Classic Speeches, 24 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. it would be well to persuade the pupils to seek infor- mation with regard to the authors. Encourage the young people to look into the encyclopaedias and make short reports along this line, when it is possible. These might be given out as "assignments" to special pupils who could bring the results of their investiga^ tions to the class at the ensuing session. By this means, biography may add a further charm to the subject and help to make it more concrete. In case the selections, however, prove "too advanced" for the age of the pupils of the class, they could be passed over or ignored. Concerning the extent of the Held where this material may be used, it will be understood that there could not exist at the present time such a thing as an international series of lessons on the ethics of Citizenship. Each country will be compelled to have its own scheme of instruction in this special direc- tion. While the doctrines in the abstract might be quite the same for all countries, yet the applications to be made would vary a great deal according to the circumstances. Furthermore, the illustrative mate- rial must be drawn chiefly from the history of the one special country where the pupils reside. This distinction has reference peadiarly to lessons dealing with Citizenship. The form of instruction here must depend on the political customs and institutions of each state or nationality. The author, therefore, has arranged this special scheme exclusively with regard to young people ivho are residents of the United States of America. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY LESSON : "o BEAUTIFUL MY COUNTRY." Memory Gem — He to whom has been bequeathed a fatherland, and in whose heart heaven and earth, the visible and the invisible, penetrate, and so create for him a true and worthy heaven — he fights to the last drop of his blood that he may transmit to the ages that dear possession in its integrity. — Fichte. Slalog'tie. Will you all read over carefully the following lines? Think about each separate word and what it suggests : "O Beautiful, my country! Ours once more; What words divine of lover or of poet Could tell our love and make thee know it, Among the Nations bright beyond compare? What were our lives without thee? What all our lives to save thee? We reck not what we give thee; We will not dare to doubt thee, But ask whatever else and we will dare !" Do you know wh.ere these lines came from ? Have you ever heard them before? What is the subject here? What one thing is the poet talking about? Is it love of money, for instance? "Oh, no!" you exclaim. Then what is it, — love of what ? "Love oif country ?" Yes, and the lines belong, as some oif you may know, to the "Conimemoration Ode," by the poet, James Russell Lowell. Note to the Teacher: Write these words, Commemoration Ode, and the name of the poet on the blackboard. Ask the pupils the next time if they all remember the name of the ode and the poet. 25 26 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. What do you understand by a Commemoration Ode ? What do we mean when we say that we com- memorate an event? "It is a rather big word," you say. But now take the word to pieces. What do you find there? Spell out the middle syllables and add y. What do you get — "Memory?" Yes. Now can you see what it implies "to commemorate" a thing? "It suggests," you tell me, "going back and think- ing about it ; remembering it." But is that all ; noth- ing more? If it were some event which we did not like to think about or remember, would we commem- orate it? "No?" Then what more is implied there? "Why," you add, "it means celebrating it, talking it over, recalling all the incidents connected with it, reviving in our memories just what may have hap- pened, or making ourselves feel once more how important it was." Yes. And do you know what event this Ode com- memorates? "The Civil War?" True. As we read in our histories, about thirty or forty years agoi, the two sections of our country were at war, the North and the South. Finally, however, they both came together, and now again we have only one country. But it looked for a time as if the nation would be split in two, and that we should no longer be citizens of the same state or nation. Note to the Teacher : Do not dwell too much on the causes of the Civil War. Take care not to arouse any feeling of resentment in relation to the subject. Let the pupils look upon it as a sad but decisive event belonging to bygone history. Perhaps it would be better to avoid the subject of slavery. You tell me that the subject of these lines is love of country. What does the word "country" convey to us in this connection ? What comes to mind, for example, when people THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 27 talk about being "out in the country?" "Oh, it is being out where the trees grow, and where there are farms and beautiful scenery, green fields and mountains." What is the first thing that we associate with the word country, — the people? — ^"No, not the people." What is it, then? Is it the air or the sky? "No." What do you stand upon or walk upon every day? "The land ?" Yes ; that is it. We are coming nearer now tO' our subject. What other word do we usually associate with "land," in speaking of the part of the world to which we belong ? If, for example, a person were to refer to "his land," what would that suggest? "Oh, it would apply simply to the ground he owned, or of which he was assumed to be the pos- sessor." What word could we add, then, and so change the meaning and cover the point we are thinking of? "Native?" Yes ; if we wish tO' use the term in the larger sense, more often we should speak of "our native land." In this way, it would usually mean for us, "our country." Do you reall)' think, if this is so, that a man could not call this part of the world his country, if he had not been born here— if , for instance, he had been five or ten years old when he first came to the United States? Would "his country" then be the land in Europe where he had been born, or would it be over here in America? "It would refer to the land where he had been born," you assert. But wait, now. When such a person grows up, if he is a man, where would he vote ? Would it be where he was born, in the coun- try where he had lived as a child ? "No, he would probably vote in the country where he is living, if he voted at all." 28 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Oif which country, then, would he be a citizen? "As toi that, he would be a citizen of the country where he votes." Why is this? I ask. It would not be his native land. "No, but he no longer has any share in the government of the land where he was born, nor in the management of its affairs." You imply then, do you, that he would no longer have any responsibility for what was done in that other country, because he did not vote there. What difference does the voting make in this matter? "The voting," you point out, "makes him one of the persons responsible for the acts of the state where he is a citizen; he has, therefore, become in this way a part of it. A man cannot exactly belong to twO' states or countries at the same time ; he must be a citizen of one or the other." Yes, and besides this there is another fact to be considered. Suppose after a man becomes a citizen of this country, he should then commit an act of violence toward a citizen of another country, what state or government would have to assume the responsibility for this? "Why, the one where he votes as a citizen." True. And in this way, you observe that he is not only responsible for the acts of the government where he casts a ballot, but that government is also responsible in a sense for him and his acts. If that is true, would the emigrant to our shores not think of America now as his country, rather than his native land ? "Yes, if he has been here for some time and expects to remain here." I agree with you. Birthplace, after all, does not necessarily determine what land is one's country. Suppose that your father and mother were Ameri- cans, but you had been born while they were spend- ing a year in Europe; would your country be THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 29 America or Europe? "America." Yes; most decidedly. You observe that while usually we mean by "our country" our itative land, every person cannot speak in that way. For instance, do you know what it means to be an adopted son? "As to that," you tell me, "it might apply to the case of a boy from a cer- tain home, who is received by the parents of another household and treated as one of their own children ; and so he is adopted." Do you see, then, how there may be "adopted sons" of a country? Would you assert, therefore, that such persons ought to drop all care for the coun- try where they were born, its government or its people, and have a feeling of affection only for the state of their adoption ? "At any rate," you insist, "they should come to think more of their own country which had wel- comed them to its citizenship." What do you think of the custom in our country for people born in other states or in other parts of the world, to have clubs or organizations by which they shall continue toi show their attachment to their native land? Does not this seem rather unpatriotic or not quite loyal to the home of their adoption? What if, for example, citizens here who had been born in the countries of Europe, should commemo- rate once a year the festival day of their respective countries ? "It all depends on the way it is done," you answer. But under any circumstances, this would tend to divide the attachment and to keep such persons from caring wholly for the land of their adoption. "Yes," you reply, "but it would be unnatural for a person not to care for the country where he was born." You feel, do you, that the man whO' could lose all interest in the land from which he came, might be a 30 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. selfish kind of person and not show a true spirit of devotion to the new country which welcomed him as a citizen? I must agree with you on that point. It is right for every person tcj wish to cherish the memories of his native home and to preserve a sense oi attach- ment to the coiuntry of his nativity. Would it be possible, however, for. such a custom to be carried too farf "Yes," you assure me, "if it really makes the new citizens clannish among them- selves, so that they hold together and doi not try to mingle with other people in the new land oi their adoption." True. Such adherence to the country of one's nativity may be overdone. It may even lead people of the same race who' have become adopted citizens, to work for their special race in order that it shall have more than its share oi influence in the new country. They may be tempted to hold together by ties of birth rather than by their new citizenship. Note to the Teacher: If thought advisable, the teacher might invite the members of the class to give illustrations of the societies which have been organized in this country for the purpose of keeping up an attachment to the land of one's nativity. Reference could be made to the various Scandina- vian, German, Scotch or Irish societies of this type. A dis- cussion could be raised as to what would be legitimate in this direction and what would be disloyal. Point out that if the flags of the two countries were carried at such times, the most conspicuous place should be given to the flag of that country where the persons were now citizens. Furthermore, it should be kept very thoroughly in mind in so far as the colors of another country are carried or worn, that they have only a memory significance and nothing further. Something might also be said of the custom now growing in our country of organizing "state societies," by which citizens moving from one part of the country to another, keep up an attachment to the section of the United States from which they have sprung. This fact could be brought forward as showing how natural and legitimate is the sentiment of regard for the place of one's nativity. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 3 1 Most of US, however, are not adopted children, and so, for the most part, we may talk of our native land as "our Country." Speaking of adopted citizens, do you think, by the way, that a man could make himself an adopted citi- zen whether the country wants to accept him or not ? "You do not know ?" I can answer that question for you. A country certainly has the right to decide who may or may not becoime her adopted children. In this regard a country is like a great family. It has the right to reject persons who might like to join the family but who would be unworthy of the privilege. By the way, what is the term we use when a man becomes an adopted citizen ? What does he have to do? Can he just announce that he is a citizen and does that make him one? "Noi," you explain, "he must do something more." Well, what more? "Why, become naturalized." Have you any idea what it involves to become naturalized? Is it merely asking for the privilege of becoming a citizen, and then voting like other citi- zens? Does a man have to promise something? If so, what? "Yes, he must promise to abide by the Constitution of the Country." That is the point. It would be just the same in one way as when becoming a member of a family. If a child is adopted by new parents, then he must expect to obey those parents. Their wishes are laws for him just as if he had been born of that one family. It means a great deal, and is a very solemn act, to promise to abide by the Constitution of the Coun- try. By the way, do those of us who are born in this country have to make a pledge to abide by the Con- stitution, or obey the laws of the country? When 32 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. we become men, doi we have to sign any document before we can- vote, after we are twenty-one years of age? "No." Why not ? Should- we not also be obliged to agree to abide by the Constitution ? "That is understood," you assert, "b-y the very fact that we are born in this country. We are its citizens by birth." Yes ; that is a very important point. The very fact that we are born in this country and are its citizens by birth, implies that we are pledged to obey the laws of our country and abide by its G>nstitution. Note to the Teacher : Of course this point of obedience to the Constitution of the state would have to be qualified if we were making an elaborate study of the subject for older minds. But it would be better so far as the young people are con- cerned, if nothing were said of "the right of revolution." Make them feel that there is something solemn in the fact that by their very birth in a country there is an implied pledge that they are to support the country, its laws and its Constitution. Suppose, now, we talk further about the meaning of "love of country." What is the word we com- monly use in this connection? When a man has shown that he is very devoted to his country, what do we call him? "Patriot?" Yes ; that is it. Then what dOi we term love of country? "Patriotism?" That is the word. Do you know where that word comes from, what it used to mean? If not, I can tell you. It comes from an early word implying "father." And thus you see it suggests the very thought of 'Fatherland, and devotion to one's Fatherland. Patriotism, then, would mean love of one's Fatherland. Do you think, by the way, there is something rather strange and sentimental in so much talk about love of country? What does it all amount tO'? Why shoidd we love our country ? Is there any sense in having devotion just to a THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 33 piece of ground where we were born, or to the special group of people among whom we are fellow citizens ? We did not choose the place of our birth ; we did not decide that we wanted to be citizens of this country. Why, then, should we care to feel attachment for this native land of ours ? You hesitate? Yes, I can see in your faces that you do care for your country. Does it give you pleasure when you see the stars and stripes waving overhead ? "Oh, yes !" Then, whether there is any reason to it or not, we certainly are fond of our country. Now what is the one thing that a man can do more than anything else, in order to show that he loves his country? What do a great many men have to do when their country is at war? "Join the army ?" Certainly, — join the army and become soldiers. And what happens to many of the soldiers in the battles? "They are wounded or killed." Yes, some of the soldiers must fall and die. Did they know this might happen to them when they went into the army? "Oh, yes," you assert. Then why did they take the risk ? Because they were paid for it? Do you think that a man would die just for money, or allow himself to be shot down just for pay? "You doubt it?" So do I. Then why should he take the risk if it is not for the pay of the soldier ? What is it that he is show- ing? What kind of feeling? "Patriotism?" That is it, patriotism. And what was the other name we gave to it at the start, as the subject of those lines of poetry ? "Love of country ?" Surely ; the true soldier is ready to die for love of his country. What is implied by Decoration Day, do you know? What happens on that day? "Oh," you 34 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. explain, "people go out and decorate the graves of the soldiers, put flowers there." But are those the graves of people they have known, of people who were related to themselves ? "Usually not," you say? Then what do they do it for, why do they take those flowers to the graves ? "It is because those men died for their country." Now go back a moment and decide whether you think that caring for one's native land is just a senti- mental idea without any sense in it. Do you believe that a man would take all that risk of being shot down in battle, unless he had a real love and affec- tion for his native land ? You see that there must be some deep feeling there. If he loved his country, there must have been a reason for his attachment. He has shown that he loved it, by dying for it. Points of the ijeBSon. Let us count over now the points we have learned : I. First, we found out what we meant by a Commemoration Ode, and that the subject of those beautiful lines in the Com- memoration Ode by James Russell Lowell, was "Love of Coun- try." IL In the second place, we observed that in speaking of "Country" at the start, one thinks of the land, and hence usu- ally one's country means one's native land. III. In the third place, however, we noted that a man might be an adopted citizen and so that one's country some- times might not be one's native land. IV. In the fourth place, we commented on the fact that it is right and legitimate for adopted citizens to keep up an attachment to the land of their nativity, but that this should be made in every case, second to the devotion which they owe to the country of their adoption. V. In the fifth place, we discovered that when a person becomes an adopted citizen, he has to promise to abide by the Constitution. VI. In the sixth place, we have seen that the very fact that we are born in a country implies a kind of pledge that we will uphold the country as long as we live there ; that we will obey its laws and support its Constitution. VII. In the seventh place, we have seen that there must THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 35 be a deep reason for love of country, because of the fact that so many men have died for their country. Poem, Whene'er a noble deed is wrought, Whene'er is spoken a noble thought, Our hearts, in glad surprise, To higher levels rise. The tidal wave of deeper souls. Into our inmost being rolls. And lifts us unawares Out of all meaner cares. Honor to those whose words and deeds Thus help us in our daily needs, And by their overflow Raise us from what is low. Thus thought I, as by night I read Of the great army of the dead. The trenches cold and damp. The starved and frozen camp, — The wounded from the battle-plain, In dreary hospitals of pain, The cheerless corridors. The cold and stony floors. Lo! in that house of misery A lady with a lamp I see Pass through the glimmering gloom, And flit from room to room. And slow, as in a dream of bliss, The speechless sufferer turns to kiss Her shadow as it falls Upon the darkened walls. As if a door in heaven should be Opened, and then closed suddenly, The vision came and went. The light shone, and was spent. On England's annals, through the long Hereafter of her speech and song. That light its rays shall cast From portals of the past. 36 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. The lady with a lamp shall stand In the great history of the land, A noble type of good Heroic v\'Omanhood. Nor even shall be wanting here The palm, the lily, and the spear, — The symbols that of yore Saint Filomena bore. — Longfellow. Duties. /. We ought to show an affection for the land of our nativity so long as it continues to be our country. II. We ought to be loyal first amd supremely to the country of which we cure citizens, whether by nativity or adoption. story: Florence Higrbtin^ale. When talking of "love of country" and "'soldiers" and "war," one usually thinks of men, as if men were the only persons concerned with war. It is quite true that women have seldom been soldiers in the army, at least since his- toric times — although, as you know, there is a tradition about a certain class of women soldiers in the early days, who were called the Amazons. But we do not have any Amazons at the present time. Men are the only ones who are expected to do the fighting in battle. I suppose if I were to ask you to sug- gest to me some persons who come to your mind whenever war is spoken of, you would mention at once such names as Alex- ander the Great or Julius Caesar or Napoleon Bonaparte or George Washington. These men were all great soldiers. They knew how to lead armies and to fight. But now I should like to tell you of another person whose name often comes to mind whenever I think of war. It is not the name of one who went into battle and fell wounded or dying in his country's cause. And yet the person I have in mind has been talked of all over the world, and especially in connection with the subject of war. But it is a woman's name I am thinking of, and it is the life of a brave woman of which we wish to tell you something. It may seem a little strange to you that there should be anything connected with war, that a woman could do, especially in camp life or on the field of I'.atUe. We think of woman as belonging to the home and being the center of home life. Nevertheless there is one woman's name which is famous in connection with the subject of war. About forty or fifty years ago there was a war going on over in the East, in a part of the world known as the Crimea, and the war has been THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 37 called the Crimean war. The English people who were engaged in this strife lost over twenty thousand men. There must have been some great battles fought there, some great work done by the soldiers, and some great work done by the leaders. And yet as a matter of fact, many of us do not even know the names of the generals who fought in that war; while on the other hand, whenever we think of what took place at that time, there comes to our thoughts the name of a woman, Florence Nightingale. It is a beautiful name and one that we can easily remember, and it was a beautiful life that this woman lived. She came of a wealthy family, and might have passed her whole life in ease and comfort, not being obliged to work unless she chose to do so. She could have had people to wait on her, with a home full of all the luxuries that one's heart could desire. But for some reason she did not care so much even for com- fort; she wanted to be actively at work. She had received a very fine education ; she had studied hard and was one of the most educated women in England. What seems to have inter- ested her more than anything else was nursing the sick. She •set to workj therefore, to find out all that could be known on the subject, to study with all her might, and to learn nursing as a science. And how long do you suppose she worked, studying the subject of nursing? A few months, you say, or a whole year? No, she gave herself over for ten whole years to this one aim. All that time she was studying nursing or the care of the sick. It was not the science of medicine she was working at, but only the sphere of work for a nurse. She traveled over Europe in order to find out what could be learned on this subject in other countries. She would go and stay for months in a hospital in France or in Germany, in order to learn more about her work. And just about this time, after she had been studying nursing for nearly ten years, came the great Crimean war. Thousands of men were wounded on the field of battle, and thousands of men died in the hospitals from lack of care. News of this had come back to England and caused great commotion there. I suppose they did not have the system of nursing and hospitals in army camps in those days, such as we would have at the present time. And Florence Nightin- gale thought to herself that she would go there to the Crimea with a number of workers, and organize a system of nursing among the wounded men. All her ten years of study were now to serve her in good stead. On the 21st of October, 1854, this brave woman set out with forty-two others, all trained nurses, for the Crimea. It was over in the neighbor- hood of the Black Sea, as vou remember. And at once after reaching the camp hospital, she set to work, and in a few months she had over ten thousand sick men in her care. It is said that in one hospital of which she had charge, the rows of beds measured more than two miles in length. She 38 THE DUTIES OP" A CtTIZEN. has been known to stand for twenty hours at a time, taking care of the wounded as they were brought in from the battle. You can have Httle idea how the soldiers worshiped her. One man has said, for instance : "Before she came there was such cursing and swearing; and after that it was as holy as a church." Another man said: "She would speak to one and another and nod and smile to many more; but she could not do it to all, you know — we lay there in hundreds, but we could kiss her shadow as it fell, and lay our heads on the pillow again content." At last even Florence Nightingale fell ill of a fever, and lay for a time as a patient in one of the hospitals. But as soon as she was well again she went back to her post and never left it till the war had ended and the last of the soldiers had gone back home. I fancy she must have saved thousands of lives by this work that she organized. It is not merely the tenderness of heart, the sympathy she put into it, but all the thought she gave to it, which made the work so great. Nowadays we always expect to hear about hospital nursing in connection with war, and we know how it is that most of those that are wounded recover again, because of the care which the men receive. But it is not to be overlooked that this great change in the new system adopted in civilized countries has been largely due to the work of Florence Night- ingale. In those days when she set out for the Crimea, only a few of those who were wounded would recover. Most of them had to die, because of lack of nursing and care. Do you wonder that the men whose lives she saved were eager to kiss her shadow as she passed? Is it strange that her name should have gone all over the world? Nowadays thousands and thousands of women volunteer to do this kind of work in time of war. In the struggle between Spain and the United States over Cuba, as you know, more than thirty thousand women offered to enlist as nurses in the war. But it was not like this in former days. The heroes or heroines are rather the ones who do it first — who set the example, who inspire others to the same purpose. And it was because Florence Nightingale took the lead in this, that we think so much about her now. Suppose I were to ask you what it was that made Florence Nightingale so successful as a nurse, or as a founder of a great system of nursing among the sick and wounded in the armies of the world. You would say, perhaps, it was her spirit of devotion or willingness to go out bravely to another part of the world; her readiness to give up the ease and luxuries of a happy home and to endure all the hardships of camp life. It is true, all this inspires us as something brave and noble. And yet I think there was something more. Do you fancy that any woman who had had the same spirit of devotion THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 39 could have gone out and done the same work? For my part, I doubt it. What gave Florence Nightingale success more than anything else, or made her great to the world, was the way she went on educating herself for those ten long years. It was that steady, patient toil, month after month, year after year, just educating herself on the subject of nursing, which made it possible for her to achieve that great work when the time came. People do not become heroes or heroines all at once. A man or woman cannot be idle or selfish or easy- going for years, and then all of a sudden show the spirit of bravery or sislf-sacrifice or heroism. What made Florence Nightingale the heroine she was, in my thought, was not the work she did there in the Crimea, but that steady work of the years before; so that when the time came, all she did was to show what sort of a heroine she had been all the time Women everywhere are proud of Florence Nightingale, and more than that, the men, too, are proud of her. Her name ranks with the names of the great soldiers of history. In future ages when the story of warfare is written, beginning from the earliest times and coming down to the modern world, there will be not only an account of the great generals whose names I have mentioned to you before, but somewhere in the history there will be a chapter devoted to the work of this brave heroine, Florence Nightingale. Classic for Beading' or Becltatlon. "/ behold the surest pledges, that as, on one side, no local prejudices or attachments, no separate views, nor party animosities, ivill misdirect the com- prehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests; so on another, that the foundations of our national policy will he laid in the pure and immutable prin- ciples of private morality; and the pre-eminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and com- mand the respect of the world. I dwell on this pros- pect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire; since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of 40 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to he no less persuaded, that the propitious smiles of heaven can never be expected on a nation that disre- gards the eternal rules of order and right, which heaven itself has ordained; and since the preserva- tion of the sacred Hre of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are just consid- ered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people." — Inaugural Address, George Washington. Further Sng'gestlons to tlie Teacher. This lesson could be divided into parts if thought best, inasmuch as it covers a good deal of ground. Avoid, however, going too far into details, inasmuch as you may encroach upon points coming up in the ensuing discussions. For example, it vi^ould be well to refrain from entering at any length upon the sub- ject of "soldiers," "war," or "dying for one's coun- try," inasmuch as all this will be considered much more fully later on. Be sure to have the pupils, each and all, commit the lines at the beginning of the lesson to memory, as one of the rare treasures of our literature. There may be a difficulty in bringing home much of the sentiment-side, to a certain class of boys or girls who have not been educated at all in this feeling. Where this is the case, you might plunge at once into the main theme for discussion and say little about the lines of poetry. There is a certain type of pupil who can be reached only through the practical elements of the subject. As to the poem, tell the young people how it arose, from the fact that one of the soldiers leaned over from his cot and tried to kiss the shadow of Florence Night- ingale as she passed him^ This would be a beautiful poem for public recitation. In connection with the poem and story, if possible show a picture of the heroine. CHAPTER 11. CONTRASTS BETWEEN BEING A CITIZEN AND BEING i MEMBER OF A HOME OR OF A FAMILY. Memory Gem — "Not that I love Cssar less, but that I love Rome more." — Shakespeare. Slalog'ne. What does it mean to be a citizen ? Suppose we come to this point at once. Is it just the same thing as being a member of a home ? "No, not quite." Is it something less or something. more, do- you think? "Why," you exclaim, "it must be something more." If so, can you suggest in what the differ- ence Hes? Are you under the same sort of control as citizens, that you are under when children as members of a family ? "Noi," you insist, "as citizens we are free men and free women ; we are not under the authority O'f any one human being, obliging us to do anything he may command us to do in our lives as citizens ; there is no one acting toward us just like father and mother." Yes; I agree with you; citizenship implies free- dom from the absolute authority of any other O'ne man or woman. But are you sure that you would be quite free in every sense in your life as a citizen ? Suppose you break one of the laws, what may hap^ pen to you? "Then," you answer, "one may be arrested, put in prison, or punished in some way." You feel, do you, that even as a citizen you can- not quite do as you please. There is something you must obey, although it is not the will of one human 41 4^ THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. being. What is it, then, that you must submit to and obey? "The law?" Yes, but the law of what? "Oh, we must obey the law of the state or of the country to which we belong; we must obey the law, although we cannot be compelled to obey the will of some one person." If so, I ask you again : in obeying the law, whom or what are you submitting toi; where did the laws come from, that we are usually supposed to obey as citizens of a country ? — ^who makes the laws ? "Why, the legislatures," you say, "or Congress." True, but who chooses Congress or the legislature? "Oh, the people." You assume that it is we, the people, who make the laws, and that it is the will of ourselves as a liv- ing people that we obey ? Is that all ? I ask. Think a moment. Have all the laws that we must obey been made by the people who are now alive, or by people who were chosen by those who are now alive ? Were they all made since you or I or our fathers and mothers have been alive ? Do you know when the Constitution of the United States was made? If not, suppose you find out about this and let me know next time. But I can tell you now that the Constitution was made many, many years ago, long before you and I were born. I ask again, who made it ? "Oh, the forefathers." Yes; that is true. You infer, then, that we are to some extent obeying the will of the forefathers as well as that of people who live today? "No," — you hesitate, "we are not quite sure about that." Why not? "Because we can change the Constitution ; if then we do not change it, in a sense it is the same as if we accepted it, and there- fore it is as if in a way we had made it ourselves; hence, in obeying it, somehow it is as if we were obeying the will of ourselves as a people." THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 43 Yes ; I agree with you in part. But wait a little. Can we change the Constitution of our country simply by a majority vote? Do you think that if a majority of the people wanted to change the Con- stitution, they could do it? No, it takes more votes than a majority to do this. Our forefathers fixed a way by which the Constitu- tion could be altered, and they also decided what should be required before this could be done. Then does it not seem as if we were still, in a way, obeying the will of our forefathers as well as the laws of the people who are alive at the present time? "It is not quite the same, however," you insist, "because we cannot, strictly speaking, be subject to the will of a person who is no longer here. He cannot issue commands or enact rules for us." Yes, that is true. It looks, therefore, as if we were really free from the authority of the founders of our country, for example, and as if we were no longer subject to them in any way. "Nevertheless," you add, "as citizens, we are still subject to their influence; we are under the control of the system they have established until it has been changed; and it can only be changed according to the rules they laid down." The point is a good one and should be remem- bered. After all, we are under the iniluence, or even, as it were, under partial control of the citizens in former times, long after they have passed away. Is there anything else besides all this, which makes the city or the state or the nation to which we belong, unlike the life of the home or the family? What, for instance, do men have to do' as citizens that they do not do in the home? "Vote?" True; there is no voting, as a rule, done in the home. Father and mother are the authority there. 44 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. In what way, then, does the government in a city or state or nation, differ from the government in a; home? You have said that we still have to obey, although in a different manner. "Why," you explain, "as citizens we have officers chosen by ourselves, such as Mayors, Governors, Congressmen, and a President." Can you think of anything further which makes the life of the citizen unlike the life of a person in the home ? When you are young children, how are you supported ; who is expected tO' provide you with house and clothing, the food that you eat, and all that you need in order to keep alive? Do you furnish this, yourselves? "No, that is given us or provided by father and mother — at least when we are quite young." But how about the state or country where you are citizens; who provides for the life of the country? All that our government, our city or our nation does for us must cost a great deal. Who pays for it ? "Why," you explain, "the citizens pay for it." What do people have to do, then, as citizens, for their country, which you dO' not have toi do at least as young children in your own homes ? "They have to contribute toward its support, to pay taxes in one form or another." And so in paying taxes, in having officers who are chosen by the people, in the custom of voting, and in obeying laws instead of obeying the will of a father and mother, it means something quite differ- ent toi be a citizen from what it does simply to be a member of a family. Is that all? How long does a home continue? Have you ever thought of that? Could the same home exist for a hundred years ? "The same house could," you suggest. Yes, that is true ; but I mean the same home, with THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 45 the same people belonging to it. "No, that could not be ; because people seldom live a hundred years, and it would not be the same home if there were altogether different people in it." You mean to say that the home you belong to, did not exist before your father and mother were born? "No, that could not have been possible; 'home' was made by father and mother." Yes ; that is true, they established the home. But how is it with the country to which you belong, or the government under which you live? Could it last a hundred years ? Was it not the same country before you were born, or before the birth of your father and mother ? You hesitate? Well, I ask you, do we not speak of the United States of America and think of it as the same country it was one hundred years agoi? Hov/ about the town or city you live in? Did it not exist perhaps before you or I were born? It is the same city, is it not, and the same country? "Yes," you admit. Then you think it can really be the same city or the same country even if the people are altogether different. I certainly agree with you. My country and my city were here before I was born. How long do you suppose a country could live? "You do not know?" Could it live two hundred years? "Yes." Could it live a thousand years? You hesitate, I see. Yet I think there have been countries and even cities which have lived and been practically the same city or the same country, at least for a thousand years. Is there not something solemn and inspiring about this fact, that our country was here long before we were born ; that we may belong to a city or a country which came into being a great many years ago ? 46 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Note to the Teacher: Make a good deal of this peculiar fact of the possible "perpetual life" of the state or of a gov- ernment. Let the members of the class feel that it is some- thing which they cannot quite understand. At the same time attach a solemn significance to it, as if there were something inspiring in this contrast between the country to which we belong and an ordinary commercial institution. Make them feel that when they say "my country," they include not only people alive today, but also a great many people who lived hundreds of years ago. Speak solemnly about the idea of our country being a sublime heritage which we have received from our forefathers. Let me ask you one further question. You have said that being a citizen means obeying laws and not men — being subject to no one human being. But has this always been the case? Do you sup- post that this is true all over the world ? Have men always been free citizens? What sort of a government do we live under? "A Republic?" And what does that imply? "Oh, it suggests a country where the people are the rulers and choose their own officers." Did you ever hear of a monarchy ? "Yes?" And what is the chief difference between a monarchy and a republic? "Why, in a monarchy a king is at the head of the government, who was not chosen by the people, but perhaps became king because he was the son of the man who was king before him." Did you ever hear of an absolute monarchy, and do you know what that suggests? "Not quite?" Well, I will tell you. It means a country where the people do not vote at all, or choose any of their officers, but where the king is ruler over everybody. You think, then, do you, that being a citizen in such a country would indicate something different from being a citizen of a republic ? In the early history of the world nearly all the states or countries were ruled in that way, and there are countries in the world ruled in that way now. We see that all countries are not alike, and that THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 4/ being a citizen does not mean the same thing in every country. It occurs to me, however, that we have still not mentio'ned one very important difference between the home and its form of government on the one hand and the state and its government on the other. Suppose, for instance, that you had done some- thing very, very bad, even committed a crime. Would your father or mother have a right to punish you? "Yes?" How hard could they punish you? "Why, they could punish us very severely," you answer. But could they actually take your life ; could they put you to death? "No," you assert, "no father or mother has that right over a child. Indeed, no father or mother would want to do it, even if they had the right." But how is it with the state and its government ; does the government of our state ever put people to death? "Yes," you admit. What kind of people ? "Oh, persons who' have committed great crimes, such as murder." Then the state actually has the right in certain instances even over the life of its citizens? Yes; that is true. And it is a very solemn fact. We can hardly think of anything more sacred in human affairs than life itself ; and if the state has a right to take human life, it must be a very high authority. And now one last point and a very important one. In the family we are under the authority of father and mother — and for how long? I ask you. "Why, until one is grown up?" "A person is entitled to a certain release from the authority of home after he is a grown-up citizen," A'ou say. But is this true as regards the authority of the state? "Oh, no, of course not." 48 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I wonder, then, if you can think of the term which has been applied in former times, as describing the relationship between the citizen and his state or government. It was once used to define the position of a citizen toward the ruler, the king or the emperor. What was it, do you suppose? "Servant or slave," you suggest. No; not quite so severe a term as that. It was applied to all citizens of every grade; but it began with the letter S just the same. "Subjects." Yes; now you have guessed it. In the old days people were called the "subjects" of their king, meaning by this that they were subject to his authority. And has this changed, would you say since we have had a republican form of govern- ment, and do not have any kings or emperors? "It has changed," you point out, "in soi far as the relationship to a person is concerned, but not as con- cerning our relationship to the state or government in itself ; we are under its authority just the same." What, then, are we to the state or government to which we belong, besides being free citizens? "We are the subjects of the state," you answer. Points of the Iiesson. Being a citizen implies among other things : I. Belonging to a country which could have existed hun- dreds of years before we were born. II. Voting and having a government where the officers are chosen by ourselves. III. Obeying laws rather than the will of one person. IV. Contributing towards the support or sustenance of the state. V. Regarding one's self as a subject of the state. VI. Most of all, recognizing that under certain circum- stances the state has a right even over the lives of its citizens. Duties. /. We ought to be true subjects of the state to which WK belong. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 49 //. We ought to he faithful in our allegiance to the laws and Constitution of our country. Foem. When Freedom, from her mountain height, Unfurled her standard to the air. She tore the azure robe of night. And set the stars of glory there ! She mingled with its gorgeous dyes The milky baldric of the skies, And striped its pure, celestial white With streakings of the morning light, Then, from his mansion in the sun. She called her eagle-bearer down. And gave into his mighty hand The symbol of her chosen land ! Majestic monarch of the cloud ! Who rear'st aloft thy regal form. To hear the tempest-trumpings loud. And see the lightning lances driven. When strive the warriors of the storm, And rolls the thunder-drum of heaven, — Child of the Sun ! to thee 'tis given To guard the banner of the free, To hover in the sulphur smoke. To ward away the battle-stroke. And bid its blendings shine afar. Like rainbows on the cloud of war, The harbingers of victory I Flag of the brave ! thy folds shall fly. The sign of hope and triumph high ! When speaks the signal-trumpet tone. And the long line comes gleaming on. Ere yet the life-blood, warm and wet, Has dimmed the glistening bayonet, Each soldier's eye shall brightly turn To where thy sky-born glories burn, And, as his springing steps advance. Catch war and vengeance from the glance. And when the cannon-mouthings loud Heave in wild wreaths the battle shroud. And gory sabres rise and fall Like shoots of flame on midnight's pall. Then shall thy meteor glances glow, And cowering foes shall shrink beneath Each gallant arm that strikes below That lovely messenger of death. so THE- DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Flag of the seas ! on ocean wave Thy stars shall glitter o'er the brave ; When death, careering on the gale. Sweeps darkly round the bellied sail. And frighted waves rush wildly back Before the broadside's reeling rack. Each dying wanderer of the sea Shall look at once to heaven and thee. And smile to see thy splendors fly In triumph o'er his closing eye. Flag of the free heart's hope and home, By angel hands to valor given, Thy stars have lit the welkin dome. And all thy hues were born in heaven. Forever float that standard sheet ! Where breathes the foe but falls before us. With Freedom's soil beneath our feet. And Freedom's banner streaming o'er us ! — Joseph Rodman Drake. Clasiic for Beading or Becltatlon. "Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe; too high-minded to endure the degradation of the others, possessing a chosen country, with room enough for our descendants to the thousandth and thousandth generation, entertaining a due sense of our equal right to the use of our own faculties, to the acquisition of our own industry, to honor and confidence from our fellow-citizens, resulting not from birth, but from our actions and their sense of them, enlightened by a benign religion, professed in- deed and practised in various forms, yet all of them inculcating honesty, truth, temperance, gratitude, and the love of man, acknowledging and adoring cm overruling Providence, which, by all its dispensa- tions, proves that it delights in the happiness of man here, and his greater happiness hereafter; with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens, a wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 5 1 shall leave them othermse free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government; and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." — Inaugural Address — Thomas Jeiferson. Farther Sng'geatlons to tlie Teacher. By way of pictorial illustration, we might put before the members of the class a home scene, a group of young people gathered around the table in the living room with father and mother; and then over against this, a picture of a legislative assembly, as, for instance, one of the Houses of Parliament in session in London, or a picture of the House O'f Representatives at work in Washington. For biog- raphy or story, we could give a sketch of Regulus of Rome, if the theiTie is not too trite. As to the points brought out in the lesson, the number could be enlarged to a considerable extent if desired. The order in which they come is not of much importance. It were better always, of course, if they are sug- gested by the pupils themselves. But it would be advisable not to go intO' details, because an analysis of a number of these points will follow in future lessons. The poem by Drake would be somewhat long for recitation, but parts of it might be selected for this purpose. It is not of much literary value, but is to be recognized because it forms part of our earlier American patriotic poetry. CHAPTER III. LOVE OF COUNTRY AND WHAT IT IMPLIES. Memory Gem — "Breathes there a man with soul so dead, Who never to himself has said. This is my own, my native land?" — Walter Scott. Dialogue. Suppose now we talk a little more about loving one's country, going back to the subject of "patriot- ism." I wish you would tell me whether you think that love of country is the same kind of feeling as the love you would feel for a personal friend. "Pretty much the same?" Are you sure? What if you had been fond of somebody, for instance, and thought of him as a friend, but should find out that you had been very much mistaken in him, that he had been guilty of some very bad acts and made you feel heartily ashamed of him; would you then have the same fondness for him, or feel the same devotion tO' him as before? "Perhaps not." What would happen under those circumstances? "Why," you explain, "we should begin to care less for such a person, not want to be so much in his company, and not take so' much pains toi please him or to keep his friendship, and perhaps not care so much about doing things for him." Yes; that is probably true. And how would it be with one's country under similar conditions ? Suppose that the state to which we belong commits an act of injustice, does some- 52 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 53 thing wrong, is guilty of bad conduct toward some of its own citizens or toward other nations. In this case, would the love for our country tend to die away ? Should we cease to want to do anything for our country, or cease to be willing to make sacrifices for it, or no longer feel warmly attached tO' it ? You hesitate? But what sort of feelings would arise on your part? Would you be indignant? "Yes, we should feel indignant," you admit. But would you despise your country or lose all respect for it? "No, not exactly." Why not? "Oh," you point out, "we belong to the country, nevertheless, and if we despised it, that would seem almost the same as despising ourselves." "Then, too," you point out, "some of us as citizens may not have approved of the bad conduct com- mitted by the government of our country." Yes; I quite understand you. Somehow we do not altogether despise our country, even when it has done wrong. And perhaps you have given one good reason why this is so. It may be that it is because we are a part of the country, or that it is a part of us. When a man does something which he personally is ashamed of, does he despise himself? "Not exactly." Then what is the feeling? "Why," you tell me, "he wishes somehow that he had not done it. He would like to change, so as not tO' be led to do it again." You see, that just because our country is a part of ourselves, and we a part of our country, when it does wrong we do not lose our attachment for it, but we may try all we can to have our country improved, and to keep it from committing any more acts of injustice. "True," you add, "but it does not follow that even when an acquaintance or friend of ours has done something very wrong, we should lose all interest in S4 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. him and not care whether he improves or not." I admit the point you make, and it is an important one to be considered. And yet, would there not be an experience of a certain loss of feeling toward that person, not quite like what would take place in your feelings if it was your country that was involved, instead of a person? "Yes," you say, "a person may lose respect or regard for a friend, under those conditions, in a sense in which he would not lose regard or respect for his country, inasmuch as he would somehow think that the whole country was not to blame and that a change could be brought about, if the really good citizens would act in the matter." Sometimes, do you know, men have died, not in war in order to save their country from attacks on the outside, but just for the sake of improving their country's character on the inside. They wanted to have a better, nobler country; they desired to have the people improve the laws of their country. Then perhaps some of the people became angry and turned against such men, even putting them to death. So you observe that a man may be a soldier in the cause of improving his country, as well as in the cause of defending it from the attacks of other countries. You told me in a former lesson that you were quite sure that love of country must mean some- thing, because of the fact that so many have died for their country. Now can you show any further reasons why one should have this kind of feeling? Have you ever noticed, by the way, how people become fond of something which they have had to pay heavily for, make sacrifices for, or which has exacted a great deal of care ? Is it not true, for instance, even with a pet animal, THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 55 if we have brought it up from birth and had to take a great deal of care of it, and it has given us much trouble, then somehow we seem to be more fond of it than of a creature given to us after it is grown up? You may not have thought of this, but those who are older than you are, will often mention the fact. We care more for something when we have had to make a sacrifice for it, or where it has cost us some- thing. You have noticed, have you not, that even when we have paid more for something in money, usimlly we value it more ? "Oh, yes," you say. Now I wonder if you can see in this circumstance one reason why people are devoted to their country. It may be because of the sacrifices which have been made for it. It has cost a great deal. Do you know much, for instance, about the early life of nations? In their history did they usually start out prosperously and peaceably? "No." you answer, "it was more often with war." Yes, you are right; most countries have had to experience a struggle in their early history in order to come into existence. There has been war and great sacrifices. What war was it, for example, that laid the foundation of the United States? "The Revolutionary War ?" Must there not have been a great deal of sufifering and sorrow in those days ? Think how many of our forefathers had to die in that war! Think of the women who lost their husbands, of the children who lost their fathers, of the families who lost all their possessions! Think how hard it was for many people to live in those days, even to get enough to eat and drink ! Some of those people may have been our own ancestors. Should we not naturally, then, love a 56 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. country for which our forefathers made such great sacrifices ? "True," you add, "but what about those citizens whose fathers and mothers may have been born in other lands, or whose ancestors belonged to other countries?" Yes, I admit the exception you make. It is quite true that such adopted citizens could not feel exactly the same degree of sentiment in this direction. But does this imply that such persons would have no occasion to feel in this way at all, as regards the founders of the state? "Ob, no," you continue, "it is now their country, even if so only by adoption. In a certain sense, the founders of the state become their forefathers by adoption." Yes, I think you are right in putting the point in that way. It is not merely a figure of speech. Their country is a real thing; and by becoming even the adopted citizen of such a country they should acquire an attachment to the memory of the forefathers of this new land of their adoption, — for the one simple reason that those forefathers were the founders of their country. Note to the Teacher: Some little additional material could be inserted here in reference to what the American people had to undergo during the Revolutionary War. This point which we are making is abstract and yet very important. We wish to have the pupils feel the significance of national sacrifices. It is well that they should appreciate that the sacrifices made by our forefathers, or by the patriots in the Revolution, were in part also made by ourselves, because it was our country itself which had to suffer. Develop this as a sentiment even if it cannot be elaborated by argument. You have been telling me that loving one's country first suggests "being ready toi die for one's country." What if, however, there were no more wars; what if there should be no danger from the attacks of other countries ; what if we did not need THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 57 to have soldiers or ever become soldiers ourselves; then would there be any other way of determining whether people really loved their country? How could you tell, under those circumstances, whether a man cared for his country and was a true patriot, or whether he was indififerent to its welfare? "Why," you explain, "perhaps we should know by observing whether he did anything for his city or the community where he lived, or whether he just cared only for himself and his own family." Suppose the case O'f a man who was very busy making money, acquiring wealth, and the citizens wanted him tO' serve on a committee which was to do some work for the public good, or hold some office where there was no special honor but where there would be a great deal of work. Do' you think the man would accept the office and do the work? "Not every m,an," you confess. But would some men do it? "Yes, perhaps a few." What sort of men would they be? "Why, they would be men who cared for their country or loved their country." Then you think that there is another way of show- ing a love for one's country besides being soldiers and risking one's life for it. What would be the term describing such a devotion to one's country in contrast to the willingness to die for it ? "Living for it ?" Yes ; that is it. When there is peace and no call for soldiers, a man can live for his country instead O'f being ready to die for it. And what would living for one's country really mean? Would you say that such a man should never care about his own family, nor about earning his own living, but should all the time be thinking 3f nothing else but his country? "Oh, noi; not quite that. If he did not earn his own living and take care of his family, he would 58 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. not be a good citizen." Yes, that is true. He must live first for his family. If you are very fond of a person, and were to say that yoiu just lived for him, would it imply that you would not care anything about yourself, never think about your health, or earning your living, but solely about that other person? "Oh, no; not exactly that." Then what would it mean? What, for example, would you be trying to do for such a person? "Why," you tell me, "we should be on the lookout for ways of helping him ; or if he is in trouble, we should stand by him, being faithful to him when he needs us; all this, besides taking pleasure in his companionship." Now cannot living for one's country imply the same thing? We may have toi take care of ourselves, think about our health, look after our home, and earn our living. But besides this, we have our coun- try to live for ; there is also something we have to do for our country, a service we have to render for its sake. What all this implies we shall talk about at a later time. Let us now just fix this one thought in mind, — loving one's country means living for one's coun- try, as well as being ready to die for one's country. Do you know the term we use sometimes in refer- ence to patriotism or love of country as explaining our attitude here ? When we point to the Stars and Stripes, to the flag of the United States, what do we say that we should be in regard to it? "Loyal?" That is the word : loyalty. It is a beautiful word and one that we should remember. Being loyal to the Stars and Stripes, to the flag of our country, does not imply simply decorating the graves of the soldiers, or becoming soldiers our- selves ; but also striving to help our country by our lives, in some form of public service. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 59 Note those words : public service. We shall see, by the way, that we may all have to render some public service for our country. And is there anything else implied in love of country besides being ready to serve our country where such service is necessary? What if a man were quite ready even to give up his own interests in order to do what is asked ol him for the public good? Yet what if he knew nothing about the history of his country; what if he showed no care when the names of the great men who have lived or died for his country, are men- tioned? What if he made nO' effort to know any- thing about such men; what if he had no feeling at all about the past history of his country? Would you say that such a man really loved his country? "Yes," you insist, "at any rate he would show that he loved his country by the service he was willing to render it." But what if that person should assert that he is very fond of you, saying that when you are in trouble he would be willing to help you in any way ? Yet if he took no interest in you otherwise; usually talked only about himself when he is with you; did not even care where you live, who your father and mother may be, what you have done your- self, or anything about you in that way, would you f^l exactly as if he were very fond of you? "Not quite," you admit. Why not ? As you say, he may be willing to serve you in need in any way. "Oh, yes, but we want the feeling too: and if he had the feeling he would be more interested in us personally, in knowing about us and our life generally." And may not this be equally true about patriot- ism? If we really care for our country, we ought to show it by wanting to know about its history, 6o THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. about its great men. Should we not be glad to dis- play it, for instance, by commemorating the great events in its past history ? Love of country means, therefore, also being inter- ested in its history, trying to know about its past, and liking to commemorate the great events in the history of one's country. Do you really believe, however, that there are any grown-up citizens of our land today who are not acquainted with its history? Do you suppose that any individual could be born here, grow up here, and not know, for example, about the Revolutionary War, or about the life of Washington, or of the great statesmen who' have helped make our country what it has now become? "It depends on the person?" In what way? "Oh, there are always dull people," you tell me, "who never seem toi have any kind of valuable knowledge save about getting food and drink." But, is this dull person responsible for such igno- rance? A man cannot really give himself a mind, if he has none, or add to the dimensions of his mind. If he is born dull, can he help himself? "It may be worse than that," you continue, "he may be dull oif heart ; he may not really care." But if so, I ask, how could he help himself? If a man is born selfish or dull at heart, what is to be done about it? "Why," you exclaim, "he can make himself care; he could study his country's history from a sense of duty as a citizen, even if it were not interesting at first." Yes; that is the great point and a very valuable one. And would it be the same if a man by chance knew something about his country's history, from lessons at school, perhaps, and yet really knew nothing about the government as it is today? THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 6l What if it should happen that he had no knowl- edge of the Constitution of the United States, of the way our government is carried on, of the kind of officers we have, of the laws by which our towns or cities carry on their work? How would this strike you? "Why, it would be stupid on his part," you assure me, "because it would be against his own interests." But would it be anything more than stupidity? I keep asking. If a man found himself in that con- dition, would he have any occasion to feel ashamed of himself as a citizen? "Yes, because it would imply that he took no real interest in the country of which he was a citizen; that it was all the same to him whether he belonged to this land or any other land." You are convinced, then, that a man who really loved his country would try to acquaint himself with its goivernm.ent, its constitution, and to be posted on its affairs. How would it seem to you, for example, if you met a fellow citizen and he knew a great deal about the constitution or government or the affairs of one of the states of Europe, and gave a good deal of his time to study in that direction, and yet was very ignorant about his own land on these points. Could this really happen? "Yes, in exceptional cases," you admit. And how would it be pO'Ssible? "Why, such a man would be a freak; he would not be a true citizen at all; he could not possibly have an actual feeling of attach- ment to his own country." In this connection, what would you say as to the three lines of verse which have come down to us from the poet, Walter Scott. I wish you would look at them for a moment, 62 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Note to the Teacher: Place in each pupil's hand at this point a copy of the Memory Gem at the head of the chapter. What do you call this? I wonder. "Poetry?" But take the three lines together as a whole. Is it a thought, an idea, a bit of philosophy, for example? "No, it is a sentiment, an expression of a feeling on the part of the poet." But a sentiment or a feeling makes sense, does it not? How is it that a man, could be regarded as "dead," merely because he has no attachment to his native land ? "Why," you point out, "it is not the man himself who is dead, according to the language of the poet." To whom or what, then, does the language apply ? What is it that is dead and gone, apparently ? "Why, the soul," you exclaim. You mean, do you, that the soul in a sense could be dead, while the body is alive? "Yes?" you hesitate. The entire soul of the man, do you mean ? "No, not exactly that," you ansv/er, "it suggests rather that such a man must be very much lacking in soul, or have lost some oi the best part of his soul, if he has no love of country in his heart." Yes, all that is true. A man who has no attach- ment either to his native land or the land of his adoption, is a man toi be pitied, if not despised. It would seem toi show that there was something wanting in him as a man. Points of the Wesson. I. That we love our country because of what it has had to suffer. II. That love of country means not only being willing to die for it, but also living for one's country. III. That by living for our country, we are not necessarily to neglect our own lives or the duties to ourselves and our families, but that we are also to render public service for our country. IV. That we have described this service to our country by the beautiful word "loyalty." THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 63 V. That being loyal to the flag or to the Stars and Stripes implies doing public service for our country, where it is possible, even when there may be no special honor in it or reward for it. VI. That love of country implies commemorating the great events of our country's history, keeping alive in memory what the forefathers of our country have done for us. Duties. /. We ought to live for our country, as well as be ready to die for our country. II. We ought to know the history of our coun- try, because of our love for our country. Foem. Lay down the axe; fling by the spade; Leave in its track the toiling plow; The rifle and the bayonet blade For arms like yours were fitter now; And let the hands that ply the pen Quit the light task and learn to wield The horseman's crooked brand, and rein The charger on the battle-field. Ho ! sturdy as the oaks you cleave, And moved as soon to fear and flight. Men of the glade and forest ! leave Your woodcraft for the field of fight. The arms that wield the axe must pour An iron tempest on the foe ; His serried ranks shall reel before The arm that lays the panther low. And ye, who breast the mountain-storm By grassy steep or highland lake, Come, for the land ye love, to form A bulwark that no foe can break. Stand like your own gray cliffs that mock The whirlwind, stand in her defence; The blast as soon shall move the rock As rushing squadrons bear ye thence. And ye, whose homes are by her grand Swift rivers, rising far away. Come from the depth of her green land. As mighty in your march as they; As terrible as when the rains Have swelled them over bank and bourne. With sudden floods to drown the plains And sweep along the woods uptorn. 64 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Few, few were they, whose swords of old Won the fair land in which we dwell ; But we are many, we who hold The grim resolve to guard it well. Strike, for that good and broadly land, Blow after blow, till men shall see That Might and Right move hand in hand. And glorious must their triumph be ! — Wm. Cullen Bryant. Classic for Beadinir or Secltatlon. "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great baittleheld of that zvar. We have come to dedicate a portion of that Held as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is alto- getlter fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, Itave consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remem- ber, wliat we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work zuhich they who fought here have thus far nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a. new birth of freedom, and that this government of the people, by the people, and for the people. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 6$ shall not perish from the earth." — The Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln. story: l^lncolu at Qettysburtr. I am sure that you all know a great deal about Abraham Lincoln. We are not going to tell you the story of his life over again, when everybody has read about him, nowadays. But in the lives of great men there are always certain event.5 of more interest than others. I do not suppose that we should each choose out just the same event as the most striking one in any man's life. I want, however, to speak of one special occurrence in Lincoln's career, that in certain ways comes closest to my heart. We are always moved when anything great is done in a simple way. Lincoln was a plain man, simple and unpre- tentious in his habits, as you know. He never had anything of what we should call style about him. But the man's heart was right, and I suppose it was for that reason people loved him. It seems a little odd that we should talk more of him nowadays than any of the other leaders in the Civil War. Men who win battles make a great name for themselves, so that the individuals whose names come down in history from the earliest times usually were soldiers, leaders in war. And yet it so happens that the one man's name which stands out more conspicuously than all others during the time of civil strife in our national history was not a soldier at all. Few of us nowadays, I fancy, have much of an idea what Lincoln himself had to go through in those days. We think of him as if he had been loved by all the people in Washing- ton where he was the President ; whereas it is known that even among those fighting on his side he was oftentimes hated. Some people believed that the war might be carried on better if he had not been there as President. I suppose you know what battle was looked upon as the turning point of the Civil War. It was known as the Battle of Gettysburg. Up to that time it had seemed very dis- couraging for the North, as if our country might be torn in pieces, as if the South might win, as if there would never be again a complete national life in the United States of America. All this while Lincoln had to bear the brunt of harsh fault- finding over mistakes for which he was not to blame. But at last came this great victory for the North at the batllc of Gettysburg. Then the tide turned, as we say, and it was practically sure that the North would triumph and the unity of the nation be restored. After that battle, it was only a question of time how long it would take in order to bring the war to an end and achieve a complete triumph, so that there should be once more a real United States of America. 66 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. After great battles are over we usually think of them as a matter of history, and if the victory has been on our side we like to read about them, talk them over, and we exult in the glory of the victory. It comes rather hard for us to see the dark side of battles in war, to think of all the pain and suffer- ing, of the wounded and dying men, of the homes which are broken up, of the fathers and mothers who lost their sons, of the wives who lost their husbands, of the fatherless children, of the aching hearts in these broken homes where sorrow and pain has come because of cruel war. And all this had come from that great battle of Gettysburg. Thousands of men lay wounded and dying there on the field of battle, and the earth was strewn with the dead. And, as you know, after the battle was over, the ground near by was bought and made a national cemetery, and there they laid away the bodies of those who had died. It is in connection with this burial of the dead after the battle of Gettysburg that I am telling you something about Abraham Lincoln. The nation was to hold a memorial service there, and great men from all over the land were to assemble in honor of those who had died there and were buried in that vast cemetery. There was to be solemn music, speeches by great men, tributes of honor to those who were on earth no more, and who had died in their country's cause. I suppose there must have been a vast throng of people. It was to be a great event in our nation's history, and men were to speak their best thoughts, pour forth their deepest feelings by way of a lasting memorial on that day. A long and noble address was made by one of the greatest orators who have ever lived, a man whose voice was like music, whose thoughts were profound, whose language was beautiful as chiseled marble. And I am sure that this man, whose name was Edward Everett, wanted to say some- thing that should be remembered forever. Down in his heart, I fancy, he wished not only to speak glowing words of tribute for those who had died there, but he de- sired that people should think of him as the one who had said those words. We cannot blame him for this; it was an honorable desire. He, too, loved his country in the very depths of his heart, and I am sure he wished to offer up the best he had in memory of these martyred heroes. He paid his tribute in a long and beautiful speech. And it was nobly done, although I shall have to confess that I have never read the words, and doubt whether many people now- adays know what they were. After he had made his grand speech or memorial address, Lincoln stepped forward to add a few words of tribute. It was no speech at all, nothing of what we should call a memorial address. He had not prepared anything with elab- orate care; he seemed not to have thought about himself at all. His whole heart and being had gone out in gladness over THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 67 that victory and in gratitude to those who had died hravely there for their country's sake. But I should like to tell you what he said at that time, and ask you to listen quietly and solemnly to the words, as I read them to you. How do you account for it that nowadays we all know of these few simple words on the part of Lincoln, and have lost sight of the grand, noble speech by Edward Everett? It is said that even at that moment when Lincoln ended and sat down, Edward Everett remarked then and there that he would rather have spoken those words than the whole long address which he himself had just delivered. And the feeling on his part has been the feeling on the part of the world ever since. That short address by Lincoln belongs to the world's greatest speeches. It will be what we call a classic as long as the world endures. It is doubtful whether anything ever spoken by any statesman or orator in this country will be remembered longei than that short speech by Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg. Do you see now why I care to tell you of this one event in the life of Abraham Lincoln, and why it interests me in a certain way more than anything else in that man's whole life? It is not the shortness of the speech, nor the words he used, nor the style of it, nor the form of it, exactly. It is the utter forgetfulness of himself on the part of Lincoln, that makes us admire it so much. Somehow we feel sure that it had never crossed his mind whether he was going to say something which would be connected with his name as long as the world endured. He just spoke what was on his heart as if it were not he who was saying it at all. And I fancy that at that moment the vast throng there forgot the presence of Lincoln in the thought of the brave, heroic dead whom Lincoln was aiming to commemorate in those touching words. It would look as if the greatest events in a man's life are those when he does not plan to do something great, but where he just loses himself in the thought of a cause. I want to ask you to be sure to commit to memory this short speech by Lincoln at Gettysburg. It is worth your while to know these words by heart, and if you learn them and remember them, it will be a way on your part of showing that you too love your country. Farther Sa^gestlons to the Teacher. This lesson will give the teacher an opportunity to make the pupils understand better why they should study the history of their country. Have them appreciate that it is not the same as studying the histories of other countries, or as studying natural science. Make them feel that being loyal 68 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. to their country itself should imply a desire to know about its history. Precisely as true affection leads them to act in that way toward individuals, so it ought to lead them to act in that way toward their country. This may give a new significance to the young as to the importance of the study of the history of their country, and why they should keep it up all their lives if they are going to be true citizens and show a true loyalty. In connection with the story attached to this lesson it might be well to have at hand a large portrait of Abraham Lincoln. Then at a certain point in the narrative, draw aside the drapery without saying anything, and read the words of th^i speech given at beginning of lesson. This short speech should be committed to memory by every member of the class. CHAPTER IV. OUR country's duty in protecting us from the ATTACKS OF OTHER NATIONS. Memory Gem— "The blood of man should never he shed bitt io redeem the blood of m,an. It is well shed for our family, for our friends, for our God, for our country, for our kind, — the rest is vanity; the rest is crime." — Edmund Burke. Dialogrne. What is the purpose of having any "country," or being the citizen of a state? We talk about love of country, singing "My country, 'tis of thee," or read- ing poems about it ; but what is the good of it all ? Why should we have cities and states or a nation ; why not get along without them? You have said something about the fact that as citizens we have to vote and to pay taxes, that we have officers and a government; and we certainly have a great many laws that we are expected to obey. You tell me of a Constitution adopted by our fore- fathers. Why should we have all this? Why not get along without it ? How would it do tO' give up having any co'untry or city, any laws or any army ? Do yO'U see any use in having soldiers, for example ? "As to that," you assert, "it is plain enough ; we must have soldiers so that if our country is attacked by another country, they can defend us." But suppose another country did attack us and conquer us, what difference would it make, how could it injure us ? "Why, then we might lose our property, we should not be free, we could not make our own laws." 69 /O THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Yes ; you are right ; it may be true that we need to have soldiers or an army of some kind, to protect us from attack on the outside. But what if, as a country, we were conquered by some other country, and still our property was not disturbed, and we were able to go on as before, living our family life, earning our living just the same, then would it matter? "Surely," you insist, "it would make some sort of difference." But if nobody meddles with your prop- erty, and you could be happy just the same ; what more could you ask for? "True," you add, "but we should not have any country of our own; we could not be happy just the same." You mean, do you, that you would not be quite as happy if there was not something about which to sing, "My country, 'tis of thee." Perhaps you are right; somehow or other we seem to like to belong to a country of our own. But even if your land had been conquered, you would then become the citizens of the country which had conquered you. You might be its citizens by adoption. "Yes, but that would not be the same thing," you assert. Not even if you were given the ballot and could vote as a citizen of that new country? "No, it would be different, because one would not be a citizen there by one's own choice." How would it be on the other hand, with the children oif such citizens who had been adopted by compulsion? "As tO' that, it might be otherwise; it would be their native land or native country; perhaps it would be better for them to make the best of it and try and enter into the life of the people around them as if their own forefathers had been born there." But would it be quite the same? "No, there THE DUTIES OE A CITIZEN. ^I would be a difference, nevertheless," you insist. "Somehow one could not take the same pleasure in the history of the new country, or feel that one belonged to its history." Speaking of soldiers and armies, do the soldiers wear the same kind of clothes that we doi? "No," you answer, "they wear uniforms." Did you ever see any soldiers in uniforms in this country? "Yes?" Can you describe the uniform; what is its color, for example? "Oh, it is a blue uniform and with brass buttons." But do you see many of these uniforms in our streets ? Do you notice them by the hundreds every day when you are coming from school ? "No," you reply, "we see very few of them." But if you were in some parts of Europe, you would see them all the while. The officers would be going by with their swords clinking; troops would be marching in the streets; it would seem to you as if there were soldiers everywhere. Why is it that we do not see them in such numbers here in America? "Because there are fewer of them." Yes, that is one great reason. Have you any idea how large an army we have in time of peace in the United States? How many soldiers do we have, usually, in order to protect our country ? Over in Germany there are perhaps five or six hundred thousand. How is it here? Do we have one-half that number? You hesitate ? No, we do not usually have even half that num- ber, less than one hundred thousand soldiers in the United States ; and yet we have a larger number of people in this country than there are in Germany. How do you suppose we can get along with such a small army ? Why is it that we do not need hun- 72 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. dreds of thousands of soldiers? "Because, for one reason, we do not have so many wars?" Yes, that is all very well; it is true we do not have as many wars. But can you answer the ques- tion further : why is it that we do not have as many wars? "You do not know?" Think about it for a moment. Suppose there are two boys, one of them always trying to pick a quar- rel with other boys, meddling in the affairs of others, or interfering with others ; and the other boy inclined to go on and mind his own business, letting other people alone, attending rather to his own affairs; which one of the boys do you think will have the more strife, or be more often in trouble with other people, being led to attack others or forced to defend himself? "Oh," you exclaim, "there is no doubt about that ; it would be the boy who is constantly meddling with the affairs of other people." Can you see how it happens, then, that a country like ours may have fewer wars than countries over in Europe? What is the reason, would you guess? "Why," you explain, "it may be because we try to mind our own affairs, and let other countries alone." Yes; that is probably true. It is the old story; those who are given to quarreling will always have to do a great deal more fighting in order to protect themselves. Do you know the name of the great man in our country's history who encouraged people here to adopt this policy of not meddling in the affairs of other nations? "No?" But think further. To what one man more than any other do we owe the foundation of the United States ? Whoi was the leader of the Revolution? "Washington?" Yes, that was the man. And it was he more than any other man who adopted this policy for our country. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 73 Suppose, tor instance, that over in Europe one ol the countries which had been constantly at war in foTmer times, should now really want to put an end to it, settle down to peace, and give up its armies, — coiuld that country do it, do you think? "Yes, surely," you say, "the country might give up its armies." But, I ask, would it be safe for the country to do it ? Could any of those countries reduce their armies at once from six hundred thousand to one hundred thousand men? "They might do it," you answer, "but perhaps it would not be safe far them." Why not, if they want tO' have peace and to live at peace with their neighboTs; why isn't it possible for them to do so? "Because," you add, "they might be in greater danger of being attacked by other coun- tries." That is true. If, however, they announced pub- licly that they would not attack other countries any more, but would live at peace with their neighbors, do you think then it would be possible fof them to reduce their army? "Perhaps it would?" Take again the case of the two boys we have already described. What if the one who had always been quarreling or fighting with others, decided that he would stop it all and live at peace, and announced that fact to all others, do you think it would then be peaceful ever after? "You doubt it?" Why not, if he were to assert that he would be peaceable hereafter? "Oh, the other boys would not trust him, because he had been in the habit of quar- reling and attacking others." Yes, that is the point. And that is a reason, is it, why not one of those great countries in the old world dares to reduce its armies, and settle down altogether to peace, even if it wants to. It is strange that when 74 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. a country would like to settle down to peace and hav^e no moire war, this could not be done. Who would be to blame, do you think ; would it necessarily be the other nations who would not trust that other country? "No?" But why not? "Oh, the country itself might be to blame, because of the former warlike habits it had had." I must agree with you. It is a curious fact, by the way, that nations may have habits just as you and I can have them. But more of that, by and by. You have said that in this country usually we had only a small army, and get along with few soldiers. If, however, another country were to attack us and we had to go to war, could these few thousand sol- diers protect us ; would they be enough ? "Oh, no," you exclaim. What would we have to do? "Why, a great many other men would have to join the army." Yes, but are there any other men in readiness for war, besides these soldiers we have talked about? "You do not know"? But did you ever hear any- thing of an armory in one of our large cities ? What sort of a place is it? "It is a place where men go and practice being soldiers, — drill or exercise." What do you call the men who go and drill there at the Armory ? Are they a part of the regular army of this country ? "Not exactly." Then what do you' call them? "The militia?" Yes, we call them the mihtia, but the right term for them is "The National Guard." You see, then, that at a time O'f sudden war our country might call upon the men who belong to the National Guard, and so have a great many new sol- diers. But do you fancy that we could get along without our small army altogether, and not have any soldiers nt all? At any rate, there are some people who THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 7^ believe this. What do you think about it? "No," you insist, "it would not be safe." And why not? The small army we have, surely could not carry on a great war. "True, but it makes other states appreciate the fact that we do have sol- diers and could protect ourselves by enlarging the army at any moment." Does it follow, then, that a country necessarily has soldiers solely in order that they shall actually fight in war? "No, it may be just the contrary. A state may have an army in order to avoid the neces- sity of war." And how could this be? I ask. "Why," you explain, "other states or countries would then feel that it could defend itself, and that therefore they might be defeated if they made an attack upon it." It looks then, does it, almost as if, nowadays, each country needed to have at least something of an army in OTder to avoid the danger of having a war ; as if, by having a few good soldiers, a country might be less in danger of attack ? In reference to our own country and the compara- tively small size of our army, may I ask, should we be as weak in all other directions, if our country should be attacked? "No," you assure me, "there would be the navy." But is not our navy small like our army? "Oh the contrary we have a strong navy, quite in keeping with the navies of other countries." And will this make it more likely that we may have wars, when the soldiers on those vessels will have to fight for their country? "No," you point out, "perhaps the strength of our navy may be one of the safeguards, sparing us from the necessity of war." Yes, although it must be said that some thoughtful people deny this. But why should we not try to get along with a 76 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. small navy, just as we do with a small army? "Per- haps," you suggest, "for one reason, because it takes a longer time to build up a strong navy." In what way ? I ask. "In the first place," you tell me, "it takes a long time to build great war ships ; and without them, there could be no strong navy." Yes, that is probably true. And it explains why our country takes more pains to have a large navy than a large army. It really requires years of time in order to have a great many war ships built, and to have them prop^ erly equipped with guns and ammunition, with officers and men. If all this is true, then does it strike yoiu that the larger our navy becomes, the safer we shall be? "Yes, in so far as the attacks from other countries are concerned. And why not in every other possible way? "As to that," you point out, "perhaps if our country gets a very strong navy, it may be tempted to go to war when war is not absolutely necessary." True, that is a very important qualification, and it may also apply to the great armies of the countries in Europe. It is this evil which, has brought on many wars in the past. Oil the other hand, may there not be another rea- son why each country must have something of an army, apart from the necessity of repelling the attacks of other nations? It must also defend its citizens who may be living away from home, must it not? "In what way?" you ask. Why, suppose that when you are grown up, you are obliged for a time to live in another country; and while there should experience some gross injustice committed against you on the part of that other country. Would you have any redress? THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. "JJ "What could one do?" you inquire. "A single person could not fight a whole nation." Yes, I add, but might not yoiur own government undertake to protect you? "How could it be done?" Why, it might insist that the other government should treat you justly and give you your rights. "True, but what if that other government refused?" That is the point I am thinking of. The other country may be much more liable not toi refuse, or may take greater care not to commit an injustice against such persons, if it is aware that the country of which those persons are citizens, could protect them even by going toi war if necessary. Speaking of the soldiers, what is it they dO' for us, did you say ? "Protect us from, the attacks of other countries ?" Is that all ? How about the soldiers on the other side? Are they necessarily protecting their rights? "No, they would be making the attack." But might it not happen, for example, that a coun- try would have to go to war, be the party to begin it, simply in order tO! protect itself ? In that case, what would the country be doing, if it began the war? It would not be fighting for its life, exactly. "No," you assure me, "it would be upholding its rights." It means then, does it, that the soldier not only protects a country in its life, but upholds a country in its rights, by being ready toi fight for his country. Suppose there were a war, what would happen toi many of those soldiers ? "They would have to die in battle, many of them." But is that all that soldiers have toi suffer in war, simply run the risk Oif losing their lives ? What else may they have to endure? "Oh," you add, "they may be wounded, and have their legs or arms cut off." yS THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Anything more? Suppose the armies did not come to battle ? What if a soldier in war had never been on the battle-field, is there anything else he might suffer? "Sickness?" Yes, indeed; I can assure you sometimes the hardships soldiers have to endure in war are worse than the battles they have to fight. They may have to go where there is fever in the atmosphere, where the food is very poor, where the water is bad which they have to drink. Thousands of soldiers die from these causes in a war, who may never be in a battle at all. Have you any idea how much a war may cost, or how many people may lose their lives in a war ? Do you know how many were killed in the great Civil War in the United States ? Note to the Teacher : The figures may also be given here in round numbers, so as to impress the young people with the awfulness of war. Something could be said of the war of the Revolution. The pupils might be encouraged to name the various wars we have had in this country. Now what was the reason you gave at the begin- ning, why it was necessary toi have soldiers? "Oh, we said it was in order that our country might pro- tect us from being attacked by another country." What, then, is the first thing that we receive from our country? "Protection?" Yes, that is the word. But what does this protection cost the citizen? "Money ?" Yes, a great deal of money, — ^but what more? "The lives of many of the soldiers ?" That is true; our country has had to protect us through the lives of its citizens. If it were not for our country and its government, our property would not be safe, our homes would not be safe ; we might not be a free people at all. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 79 Points of the Kesson. I. That we need to have a country and a government in order to be protected from the attacks of other nations by v/ar. II. That we must have soldiers and an army for this pur- pose. III. That it may be necessary for a government to keep an army in time of peace, in order to convince other countries that it could defend itself if necessary. IV. That if a nation has a very large army, it may be tempted to enter upon war before the step is absolutely neces- sary. V. That our country can get along with a smaller army because of its former policy of non-interference with the affairs of other nations. VI. That if a nation has a very large army, it is tempted to enter upon war before the step is absolutely necessary. VII. That it is the function of an army not only to protect a country in its life, but also in its rights in the face of other countries. The Nation's Duty. /. A Nation ought to protect itself and to protect its citizens in their rights from- the attack of other nations. Foem. How sleep the bravo, who sink to rest. By all their country's wishes blessed ! When Spring, with dewy fingers cold. Returns to deck their hallowed mould. She there shall dress a sweeter sod. Than Fancy's feet have ever trod. By fairy hands their knell is rung; By forms unseen their dirge is sung; There Honor comes, a pilgrim gray. To bless the turf that wraps their clay; And Freedom shall awhile repair. To dwell a weeping hermit there ! — Collins. Classic for Beading or Becltatlon. "All hail to our glorious ensign! Courage to the heart, and strength to the hand, to which, in all time, it shall be intrusted! May it ever zvave in honor, in unsullied glory, and patriotic hope, on the dome of the capital, on the country's stronghold, on the tented plain, on the wave-rocked topmast. Wherever, on 80 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. the earth's surface, the eye of the American shall behold it, may he have reason to bless it! On what- soever spot it is planted, there may freedom have a foothold, humanity a bratve champion, and religion an altar. Though stained in blood in a righteous cause, may it never, in any cause, be stained with shame. Alike, when its gorgeous folds shall wanton in lazy holiday triumplis on the summer breezes, and its tattered fragments be dimly seen through the clouds of war, may it be the joy and pride of the American heart. First raised in the cause of right and liberty, in that cause long may it forever spread out its streaming blazonry to the battle and the storm. Having been borne victoriously cucross the continent, and on every sea, may virtue, and free- dom, and peace forever follow where it leads the way." — Edward Everett. Further Sug'g'estionB to tlie Teacher. It will be observed that there is really only one point to this whole lesson. For this one occasion the discussion might center around soldiers and war- fare. The main effort should be to arouse a senti- ment of regard for one's country as the power which protects us, even at the expense of the lives of some of the citizens. Wide opportunity is offered for talking about soldiers and soldier life. Something could be said about the great national cemeteries in the South, and the thousands of nameless graves there. The pupils could be told of the thousands of simple headstones marking the graves, many of which have only a number, without any name inscribed on them at all. Of course it is very impor- tant that the young people should not be made enthusiastic over the idea of war, and that we should not foster a desire on the part of the boys to become soldiers. A great deal must depend on the way the THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 8 1 teacher uses words or phrases, or throws the emphasis, when talking over the subject with the members of the class. As regards the discussion concerning the necessity for war, and the fact that a government has to protect its citizens in their rights, there might be some consideration of the case where the rights of a citizen of one country are interfered with by a citizen of another country, inde- pendent of the government. Then would come the question what protection wcmld be due under these circumstances. In the way of figures as illustrating what war may involve, the following items could be introduced as coming from "A Bird's Eye View of the Civil War," by Theodore A. Dodge. "On Janu- ary 1st, 1861, there were enrolled 16,367 soldiers in this country; and on January ist, 1865, 1,377,460 soldiers, — including thanumbers on both sides. In the four years between the attack on Ft. Sumter in 1861, and the death of President Lincoln in 1865, there had died by wounds or been killed in battle on the Union side, 110,070 men. The number dying from disease, due to service exposure, was 199,720 men. Including deaths from other causes in connection with the war, the total loss on the side of the North was 359,528 men. O^n the side of the South, the loss in battle or died of their wounds, was 94,000. Those perishing from disease would probably add 150,000 more. There are buried in the National Cemeteries, 325,000 Union soldiers." For an account of the wars of the United States, see page 242 to 250 in "Uncle Sam's Secrets," by Austin. Definite figures might also be given as to the size of the armies in Europe, by referring to the latest edition of the "Statesman's Year Book." If you can do' so', in this connection get a picture of a typical soldier, perhaps a photo- graph of the bronze statue of "The Minute Man," at Concord, Massachusetts, commemorating the bat- 83 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. tie of Lexington, and along with that, a picture of one or more of our National Cemeteries, as for instance, the one at Vicksburg. There is a good picture of "A Pilgrim Father in His Armor," on page 2 of "The Century Book for Young Ameri- cans." As for the Poem, it might be well to have the lines sung before the whole school, besides hav- ing them committed to memory and recited by some one member of the class. CHAPTER V. OUR COUNTRY WHICH GUARDS US AT HOME IN TIME OF PEACE. Memory Gem — "Peace hath her victories no less renowned than those of war." — John Milton. Dialogfae. When I asked you what our country does for us, the first answer you naturally gave was that it pro^ tects us from the attacks of othei" countries. Suppose, however, there were no danger from the attack of other countries, no chance of war ; what if it were not necessary that our country should have armies of any kind? Could we then get along, do you think, without government, without being citi- zens of a state? Would there be anything else that our country would have to do for us? "Yes," you insist, "we should still need to have a government, we should still require laws and officers." But why? There would be no danger of attack from the outside, no fear of armies invading our land. Should we not then have perfect peace every- where; would our property not be safe, our homes be safe; should we not be able toi go about without any kind of fear? "As to that," you say, "there would be the danger from robbers or burglars." But if we could be free from robbers or burglars stopping men on the streets, or stealing from people's homes, should we still be perfectly safe; would it then he necessary to have a government to protect 83 84 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. US? "Yes," you assert, "we must have laws ; people will sometimes cheat one another ; they will agree to do a thing and then not live up to their agreement." Then what does this really mean on the inside f Is there a kind oi war going on even in time of peace, do you think? "Perhaps so," you admit. I fear you are right. It is a very sad fact, but people must have a government in order to be protected from one another. What is it, for example, that we require in order to be protected on our streets, or to keep out bur- glars from our homes? Who' are employed to do. this? "The police? But they do not always do it," you insist. True ; yet that is what we have them for. Thus you see that our country or the government of our country, in some form has to provide a police, in order to protect us on the streets or in our homes. "Yes," you add, "but this has nothing to do with the national government." I see your point, but must beg of you not to be too emphatic in your asser- tions. How do you know that the state as a whole has nothing to do with the police force ? Who or what regulates the actions of this body of officers ? "Why, the city or the locality where these men render their services," you tell me. But if it should happen that the city government did have control over the police force, who gives that government this right or power? "The people of the city ?" Take care, now. The policemen are officers of what? "Of the town or city?" Are you sure of this? Could a city government, for example, make any possible kind of rules or regulations for its police force? Would there be any restrictions whatever upon its actions? "Yes," you admit, "perhaps the legislature of the THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 85 state could interfere." Is that true? If so, it gives another aspect to the whole subject. From what source does the city really get its authority over its police, if it has such an authority? "From the state?" If so, then would the policemen be simply the officers of the city government? "No," you confess, "they would really be officers of the state." Are all officers of the city, then, really officers of the state as a whole? "It looks that way?" And why? I ask. "Because the city gets its authority for its actions only by permission of the state where the city is located." Yes, that is true. And in countries where they do not have separate states within the nation, as in Eng- land, for example, a policeman would be an officer of the nation, perhaps directly under the control of the national parliament. And why is it otherwise in our country, do you suppose? "Perhaps because the Constitution gives certain exclusive privileges tO' the national govern- ment and other exclusive privileges to the local gov- ernment." But could the national government take those privileges away from the states or cities? "Yes, if the Constitution were modified by consent of twor thirds of the states." There is a sense then, is there not, in speaking of evei'y public officer in every town, city, country or state, as being an officer of the nation ? Besides the police system, what great institution do we have, which is to decide whether one man has injured another man, or cheated him in any way? "The courts?"- Do you know anything about these courts ? Who is it that decides the cases or determines which man is in the wrong or which one is to be punished ? Is 86 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. it the judge who does this? "No," you exclaim, "it is the jury." But who constitute the jury? "It is matlc a$>af citizens, of those who vote, oi the people them- selves." Do women sit on a jury? "No, not as a rule." How many men are there, usually, if the jury con- sists only of men? "Twelve?" And where do these trials take place; where do the parties meet? "In the court houses?" Yes, that is true. All counties or cities need to have a large court house where the juries can meet and the trials can take place. Note to the Teacher: A little time could be devoted to a talk about jury customs, about courts, judges and any points of that kind. The main purpose is not to have instruction given to the young concerning the courts. But it is of value to go into these details in order to fix in the memory of the young people more positively how it is that we owe protec- tion in time of peace to the government of our country. Talk- ing over details of this kind expands the point and makes it more impressive for the young. The pupils might be asked whether they knew where the courthouse in their respective places of abode is located, what it looks like and whether any of their fathers have been on juries. A lesson on "Crime and Punishment" will come later. But besides these courts and the juries, along with the police and the protection they are supposed to give us, what does the government do with the criminals, those who have been guilty of injury to others? "Punishes them," you answer. Yes; but in what way does it punish them? "Why it puts them in prison, either in jail or in the state penitentiary." And so you see, our country, through its govern- ment, protects us by the punishment of criminals. Each state must have its penitentiary; each city must have its jail. We have been speaking in a vague sort of way THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 87 about the courts and the police, the judges, the paii- tentiaries and the jails. Who does all this ; where is the seat of authority for it ? "Why, it rests with the government or the country as a whole, as we have already said." Yes, I understand you, that is what we assume in a general zvay. But where does this government come from; who does the governing? "The offi- cers?" Do these officers 'hold the real authority ; can they do exactly as they please, can they govern in any way they like, can they stay in office as long as they desire?" "No," you tell me, "the people choose the officers by their votes." Is that true of all the officers? What do you say? Has every one now holding office where you live, been voted for in one way or another, do you think? "No, not quite all of them," you answer. Then how did such men come into office? "Per- haps they were appointed?" Appointed by whom? "Why, appointed by the other man or men who were chosen to become officers." Yes, that is it. Hence you see that either directly or indirectly, all the persons holding offices in this country are chosen by the people. If then we do not have really good officers, who is to blame ? "Those who choose them ?" Yes, that is true. But who do the choosing? "Why, the peo- ple," you continue. Then it is the people themselves who are to blame if they do not have good officers and a good government. Note to the Teacher : If the members of the class continue interested in the subject, there might be some talk about what officers are elected, and what officers are appointed. More could be said about the police, why they wear uniforms, what power they have. Take care, however, not to let the discussion develop into a lesson on "Civics." 88 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Can you think o£ one word more than any other, describing what it is by which our country is sup- posed to protect us in time of peace, or to keep peace between the citizens? What is it that the country estabhshes by means of its government ? What is it that the legislature or congress may enact for us? Can you suggest the one word? You hesitate ? Well, I will write it down for you, and ask you to remember it. It is the word "1-a-w-s," as you see. Our country should protect us by means of laws. And what are the officers supposed to do when you say that they are the ones who try to keep the peace between the citizens ? How are they to accom- plish it? Can they use any method they please in order to do this ? What determines how they are to act, or the methods they are to pursue ? "The laws ?" Yes, indeed! The officers are not there to do as they please, not as our governors, but to execute the lazvs, or to see that th,e laws are obeyed. Will you note that point very carefully ? What, then, is the great fact we have learned today in this lesson? What is it that our country does for us in time of peace? "Protects us from one another," you answer ? Yes ; although I do not like toi think of it in just that way. I wonder if you can suggest any other term for this. What is the word we use in contrast to the word war? We talk of a time of war, and on the other hand, we speal< of a time of — what ? "Peace." Yes, peace is the opposite of war. Ycm mean by it, do you, a time when there is no strife going on ? But would there be any sense in talking about "keep- ing the peace" in times of peace? "Oh," you answer, "there may be peace on the outside so far as our relations with other countries THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 89 are concerned, and yet strife among ourselves." What, then, is it that the officers whom we choose to govern us, — what is it they are supposed to do? "Keep the peace?" Yes, that is exactly the point. Do you think of anything else that officers of the government have to do besides keeping the peace, or protecting us in time of peace? "You do not know ?" Wait until a future lesson and we shall see. And yet there is one point of great importance we have not yet touched upon in this connection. We have distinguished between the laws and the officers, and between the officers and the state. Suppose a man were toi refuse to O'bey one of the officers who was discharging his duty. What might happen to him? "Why such a person would be severely punished." What if, for instance, a policeman should under- take to arrest a citizen and the man should become angry and resist the officer, perhaps even striking him. Would it be any worse than if he were strik- ing a private citizen? Would it be any greater breach of the peace ? "No," you hesitate, "a blow is a blow; the man has no right to use violence, perhaps ; but if he does so> why should it be worse whether he struck one man or another? In our country one citizen is as good as another." Yes, but in that case, is he not doing something more than merely striking a fellow citizen ? Does a policeman look just like other men and wear the same kind of clothes? "Noi, he is in uniform." And why is he in uniform? "Because he is an officer." Then in striking a policeman, the citizen is doing more than striking another fellow citizen, is he not? What else is he attacking besides the man him- self? "In a sense," you admit, "he is striking a blow 90 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. at the state." And why? "Because the man in uni- form is an officer of the state; he is the state's repreh sentative." What if, on the other hand, a citizen were to meet a pohceman, when the latter happened to be off duty, as we say, not in his uniform, perhaps in his home, and there the two men should come to blows. Would the citizen be guilty of any greater offense than if he struck some other private citizen? "No." And why not ? I ask. The man is an officer of the state. "Not at that time; not when he is out of his uniform. He 'represents' the authority of the state only when he is on duty." Yes, that is a very important distinction. It is a bad enough crime to strike a blow at any fellow citi- zen, but a double crime in striking or attacking an officer when in the discharge of his duty, because then one attacks the state at the same time. And would this distinction apply to such an officer as the president of the United States? Is he only "on duty" when in uniform? "No," you point out, "men in certain positions may be considered as always on duty so long as they hold office." In what way, then, should we speak of the state as a whole, in so far as it has control over its citizens? We have said that we are each and all subjects of the state. On the other hand, what is the state or the nation, over against the citizens ? "The head author- ity?" you suggest. Yes, but I am thinking of another term which has come down from past ages when there were mon- archs and the people were governed by one man. What was that man called, do you know? "The Sovereign?" Yes, that is it. What, then, for us would take the place of the personal monarch as the head authority THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 9I over us all? "The Sovereign State," you answer. Precisely. As we now express it, the state as a whole possesses sovereignty over its people. And what would happen if the state or the nation and sword, only to be dimmed; jewel and gold, only to be scat- tered, — there have been three kinds of kings who have gathered these. Suppose there ever should arise a fourth order of kings, who had read, in some obscure writing of long ago, that there was a fourth kind of treasure, which the jewel and gold could not equal, neither should it be valued with pure gold. A web more fair in the weaving, by Athen's shuttle; an armour, forged in diviner tire by Vulcanian force, — a gold only to be mined in the sun's red heart, where he sets over the Delphian cliffs; — deep-pic- tured tissue, impenetrable armour, potable gold! the three great Angels of Conduct, Toil and Thought, still calling to us, and waiting at the posts of our doors, to lead us, if we would, with their winged power, and guide us, with their inescapable eyes, by the path which no foot knoweth and which the vul- ture's eye has not seen. Suppose kings should ever arise, who heard and believed this word, and at last gathered and brought forth treasures of — Wisdom for their people?" — John Ruskin. Fnrtlier SngTErestlons to tlie Teacher. It will be understood that this and the folloiwing lesson belong together. The subject is divided merely for the sake of convenience. Care should be taken not to enter into any discussion as to the policy of nationalizing industries or enlarging the system of THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. lOj municipal ownership. This would involve "politics" and have no place in our series of lessons. What we should do would be to deal with facts as they are, using these facts as a means of impressing the minds of the young people with the importance of their country and its government. The poem which has been introduced is not very valuable as literature, but it has a ring to it which may please the class members, and there is a practical suggestion in the sentiment of the closing lines. Tlie points of these two lessons would come out more attractively if pictures could be used from time to time, in order to make the statements more concrete. A blackboard would be especially seiT^iceable in jotting down the points as they are enumerated. The lesson might close with some talk about the "Memory Gem" at the beginning, asi we ask, why the phases of the subject presented here should kindle such a senti- ment as these lines convey. Emphasize the word "evermore." CHAPTER VII. SOME OF THE THINGS WHICH OUR COUNTRY IX>ES FOR US. Memory Gem — "Such is the patriot's boast, where'er we roam — His first, best country ever is at home." — Oliver Goldsmith. Sialoerue. Have you thought anything further about it? I asiced you to find out more about what our country does for us. There is one great institution provided or con- ducted for us, which we did not mention at all. You know when we speak of our government we mean not only that at Washington, but that of our state and our city. All this, you remember, is the gov- ernment of our country, which we as citizens estab- lish or carry on. Now what great institution is there, which our city government provides for us, or, rather, provides for the children ? In the morning, after breakfast, where are you expected to be after nine o'clock, unless it is vacation time? "At school ?" Yes, but is it a private school ? "It depends on the pupil," you reply. But what are the largest schools that some of you perhaps belong toi? "Public schools?" And what do you mean by that term ? What is the difiference between a public and a private school ? I ask. "Why, a public school is for everybody. It is free to all." Yes; I quite understand you. But that is not what I have in mind. Whoi has charge of the public school ? "Oh, the teachers !" Yes, but I don't mean io6 tHE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. tOj/ the teachers. Who provides the money? "The citizens, the taxpayers !" But you do not catch my point yet. Under what general management does our pubHc school system come? Is it a private enterprise like our express companies? "No," you tell me, "it is a public enterprise." What do you mean by that? "Why, it is man- aged by the town or the city." Do you imply that the whole city government looks after the public schools? "No," you reply, "there may be a school board or school committee." Yes, you are right; and that school board is a part of the town or city government. Have you any idea how many public schools there are where you live ; what is their number ? Do you know how many teachers are employed for these institutions? Have you any idea how many chil- dren there are in all these schools ? What do you suppose it costs to carry on the schools of your community just for one day? How much do you think the school board has to spend in one single year? How many children are there in the public schools of the whole United States? Can you give me any figures as to what it costs in one year to conduct the public schools in our country ? How many teachers, do you suppose, are employed ? Note to the Teacher: It would be worth while to get the answer to these various questions through the last local School Board Reports, or through the reports of the National Superintendent of Education. Where the figures cannot be secured otherwise, they might be had through the United States Census. But it is important to work upon the imag- ination of the pupils on this subject. Proceed from the smaller figures to the larger, little by little, so that the young people shall gradually come to a feeling as to the immensity of the public school system. Then under all those figures write down the words, "Our Country," so that the scholars I08 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. shall feel that this is one of the institutions that we get by having a state and a government. As it is a subject which would naturally interest them, we may find it advisable to go quite a good deal into details. Only keep the fact always in mind that this is not a lesson in Civics, but that our purpose here is to arouse a deeper regard for citizenship and its re- sponsibilities. I fancy by this time you think we are coming pretty nearly to the end of our subject. But I am not sure of that. Is there nothing more? Sometimes, if we reside in a large city, we may enter a big building there, and meet a lot of young people coming away with books in their hands. Where have they been if it is not a school building? "The public library?" And who manages that library? The "library board ?" Yes, but is that a private enterprise like an express company? "No', it is different." Why is it not the same? "Because," you tell me, "it is managed in another way." And how is it provided ? "As to that, it is con- ducted by the town or city government." Yes, you are right. Doi you think, then, it is our country through its government which gives us our public library ? "Not altogether," you insist. And why not? "Because many of the public libraries in this country have been given in part or in whole through the ■generosity of private citizens." You assume, do you, that such institutions ought to goi under the name of the donor rather than be regarded as public institutions ? "No," you hesitate, "not exactly." And why not? "For the reason," you continue, "that they are car- ried on by the town or city government." Would the persons serving in that library, includ- ing the librarians themselves, be like private citizens as officers of private companies? "No, they would THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. lOQ really be public officers — as much, at any rate, as teachers or principals of the public schools would be." But why should these libraries be conducted by the town or city authorities? Why should they be state institutions? "As toi that," you explain, "it may be that the expenses of management are fur- nished through taxation." Yes, that is an important point. The expenses of management may come from the people them- selves. Sometimes the building is donated by a private citizen, while the cost of furnishing the library, including the books there, may come from the community. Are such libraries usually free, or is there a fee which one must pay in using them? "They are free," you answer ; "they are like the public schools or the streets we walk on." And how does it happen, do you think, that we have free public libraries more than other conven- iences? Why should we not have free lunches or free houses? "As to that, it is owing to^ the fact that people now feel that education is essential to good citizenship, and the library is now regarded as essential to popular education." Are there any other similar institutions provided or conducted by the government in our country or elsewhere? How about art galleries, for example? "You do not know of anything of that kind?" It is not surprising that you are doubtful on this point, because this is much less usual in communities in America, but quite common or almost the usual thing in many of the large cities of Europe. How about museums of other kinds, for example ? Do we have them, as a rule, in our large cities of America? "You doubt it?" At any rate, I can assure you that these, too, are quite common in the no THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. great cities of Europe, and are often highly educa- tional in their influence. What about music? Is this ever furnished for the people by the community as a whole? "In some instances ?" In what cases. "Why, perhaps, in the parks in the summer time." Yes, and in this direction, too, the governments of the Old World, do more than is done in America, by helping to support institutions where good music is provided, and in this way, making it cheaper for the citizens of smaller means. Do you suppose this is done merely for the sake of giving the people amusement ? "No', it is probably also regarded as a feature of education." Yes, you are right. There is a feeling that music somehow has an educational influence on character as a whole." Have you any idea how many public libraries there are in the United States ? Do you know what it costs to manage them, or how many books there are in the libraries ? Note to the Teacher : If possible, give some figures on this subject of libraries, working also through this means on the imagination. At the same time bear in mind that it is not important for the young to remember these figures or sta- tistics about various institutions. Do not review this part of the subject, while you keep on reviewing the main points. These figures are merely introduced as means for emphasis. The teacher may use his discretion as to giving figures with regard to what is done in the cities of Europe for music, art galleries, museums and institutions of this character. At the same time, definite facts along this line might be suggestive of what could be done in our own cities. There is also another feature of our government, which you have not yet mentioned. We belong to a state. I wonder if you can think oi anything which the government of our state especially does for us? Suppose, for instance, a man had been tried for THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Ill a crime, and had been found guilty by the jury and sent to prison. Then what if it were learned that after all, he had not been guilty, or what if it were found out that he had not been nearly as guilty as people had supposed; what is done under those circumstances ? "Why, the man will be let out of prison." But who lets him out; what really happens? "He gets a pardon ?" But who grants that pardon? "The Governor of the state," you suggest. This, then, would be one of the services rendered us by the state we live in as a part of our country. "True," you say, "but this affects only criminals or more especially the criminal classes." Yes ; but what if some one had been condemned unjustly and it should be a friend of yours. How would it strike you under such circumstances ? "Oh, well," you acknowledge, "we should all be concerned, at least on that one side." Merely because it might concern a possible friend of yours, you imply? "No," you confess, "we are all interested in the cause of justice." Yes, that is the main point. When an injustice is committed by a community on a citizen, though it be by chance or unintention- ally, yet we are all involved in it, and it is very important that we should have a government which can step in and remove this injustice, if possible Besides this service on the part of the officers of the state, do you think of anything else provided by the government ? Suppose a child is born blind ; must he go all his life unable to read or write? He cannot attend the schools with you and carry on his studies as you would do. "No," you suggest; "but he might go to the blind asylum." And what is that? I ask. "Why, it may be an institution carried on by the state gcwernment for 112 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. the sake of educating the bhnd, through methods especially adapted to their needs." Yes, you are right, and many states now do have just such schools for the blind, where such persons may not only get the rudiments of a general educa- tion, but learn how to earn their living in one way or another. How about the more unfortunate persons, on the other hand, who may be born defective in mind, or who, through some accident or disease, have lost their minds ? We pity these people from our hearts. Speaking of the service rendered to us through the government in this direction, I wonder if we overlooked one or two very important institutions often carried on by a town or city. Suppose a family had no possible means of support and were starving toi death, with nO' chance of providing food for them- selves, would the community dO' anything ? What if a man in his old age had lost all his friends, was unable to^ work because of feeble strength, and therefore could not get food for him- self, would he be left to starve? "No," you reply, "he would probably be taken tO' any asylum for the poor." And what kind of an asylum? A private insti- tution? "Perhaps not; it might be an institution carried on by the local government." On the other hand, what if a person without any means should be taken violently sick and had no suitable home where he could be cared foT, with little or no means to provide for himself in such an emergency? Would he go without any care? "Why, no," you explain, "he could be taken to the hospital if he resides in a large city." You mean, then, do' you, that the government also may even provide for the sick in severe emergencies? Suppose we come now to the main point of all. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. II3 What is it that meets every year or every twoi years in the state or in the nation ? What is it that holds its sessions in Washington, beginning every fall? "Congress ?" And what is it that holds its sessions or meetings in the capital city of our state every year or every two years? "The Legislature?" Now what does Congress or the Legislature do for us ? What do the men who belong to Congress or the Legislatures go there for ? What is the one great thing they have to do? "You doi not know?" Well, if I tell you, will you write it down ? It is more important than all the rest. These are the words : Make Laws. That means so much that I can scarcely explain it to you now. But we shall go on finding out more and more about it all the while. And next to that, what persons are expected to look after the government when Congress or the Legislatures are not holding meetings? "The officers, or the GovernoT or the President?" And what do they do for us ? Do^ they make laws also? "No, the Governors or the President never make laws. But I can tell you what they do. Suppose you write this down alsO', although it will be rather a big phrase. But you may as well commit it to memory, as it will mean so much. There are the words : "Execute the laws." This implies that after Congress or the Legisla- tures pass laws, then there are the officers tO' see that the laws are carried out or put into force. Those laws, you perceive, pertain to all the points we have been describing, all the great institutions managed by the government. When the laws have been passed, the President and his Cabinet and the Governors of the states, and 114 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. all the other officers, are there to see that the laws are carried out or that the prescribed work is done. Now I wonder if you can see any other great good which comes to us by having all these institu- tions managed through a government? "Oh, yes," you say, "that is plain enough; we spoke of this at the outset ; it is cheaper." But is that all ? Think hard, please. Let me put a further question to you. Suppose there are three or four boys who have some work to do, and each one is inclined to go ofif by himself and work alone, without regard to the others. Now what if those boys, instead, were to come together and decide that it would be more convenient for them to do it in common, each one working as hard as he could, but all making one piece of work of it? What would be the effect? "Oh, it would be easier for them all to do it together." Yes, probably you are right. But still more, and much more important is the other question I have to ask you. What kind of feelings would arise among those boys? Would they come to like one another by working together, or to dislike one another. "As to that," you answer, "proibably they would come tO' like one another more than if each one worked alone by himself." Then you see that work- ing together in that way develops what we call fel- low-feeling or a spirit of fellowship. Now this is also something which we get from having a country, and from working together in this way; it develops fellow-feeling among the citizens. And so I am led to ask you about a certain name or term which is often applied to a state or nation as a whole. It may be that you have heard it already. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. IIS It is a long word, beginning with C, a compound word ; but I will write it down for you and ask you to look at it. There it stands : Commonwealth. "How," yoiu ask me, "could that apply to the state or the nation as a whole?" I appreciate your question, but remind you that I am simply giving you a fact. We doi speak of the state as a common- wealth; nations are referred toi as commonwealths. Do you see any meaning to the term ? "Why, it is made up of twO' words, wealth and common." True, and does that imply that we own all our wealth in common? "Not at the present time, at any rate," you assert. But is there not a part of the wealth of the people owned by the state? "Yes; to the extent that the state through its government carries on these vari- ous institutions, or does these various kinds of work, it draws on the wealth oif the citizens and uses it for a common purpose." Yes, I suspect you are catching the meaning of the term. It is an old word with a long history, and we may not pause at this time to dwell too much upon this point. All I wish to have you see is that in the very names or terms we apply tO' the state or to the government, we recognize a certain amount of life or work done by the people in common through their state as a whole. It suggests that while as private citizens we ov/n property and can say of a certain thing, this is my own, yet we alsoi admit that in another sense it is not absolutely our own, but that the state as a whole has certain rights over it, and that from another side it is also the property of the community. And so we have come perhaps to the most impor- tant point of all, as to what we owe to our country in the way it leads us to work together as citizens, Il6 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. because we are a commonwealth. You may not quite catch the full thought which I have in mind, and so I will ask you to put the words down. There the words stand : Citizenship develops a feeling of Human Fellowship by leading us to regard the state as a Commonwealth. It means, you see that by having a country and being citizens of a country, we not only work for ourselves, but we are led to work for one another and toi take pleasure in it. In a way it makes us more like one big family. Points of the Iiesson. Through our government we get I. Our public schools or public educational system. 11. Our hospitals and asylums for the unfortunate. III. Our system of laws. IV. Our officers to execute the laws. V. The sense of fellowship by acting together as members of a commonwealth. Duties. I. We ought to rejoice in the many privileges we receive because we are citizens of a common- wealth. II. We ought to rejoice especially in the work done for education by means of our government. Foem. Immortal morn, all hail ! That saw Columbus sail By Faith alone ! The skies before him bowed, Back rolled the ocean proud, And every lifting cloud With glory shone. Fair Science then was born On that celestial morn. Faith dared the sea; Triumphant over foes Then Truth immortal rose. New heavens to disclose, And earth to free. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. II7 Strong Freedom then came forth To liberate the earth And crown the right; So walked the pilot bold Upon the sea of gold. And darkness backward rolled, And there was light. — Hezekiah Butterwoeth. Classic for Beading or Becitation. "Behold now this vast City; a City of refuge, the mansion house of liberty, encompast and surrounded with his protection; the shop of warre hath not there more anvils and hammers making, to fashion out the plates and instruments of armed justice in defense of beleaguer's Truth, then there be pens and heads there, fitting by their studious lamps, musing, search- ing, revolving new notions and ideas wherewith to present, as with their homage and their fealty the approaching Reformation: others as fast reading, trying all things, assenting to the force of reason and convincement. What could a man require more from a Nation so pliant and so prone to seek after knowl- edge. What wants there to such a towardly and pregnant soile, but wise and faithful labourers, to make a knowing people, a Nation of Prophets, of Sages, and of Worthies. We reck'n more than five months yet to Jtarvest; there need not be five weeks, had we but eyes to lift up, the fields are white already. * * * Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant Nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her inviitcible locks; Methinks I see her as an Eagle musing her mighty youth, and kindling her undas'ld eyes at the full mid-day beam; purging and unsealing her long abused sight at the fountain itself of heav'nly radi- ance, while the whole noise of timorous and fiocking birds, with those also that love the twilight, flutter about, ama^d at what she means, and in their Il8 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. envious gabble would prognosticate a year of sects and schisms." — Areopagitica. — John Milton. Further SttsTEreBtionB to the Teacher. This lesson might be enlarged to any exterit. Something could be said of State Universities, also of State Boards of Charities. Figures might be given as to the amounts expended on asylums for the unfortunate in special communities or by the country as a whole. An effort should always be made toi have figures coming from the particular town or community where these lessons may be in use. For illustration it would be advisable to show some pictures of the great public libraries of the world, of city hospitals, state educational institu- tions, asylums of one kind or another, dealing, how- ever, cttily with those which are strictly of a public character. Special attention might be paid to the great Congressional Library at Washington. As regards the last one or twoi points made in the dialogue, the teacher may find it difficult to work these out satisfactorily with a certain type or class of pupils. In this case something could be said with regard to the word commonwealth and its general significance, omitting the touch of sentiment aboiut fellow-feeling and brotherhood. O'n the other hand, caution must be used in explaining the word com- monwealth, SOI as to> avoid anything like a discus- sion on political issues or delicate social problems. What we should aim at would be to give the simple fact, and to make it significant that historically this term has grown up as expressive of the state or country as a whole. But we do not wish to imply that the government could step in arbitrarily and take a man's property without compensation, by discriminating against one citizen or in favor of tHE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. II9 another. And yet we need to keep the fact before the attention of the young that the state is the" final authority over the rights of proiperty. Something, therefore, could be said of the privilege which the government possesses, in appropriating a piece of land which it may need for its purposes, whether the citizen is willing or not — provided, of course, due money compensation is given for the property which is appropriated. We can show how the gov- ernment may authorize a railway company, for example, to run its line through the farms of the citizens, taking what land is necessary for the pur- pose. We must make it very clear, however, that this is done solely by the sovereign authority of the state and not by any right on the part of the com- pany itself. Carelessness in explaining some of these points might be unfortunate and prove most con- fusing to the minds of the young people. The "Classic" from John Milton may not mean very much to the young people, but it is inserted as one of the gems of English literature. CHAPTER VIII. one's country and money and the ethics of MONEY. Memory Gem— "I do love My country's good with a respect more tender, More holy, and more profound than mine own life." — Shakespeare. Dialogue. What is this thing that I hold in my hand, — what do you call it? "A dollar bill?" True. But what is a dollar bill ? Here is some- thing else; what name doi you give to this ? "Why, that is a coin, a quarter of a dollar in silver?" And what would you call both of these, the piece of silver and the dollar bill? "Oh, they are money." Suppose I ask you what you mean by money, how would you answer my question, I wonder? "Money," you suggest, "is what we buy things with." But what makes it money? That is the point I wish, to talk about. If a person should take a piece of paper, make a stamp, and then of his own accord put that stamp on the paper and print a dollar bill and undertake to pass it for money, what would happen to him? "He would be arrested?" Why? "Because it would be counterfeiting; he would be a counterfeiter." What would there be dreadful about that ; what harm can you see in the fact that he should print such a piece of paper and offer it for money? "Oh," you continue, "a private person has no right to manufacture money." You mean, doi you, that even if he should stamp a piece of paper in exactly this way, so that one could not tell this bill made THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 121 by him from the other, that still it would not be money? "No, certainly not," you assert. And why not? "Because it is money when the state or the government stamps the paper in that way." You imply that the state has something to do with money, the government which rules over us, or the country to which we belong? "Yes, indeed 1" Then it is only by the authority of the state or nation that money can exist or be really money? "Certainly!" We have, therefore, found another way by which we are connected with the state or the country to which we belong, have we not ? Whenever we hold a piece of money in our hands, it is as if we had the handwriting of our country under our fingers. That sounds odd, does it? One's country cannot have a handwriting, exactly, I know. But you see what I mean. In certain ways we may come in contact with the state only now and then. We may pay taxes only at special times. But whenever we hold a piece of money in our hands, small or great, we can say to ourselves, "my country." Would you assume, for instance, that a number of persons together might not form a company and coin money; print it and circulate it, buy and sell with it as money? "No, not unless they are given the right to do it by the authority of the govern- ment." Yes, that is true ; in the latter case it would be the same in another way as if the state or government itself stamped the money, or put its signature to it. But if the state or government puts a stamp on a piece of paper and so gives the right to use that piece of paper as money, do you fancy that the govern- ment might safely go on printing any amount of this 122 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. without limit ? Is it merely a stamp "this is money," which is put on the piece of paper ? Have you ever read the words on a dollar bill? Suppose I read what it says on one of these bills : "The United States of America will pay to bearer one dollar in coin." What do you make out of that? Is this bill really money, then ? Apparently it is only a promise to pay. Pay what — does it say? "Coin?" Then what, after all, is the real money, do you suppose? "Coin," you suggest ? Yes, it would look that way, as if coin were the real money. But why do you call this bill in itself money? "Because it is just as good as money. The United States will pay coin for it if the coin is asked for." If so, what substances, as a rule, is real money made of,— paper, do you think? "No," you say, "gold or silver." Yes; you are right. Perhaps you know that the United States govern- ment usually has hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of gold or silver locked away in the vaults of the Treasury at Washington, so that the govern- ment can pay out gold or silver if it is asked for, in place oif these bills. But do you believe it always happens that there is as much gold and silver in the country as there are bills like this in circulation? Or do you fancy that there would be enough gold and silver at Washing- ton at any moment to pay all these bills at once? "You would suppOiSe soi?" No, that is a mistake. This would be true in some countries, but not in ours. "How is that possible," you urge; "in what way can it be money if there is not enough coin with which to pay the bills in case real money were asked for?" That is a natural question which a good many people ask. But all these bills are never presented THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I23 for payment at once. The United States is a rich country, and so may make promises to pay more money than it has in its Treasury, because it is known that the government could easily enough get the money if it were called for. You see that in so far as there is not enough gold or silver in the Treasury at Washington to meet all these bills, the rest would be a kind of debt. Some of these bills are like notes as promises of payment ; and as we know that the country could pay them at any time, they circulate just the same as money. And so it is the stamp of the state on coin or bills which make it money for us. Have you ever noticed, by the way, what is put on our money, on one of our coins, for instance ? What do you find on one side of it? "The American eagle?" Yes, and you see how it says oai it: "The United States of America. Quarter of a dollar." Now look at a gold piece. What is this I have in my hands? "An eagle," you tell me? Yes; and what do we find printed on it? Read carefully. What are those words: "E Pluribus Unum?" Do you know what they mean? "Oh, they are Latin." Yes, but I am sure you have heard the meaning of the words. "One out of many ?" Quite true. And there you see the motto of the United States o'f America — one country or one state made up of many states, and so constituting what we call the United States. On the more important coins, the larger ones, I think you will' always find those words : "E Pluribus Unum." You observe that when you touch such a coin, you always have your finger on the motto of our country. Those words are in a sense its seal or its signature. Note to the Teacher ; Try for this lesson to have at hand a few coins. Get a gold eagle, silver quarter, half-dollar, and 124 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. let the pupils read aloud what they find on the coins, doing the same also with some paper money. But do not go too far in this or you will run the usual risk of making this a lesson in Civics. All that you wish to do is to impress on the minds of the members of your class in what way we are constantly brought in contact with our government or our country by means of money; so that they shall feel still more regard or awe for their country, and for the relationship between them and their country. On the other hand, be exceedingly cautious about saying outright that the mere stamp of the government can make a piece of paper into money. This question, which has been discussed so much, we must try to avoid. Be very careful, therefore, not to get into an argument over "fiat money." In a general way point out, however, that, as a rule, money has been gold or silver. What did you say, then, in most countries was the material out of which money was made? "Gold or silver ?" Yes, that is quite true. But why doi you suppose that gold or silver has been used so much for money, rather than other metals ? Why have countries not used any ordinary material like chips of wood, pebbles or anything of that kind? "Because gold and silver are more valuable." Any other reason that you can think of? "Oh, yes," you add, "they might be more convenient for such a pur- pose." Surely. And further? What makes them valu- able, for instance? "Why, it is because they are beautiful and because they are rare." Yes, those are elements entering into their value. But how do you suppose it happened that people ever got into the habit of using money? "As to that," you reply, "whenever they wanted to make an ex- change, perhaps the two articles they wished to transfer were not of the same value, and the one person owning the article of less value would have to give something more besides." Then, toO', there is another reason which you can readily see. It was important to have some sort of THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I25 measure of value in making exchanges, so that a person could describe the value of the article by say- ing it was worth so much in gold or silver cw some- thing else. But do you suppose that nothing else save gold and silver has been used in this way as a means of measuring the value of articles, or for money in some form or another? If I should speak of the "pecu- niar} value" of something, what would that mean? "Why, the money value, of course," you answer. And dO' you know the origin of the word "pecu- niary?" It comes from the Latin. Have you any idea what the Latin word meant? "No?" Well, I can tell you. It meant cattle. Hence we observe that a long while ago cattle stood for the measure of value, and people used cattle for money. You smile at that? But why? "Because," you tell me, "that would be rather troublesome money to handle." Yes, you are right; and that may be one reason why people by and by ceased to make cattle the measure of value, as if cattle were money. Besides gold and silver which we use nowadays, and cattle which must have been used at one time, judging from the Latin word pecuniary, do^ you know of anything else ever used as money? What did the native races of this country employ for that purpose, do you remember? "Wampum?" Yes, and what was wampum ? Note to the Teacher : Let the pupils here at this point give some description of wampum, at the same time showing them a picture of it from some of ^the textbooks on the history of the United States, or any other book deaHng with the native races of North America. And besides wampum, anything else, would you suggest? How about iron ? Yes, even iron has been used for that purpose, and leather; in fact, almost every article of value one can think of. It was quite 126 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. a long while before the human race began to settle down exclusively to the use of gold and silver for money. But why did countries ever get into the habit of having coins? Do you fancy people had coins at first, when they began to use gold and silver for money? "Probably not?" What, then? "Perhaps," you continue, "they may have just weighed out so much wi'th scales." Yes, you are quite right in your opinion; that was the earliest method. I wonder if you have any idea as to the earliest coins we know anything about. Have you learned what is the oldest coin that has ever been found anywhere ? It belonged to the country called Lydia, in Asia Minor, and was made about seven hundred years B. C, being therefore upwards of twenty-six hundred years old. Now when such a coin was made, what would it imply, for instance? Do you fancy it circulated for more than its value in metal? "No," you answer, "probably by being coined in this way it meant just so much gold or silver." Yes, you are right ; as a rule in the early times the stamp- ing of a coin implied simply the guarantee of the government in regard to its weight ; that that piece of coin was so much gold or silver in weight. Can you see, then, the value of having the stamp of the state upon it? "Yes," you reply, "such a stamp might be the word of honor of the state as to the amount of gold or silver there." True. Hence in money we have the pledge of the word of honor of the country to which we belong; its stamp on the money is its word of honor. Speaking of the word of honor of a country in the stamp upon the coin of a nation, do you know where the word sterling comes from? We speak, for ex- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I27 ample, of a "sterling" character, or a "sterling" heart. What do we mean by that? "Oh," you explain, "a true character or a true heart; a genuine person." Yes. And do you fancy that the word was first used in that way? Noi; as a matter of fact, it was the word describing the weight of pure gold in a coin. For instance, they used to speak of "pounds ster- ling;" which meant so much weight of pure gold in that coin, and the stamp on the coin was the word of honor of the state as to the amount of pure or genuine gold contained in it. You see, therefore, it was from the use of the word in that way, that we have come to apply it to human beings, in referring to them as being true or genuine when we say that they are sterling men or women. Note to the Teacher: We might here, if desired, also ex- plain the origin of the word "talent" in our modern usage of the word as coming from the parable of Jesus about "The Talents." What, then, is there about money besides the mere metal in it or besides its value toi us as some- thing with which we can buy what we want? "Why it connects us with our country ; it bears on the sur- face the stamp of our country, and carries with it the pledge oif our country's honor." You infer, do you, that it is only really and truly money because our country's stamp is found there? Why is it, do you suppo'se, that it is regarded as such a great' crime for a person to use counterfeit money ? "Oh, it would be cheating," you exclaim. In what way? I ask. "As to that, it would be giving people money which was not really money, taking something from another person without actually paying for it." You 128 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. imply that it would be a crime against a fellow citi- zen or a fellow being, like stealing another's prop- erty? "Yes, surely." But would that be all ? Can you see how making or using counterfeit money might be even worse than stealing from a private citizen? "Yes, because it would be a double crime." In what way? "Why," you explain, "it would be stealing from the citizen, and a crime against the state as well. It would be cheating the state or gov- ernment." What is it, for example, that a private citizen does Vvhen he stamps a piece of paper or a piece of coin as money ? What kind of a crime is he guilty of in putting that stamp there ? What do we call it when a person makes a false signature? "Forger)'?" you suggest. Precisely. Hence mak- ing counterfeit money is forging the name of the state or government. It is a crime many times over. How about the person who uses that money? Does he commit a double crime? "Surely if he knows that the stamp or signature there is false, it amounts to the same as if he actually put it there himself." How would it be, on the other hand, if the stamp were not a false statement in regard to the amount of coin ? Why should not a citizen feel free to take a certain piece of gold or silver, having the same amount of the metal in it as would be contained in an actual coin of the government, and to put the money stamp upon it. Would that be cheating? There would be no deception as to the value of the precious metal in the coin. "True," you assert, "but there would be a decep- tion in passing it as money, because it would be using for one's private purpose a privilege reserved THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I29 exclusively to the sovereign power of the state or nation." You imply that it is for the state to decide how much money shall be issued and that its stamp alone guarantees a piece of coin as money. Do you believe, on the other hand, that the state itself or the government could commit a crime by counterfeiting money ? "How is that possible ?" you ask, "if the authority for issuing money rests with the state or government?" True. But does the state or government have a right to deceive the people? What if a gold coin, for example, were supposed to contain just so much weight of pure gold-, and the government should, without changing any words, deliberately put its stamp on a coin of less weight. How would that strike you? "Why, that would be like telling a lie on the part of the state or government." In what way? "Oh, it would be the same as if the state were to try to pass counterfeit money itself by a system of false weights. It would be paying its officers, for example, less actual gold or silver than it said it was paying." It looks, then, does it, as if there were a duty here on the part of the state toward the citizen, as well as a duty on the part of the citizen toward the state ? Ott the other hand, I remind you of a fact which you probably know, that many of our smaller coins do not contain what we should call a "proportion- ate" share of metal. A quarter of a dollar may not contain fully one-quarter as much silver as a silver dollar. Is the government cheating in this case? "No," you say, "if the stamp does not make a false statement as toi the amount of metal, because the quarter of a dollar is a separate coin." True, I reply, but a person might pay me four 130 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. quarters in return for a dollar. Would it be cheat- ing me then? "No," you explain, "because if de- sired one could take those four quarters to the gow- ernment and get another dollar for them in return." Yes; that is the point. Small coins are called "token money." There are special reasons we need not go into here, why the full proportion of metal is not used in this case. Points of the Reason. I. That it is only by the authority of the state that money can exist as money. II. That so-called paper money is like a debt of honor on the part of the government as a "promise to pay." III. That actual money, as a basis of paper money, is something which has value in itself, such as gold or silver. IV. That a great many articles have been used for money in former times. V. That in former days the government stamp was simply a guarantee of the actual amount of coin in a piece of metal, like gold or silver. VI. That money, therefore, is one of the great blessings coming to us through having a state and being citizens of a state. Dnties. /. We ought not to use anything as actual money •which has not received the stamp of the nation upon it at the hands of the government. II. A state or government should never deceive its citizens as to the value of a coin or as to the value of its money. Foem. Great were the hearts, and strong the minds Of those who framed, in high debate, The immortal league of love, that binds Our fair broad empire, State with State. And deep the gladness of the hour. When, as the auspicious task was done, In solemn trust, the sword of power Was given to glory's unspoiled son. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I3I That noble race is gone; the suns Of sixty years have risen and set; But the bright links, those chosen ones, So strongly forged, are brighter yet. Wide, as our own free race increase — Wide shall extend the elastic chain. And bind in everlasting peace, State after State, — a mighty train. — William Cullen Bryant. Classic for Beading' or Becitatlon. "The Unity of Government which constitutes you one people, is also now dear to you. It is jiistly so; — for it is a main Pillar in the EdiUce of your real independence; the support of your tranquillity at home; your peace abroad; of your safety in every relation; of your prosperity in every shape; of that very liberty, which you so highly prize. * * * You should properly estimate the immense value of your national Union to your collective and indi- vidual happiness; you should cherish a cordial, hc^it- ual, and immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to, think and speak of it as of the Palla- dium of your political safety and prosperity ; watch- ing for its preservation with jealous anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a sus- picion that it can in any event be abandoned, and indignantly frowuning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate any portion of our -Country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now link together the various parts. For this you have every indiicement of sympathy and interest. — Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country hcts a right to concentrate your affec- tions. The name of AMERICAN, which belongs 'to you, in your .national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism, more than any appel- lation derived from local discriminations. — ■ With slight shades of difference, you have the same 132 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Religion, Manners, Habits, and political Principles. — You have in a com,*ion cause fought and tri- umphed together. The Independence and Liberty you possess are the joint councils and joint efforts — of common dangers, sufferings and successes. — ■ Washington's Farewell Address. Further Sug'g'estions to tlie Teacher. There is material in this theme for two or three lessons if we think it best to give that amount of time to it, provided we always keep the subject of citizenship or one's country before the attention of the members of the class, soi that the lesson shall not be merely about money in itself. Read an article in one of the large encyclopedias on Money. An ex- cellent source from which to find a good deal of illustrative material is in the pamphlet published by the United' States Mint of Philadelphia, which can be had from there for half a dollar, entitled, "Evan's Illustrated History of the United States Mint." In that volume will be found pictures of ancient coins, a short history of the whole subject of coinage, an account of the money history of this country, and also a description of the methods of coining money. Another source we might turn to would be the little volume entitled "Uncle Sam's Secrets," by Austin. We could show the children a picture of the "Pine Tree Shilling" contained in this volume; also, if desired, giving them the history of money in this country, and facts as to the amount of it in circu- lation, which we may find in the same book. Do not go very far, however, on this latter point, but make more of th,e general subject of coinage and coins, as the money history of our country would belong rather tO' the wider subject of civics. If we are in a city where there is a mint we should plan to take the class on an excursion to such an institu- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I^^ tion at the time when they are studying this phase of the subject. It will be observed that in this lesson nothing has been said with regard to international money or as to the possibility of having a system oi international coinage. The dialo'gue could be carried further in this direction at the discretion of the teacher. It might be of significance to bring out the fact that if we were to present one of our gold coins at a store or shop in a country in Europe the coin might be refused, even if the person were aware of the actual amount of gold contained in it. He could legally reject it, because it was not the money of his country. It would not bear the signature or stamp of his state or govermnent. This might help to emphasize the thought we have been aiming to bring home in this direction, as to the significance of the state in its functions here, and how great a service the state or government renders us by making it possible for us to have such a convenience as money. The teacher, in handling this lesson, should be familiar with the laws of the United States government in regard to the coinage of money. CHAPTER IX. THE RIGHT AND DUTY OF VOTING THE BALLOT. Memory Gem — "/ would rather be right than be president." — Henry Clay. Bialog'ne. We have been talking now for a time about what our country does for us, including what services come to us from our town or city, our state or nation. But how about the other phase, what we have to do for our country ? It would be an odd situation if our country did so much for us and we did nothing ourselves in return. Do you remember what we noted as one of the first and most important distinctions between citi- zenship and family life? What is it one has to do as a citizen, that one does not have to do as a mem- ber of the family ? "Vote?" But is that, after all, something that we doi for our country ; it is not something that we do for ourselves ? "Oh, perhaps it is a little of both." We shall see as we goi on. By the way, before we go further into this sub- ject, we had better decide who are the voters. You know the term which is applied to voting? Did you ever hear it — suffrage? Now in this country we have universal suffrage, do we not? "Surely," you exclaim. Take care; do not be tooi sure of that. What does "universal" mean ? "Everybody ?" And can everybody vote in this country? "All the citizens, at any rate," you insist. But can they ? 134 tHE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 135 Think a moment. How about your grown sisters, or your mothers; are they not citizens? "Yes, surely they are citizens." But can they vote in most states? "No?" Then do we really have universal suffrage? "No, we take it back," you say. "But at least," you assert, "we have universal manhood suffrage; all the men citizens can vote." But are you sure even of that ? Be a little cau- tious; this is an important matter. Do you think a man could do anything which would make it impossible for him to vote? "Oh, yes; he might get so far away from the voting place that it would be impossible for him to go to the polls." Is that all? Is there anything else which might prevent him from voting? Suppose a man commits a crime and is sent to prison, can he vote? Would they let him out of the penitentiary in order to go to the polls? I doubt it. No', the convicts cannot vote. They are citizens, but they do not have the suffrage. Are there any other classes of men in the country who cannot vote? "Oh, there are the foreigners in this country; not all of them can vote." Why not? I ask. Is not a man a citizen in the United States just as soon as he lands in this coun- try? "Not by any means," you assert. Well, what must he do? "Why, he must wait awhile and then become naturalized." And what does being naturalized make him ? "A citizen ?" Yes, that is it ; then he becomes a citizen. How about children, do they vote? "Noi?" Well, then, at what age can a person begin to vote? "As to that," you respond, "when he becomes twenty-one years of age." We have found out, have we, that at least nearly all the men citizens in this country have the suf- 136 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. frage. And are you sure that women cannot vote in this country? "They can in some places," you insist. Indeed! Where? "In some states?" Do you know in what states women can vote? Find out, if you can, and let me know next time in what parts of the United States women can vote, and what restrictions there are upon their voting. You must not be too sure about women not being able to vote. Note to the Teacher : This may be a rather interesting point to the boys and girls, and it would be well for them to investi- gate the subject. Have them find out how it is that in Boston, for instance, women may vote for the members of the School Board. Then let them know about states like Colorado, Washington and Oregon, where women can vote for city and state officers. Do not go far into a discussion as to the wisdom of woman suflfrage. But the members of the class will be interested in knowing the facts of the case. But what does a person vote for, when he goes and casts his ballot? Is it certain laws, that he is voting for, or what we call legislation? Does he say on his ballot, "I favor this or that law or wish that it should be passed?" "No, he does not usually vote for laws : he votes for men." Then what are those men to do, whom he votes for? "Why, they are to hold the offices, go to the legislatures or to Congress at Wash- ington." Yes, that is all very true; we vote for the men who are to hold office. But do we vote for all the men whoi hold office in this country? What about policemen? They are officers. Do we vote for them? "Noi," you say, "they are appointed, as we learned in a previous lesson. Do we vote for men to belong to the United States Senate? How is that; are you sure? "Not directly," you admit. Then who choose the sen- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I37 ators ? "Why, the members of the Legislature whom the people may have voted for." Then you see that we have a number of methods by which officers are selected; some of them are appointed and others are elected by those whom we have previously chosen through our votes. In selecting such officers, by the way, what should be the real basis of choice, or the first thing to be considered ? Is it as to what the man's theories are, what measures he has promised to support, what political doctrines he advocates? "As to that," you add, "we may not be altogether sure that he will support those measures after he had been elected. He may be deceiving us." What possible motive could he have for such con- duct? "Oh, he may be anxious to be elected and may take any possible course in order to bring this about." You think that there is something else to be con- sidered, besides the measures the candidate is advo- cating, or the promises he has made. What, then ? "Why, there would be the man's character." Which should really come first, after all, in mak- ing you decide as to whether you will support a candidate by your vote, — a man's character, or his theories and promises? "Why, the character, surely," you exclaim. If this is true, as the duty of a citizen, why is it that there are some persons in office who do fail to keep their promises? "Because," you reply, "the citizens may be careless on this matter and not always make character the first consideration." In our choice, however, in the way we use the ballot, how many votes does a man have? "One?" Yes, in this country he has just one vote. And how is the vote cast ? What is really done by the citizen ? 138 THE; DtlTtES OF A CITIZEl^. "Why, there might be- a great many ways or sys- tems," you reply. What, for example? "Oh, people might come together and hold up their hands for or against each candidate or each measure to be passed upon; or they could show their preferences by rising in their seats." Any other methods? "Yes, there could be 'yes' or 'no' through the voice, without any rising or showing of hands." True, but in that case, people would all vote at the same time. How could there be any decision ? "As to that," you explain, "one can tell by the number of voices or the amount of tone, as to whether the majority is on the one side or the other." "So, too," you add, "the people might use slips of paper and write down the way they wish to vote, after which the slips of paper would be counted." Note to the Teacher : Interesting facts of history could be introduced here to an indefinite extent, according to the best judgment of the teacher. Something might be told of the early custom among the Germanic tribes of giving voice to their sentiment in selecting a leader, by striking on their shields, which they carried as soldiers. All this, however, should be only as incidental to the main point in bringing out the "Ethics of the Ballot." How is it usually with us in this country ? What is the custom, do you know? Does a citizen go to a voting place, hold up his hand, announcing himself in favor of one candidate or another, when he votes ? "No, in many of the cities and states, we have what is called the Australian Ballot." And what do you mean by the Australian Ballot ? Can you tell why it is called by that name? "Because the system began in Australia," you fancy? Yes, that is why we call it by that name. And have we always had this method in voting in the United States ? THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 13$ Note to the Teacher: It might be well to tell the pupils something about the history of the Australian Ballot and the changes which have come about in the methods of voting in this country. Mention the reasons why we need to have a secret ballot. Dwell on the melancholy fact that men used to be forced to vote contrary to their opinions, from fear of losing their positions. At the same time it may be well to point out how humiliating it is and what a shame it is to our country that we should be obliged to resort to this method of the secret ballot. But you have not yet told me why a man should vote; you have only said that he votes for persons. But I wish to know why he should vote at all. What if he took it into his head that voting- was a great deal of trouble, and that he would therefore let other persons do the voting and never vote any more — would that be right ? "Yes," you hesitate, "perhaps that would be right." Why? I ask. "Because, voting is allowed to him as a right or privilege, and if he chooses not to act 00 that privilege, or to care about his own interests, he may be showing real self-sacrifice in leaving, the choice to other people." You really think that when a man votes, he is voting just for his own interests, so that he gives up his own interests by not voting, and therefore shows a spirit of self-sacrifice? What if a bad man is a candidate for an office, one who, if elected, would surely injure the country's interests, do you assume that it would be right for a citizen to stay at home instead of going and voting against that man? "No," you assert, "in that case a man really ought to vote, so as to help to keep such a bad man from getting the office." But why? I ask. Even if such a person gets into office, he may not injure you, although he may injure the country. "Yes," you continue, "but it is our country, and we do not wish to have our country injured." You 140 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. believe, do you, after all, that a man should not vote altogether just for himself and his own interests, but that he has to consider the good of the country in this matter ? I miost certainly agree with you. How would it be, on the other hand, if two men were running for office, both of them of equally good character? Would a citizen then be justified' in refraining from taking the trouble to vote? "Perhaps not," you admit. And why not ? "Because while each man may be equally trustworthy as to character, the measures which one advocates may be better if they are carried out than those advocated by the other. A citizen ought to vote, so as to make sure that the best kind of laws will be passed for the positive good of the country." Is there any other word, then, that we could use with regard to voting, instead oi calling it a privi- lege? We employ that term' in regard to a man's own interests when we say that it is his privilege to do so and so. Now, however, you have told me that he should vote, not merely as a privilege on his part, but in order to save the country from harm, or to advance the national welfare. What is the word we might use here? "Duty?" Yes, that is the word; it is a man's duty to vote. Do you see clearly why it should be his duty? If an army from the outside were coming to attack our country, and there was a call for soldiers and you were a young man, strong and healthy, what ought you to do if possible? "Become a soldier, and help to protect the coun- try?" Exactly; you would become a soldier in order to resist that army and to protect your country. Then do you see any sense in the suggestion that when we vote we may be acting like soldiers, or THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 14! fulfilling a duty like theirs? "Yes," you say, "we should be soldiers in the sense that we should be trying to protect ooir country by the way we vote." That is entirely true; it is as much our duty to vote in time of peace, as to become a soldier in time of war ; we are to protect our country from having bad officers or bad men in power. What if, however, in deciding how we shall vote, the question does not concern so much the character of the man who holds the office; what if he is per- sonally a good, upright man, but favored passing certain kind of laws which might be a benefit to you, although of great injury to nearly the whole country — do you think then it would be right for you to vote for that sort of a man? "Perhaps so," you hesitate; "each man must consider his own interests in voting, even if it is a duty to vote; he must seek to protect himself." You still think, then, do you, that if a certain class of laws would help your interests very much, but injure the coruntry a great deal, it would be right for you to vote for the man who would favor them ? You imply, for instance, that if three-quarters of the citizens in the country were in favor oif certain legislation that would ruin you, interfere with your rights, perhaps reduce you to slavery, it would be all right for those three-quarters of the citizens to vote in that way, would it? "No," you confess, "not exactly that." But why not ? You see, if a man were to vote for bis own interests, — "Oh, well, after all," you con- fess. "Really a man should vote for the good of the whole country." Yes, I heartily agree with you. That is certainly true, if voting is a duty rather than a privilege. If, in the home life, for example, a man were to try to bring about certain results which would be 142 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. of great injury to his family, his father and mother, brothers and sisters, but which would be of help to himself, what would you think of him? "You would despise him?" Think, then, of the Fatherland, the larger home, to which we owe so much. Should we not despise ourselves if we were to try to bring about laws which would help our interests while causing injury to our Fatherland ? Note to the Teacher: This, of course, is a very impor- tant point, although it must be handled with delicacy. Do not introduce any reference to special examples of legislation which might involve serious party feeling. If illustrations are needed, take them from other countries. Suppose, on the other hand, in time of war, a man should refuse to be a soldier, even when called upon for that service ; should run away and not be willing to risk his life in order to save his country, because it would be against his personal interests tO' do' this ; what should we call him ? "A coward?" But anything more ? "A traitor?" Yes, I am not sure but that we should call him a traitor. Now, what if certain laws were proposed which if enacted would do much harm to the whole coun- try, and he should refuse to vote or work against them because those laws would be to his interest, what should we think of him ; what kind of a citizen would he be? "A traitor," you say? Yes, such conduct would be almost like treason to his country. We have to be soldiers in time of peace as well as in time of war. And on the other hand, what if there were legislation proposed which was vitally important for the interests of the whole country, but which might be against the interests of a few persons, and these few citizens, therefore, opposed THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I43 that legislation with all their might, what kind of citizen-soldiers would they be? "Disloyal soldiers?" Yes, I fear so. The notion has existed that a man has to risk his life in time of war; but people often forget that they sometimes have to be called upon to risk their private interests for the sake of their country in time of peace. By the way, do' you know anything as to the number of voters there are in this country, or the number of votes cast at the elections ? Suppose you find out for next time, how many votes were cast for the President of the United States in the last election, also for Governor of your state, or Mayor of your city. What if you also tell me how many votes were cast over a hundred years ago when Washington was elected President. Points of the Jjesson. I. That the suffrage is never altogether universal, without any restrictions or qualifications. II. That voting is usually, though not always, limited to men. III. That voting is not only a right or a privilege, but a duty. IV. That we are to protect our country from internal in- jury by the way we vote. V. That in voting for candidates for office we are first to consider the character of the men, before considering their promises or the measures they are advocating. VI. That voting by each citizen is to be done for the good of the whole country, and not chiefly for one's private interests. Duties of a Toting' Citizen. /. We ought to vote at elections because it is our duty as citizens. II. We ought to consider supremely the interests and welfare of the whole country when casting a ballot. III. We ought in voting for the welfare of the whole country, to be willing in very important cases, 144 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. that our own interests should be sacrvHced for the sake of the country as a whole. Men of thought ! be up and stirring Night and day: Sow the seed, withdraw the curtain. Clear the way ! Men of action, aid and cheer them. As ye may ! There's a fount about to stream, There's a light about to beam, There's a warmth about to glow, There's a flower about to blow; There's a midnight blackness changing Into grey ! Men of thought and men of action. Clear the way ! Once the welcome light has broken. Who shall say What the unimagined glories Of the day? What the evil that shall perish In its ray ! Aid the dawning, tongue and pen ; Aid it, hopes of honest men ; Aid it, paper, aid it, type, Aid it, for the hour is ripe ; And our earnest must not slacken Into play. Men of thought and men of action. Clear the way ! Lo ! a cloud's about to vanish From the day; And a brazen wrong to crumble Into clay. Lo ! the Right's about to conquer, Clear the way ! With the Right shall many more Enter smiling at the door; With the giant Wrong shall fall Many others great and small, That for ages long have held us For their prey. Men of thought and men of action, Clear the way ! —Charles Mackay. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 145 Claaslo for Beadlner or Becltatlon. "Never may you, my friends, be under any other feeling, than that a great, a growing, an immeasur- ably expanding country, is calling upon you for your best services. * * * Most of us are of that class, who owe whatever of knowledge has shone in their minds to the free and popular institutions of our native land. * * * If certainly rests with us to solve the great problem in human society, — to settle, and that forever, the momentous questions — whether mankind can be trusted with a purely popu- lar system of government? One might almost think, without extravagance, that the departed wise and good, of all places and times, are looking dozm from their happy seats to witness what shall now be done by us; that they who lavished their treasures and their blood of old, who labored and suffered, ivho spake and wrote, who fought and perished, in the one great cause of freedom and truth, are noiv hang- ing, from their orbs on high, over the last solemn experiment of humanity. As I have wandered over the spots, once the scene of their labors, and mused among the prostrate columns of their senate-houses and forums, I have seemed almost to hear a voice from the tombs of departed ages; from the sepid- chres of the nations which died before the sight. They exhort us, they adjure us, to be faithftd to our trust. They implore us, by the long trials of strug- gling humanity, by the blessed memory of the departed — by the dear faith which has been flighted, by pure hands, to the holy cause of truth and man — by the awful secrets of the prison-houses, where the sons of freedom have been immured, — by the noble heads which have been brought to the block — by the wrecks of time, by the eloquent ruins of nations, they conjure us not to quench the light which is rising on the world." — Edzvard Everett. 146 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Portlier Sog'g'eBtlonB to tbe Teacher. It would be well to get figures required for the lesson, from the various census reports, when pos- sible, and have them put on the blackboard, simply in order to impress the young people with the great- ness of this subject, and also to give a little variety to the theme. No effort need be made to have the pupils remember all these figures. In order, how- ever, to bring out the one or two great points of the lesson, that voting is a duty, and that we are toi vote not merely for our own interests, but for the good of the whole country, it may be necessary to wander a good deal around the subject, so as to hold the attention of the pupils to it for a time. Perhaps it might not do any harm to let them give their opinions on woman suffrage. Again, please remem- ber to be very careful not to deal with the theme as if it were a lesson in Civics. Always have it in view in your own mind that it is a lesson in Ethics, or in the great problem of Duty. Keep to this one point : voting is a duty and not a privilege. Write that down for the pupils : When we vote, we vote for the interests of the whole country, for the good of our Fatherland. Look up an account of the "History of the Australian ballot." Also get from the last num- ber of the United States census the totals of votes cast in the whole country for previous decades, so that these can be used for illustration in talking with members of the class. The subject of the ballot is so important on the ethical side, that we add sup- plemental lessons on the theme. It will be observed, however, that we have not touched upon the subject of voting concerning constitutional amendments or in regard to measures where the method of the "Referendum" is employed. The teacher may also treat of these additional features at his discretion. CHAPTER X. ETHICS OF THE BALLOT. Memory Gem— "Today, alike are great and small, The nameless and the known; My palace is the people's hall. The ballot-box my throne." — Whittier. Dlalogrue. Speaking of the ballot, I wonder if yott have ever heard a few celebrated lines of verse on the sub- ject. It is not a whole poem, but only four lines I have in mind. Suppose I write them down for you, so that you may have them before your eyes. There they stand, short and to the point, as you see. But the point may not be there for you unless you catch it. "A weapon that comes down as still As snowflakes fall upon the sod; But executes a free man's will As lightning does the will of God." Why, for instance, should the ballot be called a weapon? Does it kill? "Noi, only in a figurative sense." And how in that sense, would you imply? "As to that," you explain, "it can punish. If an officer has not done his duty, and is a candidate a second time, it can reject him and put another man in his place." Would there be any other way by which it might serve as a weapon or even punish, perhaps, apart from the selection or rejection of candidates for office? "Yes, in those less usual cases where one may 147 148 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. have to vote directly on a lavi? or an amendment to the Consitution." You mean, do you, that such a law or amendment to the Constitution might indi- rectly bring a severe punishment on guilty citizens in one vi^ay or another. But why, again I ask you, should it be spoken of as a "silent" weapon, falling like snowflakes? "Oh, that is by contrast with the ordinary weapon which, when used, makes a good deal of sound." What kind, for example? "Swords, pistols, guns, cannon." And the contrast between such weapons and that of the ballot would be shown in what way? "In that it need make no outward sensation," you point out, "because simply voicing the mind or pur- pose of the citizen." Does it voice anything more than simply the mind or purpose? Look now at the second two lines. Does it say, — executing a free man's wish, or theories, or doctrines? "No'; it says executing a free man's will." Yes, that is the point. It gives his decision, and some- thing more, therefore, than his theories or doctrines. Why, do you fancy, is it compared to lightning, in the way lightning executes the will of God? "Per- haps, because it is decisive," you suggest, "it settles the matter." And how does it settle it? Why cannot a per- son or group of persons, punished by it, for example, appeal to some other power ? "But that is the point," you add ; "in the state as we now understand it, there is no other power or gQivernment; this is the final authority, — just as in all creation, the final authority is regarded as the will of God." True; and in this way we discover that a few lines of verse may suggest a great deal with regard to voting and its significance. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I49 But this is a sentiment. Do you suppose that it is always true ? Does the ballot always execute a free man's will? "Yes, provided he is a free man." And why do you make that qualification? As a citizen of a free country under republican institutions, could it be otherwise? "As to that," you explain, "his voting may be interfered with." Do you mean to tell me that as a free citizen he cannot always vote as he pleases? "Noi," you say, "he may gOi and cast his ballot in the way he chooses, but he may be made to suffer for it in one way or another." How is that possible? I ask. "Why, if it is discovered how he has voted, it might happen that he would lose his position where he was working, as a wage earner or an officer." How could that occur ? "Oh, the employer or the company could dis- charge him; throw him out oi work, because the company or the employer did not wish tO' have him vote in that way and may have warned or threatened him before he went to the polling place." Under those circumstances, would you assert that he was not a free man? "Surely we should," you answer. But he could have voted as he pleased, and taken the consequences. "Yes, but his freedom would have been interfered with just the same, whether it was done by a private citizen or by the government." But what if the company or person who employed him should leave him free and not interfere with him, would there be any other way by which he might be prevented from voting just as he pleased? "Yes, other citizens might threaten him, or they might warn him in advance that they would do him an injury in one way or another unless he voted in the way they wished him to." 1^0 tHE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Would that be interfering with his privileges as a voter, making him less a free man ? "Yes, indeed !" But how is this possible in a free country under republican institutions? "Because," you add, "peo- ple do not always live up tO' their institutions." You think, do you, that there is a real temptation on the part of people in one way or another, to inter- fere with the way their fellow citizens may vote, even where they are supposed toi be living under a free government? But have we any right to interfere with another citizen in this way, by threatening to do him an injury in case he will not vote in our way? "Most emphatically not," you insist. And why? I ask. "Because it is the first principle of a free government that a man should be allowed to vote according toi his conscience." But how would it be on the other hand, if it vvere found out that he had been bribed, and had voted in a certain way because of that bribe? Would anything be done? Could he be interfered with, under such circumstances? "Yes, if it were discovered, he could be punished." But why so? He is a free man and may vote as he pleases. "No," you tell me, "he is not privileged to sell his vote." And what makes the difference? "He is free," you reply, "to vote according to his own best judg- ment or according to his conscience, but not free to injure the country of which he is a citizen by voting in order to make money out of the privilege." You assume that a threat made by the government through its laws, forbidding voting for bribes or money, does not interfere with the actual freedom of the true citizen ? "No', surely not !" But in case a citizen is really interfered with through private citizens, by menaces of one kind or THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN 15! another, threatening him with punishment, or per- haps making it impossible for him to earn his Hving, what is to be done about it ? "Oh, he can stay away from the voting place and not share in the privilege of the ballot." Yes, I reply, but you have said to me that in a certain way voting is a duty. "In that case," you continue, "he ought to be protected in his efiforts to perform his duty as a citizen." And who should protect him there ? I ask. Should other private citizens come in and threaten those whoi had done the first threatening? "No, indeed, it should be the government itself." And in what way, would you suggest ? "Why, the government through its legislature could pass laws forbidding such an interference, and fixing punishments for the men who should inter- fere in that way." True, but laws do not do the thing itself. They might be enacted and a man not be free to vote as he pleases, all the same. "Not if the officers elected to execute the laws, do their duty," you add. You believe, then, that it is the duty of the state to protect the citizen in his right of a free ballot ? "Most decidedly," you answer, "the state should pass laws for that purpose and the officers should see that they are executed." If all this were done, so that private citizens or companies could not interfere with a man's privi- lege in voting according to his best judgment and conscience, would there be any other way, do you suppose, by which the ballot might not execute the free man's will? "Yes, the votes might not be counted correctly." And how could that happen? "Why, the govern- ment itself might be corrupt. It might, itself, do the interfering with the citizens' rights." 152 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. You mean to say that a large majority of the citizens might vote in one way and the decision be rendered in another? "Yes, if the officers in charge of the whole matter were corrupt and determined to control the elections." But how is this possible under a free government ? "For the same reason we have given before," you tell me, "because people doi not always live up to their own institutions." But how would it be possible for the minority to interfere with the majority? "As to that, it might so happen that since a previous election, the persons holding the offices and controlling the government no longer had the sympathy of the majority of the citizens ; yet they would still hold the power." But is it ever possible, on the other hand, for the majority itself to interfere with the elections? "Yes, the officers, if they had the larger number of the citizens behind them, might not be afraid of what would happen, and therefore could refuse to count the votes fairly." But why should a citizen care to have his vote counted if his side is to be defeated ? "That is very important," you tell me, "because he may wish to have his vote regarded as a protest or as giving his honest opinion, even if he is in the minority." Why would not this be fair, provided the majority were the interfering party? Do we not believe in the rule of the majority? "Not if it is a form of actual tyranny, committing a gross injustice upon citizens of the state." It strikes you, then, that there can be such a thing as tyranny even under a republican form of govern- ment? "Yes, in special cases," you confess, "where the majority is very arbitrary." But would there be any other reason why a majority of the citizens would have noi right to act THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I53 in this way? "They would be breaking the law of the state itself," you assert. In what way ? "Why, most states and governments have laws aimed to protect its citizens in their rights as voters." Then it would be possible, would it, for a majority of the citizens to break the law ? "Most decidedly !" You assume, then, that it is a state's duty not only to protect its citizens from the interference of other citizens in the matter of the ballot, but toi provide a perfectly fair ballot on the part of the government itself, so that the officers of the government shall not interfere? "Yes, indeed." It looks, then, as if the state had certain duties in this matter, as well as the citizen ; and it is a very important side of the whole subject. Yet we are not quite done with this discussion about the ballot. We have said very emphatically that a man may not vote for the sake of a bribe. But may there not be severe temptations leading a man to vote against his own best judgment or conscience, apart from a money bribe? "As to that," you answer, "he may have been promised some appointment in case he votes in a certain way." True, I admit, but that would not be the same thing as taking money for his vote, would it ? "Yes, but there may be more than one way of accepting a bribe." It strikes you, then, that a citizen might fail in his duty and vote against his own conscience, merely for the sake of getting some appointment through the man he was voting for. But how would it be as regards a political party ? We have such parties in our country, do we not? "Oh, yes!" Is it right for a citizen to belong to a political party? "Surely, men have a right to act together in order to carry forward the cause they believe in." 154 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. You would say, that if a man belonged to such a party, he ought always to vote for its candidates? "No?" you hesitate. And why not, if it is only through having political parties that we can carry out the measures we believe in ? "Because the party might happen to nominate a man of really bad character." You are convinced that under those circumstances a citizen ought to hesitate about voting with the party? "Surely," you insist, "otherwise he might be voting against the real interests of the country as a whole." But what if a man has belonged to a party all his life and has supported it and feels that the party has done a great good for the country? Is he to go back on it in case it supports bad measures ? "Yes," you insist, "for one reason, if for no other, because a party may go back on itself." You believe, do you, that in certain serious cases, a man ought to repudiate the candidate of his own party or vote against it, because it is supporting measures which he regards as a serious menace to the interests of the country? "Yes." And do citizens do this always? Is it the usual thing? "You doubt it?" And why not? "Oh, it is natural for a citizen to cling to his party and vote with the others, perhaps without much thinking." True, but suppose he does a good deal of think- ing on the matter ? "Even then," you add, "he may hate to go back on a body of men with whom he has worked, although he knows they are taking a wrong course." You think that citizens may not always do their full duty in the way they vote? Which really should come first in one's thoughts when casting a ballot — the party and its interests, or the country as a whole? THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. IJS "Why," you exclaim, "oi course there is only one answer: the country as a whole." But does a political party ever try to punish a man for not voting with it at an election? How could it do this? "In that respect," you say, "it might act like any body oif private citizens. It could interfere with his getting work or earning a living. If the party is successful and elects its men to office, it could refuse to grant him the same privileges or the same rights it granted to other citizens. It might not even protect him in his rights to the same extent." Is it possible, then, that even a political party could exercise a certain kind of tyranny? "Yes, indeed!" And all this, I add, under a free govern- ment? "True, the government may be free in theory, but the people may be very arbitrary oir tyrannical in their methods oif carrying on the government." And yet we must have political parties, I insist. "Surely," you answer, "and it is right for a man to belong to a political party." Folnts of the Idesson. I. That the ballot is a "weapon" and also "executes" the citizen's will. II. That citizens are sometimes through interference not really left free to vote as they please or as they think is right, even under a republican form of government. III. That the freedom of the ballot on the part of a citi- zen is sometimes interfered with by threats of other citizens or by some indirect form of coei'cion. IV. That freedom of the ballot does not imply the right to vote in a certain way for the sake of a bribe, or against what one believes to be the best good of one's country. V. That even a government itself, if it is corrupt, some- times through its officers interferes with the freedom of the ballot. . , VI. That a tyranny of the majority m the matter of the ballot sometimes exists, like tyranny of a one-man despotism. VII. That the freedom of the ballot is the greatest safe- guard of republican institutions. 156 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Duties of tbe Citizen. /. We ought never to interfere zvith the right of other citizens in voting according to their own con- science and best judgment. II. We ought in voting never to place the inter- ests of a political party before the interests of the country as a whole. The State's Duty. /. A state by its government ought to provide its citizens with a free and impartial ballot. II. A state by its government ought to protect its citizens from any interference with the privilege of voting according to their own conscience and best judgment. Poem. The kings of old have shrine and tomb In many a minster's haughty gloom ; And green, along the ocean side, The mounds arise where heroes died; But show me on thy flow'ry breast. Earth ! where thy nameless martyrs rest ! The thousand that, uncheered by praise, Have made one offering of their days; For truth, for right, for freedom's sake, Resigned the bitter cup to take; And silently in fearless faith Bowing their noble souls to death: — Yet haply all around lie strewed The ashes of that multitude; It may be that each day we tread Where thus devoted hearts have bled; And the young flowers our children sow, Take root in holy dust below. — F. D. Hemens. "Every portion of our country finds the most com- manding motives for carefully guarding and preserv- ing the Union of the whole. * * * -p^ ^^ efficacy and permanency of your Union, a Govemr THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 1 57 ment for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, hoivever strict between the parts, can be an adequate substitute. They 'must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momen- tous truth, you have improved upon your iirst essay, by the adoption of a Constitution of Government, better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the eMcacious management of your common concerns. This government , the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, com- pletely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true Liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to estab- lish government presupposes the duty of every indi- vidual to obey the established government." — Wash- ington's "Farewell Address." Further Sng'g'estionB to the Teacher. Continue this subject of voting and the ballot as long as it is possible to keep the interest of the class members. It is one of the most crucial series of topics for study in the entire course of instruction. If the pupils tire of it after a little while, then come back to it later on, after taking up some other theme 158 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. for a time. Over and over again, in one way or another, emphasize the fact that voting is a duty and that a citizen should vote for the interests of his country as a v^^hole. Dwell further on the possi- bility of a tyranny of a majority. Try to maiie the young people see the iniquity of interfering with another citizen who is voting according to his con- science. The temptation in modern times is very great to interfere with citizens in this direction, almost from a sense of duty itself. People may say: If a cause is right, why should we not try to compel others to support our cause? It involves, too, the delicate problem of the boycott. We do not wish here to go into the ethics of this subject in detail, but it might be well to point out the danger of using such a weapon when it comes to the ballot. We can show how a method of this kind may act like a boomerang. If we use it in a right cause, it may be used against us at another time in a wrong cause. Explain how an interference with freedom of the ballot is a form of tyranny, not unlike the tyranny of former despotisms. Point out that a despotism may be enforced through a number of individuals, as well as through one ruler. This fact should be brought out repeatedly and with great emphasis. People are liable to forget that one may use force or violence indirectly without seeming to employ phy- sical means. We must have young people understand that it were better for a citizen to have a free ballot, even if the vote is on the wrong side, than to inter- fere with him or his ballot, because in the latter case we are exercising violence or using force, and upset- ting the first principles of a free government. In connection with the lesson, if thought desirable, one or two pictures might be introduced, showing a citizen standing at the polling place or casting. his THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 1 59 ballot. So, too, there might be a picture of another scene where the ballots were being counted. In a future lesson, we shall discuss the tremendous sacri- fices the human race has made in order to acquire this privilege of the ballot, when we come to treat of the "Struggle for Freedom in the History of States." CHAPTER XL PAYING TAXES AS THE DUTY OF A CITIZEN: THE ETHICS OF TAXATION. Memory Gem — "/ was born an American; I live an American; I shall die an American; and I intend to perform the du- ties incumbent upon w.e in that character to the end of my career. I mean to do this, with absolute disregard of personal consequences." — Daniel Webster. Sialosfue. Who pays for carrying on the government? Where does the money come from? "Oh," you exclaim, "it must come from the people, from the citizens." Then what is it that the citizens have to pay, in order that the country may continue to carry on its activities ? "Taxes ?" But do all citizens pay taxes ? "No," you assert, "some of them may not pay anything at all." What persons dO' you mean ? Who, for instance, might escape? "Why, a man might hide his property, not let the other citizens know he possessed it, and so' he might not be called upon toi pay any taxes." And do any other classes of persons escape besides those who have property and hide it? "Yes, there are the poor, those who have no property at all." And you think they pay noi taxes? "Why," you ask, "ho'W could they do so?" Are you quite sure about this ? You really believe, do you, that there are some citizens who never pay any taxes of any kind ? What if the poor man, for instance, rents some i6o THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. l6l rooms where his family may Hve, to whom does he pay rent ? "Oh, tO' the owner of the house, the land- lord." Yes, that is true. And how do you suppose the landlord, as a rule, fixes the rate at which he rents a house? "Why," you point out, "he probably charges what he assumes he can get for it." But do all the landlords who own houses have to pay taxes? "Of course; they cannot hide their property." Then would it not be possible for those who own houses to charge a little more, and make those who rent the houses or rooms pay accordingly? "Yes?" you hesitate. Now what do you say as tO' whether the poor man has to pay any taxes? "You think, after all, that even the poorest man may have toi pay taxes?" You are right; every citizen whoi lives in this country and buys anything, in some way or another will have to pay taxes, because what he buys will cost more from the fact that those who sell have had to pay taxes. And so it is, you see, that citizens are obliged to serve their country in this way whether they wish to do so or not. But what would you say viath regard to a man who had considerable property and hid it away alto^ gether, so as not to pay any taxes at all apart from what he had toi pay indirectly when buying some- thing for his needs? Other men would be paying taxes on their property besides what they had to pay in the way we have described. Do you feel that such a man would be acting rightly? "We are not quite sure. Why should he pay unless he is compelled to do so?" you say. But remember what our country does for us. You have described in previous lessons some of the bless- ings we get from having a country. Does it not 1 62 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. strike you as rather mean not to wish to make some return for the good one receives in this direction? Should not a man feel rather ashamed to have all the favors on one side ? If such a person, for instance, pays no taxes at all, save those of an indirect kind, who does pay? "Why, the other people; somebody has to pay them." Then he is really making other people pay for the benefits which he himself has received. Does that seem honest or fair? If, for example, a man in some peculiar way, could escape from paying any taxes on his property, owing to certain defects in the form of the law, doi you think it would be entirely right for him to do so? Have you ever heard of such a thing as a "debt of honor?" "Yes?" And what do we mean by this? Suppose, for example, a man borrows some money from another, but does not give any receipt for it, or any pledge, merely saying: "I will pay you at a certain time." It is then only an agreement of words passing be^ tween them, which no one else knows anything about. What if that man, when the time came around, should refuse to pay the money and assert, "I signed no agreement to that effect ;" would it be honorable on his part ? "Oh, ho," you exclaim, "it would be highly dis- honorable." Yes, but it was not a legal debt, as we say; he had not signed an agreement, and perhaps he could not be compelled toi pay the money. What sort oif a debt would it be? "Why, it would be a debt of honor." Then do you see, perhaps, that paying taxes to our country for what we receive, may be a kind of debt of honor even where by some trick we might get out THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 1 63 of all legal obligations to pay those taxes. If we did not pay, would it not be almost the same thing on our part as robbing other people of money which they have to pay for goods that we receive? But how is the iTioney used, which the citizens have to pay as taxes ? "Why, it goes for the support of the government; to protect our property, or to furnish protection for our lives." In what way, do you assume? "As to. that," you continue, "it is for the policemen, the courts, and the laws, and for the officers who are to enforce the laws." Would you say, then, that all the taxes we pay go just for protecting us, our lives and our property? What are some of the other advantages we receive from our country? What great institution is it by which children get their education? "The public schools?" Yes; and we pay taxes, do we not, for those schools in oirder that the young may have education ? How about the streets where we walk, the roads we travel on; how are they paid for? "Oh, they, too, are paid for by means of the taxes." Then is it true that the taxes are paid, after all, just merely for the protection we get for our lives and our property? "No, of course not; it is some- thing more." You see, do you, that our country is also like a great family in certain respects. There are some things which we do for ourselves individually, and we pay for these things as individuals. But th,ai there are other things which we have in co-mmon, because it is more convenient toi have them in that way, — as, for instance, the postoffice, or the public schools, OT the streets which we are using all the while. And thus it is that each man pays first for wh.l; 164 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. he does for himself individually, and then again we all pay together for certain goods which we get in common through the government. Note to the Teacher : The attention of teachers^ is called to this great point. There has been a theory coming down from past times implying that taxes were paid merely in order to have protection for property or life, — as if, therefore, they were only a necessary evil. This prejudice has lowered the standards of citizenship in a democracy, partly perhaps be- cause it arose from earlier forms of government where taxes were a necessary evil. Try to make the young people see that the taxes we pay do not go into the hands of a government for mere protective purposes, but that the state, or the city, or the nation is also like a family, for which as members we pay a certain amount in order to have certain benefits, where it is more convenient to have work done in common than by each citizen individually. Dwell on the immense sums which are ex- pended for these various purposes. Aim to destroy this un- fortunate prejudice in the minds of the young. Something could be said about the wrong impression conveyed in the famous adage, "only two things are certain, death and taxes." Show the pupils that taxes are not merely a necessary evil, but that they are a debt we owe to our country in return for value received, and that it is as disloyal not to pay our share for what we receive aS it would be to do nothing for a father and mother who had been making sacrifices for many years in our behalf. Rid the minds of the young, if possible, of the notion that taxation represents a kind of tyranny. Dwell, for in- stance, on what it would cost an individual to carry a letter three thousand miles across the country, and make him see how much he gets when he is able to send that letter for only two cents. Have the pupil feel that it is his country which does this ; that it is because he has a country, that he is able to have his letter carried for two cents instead of paying many dollars for that purpose, or sacrificing a good deal of time in order to it for himself. By the way, to whom or what do we pay taxes? "To the nation ?" You mean, do you, that we pay taxes to the United States government? "Yes, in some way the government rnust be supported." That is quite true, "although most of the taxes at the pres- ent time paid to our national government are paid "indirectly" as we say. But to what else dO' we pay taxes besides to the THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 1 65 United States as a whole? "To the state?" Yes, but to what state? "Why, to our own state where we Hve." Quite true; the government oif our spe- cial state has to be supported. And to what else do we pay taxes? "To the city?" Yes; we have to support the government of the city and the public schools. And so you see we pay taxes to the city, the state and to the nation as a whole. Have you any idea how much money is paid in taxes in this country ? Do you know what it costs to carry on the public schools of your town or city for one year? Suppose you try tO' find out, and let me kaow the next time. See if you can learn how much it costs for the education of each pupil in your schools during one year. Could you tell me how much the United States government spends in one year, or how much your town or city has toi spend in order to carry on its work? Note to the Teacher : Get some of these figures from the last United States Census and from the latest report of the School Boards, or from the last annual report of the respective mayors. These figures will naturally be of some interest to the pupils and make them feel more definitely what taxes mean and what it costs to carry on all the branches of work on the part of the city or the state or the United States. The subject of paying taxes is naturally dry, or more so than the subject of voting. Yet a certain interest can be thrown around it by working on the imagination of the pupils through large figures, although it is not necessary that the young people should remember these items. Show, for instance, how much has to be paid out for each man, woman and child in one city. Let them realize what it costs for them individually in order that they should have education, and that they should have all the advantages of their city life. In every way possible make them feel a solemn responsibility connected with the subject of tax-paying. There is a wide opportunity for illustrating the whole subject by pointing out what the money goes for in the different ways in which it is expended. On the other hand, make the pupils realize that even the money paid in taxes does not pay for all that we receive. Little by little 1 66 THE iJUTIfiS OF A CITIZElSf. impress it on their miiids that they get something which evetl money cannot pay for or that money itself could not give them. Try to impress it on their minds that there is a debt which they owe to those who are dead and gone, and who have worked to build up their city or the whole country. Help them to understand that in this way the people living today really get vastly more than they pay for. Do not let the pupils, as we have said before, think that their country is a mere business partnership. A great deal can be made out of the idea of a "Debt of Honor." When people pay taxes in order to carry on the goivernment, dO' you think that the money they pay does anything more than merely bring back an immediate good ? Do you see, for instance, how it is that in helping to carry on the work of one's coun- try, one is also doing something for the future of the state, just as those who worked for the welfare of the country a hundred years ago, did something for us whoi are living noiw. By paying taxes, we are not only getting protec- tion for life and property, not only getting our pub- lic schools, or the postoffice, but we are building up the nation more and more. In paying taxes we serve our country by helping to make our country. But there is another side to this subject. We have been speaking of the duties we owe as citizens to the state in regard tO' taxation. Are there any duties whichi the state may owe to the citizen in this connection? What if, for exam- ple, a government found that it needed a sum of money for a special purpose, and the legislators were immediately to lay a tax on one special kind of prop- erty, oiwned only by a few citizens. This would be right, would it not ? It would be done according to the authority of the state by the enactment of law. "Not by any means," you ex- claim ; "it might be most unfair or unjust." And why? "Because it would be discriminating the; duties of a citizen. 167 against one body of citizens, taking more from them than their share, for the use of the government." Yes, that is true. We beheve that a state ought to^ lay its taxes in such a way that the burden shall fall evenly on all the citizens. What if, then, the legisla- tors took back the first enactment and undertook to pass another which might distribute the burdens more equally? But suppose the new method pur- sued, interfered very seriously with the transac- tions of business, proving excessively or unneces- sarily annoying to the citizens. "As to that," you tell me, "the state or govern- ment must have the money for its expenditures." Yes, I point out, but has it any obligations to the citizens in the way it interferes with their prosperity by the methods it pursues in collecting that money ? "Oh, yes, a government surely ought to lay its taxes in such a manner as to cause the least possible interference with the general prosperity of the coun- try." Note to the Teacher : Examples in this connection should be given, while care should be exercised not to bring in any points which would involve a discussion on political questions. For this special purpose one could draw on certain customs of former times which have now for the most part dropped out oiE use among civilized nations — as, for example, collecting export duties, which naturally put a check on the prosperity of a country by lessening its trade or commercial transactions with other nations. A number of illustrations of one kind or an- other could be brought together in order to develop this point, as it is an important one which every citizen should appreciate. If, however, these difficulties are obviated, so that the taxes should be distributed fairly among the citizens without discrimination, and should be laid so as to do the least harm toi the general prosperity of the country, would the state have done its whole duty in the matter? "Apparently so?" Think now a little further. You have spoken of l68 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. the requirements of the state in its need for money. But at the same time this must come from the citi- zens. What if the state should be extravagant in the way it disbursed its money? "How is that possible?" you ask. But individuals or families can be extravagant, I assert. "Oh yes," you admit. But what would that suggest? "Why, it would imply spending more than they could really afford, using up th,eir property so fast that not enough might be left for future needs or requirements." It would mean, would it, exhausting the resources of the family instead of increasing them? Why then, I ask, would it not be possible for a state also to commit this mistake ? In time of prosperity might the government not be wasteful by drawing too heavily on the property of its citizens, exhausting such resources faster than they were being accumu- lated? What then would happen? "Something like bank- ruptcy?" And would it be hard on the citizens? "Yes, indeed, they would be the sufferers." It looks, does it not, as if a state or government might be extravagant just like a private citizen or a private family? It could exhaust its resources by over- expenditures. We are convinced that a state also has a duty in this direction, in not laying too heavy a burden on its citizens in taxation, through extravagant or waste- ful expenditures. All this is important, and yet it is not the whole of the subject. A state or government might avoid extravagance, and lay its taxes fairly among the citizens, and endeavor that such taxation should not necessarily interfere with the prosperity of the coun- try as a whole. And yet might there not be trouble? THE DUTIES 01? A CITIZEN. l6g "Yes," you admit, "because people do not naturally like to pay taxes." But might there not be different ways of collect- ing taxes, soine of which would be less unpleasant than others ? What if, for example, the government insisted on drawing its money from the people at an inconvenient time of the year. What if the officers had a disagreeable method in their way of collecting the taxes from the citizens? "As to that," you assure me, "a state ought to be considerate in the way it collects the taxes, as much as in the way it lays them upon its citizens." We recognize, therefore, do we not, that there are a number of important duties or obligations on the part of the government toward the citizen, in regard to taxation, as well as duties on the part of the citi- zen toward the state or government? Points of the Kesson. I. That the work of the government is supported chiefly by means of taxes. II. That all persons pay some taxes, whether they try to avoid it or not. III. That it is mean or selfish not to be ready to pay one's share of the taxes for the needs of the government. IV. That if one citizen does not pay his share, he makes others pay more than theirs, and so commits an injustice against his fellow-citizens, as well as against the state as a whole. V. That we should recognize a debt of honor toward our country for what it does for us. VI. That taxation is not merely for protecting people's rights, but for carrying on work for the welfare of the people as a whole. VII. That in supporting our country by a share of our means, we are helping at the same time to build up the country for the future. Duties of the Citizen. /. We ought each to pay a fair share of tares in support of the state and its government. II. We ought to appreciate the fact that in pay- t^O THE^DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. ing taxes we receive in return far more than we give J because it is by this means that we can be citizens of a state and have the privileges of such citizenship. Snties of the State. /. A state ought to enact such taxation laws as will best serve its interests as a whole, while doing the least injury to the individual citizens. II. A state ought to have a system of taxation which will be just and fair between all its citizens. III. A state ought not to exhaust the resources of its citizens by taxation for extravagant expendi- tures. IV. A state in collecting taxes ought to do it in such a way as to cause the least possible annoyance to its citizens. Foem. O beautiful ! our country ' Be thine a nobler care, Than all the wealth of commerce, Thy harvests waving fair ; Be it thy pride to lift up The manhood of the poor; Be thou to the oppressed Fair Freedom's open door. For thee our fathers suffer'd. For thee they toil'd and pray'd; Upon thy holy altar Their willing lives they laid. Thou hast no common birth-right. Grand memories on thee shine; The blood of pilgrim nations Commingled flows in thine. O beautiful ! our country ! Round thee in love we draw; Thine is the grace of Freedom, The majesty of Law; Be righteousness thy scepter, Justice thy diadem; And on thy shining forehead, Be peace the crowning gem. — F. L. HOSMER, 'THE; GUTIES OB" A CITIZEN, I'/l Story: Tlie Magna Charta. We have been talking to you today about taxes and taxa- tion. It is rather a dreary subject. People do not like to pay taxes and they do not like to think much about taxation. It belongs to what we call the science of economics or the science of government. And yet there is a great deal of most tragic history connected with the subject of paying taxes. It has caused the death of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people ; it has led to war, to injustice of every kind; it has made people hate one another and made people hate their government, their rulers, or their kings. Nowadays usually, as you know, it is the people themselves who decide what taxes they shall pay, or how they shall pay their taxes. But the people have not had this privilege many thousands of years. It is only within the last few hundred years that the people themselves have had anything to say as to what their taxes should be or how much they should pay to their government or their kings in the way of taxes. In the early times the rulers or kings would take just what they pleased or decide for themselves what the people should pay, and the people simply had to endure it or suffer persecution and even perhaps be put to death if they refused. But I want to tell you about the one great event with which we connect this change by which the people are now able to decide for themselves what taxes they shall pay. You see, this change must have cost a great struggle ; it must have been brought about through wars and through the sacrifice of thousands of lives. The kings or rulers of early times must have resisted this change with all their might and fought against it until they had to give in. As you know, many of the principles of our government did not start with ourselves, but came from England. And it was from that country that we took the principle about the right of the people to determine the amount of taxes they should pay. The battle was fought out long before white men ever came to this country, before even Columbus had discovered America. Over in England I suppose it was true as everywhere else in those time*, the kings were "despotic" as we say; they could do as they pleased, much more than they can nowadays. They were not checked by laws or constitutions. It was the old story; when men can do as they please and have great power, they are liable to abuse that power and wrong the people they rule over. And it was so in those early times in England. The kings would murder people without cause; they would take away the property of their subjects; they would have men seized and cast into prison, and keep them there without giving them any trial or letting them know what they were in prison for. It is not strange that oftentimes the 172 THE DUTIES OF A CiTIZElSf. people hated their kings and took no pleasure in having a government. But little by little as all this grew worse and worse, the people began to resist such persecutions. They were deter- mined to have certain rights recognized by their kings, even if it cost the lives of many citizens. The great step in this change was taken in the reign of King John. This man must have been a very brutal sort of a king. You may have heard how he became jealous of a young prince by the name of Arthur, and how he ordered his men to go and put out the boy's eyes with red-hot irons. When you come to read Shakespeare, I know you will be interested in the scene of one of his plays where this Prince Arthur as a boy pleads with the men who have come to put out his eyes with red-hot irons, and finally persuades them not to do it, while the matter is kept secret from King John. But with this king, as I have said, things grew worse and worse. He did not respect the rights of his people, and cared naught for their lives or their property, save as he wanted it for himself. And at last, as we know, they rose up in rebellion. The freemen were determined to have an end to these abuses. A number of them had come together and made a list of their grievances and put down in writing certain rights and privileges which they were determined to make the king agree to. They decided that they would compel King John to sign this agreement, and it was to be a Charta between him and the people. It is one of the most famous documents in history, and that is why I am telling you about it. This step taken by certain of the free people in England led to some of the greatest changes and reforms the human race has experienced since the world began. It is known as the "Magna Charta," or the Great Charter. One of the most important principles in this document was that the people should not be taxed without their own con- sent. Their property was never to be taken away from them for the use of the king or the state or the government, unless they or their representatives had agreed to it. It is impossible to make you understand how important this principle was; but you can rest assured that King John would have done almost anything rather than agree to it. The people, however, had endured all they could, and would endure the abuses no longer. They took their document with them and marched on London, the capital city of England. The king saw that his life was in danger and fled in dismay. But there was nothing else for him to do. The danger was so great that he had to give in. He met the people in a meadow called Runnymede, close by the river Thames, not far from London. It was the bitterest thing in the world for him to humiliate himself in this way and be compelled to sign an agreement which he hated. But the people stood there beside him, and they made him read that document, and they said to THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I73 him: "You shall sign this and give it to us as our charter." I should like to have seen the king's face at that time; for I cannot help feeling a little glad that he was to be punished in this way and made to do what was right in spite of himself. The charter took away all sorts of royal privileges. The king was no more to be allowed to seize men and imprison them without giving them a trial, and the people on the other hand were to have something to say in the way they should be governed. And as they stood there, the king signed the document and gave them their Magna Charta. The principle of freedom and of justice triumphed. We are told how King John went back to the palace in a rage ; how he threw himself on the ground, biting anything he could get hold of in the fury of his anger. But he had signed his name there and the charter had been given. It is true, he did not keep to his agreement. Again and again this wicked king tried to break the charter and did break it. What is more, other kings failed to keep it, and more than one of them again denied the people their rights. But the fact could not be escaped on the part of any king, that this charter had once been given to the people ; and whenever the people had a grievance of any kind, whenever they were aroused to indignation over injustice, this great charter was their rallying cry. It was the foundation of the new forms of government that were to arise, by which the people were to have a choice in deciding how they should be governed. It was a sort of standard held up before the people to which they could look and for which they could fight. If it had not been for that great charter, I do not suppose there would be any United States of America to-day. It was signed on the 19th of June, in the meadow of Runny- mede, in the year 1204. Some time in the future, you may visit the British Museum in London, and if you do, I should advise you to look among some of the old documents there, and if you search hard enough, you will come upon a faded, musty-looking piece of paper or parchment, with the letters dimmed with age, and you may try to spell it out; but you will find it was written in Latin. If you go on studying it, however, you may be able to make out the words. It is a copy of that Magna Charta, made at the very time in the year 1204 when it was signed by King John, and the great principle was established that the people themselves should decide what amount of taxes they should pay. Classic for Beading' or Kecltation. "During the contest of opinion through which we have passed, the animation of discussions and of ex- ertions has sometimes worn an aspect which might 174 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. impose on strangers unused to think freely, and to speak and to write what they think; but this being now decided by the voice of the nation, announced according to the rules of the Constitution, all will of course arrange themselves under the will of the law, and unite in common efforts for the common good. All too will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to pre- vail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression. Let us then, fellow citizens, unite zmth one heart and one mind, let us restore to social intercourse that harmony and affection without which liberty and even life itself are but dreary things. * * * / ijelieve this, the strongest gov- ernment on earth. I believe it the only one where every man, at the call of the lam, would ily to the standard of the law, and would meet invasions of the public order as his own personal concern. Some- times it is said, that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he then be trusted with the government of others?" — Inaugural Address — Thomas Jefferson. TxatSxea Sug'g'estlonB to the Teacher. For illustration, use the story of Magna Charta, with pictures from Green's illustrated edition of the "History of the English People." Be sure to ac- quaint yourself through some trustworthy textbook on "Civics," with regard tO' the different forms of taxation. But be cautious in describing them, other- wise you. may involve yourself in discussions on theories in Political Economy. If possible, get the figures of amounts expended on the public schools of the locality where the pupils live. Find out from the Statesmen Year Book the total expenditures for THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 175 the United States government in the preceding year — mentioning alsoi perhaps that the chief item is for pensions. The whole subject of taxation may be found dry and abstract. E,very possible effort should be made, therefore, to introduce concrete aspects in order to arouse the interest of the pupils and empha- size the importance of the points which are made. Keep strictly throughout the lesson to the ethical phase of the subject. Remember that we are laying down general principles and that these may be of great value, even if we must exercise caution in applying them tO' particular questions or special situations. As regards the effort on the part of cer- tain persons to escape payment o^f taxes, we are touching on a very delicate point. It will be impos- sible to go fully into the right and wrong of tax- paying, because some of the pupils may take the ele- ments of the discussion home tO' their fathers and mothers, and occasion bad feeling, owing to the sad moral confusion on this whole subject prevailing everywhere. Tlie most that can be done in this direction is to emphasize in every possible way, the unfairness or meanness or disloyalty of not at least paying something as one's share for what one re- ceives. This point can be brought out very posi- tively. At the same time, we cannot go very far into the discussion of this theme in details, owing to the fact that our tax laws are often so confusing that a man may not always know exactly what is right and what is wrong in this matter. Yet the chief point is clear. Emphasize very stro'ngly the shame im- plied when a man would dodge from paying his share. CHAPTER XII. SERVICES A CITIZEN OWES TO HIS COUNTRY WHEN HE IS IN PUBLIC OFFICE. Memory Gem: — "Government is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created for the benefit of the people." — Henry Clay. Dialogue. What if a man paid honest taxes regularly, always went to the polls and voted conscientiously, and stood ready to serve his country in time of war, would all this make him a good citizen ? "Yes, indeed," you assert. You think, do you, that there is nothing else one may have to do for one's country? Assuming that a man were to doi all this, but were asked to hold an office, and said, "No, I have no time; I am busy about other things and must look after my own affairs," — would that be all right; would it be loyal toi his country? "Yes, because there might be plenty of others who would be willing to take the position." But do you believe that the most capable men, as a rule, would be willing to accept the office? "As to that," you tell me, "men are only too eager to get into office; why, then, should not a man be allowed to refuse, if he chooses?" Why do men desire tOi get into office ? You know that thousands, even hundreds of thousands, try to secure positions under the government. Is it because they are intensely anxious to be of service to their 176 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN, 177 country, or to make sacrifices for their country's sake? "Oh no." But why not? "To' them it would seem all nonsense toi use such language," you answer; "that is not what such men usually think about ; they want to get an office under the government for the sake of the salary." You mean to say that people desire to serve their country for the sake of a salary? "Not 'serving,' exactly," you hint. What is it, then, they are trying to do'? "Why, they are trying to make money out of their country." And how does that strike you? "Oh, one must earn a living," you reply. And it is just the same, do you think, whether a man earns his living by doing business with other citizens, or whether he tries to get it by holding office? "There may not be much difference, perhaps?" How woiuld it be in a family, for example, if in the case of two brothers, one cared only for the other in order to make money out of him ? "It would not be very brotherly?" Would you admire the spirit? "No, it would be rather ignoble." And why? "Because," you say, "they are brothers." But it would be right, would it not, if they are grown up and at work in the world, for one to re- ceive payment in money for a service? "Yes, but not with the idea of just using that brother as a means for getting money out of him." How is it, then, with regard to one's country? "Well," you admit, "it is not exactly the highest motive for a citizen to want a position merely in order to get the money it pays, if it is a position under one's government." And why not? I insist. "Because it is one's state or one's country." But suppose the salary were small ; what if a nnn 178 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. could not earn very much in that way, not nearly as much as he could earn in his private business, and yet seemed very anxious to get into office? "O'h well," you continue, "there is the honor of it; people like to have important positions and be talked about ; they like to have power." Do you feel that these two motives, that of the salary and the desire to have power or be important, are the best motives a man could possibly have in taking office ? "No, not exactly ?" What other motive could a man possibly have besides the honor or the salary? "Why, he might be anxious to be of service to the people, or do more for the sake of the country." Now go back tO' our first question. Suppose a man were asked or urged to run for an office, and did not want to do' it because he did not care for the hoaior or the salary, how do you feel as to whether it would be perfectly right for him to refuse? "Oh, perhaps after all, if he can possibly do it, he ought toi accept." But why? "Because there are so many inferior men in office, or men there with in- ferior motives, that if he did not want the office and yet accepted it, he would probably have good motives and make a better officer." But do' you assert that a man should never really think about the salary ? If, for instance, a man gets an appointment as a policeman, or a woman gets an appointment as a teacher in the public schools, is it wrong for them to think about earning their living ? "No, it certainly must be right for him or her to want tO' earn a living, and to try to get a good salary if possible." But do you assume that the feeling about the salary for the work, should be just the same when laboring in one's private affairs as when holding a public position? ".\s to that," you tell me, "a man or woman who THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I79 holds a public position is doing something more than just earning a Hving." But what does that suggest ? What kind of a position are they holding? "Oh they are public servants." Yes, that is a beautiful term. Any one who holds an office under the city or the state or the nation, is a public servant. And what do you mean by a public servant ? "It implies one who serves; one who tries to be of service or value to the public." You are right that those who hold public office should think not only of the salary or of earning their living, but should feel that they are also in that position in order to render a service to the people or to their country. It is not the same thing, after all, as earning one's living. A person in that position is not merely serv- ing those whom he waits on, but he is serving the city or the country as a whole. By the way, I wonder if you have ever heard a well-known phrase or saying to this effect : "Public Office is a Public Trust." Can you guess what that means ? Do you see any sense in it ? What do we understand by a trust? Suppose a person has something valuable and puts it in your care when he is going on a journey, then he "entrusts" it to you, does he not ? That thing is a trust in your care. "Oh," you exclaim, "we begin to see something of what that saying means." Well, what is it? "Why, the position is something entrusted by his fellow citizens to the man who holds the office, and he has to deal with that position as if it were some- thing of value entrusted to his care." But do you assume that all our officers act in that spirit ? Do you fancy that our policemen or the men who take care of the cleaning of the streets, feel as l8o THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. if their positions were a public trust? "No," you confess, "frorn the way they sometimes do their work, we doubt it." Do you think, by the way, that it is right for a man really to wish to hold office and frankly to admit it ? "You do not see why he should not admit it, if he really wants it?" But is it custO'mary for people to say out boldly, I want this or that office? "As tO' that," you tell me, "they may really want it, and yet sometimes feel ashamed to own it." And why should there be any such shame or reluc- tance? "Oh, it is human nature somehow in theory to assume that office ought to be a gift." Yes, it is sometimes put in that way. We hear it said that the office ought to seek the man rather than the man, the office. And do you agree with such a doctrine ? "Why, it might be a little more dignified and there would not be such a scramble for offices or public positions." And yet we described public office as a place for rendering service to one's country, did we not? Should it, then, be undignified for a man to care to hold such a position? "No?" But why do you hesitate ? "Because so many people are scrambling for office, trying to get positions in any possible way, even cheating or telling lies for that purpose." And are they doing this all with the idea of ren- dering a service to their state or tO' the people ? "No indeed; it is mainly because of service which they wish to render to themselves." Suppose, however, it were the other way, and that people did come to feel that an office was a public trust where the interest should be supremely to serve o::e's country. "In that case," you assure me, "of THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. l8l course it would be right for a citizen to wish to hold office." The trouble nowadays, — I judge from what you say, — comes not from the desire to hold office, but from the faults of mistaken theories as to what an official position means or what purpose it is to serve. So too, I ask, dO' you feel that it would be some- thing to be ashamed of, that a man should desire the honor of an office? "Not necessarily?" I agree with you there. A man has a right to desire a posi- tion of honor, provided he is worthy of it and will faithfully perform the duties of that position. By the way, in this connection, I should like to ask you whether women ever hold office? "Not very often?" There are no women in Congress or as governors of the states, do you think? "No, not now at any rate?" But are you so sure that women in large numbers do not hold public positions? For my part, I am inclined to think that there may be hundreds or thou- sands of women in this country in public office. "In what way?" you ask. How about school teachers ? Do you think they usually feel as if in their work they too were public servants, as officers of the government? "Not always?" Yet in a certain sense, they are officers of the town or city almost as much as a Mayor or a member of the City Council or a policeman. And are there any wom,en as school teachers? "Yes, thousands and thousands of them." And who pays these school teachers ? — private citizens, do' you suppose ? "No, they are paid through a school committee or a school board." And where doi these persons get the money with which to pay the teachers? "Oh, from the citizens, from the taxes." 1 82 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Then the pubhc school teacher receives pay from the taxes, just as the mayor or the governor or the President of the United States. "Yes?" Does this not show that women by the liundreds of thousands may be holding public positions in our land? Are they not oifficers of the state almost as much as the President of the United States ? "They do not wear any uniform," you insist. No, but there are other public officers who doi not wear uniforms. They may be officers of the state just the same. Do you think, on the other hand, that a person may be an officer under th,e state in some one par- ticular line of work, and in no other respects ? "How is that possible?" you ask me. Take, for instance, the case of a clergyman. "But in our country," you tell me, "such persons are private citizens and do not draw their means of subsistence from taxation through the state or government." True. And yet in a sense I think they are some- times officers of the state. People may go toi them when desiring to be married, may they not ? And what right have the clergymen to perform the marriage service? "Oh, they are authorized to do' this by the law of the state," you reply. Are there any other citizens allowed to perform the marriage service? "Yes, Judges or Justices of the Peace." And what are those Justices of the Peace or the Judges? "Why, they are officers of the state or government." And is it not true that the clergyman in perform- ing the marriage service, at least in that one case is acting as a public officer? "Yes, it looks that way." I wonder, tooi, if you ever heard of such a thing as a Notary, or Notary Public. What if you wish to have your signature witnessed to? Would it answer THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 183 if you merely got another citizen to sign the docu- ment ? "No," you answer, "if it is ta be under oath." And what must such a person do, then? "Why, he must go before a Notary." And after the oath is administered, what does the Notary put upon the document? "Some writing." And anything else? "Oh, yes, a stamp." True, that is the point. And what is that the stamp of? "Why," you say, "it is the stamp of the government." That is the point I am considering. It is about the same as if the government were to say through its representa- tive : I testify that this is the signature of such and such a man, according to the oath he has taken. You see, that stamp in the hands of a notary means a great deal. What would happen if any citi- zen were to borrow that stamp and use it as he pleased? "Why, the consequences might b» serious," you assure me. "It would be like borrow- ing or stealing the signature of the government." By the way, speaking of official positions, do you know whether salaries are higher or lower there than in private occupations ? "It varies a good deal," you tell me. In what way ? "Why, for example, in certain kinds of work, the wages are often above what the same person would earn for a like amount O'f work as a private citizen." But how is it with other officers, such as Judges in the Courts, members of the President's Cabinet, Mayors, or Judges in the Supreme Court of the United States? "You do not know, in such cases?" Well, I can tell you that in comparison with what many men in such offices have been able to earn in private life, the salary is very small indfeed. There are lawyers in the Supreme Court of the United States as Judges there, not receiving one-quarter of what they could earn in their private capacities as 184 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. lawyers. This is true of some of the Mayors of the cities or Governors of the states. And how do you explain this? "Why," you answer, "there may be an honest desire to give service to their country, even for a smaller compen- sation than what they have been earning as private citizens." Yes, I agree with you. There are more citizens than we may suppose, who really take office from this serious motive. They honestly desire to be in a position where they can serve their country. But would there be any other motive, can you think? "Oh, yes, there would be the honor." True, and that is an important point. This explains why the compensation is often com- paratively small for such important offices, because honor makes up for the relatively small salary. Among lawyers, for example, it is a great distinction to be appointed a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States. And ought a man to be ashamed of desiring that honor? "No," you tell me, "we have already pointed out to the contrary. It is right for a man to wish to hold a position of honor, if he is worthy of it and can render a service in that position." Do you believe it is likely, by the way, that any of us will hold office some time? "Perhaps?" you hesi- tate. Many of us? "No, there are not offices enough to go around." But haw about the minor offices, I suggest, the positions we may hold temporarily ? "Oh, yes," you answer, "a great many may occupy such positions." Take it in elections, for example. Can the voting all be done with the assistance of a few persons on election day? "Why, nO', it requires a great number of judges or separate individuals at the polling place." Who does this work, — the regular officers of the THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. l8S city or state? "No," you reply, "individuals who are appodnted temporarily." For that time, then, they are as much oifficers of the state as the Mayor or Governor, are they not? "Yes, indeed !" You see, in one wray or another, thousands of us may some time in the future hold some position under our government ; we may be a teacher or prin- cipal of a school ; we may be judge of elections ; we may be on the police force, or on a school board, or in the town or city council. We may be a Notary Public, holding the seal of the government in our hands, or we may attain tO' higher positions. And in this connection, I want to ask another special question. It may have been answered indi- rectly before. We will apply it to the case of a policeman. It happens sometimes, does it not, that a person becomes intoxicated ? "Yes," you answer, "but it ought not tO' occur." And how does a man look when he is in such a condition ? "Why, he acts like a fool ; he loses his dignity and he makes people ridicule or despise him." Yes, and how does he feel sometimes when he re- covers from that experience? "Oh, he would proib- ably be ashamed of it all, unless he has been guilty of it a good many times." Now I ask you: Suppose a policeman when off duty, not wearing his uniform, simply as a private citizen, becomes intoixicated, does he make himself ridiculous, will he act like a fool and cause people to despise him? "Probably," you reply. And will it be a wrong act, something he ought toi be ashamed of? "Surely." What persons has he wronged? I ask? "Why, he will have done wrong toi his family, his wife and children, if he has a family ; he disgraces them and perhaps does them other injury." Anything else? l86 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. "Oh, yes ; he commits a wrong on himself and dis- graces himself, and has reason to be ashamed on his own account." Again I ask you: if now when he is in his uni- form, wearing the star as an officer of the state, he becomes intoxicated; it is just the same, is it not? "Noi," you hesitate. And why not? "Oh, he has committed another disgrace ; he has brought shame not only on himself, but also upon his state or his government, because he is a representative of his government." You assume, do' you, that in this case the crime has been even worse? "Yes, it would be a crime not only against his family and against himself, but against the state as a whole, because he would be in a position as an officer of the state." You would imply that a person holding a public office under the government has an additional re- sponsibility in regard toi his conduct? "Yes, while he is in office or holds that position as an officer, because he is a representative of the state." Ought he then, under those conditions, to receive any worse punishment than if he became intoxicated as a private citizen ? "Yes, because the crime would be greater. He has disgraced the honor of his state, and the government entrusted toi his care." Still another question I wish tO' ask you. Are all persons equally fitted for holding office? "No', in- deed," you exclaim. But certain individuals may be suited for one position rather than another, I add. "Yes?" What if it should happen, however, that an indi- vidual holding office, realized that he was becoming unsuited to the position, incapable of fulfilling its duties? And yet suppose he needed the salary in order toi provide himself with the means of sub- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 187 sistence. Do yon think he should hold on to that office? "It would hardly seem right," you hesitate. And why do you hesitate? "Because it may come pretty hard on him to give it up, if it is his only way of getting a living." In that case, why should he do- so? It would be of small loss to the whole government. "True," you assert, "but if a great many persons were in that position, the loss would not be sO' slight." And why would it be a loss? I ask. "Because it implies extra cost to the country ; others would have to be employed in order to have the work done effi- ciently." And who would pay for the extra cost? "Why, the citizens," you tell me. The rich citizens, you mean, those who. have a great deal oi property? "No, all the citizens. It would come indirectly from everybody." It might then so happen that even the very poorest citizen, whO' can barely get any living at all, would suffer and get even less of a living because this man in office is holding on to his position, while not capable O'f performing his duties. "It looks that way," you admit. Yes, this is a point people do not often appreciate. Many a person is probably holding one or another public position, drawing wages or salary from the community or the state, and yet not really earning the compensation. People let them stay there oftentimes through pity. But in the long run it may be the poor, the humble, who are the real sufferers, because it makes the expenses of the government greater, and also because the work is not efficiently done. "True," you add, "but then, the person does not want to starve." No, I answer; surely not, and it loo THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. may be the duty of the state tO' see that the person does not starve. But if it is toi be charity, then ought it not to be charity outright? In the other case, it makes a condition by which all the citizens suffer indirectly. What wooild such a person be doing as regards the country as a whole ? "Why, in reality, he would not be holding his position for the sake of the service he would render, but solely with the one thought, what he could make out of it." And would it be right ? "In principle, it would not be done in the true spirit oi loyalty to the state or country tO' which one belongs," you assure me. Points of the Iiesson. I. That a citizen may also serve his country by holding public office. II. That a public officer should not hold his position chiefly in order to earn a salary, but in order to serve the interests of the state and its citizens. III. That a public officer is a public servant, and that a public office is a public trust. IV. That those holding office have the government in its various departments in their charge as a trust. V. That it is right to wish to hold office and to take pleasure in the honor of holding office. VI. That women hold office in various ways, and especially in our system of public education. VII. That a person may hold office temporarily in some one function, as in the case of the clergyman performing the marriage service. VIII. That a great many citizens may in this way occupy a public position for short intervals in the course of their lives. IX. That a man in office who becomes guilty of a crime has wronged his state or government besides himself and his family, because he represents the state or government. X. That a person is not justified in keeping himself in an official position for the sake of earning his living, when he is aware that he is not able to do the work efficiently. Duties. /. We ought as citizens to be willing to do our share in holding ofRce for the good of our country. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 189 //. We ought as public officers of the state to regard ourselves as servants of the citizens and serv- ants of the state. III. We ought not to hold public office solely for tfie sake of what we could earn for ourselves in wages or salary. IV. We ought as officers of the state to regard our position as a public trust. V. We ought as officers of the state to be doubly on our guard lest zue disgrace the state or our coun- try, through unworthy conduct. "The winds that once the Argo bore Have died by Neptune's ruined shrines, And her hull is the drift of the deep sea floor, Though shaped of Pelion's tallest pines. You may seek her crew in every isle, Fair in the foam of the Aegean seas. But out of their deep no charm can wile Jason and Orpheus and Hercules. And Priam's voice is heard no more By windy Ilium's sea-built walls ; From the wasting wave and the lonely shore No wail goes up as Hector falls. On Ida's mount is the shining snow, But Jove has gone from its brow away, And red on the plain, the poppies grow Where Greek and Trojan fought that day. Mother Earth ! Are thy heroes dead ? Do they thrill the soul of years no more? Are the gleaming snows and the poppies red All that is left of the brave of yore? Are there none to fight as Theseus fought. Far in the young world's misty dawn? Or teach as the gray-haired Nestor taught? Mother Earth ! Are thy heroes gone ? Gone? — in a noble form they rise; Dead ? — we may clasp their hands in ours. And catch the light of their glorious eyes, And wreath their brows with immortal flowers. Wherever a noble deed is done, There are the souls of our heroes stirred; Wherever a field for truth is won, There are our heroes' voices heard, igO THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Their armor rings on a fairer field Than Greek or Trojan ever trod, For Freedom's sword is the blade they wield, And the light above them the smile of God! No, in his isle of calm delight, Jason may dream the years away, But the heroes live, and the skies are bright, And the world is a braver world today." — Edna Dean Proctor. Classic for Beadlngr or Becitation. "What is patriotism? Is it a narrow affection for the spot where a man ivas born? Are the very clods where we tread entitled to this ardent preference be- cause they are greener? No, sir, this is not the char- acter of the virtue, and it soars higher for its object. It is an extended self-love, mingling with all the en- joyments of life, and twisting itself with the minutest filaments of the heart. It is thus we obey the laws of society, because they are the laws of virtue. In their authority we see, not the array of force and terror, but the venerable im-age of our country's honor. Every good citiaefi makes that honor his own, and cherishes it not only as precious, hut as sacred. He is willing to risk his life in its defence, and is con- scious that he gains protection while lie gives it." — Fisher Ames. Fnttber Sng'g'estions to the Teacher. Much more could be made out of the subject of this lesson than appears on the surface. The first point will perhaps seein unimportant, owing to the fact that only a small pro^portion of citizens will ever hold office. We do not care to foster an eager desire for such positions on the part of the young peopile when they become older. But a closer investigation will show why it is that we need to go further into the discussion. There is a significance in making the young thoroughly understand what public office implies, all the more for the reason that the number THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I9I of official positions is steadily increasing, with the larger conceptions oi the function of the state in modern times. The subject could be made concrete by giving figures as to the number of citizens hold- ing positions in one form or another as public officers in the whole United States, and what amount of money is expended simply in the payment of wages or salaries, including not only the United States gov- ernment, but local and "state" governments. Some- thing could be said of the custom more general in Europe, of wearing uniforms when people hold offi- cial positions. The question could be raised as to whether such a system would be advisable among ourselves. There might be a discussion on this point, without any dogmatic opinion being given in regard to it. Pictures might be shown of officers in uniforms. A special effort must be made to give a concrete aspect to the discussion in this and other ways. Illus- trations could be presented of officers in the army, and the query started as to why such men wear uni- forms and why this is not done by the President of the United States. We do not wish to imply for an instant that any man acquires additional authority in himself by wearing a uniform or representing his government. But we should suggest the obligations involved, in so far as an officer represents the state or country as a whole. As regards the poem, it is for the teacher to determine as to the extent to which it shall be described or explained in detail. But it is one of those noble selections in verse which all young people should read many times, and if possible know by heart. We need repeatedly to bring out the point that the hero today is not so much the soldier who wears armor or a uniform, but rather the citizen voting or paying taxes and serving his country in its general interests, in order to build it up for future generations. CHAPTER XIII. OBEDIENCE TO LAW AS DUE TO' ONE's COUNTRY. Memory Gem : — "The Law is no respecter of persons.'' Sialogne. Will you write down a short word that I shall give you. We have mentioned it already, but we shall talk about it further today. We are still on the question : what we have to do for our country. We are coming now to the most important point of all, and it is all suggested in a word of three letters. There it is. Spell it out. "L A W," that is the word. And I am very curious tO' learn whether you really know what it implies. "It means," you tell me, "what the state com- mands us toi do." Is that what you understand by the word law? Think about it for a while. Who make the laws? I ask. "Oh, the people." Yes, I know ; that is what we are told, ordinarily. But what special persons prepare the laws and decide about them for us? Could a number of us, for example, come together at any time and pass decisions on various subjects, and would these be- come the laws of the state? "No', they would not be laws." But what would they be, then? "You don't know ?" Well, I can tell you. They would be what we sometimes call "resoi- lutions." People may get together and pass resolu- tions about the kind of laws they would like tO' have. But who are the actual persons that make the laws ? Where are the laws prepared and voted upon, 192 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I93 for example? "In the legislatures?" Yes, and where is the legislature in your state; where does it meet? "In the capital city?" True. And so the laws for your state are prepared and voted upon by the legislature. But are there any other kinds of laws besides those passed by the mem- bers of your state legislature? "O'h, yes, there are the laws of the other states." You assume, do you, that each state in the United States has its own legislature, its own capital, and passes its own laws? "Yes," you insist, "that is cer- tainly true." But can a state pass any kind of laws it pleases ? Could it pass one, for example, taking away all the property of certain persons without giving any sort of return for it? "No., you think not?^' What would stand in the way, if, as you assert, the people make the laws? "You do not know ?" Well, I can tell you : it is the Constitution. The Constitution of what, doi you think? "Why, the Constitution of the United States." You are right; the Constitution of the nation as a whole, may forbid the individual states to pass certain kinds of laws which would be injurious to the peo- ple. But is there any other Constitution which might also interfere in the same way? "Oh, yes, there are the Constitutions of special states." You assume then, da you, that each state also has its own Con- stitution ? It looks as if there were something very powerful and arbitrary which stood in the way of the free- dom of the citizens in controlling their government. They are tied down, are they not, by documents like these, controlling them against their wills. "Noi," you assert, "not to that extent, at any rate." And why not? I ask. "Because a Constitution 194 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. can be modified by amendment ; it is not absolute and does not remain unchanged forever." If so, what is it good for? Why should we have such a Constitution? "As to that," you suggest, "it is a check on rash action." In what way? "Oh, a longer time is required in order to change or amend the Constitution." Anything more than just a longer' time? "Per- haps," you add, "it may require more votes or a larger proportion of votes." Yes, that is true. Usually in a legislature a majority vote decides for the measures proposed, while it may require a two- thirds vote in order to amend a Constitution, and the vote may have to be taken in a different way. Sometimes all the citizens have to vote upon such proposed amendments. In the case of the whole United States, as you know, the change would require the consent of two- thirds of the separate states. Da you feel, then, that the Constitution still rep- resents the people? "Yes?" "But," you assert, "it also embodies the experience of our focefathers or the founders of our country, as has been pointed out- before." Now to come back toi the other point. Are there any other kinds of laws besides those passed by the different states? "Yes, there are the laws recog- nized by the United States as a whole." And who pass these laws ; do' the people do it directly ? "No," you say, "it is done by Congress at Washington." How about enactments passed by councils in our cities, for instance? Sometimes they are called "ordinances." Are these also laws, just like the laws of the state or the United States? "Yes, in one way." And why not in every way ? "Because," you ex- plain, "as we have found out before, the city gets its THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I95 authority to enact such ordinances froni the permis- sion of the state." Yes; that is the consideration which we must always keep in mind. An "ordinance" in the strict sense, however, would seem to be a law, because it has been passed by the consent of the government O'f the sovereign state. May I ask you further : are the laws that we have at the present time, in all cases the laws which have been passed directly by our state legislatures or by the national government? In our courts, for ex- ample, when the lawyers arei pleading and the judges are deciding, will they always refer toi the laws passed by one of the states or by the United States? "Yes," you say, "we think that must be the case, because our laws come either from one source or the other.' Well, yoiu are right in one way and wrong in an- other. Did you ever hear of such a thing as the "common law?" "No'," you hesitate. Then I may suggest toi you what that implies. Many of the laws we accept and obey, are old laws which existed long before there was any United States O'f America. They were enacted or adopted in the oW world hundreds if not thousands of years ago. Why is it, do you suppose, that our state allows people of this day tO' be governed by such old laws ? Would it not be laetter to make them all over again ? "Oh, no," you assert, "not if they had been very good laws." And how do we know whether they are good or bad ? "Why, perhaps they have been tried for hun- dreds of years and found by experience to be good laws." Yes, that is the point. What we know as the Common Law applies to a certain number of prin- 196 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. ciples which have come down in former times from other coointries, and which have been found through long experience to- be very good laws. And so you see, when there may not be any spe- cial enactment passed by a legislature applying to a particular case, then the courts fall back upon this Common Law, as it is termed, using in this way, the past experience of the human race, taking those old laws which have been adopted in former times. Hence, we have two' sources of law: first, the enactment-s passed by th,e legislature or by Congress, and then what we call the Coimmon Law, which we accept from the experience of other countries in former times. Can you tell what laws are for, or what they are supposed to doi? "WJiy, they forbid crime, such as murder and stealing, and they provide for the pun- ishment of any persons who have stolen or committed murder." Yes ; that is what we know as the criminal law. But is there any other kind. There must be laws which shall regulate business relations, keeping men from interfering with one another's rights, — and still others for various other purposes. Is there any other class that you h^ve ever heard Oif, besides the laws of the state and the United States, and besides the Common Law? Did you ever hear of the so-called laws of Human Society? Do> you suppose that people get together all over the world and pass laws toi control human society? "Nov" you smile, "nothing of that kind." Then can you guess what is really meant by this? "Why, perhaps they are customs or rules of every day experience which have been found good and serviceable from the very earliest times." Yes, that is true; such rules are often called the Laws of Human Society. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 197 Does the state enforce these, too', or does it punish a man when he has broken one of them ? You hesi- tate, I see. Noi, the state does not undertake always to enforce this class of laws. Have you any idea how men may be punished who wilfully break such laws? Suppose, for instance, in school life, there are certain customs oif fair play among the boys and girls. If one of you should break one of these rules oi fair play, would the state come in with its police and interfere with you? "No, O'f course not." Then would you be pun- ished at all ? "Yes, because the rest of the boys and girls would not want toi play with us any more." You are right; that is a terrible kind of punish- ment which is often put upon an individual when he breaks the laws oif Society. Such persons may not be sent to the penitentiary, but they cannot have many friends. Such people are often punished by being left alone, and they may feel it as a very pain- ful experience. Do you think, by the way, that all people like to obey the laws ? "Judging from the number of laws that are broken, you doubt it?" But isn't it to our advantage that the laws should be obeyed ? "Yes, it might be to^ our advantage that other persons should obey the laws, even if we do not obey them ourselves." I am afraid you are right, and you draw a distinction which must be consid- ered. I wonder if you ever heard of an old saying which runs something like this : "The large liberty of others displeaseth us; and yet we will not have our desires denied us." Do you see any sense in that proverb? What do you think it means? "Oh," you answer, "it suggests that we like to have other people obey the laws even tgS THE DUTIES OF A CITIZE^f. if it interferes with their hberty; but that when it comes to ourselves, it is not so easy a matter, and we should perhaps even prefer to break them and not ourselves be restrained by law. I vei-y much fear you are right ; it shows, perhaps, one reason why it is so hard toi have laws carried O'Ut or enforced, as we say. Can you suggest now, from what we have been saying, another way by which we can be of service to our Fatherland? "By obeying the laws?" Yes, that is the point ; and this is the most important of all services you can render toi your country. It may sound strange to you, as if obeying the laws were a way of serving one's country. You might rather assume that one obeys the laws for one's own sake, or because of the punishment which might come from disobeying them. But take it in the family, for example, — in the home; what if father or mother laid down certain rules which all should follow there. It might be inconvenient for you or against your special inter- ests, perhaps, to obey ; indeed, those rules might have been established more with regard to other members of the family than with regard to you. What if you broke such rules; what difference would it make? "It would offend father or mother," you respond, "and give them pain by our disobe- dience." Anything else? What were those rules established for, by your father or mother, do you think ; just for their own pleasure, would you say ? "O'n the contrary, they were probably made in order that the family life might go on better, in order that the home might improve, soi that there might be better home life." What would you be doing, then, by disobeying those rules? "Oh," you answer, "we should be TtiB DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. I99 breaking up the home life which father or mother would be trying tO' establish." You imply that it would actually be like attacking the home, or mak- ing war on it. "Almost that," you admit. If, on the other hand, you obeyed those rules, what would you be doing for your home besides pleasing your father and mother? "Why, one would be trying to help make the home life better, or to improve the home." Do you see, then, how by obeying such rules you would be serving the home? "Surely !" How, then, would it be with one's country ; would the same point apply there? "Yes, in a way," you admit, "one would be serving one's country by obey- ing its laws." But why ? "Ob, because we should have a better country if the people obey rules in a spirit of mutual helpfulness." And you think, doi you, that breaking the laws would in a sense be like making war on your coun- try? "Something like that?" Yes; I think so, too. A man obeys the law not just for himself, but in order to serve his country. Being a citizen implies obeying laws. Then does it seem as if obeying the law meant in a sense acting like soldiers in defense of one's coun- try? "Yes, in a way?" But there would be no real war going on, I assert. "No," you say, "only we should be helping one another like soldiers in main- taining that kind of discipline which alone would make it possible tO' have any country at all." "But then," you add, "laws may interfere with people ; why should people all keep the same rules ; why should not each man go his own way; why not get along without being citizens of a state and putting such restraint upon ourselves ?" One cannot be surprised at your question. A great many earnest, sober, thoughtful people have asked it. 200 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. But I should like to quote a sentence to you, a say- ing from a great man whoi lived some hundreds of years agoi, by the name of Spinoza. It runs like this : "The man whom reason guides is freer when he lives in a community under the bond of common laws, than when he lives in a solitude where he obeys himself alone." Now does that not seem^ perplexing? It is con- trary to what would at first occur to our minds. When a man is alone, he can do just as he pleases, can he not? "It looks that way?" As you say, when we come to live together, we must have rules or laws that interfere with our free- dom. What sense can there be in that saying of Spinoza ? Do you think he was mistaken ? "Not necessarily?" Why not? "Because if a number of persons live and work together, they can achieve tnore." You mean that in so far as they may accomplish more, they would be more free in their actions? "Yes, it might be so." If, however, they work together, can each work in his own way? "Noi, in that case they must have rules or laws." It would seem then, after all, as if perhaps Spinoza were right. Note to the Teacher : Explain this sentence of Spinoza a little further. Illustrate from the experience of boys who might band together in order to play games ; if they do this, they must keep certain rules. Yet somehow they would feel as if they could do more or had more pleasure than if they played each one alone by himself. More than that, point out, if the pupils are capable of understanding the point, how by combining together, we are able to get more freedom from the bondage of physical nature. In this way, we enlarge the scope of our lives and so enlarge the scope of our freedom. When peopile walk together, for example, what do they try to do in their walking? "Keep step ?" Yes, surely! But why should they do this? It may interfere with their freedom. Why should they not go ahead and each man walk as he pleases ? THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 201 "Because it actually makes the walking easier to keep step with one another." You imply that you feel more freedom by obeying a rule in that case, than by acting just as the impulse might urge you ? "It would seem that way," you confess. It looks, does it, as if obeying laws really might give us more freedom, if we obey them in the right spirit ? In this connection, I should like to suggest a beau- tiful word which may bring out the point we have been discussing. When people act together for a certain purpose, it is sometimes said that they, — now can you think what to add ? It begins with the letter C, and then a double o. "Co-operate?" Yes, that is the" term I am speaking of. They are said to co-operate. What principle, then, would they be following? "That of coi-O'peration ?" Precisely! In a certain sense, therefore, the state is like a great Co-operative Institution, is it not, in which we keep step together, if for no other reason, in order toi achieve more in what we are trying to do. And we keep step to- gether supremely by OBEYING THE LAW. Points of tlie Lesson. I. That laws emanate from the state by the authority of the people. II. That there are national laws, state laws, city laws and the Common Law. III. That the state or government is limited in making laws by the written Constitution. IV. That people sometimes find it hard to obey the laws, because it may be against their personal desires or interests to do so. V. That obedience to law is a form of service a citizen owes to his country. VI. That disobedience to law is like making war on one's country. VII. That one could have more freedom by being a citizen of a state than if one lived without a government. VIII. That in obedience to law, we are helping to build 202 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. up the state for the future and are fostering a spirit of co- operation. Duties. /. We ought to obey the laws because they are the laws of the sovereign state. II. We ought to obey the laws as service due from us to our country. III. We ought to obey the laws even if such obedience is contrary to our desires or personal in- terests. IV. We ought to obey the laws because only thus can we have a state or any kind of civiiisoition. story: The Death of Socrates. When talking of respect for law, I have always been led to think of one great man who lived a long while ago. He was not a great soldier, not what we should call a great statesman, but he had a great mind and a noble character. He belongs to the world's greatest martyrs. I want to tell you about the death of this man, whose naine was Socrates, and of the way he died. He had been a plain man, never making any pretensions for himself, never in any way being inclined to boast or talk about himself. He was not a pleasing person to look upon, being a man with a short, stumpy figure, with large, bulging eyes, so that people who did not know him used to laugh at him a great deal, because of his ugliness; while those who were with him a great deal forgot about this and at times even thought him handsome, because of the way he could talk and of what he would say. The man's mind and character seemed all to come into his face when he was teaching others. Socrates gave himself over to the life of a teacher. There were no public schools such as we have nowadays ; but what he tried to do was to teach grown people. He used to go out into the streets or the market place where the people came in great numbers, and there he would talk with them. His chief purpose was to get the people to think about right and wrong and to care more about leading a good life. Even bad people, many of them, were fond of him and stood in awe of him because of his simplicity. He was poor and he cared little about what he had to eat and drink, because of his desire to stir and influence people about those higher things. By and by, however, some of the people in the city of Athens, where he lived, grew tired of him and began to hate tHE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 20^ him. He made them uncomfortable by talking all the time about the kind of life which they despised. At last when he became an old man, an effort was made to have him tried before the courts for wicked teachings, in order that he might be put to death. It is almost impossible for us to under- stand this, because his teachings had been just the opposite of wicked. But they told lies about him, brought witnesses who made chaiges that were not true; and hence, alas! the great Socrates was condemned to die. He was now about seventy years old. I suppose it cut him to the heart to think that people whom he had loved so much, and for whom he had worked so hard, and to whom he had tried to be a teacher of good things, could be the very ones to turn about and wish to put him to death. But he had a sweet, gentle nature, which led him to wish to return good for evil. He seems to have shown no anger at the judgment against him, believing that in the course of time the world would understand his motives and appreciate what he had been trying to do. His belief in this matter was justified, because now the world looks upon him as having been a martyr, one who died for a noble cause. It is because of his calm, beautiful way in meeting death that I am telling you about him. It seems that while he was in prison, an opportunity came to him by which he might escape. The people would not have known of it until he was free. He had a chance to run away, go to some other country and pass the rest of his days in peace. And what do you suppose he did when this chance was made known to him? One of his friends came to him, urging him to flee, and said to him: "O my dear Socrates, let me entreat you once more to take my advice and escape, for if you die I shall not only lose a friend who can never be replaced, but there is another evil: people who do know you and me will believe that I might have saved you if I had given you money, but that I did not care. Can there be a worse disgrace than this, that I should be thought to value money more than the life of a friend? For the many will not be persuaded that I wanted you to escape and that you refused." And to this, Socrates answered : "But why should we care about the thinking of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons worth considering, will think of these things as they happen." And Socrates refused to escape, because, as he said, it had been decided by the law and the government under which he lived that he should be put to death. His reply was : "It is better to. die by obeying the laws than to escape by defying them." But the man went on pleading with him and trying in every possible way to win him over to the plan for escaping from the prison. And then Socrates pictured to him a kind of dream which we may fancy had come to him. It was to 204 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. him as if the laws of the government stood before him like human persons and began to talk with him. • They had heard that he was thinking of escaping, and they said to him: "Tell us, Socrates, what you are about? Are you going by an act of yours to overturn us, the laws, and the whole state as far as in you lies? Do you imagine that a state can sub- sist and not be overthrown, in which the decisions of law have no power, but are set aside and overthrown by indi- viduals? Tell us what complaint you have to make against us which justifies you in attempting to destroy us and the state? In the first place, did we not bring you into existence? Well, then, since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us, can you deny that you are our child and slave, as your fathers were before you? Has a philosopher like you failed to discover that your country is more to be valued and higher, and holier far than mother, father or any ancestor, and when you are punished by her the punishment is to be endured in silence?" The man who was listening to Socrates became very solemn ; his face grew longer and longer, and I suppose the tears were coming into his eyes as he began to see there was nothing for him to say in reply to all this. But Socrates went on with his dream. He told the man how these laws said to him: "Consider, Socrates, if this is true that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. He who disobeys us is, as we maintain, thrice wrong: first, because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parents ; secondly, because we are the authors of his education ; thirdly, because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commands. Listen then, Socrates, to us who have brought you up; think not of life first and of justice afterwards, but first of all of justice. Now you depart in innocence, a sufferer and not a doer of evil, a victim not of the laws, but of men." The man who had been pleading with Socrates had not a thing to say. He saw that there was no use in urging him further. His heart sank within him as Socrates added : "This is the voice which I seem to hear murmuring in my ears like the sound of the flute in the ears of the mystic ; that voice, I say, is humming in my ears and prevents me from hearing any other, and I know anything more which you may say will be in vain. Yet speak if you have anything to say." But the man could only answer: "I have nothing to say, Socrates." And so a day or two after this, as his friends were sitting around him, Socrates took his last farewell from them. The time had come when he should die. He had refused to escape because he said that he felt he ought to obey the law. Accord- ing to the custom of those days, a man was put to death by being obliged to drink the poison of hemlock. At this moment, sweetly and gently, as if he were lying down to THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 205 slumber for the night, this brave martyr took the cup in his hand and drank the hemlock. He died as he had lived, in obedience to law. Classic for Beadln? or Becitation. "The strength is in the men, and in their unity and virtue, not in tJteir standing room: A little group of wise hearts is better than a zvilderness of fools; and only that nation gains true territory, which gains itself. * * * Remember, no government is ulti- mately strong, but in proportion to its kindness and justice; and that a nation does not strengthen, by merely midtiplying and diifusing itself. * * * It multiplies its strength only by increasing ay one great family, in perfect fellozuship and brotherhood. * * * Make your national conscience clean, and your national eyes will soon be clear." — Ruskin. Purtber Sug'g'eBtions to the Tcaolier. Be a little cautious about making too' much of the utility-side in disctissing the principle of obedience to law. We want the young people to understand that they are to obey a law because it is the law of their country, whether they see the good of it or not. And yet, as there is so much disobedience to law now- adays and soi many laws are not enforced, and as the pupils must know of this, under such circumstances it may be better for them toi have the principle rea- soned out a little. We may alsoi need to carry out the point further as to' why they should obey laws which are against their own interests. This fact will come harder for them to understand. The duty which occurs in certain great instances of deliber- ately disobeying a law, need not be dwelt upon. The tendency will be to disobey law much more than to obey it. The emphasis, therefore, should be on the supreme point of obedience to- the law. Yet, there is some danger in making the principle too absolute. 2o6 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. owing to the recognized disobedience to certain laws going on all the while, and by the best citizens. The most we can do is toi try and arouse a feeling of regard for law, influencing the feeling of the young on this point, rather than giving them absolute prin- ciples. For pictures in connection with this lesson we might use photographs of some of the great leg- islative halls or parliament buildings, including the Capitol in Washington, the Parliament Buildings in London, also the great Reichstag Building in Berlin. Then show some of the "State Houses" in this coun- try, such as the palatial edifice in Albany, New York, costing many millions ; also the Capitol Build- ing in Boston, Mass. In the same connection, introi- duce a picture of the "State House" in Philadelphia, where the Declaration of Independence was signed. For a story in connection with this lesson read an account of the "Death of Socrates." Have a large picture of Socrates on the easel and unveil it at a certain point when you are reading an account of his last days. CHAPTER XIV. THE STATE AS SOMETHING MORE THAN JUST OUR- SELVES. Memory Gem — "The most substantial glory of a country is in its virtuous great men; its prosperity will depend on its docility to learn from their example. That nation is fated to ignominy and servitude for which such rren have lived in vain." — Fisher Ames. Dialogue. Suppose \i?e talk to-day a little about the state or the nation in itself, the Something that we sing hymns to on festival occasions. But what does this mean, — singing hymns to or about our country? Do you see any sense in it? Does it seem just like singing to a name or to a mere word? Is the country something else than the people who belong to it? We should not sing hymns to our- selves, should we? Do we ever sing hymns to a business partnership? If a number of persons have been partners in a busi- ness, do they ever sing to the glory of their partner- ship? You smile at this. But why should they not sing hymns to the glory of that partnership as much as to the glory of their country? "Because," you answer, "the one is a mere temporary thing; it is organized for business pur- poses only, to make money." Do people ever sing solemn hymns to the social clubs to which they belong? "They may sing gay music at their meetings," you say. Yes, I know; but do they ever unite in solemn hymns in honor of 207 208 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. such clubs or associations ? "No?" And why not? These are not organized for business purposes or to make money? "O'h, they are just social clubs," you continue, "organized for pleasure or for special temporary purposes." Then what is the difference in the feel- ings you would have for a partnership or a social club, and, on the other hand, for the country you belong toi? What class of sentiments are aroused by singing hymns such as "America?" "The solemn kind?" Yes, that is the very point. But what do you mean by this word "solemn?" When you have a feeling of that kind for something, what attitude would you naturally take? "You would look up to it?" You mean that you could not have such feelings in connection with any- thing you despised ? I agree with you. But could you have such feelings foi^ something just like yourself ? "No', not exactly?" And so you assume, do you, that you could only have such feel- ings for what you could look up to as more than yourself, or in some way above yourself? What dO' you mean, however, by "looking up" to a thing? "Recognizing it as stronger than you are?" Yes ; that is true. But is that all ? Suppose that a man were a tyrant over you, because he was much stronger than you are, would you look up to him with solemn or sacred feelings? "No," you answer, "we should be afraid of him ; we might submit, but we should not look "up to him." What must a person be, then, in order tO) make you have those peculiar feelings of regard for him, inspiring you to look up toi him ? "Something supe- rior to you?" Yes, that is true; he must not only be stronger than you are, but somehow much superior to you. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 2O9 And is that the kind of feehngs you have for the state or nation; is it something you look up' to because it is superior to you ? Yes, I think you are right. Can you suggest the word that we use to describe the feehngs we have toward something or somebody that we look up to? We talked in the first lesson about love: but is there a sentiment that we some- times consider even higher than love? "No?" Well, consider a moment. You could love something inferior toi yourself, could you not? A pet dog or a pet bird, for example? Could you not love a young child? "Yes, surely!" But would it be quite like the regard you have for your country ? "No?" What, then, is the word that describes that other kind of feeling we have talked about? "Reverence or veneration ?" Yes, that is it. We not only love our country, but we reverence or vener- ate it. And why so? I ask. "Oh," you explain, "we reverence it because it is not only an object of love, but because it has solemn associations connected with it as something above us or superior to us." And you assume that we sing hymns to our coun- try, do you, through a deep feeling of reverence, because there is a solemnity for us in the very thought of our country. Do you know the term that we apply sometimes to associations of people that have existed for a long while and have meant a great deal in history ? I will give you the word and ask you to remember it — it is the term "Institution." Can you think of any other great institution besides the state, that we look upon with a peculiar regard ? "The home and the family?" Yes, and in the same way, we shall think of the state as an institu- 2IO THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. tion, to be treated with veneration. We revere it somewhat in the same way that we revere our fathers and mothers or the family we belong to>. Do you really assume, however, in saying that we look up to our country as something to be vener- ated, that we mean that we look up to ourselves, as if we were reverencing or venerating just the people who' are alive now in the country ? , "No," you assure me, "it must be more than that." And what more? Who else would be included in our thoughts? "Our forefathers?" Yes, when we say we reverence our country, we are implying that we also venerate the memories of our forefathers. I wonder, therefore, if you can see the difference between an institution like the state and other forms of association. In a business partnership, for instance, where a number of men may be earning money together, if anything unfortunate happens privately to one mem- ber of the partnership, something unpleasant or pain- ful in his home, does that necessarily interfere with the progress of the business? "No," you assure me, "it may go on just the same." But now suppose a great misfortune should strike one part of our land, or some great evil arise there; doi you think that the rest of the country goes on just as before, that it makes no' difference elsewhere? If in one section, such as California, some great injustice should be committed, would it affect us in other cities or states ? "You do not see how it would make any differ- ence?" But let me give you an illustration: Think of your own body ; what if you are hurt somewhere, as for instance, in your hand; or what if something is wrong with your heart or lungs ? Does it matter so far as the rest of the body is concerned ? "Yes, somehow it would tend to make everything THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 211 go wrong with the whoile body. At such times one may feel sick all over." Why ? It may be only your lungs that are diseased ; what should be the matter with your foot, your hand or your brain? Why should they not be able to' goi on just the same, and be perfectly well and strong, even if something should be the matter with your heart or your lungs ? "Oh," you continue, "that would be impossible, because in the body each part depends on the other part; it is all just one body." Yes, that is true. And should we not think of the state or the nation we belong to as being all just one body, where the different sections of the country are like organs in the body, — so that if something bad is done in one part of the country, it is like a disease which some- how affects the whole of it, and seems to make the country, as a whole, less sound than it was before? I wonder if you have ever heard a beautiful old saying which has come down to us from a great teacher, hundreds and hundreds of years ago. It reads : "We are all members, one of another." You observe what it means? Can you see that the state or the nation as an institution is like one body, of which we are the various parts ? Perhaps you would like tO' know the word we sometimes use to describe a kind of body where each part is more or less connected with every other part, so that if one part is injured, all the rest is injured. It is the word "organism." When we speak of an organism, we think of a body where each part depends on every other, and you could not injure one part without more or less affecting the whole body. This is another reason why we feel a solemn regard for the institution of the state, because it is something which cannot be made or destroyed ' at will. Each part is dependent on every other part. 212 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. It seems to be made up of ourselves and yet to be by the very union, something more than ourselves or above ourselves. Do you think, for example, if the nation were becoming bad in a certain way ; if unjust laws wei-e being passed; if the government were injuring the people — that any one citizen could say that he was not to blame for it, because he had not passed the laws? How does that strike you ? It is a pretty serious matter, and a great many people do talk in just that way. They say : "We are not to blame. Why should we do' anything? It does not concern us." "You think that they ought to do something?" Why so? In what way are they to blame? "They would be to blame just because they were not trying to do something to make their country better or tO' improve it." What, then, is the word we use sometimes when we say that we sho'uld be tO' blame if we did not do something to improve the present conditions? "Responsible?" Yes, that is the word. We are each and all responsible for the welfare of our country. But why could not a man say : "I did not choose to be born in this country ; I am here without any intention of my own; perhaps I should prefer to have been born in some other country." Suppose I give you an illustration of my point: What if, for instance, a child were placed in the care of a family, and the family took the child into its home and kept the child there for a number of years, but did not do anything for him, took no care about his education, allowing the child toi have bad associations and to acquire a bad character? What would you say about such a family ? "That they had not done their duty?" Yes, I agree with THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 213 you. And why? "Because if the child was in the family, they were re:sponsible for the child." Yes, but I ask further, why were they responsible? Can you think of a word we use sometimes toi explain this? "The child was entrusted to the care of the family," you say ; "they received the child as a trust and people are always responsible for a trust." I accept your reasoning on that point. Can you see, then, that our country is, in a way, like some- thing that has been entrusted toi our care? Who gave it to us, by the way ? "Our forefathers?" Yes, that is true. Then our country is a sacred trust which we are responsible for. We are to try and work for it and improve it, just as the members of a family ought tO' do if they had a child committed to their care. Will you now repeat the first verse of the hymn "America ?" Can you see why we sing these words to our country; how we have reason to' revere it, because our forefathers, the pilgrims of earlier days, have entrusted it tO' us? The one thought of this lesson is for us, th,en, that the state or the nation which we have received from our forefathers, is a sacred trust; it is some- thing more than just ourselves. Do you fancy that people have always had this feeling with regard toi the state being something sacred, as if it were a glorious thing to have a coun- try and a government? "Why not?" you ask. What if I should tell you, for instance, that one of the great leaders who' helped to found this coun- try of ours, once defined government as "a neces- sary evil." How would you interpret this? What would it mean as regards the state or government? "Why," you explain, "it would imply that we had tO' have a state or government, but that it was a great mis for- 214 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. tune, and that we should be more than pleased if we could get along without it." And does that agree with, what we have been saying concerning the state or government committed to our charge as a sacred trust ? "Quite the contrary," you assure me. Then how do you suppose such an idea arose? Was it alto- gether nonsense? Must we despise such a man for having taught a doctrine of that kind? "No," you insist, "not if he were one of the found- ers of our country." You do not wish to assume, do you, that we should feel it right tO' despise one of the founders of the United States of America, one o'f the leaders of the American Revolution ? But we all believe in the family, do we not; in the sacredness of home? "Yes, surely !" Now sup- pose that it so happened that certain children grew up in a home where there was a very tyrannical father, one who did not love his children, but who was accustomed to beat them and abuse them in every possible way; what sort of a feeling would they have about their home? "Why, there would he nothing beautiful or sacred to' them in the thought of home or family." How would they be inclined to describe the home or the family as an institution, judging from the way one of the founders of this country described his feeling about government? "Oh," you answer, "they might speak of it after they grew up as being a necessary evil." Yes, that is true. And we should hardly blame such unfor- tunate children who had had such an unhappy home. But would it be true or would it be right to speak in that way of the home or the family in itself, as it exists all over the world? "No, indeed," you exclaim. Then can you see how it may have happened that fHE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 21 5 sensible men in former times could have talked in this way of the state or government? "Yes, it may be that they had had experience with despotic gov- ernments where the rulers had tyrannized over the people and abused them." I think this explains it. You may often hear that old saying about government being a necessary evil. We shall not believe it any more than we shall toler- ate any one who talked about the home in itself as being a necessary evil because some homes have been of that nature. But in this way, we can explain how sensible per- sons might come to use such language. It was very natural at the time of the Revolutionary War, after the tyranny which the people of this country had been undergoing, that some of them should have thought of government of any kind as being a mis- fortune. Speaking of the state as being something sacred, I wonder if you can recognize another way in which we all somehow unconsciously accept this higher standpoint, from the very power or rights we con- cede to it. In so far as rights are concerned, what do we usually regard as the most sacred right of all? What, for example, is the worst crime ever com- mitted? "Murder?" Yes; taking human life is considered the worst crime possible. What, then, do we look upon as something peculiarly sacred? "Life; human life?" True. And would one human being be allowed to take the life of another, if it were for his own good merely, to take such a life? "Not by any means," you reply. But does it not happen that states, for example, or governments, take the lives of citizens, put men to death ; — criminals, for instance ? 2l6 THE DUTIES 03? A CITIZEN. 'Yes ?" And what gives the state the right to do this, any more than a single individual citizen pos- sesses this right, if he has been wronged? "Be- cause," you answer, "it is the state." Yes, and does that not show a certain feeling on our part as if there were something exceptional about the institu- tion of the state, when we speak of its right even to take the life of a citizen? A state under certain conditions actually assumes the sacred right of life and death over the people belonging to it. It is not just like a partnership, but a good deal more. It is the Sovereign State. In the case of a business partnership, for instance, could its members insist that one or more of them should sacrifice their lives in its cause? "It might actually happen that one or more persons would do this," you tell me. True, but would the members of the company have a right to ask it or be justified in doing so? "Noi, surely not!" And why not? "Because it is a temporary thing, a transient union." And is that all ? "No," you add, "the pur- pose of it is different; the idea is not the same; a business partnership is for the sake of making money or acquiring property, whereas the state is more like a family." Yes, you are right ; the state has its roots in the past and reaches out indefinitely into the future. There is something of the Eternal about it. Points of the Kesson. I. That there is a peculiar significance in the fact that we sing hymns to our country. II. That we do this because of the solemn feelings we have for our country. III. That our country is something we look up to as superior to us or above us as individual citizens. IV. That we not only love our country, but reverence or venerate it. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 217 V. That in reverencing our country, we reverence the memory of the forefathers of the country. VI. That, unlike a business partnership, the state resembles an organization, of which each part depends on all the rest, or is affected by what happens to all the rest. VII. That we are responsible for the welfare of the state because it is an organism of which we are parts. VIII. That the state is something more than ourselves, because rooted in the past, with an indefinite life in the future. IX. That the state, therefore, is entrusted to us as an institution, while we are its citizens. X. That the doctrine about government being a necessary evil arose from peculiar conditions at certain periods of his- tory. XI. That there is something exceptional in the state as an institution, from the fact that it is sovereign over indi- vidual human life. Duties. /. We otight to venerate the state as a trust com- mitted to us from the past. II. We ought to venerate the state as a sovereign power which came into existence long before our- selves and which will continue to c.vist long after we are gone. story: Daniel Webster. In talking about this feeling that there is something peculiarly sacred in the idea of the state or the nation, I should like to tell you a little about the man whose name is especially associated with this sentiment in the history of the United States. It has taken a long while for people to get over the notion that the state or the nation was not a kind of business partnership, which could be broken up or dissolved just like any other kind of partnership, provided that one or more members of the firm wished to withdraw. A great many people in former times looked upon the state in this light as if there was nothing really permanent about it. To them, I suppose, it was just "business," a sort of partnership for convenience and nothing else. They had already come to see that at any rate this was not true of the home or the family. It had been long felt that when a family was established, those who belonged to it were not at liberty to separate as they pleased in order to go and found a new family in any way they liked. The world had come to see that there was something peculiarly sacred in home or the family, so that when it was founded it was to stay as a tie or bond, for life or death. It had taken thousands of years for the human race to finds this out. In early times, as we know, people 2l8 THE DU'i'TfiS OF A CITIZEN. had looked upon home or the family as a mere partnership and nothing more. Yet, little by little, religious teachers, statesmen, law-makers and law-givers had come to feel that such a theory was all a mistake. Priest and prophet fought for the belief that there was something in the tie of home and family which made it a tie for life and death. But, long after, the world went on thinking that the state or the nation was not like the family in this respect. Men looked upon it as a tie which they could break or dissolve at leisure; they believed this honestly and we must respect them for their convictions. Some of the men who were the founders of our republic talked in this way ; they looked upon the whole United States of America as a kind of partnership for convenience. They said that the state was often a check on liberty; that government was only a sort of necessary evil, so that if the world could get along without government or states, all the better for the world. Just think what it would have meant if they had said this in regard to home or the family, asserting that it would be all the better for the world if we could get along without home and families ! It was along about the middle of the last century, as you know, that this great problem faced the citizens of our coun- try. It had to be settled one way or the other. We ought not to blame those who held the old theory, for they held to it honestly and conscientiously from their hearts. But the champions for the belief in the sacredness of the state were coming forth and saying that our nation could not be broken up as a mere partnership; that it was a union for life and death ; that it had begun its life before we were born and that it was to go on with its life long after we had passed away. At last, as you know, the problem had to be settled in the saddest of all ways, by a civil war. But before the struggle reached that point there was much excitement and agitation in the Capitol at Washington. The great leaders of the people stood up bravely and well for their convictions there, so that we cannot help honoring even those whom we believe to have been in the wrong. But I want to tell you a little about the leader and advocate for the standpoint which now has triumphed, a man who stood forth to champion the cause of the union through life or death for the state or nation as well as for the home and family. I want to tell you of the great speech he made in the Senate, the greatest speech, I suppose, which was ever made in the Capitol at Washington. It will go down in his- tory as something we shall all want to know about and should all know by heart. We are thinking, of course, of Daniel Webster. He had begun life as a lawyer in Massachusetts, but ere long he was to become even more than a lawyer ; he was to become one of the greatest statesmen of modern times. He had been born in a village in New England, just about the time of the close of the THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. ^Ip Revolutionary War, in January, 1782. When a child he was weak and delicate, so that while his father was a farmer, the boy was not able to do manual labor. A little later when the father was able to do so, he sent his boy Daniel to Exeter Academy. And in this way, the youth went on through his school days and then through college and began the study of law, but he gave this up for a time and went and taught school in order that his brother might also be enabled to get an education. Afterwards he was enabled to finish his law studies and enter the legal profession. Later on he settled in Boston and became one of the foremost lawyers of his day. While he had been a weak and delicate child, he developed into a strong, powerful man, tall and stately, with an imposing presence, so that when people looked at him, they could not help admiring him. But along with this splendid physique, handsome figure and face, went a great mind and equally great gifts of speech. He became the greatest orator we have ever had in this country. Ere long he was launched upon a political career. He entered Congress at Washington and afterwards for a time was in the American Senate for the state of Massachusetts. Everybody knew about him now. He was great as a lawyer, great as a public speaker, great as a man. He had come forth as the champion of the sacredness of the Union. He fought for it in the Senate and outside. He believed in it with all his heart and soul and being. But I am telling you this in order to make you understand the glory of that day when he made his most famous speech in the American Senate in the cause of the Union. The excitement all through the country was something intense. The United States had been in existence as a nation only about forty years, and in the course of another quarter of a century, it was to be decided whether the Union was to sur- vive. The agitation seemed to have reached its climax among the Senators and Representatives at Washington. And it was known that Daniel Webster was to speak in defence of the cause of the Union. The speech is known in history as "The Reply to Hayne." Some time I hope that you will read every word of this great speech and know all about it. I am aware that twenty-five years or more were to elapse before the sentiment of that address by Webster was to triumph. It was to cost the blood of hundreds of thousands of the citizens of this country ere the issue was to be settled which was now being fought out in the American Senate. Was this Union a mere business partnership, a contract of convenience, or was it a sacred tie to last through life or death ? That was the problem facing the people of the country. Let me read you what the biographer of Webster tells us in regard to the occasion of this speech : 220 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. "On the morning of the memorable day, the Senate chamber was packed by an eager and excited crowd. Every seat on the floor and in the galleries was occupied and all the available standing room was filled. The protracted debate conducted with much ability on both sides had attracted the attention of the country, and had given time for the arrival of hundreds of interested spectators from all parts of the Union. The fierce attacks of the Southern leaders had angered and alarmed the people of the North. They longed with an intense long- ing to have these assaults met and repelled, and yet they could not believe that this apparently desperate feat could be successfully accomplished. Men of the North could be known in Washington in those days by their indignant but dejected looks and downcast eyes. They gathered in the Senate chamber on the appointed day quivering with anticipa- tion, and with hope and fear struggling for the mastery in their breasts. With them were mingled those who were there for mere curiosity, and those who had come to join in the confident expectations that the Northern champion would suffer defeat and failure. In the midst of the hush of expecta- tion, in that dead silence which is so peculiarly oppressive, because it is possible only when many human beings are gathered together, Mr. Webster arose. He had sat impassive and immovable during all the preceding days, while the storm of argument had beaten about his head. At last his time had come; and as he arose and stood forth, drawing himself up to the full height, his personal grandeur and his majestic calm thrilled all who looked upon him. His opening sentence was a piece of consummate art. With breathless attention, they followed him as he proceeded. The strong masculine sen- tences, the sarcasm, the pathos, the reasoning, the burning appeals to love of state and country flowed on unbroken. As his feelings warmed, the fire came into his eyes ; there was a glow on his swarthy cheek; his strong right arm seemed to sweep resistantly the whole phalanx of his opponents, and the deep and melodious cadences of his voice sounded like harmonious organ tones as they filled the chamber with their music. As the last word died away in silence, those who had listened looked wonderingly at each other, dimly conscious that they Had listened to one of the truly grand speeches which are landmarks in the history of eloquence ; and the men of the North went forth full of the pride of victory, for their champion had triumphed and no assurance was needed to prove to the world that this time no answer could be made." — Lodges' Life of Webster. We are sorry enough to know that this great issue had divided the country into two halves, the South on the one side and the North on the other. Yet it was not the North itself, not one section of the country which Webster was speaking for, but rather a great eternal principle or truth about which the citizens of this country at that time could THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 221 not agree. War has settled it at last and to-day one flag floats over the homes of the united country. And now I will read you a part of that famous speech. Do you catch the last words as I read them to you? Do you see how much they mean ? They give in one sentence the whole truth for which Webster was contending and the truth which now has triumphed once for all, in that thought, "Lib- erty and Union now and forever, one and inseparable." It was so hard for men to feel the inseparableness of Union and Liberty! It has taken a long while for men to find out that there may be more freedom in the life of a state with a gov- ernment, than where each man goes his own way without rule or law. We should cherish no feelings of animosity. We should feel that those who fought on the other side believed in their cause even to the point of being willing to die for it. But the truth which we have been speaking of has tri- umphed at last. Webster fought for it by his noble speech in the American Senate a long while ago ; hundreds of thousands of men died in order that it might be established once for all, in our great Civil War. To-day, we can all feel and believe that there is something sacred about the state, that law and liberty go together, that the unity of national life is something more than a partnership ; that it is a unity for life and death. Classic for Reading' or Becitation. "It is to that Union we owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad. It is to that Union that w>e are chiefly indebted for zvhatever makes us most proud of our country. That Union we reached only by the discipline of our virtues in the severe school of adversity. It had its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate com- merce, and ruined credit. Under its benign influ- ences, these great interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, and sprang forth zvith newness of life. Every year of its duration has teemed with fresh proofs of its utility and its blessings; and. although our territory has stretched out wider and wider, and our population spread farther and farther, they have not outrun its protection or its benefits. It has been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal happiness. I have not allowed myself to look beyond the Union to see what might 222 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. be hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not cooly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accustomed myself to hang over the preci- pice of disunion to see whether, with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the affairs of this Government, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not how the Union may be best preserved, but how tolerable might be the condition of the people when it should be broken up and destroyed. While the Union lasts we have high, exciting, gratifying prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that in my day at least that curtain may not rise! God grant that on my vision never may be opened what lies behind. When my eyes shall have turned to behold for the last time the sun in heaven, may I not see him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glorious Union; on States dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may he, in fraternal blood! Let their feeble and lingering glance rather behold the gor- geous ensign of the Republic, now known and honored throughout the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, not a single star obscured, bearing for its motto no such miserable interrogatory as "What is all this worth?" nor those other ivords of delusion and folly, "Liberty first and Union afterward;" but everywhere, spread all over in characters of living light, biasing on all its ample folds, as they float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 223 heart. Liberty and Union, now and forsver, one and inseparable!" — Daniel Webster. Further SoiTg'estlons to the Teacher. This will be a very hard lesson for the boys and girls to appreciate. At the same time, it is one of the most important of the whole coitrse. Even if the members of the class cannot altogether under- stand the points, it may be well to talk them over, at the same time associating with them the most solemn feelings which the teacher can put intO' them. It is important to develop the idea that reverence is even higher than love. We want to make the boys and girls feel that the study of citizenship is not like their every-day work in reading, writing and arithmetic, but that there is something solemn about it. The chief point is to distinguish between the state as a whole and a business partnership. The great fact to keep in mind is that the state is some- thing more than ourselves, by its connection with the past and the future. We wish to imply without trying to explain it too definitely, that tlae state has a mission to fulfill. We can point out the use of the word "destiny" in connection with the state or the nation, a term which we practically never apply to a private institution or a business corporation. The same thought will come out further in connection with the story about Webster, as well as in the cele- brated passage from his speech. We do not, of course, wish to go into theories of government, nor arouse sectional prejudices. The speech should rank more like a poem. At the same time, the fact can be stated that the principle for which he stood is now the accepted standpoint for the nation as a whole. CHAPTER XV. NATIONAL FESTIVALS AND NATIONAL FLAGS. TiiEMORY Gem — "There is no greater sign of a general decay in virtue in a nation, than a want of zeal in its inhabitants for the good of their country." — Joseph Addison, ISialogae. What dO' we usually understand by a national holiday? What do people generally do on a day of that kind? "Why, amuse themselves," you tell me. Amuse themselves in what way ? "O'h, with fire- crackers, cannons, picnics, excursions, fireworks and that sort of thing." And what is it all for ? "Mostly for pleasure?" You inean that the fireworks are just in order to amuse people? "Well," you add, "it may not have been that way at first." What do you imply by that ? "Perhaps," 3-ou suggest, "fireworks on such a day a long while ago may have been used in order to express the delight of the people." Delight over what? "Why, over the Fourth of July, for example." Yes, but that does not explain what you have in mind. "Oh," you continue, "Fourth, of July was the birthday of our country; it is the anniversary of the day when the people in this country declared themselves a free people." Then you would say that all the fireworks that we have on such a day mean something else than just an amusement or diversion? "Yes, it voices the delight of the people over the fact that they have a free country with a government of their own." 224 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 225 But do you suppose this is in the mind of every person on the Fourth of July when looking at fire- works? "It would be," you answer, "at any rate in the minds of persons who are given to thinking about such things," And so it strikes you that all the fireworks and the excitement on the Fourth of July are not mere play, but have a meaning for those who think about it. And what is it you say that all this suggests to those who do think about it? "Why, it implies for them that they are celebrating the birthday of their country." Do you assume, for the first few years in this country when the Fourth of July came around and people had fireworks and excitement, that there was a great deal of play about it? "Probably not?" But why not? I ask. "Because it was a time of war when there was a great deal of fighting and suffering." Then you fancy that in those days, the fireworks or the excitement of Fourth of July reminded the people of something pretty serious ? But what else do we have sometimes on Fourth of July besides the excitement of fireworks and play ? "There may be speeches?" Speeches about what, would you say; about any sort of subject? "No, about the welfare of the country or about the past history of the country." Do you see any good in having a holiday on the Fourth of July, making a festival of it, apart from the rest or amusement or the recreation it gives to the people? "Yes, it may lead people to think more about their country, about its history, about what they owe to their country, about what they ought to do for it in the future." Speaking about the birthday of our country, did you ever hear the witty remark of Benjamin Frank- 226 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. lin when they were signing the Declaration of Inde- pendence ? Some one exclaimed that now they must hang together. "Yes," said Franklin, "and if we don't, we shall hang separately." Has it ever occurred toi you that if the Revolu- tionary War had been a failure, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence might have been hung, and perhaps Washington along with them? It made the birthday of our country a very solemn event. Don't you think that when we are amusing ourselves on the Fourth of July, sometimes we ought toi dwell on these facts and not look on all the excite- ment as mere play? By the way, what other national holiday do we have in this country besides the one we have been speaking of? "Washington's Birthday?" Yes, and when does it come? "The 22d of February?" And what was the point in making Washington's Birthday a national holiday? Was it the idea, do you suppose, of allowing the people another day when they could amuse themselves, have a rest from work and give themselves over to play ? "Not quite that?" What else, then, would you say ? "Oh, it may have been in order that we should have another day in the year for the purpose of com- memorating the great events in the history of our country." And why was Washington's Birthday chosen? "Because he was the leader in the Revolution, and we owe our country more tO' him than to any other one man, and the best way of honoring him would be to set apart his birthday as a national festival." But now take care. Doi you think that we cele- brate that day mainly in order to honor the memory of Washington? Are the speeches made at that time only about him? "No, they may be about all THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 227 the early history of our country or about the future welfare of the land." Then you assume that the selection of Washing- ton's Birthday as a national festival was for the purpose not only of honoring Washington, but in order to honor all those who have suffered in any way or have died for our country, and as a time, therefore, when we should be thinking alsoi about the future welfare oi our cotuitry ? Why, then, you ask me, was the birthday of Washington especially selected? As toi that, I answer, Washington was the leader. His name is, therefore, taken as "representative." But in another sense, the 22d of February is a national festival with the same significance as the Fourth of July, save for the fact that it occurs at anoth.er time of the year. By the way, do you know whether other coun- tries have national festivals? "You suppose so'?" Why? "Oh, it would be natural for people in every country to set apart some one day when they would give themselves over to the feelings of patriotism." But if there were countries which had had no Declaration of Independence, what day could they celebrate? "Well, for instance, they might fix on the anniversary of some great historical event." But if they wished toi commemorate somebody's birthday, what might they do? "Perhaps," you hesitate, "they might choose the birthday of the ruler of their country and make that the festival day." Yes, that is what is usually done in monarchies. Who, for instance, bears the title as ruler over Great' Britain? "Edward VII?" Then what would be the national festival of the English people? "Why, the birthday of their king ?" And what day is that, doi you know ? You hesitate? Then suppose you find out and Ivt 228 THE DOTIES OF A CITIZEN. me know another time. Ought we not to take some interest in other countries and care to know what is the day of their national festivals and who their rulers are ? Would not that be a right spirit on our part? Here is a picture of the Emperor of Germany. Do you know what his name is? "Yes, it is William II." And what is his birthday; what is the great national festival of Germany? "You do not know?" Then I suggest that you try to find out all about this, not oaily regarding England and Germany, but also in regard to^ other countries of Europe. Have you ever seen a picture of the King of Italy ? "No?" Well here it is. And what is his name? You hesitate ? some of you. Suppose you ascertain that point alsoi and the same in regard to the Czar of Russia and the King of Sweden. But now let me ask you : When the people of Germany celebrate the birthday of their Emperor as a national festival, is this done solely in honor of the Emperor himself? "At any rate," you reply, "per- haps the Emperor looks upon it in that way." But how would the people feel in regard to it? If a man did not like the Emperor and had not wish tO' honor him, although, this man might be a citizen in Germany, would it be well for him to refuse to share in the festival? "Noi?" But why not? "Because it is rather a festival in honor of one's country than in the honor of one's ruler." You mean that at such times the peoi^le of Germany would be commemorating all the great or noble events in the histoiy of their country? But why should this be done on the birthday of 1he Emperor? "Oh, that is a matter of custom." You would say, would you, that in a sense, the ruler THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 229 of such a country is for the time-being a "represen- tative" of the country and its history? His name would be a symbol for the past history of Germany, for instance. Do you know that it is usual in Berlin, where the Emperor of Germany lives, if he rides by on the street, for every man to touch the hat to him ? Now if we, as believers in a republican form of govern- ment should be there in Berhn and touched our hats to the Emperor, would that mean giving up our belief in our form of government ? "Oh no!" you exclaim. But why not? "Because we should touch our hats to him as if to the German Empire, in honor of the German people." In that respect, do you imply that the Emperor would not be exactly a person, but rather a symbol of the coun- try over which he is ruler ? Note to the Teacher : To make this point plainer, show how ambassadors from other countries are regarded, and how any disrespect to them implies a disrespect to the countries they represent. To insult an ambassador is to insult his country. Going back for a moment to the festivals cele- brated in our own country, do you know of another day which is commemorated in some of the states and made a legal holiday? What other President's name is thought of very tenderly by many people, next perhaps to the name of Washington? "Lin- coln?" Yes, and in various parts of the country, his birth- day has been made an annual festival-day. Would it be Lincoln, especially, whose glory would be thought of on that day? "Not altogether?" What then, besides? "Why, it would be the preservation of the Union," you tell me, "because his name is connected with all the events of the great Civil War in our country." Yes, that is true. In honoring the name of Lin- 230 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. coin, by this means we should be paying honor to all those who suffered or died in the cause of their country's preservation during that terrible war. By the way, speaking of symbols, as somebody or something which can in some way "represent" one's country, is there anything else we treat in this way ? Suppose a man were dying on a field of battle, what could you hold before his eyes, which might bring the tears or cause a smile of joy to come on his face? "The flag of his country?" True, his country's flag. But what sense can there be in caring so much about a mere piece of cloth like a flag ? "Yes," you assert, "but the flag stands for sorpething." Stands for what? I ask. "Why, it stands for one's country." You regard it, do you, as a kind of sym- bol ? That is rather a vague word, I know ; and yet it can mean a great deal to the human heart. Suppose two countries were at war with each other and you saw the flag of one country being hauled down from one of its forts, what would this imply ? "Why, it would indicate," you explain, "that the fort had been conquered by the other country." What would happen next? "Oh, the flag of the other country would be put up in the place of the one that had been pulled down." You assume, then, do you, if the flag is a symbol of our country, its rights and its history, that we ought to treat it seriously? Have you ever heard people speak about trailing a country's flag in the dust ? What would that suggest ? "Why," you continue, "if one country is con- quered by another, then its people might show their feeling of victory by throwing the flag of the other country on the ground and stamping on it, treating it contemptuously." THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 23 1 If that were to happen tO' the flag of our own country, how should we feel? "Angry?" Yes, but anything more? Would it hurt our feelings or give us pain? "Surely it would," you tell me. You be- lieve that we should be ashamed and humiliated to have our country's flag treated in that way? But what if we handled our own flag lightly or carelessly? Suppose a person throws it around as he would a mere piece of silk or bunting, jokes about it or plays with it as if it meant nothing at all, would that be right ? Would it matter ? "Perhaps one ought not toi do it," you admit. But is it ever done, do you fancy? "You are afraid it is?" I wonder, then, if we could not do something to make people feel more respect for their country's flag, as if it were something sacred, so they should not treat it lightly or contemptuously. Do you think they ought to allow themselves to treat it in a way that they would not tolerate from people of another country ? Speaking of the flag of our country, do you know when it was adopted as our national ensign? "You are not sure?" Well, don't you think you had bet- ter find out at once ? Is it not time you should know the history of your country's flag? And do you know what each star is supposed to represent? "Oh yes," you reply, "there is a sepa- rate star for each one of the states of our country." How many stars, then, would there be on a flag which is "up to date," as we should say ? You hesi- tate, some of you ? Do you mean to tell me that you do not know exactly how many states there are in this land of ours ? How many stripes or bars are there on the flag? What are they supposed to represent, do' you know ? I must say that if you cannot answer, it does not 232 THE DOtIES OF A CITIZEN. look as if you were a very devoted citizen of your country. What, by the way, is another name we often give to the flag of the United States? "Why, it is called the Stars and Stripes." Yes, but I am thinking rather of a term in use which has grown up in con- nection with it, apart from the way it looks to the eye. It is a word which expresses our feelings for the flag and begins with G. "Old Glory?" Yes, that is it; we call our flag sometimes "Old Glory." Does it strike you as a very dignified name for the flag of our country? "Oh, that is not the point of it," you assure me, "such a name expresses the sentiment one feels for it or the honor one pays to it." Why is it, by the way, that the Stars and Stripes has gone under the name of the "Flag of the Free?" "Because it stands for freedom and a free country," you tell me. Yes, I answer, but there are free coun- tries in the world besides our own. "True," you add, "but there were not many of them a hundred or more years ago when our flag was first adopted." It means, then, does it, that in former days people often came to our country in order to escape from the tyranny of governments in other parts of the world. When they saw our flag, the Stars and Stripes, they felt that it would be for them the Flag of the Free, if they could only reach our shores and become citizens oi our land. Do you know whether other countries also have flags? "Oh yes!" I wonder if you can recognize the flags of other coimtries. Suppose I show them to you one after another ; see if you can name them. Do you know what this one is, for example? Ap- parently it is also red, white and blue. But the bars cross each other in a peculiar way and it does not look much like the Stars and Stripes. ^rilE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 233 "True," you say, "that is the 'Union Jack.' " And what does that mean ? "Why it is the flag of Eng- land." Yes ; and it travels all over the world, as you know, in the wake of English commerce. But I wonder if you have any idea how this en- sign came to be adopted and why it is called the "Union Jack?" Can you guess? "No?" Look now at the way it is constructed by its colors. Examine the red parts by themselves and what can you see? "Why there are two crosses, one on top of the other." And now let me tell you that the red cross with the white border used to be called "The Cross of St. George," and was the ensign of England herself or by herself. I should advise you, when you get the opportunity, toi look at one of the gold coins of Great Britain, a new sovereign, and observe on it the picture of this St. George, where he is killing the dragon, as we learn from the old legend. Now, from early times, St. George has been regarded as the Patron Saint of England. You see, then why the Cross of St. George should be on the flag o-f Great Britain, to represent Eng- land and her part of the British Empire. But again, see what else there is on that flag. Can you find another cross? "As to that," you assure me, "perhaps the white would represent a diagonal cross upon the blue ground." You have seen the point at once, for this, accord- ing to tradition, was the Cross of St. Andrew, and long stood for the emblem of Scotland. Look now once more and discover whether there is still another cross. "Yes, there is another diago- nal red cross upon a white ground." True, I an- swer, and that is the Cross of St. Patrick, the Patron Saint of Ireland. 'JT,4 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZE^f. Observe the flag once more now and see how it looks as if the three crosses had been put separately, one upon the other, or as if the flag had been made up of the union of all three. And this is the history of it. Back, at just abomt the beginning of the Nine- teenth Century, the plan was adopted of putting these three crosses together in order to represent the union of the three countries, England, Ireland and Scotland, and so it became the "Union Jack." What now is this other flag I show you? We must not stop with the colors of the British Empire. There are other most important countries. And here they are for you to look at and learn about, as the emblems of the various nations of the world. Points of the l^esson, I. That national holidays are not intended merely for play or diversion, but in order to make us give more thought to the history of our country. II. That to people who think or reflect, the noise and the fireworks have a deep meaning, as touching upon what the people of this country have undergone in times past. III. That in commemorating birthdays like that of Wash- ington, we are paying regard not merely to the one individual, but to all the heroes of our country. IV. That in celebrating the birthday of the rulers of coun- tries in Europe, the people are not merely honoring those rulers individually, but making such names or persons the symbols or the representatives of their country's life and his- tory. V. That in paying respect to the king or emperor in another country we should not be surrendering our belief in a repub- lican form of government, but simply showing honor or regard for that country itself. VI. That national flags, like national holidays, are symbols. VII. That a piece of cloth with the national colors upon it, therefore, acquires a new significance. Duties. /. We ought to treat the national holidays of our country with serious consideration, because of the great events they commemorate. II. We ought to treat the flag of our country THE DUTIES Of A CITIZEN. 23^ with respect, because it is an emblem of zvhat our country does for us. III. We ought to treat the Hag of our country with regard, because it is a sign of the service we owe to our country. IV. We ought to treat the Hag of our country with reverence, because it is the symbol of our coun^ try's history. V. We ought to defend the Hag of our country from insult or abuse, because it stands for the honor and glory of our country. Foem. "Land where the banners wave last in the sun. Blazoned with star-clusters, many in one. Floating o'er prairie and mountain and sea; Hark ! 'tis the voice of thy children to thee ! Here at thine altar our vows we renew Still in thy cause to be loyal and true, — True to thy flag on the field and the wave, Living to honor it, dying to save ! Mother of heroes ; if perfidy's blight Fall on a star in thy garland of light, Sound but one bugle-blast ! Lo ! at the sign Armies all- panoplied wheel into line! Hope of the world ' thou hast broken its chains, — Wear thy bright arms while a tyrant remains. Stand for the right till the nations shall own Freedom their sovereign, with Law for her throne ! Freedom ! sweet Freedom ! our voices resound, Queen by God's blessing, unsceptred, uncrowned ! Freedom, sweet Freedom, our pulses repeat, Warm with her life-blood, as long as they beat ! Fold the broad banner-stripes over her breast, — Crown her with star-jewels Queen of the West! Earth for her heritage, God for her friend, She shall reign over us, world without end !" — Oliver Wendell Holmes. 236 THE DUTtES OF A CITIZEN. Story: Tlie Tall of the Bastille. In the old world, where in former times for hundreds or thousands of years the rulers over the people had been kings or emperors, there is one great country which now has a republican form of government somewhat like our own. It is one of the most powerful nations on earth, and with a long, long history behind it. I am thinking, of course, of France. There the people choose their own rulers, as we do in America. No man holds office there because of his birth or of his fore- fathers. But this has not always been true of that people. They have had many a sad experience and gone through many a revolution before this change was finally brought about. And, like ourselves, they have one day in the year when they commemorate the events which finally brought about the free government they have to-day. But it was no Declaration of Independence, which was launched at that time. The story goes back over a hundred years to the latter part of the eighteenth century. It was in the year 1789. In those days, the mass of the people did not choose their own rulers ; they had no voice in the affairs of their country. They were more like slaves than citizens. They did the work and paid the taxes; but they went hungry or half-clad. It was not for them to determine how they should be governed, how their earnings should be expended for the welfare of their country, or what share each man should pay. The power was in the hands of a small body of persons at the head of whom was the king. All this had been going on for hundreds and hundreds of years, and the situation of the people had grown worse and worse. Across the Atlantic rumors had come of what was going on in America, of the people there who had shaken off the yoke of tyranny and established a government for themselves. They looked back over their own past history and sav/ little ground for hope or encourage- ment. It was a long story of poverty, suffering and humilia- tion. They had been citizens in name only, with none of the rights of citizenship. The laws did not protect them against the abuses of those in power. The lives of their very children were at the mercy of evil men who might trample upon them. This does not mean that all the men in power in that coun- try were hard and cold and cruel. There are some good men at all times and everywhere. But the situation was sad and heart-rending for the people. Famine had come and was causing the death of thousands. Children did not have enough to eat. And yet those in power still went on squandering the wealth of the country in luxury or display. Down underneath the surface, among the suffering and poor, there was a spirit of rebellion. It was not against the property of others, but against the injustice which had refused them the rights and privileges of citizenship. The great city of Paris, where the seat of government was located and where the king and the THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 237 nobility had their palaces, was in strange commotion in that year 1789. No one knew just what was going to happen. But a feeling prevailed that a blow would be struck somewhere. It had to be an act of violence as an outbreak of despair. There were no laws to which the people could appeal, no courts to which they might turn, no chance for them to put new rulers in power, no legislatures by which they could have new laws enacted or new courts of justice established. In one part of that city, there was an old castle or dungeon called the Bastille. It had been there for hundreds and hun- dreds of years. Gloomy and grim, it stood there as a menace to the liberties of the people. Around it was a moat or ditch twenty-five feet in width, filled with water and covered by a draw-bridge. The walls were nine feet in thickness, with eight gloomy towers from which soldiers could look down and bid defiance to the people. It had been not only a castle but a dungeon. Within those walls, in the cells of the Bastille, many an innocent man had been kept in former times and held there for years, not even knowing why he had been put there. Without any explanation, he might be seized by the arbitrary power of some one above him, torn from his family and taken there to wait and languish for years ere he could have a trial and discover what crime he was charged with. That mighty fortress stood to the people as the symbol of tyranny, of the arbitrary power of men in authority, who could act without the support of law and in defiance of justice. The innocent and the guilty alike might be held there in those dungeons for months or years, perhaps chained to a wall and kept there waiting, waiting, all the time waiting, until the hour should come for their release or their death. What wonder that the people hated the sight of that fortress ! Is it strange that they felt as if that old castle with its dun- geons was a menace to them and their liberties? How they must have wished that it could be torn down and destroyed. And at last the day came. It was the morning of the 14th of July, 1789. For some reason we shall never quite under- stand, the people had begun to assemble in crowds before that draw-bridge or gateway, at first by the hundreds and then by the thousands, until, ere long, all the streets round about were filled with a surging mass of angry men and women, clamoring for entrance to the Bastille. On their bodies those people carried the records of long years of tyranny. "Down with the Bastille," was the cry. But there before them it stood with its walls nine feet in thickness, the draw-bridge raised, the soldiers in the towers. What could they do? We may never quite know all that happened. It may be that shame and terror took possession of the hearts of the defenders of that dungeon. But there stood those thousands and thousands of people like a huge army clamoring for admittance, ever more loudly crying, "Down with the Bastille !" At last the draw-bridge fell, crushing some of them beneath its weight. 238 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. But across they ran, up against the gates; and then they began their attack. Still higher and higher rose the cry, "Down with the Bastille !" After hours of waiting and a furious onslaught, at last the great gate swung open. The castle has surrendered. In surged the people, through the courts, into the towers, down into the dungeons. At last they had possession of that grim, old fortress which had stood as symbol of the tyranny they and their forefathers had experienced for hundreds and hundreds of years. The Bastille which had been there with its gloomy walls and lofty towers as the symbol of lawlessness and the abuse of power, had fallen into their hands. What wonder that the people went wild in their triumph? Is it strange that the shouts went up long and loud over their success? They had struck a blow against tyranny and for justice. They had asserted their claim for the rights of citizenship as free men and women. They had set up a demand for the reign of law, for a government by the people. And in a few short days the old fortress or castle was torn down, the towers thrown over, those massive walls destroyed, and the Bastille was no more. To-day in the city of Paris, not a stone of that fortress, of those walls and towers is to be found anywhere. Only a tall column marks the spot where once it stood and where the people had asserted their rights and won their first triumph over tyranny. It was only a beginning. The story of the experience of that people for another hundred years is sad in the extreme. They won their freedom only for a time to lose it again. Once more they got it, and then once more it was overthrown. But now at last they have a government like ours, where they vote as we vote, where they make laws as we make laws, where there are courts of justice to which they can appeal. In that great country the people at last are their own rulers. Is it strange, therefore, that they should have fixed upon that one day, the 14th of July, as the national festival which should commemorate the change from the old order to the new in the triumph of the people ? The keynote of that country's aspirations inscribed on the walls of the public buildings and seen everywhere throughout France is contained in three short words : Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. No one to-day would have a right in a free country to commit such an act of violence as was committed at that eventful time. All this belongs to the old days when the people there had no freedom, and when it was the only way by which they could assert their rights against long centuries of tyranny. It was an epoch-making day, that 14th of July, in the history of mankind. And when the anniversary comes round each year, free people all over the world may join in sympathy with the people of France as they commemorate the Fall of the Bastille. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 239 Classic for Beading' or Becltatlou. We believe in one God, the author of all exist- ence. * * * We believe in a general, immutable law, a law which constitutes our mode of existence; embraces the whole series of possible phenomena; exercises a continuous action upon the universe, and all therein comprehended. * * * As every law assumes an aim to be reached, we believe in the progressive development of all the faculties and forces of all living things. * * * lYe believe in Humanity — the collective and continuous being that sums up and comprehends the ascending series of organic creations; the most perfect manifestation of the thought of God upon our globe. * * * We believe that harmony betzveen the subject and the law being the continuation of all normal existence, — the one and immediate aim of all endeavor is the establishment of this harmony in ever-increasing completeness and security through the gradual dis- covery cmd comprehension of the law, and identifi- cation of its subject with if. We believe in associa- tion — which is but the reduction to action of our faith in one sole God and one sole law and one sole aim — as the only means we possess of realizing the truth; as the method of progress; the path lead- ing towards perfection. * * * We believe in the liberty and equality of the peoples, without which no true association can exist; — in nationality, which is the conscience of the peoples, and, which, by assigning to them their part in the work of asso- ciation, their ftmction in humanity, constitutes their mission upon earth; that is to say, their individual- ity, without which neither liberty nor equality are possible; — in the sacred Fatherland, cradle of na- tionality, altar and workshop of the individuals of which each people is composed. * * * As we 240 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. believe in the association of the peoples, so do we believe in the association of the individuals of which each people is composed; we believe that it is their sole method of progress, the principle destined to predominate over all their institutions, and the pledge of their harmony of action. As we believe in the liberty and equality of the peoples, so do we believe in the liberty and equality of the men of every people, and in the inviolability of the human Ego, which is the conscience of the individual, and assigns to him his part in the secondary association; his function in the nation; his special mission of citizenship with Phe sphere of the Fatherland. * * * We believe in the people of every state as the sole master, sole sovereign and sole interpreter of the law of humanity, which governs every national mission. We believe in the people, one and indivis- ible, recognising neither castes nor privileges save those of genius and virtue. * * * We believe in the people, one and independent, so organized as to Iiarmonize the individual faculties with the social ideal; living by the efforts of his own labor, united in seeking for the greatest possible amoimt of gen- eral ivell-being, and in respect for the rights of individuals. We believe in the people bound to- gether in brotherhood by a common faith, tradition and idea of love; striving toward the progressive fulfilment of its special mission; * * * never forgetful of a truth once attained, but never sinking into inertness in consequence of its attainment; revering the Word of past generations, yet bent on using the present as a bridge between the past and the future. * * * God and His law. Humanity and its work of interpretation, progress, association, liberty, and equality; these, imth the dogma of the People, are all united in our belief. — Joseph Mazzini. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 24I Pnrther Sner?eBtionB to the Teacher. A collection of the flags of most of the great nations can be found in any large encyclopedia, also in many of the War Atlases. Cut each one out and paste it separately on a sheet of cardboard, showing one after another to the pupils, telling them when it was adopted as the flag of that country and any- thing additional you may know about its history. Also explain the difference between a "national standard" and "national ensign." The pupils may be puzzled over the variety of the flags which certain of the countries in Europe may have. The points of this lesson have been rapidly sketched, but they should be developed more in detail. A great effort should be made to emphasize the importance of treat- ing any piece of cloth with respect on which the national colors have been stamped. Touch on the importance of trying to have any flag of this kind in our possession kept neat and clean. In regard to what has been said concerning the holiday in connec- tion with the name of Abraham Lincoln, try, of course, to avoid stirring any sectional feeling or arousing any sense of bitterness over the strife be- tween the North and the South. As regards the song, "The Star Spangled Banner," we shall deal with it in a future lesson on "National Hymns and National Anthems." CHAPTER XVI. THE STATE AND CKIME. Memory Gem — "It »j the function of civil government to make it easy to do right and difUcult to do wrong." — William E. Gladstone. Slalogrue- It is not a pleasant subject that we are to talk about to-day ; yet we must study it. When a man breaks into a house in the night time and commits burglary, what do we call it ? "Crime?" But why do we give it that name ? Would the same kind of an act be called a crime everywhere in the world? "Yes, if it were burglary." But we are not speaking only of burglary. We mean any kind of a bad act. Would it always be called a crime in every country in the world? "Not necessarily?" But why not? "Because," you suggest, "the laws might not be the same in all countries of the world." The laws of what? "Why, the laws of the state." You assume then, do you, that the state itself has something to say as to what is crime and what is not crime? "It looks that way," you admit. Do you assert that the state or the government, for instance, Congress or whatever power makes the laws, is to decide what is right and what is wrong, by the way it deals with crime? "No, not by any manner of means," you insist. But why not ? You have told me that the state is the power which deter- mines what shall be considered a crime. "True," you add, "but the state does not under- take to pass upon all kinds of wrong acts : then. too.. 242 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 243 different states may prefer to deal with the same conduct in different ways." Can you suggest, for example, an act that we should all consider wrong and yet which is not always declared a crime by the state ? "You cannot think of any ?" What about a lie, for instance ? Do we not look upon that as wrong? "Yes, surely!" But does the state treat it as a crime? "Sometimes?" But not always? "No', not always," 3'ou admit. Can you tell me under what circumstances a lie would be regarded by the state as a crime? "Yes, a lie told in the courts, for instance." And what sort of a lie is that called, do you know ? What does a person usually have to do when giving testimony in a court? "Take an oath that he will tell the truth?" Quite so; or at least what is called a "solemn affirmation," to the same effect. And if a man tells a lie under those circumstances, do you know how the act is classed ? "As perjury ?" Yes. Perjury is a crime by the law of the state. This applies not only to testimony in courts, as you know; but if a man takes an oath or makes solemn affirmation before an official of the state to a fact or a promise, and then has told a lie or broken the promise, he is guilty of perjury and has com- mitted a "crime." Now if a man tells a lie without having been guilty of what is called perjury, would it ever be considered a crime, do you suppose, and punished as such? "You fancy not?" Think now before you are too sure. What if a person should make up a very bad or an untrue story about another man's character and spread it abroad or publish it? That would not be described as perjury, although it would be lying. Do you think the state would not deal with such acts 244 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. by its laws? "O'h yes," you say, "that would be slander or libel." Then to tell lies by slandering a man's character would be a crime according to the laws of the state, would it? "Surely so." And what do you call it? "Libel or slander?" But suppose a man told a lie about something con- cerning which you wanted tO' know the real facts, and it were not slander or perjury and not a crime according to the laws of the state, would it be any the less wrong? "It would not be a crime," you assert. Yes, but what about the right or wrong of it? How would you feel if the lie were told to you and the man afterwards excused himself and said that such a lie was not a crime according to the laws of the state? "Oh, well, it would be a lie just the same." Don't you think it would almost seem worse for a man to be guilty of such meanness or wrong con- duct, just because he knew that he could not be pun- ished for it by the laws of the state? Why is it, do you suppose, that governments do not punish every wrong" act or declare every wrong act to be a crime according to the law ? "Well, for instance, it may be that the makers of the law think that certain wrong acts will find their own punish- ment under any circumstances." Yes, that may be one reason. Then, too, it may not seem best for the state to^ interfere too far with the conduct of the individual, even when he is going to doi wrong. We are left, you see, with a certain freedom of choice by the state, just as we have a certain freedom of choice in ourselves to do right or wrong. But what important distinction does the state make in regard to acts being crimes ? What class of wrong THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 24S acts would be declared crimes by the law? "Yoti hardly know ?" Suppose a person eats too much and makes him- self sick. Would that be right? "No," you smile, "that would ba wrong and he ought to be ashamed of himself." But do you think that the state would regard it as a crime? "Probably not?" But what if he took some food belonging to an- other man and ate too much of it and made himself sick? What would you say to that? Would it be wrong? "Yes, indeed, and a crime, too?" But why would it be a crime? "Because it would be stealing." What harm may stealing do? I ask. "Why, it would injure another man, interfere with his rights, do harm to him as well as myself." Now, then, can you suggest what great class of acts the state would look upon as crimes ? We have already mentioned two, libel or slander, and stealing. "Yes," you point out, "it would be acts which in- jured other people or interfered with their rights or their freedom." If so, we have discovered now the first great class of acts punished by the state as crimes. While it may seerp best that we should have a certain freedom to do right or wrong, it becomes another matter when doing a wrong which seriously injures others as well as ourselves. Will you name over some of the crimes which might be committed against others. What is the most awful crime of all ? "Murder?" Yes, murder, taking another man's life. But right here, I want to be sure that you know what you mean by such an awful crime. Suppose one man causes another man's death under circum- stances he could not help. That might be taking another man's life. Would it be a crime? What if, for instance, a burglar got into a house in the night 246 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. and the owner of the house in defaiding himself, killed the burglar. Would that be a crime? "You do' not know?" Weh, I may" tell yota that it would not be a crime. If a burglar enters a house in the night and the owner of the house shoots him or kills him, the law of the state usually considers such an act permissible. Suppose again, one man threatens another man's life by pointing a revolver at his head, what may the other man do? "Kill the criminal in self-de- fense?" Yes, surely. If a man can show conclu- sively that he was obliged to take another man's life in order to save his own life from attack on the part of the other man, it would not be a crime. And what if a man caused the death of another man by accident and he had not intended it, would that be looked upon by the state or the law as a crime? "You think not ?" Suppose one man struck another man in anger without intending tO' kill the other man, and yet what if the blow was sa severe as to cause the man's death? Would that be considered murder, do you suppose? "Well, not to the same extent as if he had in- tended to kill the other man." You mean, do you, that the intention has something to do with deter- mining whether a man has been guilty of a crime or what crime he has been guilty of? But if such an act would not be murder in the same sense, and the man should not be hung for it, yet do you think he would be punished merely for striking the blow ? "You hardly know ?" As to that, I can tell you that such an act, accord- ing to the law of many states, would be considered "homicide", and punished very severely, although not to the extreme penalty as if the man had been guilty of intentional murder. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 247 In the same way, what if a person causes the death of one or more other persons through careless- ness, without any intention to do any harm to the other persons at all ? What if an engineer on a rail- way train is careless and soi causes an accident lead- ing to the death of one or more persons, would it be a crime? "At any rate," you assert, "he would be to blame in a certain way." Yes, and I can tell you that according to the law oi many states, if not all states, he would be tried for "manslaughter" or "homicide," and, if guilty, be punished by many years of impris- onment. You see, the state looks upon human life as some- thing supremely sacred and this makes any careless- ness on our part with regard to the lives of others, a very serious matter. If we can be shown to be responsible for the death of another through our carelessness, usually we should be held guilty of an awful crime. But what other acts of the general class we have been talking about, would be crimes ? What usually comes next in our thought to murder? "Stealing," you suggest. Yes, or what might be called crimes against property. But this is a very broad distinction. May I ask you a little more definitely concerning crimes against property? What do we call breaking into a man's house and stealing? "Burglary?" And what about people who steal anything which they find lying loose anywhere unwatched? What would you call that? "Theft?" Do you know what is the name for another awful crime, where a man sets fire to another man's prop- erty? "Arson?" Yes, it is treated as one of the most awful crimes a man can be guilty of, accord- ing to the law of the state. 248 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. But there is another crime I wish to speak about. You may never have heard of it, although I am sorry to say that it is often committed nowadays under severe temptation. Suppose one man signs another man's name for a check on a bank, and so gets money that does not belong to him ; what would you call that? "To begin with, it would be stealing," you assert. Stealing what ? I ask. "Why, stealing money !" Yes, but stealing anything else? "Certainly," you add, "the other man's name would also' be stolen." What do we call the crime of signing another man's name to a check or document in that way? "For- gery?" What if a man signs another man's name in that way when he has no intention of stealing money, but just wishes to use the other man's name for conve- nience? Would that be a crime? "You fancy so?" But why? I ask. "Because it would be stealing another man's name and would be forgery all the same." Yes, it is a very serious crime tO' sign an- other man's name in place O'f one's own. There is still another class of crimes I must also mention for your consideration. We have been talk- ing to a certain extent about crimes against prop- erty. Suppose, however, one man strikes another man, and not in self-defense; would that be a crime? "It ought to be regarded so at any rate," you as- sure me. Yes, that is what is sometimes called the crime of "assault" on another person. To strike another person unless in self-defense is regarded as a very serious act oi wrong by the law of the state. Then, too, what about the home and the family? I wonder if you have ever heard of any crime which a man or woman may be guilty of against the home. We may dislike tO' speak of this because it is so pain- ful, but you ought to know something about it. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 249 "For instance," you answer, "there is polygamy." Yes, that is an awful crime. If a man has more than one wife, we say he has committed a crime against the family as an institution, and he can be severely punished. Or if a woman should have more than one husband, that would be regarded as an awful crime. The law also requires, for instance, that man and wife shall be true to each other, and if they are dis- loyal and break the solemn contract, they are re- garded as guilty of a crime. It would be so, too, if a man or woman causes two people who are married to be disloyal one tO' the other. Then the one who has caused that evil is also guilty of a crime. The law of the civilized world now recognizes once for all, the great principle of monogamy, one husband and one wife. By the way, suppose a man or woman makes a great commotion on the street ; what if a person hap- pens to be intoxicated and causes a disturbance on the highway. Is that an ofifense against the law? "Yes, surely!" And what is it usually called? "Breaking the peace ?" True, that would be the name for it and the police would be expected to arrest that person. Probably the largest number of crimes committed nowadays are the class of acts of wrong which come under the name of "breaking the peace," or "disturbing the peace." Can you name over now some of the classes of crimes we have talked about? Count them off on your fingers. What was the last one ? "Breach oi peace?" Yes, and then stealing, for instance, and the class of crimes to which this belongs, — what did we call them? "Crimes against property?" And then there 2SO THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. would be libel, assault, murder, how would you de- scribe them? "Crimes against the person?" And what about polygamy? "Oh, yes, crimes against the home and family would be another class." But suppose a man buys another man's vote at election time, what would you call that? "Bribery?" And against whom especially would the crime be committed? "Oh," you answer, "against no one man in particular, perhaps." But if so, why should it be called a crime ? "Be- cause it would be a very bad act. Bribery is very wrong indeed." Wrong in what way? "Why, it would injure the community; it destroys honesty in elections, it cor- rupts the people, it injures the whole state or the whole country." Then how would you describe this class of crimes more especially, if they are not directed against per- sons or property? "Why, they would be crimes against the state itself." Yes, that is very important. But may I ask you another question in this con- nection. You have spoken of murder as a crime against the person, and steahng as a crime against the property of a person. Is it anything more than this? Do such acts injure anybody else save just the person who has owned the property, or the family of the man who has been murdered? "Why," you assert, "it injures everybody, in a way. It is a blow against society. It hurts the whole community." Then every crime would be an act of wrong against what? "The state?" Yes; and this is a point of tremendous importance that we must not overlook. From all this discussion you may have begun to think that nearly all crimes are acts committed THE DUTIES OF \ CITIZEN. 25! against others. But I ask you to be sure about that pO'int. Suppose a man tries to take his own Hfe. You would perhaps say that his Hfe belonged to him- self. Would that be a crime? "You hardly see why ?" Yes, I can tell you that such an act would be re- garded as a crime according to the law of many states. So, too, have you heard of opium dens? I am sorry indeed to have to mention such places. But what do we mean by this ? "Oh," you exclaim, "they are places where people sometimes go in order to smoke opium." And how does the state look upon such, conduct? Do yon know ? "At any rate," you answer, "it is a very bad thing for a man to use opium." Yes ; and I can tell you, according to the law of many states, if a man is found using opium in such places, he can be arrested and punished as guilty of a crime. "But," you ask me, "why should that be a crime ? It is a man's own affair if he injures himself." On the contrary, I must remind you that the state looks upon a man as not only belonging to himself but also as belonging to the state. You see, the law does not give a man the absolute right to do with himself as he pleases. He owes something to his family, to his city, to his country. He may not assume that he can injure himself just because it may do no harm to others. That would be, for instance, as if your arm in case it could think, should say to itself that it might do as it pleased and injure itself, if it cared to do so. But your whole body might object, because if the arm injured itself or' got injured in any way, the whole body has to suffer. And so in the same way. 252 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. when one man injures himself, the whole state has to suffer in one way or another. Do you know, by the way, that- we sometimes speak of the state as the "body-politic." So we say, the body-politic may be injured when one man as a member of that body-politic injures himself. By the way, what if a man commits a crime, is arrested, and brought before the court, and then pleads that he did not know that what he had done was against the law. Would he be excused or set free? "You think so?" Why? I ask. "Because he did not know what the law was." But how did it happen that he did not know about the law? "Perhaps he did not try to find out about it," you answer. Yes, that is true. I may as well tell you once for all : it is a great principle accepted by nearly all states, that ignorance of the law is no excuse; the state expects it of us that we shall know its laws, and it is cmr duty, therefore, to inform ourselves con- cerning the laws of the state. Dntles. I. We ought to know something about the laws of our state concerning crimes and what acts are treated as crimes by the state. II. We ought to know how the state punishes crimes and to assist the state in the execution of its laws against crime. III. We ought faithfully to respect the laws of the state in its regulation of human conduct. IV. We ought never to commit crimes and never to encourage others to commit them. Points of tlie .ILesson. I. That the state by its laws determines what is and what is not crime. II. That the state does not undertake to deal with all kinds of bad conduct. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 253 III. That the state leaves certain kinds of bad conduct to find their own punishment. Note the difference between a perjury and an ordinary lie. IV. That the state by its laws upon crime, undertakes to protect people in their rights. V. That the state in its laws upon crime may hold a man responsible for his conduct, even when the final outcome was not intentional — as, for example, homicide. VI. That in a general way, we distinguish between crimes against person, against property, against home or the family, and against the state itself. VII. That all crimes, however, are to be regarded as also committed against the state as a whole. VIII. That some kinds of bad conduct may also be regarded as crimes, although pertaining mostly to the individual who commits them; as, for example, opium smoking or suicide. IX. That ignorance of the law as to what is crime is not considered by the law an excuse for having committed a crime. Foem. O mother of a mighty race. Yet lovely in thy youthful grace ! The elder dames, thy haughty peers, Admire and hate thy blooming years; With words of shame And taunts of scorn they join thy name. They know not, in their hate and pride, What virtues with thy children bide, — How true, how good, thy graceful maids Make bright, like flowers, the valley shades; What generous men Spring, like thine oaks, by hill and glen. What cordial welcomes greet the guest By thy lone rivers of the West; How faith is kept, and truth revered. And man is loved and God is feared, In woodland homes. And where the ocean border foams. There's freedom at thy gates, and rest For earth's downtrodden and opprest, A shelter for the hunted head. For the starved laborer toil and bread. Power at thy bounds Stops, and calls back his baffled hounds. 254 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. O fair young mother, on thy brow Shall sit a nobler grace than now. Deep in the brightness of thy skies The thronging years in glory rise, And, as they fleet, Drop strength and riches at thy feet. Thine eye with every coming hour Shall brighten, and thy fame shall tower; And when thy sisters, elder born. Would brand thy name with words of scorn, Before thine eye Upon their lips the taunt shall die. — William Cullen Bryant. Classic for Beading' or Becltatlon. "I believe there is no permanent greatness to a nation except it be based upon morality. I do not care for military greatness or military renown. I care for the condition of the people among whom I live. * * * Crowns, coronets, mitres, military display, the pomp of war, wide colonies, and a huge empire are, in my view, all trifles, light as air, and not worth considering, unless with them you can have a fair share of comfort, contentment, and hap- piness among the great body of the people. Palaces, baronial castles, great halls, stately mansions, do not make a nation. The nation in every country dwells in the cottage; and unless the light of your consti- tution can shine there, unless the beauty of your legislation and the excellence of your statesmanship are impressed there on the feelings and conditions of the people, rely upon it you have yet to learn thei duties of government. * * * May I ask you, then, to believe, as I do most devoutly believe, that the moral law was not written for men alone in their individual character, but that it was written as well for nations, and for nations great as this of which we are citizens. If nations reject and deride that moral law, there is a penalty which will inevitably follow, * * * We have experience, we have THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 255 beacons, we have landmarks enough. We know what the past has cost us, we know how much and how far we have wandered, but we are not left zvithout a guide. * * * lyg have the unchangeable and eternal principles of the moral law to guide us, and only so far as we walk by that guidance can we be permanently a great nation, or our people a happy people." — John Bright. Furtlier Sug'g'estlonB to tlie Teacher, It will be observed that we have not made any dis- tinction between "crimes" and "misdemeanors." If you have the time, you can dwell on this point. But it is often a mistake to suggest distinctions or bring up points which you may not have time to explain. If thought advisable, you could extend the subject over several lessons, enlarging upon it in many ways. The points tO' be emphasized ot the extent to which the subject can be enlarged, will depend upon the mental attitude of the young people. If the pupils come from families where there is little home educa- tion, then it would be of importance to teach the boys and girls a great deal about the laws concerning crimes, going much further into detail and carrying out the subject more extensively, with illustrations of criminal conduct and the temptations leading to that conduct. Reference could be made, for instance, to the law about punishing a man for not supporting his family, on for abusing his wife or children. Much more could be said about the great class of so-called misdemeanors, drunkenness, breach of peace, petty thieving. Emphasis could be laid on the fact that drunkenness is not an excuse for crime. Stories could be told how men have gone wrong by giving in to petty temptation. With a certain class of boys, something should be said concerning the special crimes which might be committed against woman. 256 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. What all young people need and ought toi have now- adays, is a certain amount of exact knowledge of the laws of the state concerning crime and its punish- ment. But it would be impossible to outline in detail any one lesson which would apply to all classes of pupils. You might, in connection with this theme, if you can do so, show pictures of some state prisons in this country. But do not talk much about them, as you would in this way anticipate the points of the next lesson. In connection with prisons, if the class members come from surroundings where there is little home education and the street atmosphere prevails, try to show them pictures of life in prisons so as to give them a sense of the horror of what a man has to experience there, and thus make them feel what an awful thing it must be ever to become a "convict." But if the young people come from better homes, do not go very far into this phase of the subject. CHAPTER XVII. THE STATE AND THE PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME. Memory Gem — "The province of government is to increase to the utmost the pleasures and to diminish to the utmost the pains which men derive from each other." — John Stuart Mill. Slaloerue. In what way does the law specify that a certain act shall be considered a crime? How is it made plain that one act, more than another, shall be treated in that way ? Do you suppose, for instance, that on the statute books, if you were toi read them, you would find statements to the effect that such and such acts shall be considered crimes ? Is that all you will find there ? "No, not by any means?" But why not? What else would you expect? "Oh," you suggest, "crime is connected with punishment." You mean, then, do you, that when a law is passed, deciding that a certain act shall be regarded in that way, it also fixes the punishment for the commission of such an act ? "Yes, surely !" But why should it do this? Would it not be enough to forbid certain conduct by declaring con- duct of that kind to be criminal ? "If that were all," you tell me, "it would not amount toi much or keep men from committing crimes." Why not? I ask you. "Because people probably knew already that such acts were wrong; their own conscience would tell them that much." You assume, do you, that they would not always of their own accord obey their own conscience or the law of the state? I fear you are right. With the SS7 258 THE Duties of a citizen. notion of crime always goes the notion of punish- ment of some kind. When a crime is committed against a man, may the man turn about and punish, the one who has in- jured him ? "You suppose not ?" But why not? "Because the law forbids him," }"ou assert. Would it be a crime for me to under- take to punish a man who had committed a crime against me? "It looks that way," you admit. But who' or what is it that punishes a man for crime? "The state?" Yes, we say that the state is the power which punishes crime. But what right has it to do so ? "Because it is the state?" True; that is a good answer. Just hold to it. But has it always been so, that the state was the one power which had the authority to punish crime? "Ycnu would take that for granted?" Yet you are mistaken there. In early times, pri- vate vengeance was the bad but usual way by which wrongs or crimes were punished. It was only as the human race became more civilized that men be- gan to see that the state alone should have that privi- lege, and that it ought to be the otily sovereign power interfering with human freedom. In the old days, for instance, when a man was murdered, it was looked upon as the duty of the members of the man's family to try to kill the man who had committed the murder. We can see how dangerous that method must have been. The wrong man might often be punished, because there would perhaps be no investigation as to the facts. Or a man might be punished when he was not at all to blame. And worst oi all, it left, punishment to the wicked feeling of revenge, — also encouraging a feeling as if just one family had been injured instead of the whole community. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 259 But by and by the comviction arose that the whole community or the state as a whole had been injured by the crime, and that it was for the state itself tO' punish the guilty ones. Do you know in what ways the state punishes crime? "It depends on the kind of crime," you an- swer. Yes, quite true. But what if it were intentional murder and a man were found guilty, what would be his punishment according to the law? "Death?" Yes, probably it would be death, although I believe that there are a few states which do not punish even the worst kind of criminals in that way. What is the term we apply to punishment by death? I ask you because it is a subject much dis- cussed nowadays. "Capital punishment?" And how is capital punishment usually carried out? "By hanging?" Yes. "But not everywhere by hanging," you assert. What do you mean by that? "Why, there is elec- trocution." And what have you in mind by that big word? What form of punishment is that? "Put- ting a man to death by electricity?" True; that is the method now employed, for instance, in the state of New York. Is there any other method made use of nowadays ? "You think of no other?" But let me ask you now : do you remember about the execution of Major Andre in the Revolutionary War? "Oh yes?" How was he put to death ? "By hanging?" But what kind of a death did he ask for in place of being hung; do you remember? "He preferred to be shot?" And why did he ask for that form of punishment in place of hanging? "Oh," you suggest, "hanging was more of a disgrace." And why? "Perhaps, because bdng shot was regarded as a 26o THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. more dignified way of being punished in war." Yes, you are right. And here you observe another form of capital punishment. In the military world, that is the usual method of putting a man to death, if he is to receive such a severe punishment. In war, for instance, you know if a man falls asleep on picket duty, he will probably have to be shot as the awful punishment for his carelessness. Have you ever heard of other ways of inflicting capital punishment in former times? "Yes," you suggest, "they used to cut off a man's head." True. You may have heard of the guillotine? It was an instrument used in the terrible period of the French Revolution, for cutting off men's heads. And do you know how it got that name? "Yes, it was named after the man who invented it." Quite so, and it is also a fact that the same man who invented the machine was himself put to death by the guillotine. Is there any other crime nowadays ever punished by death, do you know ? "You do not think of any ?" But let me ask you ? Did you ever heard of treason ? "Oh yes?" And what does it imply? "Why, it means plotting against the state." Per- haps we might then describe it as an effort to murder the state instead of one individual. And what punishment, do you suppose, is usually meted out for treason? "Death?" Yes, I suspect it would be death. Even if a man failed in carrying out his plans, it would perhaps be regarded as trea- son just the same. In the old world, for instance, in certain countries, the state is "represented" by the king or emperor, as you know. Hence, if a man tries to kill the king or emperor, he is condemned as guilty oif treason and would be put to death,, even if he failed in his effort. In our Revolutionary War what celebrated man THE DUTIES OP' A CITIZEN. 261 committed treason or "turned traitor," as we say? "Benedict Arnold?" And if he had been caught afterwards, what punishment would he have expe- rienced? "Death?" Yes, surely. In most countries nowadays treason and murder are the only two crimes punishable by death, save in time of war, when for instance, spies may be shot, or men in the army may be put to death for neglect of duty. But do you assume that it has always been so, that those were the only two crimes punishable by death ? "You could hardly think otherwise?" Why not? I ask. "Because it would seem quite too awful for the state to inflict such punishment for any other than such terrible crimes." I am sorry to tell you, however, that you are mistaken. Not many hundreds of years ago, it was usual to punish men for very slight offences by death. In the eighteenth century, for instance, a man might be hung for stealing the sum of a dollar and a quarter, or for killing a sheep, or for cutting down a tree which had been planted for ornament. This was over in England. In the twenty-three years between 1748 and 1771, in the city of London alone, there had been six hundred and seventy-eight people who had sufifered capital punishment, and of that whole number, not more than seventy-two had been guilty of murder. Note to the Teacher: For facts on this subject, see Chapter VIII. on "Theories of Crime," in the "Life of John Howard," by Rev. Hepworth Dixon. And what is the other form of punishment used by governments nowadays ? "Imprisonment?" Yes, but imprisonment with zvhatf What would a man be expected to do if he were put in prison for a num- ber of years? "Work or labor?" True, the other 262 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. form of punishment is what we call "imprisonment with hard labor." And what crimes do you suppose are punished in this way? Name some of them. "Why, for in- stance, burglary, manslaughter, forgery, arson, polygamy and other such awful crimes." But suppose a man were convicted of drunkenness or disturbing the peace, would he necessarily be sen- tenced to imprisonment with hard labor? "No, he might be punished by a fine." And what do you understand by that? "Oh, he would have to pay some money to the state as a punishment for the wrong he had done to the state." But what if he has no money? "Why then he may be sent to the workhouse and be imprisoned there and made to work." But in that case, would the imprisonment and the work he has to do be intended in the same way as a punishment? "Not quite," you continue, "because it would be the way by which he would pay his fine." What, then, is used as a means for punishment nowadays besides imprisonment or death? "A money penalty?" But is the money penalty always paid to the state, if a man has done injury to another ? "No, he may be compelled to pay damages tO' the person he has injured." Does it ever happen that punishment is put upon a man both in the way of fine and imprisonment? "Yes, that happens sometimes?" It is perhaps in order to make the man understand better what he has been guilty of. The money pun- ishment may show him how he has been guilty of a crime against property, while the imprisonment may make him understand how he has been guilty of a crime against the state. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 263 Note to the Teacher : The extent to which this phase of the subject is to be developed must depend on the pupils you are dealing with. If the boys and girls come from surround- ings where there is little home training or education, a great deal should be made of this point. Give a list of men and women who have been punished for one or another of these crimes in recent years, in the city where the young people live, with the number of years of imprisonment in each case and the name of the crime. Have them form some very definite idea as to the amount of punishment meted out for each kind of crime. If sufficient instances cannot be found from one's own city, take them from other cities. Do not, of course, go into details in regard to the way the crime was committed, because this might work harm in cultivating morbid curiosity. But in each instance, name the crime and the amount of punishment. With young people of another grade, the whole method here should be different. You have told me of three forms of punishments used nowadays in the civilized world; capital pun- ishment, imprisonment, and a money penalty. And do you fancy that any other methods were ever cus- tomary in former times? "You are afraid so?" Why? I ask. "Because," you suggest, "when men were less civilized, they were more cruel." Yes, you are right. I might harrow your souls by telling stories of the awful punishments which have been inflicted, and this not many hundreds of years ago. Let me give you one single instance, which I take from the biography of John Howard of England. "In the year 1725, Thomas Bliss, a carpenter not having any friends to support him, was almost starved to death in the prison, upon which he attempted to get over the prison by a rope left him by another prisoner. In the attempt he was taken by the keepers, dragged by the heels into the lodge, barbarously beaten and put in irons in which he was kept for several weeks. One afternoon as he was standing quietly in the yard with his irons on, some of the men of the lessee of the prison by the name of Acton called him into the lodge, where Acton was then drinking and making merry with com- pany. In about half an hour Bliss came out and gave an account : that when he was in the lodge, they, for their diver- sion, fixed on his head an iron skullcap which was screwed so close that it forced the blood out of his ears and nose. And 264 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. he further declares that his thumbs were at the same time put into a pair of thumb-screws, which were screwed so tight that the blood started out of them. This miserable wretch was put into the hospital for help before long, but died very soon." Have you ever heard of the whipping-post, for instance ? And what do you think it was ? "Why, it was probably the place where a man who had broken the law was tied and received a whipping as his punishiment." Do you know what it means when we speak of people having been burned at the stake? "Oh, it was a way of putting a man to death by setting fire to his body when tied to a tree, or putting him over a fire and letting him burn tO' death." Are such awful methods used nowadays any- where? "Not in civilized countries," you insist. I hope that is true, although it is whispered that many of these frightful tortures are still customary in half-civilized lands, or among barbarous races in Asia and Africa. And now may I ask you a most important ques- tion? What is punishment for? Do you feel that if a man is guilty of a crime, he ought to be pun- ished in some way? "Yes," you assert, "we cer- tainly have that kind of a feeling." But do you assume that nowadays when the state punishes a criminal, the chief purpose in doing so, is to satisfy the people because they feel that he deserves being punished ? "That may be one reason at any rate?" True, but what would be the other purposes involved ? What motives might exist leading to the punishment of crime, besides the conviction that a guilty man de- serves to be punished ? "Why," you point out, "it is necessary to punish crime as an example to the rest of the world, so that other men will be more afraid of committing crimes." THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 26$ Yes, that is another reason for the punishment of criminals. What if, however, there were no disposi- tion to punish a criminal because he deserved it, or for the sake of discouraging others from becoming guilty of the same acts ; would there be any point in shutting him up ? "Yes, it might be well to shut him up so as to prevent him from committing any more acts of the same kind." But if this were the chief purpose in punishment, how long should a man be kept in prison, would you say? "Oh, until he had re- formed?" Then can you see another reason, one of greater importance, for punishing a man or at least putting him in prison after he had committed a crime? "Yes," you suggest, "it might also' be done in order to reform him, to make him a better man, so that h,e would not be inclined to commit crimes any more." And what do you suppose was the standpoint in the earliest times as to the motives for punishing crime? Was it the thought of punishing a man in order to reform him ? "Quite the contrary," you suggest, "probably it was punishment, just for the sake of punishment." Yes, you are right. I wonder if you have ever heard about the old doctrine ^s to the way punishment should be meas- ured out. This was before people began to reason very much. When for instance a man had cut off the hand of another man, what was the theory in those days as to the kind of punishment he should receive? "Have his own hand cut off?" Exactly. That was the theory. It used to run this way : eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand. It seems awful, does it not ? Yet, that was the stand- point of those earliest times. As to the other view that punishment should be 266 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. inflicted on a man in order to reform him or for the sake of discouraging other people from crime, do you suppose this arose in modern times or long ago ? "Probably in modern times?" No, you are not quite right. This higher attitude as a theory was put forward by a wise philosopher more than two thousand years ago. His name was Plato, and I should like to read you what he says on this point in one of his writings : "If you will think of the nature of the punishment, you will see at once that in the opinion of mankind, virtue may be acquired; no one punishes the evil-doer under the notion, or for the reason, that he has done wrong — only the unreasonable fury of a beast acts in that manner. But he who desires to inflict rational punishment does not retaliate for a past wrong which cannot be undone; he has regard to the future, and is desirous that the man who is punished, and he who sees him punished, may be deterred from doing wrong again. He punishes for the sake of prevention, thereby clearly implying that virtue is capable of being taught" Why do you think it has taken so long for civil- ized men to coime to believe in this theory or to act upon it? "It does seem strange," you assert. Yes, it is hard to understand why men are so slow to accept the true standpoints. But it has often been so. Nowadays, however, I am happy to say th^t educated people are coming around to this higher view concerning the purposes involved in .the pun- ishment for crime. Points of the I^esson. I. That by the law of the state, crime and punishment go together. II. That the state has a right to punish crime — because it is the state. III. That punishment may be by death, imprisonment with hard labor, imprisonment by itself or by a fine. IV. That in former days, much more cruel methods of punishment prevailed. V. That the more advanced theories in regard to punish- ment assume that it should not be merely for punishment's THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 267 sake, but to deter others from crime, and, if possible, to improve the character of the criminal. Duties. /. The state ought to measure the punishment for crime in some degree according to the offence. II. The state ought not to punish in a spirit of anger or from the motive of revenge. III. The state ought to consider the possibility of reforming the character of the criminal in the way it executes punishment for crime. story: Tlie Iilfe of John Howard. In talking about crime and its punishment, it would not seem natural if I did not tell you something about the life of John Howard. It may be that you have never heard that name before, but I hope now that you will never forget it, when I let you know a little about what he did for poor, suffering men. He was born in England over a hundred and fifty years ago, in the year 1725. His father was a wealthy man, so that it was not necessary for him to earn his own living unless he cared to do so. Before he became of age, his father died, leaving him abundant means to pursue a life of leisure, amusing himself, if he wished, by spending the money left to him by his father. But that was not his nature. He was the kind of a man, as we say, who has aims or ideals. He settled down in a home in one of the country districts of England and the first thing he did was to improve the con- dition of the people all around him, laying out his money in such a way that the neighborhood was quite changed and rapidly began to improve. You will wonder what all this had to do with crime and punishment. But wait and see. Already when traveling on the sea at one time, he was captured by pirates, and he had a severe experience of what it meant to be a prisoner and to undergo prison life. And I can assure you that in those days prison life was not what it would be at the present time. He had gone on quietly, however, until he was nearly forty- five years of age, just doing his best to improve the conditions in his immediate neighborhood. But about that time he was appointed to fill the oflfice of sheriff at Bedford. This brought him in contact with the jail-system and the prison life in England for the first time. He began to make most awful discoveries of the prisons and the people who were kept there. He undertook at once to examine the special prison which was under his charge. What he saw there led him to start 268 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. out on a tour of the country round about him, in order to find out whether the conditions were as bad or worse elsewhere. You cannot even conceive what he found out in a short time. Nothing Hke it exists nowadays in civilized countries, so that we can scarcely believe what we are told in regard to it. He found that the prisons were not merely places in which to lock up criminals, but that they were oftentimes, if not usually, the very worst dens of disease. You will hardly understand me when I tell you that an innocent man not guilty of any crime at all, might be imprisoned for life. In what way? you ask. Why, it might happen, for instance, that a man would be cast into prison on suspicion, and then be found innocent, but he would not have money enough to give a few dollars' fee to the jailer and so might be kept there indefinitely. Then, too, in those days they had a way of putting a man in prison for debt. He might not owe more than a half-dollar — two shillings as they would call it in England — and yet per- haps he would be kept in prison for years because he would not be able to pay those two shillings or half-dollar. Some- times when Howard discovered cases of this kind, he would pay the fee or the small debt and set the man free. But worst of all was the condition of the jails or prisons themselves. Language cannot describe what Howard saw in his tours of inspection. He would find men shut away in holes in the ground where there was scarcely any light, no heat, and wet floors on which the men had to sleep or die. He found one jail, for instance, where there was a room called the chink. This dungeon had neither air nor light save such as could come through a wicket door five by seven inches in dimension. Yet three men had been kept in this place for two months. These men used to take turns at the wicket in order to get air enough to keep alive. When Howard saw the place, the door had not been opened for five weeks. But he forced his way in and found a man who had been waiting in this living grave for seventy days. The stench of the place, as he tells us, was something frightful, and the man begged piteously that he might be hung at once rather than be left there any longer. By this time, Howard knew what was to be his mission for the rest of his days. He traveled all over England, studying the conditions of the prisons and of the people shut up in such prisons. You must remember, too, that all this was only about a hundred years ago. It was a fearful experience that Howard was going through, and he almost wondered that he did not die of the poisonous air he had to breathe in visiting those places. They did not have railways in those days and traveling was anything but an easy matter. Yet in the course of less than one year, we are told that he covered a distance of nearly seven thousand miles, visiting almost every prison in England,_ Ireland and Scotland. When he felt that he had some definite idea as to the con- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 269 ditions of the prisons in his own part of the world, he set out on the continent in order to study the conditions there. He visited nearly all the great cities of Europe. In some of them he found matters as bad if not worse than in his own country. But in other cities, I am happy to say, the condi- tions were somewhat better. There was, however, the same awful dungeon-life in nearly all the large countries of Europe. Let me read you, for instance, what one prisoner in Austria tells us as to his experiences. He was a young count, an Italian, and had, I believe, conspired against Austria in order to set his country free, and this is what he says : "I am an old man now ; yet by fifteen years, my soul is younger than my body. Fifteen years I existed (for I did not live) in the self-same dungeon, ten feet square. During six years, I had a companion ; nine years I was alone ! I never could rightly distinguish the face of him who shared my captivity in the eternal twilight of our cell. The first year we talked inces- santly together; we related our past lives — our joys gone for- ever — over and over again. The next year we communicated our ideas to each other on all subjects. The third year we had no ideas to communicate; we were beginning to lose the power of reflection. The fourth, at intervals of a month or so, we would open our lips and ask each other if it were pos- sible indeed that the world went on as gay and bustling as when we formed a portion of mankind. The fifth year we were silent. The sixth, he was taken away, — I never knew where, — to execution or to liberty; but I was glad when he was gone; even solitude was better than the dim vision of that pale, vacant face. After that I was alone. Only one event broke in upon my nine years' vacancy. One day (it must have been a year or two after my companion left me) the dungeon door opened, and a voice — I know not whence — uttered these words : 'By order of his imperial majesty, I intimate to you that your wife died a year ago." Then the door was shut; I heard no more. They had but flung this great agony in upon me, and left me alone with it again." I cannot tell you of all that Howard saw and experienced in those journeys. In that long tour on the continent he had traveled four thousand six hundred miles. You can rest assured that he was not doing this just out of mere curiosity. There could have been no real pleasure in what he saw or had to go through. But he was gather- ing facts with which to "influence public opinion. Then he began to publish what he had seen, to the world; and when his first great work on the "State of Prisons" appeared, one can little realize what kind of a sensation it created. The people of those days had a conscience, but they had not troubled themselves to find out about the evils all around them. All this had been going on a long, long while, and yet intelligent people knew little or nothing about it. Many 270 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. a man felt ashamed and guilty that his city or country should be responsible for such an awful state of affairs. It was the publication of this great book by John Howard which changed all the theories about prison science and the punishment of crime. If such awful conditions as I have told you about do not exist nowadays, it is largely due to the work of this brave man and what he saw and revealed to the world. Later on, the whole system of putting a man in prison for debt was given up in one country after an- other. Then they began to improve the conditions of jails and prisons. A few of our prisons nowadays, as you know, are really great educational reform institutions ; but nothing of that kind existed before the days of John Howard. I believe it was upwards of twelve years during which this man was at work making his investigations and reveal- ing his discoveries to the world. It must have been a dreary, heart-sickening task. I fancy you have been thinking of the noble work of Florence Nightingale. And indeed her work was truly noble. Yet there must have been a certain charm about it in laboring for the sick among the brave soldiers. But there could have been no charm in the work of John Howard. His labors were for the class of men whom the world despised. When a man falls into prison, be he inno- cent or guilty, it is liable to go hard with him. It was that class of men, however, which called forth the pity of Howard, the brave philanthropist. After he had completed this great work he rested for a while. But then the spirit of his mission came over him once more and he made up his mind that he would go abroad again and continue his work. He started out to make the same sort of a study of the lazarettos or hospitals of Europe. He was determined to go into the far east and visit the land of the plague, that most awful disease which I am sure you have heard about and which has caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. But John Howard had no fear. He traveled everywhere, facing the poison of contagion, going among the poor and stricken, until at last, he himself, could hold out no longer. He had done his work bravely and well. At one time when he went to St. Petersburg, for instance, the Empress of Russia sent for him, desiring that he should visit her in her palace. He sent back word that he had not come to Russia to visit or to see members of the aristocracy, kings and queens, but to look into the conditions of the poor, the sick and the outcast. At last, however, disease struck him down. He had gone through the cities_ of the plague one after another, and set forth his discoveries in another book entitled, "The Lazarettos of Europe." _ When he was about sixty years old, however, while traveling in Russia, a fever struck him down. Yet he did not seem to care. To one he said: "You will probably never see me again; but be that as it may, it is not a matter of serious concern to me THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 2^1 whether I lay down my life in Turkey, in Egypt, in Asia Minor or elsewhere." He died the same brave, heroic John Howard that he had lived, and when the tidings of his death reached England, I am happy to say that the people over there eagerly set to work to raise a sum of money and built a monument to his memory, placing it in the great St. Paul's Cathedral in London. Perhaps you would like to know the words of the epitaph on that monument. If you ever go there you can read the words. But I need not give them here. The man's life was his best epitaph and his true monument. Classic for Readings or Becitation. "Let US enjoy the fresh air of Liberty and Union; let us cherish those hopes which belong to us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are tit for our consideration and our action; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let onr comprehension be as broad as the country for which zw act, our aspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pigmies in a case that calls for men. Never did there devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now devolve upon us, for the preservation of this Constitution and the harmony and pea^e of all who are destined to live under it. Let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain zuhich is destined, I fondly be- lieve, to grapple the people of all the States to this Constitution for ages to come. We have a great, popular, Constitutional government, guarded by law and by judicature, and defended by the affections of the whole people. No monarchial throne presses these States together, no iron chain of military power encircles them; they live and stand under a Govei'n- ment popular in its form, representative in its char- acter, founded upon principles of equality, and so constructed, we hope, as to last forever." — Daniel Webster. 272 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Pnrtlier Sng'g'estioiiB to the Teaclier. This subject might be continued for another les- son if thought advisable. It must depend upon the length of time you have and the class of pupils in your charge. You could take up the question of reform schools for boys, and why they are called reform schools rather than prisons. You might give an account of the new methods in modern prisons — describing for instance the work of the Elmira Reformatory in New York, an account of which you will find in a volume of that title in the "Social Science Series." At the same time never lose sight of the fact in spite of all th.ese details, that your subject is not crime and punishment, but in the larger sense Citizenship and the State. If you care to do SO', you could tell about the medieval methods for ascertaining whether a person was guilty of a crime of which he had been accused, — the trial by fire, the duel and other extraordinary means, an account of which you will find in Lecky's "Rise of Rationalism in Europe." If you tell about this, do it in order to show hpw people have improved and advanced to higher standpoints or better theories concerning the right motives or reasons for punishment. If the pupils come fro'm the uneducated classes, this whole subject should be enlarged upon and made much more emphatic. We should nourish in them a sense of fear in connection with the thought of crime, wh.ile also encouraging the feeling as if the crime itself deserved punishment. With a class of girls this lesson should be passed over somewhat cursorily, with less reference to the details about forms of pun- ishment, and greater emphasis on the historic side. But by all means make every pupil acquainted with the Biography attached. CHAPTER XVIII. HOW DISPUTES BETWEEN STATES ARISE AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ARBITRATION. Memory Gem — "Mankind must have laws and conform to them, or their life ivould be as bad as that of the most savage beast." — Plato. Dialoirae. In these talks together, it might be well if we were to go back for a little while to the subject of the relations between one nation and another, and the proiblems which arise when they "fall out" with each other. It sometimes happens, as you know, that children have a disagreement about one or another matter. They may even become angry with one another. In such a case, I ask you, what could happen if they had no self-control? What might come out of it all? "Why, blows," you say, "they might come to actual strife." Would this be possible, do you think, if it were simply a disagreement of opinion? "Oh, yes," you insist, "if they keep on disputing and do not restrain themselves." But could this take place if the subject of dispute were a very trifling matter, nothing of any great consequence? You surely would not assert that two children would quarrel or strike each other, unless the disagreement were over a serious subject, about something of real importance ? "On the contrary," you tell me, "such a thing could happen over the slightest circumstance if they were excited enough and lose self-control." Yet 273 274 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. why should they attack one another? How would it necessarily settle the matter, if one strikes the other or gives a blow ? "It may not settle anything," you assure me; "it is because they are angry and doi not stop toi think." How is that possible, when it is a difference in think- ing which has brought about the dispute? "True," you admit, "but at a certain point the mind stops working and all is passionate excitement." Suppose now, on the other hand, something of this kind should take place between two states, two countries, the people of which got into a disagree- ment and then became angry with one another and fell to blows. What should we call it? "War?" And would it be the same thing as between two chil- dren who had fallen out with each other and were in strife? "Pretty much the same?" Does war, however, imply anything further for people than just striking at one another, hitting one another, as two young persons might do when they are angry? "Oh yes, it means something far more dreadful, because at such times people actually kill one another, shoot one another down." Would war always lead to this? I ask. "Yes, if it were real war." And why ? "Because it suggests battle, an effort on the part of one country to con- quer another ; and battle implies bloodshed and death on one side or the other." Under these circumstances, when the strife in- volves such frightful consequences, you are sure, are you not, that the starting point of it all would be over a very serious matter? People would not actually try to kill one another, unless there was no other way of settling the matter, would they? Or unless it was something very important which had to be decided in this way? "It depends," you hesi- tPte, THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 275 Why do you have any doubt about this? "As to that," you continue, "there have been wars, the rea- sons for which are not very plain." . Is it possible, I ask, that such strife could arise between nations, with the loss of hundreds or thou- sands of lives of persons killed by their fellowmen, when there was no clear reason for the dispute? "Oh, the disagreement started over something,' oi course," you tell me. But must it not have been somethingf extremely important ? "Apparently not ?" It is possible, then, is it, that actual war, costing the bloodshed and lives of hundreds or thousands of people, mig'ht come about in dispute over a very small matter, just because the people got angry ? "It may be?" I wonder, by the way, if you have ever heard a little poem called "The Battle of Blenheim ?" Sup- pose I read it toi you, even if you are acquainted with it already. It is by an old English poet, Southey. What do you say toi those lines, — do j^ou like them? "Oh, they are stirring and exciting," you confess. And why? "Because they are about war and fighting There is always something exciting to a battle." But how is it that the man could have talked oif the success as a "famous victory," and yet not have known what it was all about? What sense do you make out of it ? "There is no sense in it," you admit, "it just happened that way." What do you suppose came out of the battle? What took place there? "Oh, the same that always occurs in battles," you reply, "people wounded, dying and dead." But anything more? Why should it be of so much consequence, if some of those people did die? Others would come up tO' take their places ? "True, but there are the children, there is the 276 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. home, there are the brothers and sisters." It means, then, does it, the ruin of the home, orphan children, the loss of support for the family, wife and little ones going hungry ? How many men were killed or wounded, doi you suppose, in this one battle which was such a "famous victory?" "A good many, of course; hun- dreds perhaps ?" More than that, I am sorry tO' say. On the one side alone, there were nearly ten thou- sand men killed or wounded, besides many others who were drowned in the river Danube. This battle happened over in Germany near the Danube river, on August 13th, 1704. How many homes suffered, would you suppose, through that one battle ? How many children lost their fathers ? How many parents lost their sons? How much wretch- edness and misfortune came out of it all, would you fancy? And yet so far as we can see in this poem, the soldiers fought and killed one another hardly knowing what it was all about. As you say, it was war. Come back now to this general subject in the lives of individual persons. Whai, for instance, there is an actual disagreement between two persons, and they "fall out," as we say, will it always be an hon- est disagreement ? Is it pretty sure that one side or both sides will be conscientious in the course taken ? "Not necessarily?" How is it possible that two people, for instance, two children, could actually come to blows and yet not be honest and sincere in their disagreement? "As to that, it might come out of sheer meanness on the one side. Perhaps one person wants to have a fight just in order to conquer the other, or to show himself stronger than the other." It is possible, then, that war between states or countries might come, not through an honest dis- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 2/7 agreement, but because of the selfishness or wicked- ness on the part of one country or the other? "Yes, that might happen." You think, then, do you, that there may have been wars where both sides were in the wrong, or where the motive was just sheer desire for fighting, or where one side was determined to conquer the other, right or wrong. "It looks that way, judging from what we read in history." But now let me put to you another side oi the subject. Where two children fall out with each other, come to a dispute which ends in blows, I ask you, was this necessary, after the falling out had once begun ? "O'h no, surely not." What else could have been done? "Why, if they had had any self-control and had not allowed their passions to get the upper-hand, they could have drawn back and agreed tO' disagree." Would that have been a pleasant thing to do, would you say? "No', people like to settle things positively one way or another." "Still," you insist, "that would be one way out of the difficulty, instead of the fighting which might come." True, I continue, but it may not always be possible to agree to disagree, at least without submitting to open wrong or injustice. What if the dispute is as to whether something belongs toi one or another boy ? Suppose that each one insists that the thing they are in strife over is his property, and is determined to take it away. How can they settle it, unless they fight it out? "Yes," you assert, "but even fighting it out might not settle the right or wrong oi it, the justice or the injustice of it. Such a method would only settle which one could overcome the other." If it should happen tO' be two' brothers, for in- stance, who had fallen into such a dispute or dis- 278 THE DUTIES 01? A CITIZEN. agreement, would there be any other way by which a settlement could be brought about? "O'h yes, they could refer it to their parents." Refer it in what way ? "Why, they could take it to the father or mother, then each one state the points as he understands them and ask the father or mother to decide." True, I reply, but even a father or mother may not know everything. Parents might not in eyery possible case be the most perfect judges in the world. What if the father or mother should make a mis- take in a decision of that kind ? "Yes," you insist, "but at any rate, they would be less liable to err in such a matter than the two persons themselves." How is that? I ask. They know less about th,e circumstances than the two chil- dren involved. "True, but they are less excited over it." What difference does that make? "Why, they can think about it more calmly and can see all sides of the sub- ject better; they can be more impartial." You mean that when a person is extremely ex- cited, it is not SOI easy for him^ to think clearly or to be wholly impartial in his judgment ? "Surely," you say. But why? I ask you again. "Because when a person is much excited or angry, he will be preju- diced; he will be liable to see clearly only on one side." But if two children who had been havmg a dis- pute in this way, should refer it tO' a parent or to an older person, what would you call it? What would such a person be doing ? I wonder if you have heard the term applied to such a proceeding. It is a pretty big word beginning with "A." "Arbitrate," you suggest. Yes, that is the point. An older person or parent would be "arbitrating" THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 279 between the two' children; he would be what we should call an arbitrator. What, then, would the two children be doing, would you say, in the method of settling the diffi- culty? "Why they would be submitting it to arbitration." You have suggested that twoi boys or girls in a disagreement in this way could refer the decision to a father or mother. But what if there were no parent at hand ? Would there be any other way of doing it? "Oh yes, they could refer it toi some per- son older than themselves." And why should they do this ? Why refer it to an older person ? "Because an older person would have had more experience and be a better judge." Would his decisions always be right or best or nearest to what is just, do' you think ? "Not neces- sarily," you admit. What reason would there be for submitting the matter to a person in that way, if there is a chance of getting an unfair decision ? "Oh, at any rate the chances are that the decision will be much more fair than if it comes from the two persons in an intense state of excitement, whoi are furiously angry with each other." What if it should happen, however, that each side was right? How could there be any arbitration under those circumstances ? "No'," you smile, "that could not be ; there must be an error on one side or the other." Yet again, I continue, it might so' happen that there would be no older person at hand whoi had had more experience, to whom the matter could be re- ferred as an arbitrator. How else could the twO' children settle it then, save by fighting it out? "Why, perhaps there would be other children of their own age to whom the matter could be submitted for judgment." 28o THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Yes, but they would not have had any more ex- perience than the two who were in the strife. "At any rate," you insist, "they might not be as excited as the ones who were in the dispute. They might be more impartial or neutral." What, however, would be really accomplished by getting a decision in this way? Even if judgment is rendered, the one who is put in the wrong will insist that he was in the right and that the decision has not been fair. "True, but it would be still worse if they fight it out, inasmuch as in that case, the decision would be on the side of the one who is the stronger, and there might be no justice in the matter at all." What, then, would be accomplished by having a strife like this submitted to' arbitration, where two boys or girls fall out with each other? "Oh, they avoid the brutal experience of fighting," you tell me ; "there is less of that very bad feeling which would come from blows; and more than that, there is a better chance of having an honest decision." Points of the Lesson. I. That disputes may easily arise between states as between persons. II. That the first inclination may be to settle every sucj difficulty by fighting, in a spirit of anger. III. That great wars have occurred apparently without any reason at all. IV. That war and fighting may occur where the motives are bad on both sides. V. That two children could settle disputes between them- selves by referring the matter to their parents. VI. That states could do this by referring the matter to persons in the guise of parents, and so use the method of arbitration. . . . VII. That the judges in arbitration may not always give a right decision, but they are, at any rate, more impartial, because not sharing in the dispute. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 281 /. We ought to remember that strife which leads to blows or warfare, also implies descending to the methods of the brutes. II. We ought to treat all temptation to strife or warfare as an opportunity for the individual or the state to cultivate and practice self-control. III. We ought to be cautious in trusting our own judgments as individuals, or as citizens of a state, zvhen we are excited or inclined to anger. IV. We ought in settling disputes between our- selves as individuals, or between ourselves as citi- zens of two nations, to use the methods of the high- est civilisation. Poem. Out upon the four winds blow, Tell the world your story; Thrice in hearts' blood dipped before They called your name Old Glory ! Stream, Old Glory, bear your stars High among the seven ; Stream a watchfire on the dark, And make a sign in heaven ! When from sky to sky you float, Far in wide savannas. Vast horizons lost in light Answer with hosannas. Symbol of unmeasured power. Blessed promise sealing. All your hills are hills of God. And all your founts are healing ! Still to those — the wronged of earth — Sanctuary render ; For hope and home and heaven they see Within your sacred splendor ! Stream, Old Glory, bear your stars High among the seven ; Stream a watchfire on the dark, And make a sign in heaven ! — Harriet Peescott Spofford 282 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Classic for Beading' or Becitation. "As the sense of duty enters your forming minds, the vow takes another aspect. You find that you have put yourself into the hand of your country as a weapon. You have vowed to strike when she bids you, and to stay scabbarded when she bids you; all that you need anszver for its that you fail not in her grasp. * * * ^ soldier's vow to his country is that he will die for the guardianship of the domestic virtue, of her righteous laws, and of her any way challenged or eiidangered honor. A state without virtue, without laivs, and without honor, he is bound not to defend; nay, bound to redress by his own right hand that which he sees to be base in her.\ * * * And the health of any state consists sim- ply in this; that in it, those who are wisest shall also be strongest; its rulers should be also its soldiers; or, rather, by force of intellect more than of sword, its soldiers its riders. * * * ^^(f noiv, remem- ber, you soldier youths, who are thus in all ways the hope of your country; or must be, if she have any hope: remember that your -fitness for all future trust depends upon zvhat you are now." — Ruskin. Further Sng'g'estioiis to tlie Teacher. It will be understood that this is only an intro- duction to the general subject of arbitration, to which we give at least three lessons. The best way would be to approach this indirectly, by a general con- versation, dealing with disputes and warfare. All three lessons should have been carefully studied and worked out by the teacher, before the topic is broached at all. Care must be taken not to anticipate points in future discussions. A great deal of import- ance should be attached to the very word itself, "Arbitration." As regards the poem on the Battle of Blenheim, the degree to which conversation should THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 283 center here may be at the discretion of the teacher. There might be further talk concerning that battle and still more details, along with some pictures. The whole dialogue might lead out from the poem by Southey. This would, perhaps, be a better way to approach the topic which is to be considered in the ensuing three lessons. We do not reproduce the familiar lines, because they can be found in almost any miscellaneous collection of poetry. CHAPTER XIX. ARBITRATION AS A DUTY BETWEEN STATES OR NATIONS. Memory Gem — "We are made for co-operation, like feet, like hands, like eye-lids, like the rows of the upper and lower teeth. To act against one another, then, is conrrary to nature. — Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Dialogue. And now let us apply what we have been saying about strife, still further to the disputes between states and countries, to the subject of war, for in- stance. What if two states fall into a dispute over some point, one of them being aggrieved by something done by the other, and the other insisting that the course it has pursued was fair and right, what may then happen? How will they settle it, perhaps? "Ohi, by going to war," you answer. Would there be any other way? "Surely, if it is a small matter, they could drop it and agree to dis- agree." But if it were a very important matter, what then? "Oh, they could perhaps arrange to have a conference over it." Yes, that is a point you have also not mentioned with regard to' strife between two persons. How could it be arranged, when two boys or girls fall into a dispute ? "Oh, they could agree to wait and talk it over the next day, at an appointed time, perhaps in the presence of others." What good would this do ? "As to that," you tell me, "'there would be the advantage that they would not be SO' excited, after having had time toi think the 284 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 285 matter over, and they would be in the presence of others whose good opinion they would care to have." And might this plan be carried out between two states or countries? "Yes, they could appoint two sets of persons who might come together and discuss the matter openly and frankly, in the presence of the whole world, if need be." What should we call this, I wonder? It would be between what? "States or nations?" Suppose that we call it international. It -would then be an international what? "Conference?" Yes, it would be an international conference, in order to- settle a dispute without war. What other course would be open then, if they could not come to an agreement? Any further means besides war? "Yes, there could be the method of arbitration." How would that be possible, when nations do not have parents, like children ; when they could not get older heads with more experience, as better judges ? "Why, at any rate, they could try tO' find other persons, not closely connected with either side, who might be more impartial." And why would such individuals be more impartial, if not on either side? "Because their own interests would not be con- cerned." Do you mean to say, even when people may be calm, in a judicial frame of mind, free from excite- ment, that they may not be able toi judge impartially, if their own interests are concerned? "It would seem that way," you admit. It implies, then, that a nation may be misled by its own interests in judging about what is just or unjust? "Yes," you hesitate. Would it actually be possible, I ask, for one nation to go to war with another, believing itself fully in the right and sure that its cause was just, when in reality it would be 286 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. in the wrong, and justice be on the other side? How is that possible? "Why," you tell me, "it might be just because its own interests were concerned and it could not see clearly or be impartial in its judgment." It indicates, does it, that a nation cannot always be trusted to decide what is justice, when its own affairs are concerned? "Not if there is strife between it and another nation," you explain, "and the other nation also believes itself in the right." In that case, what kind of judges would be sought for, if the two nations wish to avoid war, and to submit to arbitration? "Why, they would try to get arbitrators who were neutral." What do you have in mind by that term? "It implies not being selfishly interested in one side or the other." Anything mwe than that? Could the arbitrators give wrong decisions, and yet not have a personal interest for one side more than the other? "Yes, they might be prejudiced." It would also imply, then, trying tO' get persons who were unprejudiced as well as neutral in their interests, so far as the strife would be concerned. This sounds easy in one way; but how could it all be brought about ? Suppose that in a strife between two young people in the instance we gave, they should agree to refer it to their parents. It might happen that they would be children of different families, and perhaps there would be danger that each parent would favor his own child. What could they do then? "Why, they might let some other person choose the judges or they might each choose one judge and then let those two choose a third." Yes, that could happen, and it would be the usual way. If they wish to have arbitration, the best method would be for each side to choose certain THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. -287 judges, and then those judges should choose some others who would be more neutral. Why should this be necessary, however ? I ask. "Because naturally each side would try to choose certain judges who favor its cause, or believed its side to be right." But this would not be acting impartially, I insist. "No," you explain, "but it could not be expected that individuals or nations under prejudice or excite- ment would be impartial at such times. The only possibiHty would be that the judges they choose would be obliged to get others who were impartial, because they would have to agree on the persons chosen." All this may sound very simple and natural; but after all, it looks a little like what we call theory, or as something not very liable to take place. Would it come easy, for instance, on the part of two children in strife, to agree to settle it in this way? "No?" Why not ? Would they not prefer tO' avoid com- ing to blows ? What makes them unwilling tO' sub- mit the disagreement to parents or arbitrators? "Oh, for one reason, because they are children; they are impulsive, quick to act, not inclined to wait and have the thing settled in a slow way." Do you assert that self-control comes harder for children than grown people ? "Yes, surely." What other reasons would they have for not wish- ing to settle the matter in this way? "As to that, it might be that they really enjoy fighting." Do' you actually think that they would take pleasure in the blows they receive ? "No, not exactly that ; but there is a certain excitement in a battle, and each side thinks it can win if it fights hard enough." How would it be with nations, do you suppose? They are made up of grown people. The persons who decide are not children. They have all had 288 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. experience. They would be quick to prefer this method of arbitration, would they not? "You are not sure?" Why do you hesitate? "Because," ycm say, "if this had been the case, why so many wars in the past?" But what possible reason or motive could they l.ave had for any reluctance in setthng a dispute in this way ? "As tO' that, it might be that one nation would be much stronger than the other, and feel per- fectly sure it could win in the battle or in the war. Then the selfish motives would perhaps decide." But what if, on the other hand, there were no such certainty? "Well," you say, "there might be the real wish to have a fight over it." Do you fancy that, human beings actually take pleasure in war? "It almost seems that way at times," you confess, "judg- ing from what has taken place in the past." You do not exactly assert, do you, that people like to shed blood or kill one another, just taking pleasure in the slaughter of other human beings? "No, not quite that ; but there is a kind of an intense excitement in a battle apart from the bloodshed or the killing. If people do not stop tO' think, they may really prefer to go ahead and fight." But what if they stop to think? "In that case, they may reason out the awful consequences, not only to themselves who may be killed, but to the homes and to the whole country." You think, then, do you, while arbitration would seem to the natural and true way for settling dis- putes between nations, that the nations might not always resort to it, for the reasons you give? "Yes?" If they do not resort to it, who is to blame? "Why, the people, those who make up the nation." True, I continue, but all the people may not be in THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 289 the fight. "Oh, yes; but nowadays, unless people wanted it and got excited over it, there would be no war." Cannot nations become excited, or two nations go to war, as it were, without the citizens really having a share in it, or being responsible for it? "No, it is the citizen who must feel the excitement and make the decision, at least in countries where people can vote and manage their own affairs." Has the method of arbitration really ever been used between nations who had a serious dispute on hand? "Yes," you hesitate. In many instances? "Perhaps not in a great many." Nevertheless, you are right. There have been a number of striking cases in modern times within the last one hundred years, when war has been avoided by referring the dispute to arbitrators. It is not all theory. Do you know of any case of this kind in the last fifty years among the great nations? "Yes, there was something about the "Alabama" in the dispute between the United States and Great Britain." Was it a serious matter? "Surely," you answer, "it might have brought on one of the great wars of history between the two English-speaking coun- tries." And it was settled how? "By arbitration," you suggest. Note to the Teacher: It may be advisable for the teacher to look into the history of the Alabama Claims, so as to tell some of the details to the young people, as a single striking; instance of the use of arbitration between two great nations in modern times. See the "Story"' at' the end of the chapter. Do not let them assume, however, that this is the only case where disputes like this have been settled in this way. Many persons, hearing of this one great example, have fancied that it is about the only one in recent times. Investigation will show that, in minor ways, arbitration as a way of settling disputes between nations has been employed a good many times in the last hundred years and that the use of this method is on the increase. ^9° THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. But if this method has been used at all, do you suppose it took place in early times, more than nowa- days? You doubt it? And why? "Because in the early times, according to what one hears, people were more like children than they are nowadays." What difference would that make? "Why, they were more impulsive, more given to settling every- thing by blows." What, then, does this imply — what kind of growth or advance? Growth in what? "In self-control?" True, but that applies to individuals. Do you mean to say that states or nations could show self- control, like people? "Oh, yes; the people are the ones that really give the decision as to what a nation shall do in such matters." Then there is a reason for fostering a spirit of self- control on the part of the whole nation, would you say, when a dispute arises and there is a condition of great excitement among the people? But in case a dispute arises between nations and there is a suggestion to employ the method of arbi- tration, when would the two countries be more liable to do it, would you suppose? "Oh, it would be where the result of a war would be doubtful." Yes, I hesitate, it looks a little that way. Only one dislikes to believe it. At first, a selfish motive might come in to lead nations to the use of this method of arbitration. What countries, therefore, are most liable to em- ploy it? "Why, the use of the method would come in first between two nations about equal in size and strength." In which case would it be more noble on the part of two persons, for instance, to accept arbitration; if they were of the same size ot strength, or where one was stronger than the other ? "It would be much THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 29I nobler or heroic for the stronger person to submit to that method." And why? I ask. "Because it would show a greater self-control, inasmuch as he would feel con- fident that if the matter came to blows, he could surely win for his side." What else would it show ? Anything with regard to his own convictions ? "Yes, it might also indicate how far he was sure as to whether he was on the right side." In what way, do you mean? "Why, it would imply that he was pretty certain that he was in the right ; otherwise the judges would not decide in his favor." You think, then, if a nation were really honest and conscientious and believed in its cause, it would be more inclined to submit to arbitration with the con- viction that neutral judges would favor its side. As to nations, as well as individuals, it is prob- ably true that arbitration as a method of settling dis- putes, has been used first by countries of the same size or degree of strength, before it has been used between countries unlike in power, one much weaker than the other. But might there be another reason why nations as well as individuals would be reluctant to have arbi- tration used as a means of settling the difficulty, besides the fact that the decision might be against them? "Oh, yes," you say, "it might put them to shame in the eyes oif others by implying that they were in the wrong ?" Yes, that is probably one of the great reasons why this method of settling disputes is so little employed. People would really feel ashamed over the decision, if it should be given against them. Do you suppose that in the future, all strife be- tween nations will be settled by arbitration ? "Per- 292 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. haps in the very distant future." And why do you put it so far off ? I ask. "Because of thie great armies now existing- and because such changes do not come all at once." But is that the only reason? "No," you continue, "war in the future may still at times be necessary, where one nation may be obliged to fight simply for its own life against the selfish attacks of another." But what else might occur also to prevent a settle- ment by arbitration? What if each side believed that it was in the right and felt perfectly sure in the matter? In that instance, could it be settled in this way? "Perhaps not." And why? "Because," you tell me, "there might be issues so important that a nation would feel as if it must put its life at stake, or the lives of its citizens, in order to prove how fully it believed in the justice of its cause." Yes ; you are probably right there. We shall hope for less war in the future, but it may be a long, long- while before we can feel that war will be altogether done away with. Points of the Iiesson. I. That war is not always necessary in settling disputes between nations. II. That nations may agree to disagree or may hold an international conference over their differences. III. That states, like people, in severe emergencies may fall back on the method of arbitration. IV. That when one nation is much stronger than another, it is sorely tempted to go to war, instead of arbitrating the dispute. , . , V. That arbitration is not merely a theory, but has been used many times with success, in order to avert war. VI. That arbitration is especially valuable, because foster- ing a spirit of self-control. VII. That citizens must accept a share of responsibility for wars carried on by their government — at least in modern times or where the government is one carried on by the people. VIII. That when arbitration is being employed between states or governments, the citizens themselves are sharing in the act of arbitration. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 293 Duties of the State. /. The state ought to try all honest and worthy means for settling its disputes and should resort to war only as the last resource. II. The state ought to try to avoid war, espe- cially by submitting its disputes to arbitration. Dnties of the Citizen. /. The citizens of a state ought to exercise self-' control when disputes first arise between their coun- try and another. II. The citizen ought to feel that when his coun- try goes to war, he must share a part of the respons- ibility for the calamities which follow. III. The citizens ought to keep in mind the fact that where the government is by the people, war can only take place by the consent of the people. Poem. "Flag of the heroes who left us their glory, Borne through their battle-field's thunder and flame. Blazoned in song and illumined in story. Wave o'er us all who inherit their fame! Up with our banner bright, Sprinkled with starry light. Spread its fair emblems from mountain to shore, While through the sounding sky Loud rings the nation's cry — UNION AND LIBERTY ! ONE EVERMORE. Light of our firmament, guide of our nation, Pride of her children, and honored afar, Let the wide beams of thy full constellation Scatter each cloud that would darken a star! Up with our banner bright, etc. Empire unsceptred ! what foe shall assail thee, Bearing the standard of Liberty's van? Think not the God of thy fathers shall fail thee, Striving with men for the birthright of man ! Up with our banner bright, etc. 294 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Lord of the Universe : shield us and guide us. Trusting Thee always, through shadow and sun! Thou hast united us, who shall divide us? Keep us, O keep us the MANY IN ONE ! Up with our banner bright. Sprinkled with starry light. Spread its fair emblems from mountain to shore. While through the sounding sky Loud rings the Nation's cry— UNION AND LIBERTY ! ONE EVERMORE !" — Oliver Wendell Holmes. Stoiy: Alioat the Alaliama ClaliuB. It is a long while since the United States has had any war with England. People over there use the same language that we do. We have the same literature. We feel that we have something of the same history. We talk of that nation over there as our mother-country. And yet there has been one time within the last fifty years when it seemed as if there was to be a terrible war between Great Britain and the United States. The story of the circumstances is inter- esting in the extreme, because it illustrates what can be done by means of arbitration. It was the application of this principle which perhaps saved thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives. The trouble had its beginning, as you know, back in the days of our great Civil War. It seems that a number of vessels had been fitted out in ship- yards in England and had been launched on the high seas as privateers, making attacks on the commerce of the people of this country in support of the South. The vessels, of course, carried the flag of the Confederacy. The one which attracted the most attention went under the name of the Alabama. It is not to be assumed that the British Government had anything to do with all this. The vessel had been ordered from one of the ship-building firms there. But it was felt that the authorities should not have permitted it to sail from an English seaport. The United States' representative in London warned the English government concerning it. Fur- thermore, it was pretty well known that this vessel was being built for the Confederacy, and would be used on the high seas to do service for the South in our Civil War. It was felt that this was contrary to the Laws of Nations; that in a way it was a form of assistance being rendered by Great Britain to the Southern Confederacy. The excitement was intense on the part of the North at the time. It was looked upon almost as an act of open warfare on the part of Great Britain. But the Alabama escaped just while a decision had been rendered by the English Courts, ordering the vessel to be detained. It went forth on the high seas, capturing the: duties of a citizen. 295 Vessels in great numbers which were carrying the Stars and Stripes. With the assistance of a few other privateers, it practically drove the commerce of the United States from the ocean. The loss to the people of the North was great in the extreme. Vessels could no longer safely carry the Ameri- can flag. And when at last the war was over and the North had triumphed, it had to be determined what blame rested upon Great Britain for the evils inflicted through the Ala- bama, which had been fitted out over there. People in America felt that it was equivalent to an act of war on the part of England and there was a demand for repara- tion of some kind. The British Government would not admit that there had been any violation of International Law. For a time it looked as if there was to be another great war between England and this country. A principle of immense consequence was involved. The English Government did not wish to give in and admit a mistake. The American people felt that if they did not insist on reparation, it would be a surrender of the honor of their country. And I tell you this story because it has become a part of the world's history. At the very time when the feeling was running the highest and war seemed inevitable, it was agreed between the two countries that the dispute should be submitted to arbitration. There were to be five persons chosen, one by the King of Italy, one by the Presi- dent of the Swiss Confederation, one by the Emperor of Brazil, one by the President of the United States, and one by the Queen of England. These men assembled in the City of Geneva, over in Switzerland. It was one of the most eventful assemblages in human history. If by this means war could be averted, it would be a precedent established for all future times. We are not so much concerned with the decision as it was finally rendered. It is true that it went against Great Britain in favor of the United States. The English Government was found responsible for the escape of the Alabama and was asked to pay upwards of fifteen million dollars damages because of the injuries which had been done by that vessel to the commerce of this country. We are not to assume that all the people over there had been to blame. But what comes home to us is the fact that the decision was accepted by Great Britain and the United States alike, as a final settlement of the dispute about the Alabama Claims. A great war had been averted by means of the principle of Arbitration. They had placed their decision in the hands of impartial judges as nearly as this could be done. It was the method of settling a disagreement by humane, rational methods instead of resorting to the methods of the savage or the brute. For years to come, the story of the Arbitration Commission at Geneva over the Alabama Claims will be told to the honor of these two countries. What is more, ^9^ THE DUTIES OF A CITIZElf. we have reason to hope that other great nations may follow this example. Other possible wars may be averted in the same way. And our two countries can look back with pride and satisfaction on the fact that their citizens were able to exercise self-control at a time of passionate excitement. It will be a lasting instance going to show that nations as well as individuals may exercise self-restraint in order to avert the horrors of war. Classic for Beadlner ox Becitatlou. "Of all the principles of foreign policy which I have enumerated, that to ivhich I attach the greatest value is the principle of the equality of nations; because, without recognising that principle, there is no such thing as public right, and without public international right, there is no instrument available for settling the transactions of mankind, except material force. Consequently the principle of equal- ity among nations lies, in my opinion, at the very basis and root of a Christian civilisation, and when the principle is compromised or abamdoned , with it must depart our hopes of tranquillity and of progress for mankind. * * * / think (it) an arrogant and a dangerous assumption that we are entitled to withhold from others, and to claim on our own part, authority to do things which we zvoidd not permit to be done by others. * * * Modern times have established a sisterhood of nations, equal, independ- ent, each of them built up under that legitimate defense which public law affords to every nation, liv- ing within its own borders, and seeking to perform its own affairs; * * * the sound and the sacred principle that Christendom is formed of a band of nations who are united to one another in the bonds of right; that they are without distinction of great and small; that there is an absolute equality between them. I hold that he who by act or word brings that principle into peril or disparagement, however honest his intentions may be, places himself in the position THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 29}? of one indicting — / won't say intending to inflict — / ascribe nothing of the sort — but inflicting injury upon his ozvn country, and endangering the peace and all the most influential interests of Christian society." — Willicmi Gladstone. FortlieT Sngg'estions to tlie Teacber. If thought advisable, the last point could be omitted, without having a discussion as to the possi- bility of settling every kind of international disagree- ment by arbitration. It is a delicate problem in ethics as to whether war is ever ideally justified. Theorists on this point are not agreed. The advo- cates of a compulsory system of arbitration are insisting that war should be absolutely abolished. Others, equally consistent or conscientious, are con- vinced that on issues of tremendous importance, the readiness to sacrifice one's life may be the only method for securing a final decision. The instance which will come at once to' mind, will be that of the great Civil War in the United States. It is at least doubtful whether the issue then at stake would have been settled in another hundred years, if it had not been by the great conflict which once for all ended the dispute. This general subject of arbitra- tion may seem rather abstract to the young people. But if care is taken to' draw the illustrations from well-known, every-day life, it can still be made inter- esting. The pupils ought to be made to grasp the significance of the state in the larger sense. We need to discourage the interest or enthusiasm for war on the part of the average young mind. It is vital that we should encourage the coming citizen to be looking toward a higher method for the settlement of difficulties. Furthermore, the state must not be regarded by them as a dim or distant abstraction, as if somehow international arbitration had no rela- 298 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. tion to themselves as individuals. They must some- how feel that when a dispute arises between another country and their own, they each are involved in it and in the way it is to be settled. When arbitration as a method is employed, they, as citizens, are indi- vidually employing this method. It is their personal act by which they consent to have the difference dis- posed of in a rational and judicial way, instead of disposing of it by bloodshed and war. Make the young people feel that it is the citizen who arbitrates, every time that the whole nation submits a dispute to arbitration. CHAPTER XX. ARBITRATION BETWEEN CITIZENS WITHIN THE STATE. Memory Gem — "There the common sense of most, shall hold a fretful realm in awe, And the kindly earth shall slumber, lapt in universal law." — Tennyson. Sialogrne. What was the big word we used in discussing the methods for settling disputes between states or nations' — ^that long term with a capital "A" ? "Ar- bitration ?" Yes, and it was a very important subject for us to consider, because we are all anxious that there should be less war in the future and that people should be willing to try every possible means for a peaceable settlement of disputes. But what about the application of such a method within the state itself, among the citizens? May there be such a thing as war between the members of the same country, the citizens of the same state? "No," you answer, "unless it should be an actual civil war, when one part of the country would be in strife with another part, each trying to overcome the other in battle." And yet I wonder if there may not be war of another kind. What if two men have a dispute, one thinking that he has been treated unfairly by the other, and they strike each other — what do you call that? "Oh, that would be fighting." And what would be the difference between such a course and that of warfare? "Why, it would be 299 300 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. pretty much the same thing, only on a smaller scale," you reply. But is that the usual method employed for settling serious disputes between citizens? If they cannot agree on an important business matter and one feels that he has been wronged by the other, does it usu- ally come to blows ? "Not nowadays ?" Why do you make that qualification ? "Oh, in th.e old times, one reads how people used to have duels, for instance, in order to settle disputes." And what was a duel ? "Why, if they could not agree, and one felt that he had been injured by the other or treated unjustly, then they would stand up at a given signal and shoot at each other or fight with swords, trying to kill each other." What happened then? Did it decide the matter? "Oh, yes, it would in case one of the persons was killed, because he would be no longer there toi keep up the dispute." What about the justice of the deci- sion, however? "Oh, that would be another matter; there would be no justice one way or the other in the outcome of it all; it would simply depend on the skill dis- played by one more than by another." Well, if we do not have the duel nowadays as much as in former times, what has taken its place? "Why, the law courts, juries and judges." But who or what are the juries or judges ? What do they do? "They decide between the persons in dispute, whO' have had the disagreement," you answer. Then, in a sense, what might we call such jury- men or the judges? "As to that," you assure me, "in a certain way, the juries or judges are arbitra- tors. They are supposed to be impartial judges who shall decide according to facts or according to jus- tice, between those who have had the disagreement." THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 3OI But is it exactly the same as arbitration between states or nations ? "No, because if a nation chooses, it can go to war. When arbitration is agreed upon, it is simply a matter of choice between the two countries." And how is it between citizens who have fallen out with each other in the same state? "In that case," you point out, "they may not fight it out with blows. Otherwise they will be punished, because such a method is against the law; it is an offense against the state itself." You infer, then, that the system of juries or courts as a method of arbitration implies what we should call a compulsory system, rather than a vol- untary one — meaning that if one insists on having a settlement, whether the other will accept it or not, he is compelled to resort tO' the courts. It looks, does it, as if our system of courts, juries and judges were a form of compulsory arbitration ? But in case two citizens fall out in this way, what is it that you have said might happen, unless they take it before the courts ? "Why," you answer, "it may come to violence, by which one or the other citi- zen breaks the law of the state." If this is true, and there is a possibility of this danger, would there be any other way of settling a dispute, instead of having it come to violence on the one hand, or resorting to courts on the other? "Oh, yes; there could be a voluntary system of arbitration." In what way? "Why, they might agree to select certain citizens of their own choice who should act as judges between them." Suppose they should do' this. If they had had a serious dispute and they were able to get impartial judges, do you think, as a rule, the decision would be altogether in favor of one rather than the other ? 302 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Would it always show that one had been entirely right and the other entirely wrong? "You doubt it ?" What, then, would be the more probable outcome? "Why, it would perhaps be a compromise. The decision would show that each had been partly right and partly wrong." Yet how could this happen ? I ask. If a man ought to be able to knoiw what justice is, what right and wrong is, why should we not expect that the case would be perfectly clear and the decision altogether in favor of the one or the other? "True," you add, "but as we have said before, when a person's own interests are concerned, he does not always see clearly; in fact, he does not tisually see clearly." It is this, then, is it, that explains why such deci- sions will more often be a compromise? If, how- ever, the citizen refuses to submit to such a plan of arbitration, and also is not willing to go to the courts, but makes a personal attack on the other in the form of violence, what do we call this as regards the law ? He feels that he is entirely in the right, that jus- tice is altogether on his side, and that if the matter were before the courts, the law would decide in his favor ? "Yes," you assert, "but he is breaking the law by taking the law into his own hands." What do you mean by this latter point? I ask. "Oh, it implies acting as if the person in the case were his own judge and his own jury, and presuming to pronounce sen- tence upon the other man and to execute it." True, but if he is certain that he is in the right, why should he not execute justice in that way? "Yes, but it might not be perfectly certain that he is in the right, and that is just why we have the law courts, so that a man shall not decide for himself, when his own interests are concerned." THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 303 It looks then, does it, as if taking the law into one's own hands, even where one thinks one is exe- cuting justice, is a form of brealting the law or com- mitting a crime against the state, because the state has required that citizens shall submit their decisions to the law courts, as courts oif arbitration ? But now what if it should happen, for instance, that the person who had been injured, should not be in a position to defend himself. Suppose a member of a family has been killed and a whole community becomes aroused over it. What is the feeling in the community as a whole ? "Why, it is as if everybody had been wronged, as if a crime had been committed against all the citi- zens there." Suppose, then, a crowd of those citizens came to^ gether and decided they would punish the criminal by putting him to death. That would be right, would it not? That would be executing justice. "No, not if the law would not permit such a course." Yes, but the man had committed the crime and would be put to death under any circumstances? "True, but that would not be a legal execution ac- cording to the law of the state." What would it be, then? "Why, it would be lynching, or according to what is called the lynch law." And does not such a method execute justice? I ask. "Yes, if it happens tO' strike the guilty man, it executes justice as far as that man is concerned." If so, why should the law forbid it ? "Because it would be another form of taking the law into one's own hands. Those citizens are personally concerned in the crime, as if they had been wronged, and they may not be fair judges. They may actually seize the wrong man and punish an innocent person." You think, do you, that lynch, law would actually be not only a crime against the state, but also might 304 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. commit a still worse crime by punishing an innocent man. Yes, but, I insist, what if it is absolutely cer- tain that they have the guilty person ? "True," you continue, "but the state does not allow people to punish others individually in that way. It is the state as a whole which punishes crime." And why should this principle be adopted, do you suppose? "For one reason," you suggest, "because when the individual executes punishment, it fosters a spirit of vengeance rather than a desire for real justice." Can you believe, on the other hand, that "lynch law" has really ever punished innocent people? "It hardly seems possible," you answer. And yet I shall have to tell you that it has happened again and again. Cases are clearly on record where men have not been guilty at all, and yet have been put tO' death because of a suspicion or feeling against them'. Tlie populace was so excited that there was no fair con- sideration of the facts of the case. Even, however, when there is absolute certainty of the guilty person, what will be the effect on the passions of the people who have executed the man? "Why, it will of course arouse the brutal passions in the mere act of putting the guilty person to death." Yes, you are right. Lynch law is worse even than a duel. It is a most brutal method of punishing crime; it is condemned by all civilized nations. Wherever it occurs, it is a shame upon the people who employ it, and should inflict upon them a last- ing disgrace. In what parts of the country, do you think, is lynch law more liable to prevail : where people are educated and civilized? "No-, on the contrary." Where, then? "Why, where there is less education. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 3O5 where people are less civilized, where they have bad customs, and where they are brutal in their ways." It shows then, does it, that the resort to lynch law inflicts a disgrace upon the part of the country using it, or upon the people who employ it? They will be regarded as of inferior type, or as only half civihzed. What great principle, for example, have they failed to obey, touching on the subject we have been discussing? "Why, the principle of arbitration." It indicates, does it, that a large body of people, a whole community, may sometimes be as guilty as an indi- vidual, by committing a crime of violence in taking the law into their own hands, and breaking thereby the law of the state, instead of submitting to the true courts of arbitration. But may it also happen, on the other hand, that disputes can arise, not merely between individuals, but between groups of individuals? In what way would this be possible? I ask. "Oh," you answer, "it might occur between two states, for instance, or the people of twO' separate towns, or it might come to pass between the mem- bers of two famihes." True, it is possible even in the latter case. Did you ever hear of such a thing as a family feud ? "Yes ?" And what do you suppose it would mean ? "Why, it would suggest a feeling of hatred between all the members of one family and all the members of an- other, by which the members of the two families would be constantly quarreling or fighting with one another,. or doing one another injury." And may those feuds last for a long while, do you suppose? "Oh, they might last for a whole life time." Yes, you are right, and they do, in that way, in certain parts of the country. What is more, wherever they exist, they are a disgrace to the com.- 306 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. munity, as well as to the families connected with them. And what, I ask, would always be the temptation to member of such families, so far as the law is con- cerned ? "Why, they would be inclined to take the law into their own hands." Yes, I answer, it would be another form of lynch law. But perhaps it would be even worse, I must add, inasmuch as the feud itself may have no basis of justice, and simply be founded on a prolonged feeling of hatred. But now on the other hand, what if conflicts are aroused between bodies of people who are not all members of one family. How could this happen? "As to that," you explain, "it might be between clubs or organizations of men who are banded together for some special purpose. It could be between two bodies of men in separate business firms." In what other ways, too? I ask. "Why, it might also come up in a discussion of wages or fair play between employers and workmen. The workmen might feel themselves wronged, or the employers could also feel in that way." When there is such a feeling on the part of work- ing people who live by their wages, and they happen to be organized, what may happen ? "Oh, there is a strike, of course," you answer. But is such a strike, against the law of the state ; would that be taking the law into their own hands ? "No, not necessarily; people have a right to refuse to work for certain wages or for certain employers rather than others." Do you suppose, however, it may happen some- times that acts of violence spring out of these dis- putes between laborers and their employers? "It may be so?" Yes, this is a sad story of modern times, which is THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 307 happening over and over again in the great discus- sions between employers and the wage-earning peo- ple to-day, when men are killed, property destroyed, and oftentimes innocent persons are seriously in- jured. But is all this necessary or inevitable? I ask. "Noi, but it often happens." And why does it happen? I keep asking. "Be- cause the persons may lose their self-control; they become excited and commit the violence before they have thought the matter over." But on the other hand, what could they doi? It may be that there is real injustice being done; per- haps the employer has been unfairly treated, or the wage-earning man has been unjustly deal with. It might not be the kind of a dispute which could be settled in the courts. "Oh yes," you say, "but courts are not the only means of settling disputes." What other way exists? "Why there is the same method as in the disputes between two nations. They could bring the matter to arbitration." And how could they do this ? I ask. "In the same way," you explain, "as between two states or coun- tries. Each side would choose certain judges and those judges would choose still others, and then the whole matter would be left for settlement to the per- sons chosen in that way." Has this method ever been tried? "Probably?" Yes, I assure you it has been tried and been success- ful again and again. "But why is it," you urge in reply, "that every now and then one hears of acts of violence when such disputes arise?" Because, I continue, the method is not always employed, or it may not be tried until after the violence has been committed and the people have begim to do a little serious thinking. 308 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. "Yes," you say, "but surely they ought to submit the matter to arbitration instead of giving vent to their excited feelings." True, that is the wrhole point. More and more we are coming to see that it is a duty for people to submit disputes to arbitra- tion. In not submitting a dispute in this way to such a method of settlement, what is liable to happen so far as the law and the states are concerned ? "Why, crimes of violence, breaking the law, or taking the law into one's own hands." And so arbitration between citizens would be a great means of preserving the peace inside the state, among the citizens of the state. We must then lay down this fact clearly and hold it before our minds, as the great lesson we have gained in the discussion of this subject: in disputes between two citizens or between a body of citizens, ARBITRATION IS A DUTY. Points of the licsaon. I. That disputes between citizens may lead to something like war within the state. II. That in former times such disputes were settled by duel, killing, or other bad methods. III. That law courts are a kind of compulsory arbitration and are a check upon the spirit of revenge. IV. That many disputes might be settled between citizens by a system of voluntary arbitration. V. That to settle such difficulties by the use of violence would be like taking the law into one's own hands, and means a breach of the law. VI. That when crowds do this, it is called lynch law and is a form of breaking the law. VII. That lynch law is a relapse to barbarism and a dis- grace to any community or any state. VIII. That family feuds often lead to crimes of violence. IX. That groups of people, when organized together for special purposes, are often tempted to take the law into their own hands in the cause of what they consider justice. X. That temptations to this violent method are especially great in the disputes between laborers and employers now- adays. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 3O9 XI. That in such disputes, the system of arbitration is possible and most advisable. Duties. /. A citizen wlten he feels that he has been in- jured, ought not to take the lazv into his oiun hands, cither for himself or for the sake of others. II. A citizen ought to try to settle disputes by conference or arbitration before taking them into the courts. III. A citizen ought never to participate in lynch- ing in time of peace. IV. Citizens, when organized for special pur- poses for their oivn zvelfare, ought especially to be on their guard, lest they resort to violence in order to accomplish their purposes. V . Citizens organized for special purposes for their ozm good, ought to make every effort to settle differences or disputes by the method of arbitration. Lo ! we answer ! see, we come Quick at Freedom's holy call. We come, we come, we come, we come, To do the glorious work of all ; And hark ! we raise from sea to sea The sacred watchword, Liberty! God is our guide ! from field, from wave. From plough, from anvil, and from loom We come, our country's rights to save And speak a tyrant faction's doom. And hark! we raise from sea to sea The sacred watchword. Liberty ! God is our guide ! no swords we draw, We kindle not war's battle-fires ; By union, justice, reason, law. We claim the birthright of our sires. We raise the watchword. Liberty — We will, we will, we will be free! — Anonymous. 3lO THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Classic for Beadln? or Beoltatlon. "It is true that we are called a democracy, for the administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few. But while the law secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the pub- lic service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reivard of merit. Neither is poverty a bar, but a man may benefit his country whatever be the obscur- ity of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private intercourse we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes; we do not put on sour looks at him whidh, though harmless, are not pleasant. While we are thus unconstrained in our private intercourse, a spirit of reverence per- vades our public acts; we are prevented from doing ■wrong by respect for authority, and for tite laws, having an especial regard to those which are or- dained for the protection of the injured as well as to those unwritten laws which bring upon the trans- gressor of them the reprobation of the general sen- timent. * * * ];[rg d^e lovers of the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and we cultivate the mind without loss of manliness. Wealth we employ, not for talk and ostentation, but when there is real use for it. To avow poverty with us is no disgrace: the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid it. An Athenian citizen does not neglect the state because he takes care of his household; and even those of us who are engaged in business have a very fair idea of politics. We alone regard a man who takes no interest in public affairs, not as a harmless, but as a useless character. * * * j-he great impediment to action is, in our opinion, not discussion, but the want of that knozvledge which is gained by discus- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 3II sion preparatory to action. * * * jt^^ alone do good to our neighbors not upon a calculation of ifi- terest, but in the confidence of freedom and in a frank and fearless spirit." — Pericles. (Jowetfs Translation from Thucydides.) Furtlier Sng^gfestions to the Teacher. Again here, as in the previous discussions, we must not lay down the emphatic statement that arbi- tration is always possible as a means of settUng a difficulty. This would give an exaggerated impres- sion. What we should strive for would be to impress on the minds of the young, the value of the method as such, to set their minds to thinking about it as a means of avoiding a breach of the law of the state. If possible, it would be well toi illustrate by striking instances where this method of arbitration has been employed either between individuals or between large bodies of men, showing what good it has ac- complished. There might be some little history of dueling given in connection with the discussion of that subject, pointing out haw as civilization has advanced dueling has declined, showing that it was an inferior method otf settling a dispute and un- worthy of civilized people. We must not refer tO' the law courts as if they were exactly the same as courts of arbitration. But there is an analogy here, which should not be overlooked. The chief application of the whole lesson, however, should be with regard to the! settlement of disputes in practical affairs, more especially between the wage earner and the em- ployer. Almost every citizen before he has come to the end of his life, will have been brought into con- tact with this problem in one way or another. We should therefore, try to touch the sentiments of the young on this point, and establish a regard for the ideal of arbitration. We can dwell upon it as a duty, 312 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. even if we cannot insist that in every single instance duty may require the use of such a method. In all this discussion, however, keep the fact of the reality of the state constantly before the minds of the young people. It is not arbitration in itself, that we are discussing, nor disputes between individual people or bodies of people among themselves. Our subject is Citizenship and the State. We treat here this theme of arbitration in its bearings on obedience to law and on the whole institution of the state. CHAPTER XXI. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WARFARE IN THE HISTORY OF NATIONS. Memory Gem — "With all thy faults, I love thee still, my country !" — Cowper. Dialogfue. After the points we have been making in our pre- vious talks together, it is important that we should go back once more to the subject of war and war- fare. "Why ?" you ask. Because, I answer, it has been so very important in the history of nations. In order to understand the true meaning of law and government and the sovereign state, we need to trace the growth of all this in the past. In reading, for example, in books on the history of former times, what do you find there? "Why, everything pertaining to the life of the people," you reply. True, and almost every possible topic may be treated there. But what is the subject most talked about? What kind of heroes do the stories tell of? "Soldiers, great generals?" Soldiers in what? "In war or warfare, of course," you assure me. Then it means that books of history telling about former times, have more to say about warfare than about most other subjects? "Yes, probably?" I fear you are right. Warfare has made up a great deal of the history of states and government in past ages. But what has been the reason for all this ? Why 313 314 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. should it have been so? What has been the motive of war, would you say? We must go back to this point, although we have touched upon it a little already. "Love of power, for instance," you suggest, "or the desire to conquer other people." And anything else? "Oh, the wish, perhaps, to get the property of others, or to make slaves of other people." And what would that be? "Stealing?" Yes; stealing has been one of the great motives in war and warfare. But what further? Would people just fight and try to kill one another for nothing? "It might happen," you say. How would that be pos- sible? "Because there are some people who really enjoy fighting for its own sake." You think that there might be war merely for the pleasure or excite- ment it would afford ? And are these all the motives ? "No, there could be the desire for revenge, or it could be just simply bad feelings existing between two groups of people, or between the citizens of two states." You are right. Dislike or hate may lead to war apart from any other motive. And this completes the list, does it? "Oh, no, there might be the desire for glory." What kind, do you mean? "Why the renown one might get from being a great soldier." Yes, that is also a motive. And are these very worthy motives for fighting or killing or warfare, would you say? "No," you assert, "not by any manner of means." And is it always these bad feelings which bring on wars? "Oh no, quite the contrary. There may be war in defence of one's rights." And what do we call that? Fighting for what, would you say ? Can you suggest the word? It begins with J. "Justice?" True, that is the point. "Yes," you add, "but if so, there must have been THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 315 some kind of an attack made by an enemy, or some other war preceding, or some injustice threatened or committed." You assume that war in itself must have had its beginning in bad feehngs of some kind? The evil wars came first, before the war in self-defence, or for the sake of securing justice? "It looks that way," you admit. And do you suppose they had more wars in early times a long while ago than nowadays ? "Probably SOI?" And why? "Because people were more savage in those days, less civilized, more inclined to act on impulse or to give vent to bad feelings, without exercising self-restraint." If so, then you mean, do you, that the first essen- tial ai civilization is less warfare; and this means less resort to what, — ? When two people go to war, what is the first thing they try to do? Do they have councils or conventions ? Does war mean settlement by law or discussion? "No', it implies settling dis- putes by force or violence." Precisely. That is the word I had in view. War means resort to methods of violence. And the direct aim of the armies is what, for example? What do the soldiers try to da? "Why, to kill one another?" Th,e immediate pur- pose of warfare is shedding human blood, is it ? And what means do they use? Do they strike at one another with teeth or fists as animals would ? "No', they would probably have weapons." And why should they use weapons? Why not make the attack as beasts would do ? "Because they think they could kill more people withi the use of weapons." And how is it that beasts do not do this? "Be- cause they do not kncxw enough ?" It indicates, does it, that one of the first uses to which the human being 3l6 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. put his gift of reason, was toi find out new methods with which to kill his human brother in warfare. That is rather a gloomy suggestion on your part ; but it may be true. And what are some of the weapons or means em- ployed for overcoming an enemy in this way, in bat- tle or in war ? "Guns, cannon, gunpowder, swords ?" Yes, you could name over a long list oif weapons used nowadays for this fearful purpose. And have these always been the same in kind, do you know? "No," you answer, "savages may not have had gun- powder or swords." What could they have had, then? I ask you. "Why, there is the bow and arrow of the Indians; or the boomerang of the Australian savages." Yes, you could make up a long list of such instruments used in former times, all suggestive of blood-shed- ding and brutality. Note to the Teacher: It rests at the option of the school, how far this talk shall go on with regard to weapons and armaments in warfare. This subject should not be opened or developed, however, for its own sake, but merely in order to point out the advances in modern times in the way of higher forms of warfare. But it may be advisable to a cer- tain extent to enter into this historical survey, in order to arouse the interest of the class members. For this purpose it would be quite easy to get pictures of weapons of war- fare from all ages. The most interesting would perhaps be the armament of the soldiers or warriors in the Middle Ages in Europe. We are studying war, not at all on its own account or with any idea of making it attractive, but using it as a theme for tracing the steps by which the human race may be advancing beyond such brutal methods for settling dis- putes. But if the young people wish to continue the list, they could be allowed to mention the sling, — in connection with which the story of David in the Bible is suggested, — ^the tomahawk, the stone hatchet, and other similar weapons. In connection with the use of weapons, which would be the more brutal or savage, would you fancy, — those used nowadays or those of former THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 317 times? "Why, the ones used nowadays do more kiUing, shed more blood, surely!" Yes, that is painfully true. But do they cause as much suffering? Are they as brutal or savage? Does the gun seem as bad as the tomahawk? "No, indeed!" And why not? How about the scalping knife? Did you ever hear of that? "Yes, in connec- tion with the Indians in America." And was that any worse than the use of the gun in shooting men down? "Surely, it was much more savage." And why? "Because it not only was used to kiH, but it fostered a pleasure in blood-shedding for its own sake; it made people actually blood- thirsty." Yes, I think that is true. What would be the difference, do you think, be- tween the real purpose of the shedding of blood in war as it is done nowadays, and in farmer times? "Why, in the old days with those savage weapons, people may have just killed one another for the pleas- ure of it, actually liking to shed one another's blood." And nowadays? "In war to-day," you add, "the shooting or killing is done, not for its own sake, but because it is necessary in order to accomplish the final purpose of the war." Yes, that is a very important distinction. The savage was more brutal and his weapons more brutal. In his battles he may not have killed as many people, but he may have caused a great deal worse suffering by the weapons he used, or the methods he pursued. But in this connection, I must ask you another question. When two armies come together in battle, must the men on one side all be killed before the fighting is over ? "No, part of them may be taken as prisoners ; some of them may surrender." And what is done with those prisoners? "Oh, they are kept by the enemy until the war is over, so 3l8 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. that they may not help their cause by doing any fighting; or, on the other hand, they may be ex- changed for prisoners taken by the other side." And do you suppose in the old days when there was less civilization, that savages, for example, took care of prisoners, fed them, treated them kindly, and afterwards exchanged them? "You doubt it?" Why? "Because such a method would not have been natural to the savage, if he took pleasure in shedding blood or killing people." I am afraid you are right, although one does not like to admit it." And what, then, do you suppose, was the first method of dealing with prisoners in early days in the old wars? "Putting them to death?" Yes, that was ordinarily the way. Anything else besides that, do you suppose? "Could there be anything worse?" you ask. Why, there are different ways of putting prisoners to death. "Oh, yes," you answer, "it might be done cruelly, with tortures." True, what was one of the custcwns of some of the Indian tribes in this country among themselves, when they took prisoners, — do you know? "As to that," you assure me, "they sometimes burned the prisoners at the stake." Burned them alive, do you mean? "Yes," you insist. And would they actually look on, see their fellow- men being slowly burned to death, and take pleasure in it? "Perhaps so, if they were savages." In those days, it strikes you, does it, that in war- fare, men must have been very much afraid of being taken prisoners, and would about as soon have been killed outright? And why is it that this is not the custom nowadays? "Because we are more civil- ized?" Yes, and what does that imply on the part of human nature? "Oh, it means that human nature THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 3I9 has improved, is less brutal, more human as one would say, with less pleasure in cruelty for its own sake." But do you assume that this change came all of a sudden? "Probably not?" And why not? I ask again. "Because," you point out, "human nature changes only gradually." What might have been the first step in the change, before people ceased from the custom of putting their prisoners to death ? "Oh, they would perhaps aban- don the method of tortures." Yes, and what may have been the next step in the changes coming about? Might there have been some motive of a selfish kind leading them to give up the custom of putting prisoners to death ? "Yes," you add, "they might make slaves of their captives." And what would this imply? What would it be done for ? "As to that, they would then have other people to do the hard work for them and have an easier time for themselves." Would this be right? I ask. "Noi but it would be less brutal or savage at any rate, because it would not be deliberately shedding the blood of other human beings." Do you think that this second step of making slaves of captives instead of putting them to death, bringing about a period of slave-owning, would actually have been an advance in the history of the human race? "In one way," you continue, "because it would not be quite so brutal, and perhaps would give opportunity for more humane feelings by and by." It looks, then, as if the period of slave-owning in the history of the human race, was a step upward from the savagery of early times. Could there be a further advance, would you suggest, apart from deliberately relinquishing prisoners at the close of 320 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. the war? "Yes," you suggest, "they might be ran- somed." In what way, for example? "Why, those who took the captives could allow the enemy to buy the prisoners back in return for money or property." Then this would be a third step in advance in methods in warfare, would it, passing from the enslavement O'f prisoners to the custom of ransom? But would it be right to use such a method ? "No, it would only be more humane than slavery, because it would give some method by which captives in war could be returned to their families and their people." Is this method of ransom general, nowadays ? "It does exist," you tell me. And where? "Why, among the less civilized or half-civilized races." But not among ourselves ? "No, it would be regarded as a form of savagery or inferior civilization, if it were employed at the present time." It means, does it, that we should now despise any people or any state which would sell its prisoners or dispose of them for ransom? But what could be done in war, when one part of an army surrenders ? "Why," you explain, "they could be held as prison- ers of war." And what would this mean? "As to that, it would imply that they were to be treated like fellow human beings who may have regarded themselves as right in what they were doing, and simply to be kept where they could not do any more fighting while the war was going on." Would there be any other way of dealing with them besides keeping them in prisons? "Yes, there would be the method of parole." And what would that be? "Why, it would mean that the prisoners might give their word of honor that if set free, they would not help in fighting for their side while the war lasted." THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 32 1 True, but they might break their word of honor. "Yes, but such, a method would not be adopted in the history of the human race until the time had come when it was understood that the people who gave such a word of honor would be loyal to it." This would indicate, then, a still higher stage of civilizatiO'n ? What therefore have been the steps in the history of warfare from savagery up to civilization, as re- gards the treatment of prisoners? "First, there was the torture and death." And what next? "Death perhaps without torture." And in the third place? "Slavery instead of death." And what would come next perhaps as the fourth stage? "Ransoming instead of slavery." And the fifth may have been what ? "Holding men as prison- ers of war." And the final stage might be, — what was it we suggested? "A system of parole." But in connection with all this, there is another point also to be considered. You have said that war was a resort to methods of violence. Does this mean that there are no laws in warfare, no kind of rights recognized? "Nowadays there are certain laws of warfare," you assert. What, for example? Tell me an instance where an army might be said to break one of the rules of war. "Why, in not reco'gnizing a flag of truce." And what would that mean? I ask. "Oh, if a soldier comes out bearing a white flag, it means that he is not carrying weapons for the purpose of fight- ing, but wishes to have a conference with the enemy." And then must the enemy treat him according to the laws of warfare? "Yes, he must either be re- ceived and listened to, or given time to return whence he came." But if, on the other hand, an army was being 322 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. attacked and it should hold up the white flag of sur- render, what happens then? "Oh, the battle stops," you explain. But why should it stop? If the purpose has been to kill off the enemy, why should not the fighting go on? "Because it would be contrary to the laws of warfare." How about the treatment of the wounded, for ex- ample? When a battle is over, is it the custom for soldiers to go around killing the men who lie wounded on the field of battle? "No, indeed," you exclaim. What is done, then ? I ask. "Why, the wounded are carried to a hospital, if possible, and cared for." The wounded of the enemy also? "Yes, both sides alike." And has this always been soi? "On the contrary, among savages it may not only be the custom to kill the wounded, but to scalp them or torture them be- sides." This care for the wounded is, therefore, regarded as one of the laws of warfare at the present time? How is it also with regard to hospitals ? What if in the time of battle one side should turn its guns on the place which was used by the enemy for a hospital, where the sick or wounded were kept, would there be any objection to such a course? It would be a part of the effort to kill off as many as possible of the enemy, would it not ? "Noi," you assert, "it would be contrary to the laws of warfare." And why? "Because the sick and the wounded there would not be able to do any fighting. The real purpose is not to kill men, but to overcome the enemy." It looks, does it, as if the human race had been advancing in a good many ways in the matter of warfare ? There are laws on this matter which two THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 323 States would not break, even while they are resort- ing to violence in order to settle their disputes. And you say that they would never put prisoners to death ? "But there are exceptions to the last point," you tell me. What kind? I ask. "Why, there are the spies." And what is a spy? "Oh, it would be a man who came into the army or country of the enemy in disguise in order to get information con- cerning the enemy." If he is caught, is he treated as a prisoner of war ? "No, he would be put to death." And why? "Be- cause," you insist, "he is a spy." Yes, you are right. This is one of the rules of warfare. The soldier captured in uniform is a pris- oner of war ; but a man in disguise, if he is captured, must take the conquences and forfeit his life. How do you suppose these changes have come about, with, the establishment of rules or laws of warfare, such as we have nowadays? "Why, they may have come in little by little, with the advance of civilization." And how have these customs been established? "Oh, they may have been established by treaties." And what would that imply? "As to that," you point out, "two countries when they are at peace with each other, could agree that in case there ever should be a war between them, they would obey certain rules or laws of warfare." What would happen if a nation should break one of the recognized rules of warfare, even where there were no treaty fixing the rules? "Why, that coun- try would be despised all over the civilized world; its citizens would be looked down upon ; they would be regarded as only half-civilized." You think, do you, that a nation might be afraid to break certain of these laws of warfare, even if it 324 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. could do SO, because it would become like an outcast ? Why should the people of that country object to this or mind it ? "Because," you explain, "other nations would not treat with them or deal with them on a basis of equality. Such a country would be classed with the half-civilized or the uncivilized, and dealt with ac- cordingly." If, as you say, there are rules or laws of warfare which may not be broken, fixing what may be right and what may be wrong under such circumstances, does this also show any change as to the spirit in which warfare is carried on in our time? "Yes, in a certain way." And why? "Oh, it indicates that people are more human now even when they resort to violence. They care more about the principle of justic'e." True, I add, but you have said that war at the outset in early times, could never have arisen save through bad feelings or acts of injustice. "Yes," you assert, "but it has changed somewhat, now- adays." And in what way, for example? "Why," you point out, "a nation at the present time would hesi- tate about making war on another country, unless it believed it was in the right, or that it had justice on its side in making such a war." And why should it hesitate on this ground? I urge further. "Because other nations might interfere. It is no longer regarded as a legitimate thing to make war from any kind of motive." But do you believe even in modern times, nations always feel perfectly sure that they are in the right when setting out in a war ? "At any rate," you sug- gest, "they may try to prove to other countries that they are in the right." You assume, do you,that the human race has also THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 325 advanced a good deal in the kind of motives exist- ing or which are put forward when wars take place nowadays ? Do you fancy that in the old times, two thousand years ago, for instance, when a man like Julius Caesar or Alexander the Great attacked an- other country, he first tried to prove that his course was a just one? "He ought to have done so," you assure me. Most emphatically I agree with you. But did they do it? "Probably not, judging from what one reads about those wars." Yes, I suspect you are right. War has always meant a resort to violence and force, and it is only little by little that the human race has come to see that a state must try to justify itself in he eyes of other nations, when making war. I wonder, by the way, if you have thought of one of the great influences which has helped to bring on all this improvement, both in establishing more civilized laws of warfare, in modifying the harsh treatment of prisoners and in leading people to feel that a state must have justice on its side when en- tering upon war. "Why, perhaps it was an improvement in human nature," you suggest. Yes; but something more. What class of persons have urged these higher motives, for example, upon the human race? What kind of teachers? "Teachers of religion?" Yes, that is the point. Now what force has it been, especially, which has tended in the long run to uplift the human race in the motives or methods of warfare? "Religion?" Yes; surely. "If so," you exclaim, "what about Mohammed and Mohammedanism? That religion was estab- lished in many cases by force through making war on other countries?" True, you are right in the point you are making. 3^0 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. There have been many wars carried on in the name of religion. Yet I assert that religion as a whole has had a great deal of influence in improving the methods of the human race in connection with the history of warfare. And what is it, then, on the inside, I wonder, that is having more influence nowadays on the human race. If a man in a moment of anger and without justification should strike another man, how does he feel after he recovers from his excitement, in case he had previously been a man oi honest character? "Why, it makes him unhappy," you answer, "his conscience troubles him." How do you suppose it would be, on the other hand, with a whole country of people who had become angry and made war on another country, just from bad feelings and without any basis of jus- tice ? When it was all over, do you think there might be any change of sentiment ? "Yes, conscience might work there too." If then, there is a clamor for war at any time without real justice calling for it, what is it, could we assume, that holds the people back? "Conscience?" True, I would answer; the public conscience. And so I should say that in modern times, the public conscience has grown stronger and gained greater influence on the human race, at least in con- nection with the subject oi war and warfare. And yet there have been wars which were right in principle. "Yes," you admit, "when they were in defence of one's rights or strictly in the cause of justice, and when there was no other method for settling the dispute." But suppose one state had a serious difficulty with another and finds no way of settling it by a confer- ence, would there be any reason why it should hesi- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 327 tate about going to war? "Yes," you tell me, "any number of reasons." And what, for example? "Why, it would inter- fere with, the country's prosperity; it would mean tremendous sacrifice for the sake of the final aim to be achieved." Anything else? What was it we said that war was a resort to, as a method ? "Violence ?" And if citizens have been using such a method for a time in dealing with the people of another state, do you think it will be as easy or natural for them after- wards to fall back to a system of law and order among themselves ? "Not quite?" And why not? "Because," you say, "in the fighting they have been doing, they have cultivated the habit of resorting to the method of force." You think, then, that war itself, whether it be in a just or an unjust cause, may foster a lack of respect for law at home? Anything further be- sides, do you suggest? What is it that we have said a soldier must do, each soldier in battle? "Try to kill other soldiers?" And what does that mean, — ^taking what? I ask. "Taking human life?" Yes, it implies deliberately taking the life of another fellow human being. "True, but it may have been in the cause of justice or duty," you assert. Yes, I admit, but do you believe that a man who does this a number of times even in defence of his country, will have the same respect for the life itself of his fellow beings as before? "Not quite," you admit. And why not ? "Because he has been obliged to take the lives of other men and it may have somehow weakened his respect for the life of his fellow human beings." Yes, that is a great and important point. War, even when just, tends to weaken the respect for 328 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. human life, and also tends to foster a disposition to the use of force on the part of private citizens in their home affairs. "Yet," you insist, "war at times may be just and necessary." True, I admit what you say ; but I wish it were otherwise. Points of the Iiesgon. I. That at the beginning in the history of the hum?n race, war must have had its start in bad feelings. II. That war must have been more savage or brutal in early times than nowadays. III. That steps of advance in civilization may be measured by the checks on the disposition to resort to violence for the settlement of disputes. IV. That we can measure the advance to higher methods in warfare through the changes in methods of treatment of prisoners, through (a) torture and death, (b) death without torture, (c) slavery, (d) ransom, and (e) the system of exchange. V. That there has been an advance also in recognition of laws of warfare. VI. That a great advance has taken place in the avowed motives for warfare until now a nation must put up as a defence the principle of justice before undertaking a war. VII. That one of the worst features of warfare in modern times lies in the encouragement it gives to the method of resorting to violence for the settlement of disputes between citizens themselves, when there is no war. Bntles. /. We ought to rejoice in the advance of the human race in more civilized methods of warfare. II. We ought to rejoice in that the human race is becoming more inclined to settle disputes between nations without resort to violence. III. We ought to rejoice in that the public con- science has grown more refined and exerts more in- fluence nowadays in connection with warfare. IV. We ought to rejoice that nations are less inclined nowadays to resort to warfare, unless they can appeal to some principle of justice in defence of their course. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 329 Poem. "Be patient, O l?e patient ! Put your ear against the earth ; Listen there how noiselessly the germ o' the seed has birth ; How noiselessly and gently it upheaves its little way, Till it parts the scarcely-broken ground, and the blade stands up in the day I "Be patient, O be patient I the germs of mighty thought Must have their silent undergrowth, must under ground be wrought. But, as sure as ever there's a Power that makes the grass appear, Our land shall be green with Liberty, the blade-time shall be here. "Be patient, O be patient ! go and watch the wheat-ears grow. So imperceptibly that ye can mark nor change nor throe; Day after day, day after day, till the ear is fully grown; And then again day after day, till the ripened field is brown. "Be patient, O be patient! though yet our hopes are green, The harvest-field of Freedom shall be crown'd with the sunny sheen, Be ripening! be ripening! mature your silent way, Till the whole, broad land is tongued with fire on Freedom's Harvest Day !" — AnonymoxjS. ClaiBlc for Beadlngf or Beoitatlon. "Do not all statesmen know, as you know, that upon peace, and peace alone can he based the suc- cessful industry of a nation, and that by successful industry alone can be created that wealth which, per- meating all classes of the people, not confined to great proprietors, great merchants, and great specu- lators, not running in a stream merely down your principal streets, but turning fertilizing rivulets into every by-lane and every alley, tends so powerfully to promote the comfort, happiness, and contentment of a nation? Do you not know that all progress comes from successful and peaceful industry, and that upon it is based your superstructure of education, of morals, of self-respect, among your people, as well as every measure for extending and consolidating freedom in your public institutions?" — John Bright. 330 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Furtber Sug'g'estionB to the Teacher. This lesson will be recognized as^ practically a study in history. The teacher may use his judg- ment, therefore, as to whether he will follow out in detail the method of dialogue, or resort to a more didactic form. The aim in the talks, however, should not be so much to impress the simple facts on the minds of the young people as to make them see that there has been an actual advance among nations in the theories and principles of warfare. It is a tenta- tive step in the study of the ethical evolution of the human race. Any one at all familiar with history ought to be able to illustrate the points with instances and anecdotes to any extent thought advisable. One might compare the wars of Julius Csesar on the one hand, with the spirit of warfare at the present day. It can be shown how prevalent the feeling must have been in those days that if it were to the good of Rome that one nation should be conquered, it would be justification enough. In this way, we can see what progress has been made over the last two thou- sand years. It cannot be asserted that wars at the present time, of all kinds, have a basis of justice. The main point to bring out is that nowadays a nation feels obliged at least to try to convince the rest of the world that it has a principle of justice in the course it is pursuing. CHAPTER XXII. THE MORAL CHARACTER OF STATES OR NATIONS. Memory Gem — "And ye shall succour men; 'Tis nobleness to serve ; Help them who cannot help again. Beware from right to swerve." — Ralph Waldo Emerson. Dialogme. In speaking of a person as a citizen, we mean citi- zen of what? "Of the state," you answer, "or of the nation." Why not also of the town or of the city, as well as of the state or of the nation ? "Because it is not quite the same thing. The town or city does not, like the state, make laws on its own authority. It gets its rights or privileges in that direction from the state." You imply that the state or nation has a kind of independent authority or control over the town or the city, the individual or the home? "In a sense, yes," you admit. But if it has such a peculiar kind of authority over our lives, over our cities or our homes, is the state itself a real thing, would you say ? "Not something that one could touch or handle, exactly?" But is it a real, an actual thing ? I ask. As real as the home, for instance ? "Yes, surely !" Does it have a character, for instance, like a per- son? Could we speak of the character of a state? "People do sometimes use that term," you assure me. And is it a correct way of using language? "At any rate," you add, "it has sense as a figure of speech." 332 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. In what way do you mean? "Why, we judge a state or nation by its conduct, just as we should judge individuals. We speak of the conduct of a state or nation as being just or unjust, fair or unfair, precisely as we allude to the conduct of a person we know." Yes, that is true, and I suspect for that reason the term is a good one. Somehow, whether we can explain it or not, states do seem to have a character of their own. But in using such language, how should we pro- nounce judgment upon states or nations? "As to that, it would be as with an individual person. We should say that it had a good or a bad character." You think, then, that distinctions between good and evil, right and wrong, moral distinctions, for instance, may apply to states as well as to^ indi- viduals? "It looks that way," you confess. In that case, how are you going to decide whether the character of a state is good or bad? How can you know? What way would you have of finding out? "Oh, it would be as with regard to a person. We judge by the way it acts, what it does as a state." Yes, I continue, but such conduct is not exactly like that of an individual man or woman, is it? Could a state tell lies, for instance, or say mean things? "No, perhaps not, but it might steal, com- mit murder, or be guilty of gross injustice." By what other acts or conduct could we also judge as to the moral character of a state? "By its laws?" You assume that one could judge with regard to good or bad character from the laws which are passed by a state? "Yes, indeed!" But, I ask, why should we not speak of a good or bad government, rather than a good and bad state THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 333 or nation? Why judge the whole country by its government at any one time? "As to that, it is through its government that a state acts or expresses itself." Would this apply to every kind of nation? "Oh no, only to those where the people make their own governments, or have their own choice in the kind of government they have." You would say, then, would you, that in a country where the people vote and control the affairs of the state, such a country is "represented" in its moral character by the government it may have at any one time? I believe what you tell me here is true. It some- how seems as if states or nations did have an actual character, and that we form some idea of the char- acter there for good or evil by thie conduct of their government. When, however, we speak concerning conduct, and judge whether it is good or bad, we mean usually, do> we not, conduct with regard to some- thing or somebody outside? You would decide, therefore, as to the character of a government or a state, would you, according to the way it dealt with other states and other nations ? "Yes, in part." How would it show such a character in that direc- tion? "Why," you explain, "one state might steal from another state, take another country's property, or commit murder upon the citizens of another coun- try. It could go to war with another nation and yet have no good reason for such conduct ; it could deal unfairly with the citizens of another state, not show- ing the same justice toward them as toward its own citizens." Note to the Teacher: This last point could be much en- larged upon and might well be developed further. The various ways by which one country may show good or bad character in its conduct toward another should be worked out, and 334 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. each point written down with care. A whole lesson could be devoted to this one phase. It would be better to make a list of methods rather than of examples, inasmuch as by an imperfect knowledge of the less known facts of history, the teacher might fall into deep waters and mislead the clar-s by discussing actual instances, unless these were of a very glaring or universally recognized type. Suppose, however, that as far as we could judge, the conduct of a certain state or nation toward others, was just and fair; that it was not given to any such wicked acts in its dealings with other coun- tries. Could we then speak of this state as having a perfect character or having nothing bad about it? "Not necessarily?" And why not ? Would this not be true of an in- dividual person, for example? If a man, as far as one could judge, were always just and fair in his dealings with others, should we not speak of him as a truly good man, or as having a truly good char- acter? "It might not follow," you insist. How is that possible? "Oh," you exclaim, "what about the way he deals with himself?" You mean, do you, that a man could wrong himself while not necessarily wronging others? "Why not?" you ask. But how is this possible? "As to that, he might injure himself by his bad conduct, through gluttony, for instance, in the way he eats and drinks. He might make a beast of himself in one way, so far as he himself was concerned, and yet be fair and honest in his deahngs with others." Note to the Teacher : Do not go far into this point, inas- much as it would belong to another scries of lessons. We are only to introduce it by way of illustration in order to work out the thought in connection with the general subject. You would say, then, would you, that a state or a natiori could be fair and honest in its dealings with other countries, and yet not necessarily have a good or true character? "Surely," you answer, "this THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 335 would follow if it should do wrong to some of its own citizens." In what way could a state show a bad character, as regards its acts toward its own citizens, or its own people? "Why, this might display itself in the kind Oif laws that were passed ; or, on the other hand, in the way the laws were carried out, or 'executed,' as we say." What kind of laws, for example, would show bad character in a state? "Oh, for instance, those which might favor one set of persons to the injury of an- other set of persons." How could this happen, I ask, when the people have control over their own government? "Why," you point out, "the majority may rule, and it might act in such a way, or pass such laws, as would do great harm to another class of people who are in the minority, and who would therefore not be able to help themselves." It is possible then, that a state or nation where the government was chosen by the people, could actually do wrong to many of the people themselves, many of its own citizens? "Yes, indeed, that might happen," you assure me. Would this be a kind of tyranny? Could this be possible in a Democracy where the people manage their own government? It would be a tyranny of what, would you say? "Why, it would be a tyranny of the majority over the minority." Yes, you are right. Even in states where the people control their own government, a very bad character on the part of those states may be shown at times by just this form of tyranny. Would you assume, for instance, that a state could actually steal property from its oiwn citizens ? How is that possible, when in extreme necessity we recog- nize that the state has a right even over the lives of 33^ THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. its citizens, in order to protect itself, as in time of war ? Must it not, tiien, have the same authority or right over the property of its citizens ? Would that not be simply taking what belonged to itself, in seiz- ing upon the property of the people? "True," but it might do this in an unfair way." And how? "Why," you exclaim, "it could take a larger share from one class of persons than from another; it could seize all that one man possessed, while not touching that of another citizen." But would this be burglary; or what we should call stealing, in disobedience to the command, "Thou shalt not steal ?" Suppose it were done by passing a law on the part of the government, which repre- sents the state. "Yes," you say, "but the law might be very un- fair, and take a much greater share of property from those who were not able to protfect themselves, or who were in the minority." In what special form, for instance, might such stealing on the part o'f the state take place ? What class oi laws would be concerned here? "Oh, it would be laws pertaining to taxation." You think, then, that there could be an unjust system o'f taxation which might actually imply steal- ing on the part of the state, because it would take a greater share of one's man's property than of an- other? "Surely?" And so it happens, does it, that a state could actually commit crimes against its own citizens ? On the other hand, what if the government should pass good and fair laws on all kinds of subjects? Would this show that the state had a perfectly good char- acter as a state? "Yes, so far as we are to judge by its laws." But v/hy do you make that qualification ? "As to that," you answer, "it might be just as with people, indi- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 337 vidual persons. A man may have very good prin- ciples, lay down very good rules for himself, but he may not carry them out or live up to them." You would say, then, that we judge of the char- acter of the state by something else besides the kind of laws it passes? "Surely," you assert, "it would depend also on how those laws were enforced; whether they were fairly and honestly carried out, — that is, whether the state or nation lived up to its own laws." In what way, would you fancy, could this hap- pen ? A state is not exactly a person, but deals with a great many persons. "True, but it might apply the law to one person and not to another; it might have honest principles of taxation, for example, and yet commit the greatest possible injustice in the way it made the people pay their taxes, by collecting from one citizen or one class oi citizens, and not from others." "So too," yoU' continue, "it might punish one set of persons for crimes and not punish others who are guilty of the same bad conduct." And this means, does it, that we judge of the char- acter of states even as we should of individuals, by the way it deals with its own laws or rules ; whether it carries them out faithfully ? But when you speak of the state not enforcing its laws, or not doing this fairly among all citizens, to whom or what do you refer? The state is not a person; it is not exactly something up in the air which acts of itself, is it? "No?" How can you explain it, then ? What makes this evil situation possible? "Why," you point out, "it would come from the officers of the state; those who had it in their power or whose duty it was to enforce the laws or to see them executed." What motive, however, could such men have for 338 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. not carrying out the laws fairly ? Why should they not do it? They would be the officers of the state? "Yes, but perhaps they might be bribed." What does that mean? I ask. "Oh, it implies paying somebody money or giving him something as an officer, so that he shall not enforce the law or not punish a crime, or so that he shall discriminate in favor of one person or set of persons, over against another person or set of per- sons." It indicates, does it, in judging of the character of the state or government, that we are really judg- ing of the officers ? It could happen, you would say, perhaps, that so far as the state otherwise was con- cerned, its character might be good and true, and yet its officers in their conduct, be just the other way. "Not necessarily," you hesitate. And why not? "Because those officers have been chosen by the peo- ple or they have been appointed by other officers chosen by the people." You assume that it would not be possible for the officers of the state to be of a bad character, while the rest of the people were all of good character? "Surely not, in a country where the people control their own government." Who or what, for instance, is represented by those officers? "Why, the people, the citizens?" And the citizens make up what ? "The state ?" Then in a sense, the good or bad character of the officers in the way they enforce the laws, gives an indication of the good and bad character of the state, would you' imply? "Yes, surely?" Why is it that people are often so furiously indig- nant against the officers of a state, or of the govern- ment, denouncing them so emphatically, if it is really a reflection on themselves? "Oh, they may not think of it in this way," you THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 339 add. "Or perhaps they have been in the minority and had nothing to do with the choice of those officers." True, but those officers were chosen by the major- ity of the people. Do you suppose it always hap- pens, that they, the majority who elected the officers, suffer no injury from corruption on the part of those in authority ? "On the contrary, all kinds of people may receive injury under such circumstances." But how is it conceivably possible that the majority could actually choose bad officers, those who would not only injure other people but the citizens who voted for them as weU? "Why," you explain, "perhaps the citizen might be careless in the way he voted, or as regards the kind of people he chose to represent him in his gov- ernment." How could this happen, I ask, if he was a good citizen? "Oh, but perhaps he would not be alto- gether a good citizen under those circumstances." Suppose he was not necessarily careless, what else might happen? "Perhaps he might have sold his vote." Do you mean to say that citizens would actually take money for the way they give their votes ? Is that conceivable, when it would be surely against their own interests? How would he be paid for his vote, do you think ? "In money?" But would that be the only way? Might it happen, for instance, that a man would not be willing to take money for his vote, and yet some- how indirectly sell it? "How is that possible?" you ask. Suppose that a man who was running for office should promise the citizen a favor, offering to try and secure some legislation which would serve his interests although perhaps being injurious to other 340 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. people; or suppose he promises to get him a posi- tion which would pay him a salary under the state; what if he had pledged the other man work of one kind or another; or suppose that he held out a promise of enforcing the law in this man's special favor, — now if the man voting got any assurance of this kind, while knowing that the one running for office, had a bad character, would this be selling his vote? "It would be pretty much the same thing," you reply. Now, of those who sell their votes in one form or another, do you believe that the larger number do this actually for money, or in the other ways we have suggested? "Probably in the other ways?" But how so, if it amounts to the same thing? "Oh yes, but it does not have quite the same look. A man may be unwilling to take money and yei make himself think that the other course is different; so that in this way he might excuse himself before his conscience." Right here I should like to ask a direct question. When a man votes, is he justified in thinking wholly of his own interests? "Not wholly," you answer. Why dO' you make the distinction ? "As to that, he must of course think of what is good for himself ; but he surely ought not tO' vote in such a way as would injure the whole country, merely in order that he personally might be bene- fited." What, then, do you think would be the real evi- dence of bad character in states? Would it be the laws? "No, it Vi^ould come from the persons who passed the laws or enforced them." The legislators, you mean, or the officers O'f the state? "No, it would be the citizens who chose the legislators or the officers." And what would be the chief cause why the citi- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 34I zens made such a choice? "Why, it would seem rather to be because of a habit on the part of the citizens for each one to think supremely of his own interests in the way he votes." If, then, a state or government is corrupt, whoi is to blame for it? "The citizens?" Most emphatic- ally I agree with you. So, too, when we speak of something bad in the character of the state, something corrupt in its laws or the way those laws are enforced, what does this imply with regard to the citizen? "Why, it implies that there is something corrupt or wrong in the citizen." In all the citizens, do you mean ? "No, not quite all," you hesitate, "but in a great many, at any rate." How many? "Oh, a great, great many." And yet I wonder if you have reached the final point of all in regard to what is the kernel or core of character in states. You traced it first tO' the laws or the law makers, then to the officers whoi may show bad character in the way they execute the laws, and then to the citizen who may show bad character in the way he choses his law makers or his officers. But suppose that good laws were passed, that there were good law makers, that good officers were chosen, that those officers did their best to enforce the good laws, that the citizens did their best to choose good officers and considered the interests of the state as a whole in the way they cast their votes for law makers and officers alike. Would it then follow that we should have a perfectly good state, or a state with a perfectly good character ? Under these circumstances, we should not need to have policemen, should we, or prisons or jails or courts; an honest government would mean an hon- est people, would it not ? 342 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. "Not necessarily ?" And why ? I ask again. "Be- cause certain people might steal or evade the laws, avoid obeying them, try to escape from them." And why should they do this? "They might do it, because at the moment, it would be to their own interests, and people will often follow the preference of the moment even against their own permanent good or the good of all." I wonder, then, if we have here another method by which we could judge as to the character of the state or nation, besides considering the laws or law makers, the officers who enforce the laws and the way the citizens vote for the law makers and officers. "Oh yes,' you say, "we might consider how care- ful the citizens were to obey the laws." Yes, I agree with you; the character of the state may often be judged by the honest care citizens take to obey the laws of the state. Points of the Reason. I. That a state may have a moral character, like an in- dividual. II. That a state must be judged by its conduct like an in- dividual. III. That a state may commit wrong acts against other states or against its own citizens. IV. That states or governments are especially tempted to commit wrong through an unfair system of taxation. V. That states may do wrong by passing unfair laws on the one hand, or by unfair methods of enforcing the laws. VI. That citizens must regard themselves as responsible for the wrong conduct or character of their state. VII. That the character of a state can be judged also by the habits of the people in the way they obey the laws. Dntlea. /. Citisens ought to feel a sense of responsibility for the moral character of their state. II. Citisens ought to feel a sense of responsibil- ity for the conduct of the government of their state. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 343 JPoeiu. "Washed in the blood of the brave and the blooming, Snatched from the altars of insolent foes. Burning with star-fires, but never consuming, Flash its broad ribbons of lily and rose. "Vainly the prophets of Baal would rend it, Vainly his worshippers pray for its fall; Thousands have died for it, millions defend it, Emblem of justice and mercy to all: "Justice that reddens the sky with her terrors, Mercy that comes with her white-handed train. Soothing all passions, redeeming all errors. Sheathing the sabre and breaking the chain. "Borne on the deluge of old usurpations. Drifted our Ark o'er the desolate seas. Bearing the rainbow of hope to the nations, Torn from the storm-cloud and flung to the breeze ! "God bless the Flag and its loyal defenders, While its broad folds o'er the battle-field wave. Till the dim star-wreath rekindle its splendors. Washed from its stains in the blood of- the brave !" — Oliver Wendell Holmes. Classic for Beading' or Becltatlon. "That patriotism which, catching its inspiration from on high, and leaving at an immeasurable dis- tance below, all lesser, grovelling, personal interests and feelings, animates and prompts to deeds of self- sacrHice, of valor, of devotion, and of death itself, — that is public virtue; that is the noblest, the sublimest of all public virtues! Personal or private courage is totally distinct from that higher and nobler courage which prompts the patriot to offer himself a voluntary sacrifice to his country's good." — Henry Clay. Further Sngrerestlons to the Teacher. The points of this lesson may be subtle and far- reaching. But they are facts which have been taught by the experience of history. It would not do sim- 344 THE duties of A CITIZEN. ply to tell the young person that he is responsible for the character of his state. We must also make him see the connecting links in the chain, in what way this responsibility comes home to him. The average youth ought to know the defects in the character of states or governments. It is well that he should see the bad side here and see it in its details. Only by having such details brought home clearly can there be hope of overcoming them. There may at times be a danger in concentrating too much attention sim- ply on the ballot, rather than what is behind the bal- lot. Much of this dialogue would seem, for example, to disregard the position of woman in citizenship. When, however, we come to the last point in our lesson, it is to be seen how it applies to every citizen alike. The evasion of the law, the disregard for it, may come from woman as much as from man. We should try to make the young people, without re- gard to sex, feel all alike this sense of responsibility for the moral character of the state, and that the points apply to all alike without regard to sex. Woman should be made to feel that she too ought to blush with shame, when her country falls from its ideals by unworthy legislation, or by having un- worthy executors of the laws. Man and woman alike should somehow have it brought home to them that their individual characters are affected by the char- acter of the state as a whole, and that there cannot be a high type of person, either in man or woman, where the state or government is of the other type, — for the reason that every man and woman and child are a part of the body of the state, partaking of its evil and of its good. Furthermore, it is to be remembered that in this dialogue, as in others, every now and then we go back tO' the points of other lessons or review those points in new phases for dis- cussion. The problem as to the extent to which a THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 345 man is justified in considering his own interests when casting the ballot, is a very important one and we may not be authorized to go to the ultimate limits in laying down an ethical principle here. Some theorists hold to the opinion that each man must con- sider his own interests in voting, inasmuch as it is the sum total of the individual interests which make the total interests of the whole state or of the whole country. But there is opportunity here for a subtle and dangerous fallacy, and young people should at least be encouraged to analyze this standpoint and dissect it before allowing themselves tO' accept it. CHAPTER XXIII. HOW STATES OR GOVERNMENTS IMPROVE. Memory Gem — "Let the government not seek the good of a sect in religion, nor of a party in the state, but the good of the nation as a whole; and it shall be sustained by a nation's will and enthroned on a nation's devoted affections." — Edmund Burke. Dialogue. In speaking of the character of any one you know, can you say, ordinarily, that he is all good or all bad? "No, surely not!" And why not ? I urge. "Because the character of a person will be made up of his traits, and there are few, if any, individuals who are absolutely perfect." Do you mean to say that everybody now and then steals from somebody else or tells outright lies or commits murder ? "No, of course not as bad as that, by any manner of means 1" you exclaim. What, then? "Why, it only suggests that some- times even the best people may be a little selfish." And would you excuse them on this account? "No, that is not an excuse, but merely a statement of fact. People should try to be perfect, and keep on trying, and should blame themselves and be blamed every time they fail to any extent." But how is it with states or governments? In a former discussion, we have implied that they had a moral character, even if it were not exactly in the same sense in which we speak of the character of an individual person. Could we speak of a state or government as being all good or all bad ? 'Surely not!" And why not? again I ask. "Because the character of the state, as 346 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 347 we have shown, depends on the character of the cit- izens, and the citizens are not each and all of them all bad, nor each and all of them all good." But why is it that states or governments become bad? Do they usually start with a perfectly good character, do you suppose? "Not necessarily." «[n what cases would you say, for example, that a state might be much worse in character than its cit- izens or much worse than its government? Could it happen, for instance, that a country might take the property of another country, or injure the citizens of another country, or do wrong to its own citizens, while the people themselves were not to blame? "Yes," you insist, "if the people really had no choice in the government, if they had nothing to say with regard to the laws which were made — how then could they be blamed for what was done ?" In that case, you mean that there would be a dis- tinction between the government and the citizen, or between the government and the people? "Yes, indeed !" In what way ? "Why, the government would consist of those who made the laws and those who executed them." Would that constitute the state? "No, the state is made up rather of the people who are in it, the cit- izens of the country." It could happen then, you assume, that the gov- ernment might not exactly represent the state as such ? It might lead the state into acts for which the citizens could not be held morally responsible? "Yes, if it were a despotism, an absolute monarchy." In such cases you think the acts of the govern- ment might really be worse than the character of the citizens. "It would look that way," you confess; "at any rate, it wouid not be fair to judge the cit- izens by the acts of that government." Would you say that a state might actually be bad 348 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. in its moral character in spite of the citizens ot in spite of the people? "In a certain way," you insist, "provided the people had little or nothing to say with regard to the law-making or with regard to those who enforced the laws." If, however, it were true that under such condi- tions, the government committed bad acts, and showed a bad character, might it happen that this would also give an indication of the character of the sta.te as a whole, or reveal anything concerning the individual citizen? "Yes, if the citizens approved the course of the government, and gladly profited by the wrong acts committed." It does not then follow, does it, that we must always distinguish between the citizens and the gov- ernment, even where the citizen does not choose his law-makers or his rulers? "It may happen," you say, "even under those circumstances that the cit- izen will be a gauge of the character of his country or his government." But on the other hand, when we consider those states or countries where a citizen does have a choice in the law-makers and the rulers, so that we may judge through him of the character of the state, and if in that case, we speak of the bad character of such a country, does it follow that this evil has always existed, or that the state has always been bad in its character in that way ? "Perhaps not ?" Why the "perhaps?" "Because states like individuals may change for the worse or may change for the better." How is this possible? Why should they not rather change for the better? "Oh, it would be as with individual people; a man may grow carele^ about his conduct and then he declines in character." Do states usually begin with a thoroughly good character, would you suppose? "You doubt it?" THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 349 And why? "Oh, states are like people, they are part good and part bad." But suppose that a state really improves in its character from what it has been before. Does this come of itself? Does it just grow better instead of growing worse? "No, indeed," you insist. What makes you take that standpoint? I ask. "Why," you point out, "it would be just as with people." How so? "Oh, when a man becomes bet- ter in character, it is not mere chance. He does not grow that way, just as his body grows." And what is the difference? "As to that, he improves in character because he makes an effort in that direction, because he tries to become better." Yes, I admit, but how can one make such an asser- tion with regard to a state or government? It is not a person; it cannot consciously try to improve itself in moral character, can it ? "No, not exactly in the same sense," you admit. Why then, I ask, may we not say that changes for the better, as well as changes for the worse, come of themselves, when we are dealing with states or governments? "Oh," you continue, "it would be, at any rate, much easier to grow worse than to grow better, in so far as the matter is left wholly to chance." You think, do you, that if an effort is not made, the character of the state may decline of itself, just grow worse? "It does seem that way," you confess. Yes, and I am afraid that the story of nations will bear you out on this point. If this is true and if there is an improvement in a government, if there is less injustice in the ways the laws are enforced, if there are less bad laws passed, if there is less cor- ruption all around, how then does it come about? Who does it all ? "Why, it must come by an effort." Yes, but effort 350 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. on the part of what or whom? "Of the citizens, of course!" You mean to say that all the citizens of a country become ashamed at once on account of the evil char- acter of the state or government, and resolve then and there that there shall be a change for the better, that the moral character of the country shall be improved ? "No, it would not come in that way." But if the government is corrupt, if the officers are unjust in the way they enforce the laws, if the laws themselves do injury to citizens, then surely every man and woman ought to feel ashamed. "True, but it does not imply that they will all feel in this way at the same time." How then does it happen ? What will explain it ? "As to that, it begins because some of the citizens feel ashamed of it." But what could only a few persons do, when they are a small minority? Perhaps they have all along been the ones who have tried to be good citizens. "Nevertheless," you say, "they somehow feel ashamed as if there was a blame on them, too." And why should they feel in that way, if they have not done any wrong themselves, as citizens? "Still," you add, "they are a part of the state or of the country to which they belong; they are members of it." You assume, do you, that it would be somewhat as with a private family, where if a single individual commits a very bad or wicked act, all the other mem- bers somehow feel ashamed of it, as if it reflected on them, too? Yes, I suspect it is something of the same type of feeling. The state or country is another big family. If there is evil or corruption abroad, each citizen is somehow involved in it and must feel the disgrace of it. But suppose they should feel that sense of shame over the condition of their country. What of it? THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 351 What would come as a matter of course? "Why, it would be just as with an individual person ; if the shame were real, the man, would trv to change and to improve." But what could a few persons do? "Oh, they could begin to agitate, talk about the evil and dis- cuss what could be done, bring it before the atten- tion of the others." True, I insist, but it would mean so little and would take such a long time in order to accomplish anything. Suppose there are a hundred thousand citizens and not more than twenty or thirty of them should feel in this way and begin to agitate for a change. "Yes, but if the agitation does not begin with those few, it will never begin at all and the change will never come." You mean that changes for the better in states or governments always start from the sentiments or efforts on the part of a few persons? "It would usually be in that way." But just look at the great changes which have happened. See how revolutions have come. What of the course which brought about the foundation of the United States of America ? Were there not hundreds of thousands of people interested and excited and determined to bring on a reform at that time? "Oh, well," you add, "that was later on; but it did not begin in that way." How did it begin? "Why, it must have started with a few persons who felt that injustice was being committed, and who resolved to make an effort for a change and reform." But what if a few do begin to talk about it, or express their sense of shame over the evil condition of their government. What will it amount to ? "As to that, it will set other people to thinking; by and 352 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. by others will feel the same sense of shame and they will make it spread to still others." But why is it that such changes usually come very slowly? Why is it that the moment a few persons begin to point out the evil, others by the thousands or tens of thousands do not at once agree with them, and move forward to make the change? "It does not come naturally in that way?" And why not? What will the others say? "Oh, they will assert that the talk will do no good; that it may all come to nothing, or that conditions will change of themselves, if one waits long enough." Yes, you are right on the latter point. The great reason why states are slow in improving in character is that the citizens have a way of feeling that the change for the better will come of itself. But is there any other reason for all this, would you fancy? "Perhaps it may be just human nature; the disposition to let things drift." The figure of speech you use there, is a sad char- acteristic of human nature, especially of citizenship- human nature. The fact of it is that a great many people would rather put up with bad government, than take the trouble to try and improve it. Has any citizen a right to take such an attitude, would you think ? Could he not excuse himself, and say that so far as he himself was concerned, he always cast his vote conscientiously, that he tried very carefully to obey the laws, that he had never offered a bribe or accepted one ? "No," you assert, "more than that should be expected of him." In what way do you mean ? "Oh, it is a citizen's duty not only to have his own con- duct upright toward the state, but also to try to improve the character of the state to which he belongs." THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 353 And why? again I ask. "Because it is his coun- try, of which he is a part as a citizen and member ; it would be his duty to try to improve conditions there, just as it would be his duty to try and improve his own character." Suppose, however, when little or nothing is being done in this direction, a few men do make an effort to stir up an agitation, will everybody approve of this ? Will these persons be honored and applauded for their efforts, because of the sacrifice they will be making, or the good work they would be doing? "Perhaps not?" How is that possible, when it would be for the sake of other people, as well as themselves? "As to that," you reply, "many per- sons would simply tell them that this would only make conditions worse, and that they had better let well enough alone." What would, perhaps, be said about such people at the outset? "Oh, they would be smiled at or ridi- culed, it may be, or they would be accused of seek- ing notoriety, of wanting to be talked about." It looks, does it, as if at the outset the persons who begin reform movements for improving the condi- tion of their country, will not receive a very cordial welcome for their efforts and not be thanked for what they are doing? What motive, then, could they have for doing it? "Why, duty itself as a motive." And what would encourage them? I ask. "Oh, love for their coun- try." Note to the Teacher: It will not do at this point to let the assumption stand that every person who is agitating for reform is worthy of approval or gratitude. The distinction must be made between persons who really may care more than anything else just for notoriety, rather than for serving a cause. On the other hand, it should be very sharply empha- sized that a charge of this kind may be most unfair, if applied indiscriminately. We must touch on the heroes who are willing to submit to ridicule or to attacks of this nature in 354 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. devotion to a cause. Perhaps something could be said about the term "crank," which is usually flung at every such person at the start, vv^hether his motive be selfish or whether it be of an ideal character. There should be a warning raised against applying a term like this indiscriminately, because of the possible injustice of such a course. We must show that improvement in the character of the state would never come at all unless some men took the lead and submitted to contempt and ridicule. If, however, a citizen really is willing to make sac- rifices in order to improve the condition of the coun- try to which he belongs, what or whom will he be serving? "Why, the state or country itself," you reply. Yes, but that is indefinite. I mean, what^persons? "Oh, all the citizens," you answer, "every man, woman or child living in that country. If he does anything to advance the welfare of the state, then he has done them all a service." True, but any other persons? Anything more? "How could it apply to anybody else?" you ask me; "surely it would be of no special service to the cit- izens who were no longer alive." Yes, I remind you, but what about the genera- tions to come? What about the citizens a hundred years hence? Would they have any reason to be grateful, because of the good work done at the pres- ent time for the welfare of the state? "Oh, yes, indeed!" You would assume, then, that in doing anything to advance the welfare of one's country or to improve its character, one would be actually render- ing a service not only to those now living, but to all future generations, to every man, woman or child who will be living in such a country in all ages to come ? "Yes, they would all have reason to be grate- ful to us." But if this work has to be done and to be done all the while, because of evil conditions in the coup- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 355 try to which one belongs, what steps would have to be taken in order to bring about the improve- ment? What is it that we have suggested would be the starting point of it all ? "Agitation, or calHng attention to the evils, making people aware that bad conditions actually exist." Yes, and this implies what? "It means arousing something, working on something." Is it merely that we want to have people think about it? "No," you reply, "we must get at their feelings or senti- ments." What is it that must be aroused ? Public what — ? "PubHc sentiment ?" True, that must be the starting point in all improvements in the welfare of one's country. Then, in the second place, what is the public senti- ment aroused for? What must it do? "Why, it must get at the causes of the evil conditions; if the laws are bad, it must try to have new and better laws passed." You are right ; that would be the next important step, perhaps. But would that be all ? If they get good laws passed and have public sentiment well aroused about it, could people then retire and assume that all would be well ? "No, there are the officers who must execute the laws." In the third place, you think, do you, that the effort has to be made in getting the right kind of officers chosen or in having bad officers put out? But if that were done, would it end the matter? "What else could be done ?" you ask me. Suppose that when those officers set about trying to enforce the laws, it may cause you or somebody else incon- venience, or bring criticism upon them, and people begin to find fault with them, is there anything that a true citizen could do? "Surely, one could uphold the officers in doing 35^ THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. their duty." Yes, and that is a very important point. It makes a fifth step in this story of reform work in improving the character of one's country. And when all this has been done, could one stop one's efforts once for all? "No, not quite." And why not? "As to that, reform work may not last long; the improvement may be only temporary." It means, does it, that for those who are true citizens, it is one constant effort all their lives to try to improve the welfare of the state to which they belong. But what if they do try it? Suppose a great many citizens are in earnest in regard to the matter, will the improvement come rapidly, do you assume? "Not as rapidly as one could desire," you admit. And why not? Could it not come as quickly as it might come with an individual person who had determined to improve or reform himself? "Oh no ! the state is something larger than the individual ; it takes time and a great deal more time." Then improvement or reform in the state must come slowly and the people who make an effort in that direction must have a great deal of patience, you think, do you? Yes, surely you are right, and it is because people do not appreciate this fact that so few are ready to take hold and work. They become disappointed over the results and often stop just when real work is being accomplished. But there is one point on this subject we have not yet touched upon. It has all been rather vague so far. We talk about improving the country, having good laws passed or choosing good officers. Does this mean the laws for the whole nation, passed by a Congress or a Parliament? Is it only with the national legislation or the national officers we are concerned, in this effort for reformation? "No, it applies to every situation where the state THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 357 comes in." Do you mean to suggest, for instance, that if the police force in one of our large towns or cities did not do its duty, we should have to go to work to improve conditions there? This would be a rather trifling feature in the life of the state. "Oh, yes," you assert, "but it would be very important, nevertheless. The policeman is an officer of the government in one sense, just as much as a member of Congress or a member of Parliament." Where else, then, must we work for improvement, besides on national legislation or for national officers? "Why, in town or cities; in the manage- ment of public schools or school boards; in the measures passed by City Councils ; in the choice of officers for a town or city, as well as for the whole state." You assume, dO' you, that if one is to try to improve the moral character of his country, the work must begin pretty near home? This is a fact which is often overlooked, and many persons will try to stir up public sentiment about evil conditions in the character of the whole nation, about corruption in national politics, and yet be very indifferent tO' the starting point of it all in the local politics right around them. It looks, then, does it, as if improving the char- acter of a nation would imply beginning an improve- ment in the political conditions of our own towns or cities? What is it after all, then, that every citizen must be all his life, if he. is a true citizen in his duty toward the state or country to which he belongs? I am thinking of a big word beginning with capital R. Suppose we write it down letter for letter and look at it : R-e-f-o-r-m-e-r. There it stands. We will not speak out the word, but only repeat it quietly to ourselves. 35^ THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. We have said that the man who will not apply this to himself is not a true citizen and that he is not doing his full duty as a citizen. Points oi the I^esson. I. That states do not improve or grow better just of themselves. II. That states or governments, like people, will tend to grow worse unless there is a constant effort to make them improve. III. That improvement in the character oi a state or gov- ernment first usually comes from the efforts of a few indi- viduals, and that a reform first starts as a sense of shame over the condition of one's country. IV. That the next step has to be an agitation on the part of the few who feel this sense of shame, in working up public sentiment for a reform. V. That states improve so slowly because many citizens would rather put up with a bad government than trouble themselves to try to improve it. VI. That the few who begin the work of reform must expect to be unpopular and not to meet at first with sym- pathy or approval. VII. That improvement or reform in the character of states needs to begin right at home in the community of city where the citizen resides. VIII. That those who work for the improvement of their country are serving future generations as well as those who are alive to-day. Dntles. /. Every citizen ought to work for the improve- ment of his country. II. Every citizen ought to try to encourage others to work for the improvement of their country. Poem. "Let it idly droop or sway To the wind's light will; Furl its stars, or float in day; Flutter, or be still : It has held its colors bright. Through the war smoke dun; Spotless emblem of the right. Whence success was won. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 359 "Let it droop, but not too long! On the eager wind Bid it wave, to shame the wrong ; To inspire mankind With a larger human love, With a truth as true As the heaven that broods above Its deep field of blue." — Lucy Larcom. Story: I^lfe of William Wllbertorce. In telling you how it is that states or governments are changed for the better in one way or another, I am reminded of the life of a man whose name has become celebrated all over the world because of the effort he made along one special line to achieve a reform for his own home and country, over in England. It takes us back to the days of the Revolutionary War, upwards of a hundred and twenty-five years ago. Old England has advanced a great deal since that time. It has taken the lead in many ways in the onward march of civiliza- tion. The world has reason to be proud of what has been done there by brave citizens who have labored in the interests of their country in order that such an advance might come about. The people there have always been brave and deter- mined in fighting for their own liberties. But it was another step for them when at last they awoke to the importance of battling for the liberties of others. The story I have to tell you about is the struggle that was made in order to do away with slavery in the British Empire. For hundreds of years, as we know. Great Britain has had colonies in various parts of the world. And there was not the same" freedom in those colonies, that prevailed at home in the mother country. In the year 1772, not long before the Declaration of Independence in this country, it had been decided over in Great Britain that there could be no such thing as a slave on the soil of that country. When a man once set foot there from any part of the world, he was a free man. But on the other hand, a vast traffic in slaves was going on in various parts of the world. Thousands of men and women and children were being seized or kidnapped, carried off from their homes, thrown on board ships, carried across the seas and sold in the markets like cattle. It makes one shudder even to think of it. And alas ! it was known that a good deal of this traffic was being carried on with English vessels, by citizens of Great Britain. They were amassing wealth in the traffic in human flesh. The slavery which could not exist in England did prevail in her colonies. Thousands of human creatures were stolen, carried off from the shores of Africa, and brought over here to the West 360 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Indies. Many of these poor creatures died on the voyage. Their bodies were thrown overboard as of no account. What could the English people say in defence of this, even if no slavery was possible at home? And the story I have to tell you concerns the life of one great man who became aware of these tragedies and made up his mind that he would fight this evil, until the Parliament of his country had put an end to the traffic in slaves so far as Great Britain or the British Empire was concerned. The man I am speaking of was William Wilberforce. What led him to do this we cannot explain. He just felt that he had to do it. He had nothing to make out of it himself. He might have gone on all his days in a life of ease and leisure, for he had wealth in abundance. He was born on August 24th, 1759. He had everything in the way of education that England could offer. He might have squandered his life to no purpose. It was n6t required of him that he should work for his living. But in the year 1780, when he was only about twenty-one years of age, he was elected as a member of Parliament. And after a few years, while serving there, his attention was called to the slave trade which was being carried on by the citizens of his own country. And then in the quiet of his own thought he made up his mind that he would devote his best energies until this should be abolished. But it was one thing for him to have resolved upon this in his own mind; it was another thing for him to have the courage and persistence required to carry it through. We must remember that there was wealth in this slave trade, and that the men who shared in it had vast influence. What could this one man achieve all by himself? Yet he felt that it was a blot on the good name of his country. It was for him, though he stood alone, to work night and day to accom- plish this reform in the British Empire. It had to be done by him as a citizen through the great Parlianient of which he was a member. Two or three able men joined with him and they began the agitation. On May 12th, 1789, he opened the attack against the slave traffic by a speech in Parliament and then he introduced a bill there which should abolish this traffic in slaves in the whole Empire. One might have sup- posed that then the work was done. On the contrary, this was only the beginning. The measure was turned down at first by an overwhelming majority. How dared a citizen of that country make such an attack upon the free rights of a British citizen to amass wealth in any way one pleased? was asked. Yet the first step had been taken. He succeeded at length in having a commission appointed which should gather information on this traffic. In this way facts were piled up in great numbers until they could be presented to all the people of that country. Once more, then, he brings up the measure in Parliament. Three times indeed, over a series of years, he got the measure actually passed through the THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 361 House of Commons. Three times it was turned down in the House of Lords. Years went by and it seemed as if nothing had been accomplished. VVilberforce had set this task before himself and he was going to keep at it until he had triumphed. The people had to be educated on the subject; societies had to be organized ; the citizens had to be canvassed. Do you suppose that people were proud of him and what he was doing? Do you think that they applauded him for his efforts ? Not by any manner of means ! It meant being laughed at by one class of persons, hated by another class and despised by still others. He was told that he could not succeed. He was assured that he was working against the interests of his own country. But the more he was laughed at or hated or despised, the harder he worked. And all this while there was nothing to be gained for himself in such efforts, while he might have been passing his time in pleasure, spending the money which he had received from his family. He had made up his mind that this stain should be removed from the good name of his country. He would render this service as a citizen. The British seamen should not traffic in the lives of human beings. Ten years went by, and apparently he was no nearer success than at the start. Fifteen years passed, and still he had not achieved his purpose. The British flag still floated over the vessels carrying the poor creatures who had been torn from their homes to be sold in the markets of the colonies. It is not to be assumed, of course, that all this while the work was being done by him alone. Other brave citizens had joined him. Other men were bearing the brunt of the attack of ridicule. Others were sacrificing their resources, toiling night and day for this great purpose. The number grew larger and larger. Gradually the feeling changed, until thousands and thou- sands at last felt the same sense of shame which only a few had experienced when the measure had first been launched by Wilberforce. They were asking themselves how it was that while no man could be a slave in England, yet their fellow-citizens might traffic in slaves in the colonies of that country. The Revolutionary War in America was over. The great wars of Napoleon Bonaparte had begun, and the atten- tion of England was distracted. What could Parliament do in the way of reforms of this nature? But Wilberforce kept on just the same, watching his chances, ever renewing the agitation. It was to be the great work of his life. At last, after nearly twenty years, the triumph came. In the year 1807 once more he forced the bill through the House of Commons, and now the measure received the sanction of the House of Lords. The traffic in slaves was forbidden through- out the British Empire. And this work had been done mainly because of the courage and tenacity of purpose on the part of this one man, who had dared to face the contempt of his fellow-citizens and who would not relinquish his purpose in 3^2 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. spite of every discouragement until he had achieved success. Unfortunately, even this triumph was only a stepping stone. The traffic in slaves was stopped, but slavery still existed in those colonies. Twenty-five years longer the battle had to go on. Anti-slavery societies were organized and Wilberforce was still the head of the movement. It had been a blot on the fair name of England that slave traffic prevailed or was being carried on by British seamen. Now, it was felt that the stain existed just the same while slavery was tolerated anywhere in the British Empire. The strength of Wilberforce finally gave way. He had served nearly forty-six years as a member of Parliament when he retired from that body in 1825, and yet the final step had not come. Conditions were growing worse in various parts of the Empire. The slave was enduring greater hardships. For a time it seemed as if the check put upon the traffic had made it only worse for those who were already slaves. But the work once begun far back in 1787 by Wilberforce could have only one outcome. It meant years of waiting and years of persistent effort. The blow had been struck when the first measure was introduced by this great reformer in that speech on May 12th, in the year 1789. Forty-five years had gone by. Wilberforce was now approaching his three score and ten. He was a broken-down old man, and yet three days before his death he learned that a bill for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire had passed to its second reading in the House of Commons. Be- fore the year came to an end the last step in the long story had been taken. It had been decided by an act of Parlia- ment to put down slavery in the whole Empire. It had not been done with violence or bloodshed or war. The English government paid one hundred million dollars to the planters who owned the slaves in order that injustice might not be done to them in setting these men free. Before the year 1840 came around there was not a slave owned anywhere in the British Empire. The story of the efforts by which this was brought about will always be one of the most inspiring narra- tives in the world's history. Thousands of men labored for the cause and took share in the work. But the man whose name is most deeply connected with it and who really deserves the greatest credit was this heroic reformer, William Wilber- force. ClasEio for Seadinsr or Becitatlon. "Would they have us wait merely that we may shozv to all the world how little we have profited by our own recent experience? Would they have us wait, that we may once again hit the exact point where we can neither refuse with authority nor con- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 363 cede with grace? * * * Let them wait, if this strange and fearful infatuation be indeed upon thcnit that they should not see with their eyes, or hear with their ears, or understand with their heart. But let us know our interest and our duty better. Turn where %ve may, within, around, the voice of great events is proclaiming to us Reform, that you may preserve. Nozv, therefore, while everything at home and abroad forebodes ruin to those who persist in hopeless struggle against the spirit of the age; * * * now, while we see on every side ancient insti- tutions subverted, and great societies dissolved; now, while the heart of England is still sound; now, zvhile old feelings and old associations retain a power and a charm which may too soon pass away; now, in this accepted time; now, in this your day of salvation, take counsel, not of prejudice, not of party spirit, not of the ignominious pride of a fatal consistency, but of history, of reason, of the ages which are past, of the signs of this most portentous time. Pronounce in a manner worthy of the expect- ation with which this great debate has been antici- pated, and of the long remembrance which it will leave behind. Renew the youth of the state. Save property, divided against itself. Save the multitude, endangered by its own ungovernable passions. Save the aristocracy, endangered by its own unpopular pozuer. Save the greatest, and fairest, and most highly civilised community that ever existed, from calamities which may in a few days sweep away all the rich heritage of so many ages of zjuisdom and glory. The danger is terrible. The time is short." — Lord Macaulay. parther BoffS'estlons to the Teacber. The opportunities for expansion in this lesson are very great. It is one of the most important subjects 3,64 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. in the entire series. The ground to be covered is so extensive that it might be well to divide the material into a number of sections with sub-headings. Fur- thermore, unless the work is done carefully, serious harm may follow, especially in the class of illustra- tions which are to be introduced. But it is vitally important, nevertheless, that young people should have a clear conception of what the word "corrup- tion" means, and should be able to trace out the various phases of it in all its many ramifications. They should see the evil effects on a small scale, as well as on a large scale. An effort should be made to cast an opprobrium upon the type of person more or less prevalent nowadays who is inclined to say that he is too busy to take any interest in politics, with the feeling as if in case he did his private duty as a man, the state would somehow take care of itself. We must apply this to similar conduct in the home or family and show what it would mean if each person there were to act according to such a standpoint. On the other hand, in all this discussion, we do not for a moment want the young people to lose a regard for the state as such, or the country to which they belong, by over-emphasizing the cor- rupt features. This deplorable result has come about in a great many instances by dwelling too exclusively on the evil conditions of politics. We must keep up a sense of hope and encouragement throughout the discussion, and make the young people feel that in the long run, conditions do improve; but that the improvement comes through the painstaking effort of citizens who have done the wearisome work in spite of ridicule or opposition, just for the love of a cause. Make a good deal of the sense of duty on this whole matter, as if duty applied to the state as much as to the life in the home or in the family. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 365 We are not to let the young citizen assume that he serves the state merely for his own interests, as an individual would do in a business partnership. A sense of sacred obligation must be aroused, as if he owed a service to his country for its welfare, just as much as he owes a service of this kind to the home or family whence he has sprung. CHAPTER XXIV. HOW THERE CAME TO BE STATES AND CITIZENSHIP. Memory Gem— "Sovereign law, the state's collected will, O'er thrones and globes elate Sits empress, crowning good. Repressing ill." — Sir. W. Jones. Dialogue. We have said in a previous lesson that the state was "something more than ourselves." We saw how it differed from the home. We talked about what we could do for it and what it did for us. Have you ever thought at all how there came to be any such a thing as a state ? How does it happen that we are citizens of a country? We have spoken of some of the states which "began," as we say, within the last few hundred years. But were there no states before that time, or was there no citizenship ? "Surely !" Well, can you name any of the states of early times? "Greece?" "Rome?" Yes. Can you think of any that were older than Greece or Rome? "Egypt?" True. And what was the great capital city of Egypt hundreds of years before there was any Athens or Rome ; do you remember ? Did you ever hear of Thebes, with its "hundred gates"? That was at one time the great city of Egypt. But do you know of any state or country existing per- haps even before Egypt, as possibly the oldest coun- try in the world? "China?" Yes, the China we think of now is 366 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 367 probably the oldest nation on earth today. And so we are convinced that there must have been such a thing as citizenship thousands and thousands of years ago. How do you suppose we know this, by the way ? "Oh, the people of China tell us so." Yes, that is true enough; but people have told a great many stories about early times, and yet the stories were not true at all. Ho-w can we be sure that there was citizenship in China four thousand or five thousand years ago ? "Through the literature, you would suppose?" Yes, that is it. We can trace their books back about four thousand years; and in those very books they talk about their country and about "being citizens." But what led men to the custom of having states ; how did they come to be "citizens" of a country; why did they not continue to exist only as families, each family living by itself? They would have been more independent, would they not ? Each family, then, could have done just as it pleased, and not been controlled by laws, or compelled to do things contrary to the wishes of the family. Nowadays members of a family may have to go to war against their wishes, and even die for their country. People are interfered with in all sorts of ways by their government. Was it not a little strange that they ever began to have governments, when governments interfere so much with the free- dom of the people? "Then we do not quite see what reason they had for founding states," you exclaim. Think for a moment before being so positive, I urge. What if a lot of men were living, each independently, in a country like Africa, occupying some one district there. But now suppose that other people from the 368 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. outside began to come and steal their property, attacking them or killing them? What would those men do'? "Why, they would get together and organize themselves into an army, in order to drive out the people who were attacking them." And after they had driven out the people who attacked them, do you assume that they would immediately separate and live apart from one another again? "No, they would naturally hold together to pre- vent future attacks." You believe, do you, that states might have begun in early times just because people would organize themselves together in order to resist attack from without? I wonder if you have any idea how we should describe such states. What would be the chief thing about them ? "Their army or their fighting power ?" Yes, that is true. Then we should call them military states. As we know, some states really began in that fashion, and that is one way how men came to be citizens of a common country. But again. What if there were people in early times living together, yet not in danger from attack on the outside ; can you see any other way by which they might have grown together and formed states and have had such a common bond as that of citizenship? Did you ever hear of a patriarchial government? Can you name any patriarchs of olden times? Do you remember any from the stories in the Bible? "Abraham and Isaac?" Yes, they were patri- archs. And what kind of men were they, do you remember? How did they live? "Why, they were the heads of great families; they owned immense flocks and herds; they had THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 369 many servants ; they would travel about the country like one immense family, with hundreds and hun- dreds of persons ; they might live to a very old age and have, perhaps, hundreds of descendants, — chil- dren, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren." Now in those days, the patriarch, as we know, was the governor of the whole family. • He owned the children and owned all the property. All belonged to him. When he died, then his next descendant would become the patriarch. Have you ever heard the word "clan" or "clan- nish?" "Yes?" What does it mean when people are called clannish; what do you understand by the word? "Why," you suggest, "people who are clannish hold together, work for each other as if they were all just one family; they do not care much about outside people, or take much interest as to what is going on outside of their own circle." And do you know that there were just such clans in early days ? They consisted quite largely of people who were related in one way or another. You see, then, how from the old patriarchal system, states could have been gradually founded just through the spirit oi clanship? The clans would come to act like states, and each member of the clan would be somewhat like a citizen of the state. ■ You observe that this is another way by which states could have been founded or by which such a bond as that of citizenship could have been estab- lished. It would be considered a point o'f honor to fight or die for one's clan, just as nowadays we may regard it as a point of honor to be ready to fight or die for one's country. Can you think of any other reason still, why states or governments should have arisen; why 370 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. there should have developed such a thing as citizen- ship; why what we call "politics" should have ever come into existence? Let me tell you of a famous saying once made by a great philosopher who lived at Athens. It was Aristotle who once said what will sound very strange to you now: "Man is a political animal." Do you see any sense in that? "Not much?" I am not surprised. "Man is not an animal at all," you may add. I agree with you. We are something more than mere animals. But is there nothing at all by which we resemble animals? Is there anything that we ever do without stop- ping to reason it out ? What other kind of impulses do we sometimes speak of as influencing us? "Instincts?" Yes, that is the word. Animals have instincts, have they not ? Then we and the animals both may act at times by instinct. Suppose we change the phrase and say that there are some things that we do naturally, or "according to nature." We mean by this that there is a tend- ency fixed in us to act in a certain way, so that we shall do it without thinking about it. Now can you see any meaning as yet in that say- ing of Aristotle, that "Man is a political animal?" "Why," you explain, "possibly he meant that man is 'instinctively' or 'according to nature' inclined to be political." Yes, that is the point. But what do you mean by "political?" What sense is there in that sort of a statement? Do you mean voting, or what we ordinarily nowadays call "politics?" '"No, politics in that sentence means that man naturally or instinctively forms those associations which we call political; that is to say, Aristotle implied that it comes natural to the human being to THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 37I form states and make himself a citizen." Yes, I think that is just what the wise philosopher meant. Can you mention any other important institution which seems to have begun in the same way, without people at first having thought much about it one way or the other? "The family?" Yes, it came natural for people to found families very early in human history. Just so, this wise philosopher meant that it came natural for families to develop into states of some kind ; to have a government and to do things together as citizens. After all, this may be the great reason why states came to be at all, and why, nowadays, we call our- selves citizens. It just came natural to have states, as it came natural to have homes and families. One other question on this point: at what stage in the development of the world was it that men really began to form states? How did the people live originally in the earliest times ? Do you know ? Did they have farms and cities at first? What do you think about that ? Did they have books and literature ? "No ?" Well, now, if they did not have a great deal of knowledge in those days, if they did not know much about what we call "agriculture," how would they succeed in getting what they needed in order to keep themselves alive? "By hunting?" Yes, that is just it. As we know, beyond any doubt, in the very earliest times, our forefathers lived by hunting; they dwelt in the forests. And would people living in that way be liable to form states? "Probably not?" True, we say some- times that civilization arose with agriculture, when people began to till the soil. Do you suppose that they had the same kind of citizenship then as nowadays ; did it mean the same 372 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. thing to be a citizen ? Did they vote and have politi- cal campaigns? Was there great excitement ewer the elections? "No," you say: "that came later." And yet do you really believe that they did any ■ voting at all ? What if a lot of people living some- where in the world in those early days had been . I attacked from without or obliged to form themselves into armies, how would they choose their leaders; >■ would they not have to do any voting? Did you ever hear of the way the warriors who lived in early days in Germany, across the Rhine, used to choose their leaders; how they voted and what they did when they had finally selected their chief ? "No?" Then suppose you inquire about that and tell me the next time, if you can discover how it was. Ask some one, or look into the books of history which describe those early days. Read about the early history of Germany, in the days when there were great battles between the Romans and the people living on the other side of the Rhine. You will see that even in those days they had a way of voting and choosing a leader. Perhaps, after all, they had some kind of a political campaign, although they had no election nights or news by telegraph. You will see how, little by little, what we now call the state came to get its meaning ; how little by little, what we now mean by citizenship came to imply what it does to us at the present time. But the main point to think of is that states had their beginning, like citizenship, in the very earliest days, thousands and thousands of years ago. You tell me that states or governments came, in some shape or form, as a matter of course, back in early times. But how do we distinguish between the different types? THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 373 What, for example, are the two chief forms of government in the world today? "Monarchy and the republican form?" True, and which one is the more general, do you assume? "Oh, monarchy, surely!" And why? "Because it came first and has lasted a long while, whereas the other form has come in from a later period." Yes; and are monarchies always of one kind? "Oh no, there may be a great difference between them. One may be very despotic, where the ruler makes the laws and can be very arbitrary; and another may have a Constitution which limits the authority of the ruler and provides ways by which the people themselves may pass the laws." Do you fancy, then, that a monarchy may come very near being a republic? "Surely, if the king or ruler does not have very much power." Yes, you are right. And this is peculiarly the case with Great Britain, where the people have almost as much con- trol as they do in the United States of America. How about republics? Can there be more than one kind of these, would you suggest ? "You hardly see how that is possible?" But think now for a moment. Have you ever heard of the republics of Greece and Rome in the old days? "Oh yes?" And were they just like ours ? "No," you confess, "all the people did not have a share in the government." And what class was excluded? "Why, the slaves," you tell me. You are right. There may have been many types of republican form of government. It all depends on how far the entire people have control of the government, or whether one special class may have more power than another. But we have only introduced this subject inci- dentally in order to bring out more clearly the points with regard to the origin of states and of citizen- 374 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. ship. You will learn more about this when at another time you come to study the other important subject of Civil Government. Points of tlie Iiesson. I. That there have been states or governments for many thousands of years. II. That people may have been led to form states or gov- ernments in self-defence against outside attacks. III. That some states or governments may have arisen through the ambition for power on the part of certain indi- viduals. IV. That states or governments may also have developed out of the patriarchal system or enlargement of the family group. V. That there were many types of states or governments in the early times, so that we cannot say precisely what the first form may have been. VI. That the civilized state only came with settled forms of life when the age of agriculture had been established. VII. That citizenship in early times meant something quite different from what it does nowadays. VIII. That even where government has been on the mon- archial type, it may have existed as it does to-day in a great variety of forms, according to the limitations put upon the power of the rulers. IX. That republics also have existed in different tjrpes, as they do to-day, according to the degree to which the entire people have control, rather than special classes of people. Ztutlea. /. We ought to rejoice in that we have states and governments and live under a system of laws. II. We ought to rejoice over the progress made by the human race in forms of government. Poem — Boadlcea. When the British warrior queen, Bleeding from the Roman rods, Sought, with an indignant mien. Counsel of her country's gods, Sage beneath the spreading oak Sat the Druid, hoary chief; Every burning word he spoke Full of rage and full of grief. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 375 "Princess ! if our aged eyes Weep upon thy matchless wrongs, 'Tis because resentment ties All the terrors of our tongues. "Rome shall perish — write that word In the blood that she has spilt — Perish, hopeless and abhorred. Deep in ruin as in guilt. "Rome, for empire far renowned, Tramples on a thousand states ; Soon her pride shall kiss the ground, Hark ! the Gaul is at her gates ! "Other Romans shall arise, Heedless of a soldier's name ; Sounds, not arms, shall win the prize. Harmony, the path to fame. "Then the progeny that springs From the forests of our land. Armed with thunder, clad with wings. Shall a wider world command. "Regions Caesar never knew Thy posterity shall sway; Where his eagles never flew. None invincible as they." Such the bard's prophetic words. Pregnant with celestial fire. Bending as he swept the chords, Of his sweet but awful lyre. She, with all a monarch's pride, Felt them in her bosom glow; Rushed to battle, fought and died — Dying, hurled them at the foe. Ruffians, pitiless as proud. Heaven awards the vengeance due; Empire is on us bestowed. Shame and ruin wait for you. ^COWPER. Story: Moses as the Founder of a, State. We have been talking about how states or nations come into existence, in what way they start into life, or how it 376 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. happens there ever came to be states or nations. It takes us back into the dim twilight of history. Yet I fancy some of the grandest heroes who have ever hved belonged to those times. I want to tell you something of one of those heroes or founders of states. Of all the peoples or nations of early times, I do not suppose that any of them have ever influenced our part of the world so much as the nation which existed in Palestine for over a thousand years. It was known as "Israel," and its seat, as you know, was in Jerusalem. But the begin- ning of this state goes far back to an earlier time, and its real founder, we are told, was a man who had never been in the land of Palestine. We have pointed out to you that states or nations do not come into life all at once. They just grow. And yet we cannot say that the historic movements leading to the found- ing of states and nations come just of themselves. I fancy if we could go back and look into the facts concerning the beginning of all national life we should find that there always had been some one man, or at least only a few men, who took the lead or made the first start, out of which came the national life. Surely you know who it was to whom we look as the founder of that great nation of which I have spoken. We do not know everything about him. It all took place a long while ago. But he must have had great thoughts, or what we should call great ideals. He had dreams or visions of something better or higher for his race or people. It had to be a life on his part of giving up, of sacrifice, of "self-abnegation," as we should say. We are told how he had been educated in Egypt as a prince, taken aVvay from among his own down-trodden people and made one of the royal family of the king of Egypt. _ It was a time when his own people were enslaved and despised. And this man gave up his position of honor, as a prince, and cast his lot with his suffering race. He had to become a houseless and a home- less wanderer. We are told how he aroused his people to throw oflf the yoke of slavery and to go away from the land of Egypt across the Red Sea into the Wilderness. It was a bold step and enough to make any brave man tremble and be afraid. If he should fail, he knew that it might cause the death of all his people. And we are told how he had to lead his people around there in the desolate Wilderness for forty years. He could not be sure of what would be the outcome and he always had to endure the complaints of his people. It was a deso- late country to which they had gone, where food and water were scarce and where the wanderers often had to go hungry and thirsty. And whenever these wanderers became hungry and dis- couraged, whenever they d''^ not have enough to eat or enough THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 377 clothes to wear, they would turn and revile their leader, and keep asking him why he had brought them forth from Egypt, and why he had not left them there in their slavery, where at least they had had enough to eat and drink. They kept sigh- ing, as you know, for what they called "the flesh-pots of Egypt;" all the while their leader had to keep up their cour- age so as to make them feel that it would come out right in the end and that sometime they should have a country of their own and be a free and independent people. And when the tribes around them in that Wilderness would attack them or make war on them, it was the same old story. Instead of going bravely ahead and defending themselves, they would sit down and cry like children or blame their leader for having brought them into danger. And this man during all those years had to put courage into their hearts, make soldiers of them, teach them how to defend themselves, inspire them with confidence and self- reliance, and show them how to act together and work together as one people. He had to give them rules and laws, so that there should not be strife among themselves and war on the inside. He had to show them how to govern themselves, so that they should have rulers and officers whom they should obey. This people had come over into that Wilderness just as a vast crowd of men, women and children, without govern- ment, without laws, without judges, or courts, such as we have nowadays. The beginning of all this had to come there in those wanderings in the Wilderness and had to come mainly through the guiding thought of this one man. We do know that he was the real founder of that nation, whose influence went on extending for thousands of years after this man was in his grave. It was not so much the thoughts which this man had, as the heart within him, of which I think. Other men might have had the thoughts or the big plans or the dreams. But the will to put these plans into execution, to carry them out, calls for a great soul. Within this man's mind was the dream, as we are told, how he would lead his people through the Wilderiiess, rescuing them from their slavery in Egypt, make one people of them, and then lead them across the river Jordan, into a new country, which was called the land of Canaan. I speak of this man as having been the founder of the state or nation of Israel, although we do not know that he ever had a thought of what we should now term a state or a nation. We look back and see the philosophy of it; but this man belonged to those who did the work. It is sad to know that he was not able to carry out his plans, although it all worked out well in the end. What he had hoped to do in a short time was going to take hundreds 378 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. of years. He was never even to enter that land where he had hoped to lead his people, Israel; all that he could do was to make the start, hear the murmurings and complaints, see the disappointed faces of those around him as he went on educatmg the people, striving to teach them how to gov- eni themselves and so to lay the beginning of their national me. He was an old man when those wanderings were over. He had borne the brunt and heat of the day. He had come to .see how his dreams might come true sometime. He knew at any rate that the great step he had ventured on was not going to be a failure. As yet there was no state or nation among his people; they were still only a wandering tribe of Israelites, but they were no longer the same weak, child-like people they had been when this man led them across the Red Sea out of their slavery in Egypt. The dawn of their real national life had begun. It was only a question of time when they should go over into the land of Canaan and enter upon their great history as a state. The last we are told of this great leader is when he climbed a lofty mountain not far away from the River Jordan, called Mount Pisgah; and there, as we are told, the old, old man looked down across the river into the land of which he had dreamed and where his people should go, but where his own feet should never rest. He had fought the fight bravely and well ; and as he looked out from Mount Pisgah over into the land of Canaan, a mist came over his eyes and Moses died. And as we are told: No man knoweth of his sepulchre even unto this day. But few men in all the world's history have done as great work as Moses. Classic for Beading or Becitation. "In thai high romance, if romance it he, in which the great minds of antiquity sketched the fortunes of the ages to come, they pictured to themselves a favored region beyond the ocean, a land of equal laws and happy men. * * * fj/^ Iqq]^ hack upon these uninspired predictions, and almost recoil from the obligation they imply. By us must these fair visions be realised; by us must be fulfilled these high promises, which burst in trying hours from the longing hearts of the champions of truth. There are no more continents or worlds to be revealed. * * * Here, then, a mighty work is to be fulfilled, or never, by the race of mortals. The man, who THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 379 looks with tenderness on the sufferings of good men in other times; the descendant of the pilgrims, who cherishes the memory of his fathers; the patriot, who feels an honest glow at the majesty of the system of which he is a member; the scholar, who beholds with rapture the long-sealed book of unpre- judiced truth opened for all to read, — these are they by whom these auspices are to be accomplished. Yes, brethren, it is by the intellect of t)he country, that the mighty mass is to be inspired; that its parts cure to communicate and sympathize , its bright progress to be adorned with becoming refinements, its strong sense uttered, its character reflected, its feelings interpreted to its own children, to other regions, and to after ages." — Edward Everett. further Sug'g'eBtions ta tlie Teacher. We shall now for a few lessons be introducing' some material on the historic side. This may at first seem somewhat irrelevant in a course of ethical lessons in Citizenship. But on closer examination, the reason will be apparent. We must encourage the young to have a respect for the experience of the past, and to realize that this experience must be studied when undertaking to settle problems arising today. This would apply to discussions in practical ethics as well as to the more distinctive features of Civil Government. We may find it a dangerous matter to encourage any class of persons to make up their minds on great ethical issues by jumping to conclusions from their intuitions. There should be a few grand first principles to which every person should adhere. But the application of these prin- ciples must depend upon a knowledge of past history, as well as of conditions as they exist today. It will be possible to add a certain variety to this special lesson by talking over the differences between the 380 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. state life of the citizen in the early times, and that of the present time. The members of the class can be encouraged to tell what they know about those differences. Early methods of carrying on public assemblies could be dwelt upon. An account of the method of conducting, such meetings and of voting approval by clashing their shields, among the early tribes of Germany, is given in the "Treatise on Germany," by Tacitus, and also in the middle of the first volume of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." The chief point of the lesson, of course, is contained in the saying of Aristotle. But as it will be hard for the members of the class to appreciate that point, it will require a certain amount of illustration. Pictures of early agricultural com- munities or the earlier soldier-life of half-civilized people, will help to give a certain concrete character to the lesson. Much caution must be used on this whole subject, lest one introduce personal theories in the science of sociology. In matters of detail on this subject of "origins," the scholars are still a good deal at variance. We must take great care, there- fore, not tO' be decisive save on the few general points as they are brought out in the Dialogue. We cannot as yet say positively just what was the earli- est form of the state or the earliest type of govern- ment. A teacher might easily encourage erroneous views by careless assertions in this direction. For a story, we give a sketch of Moses in his work for the Israelites, as a founder of a state. But if the teacher feels that this would involve introducing debatable material in the subject of religion, it could be omitted. For a diversion in connection with this subject, if it proves rather abstract for the young people, we might introduce the story and poem con- cerning "Boadicea." Read the first six or eight THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 38 1 pages in Dicken's "Child's History of England" for the facts to be given to the young people. And then the poem by Cowper could be read and talked over. If this poem is read with spirit, the young people will be sure to like it, even if there is not much connection between this and the subject of the lesson. Yet it may help to enliven the somewhat abstract discussion. CHAPTER XXV. CONTRASTS BETWEEN SOCIETIES AMONG ANIMALS AND STATES AMONG HUMAN BEINGS. Memory Gem — The man whom reason guides is more free when he lives in a community under the bonds of common laws, than when he lives in solitude where he obeys himself alone. — Spinoza. Dialogue. Is there such a thing as states or nations, state life or national life, kingdoms or governments, among animals, do you think? "Something like it, at any rate," you fancy. Yes, I can see what is in your mind ; you mean that cer- tain kinds of animals live together or associate together in numbers, and seem to act together almost as one body. And how do we describe this when speaking of the creatures lower than ourselves ? In the waters, for instance, there may be thou- sands and tens of thousands of fishes all moving together. They are caught by the fishermen in nets in great loads, as we know. Do we speak of this as a fish-state or fish-kingdom? "No, it is a school of fishes," you answer. Yes, and the sailor up in the mast can see in the distance the rippling on the water which indicates these great schools O'f fishes moving together down below. How is it with wild cattle or with animals like the buffalo? Do we speak of the bufifalo-state or the cattle-kingdom? "No, it is the drove of cattle or the herd of buffalo." Yes, such animals do cling together in a striking way. It is said, for instance, in the old days that 382 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 383 there was one herd of buffalo on the plains of the West estimated to have been made up of two or three million individuals — although this seems inconceivable. What is more, we are told that the individuals of these droves or herds know each other from strangers. They can tell on the instant whether an individual belongs to their group or comes from the outside. How is it with the birds? "Oh yes," you point out, "we can see them in the fall and the spring, thousands of them moving across the sky in their migrations." And do we speak of the bird-state or the bird-nation ? "No, it is the flock of birds." True, and how about wild beasts such as wolves ? "Why, they have their pack ; there may be the pack of wolves," you tell me. Yes, and how about bees ? "Oh, we speak of the bee swarm or the hive of bees." Quite so, and in the same way we know of the ant hill. It is said that among these "packs," or "swarms," or "ant hills," each creature knows or reco'gnizes a member of its own group. The ant will attack the stranger as an enemy and try to kill him, while working peacefully with one of the many hundreds or thousands of its own number. How about the family life, I ask, along with this social life? May it exist, too, would you fancy? Yes, I can assure you that in many cases it, too, is there. The wolves may occupy their special dens with their little ones for a part of the year, while for another part of the year they may run in packs. Sometimes, therefore, it would seem as if we had associations in the lower orders resembling the family and the state among human beings. What 3^4 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. is more, it looks as if they had leaders or kings over ■them whom the individuals are obliged to obey. We even find among the tiny ants something like divisions in society ; they actually have slaves, or domestic servants. Sometimes they go out and make war on other groups'. You will find this a fascinating subject for study when you have the leisure or find the time to read about it. And yet I ask again, is this the same thing as a state or state life among ourselves? "No," you insist, "it looks the same and yet it is something else." Do you mean to say that they do not obey laws? "Not what we should caJl by that name exactly," you assure me. Yes, that is true. What the lower creatures seem to obey we should rather describe as customs; and these customs are followed most rigidly among the hive or ant hill or herd or pack. But why is not a custom the same thing as a law ? "Oh," you point out, "a law is something which has been put into language, and has been talked over and thought about ; it has come to be accepted after deliberation ; it is at least partially the outcome of thinking." Yes, and how, on the other hand, should we describe the origin of customs? "Why, they come rather from instinct ; they grow of themselves with little or no deliberation at alL They are more like unconsciously accepted laws." "Yes, that is a very important distinction between associations among animals and a state or national life among ourselves. What, then, is missing or wanting among. such associations in contrast with certain assemblages of people that we may have? "As to that, human beings THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 385 have parliaments, congresses, legislature, councils where conferences are held concerning laws and what kind of laws people would like to have." And is there anything else that may be wanting in such associations among the animal kingdom? What is it that we have which keeps us from making laws too carelessly, or being too rash in the adoption of laws? "Oh, we have written constitutions pre- scribing methods for the adoption of laws." Yes, in the human state or nation where society is much advanced, we now have just such constitu- tions ; and they are a most important feature in our political life, although these constitutions have not always existed, as you are aware. What else may we also have as showing our advance over the animal kingdom ? When a mem- ber of the wolf pack defies one of the customs, what would happen to him, do you suppose? "Oh, the others would probably kill him at once." But might it happen by mistake that they would kill the wrong one who had not been guilty? "Yes, that would be possible," you confess. And why is that less liable to happen among our- selves? "Oh, we have courts, we have judges and juries; we have a means for putting an individual on trial and carefully ascertaining the facts with regard to his guilt or innocence." Yes, all this is true, and it points out what a sharp distinction there is between the state life among ourselves and the associated life among the lower creatures. I wonder if you have ever thought what is the ruling principle for the most part among those creatures ? If in one of our cities or states a man is attacked by another, in his property or person, what does he insist has been done to him ? "His rights have been invaded," you suggest. 386 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. True, that is the point. The human being insists on his rights. But suppose that he is weaker than the other man. Why may not the other take his property or do as he pleases with regard to the person he is attacking? "As to that," you explain, "even if the individual is weaker he has those rights, and the state by its laws is supposed to protect the weak man in those rights." But do you fancy that among the pack of wolves or in the ant hill, or among the swarm of bees, an individual being stands out and says, I insist on my rights ? "You doubt it?" Suppose he should try to ex- press his feelings in that way, what would happen? "Oh, the rest would deal with him just as they pleased or felt inclined to do." And what would that indicate, then, in the place of the law of right or the principle of rights? "Why, it would mean the acceptance of the principle of might, force, rule of the stronger." Yes, that is probably true. In the lower kingdoms of the world, we have no reason to think that the principle of right or rights at all prevails. It is might that dominates or rules there. If among ourselves a man sometimes goes con- trary to a custom, will he necessarily be punished by the state or by his fellowmen? "No, he may be able to point out that the custom is wrong; he may appeal to his rights as opposed to that custom." But if an individual acted in this way among a herd of elephants, what do you suppose would happen ? I fancy he would be gored tO' pieces, driven out of the herd, and that would be the end of him. But we have said that there seems to be some- thing like government and authority in the animal kingdom, the control of leaders. "Yes," you explain, THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 387 "but that is all settled by custom or by force; the leader is not chosen by conscious deliberation." You assume, then, that there is no such thing as voting and the ballot in the animal world? They choose their leaders by instinct or submit to the power of the strongest. They obey because they must, and not by deliberate choice. And what does all this point to as a contrast between ourselves and the animal kingdom ? What is it that we do that they seem to do very little, if at all? "Think?" Yes. We think and deliberate. We think not only by ourselves, but together. We confer with one another. And what, besides this, do we accept as a prin- ciple? "Rights." Yes, that is the other important feature ; in the human world we assert the principle of rights. To be sure, we may not be consistent in our prin- ciples. This is a very imperfect world. We may go back on ourselves, as it were, and over and over again act like the brutes. But there is the point to be considered, that in the human state there is such a thing as a recognition of rights and duties, such a thing as deliberation and choice, such a thing as law which has been accepted after men have thought about it. And yet how is it at the same time, I ask, that we can say this when we know among the uncivilized races of men, might more often takes the place of right, and they do not have laws or written con- stitutions ? "True," you point out, "but all this takes time. While men have gifts, it has been necessary that they should find out how to use these gifts." You infer, do you, that the state, as we understand it could not come until human beings had developed 388 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. to a higher stage, when they could understand them- selves and appreciate their own capacities or the endowments by which they were superior to the animal kingdom? But if in the lower orders we may not speak of their associations as states or nations, how may we describe them? What do they have? "Why, they have societies, they are united together socially, there is the social bond between them." Then if law does not hold them together or any theory concerning rights or any conscious deliberation, what is it that unites them? "It is instinct," you assert. Yes, but what kind of an instinct? What is it makes such individuals hold together in large societies like the schools of fishes, flocks of birds, the herd of elephants, the swarm of bees or the ant hill? "Oh, it is the social instinct, a feeling of pleasure in one another's society." And do you suppose that anything stronger than mere pleasure in one another's society may act among such bodies of individuals? Suppose one member is attacked by an enemy from the outside. Will the others all run away? "Not necessarily ; sometimes the herd will protect the other individual, sometimes they will hold together and fight for one another when they might save themselves by running." Yes, that is true. There is not only pleasure in one another's society among animal groups, but sometimes, though not always, there is the instinct of sympathy, a feeling for one another's pleasures and pains and an instinct to help or protect one another. Suppose, then, I give you a term by which you may contrast these animal societies from the state life or national life among human beings. We, by THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 389 the way, have social life or societies, do we not, besides the life of the state or the nation? "Oh yes, there are groups within the same state, and sometimes there are societies between citizens of various states or nations." True. Then it may be that there is the same beautiful instinct both in the animal world and the human world, although it may be stronger among ourselves. I should call it the instinct of social sympathy. You see, there is something alike in the animals and in ourselves, although we are superior, because by means of our thinking and our principle of rights, we also have state life and national life. Besides customs, we have laws, we have parliaments and legislatures. As regards the state or the nation, then, in what way may we describe it in contrast with the society groups in the lower forms of life? We may think of it, perhaps, as a human institution and take pride in it all the more because we have this kind of an institution. We have states and national life, then, because we are superior to the creatures of the animal world. It is by our superiority that we have laws and accept the principle of rights and duties. DatlM. /. We ought, just because we are huinan beings, to recognize the principle of rights among individ- uals, in contrast with the principle of might which dominates in the animal kingdom. II. We ought to have states in the human world, which shall enforce this principle of rights and see that each individual is protected in his rights. III. We ought more and more to exercise thought and deliberation in the life of the state, 39° THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. because it is by these gifts that the state exists as a human institution. Points of tlie Keaaon. I. That society life among animals is not the same thing as the state and national life among human beings. II. That among the lower orders they may have customs, but do not have laws. III. That customs among animal societies arise by instinct; whereas laws among human beings have been accepted after the deliberation of thought. IV. That in the state among human beings we have Par- liainents or Congresses, for the consideration of laws and pro- tection of human rights. y. That in the state among human beings we accept the principle of rights rather than the principle of force or might. VI. That the state is therefore distinctively a human insti- tution, while human beings also have societies or social life in common with creatures of the animal kingdom. VII. That the method of thought-deliberation in the estab- lishment of institutions is higher than the method of instinct. Classic for Beading' or Becitation. "Where is there a man of high mind and noble sentiments, who does not desire by his thought and actions to plant a seed, to aid the endlessly increas- ing perfection of his race, to cast into the time some- thing new, something that as yet has never been, that it may become an unfailing spring of new crea^ tion, that so he may pay for his place on earth and the short span of life granted to him with that which is of eternal permanence, so that although he be sol- itary and unknown to history — for the thirst for fame is an empty vanity — he may leave in his own conscience and faith a public monument to mark the fact that he has been? * * * Only according to the needs of those who are habitually thus minded should this zvorld be regarded and ordered, only on their account is there any world at all. * * * What is there of proof to till this demand, this faith of the noble-minded in the imperishability, the eter- nity of its works f Surely it can be found only in THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 39I an order of things zvhich is itself eternal, and which may be regau'ded as able to take unto itself the eter- nal. Such an order there is. * * * It is the peculiar spiritual nature, the human environment from which man himself springs — with all his power of thinking and acting, and with his faith in the eter- nity thereof. It is the people, the nation from which he descends, and under which he has been trained and has grown up to be that which he now is. * * * The belief of the noble-minded in the eternal continuance of its activity,, even on this earth, is founded accordingly, on the hope of the eternal continuance of the people from whom he has him- self sprung. * * * His faith, his endeavor to plant something imperishable, his idea in zvhich he comprehends his ozvn life as an eternai life, is the bond which unites him most intimately to his own nation and thereby to the whole human race, and forever brings all their needs into his broadened heart. This is love for the people, above all, rever- encing, trusting, joying in them and in his descent from them." — lohann Gottlieb Fichte. Further Sagrgestlons to tlie Teacher. A special lesson ought to be devoted to a study of societies among the lower orders of life. A vast amount of information can be brought together on this subject, and it will prove of great interest to every one who examines it. If desired, the class might concentrate its attention on one type of social structure, taking, for example, the ant-hill or the bee- hive, studying this with much care and bringing together a mass of facts in connection with it. The points of contrast in the Dialogue might be brought out indirectly by this means simply through the study of one animal society of this t)rpe, placing it over against a well-organized state among human beings. 392 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Special attention is called to a collection of facts and examples that will be found in chapters 2 to 5 and chapter 10, Volume i, of "The Origin and Growth of the Moral Instinct," by Alexander Sutherland' — although the teacher should take care not necessarily to endorse the details of the origin-theory advocated by this writer. CHAPTER XXVI. THE STRUGGLE FOR FREEDOM IN THE HISTORY OF THE STATE. Memory Gem — "My angel — his name is Freedom, Choose him to he your king; He shall cut pathways east and west And fend you with his wing." Ralph Waldo Emerson. Dialosrae. What is the kind of government, do you say, that most people in America beheve in, nowadays? "A republican form of government?" Yes, and how do you describe that sort of government ? Who are the rulers in a Republic ? "Why, the people are their own rulers," you tell me. How do you explain the fact that this was not the usual kind of government in the earliest times, when states first came into existence ? Why were not the people their own rulers in those days? Why did they not form republics at once ? "Perhaps they did not know enough ?" And what do you mean by that ? "Oh, they may not have been capable of governing themselves." But why not ? Would you say that a number of grown people would not be able to come together, agree on certain rules or laws, choose their own gov- ernors and then obey the laws or governors of their states? "No, they might be foolish enough to prefer to do just as they pleased, even after they had made their laws or chosen their governors." And what kind of persons do we think are the ones most inclined to do 393 394 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. just as they please and to dislike to obey rules of any kind ? Grown people or children, — which ? "Oh, children!" Perhaps you think that we are always speaking slightingly of children. But we do not mean to show that spirit; only we take it for granted that people must begin as children before becoming "grown-up." In the same way we are sure that the human race must have begun its history in a state of childhood of mind, even when the human beings of that time were grown up in their bodies. That is why, as you know, we talk about the period of the beginning of history as the "Qiildhood of the World." You think, do you, that in the childhood of the world, if governments had been republics they would have been a failure ? "It looks that way," you admit. How would it be in a family, for instance ? What if it were decided in a household that no one should be obliged to obey anybody, but even the smallest children should do as they pleased, or at least that the children should not be obliged to follow any rules unless, after they had talked the matter over, they should agree to the rules ; what do you suppose would happen to that family ? "You fancy it would not hold together very long?" I am afraid you are right. It is the old story : one must first learn to obey, whether one likes it or not. And so in the childhood of the world, if the people themselves had had the sole voice in making their own laws, it is pretty certain that they would not have obeyed the laws which they themselves had made and so' there would have been no states at all. Do you assume, then, it may have been a good thing for the human race in the childhood of the world that states or governments should have begun in some form of monarchy with one ruler? "Yes, THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 395 it must have been better that way, so that human beings could learn to obey rules or submit to laws and in that way hold together in a state under one government." But on the other hand, what is your theory as to the reason for all this ? Do you assume that people thought the matter over in those days and decided to have one ruler over themselves ? "You doubt it ?" Why? I ask. "O'h," you add, "it is more likely that some one man wanted to rule over the rest of the people and made himself ruler in spite of what the people wanted." You are probably right in what you say, although a hundred years ago there was a dif- ferent theory about it. People used to talk about what they called the "Social Contract," as if in the childhood of the world, men had formed a kind of contract together, agreeing to obey a ruler and to form a state in that way. But we know better now. As we have said before, we are sure that states have grown up little by little, that they did not spring into existence just by a sort of "social contract." But what kind of persons do you fancy those men were, who came to be rulers over the people ? Why should there have been any such persons? What led them to want to rule, or to be kings over states ? "Oh," you explain, "men like power." Do you mean to say that people like to rule over others ? "Yes, indeed!" But if so, what sort of men would have been the first kings, — ordinary men or unusual men ? "Why, they would have been unusual men, probably, men who were strong, the men who knew best how to rule." Yes, I suppose that is true. We ought not to find too much fault about the despotism of early times. 39^ THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. It was perhaps good for the human race that certain strong men did make themselves rulers over others. But why did that form of government last for such a long time in many parts of the world; why were not republics started sooner? "For one rea- son," you explain, "perhaps because people were afraid lest they should be punished or killed if they tried to change the form of government." But can you think of any other cause? Why is it, after all, that people go on in the same way for a long time without changing the course of their lives? "Oh, it is a habit," you say. Yea, I suspect that habit explains why it is that despotism lasted for such a long time. People got into the habit of submitting to' that form of govern- ment. It required too much trouble on their part or too much effort, for them to change it. Suppose, however, after a long time, little by lit- tle, they did begin to change their form of govern- ment and to give up the despotisms of early times, what did they make the change fori You said that habit kept them a great while from trying to make a change. "Yes, but they probably grew tired of that sort of a government." And why? "Oh, for one reason, they may have felt that a government by the people was a nobler form of governfnent, and that there was more dignity in self-government on the part of the people, than when they had to obey one ruler." But is that the only reason you can think of ? "No, they may have disliked their governors or rules." Why ? I keep asking. "Because the rulers may have been despotic." Yes, but I must remind you that you told me they were despotic to begin with. "True, but being despotic may have come to mean something else than just being rulers." In what way, for instance? "Oh, the rulers they had may THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 397 have been cruel in their government ; they may not have been kind to the people always ; they may have injured the people and made conditions worse than if there were no government at all." But why did that happen? Would you assume, for instance, that where one person has complete con- trol over others, he is liable to carry his authority too far, to "domineer," as we say? "Yes, that may be human nature," you admit. It is a sad fact that what you assert is true. Even among boys and girls, for example, where one of them is in a position to control the other, the one in control will often be most unkind, harsh, selfish, and think rather of his own pleasure than of the good of the one he has control over. How, then, do you suppose it turned out with early governments? What was the great feature that made them bad forms of despotism ? Would it be where the ruler tried to govern in the interests of everybody, for the interest of the whole state, or where he governed just to' please himself? "Beyond any doubt, it would be where the rulers gave themselves over to thinking only about their own pleasures." Yes, it is probably true that great despotisms broke down in early times chiefly where the despots thought little about governing, and gave themselves over to amusing themselves." But suppose a ruler were inclined to be despotic, in what ways could he show that spirit ? How might he be cruel, for instance? "Why, he might be careless about the lives of his subjects, causing the deaths of hundreds or thou- sands of his people." You are right. Bad despots usually have been careless about human life. The rulers of such states have been thoughtless or cruel in regard to the lives of their subjects. In what other way, however, could a ruler be 398 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. despotic even if he respected the lives of the people in his state? "Oh, he might steal or destroy the prop- erty of the people; he might treat them as slaves, and not allow them freedom of any kind in their actions." But in early days when despotisms grew so bad and other forms of government developed, how do you suppose the changes were brought about? Do you think the people got together and talked the matter over and decided to have another form of government, and then quietly went to work to adopt new laws and to change their rulers ? "You doubt if it took place in that way?" Why not? "Because the rulers or despots would not al- low anything of that kind." Then what happened? "Why," you tell me, "probably there had to be wars." And what would that involve for the people? "Oh, it would mean that the people would have to suffer a great deal, thousands of them would have to die." So you assume, then, that freedom on the part of the people was not secured just by asking for it? "No," you assert, "thousands of people had to die for it." How was it, for instance, with the republicans in early times ? You have heard about Rome when it was a republic before the days of the Caesars. "Yes?" And do you know how it came to be a republic? Had it had that sort of a government always, before the Caesars came? "You cannot say?" Well, I can assure you that we know something about the early days of Rome, and we know that there had been a despotism there, before a nepublican form of government. It was ruled over by kings called the Tarquins. I wonder if you have ever heard of Lucretia, the THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 399 daughter of one of the citizens of Rome in those early times? Note to the Teacher : At this point, we might tell the young people something about the story of Lucretia and the expul- sion of the Tarquins. You can do it in a delicate way with- out explaining too much and yet giving the main points of the tragedy. Get the account from the encyclopedias or from any good history of Rome. While we know that the exact story may not be accurate history, we are sure that some- thing of the kind must have taken place, so that the account can be told as a tradition, illustrating how people win their freedom and why it is they are driven to rise against their rulers, and what has led people to take the government into their own hands. It is not necessary in these accounts to explain to what extent the new governments were only partly republics. The main point to be brought out is, that suffering citizens rose up, risked their lives, and took the government in their own hands; that the sovereignty of the people only came through terrible struggle and hardships. When such changes take place in the history of a state, what do we usually call them? How do we describe the war between this country and England which came after the Declaration of Independence? "The Revolutionary War?" And why does it have that name? "Because," you explain, "it meant a revolution in the form of government, by which the people over here took th,e power in their own hands and refused any longer to be governed by the king of England." And did it cost much, that war, do you suppose ? Was it an easy matter to bring about that Revolu- tion? Did our country get its freedom just by the Declaration of Independence? "No, it cost thousands of lives and a great deal of suffering." What is it, then, that v^re call these changes in government which are so important? "Revolutions?" Yes. And do you know what has been considered the greatest revolution in the world since early times, the one most written and talked about, the one which 400 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. has probably brought about more changes in the world than any other ? "The American Revolution?" No, not that. What was the great change that took place over in Europe not many years after the Declaration of In- dependence in this country? "The French Revolu- tion?" True, I have in mind the French Revolution. And what was it a revolution against? "Oh, it must have been a revolution on the part of the people against the despotism of their kings." You are right. You can have little idea of the awful sufferings which the people of that country had undergone for two hundred years and more. Immense numbers of them had been starved to death or imprisoned or beaten, or had their property taken away from them, and finally they rose in awful rebel- Uon ; and before the great revolution was over it had cost probably over a million lives. Note to the Teacher: You might give a graphic descrip- tion, if you wish, of the conditions in France leading to the French Revolution, and some figures as to the number of people who perished during that time. It is not necessary to describe the details of the revolution itself and its partial failure. You can mention, however, a few of the incidents in French history during the igth century, showing what a period of time has been required for that country to settle down under a republican form of government. The main point is to bring out the great facts in regard to the struggle for freedom on the part of the people, and what the human race has had to endure in order that the people might have freedom. Do you think it always happens, however, that freedom or at least some freedom only comes to a people through bloodshed or war? "It would look that way," you confess. And yet there is one remarkable instance in the nineteenth century of a change that was brought about without bloodshed. What country over in THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 4OI Europe is regarded as the chief center of despotism ? "Russia?" And have you ever heard of the serfs there? "Yes, they were the peasants who tilled the soil." But do you know that for hundreds of years all those peasants in that country had to stay right where they were born ; no peasant was free to leave his home or go away ; he was held to that spot and to that extent a slave. It so happened, however, that one of the Czars of Russia decided that he would make a change of his own free will; and without any bloodshed or war, he set the serfs free. He did not give them a share in the government ; the country is still a "despotism," as we say; but the people are no longer serfs held forever to the soil ; they are free to come and go like other people. Note to the Teacher: The extraordinary case of Japan might also be introduced here, with some account of its recent history. We have said that freedom has usually been won by an uprising on the part of the people who were ruled over despotically ; we have found out how they have usually won their freedom at the cost of an immense number of lives and an enormous amount of suffering. But has it always been true that downtrodden people have rescued themselves or set themselves free, when they have received their freedom ? "No, it may be that people have been slaves and been set free by other people." And where has this happened, do you know? "In our own country," you answer, "in the great Civil War." And who were the ones to set the colored people free in the South, liberating them from their slavery? "The people of the North?" 402 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. By the way, when people have risen up, had a revolution, overthrown the despotism of their coun- try, set themselves free and established a republic, have they always kept their new form of govern- ment? Does it ever happen that there is a relapse into monarchy again? "You do not know?" It is a sorrowful fact, but true nevertheless, that this has happened over and over again. You will find out more and more about it when you come to read further in history. On the other hand, when people have had a repub- lican form of government for themselves, they would also be willing to let other countries enjoy the same privilege, would they not ? They would never inter- fere with the freedom of people elsewhere or under- take to control the government of other people. "You are not so sure about that ?" And why not ? "Because," you point out, "the facts of history are not in accord with such a statement." And what republics, I ask, have ever tyrannized over other people? "Why, Athens, for instance, in the old days of the Greek Republic; and Rome, even when it was supposed to be a republic ; they both tyrannized over other people, just the same." Yes, I am sorry to say you are right. It has hap- pened again and again that people who have had freedom for themselves and a republican form of government, yet have exercised great tyranny over other people and were despotic in the extreme. And why do you suppose this is the case? Is it right? "No," you hesitate, "but it is natural." And why do you think so ? "Because people like to have power and to use it; even where they may be free themselves, it may take time for them to become willing to let other people also have the same free- dom." THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 4O3 But don't you think that all persons who' have acquired freedom for themselves in their own gov- ernment, ought to try to foster, where it is possible, the same general type of government elsewhere in the world ? "Yes, surely !" This great change which has been slowly going on in the world for these thousands of years, has been the transformation from despotism to what — would you say? Can you suggest one word begin- ning with D ? "Democracy ?" Yes, we may put it down as the change from des- potism to democracy; and the government of the latter kind is of the republican form. I wonder, by the way, if you know the origin of that word. Democracy. It is a big word made up of two others which existed separately in former times. Do you know what they were? "No?" Well, I can tell you. The first part comes from the word Demos, mean- ing "people," a Greek word, as the scholars would tell you; and the second half of it from another Greek word meaning "rule" or "strengthi." And so you see how it came to mean the rule of the people. The word republican, on the other hand, as you may know, is from the Latin, the old speech of the Romans, made up of two words, "res" meaning things, and "publica," an adjective suggesting about the same thought as our word public. The sense, therefore, as you observe, is "public things." The origin and meaning of these two words, therefore, is worth knowing, because they have been so important in the history of the human race. But perhaps we have talked enough at this time about the Struggle for Freedom. Fomta of tha Lesson. I. That government in earliest times was probably every- where a form of tyranny. 404 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. II. That self-government for the people in those days would have been a failure, because it was the childhood of the world. III. That despotism at the start may have been a good thing, in order to develop the habit of obedience. IV. That government did not come in at first by any "contract" or conscious deliberation, but more often, prob- ably, through the desire for power on the part of certain men. V. That government kept that despotic form for a long while because human beings are creatures of habit, and they were inclined to make the best of things rather than bring about a change. VI. That a change came when the tyranny or cruelty of rulers grew more severe and the people began to rebel. VII. That the changes did not come simply by an act of will or a series of resolutions on the part of the people, but through great struggles and sacrifices. VIII. That the human race had to acquire its freedom by revolution and the sacrifice of thousands of lives. IX. That the acquisition of freedom has been a very slow process over long periods of time. X. That this fact may have led people to value their freedom all the more. XL That it is possible for people to acquire their free- dom and then relapse under a monarchy again. XII. That some people have acquired freedom for them- selves and yet tyrannized over other people. Duties. /. People ought first to endeavor to acquire freedom by an appeal to reason before they resort to force. II. People ought not to resort to force in order to get more freedom, until they have tried every other means. III. People ought to endeavor to secure freedom, when it is possible., by evolution rather than revo- lution. IV. People who have acquired freedom for themselves ought to foster the same spirit elsewhere and not under any circumstances exercise tyranny over other people. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 4OS Foem. Like lightning's flash Upon the foe We burst, and laid Their glories low ! Like mountain-floods We on them came — Like withering blast Of scorching flame, Like hurricane Upon the sea — Shout, shout again, Shout, we are free. We struck for God — We struck for life — We struck for sire — We struck for wife — We struck for home — We struck for all That man doth lose By bearing thrall I We struck 'gainst chains. For Liberty! Now, for our pains. Shout, we are free. Give to the slain A sigh — a tear; A curse to those Who spoke of fear! Then eat your bread In peace; for now The tyrant's pride Is lying low! His strength is broken — His minions flee — The Voice hath spoken — Shout, we are free. ■ — Robert Nicholl. Story: Waslilnston at Valley rorg'e. In talking about the history of government, I suppose each person will be led to think about the kind of government in the country where he lives ; and we think of those who did the most in order that the people should have our present form of government. We all know what kind of a state or nation or government exists in the United States of America. And I suppose if we were asked to name the one man to whom we owe this more than any other one, we should all 406 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. mention Washington. But one trouble is that people have a way of talking about this man without knowing enough con- cerning him. They just think of him as a General in the Revolutionary War, or as the first President of the United States ; but oftentimes they do not feel as if he had been a real live man like other people. Perhaps it does not occur to you that it was hard for Vv''ashington to resist temptation or that he did anything remarkable in being the kind of man he was. We are given to looking upon all of this as a mat- ter of course, just because it was Washington. And yet beyond any doubt he might have changed the whole course of events in this country if he had chosen to do so. I believe he might have become king and established a king- dom here instead of a republic. Almost always in the past when men have risen to great power, this is just what they have done. They have made themselves the rulers or kings over the people. But speaking of Washington makes me want to ask you whether you have ever thought of the one time in his whole life which most interests you, or when he showed himself the greatest or truest man. I suppose a great many persons would think of him when winning some great battle, or when presiding over the assembly which prepared the Constitution of the United States, or of the time when he was President. But I am going to tell you of the time in his life which most appeals to me, or which most touches my heart. I am not always so much interested in men just when they happen to be very successful or just when they are winning some great victory, or when all the people are talking about them and praising them. For my part, I like to watch people and see how they conduct themselves when they have to stand alone, when everything seems to be going against them, and when they have every reason to be discouraged and disheart- ened. Then it becomes exceedingly interesting to watch how men behave, although it is very sad, alas, to observe how certain men counted strong and brave, lose all their courage at such times. There is nothing much harder for a man to endure, than to have people hate him or talk against him, especially when he has been trying to serve them. Now, as you know, there was a time in the life of Wash- ington when he had to go through all this ; when, in fact, he was very unpopular with a great many of the people of this country; when even the other leaders began to look down on him and think he was a failure, and when they even thought of putting another man in his place. It was in the darkest days of the Revolutionary War, when the people themselves were discouraged and when it looked as though the war might be a failure. And now when they fell into that mood they began to lay the blame on Washington rather than on them- selves. Washington had not been able to win any great THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. i,0^ victories for a time; he did not have food enough for his soldiers, or clothes enough for them to wear. I am thinking, you know, of that sad winter at Valley Forge. It is a painful story in the history of our country. You know how the soldiers in the winter camps were starving for food and freezing to death for lack of clothing. You have been told how many of them sat up all night around the camp-fire to keep warm; you have heard how they left the tracks of blood on the cold ground from their bare feet; and you know how at this time a plot had been started to replace Washington and establish another leader over the army. If ever there has been a time when a man had a right to be sick at heart, it was that winter in the life of this man Wash- ington. If he had lost his courage then, I do not think there is any doubt but that the war of the Revolution would have been lost and the American Republic would not have been established at that time. It seemed to have been almost like one man holding up the hopes and courage of all the people. Just think of the ingratitude of it all and how it must have stung the heart of Washington when he had struggled so hard and made such sacrifices. Even the people whom he had loved and been laboring and fighting for were the ones now who had turned against him. I almost wonder that he did not give up then and there, go back to his home and let things take their own course. It was not only for a day that he had to go through this, but for the whole winter. He had to see all the suffer- ing of his own soldiers, to know that it was not necessary, and yet to go through this day after day and week after week. While the soldiers would be sitting around the camp-fire to keep warm, he would be passing sleepless nights sitting at his table writing urgent letters to Congress beseeching them to come to his aid. Had his courage failed at that moment, our cause, I believe, would have been lost. For my own part, when I look at the face of Washington, when I study those strong features, look into those eyes, see those firm lips, I always think of Valley Forge. And when I think of him as the Father of his Country, as I have said, I do not think of him in his uniform as General or in his stately garb as President. He does not come to me in those early days when his name was on everybody's lips and all the people were shouting his praises. No, I think of him at the time when he was standing alone, when it depended on this one man's courage whether there should be a new nation and a new form of government in America. It was because of Valley Forge, to my mind, that Washington is to be looked upon as the Father of his Country. He must have loved the people then, as a father loves his children ; and what is more, he must have been _ able to_ look into the distant future and see what was coming, while his heart stood firm and un- moved. Look at his face now, will you, and say over with 408 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. me the lines of a beautiful poem written by one who also loved this country of ours. "Count me o'er earth's chosen heroes, — They were souls that stood alone, While the men they agonized for hurled The contumelious stone. Stood serene, and down the future saw The golden beam incline. To the side of perfect j ustice, mastered By their faith divine. By one man's plain truth to manhood And to God's supreme design." Not many persons nowadays, I fancy, would suppose that these lines apply to our Washington, and that there was a time when he had to stand alone, when few people cared for him, and when his country doubted him, and when they were blaming him, while the blame really should have fallen upon themselves. Of all forms of government, nowadays, most of us believe in a republic, a government where the people rule themselves, where they make their own laws and control their own destiny. And we have just such a republic in this country, where we live and work as a free people ; and when you think what a privilege it must be that we can choose our own leaders and make our own laws, let your minds run back to those times when people were offering up their lives in this cause in order that such a republic might exist on our soil. And in thinking of those days and the times when the greatest battle was fought, I should not dwell on the days when shots were fired and armies stood in array against each other; but I should rather think of that solemn battle being fought out in one man's heart during those dreary days in the winter at Valley Forge. Then it was, and not in the victory of any celebrated battle, that Washington became the true Father of his Country. Classic for Beading' or Secltatlon. "Liberty is order; Liberty is strength. Look around the world and admire, as you must, the instructive spectacle. You will see that liberty not only is power and order, but that it is power and order predominant, invincible, — that it derides all other sources of strength. Shall the preposterous imagination be fostered, that men bred in Liberty, — the first of human kind who asserted the glorious distinction of forming for themselves their social THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 4O9 compact, — can be condemned to silence upon their rightsf Is it to be conceived that men, who have enjoyed, for such length of days, the light and happiness of freedom, can be restrained and shut up again in the gloom of ignorance and degradation? As well might you try, by a miserable dam, to shut off the -flowing of a mighty river. The rolling and impetuous tide would burst through every impedi- ment that man might throw in its way; and the only consequence of the impotent attempt would be, that having collected new force by its temporary suspen- sion, enforcing itself through new channels, it would spread devastation and ruin on every side. The progress of Liberty is like the progress of a stream. Kept within its bounds, it is there to fertilise the country through which it runs; but no power can arrest it in its passage; and short-sighted as well as wicked must be the heart of the projector who zvould strive to divert its course." — Charles I. Fox. FnrtlieT Sugg'estlons to tlie Teacher, You could make this lesson much more interesting by going into details of history, which you can get from encyclopedias or either popular sources. You might give three or four examples of the struggle for freedom on the part oif the people. In the story of despotisms, it would be well to give an account of "William Tell." If you have the time, you might read Schiller's Play on that subject, before taking it up with the pupils. Although the story itself is not now recognized as history, yet the young people must understand that legends or traditions of that kind are true in another way. Such stories show what might have happened, and are as g'ood for illustrative material as real history. Our purpose in this lesson is manifestly not sO' much toi arouse 410 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. yearnings far more freedom among the people of our own country, but rather to encourage a feeling of regard for the struggles on the part of the human race in the past. Young people should be made to appreciate what this privilege oi freedom which we may possess today, has cost in past times. CHAPTER XXVII. THE "ship of state." Memory Gem — "Stand for the right till the nations shall own Freedom their sovereign, with Law for her throne.'' — Oliver Wendell Holmes. May I read to you a few lines today from a beautiful poem, because we may go back now and dwell a little more on what love of city or love of country can mean? Probably most of you have heard these lines before, but I wish you would listen to them very carefully. Here they are: "Thou, too, sail on, O Ship of State ! Sail on, O UNION, strong and great! Humanity with all its fears, With all the hopes of future years. Is hanging breathless on thy fate ! We know what Master laid thy keel. What Workmen wrought thy ribs of steel. Who made each mast, and sail, and rope. What anvils rang, what hammers beat, Iti what a forge and what a heat Were shaiped the anchors of thy hope ( Fear not each sudden sound and shock, 'Tis of the wave and not the rock; 'Tis but the flapping of the sail. And not a rent made by the gale ! In spite of rock and tempest's roar, In spite of false lights on the shore. Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea! Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee. Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears, Our faith triumphant o'er our fears, Are all with thee, — are all with thee !" Have you ever heard those lines before? "Yes," you answer, some of you, "we know them quite well." And who wrote them? "Longfellow?" 4" 412 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. In vhat poem do they occur ; what is the name of it, or the title of it; can you recall it? "The Building of the Ship?" And where do the lines occur, do you remember, at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end? "At the end?" But the "Ship of State" is not what Longfellow had been writing about, had he? What is it that he describes or dwells upon throughout most of the poem? "Why," you point out, "the way a ship is built and the way it is launched." You notice, then, how he seems to pass over to the other subject about the "Union?" And what Union does he refer to? "Oh, toi our own country, the United States of America 1" But how can he turn tO' the subject of the Ameri- can Union, when he has been talking about the build- ing and launching of a ship? "As to that," you suggest, "he sees a certain resemblance between ship^building, or the launching of a ship, and the way our country was shaped and has been devel- oped." Then what do you call such a passage in a poem? "Perhaps," you continue, "this would be called a figure of speech, where the poet, in talking about the American Union, speaks as if it were a "Ship of State." Did you ever see a ship being built or the launch- ing oif a vessel? "No?" But do you not think it must be very interesting? How long do you sup- pose it takes to build a great ship and how quickly can it be launched? We are taking these lines, as you see, as if they were a little poem by themselves, and separating them from the rest. What would you call the sub- ject of this Httle poem? "Our Country?" Yes, but what about our country; what sort of feeling for it? "Oh," you say, "love of country." THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 413 True, that is it. We are back once more to our first subject. Try now and analyze it a little. What does Long- fellow mean when he tells the Union to sail on? Does it move like a ship? "In a sense," you answer, "because it is going ahead, moving forward all the while as if it were a living thing." And why do you assume that the poet talks about "humanity" and all the world waiting anxiously as to what is going to be the fate of our country ? Why should the rest of the world care; can you see any reason for it? "Not very much ?" You think, then, doi you, that ) is rather vague? But what if he had put it the other way and spoken of the father hanging breath- less on the fate of his child; what would it imply? "Oh, that would be plain enough; the father wants his son to live and do some work in the world, to be of some value ; perhaps toi carry on the work which he himself has started." Now compare this with our own country. Do you fancy that a nation could "have a mission," as it were, just like an individual ; that it could have some great work to do of its own kind to which it is especially adapted? What is the great difference, for example, between our country and most other countries of the world; what is the difference in our form of government? "Why," you tell me, "we have a republican form of government; we do not have kings or an aris- tocracy such as th.ey have in the old world." And what does this imply for us as to the ones who are the rulers ? Who are supposed to rule our country? "The people?" Yes, the people. You would say, would you, that we have a different form of government, that we are trying a new system or a new method which has not been usual in former 414 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. times, in order to see whether the people can get along without having kings to rule over them? Suppose this government really succeeds, suppose our nation goes on living as a republican form of government for many hundreds of years to come; what do you assume will happen to those govern- ments which are monarchical in form? "Why," you continue, "probably they will give up having kings, and the people will undertake to manage the government and to establish a republic of some kind." But now, on the other hand, suppose we should fail; what if the people in trying to be their own governors, instead of having kings, should fall to quarreling, fighting one another, not obeying the laws which they themselves established, until finally the country went to pieces and there was no longer one nation here; then do you think other countries would try to have a republican form of government and let the people as a whole manage everything? "You doubt it ?" But why not? "Because if this country made a failure of it, that would perhaps show that such a kind of government might not be successful anywhere." Now doi you see what the poet means when he says that humanity or the whole world is hanging breathless on the fate of our country ? What is the sense of it all? "Why," you explain, "they are watching eagerly to see whether a government can be carried on safely, and whether a nation can prosper, where the people govern and where there are no kings, — perhaps because they all feel that this would be the better form of government if it could only be successful." If that is true, you see, then, there is a great deal in those three beautiful lines by Longfellow. Go on further. When he speaks about the "work- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 415 men," and what they had done in making the mast and the sail and rope, what does he imply by intro- ducing these objects; what da they stand for here; can you suggest any meaning for them? "Why," you point out, "it may mean our institu- tions." Yes, but that is a pretty big word. Use simpler language and mention some of the things which "mast, sail and rope" might stand for. "For instance," you suggest, "our laws, our ways of doing things, our Constitution, the special forms of our government, our courts, and all that sort of thing." And can you tell me what Longfellow has in mind in speaking about the "forge and the heat ?" "Why, a forge is a place where they shape or mould iron or steel." Then I fancy you know what anvils are; perhaps you have seen them. But what does the poet have in mind by the forge and the heat? To what epoch in our history does he refer? What great event ? "The Revolutionary War?" Yes, I assume you are right. And do you see why he speaks of the "heat" of that time? He does not mean the heat O'f the sun, surely ? "Oh, no," you smile. Well, what sense is there in that language? "As to that, it refers to the excite- ment that all of the people went through, how they had to suffer when that great war was going on and when our country was getting started." But do you think the poet could have had any- thing else in mind besides the Revolutionary War? How was it as a matter of history ? Did our nation really begin, as the United States of America, just after the Revolutionary War? "Yes?" What makes you believe so? "Why," you assure me, "after that, we were free from the government of England." True enough; but when the war was over, was there one nation 4l6 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. here ? You must find out about that if you do not know. As a matter of fact, after the war, it looked a little doubtful whether there would ever be one country here, or whether there would not be a num- ber of separate countries, each state working only for itself. Can you tell me of any other great epoch later on, that Longfellow may have had in mind, in speaking of the forge and the heat? What is the great document by which our nation lives and according to which it must govern ? "The Constitution?" Yes. And do you think it was an easy matter to bring that about? "You do not know?" Well, I can tell you that it was an awfully difficult matter, and that some of the people of our country in those days had to work very hard in order to prepare that Constitution, and then they had to work still harder in order to get the rest of the people to accept it, so that they could make Washington presi- dent. Hence you see "the forge" and "the heat" evi- dently point not only to the excitement and suffering of the Revolutionary War, but also to hard work in preparing a Constitution, getting it established, and having the people adopt a common form of govern- ment. And what persons does the poet refer to as the "workmen?" "Oh, the people who fought through the war and who prepared that Constitution." Yes, but can you name any oi them ; some of the leaders, for example? "Why," you tell me, "Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and a lot of others." I notice, however, that you speak only of men; do you not think th,e mothers had THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 417 anything to do with all this ? Were not the women also the workmen ? "But," you ask, "how could that happen; the women did not go to war ; they did not prepare the Constitution ?" Yes, but suppose there had been no women, no mothers to look after the homes; what if they had not made the awful sacrifices, living, many of them, almost at the point of starvation, and toiling very hard so that their husbands and chil- dren might be in the war or might work toi get the new government started, could that war have ever been carried through, or our nation ever have been established ? Then do you not think that the mothers or women should also be included in the "workmen ?" For my part, I do, most decidedly. Now let us go on a little further, talking about this beautiful poein. Longfellow speaks of the "sud- den sound and the shock;" and then you notice he tells us not to be afraid, to have hope, and calls it only the "flapping of the sails ;" he warns us that it is "the wave and not the rock." What does he suggest by the "sound and the shock?" "As to that," you point out, "perhaps it means the dangers we are afraid of when we become anxious or alarmed." Anxious over what? "Anxious," you explain, "lest something should happen to break the country apart or destroy it." And what are those "sounds and shocks ?" Suppose a person living in this coun- try were to attack the government and say that it was worthless and sure to be a failure? "That would be one of those sounds and shocks," you answer. But if so, why should Longfellow speak of it in that way and tell us not to be afraid of it ? "Because he wants us to have faith in ourselves, and to feel 4l8 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. that we, the citizens, control the Ship of State, and that when a few persons attack it in that way, they are just like a flapping of the sail and not really doing any great injury to the whole country." But what is it that keeps them from being an in- jury to the country? "Perhaps," your suggest, "because they are so few." Anything else? Sup- pose the rest of the citizens should just let them talk and did not say anything or do anything or show any care for the country, what would happen then? "Well," you continue, "in that case it might be- come worse; others might begin to talk in the same way and the feeling might spread." What is it, then, that makes Longfellow, feel that the state would not be in danger? "Oh, he assures us that there would be no danger because the rest of us would be so loyal and so de- voted to the country, that we would not let such attacks influence us or shake our faith in the future of the country." Now go on a little further in these lines. You recognize what the "rock and tempest's roar" im- plies? But what can he have in mind in speaking of the "false Hghts;" do you see any sense in that? Let me ask you, — what if some persons should propose laws for the country, certain changes whidi a good many at first would fancy as being of great service, but which really in the end would be very injurious ? You know that at every election, there are people proposing alterations in laws, "new legislation," as they call it. Some of those suggestions are sure to be bad, and many oi the wisest of the people realize how unfortunate it would be if such legislation were adopted. What if those wiser people whoi see the danger from such proposals, become discouraged and feel THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 419 that if we are always going to have these mistakes occurring, these bad proposals by the people, then there is no use working, the country will not survive, and we shall all go to pieces, and so that it does not make much difference what we do ? How would you feel with regard to such persons ? "At any rate," you answer, "they would not be very hopeful." But would you say that they were true to their country? "No, not quite?" What does Longfellow think with regard to them ? "Why, he reminds them that they should not be afraid, but that they should be glad to go ahead and breast the sea in spite of those false lights." You observe, then, that he wants us to keep up our courage all the time and never lose heart, in spite of mistakes which are sure to be made by many peo- ple. By the way, what would false lights mean, as a real thing; what sort of lights is he referring to? "Why, the light-houses along the coast." And what would the false lights in light-houses suggest ? "As to that, it would imply having a light which misled the sailors, causing them to think they were in one place when they really were in another, or which led the sailors to steer their ship in the wrong direction." Yes. And we do have plenty of such false lights in our republic and we shall always need to be on the lookout for them and keep up our faith and courage in spite of them. Come now to the last four lines. Read them over carefully. What does Longfellow mean by "Thee?" To whom is he referring? "Our country, of course," you say, "the Ship of State." And what would he have in mind in speaking of the "faith triumphant o'er our fears?" How can faith triumph; do you see any sense in that ? 420 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZKN. "Perhaps," you continue, "it means keeping up one's courage all the time, in spite of those false lights, or the dangers which always seem to threaten the future of our country." Yes, that is it ; we are to believe in our country just as we believe in our friends when we know that they are true, even if people sometimes say false things about thenx We have gone over this little poem pretty care- fully. I wish you would commit it to memory. Do not recite it boisterously, but just learn the words and say them over to yourself. Let us now read it over again carefully, and will you listen very closely while I read each line. Be sure that your understand every word and every suggestion here, Points of tlie Wesson. I. That a country, like an individual, may have a "mission" to fulfill. II. That other nations may be watching us to see whether we make a success of a republican form of government, before they venture to try it themselves. III. That our "mission" is to prove the worth of repub- lican institutions. IV. That some mistakes are inevitable with every form of government. V. That we must keep up our faith in our country and its government, in spite of these inevitable mistakes. VI. That all men and women as citizens are "workmen'' in building up the nation. Duties. /. We ought to think of our country as setting on example to the world, and to work for our country accordingly. II. We ought to have faith in the future of our country, and in the good it is to do for the world. story: Feilcles of Athens. Nowadays we talk about love of one's city almost in the same way as we talk of love of country. TTie city life has become so very important in the modern world, and so many people live in cities, that there is coming to be a great deal of what is called civic pride. Men work for their city THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 42 1 and its glory as they would work for the welfare or glory of their own families. It does not strike us as selfish to work for the glory of our city, as it would seem in working just for ourselves or one's own glory. I am saying this because I want to tell you of a hero of old, who loved his city with a passionate love just as many men love their wives, their children or their homes. I am not sure but this was the way love of country arose in early times. You see, before men had begun to care about their fellow-men everywhere, or think about the welfare of the whole human race, they began first to show a wider interest or greater feeling of tenderness for the clan to which they belonged or for the city where they lived. The man I have to tell you about was a great statesmaii. By some people he is thought to have been the greatest states- man who has ever lived. He must have been a man of large mind and wonderful insight. I can almost fancy that you know to what city he belonged, when I tell you that he was not a man of our times, but one of the heroes of old. I call him a hero, although his great work was not so much that of a soldier. It was to the beautiful and glorious city of Athens, in the time of Socrates, that my hero devoted him- self, and his name was Pericles. I am almost inclined to think that the city of Athens, in so far as its greatness and glory was concerned, owed more to this man than to any other one of its citizens during the days of its renown. I suppose you have heard of the Parthenon, the most beautiful building that was ever erected. And Athens owed the Parthenon to the efforts of this statesman, Pericles. I am quite sure that you must have heard something about the wonderful dramas of ancient Greece; the theatre there. The plays which the poets of that time wrote are rivaled only by the dramas of our own great poet, Shakespeare. And the success of that won- derful theatre was in part due to the fostering care of this man, Pericles. When he was a boy he had gone through a wonderful experience. You reftiember how Xerxes, the great king from the far East, came with five hundred thousand men in order to conquer Europe. And there was the little country of Greece which stood in the way; and Athens, then a small city, was the first to bear the brunt of his attack. The citizens left their homes and went down to the sea, knowing that their city would be utterly destroyed, yet determined at any rate to take to their vessels and give fight to the army of Xerxes on the water. They knew that they could not give fight to any five hundred thousand soldiers on land. They saw the smoke of their homes ascending to the skies, as their whole city was consumed in ashes. But on the other hand, they won the great battle of Salamis on the sea, by which all that great army of five hundred thousand men along 422 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. with Xerxes, their king, were turned back, so that Europe was saved from the invader. And then the citizens of Athens returned, but not to their homes, for their homes were no longer there. They had to build their city over again; but they set to work with heart and will, and Pericles the boy must have seen all this, felt the fire of that enthusiasm and caught its glow. He belonged to one of the wealthiest families and one of the most famous of that great and famous city. It was known as the family of the Alkmeonidse. Although the house and home of Pericles had been destroyed at that time, prob- ably the wealth of his family lay outside of the city and had not been much impaired. When he grew to manhood there were two courses open to him. He might side with the old conservative and wealthy families of Athens, holding with the aristocracy. Or, on the other hand, he might take up the cause of the people, working for their interests, striving to give them greater freedom, more privileges, more chances for culture and education, more control in the affairs of the city. As we know, this great statesman chose the cause of the people. He took their side and worked in their interest. What he seemed to have cared for more than anything else was the glory of his city, Athens. It was for this that he lived and for this that he died. In that cause he was willing to risk his life, his wealth, all that he had. He wanted to make each man in that city look upon it as the most glorious thing in the world to be a citizen of Athens. Nowadays, to be sure, we believe that there are higher things than this. But we must remember that we are talking of two thousand years ago, and then it was a tremendous step in advance for men to give up their own interests and merge all that was dearest to themselves in the cause of their city. Out of this spirit was to come love of country, and then, by and by, love and care for the whole human race. Pericles set to work in the first place, as I have told you, to give the people a larger control in the affairs of the city. His first course was to cultivate the citizens, make them feel their dignity, lead them to care for more education, arousing in them a high sense of civic pride, so that they should have the same devotion to Athens which thrilled the heart of Pericles. For a time, naturally, the people made him their leader and were willing to do whatever he proposed. The wealth which came into the city he used with their consent for building beautiful temples and a great theatre, in order to foster poetry and the drama. He was the friend of poets, sculptors, archi- tects and philosophers. They all gathered around him as a leader, forming a galaxy of some of the greatest men that ever lived. He was also a good soldier and general, going out to war when he had to do so, in the cause of his city. The duties of A citizen. 423 By the time he was in middle life he began to see the tesults of his eflforts. The great Parthenon was coming to completion, sculptors were decorating the city with most beau- tiful marble statues, painters were decorating the temples, and poets arousing the greatest enthusiasm with their lyrics and their dramas. He taught the people to care less about having luxuries for their own homes or having beautiful houses all for themselves. Instead of that, he encouraged them to care rather to have beautiful buildings for the whole city, so that they could all feel that they had a share in those temples, those statues and that poetry. They were to feel that their true house and home was Athens, and not the dwelling where they lived. Pericles was a striking man in almost every way. He always went about the city wearing a helmet, because of the peculiar shape of his head, which he felt would have been a disfigure- ment to the eyes of others. And so in the portraits of him which have come down to us one always sees him wearing this helmet. I suppose this is what we should think of as a "human side" to him. And this, perhaps, was a slight touch of personal sensitiveness or vanity on the part of Pericles in spite of his greatness. I am sorry to say that at one time, as has often happened in the world's history, the people for whom he labored turned against Pericles and became angry with him. It may be that other leaders were jealous of him. They accused him of squandering the funds of the city by extravagance in spend- ing so much money on those beautiful buildings, especially the Parthenon. And I want to tell you how he met the accusation. He stood before the people facing their fury and said to them: "You may have your choice: If you prefer, I will pay for this structure out of my own wealth ; but on the building shall be the name of Pericles instead of the name of the citizens of Athens." That was enough. It settled the matter once for all. The whole city cried out, "Gro on with the Parthenon and put our name on its walls." About the time when he reached middle life a great war came on between Athens and the South of Greece. It seems that the other cities of Greece had become jealous of Athens and determined to conquer it and put a check upon its great name and glory. Pericles had to assume the leadership in defence of the city. He laid out a plan which involved great sacrifices on the part of the people, but by which he hoped the city of Athens would come out triumphant once for all. He proposed that the people around Athens should come into the city itself and that they should hold off the invader by means of a great wall, while they fought other battles by sea, thus wearing out the patience of the attacking army. At first the army of Athens was brilliantly successful, and shortly after the first campaign, as was customary, they held 424 THE iSUTIES OF A CITIZEN. a memorial service in Athens over the dead who had faUen in their country's cause. Pericles had to make the memorial address. It was a wonderful discourse and perhaps as famous an address as has ever been given at any time anywhere m the world. In that speech he fired the hearts of the citizens with new love for Athens. He told them what was his ideal and what he had been working for. I want to read to you a part of that great memorial address. It is so simple and_ yet so grand. We have already had one selection from it in a previous lesson. I wish it were possible for you all to know it by heart. It was spoken in the open air with Pericles standing out on a rock and the throng of citizens, the men and women of Athens, gathered around him. And with this we will close our story, as we read you a part of this speech. Classic for Beading' or Keclta-tiou— by Pericles. "Such is the city for whose sake these men nobly fought and died; they could not bear the thought that she might be taken from them; and every one of us who survive shoidd gladly toil on her behalf. * 1? * jfi magnifying the city, I have magnified them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious. * * Methinks that a death such as theirs has been, gives the true measure of a man's worth; it may be the first revelation of his virtues, but is, at any rate, their final seal. * * * None of these men were enervated by wealth, or hesitated to resign the pleasures of life. * * * When the moment carme they were minded to resist and suffer, rather than to fiy and save their lives; * * * Such was the end of these men; they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire to have a more heroic spirit, although they may pray for a less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be ex- pressed in words. Anyone can discourse to you for- ever about the advantages of a brave defence zvhich you know already. But instead of listening to him, I would have you day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens, until you become filled with the love of her; and when you are impressed by the spectacle of her glory, reflect that this empire has THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 42^ beeti acquired by men who knew their duty and had the courage to do it; who in the hour of conflict had the fear of dishonor always present to them, and who, if ever they failed in an enterprise, would not allow their virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their lives to her as the fairest offering zvhich they could present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively made zvas individually repaid to them; for they received again each one for him- self a praise which grows not old, and the noblest of all sepulchres. * * * For the whole earth is the sepulchre of famous men." rnrtlier Sng'srestlons to the Teacher. This lesson is introduced in order tO' touch once more on the sentiment of Citizenship. The teacher, however, could omit it altogether if he prefers. Every now and then it is impartant to revert to the feeling-side of the whole subject. A number of such selections could be employed from time to time. On the other hand, in the analysis, be very careful not to hack the poem or verses too much to pieces. Do not let it be recited over and over again until it becomes tiresome. It is important that the pupils should like this poem as much when they grow up as when they are young. If desired, you could turn and apply the whole poem to one's city as well as one's country. But perhaps for such a purpose an- other selection might be used later on. Have them recite slowly and quietly together at the close of the lesson the last four lines. You may desire to make the theme concrete by presenting a picture of some great ocean steamship, also a portrait of Longfellow. But if you introduce the picture of an ocean vessel, then contrast it with some patriotic scence which will emphasize the symbolism of the theme. CHAPTER XXVIII. THE FUTURE INDUSTRIAL STATE. Memory Gem — "Of law there can he no less acknowledged, than that her seat is the bosom of God, her voice the har- money of the world, all things in heaven and earth do her homage, the very least as feeling her care, and the greatest as not exempted from her power, both angels and men and creatures of what condition soever, though each in different sort and manner, yet all with uniform consent, admire her as the mother of their peace and joy." — Richard Hooker. Dialogae. Perhaps now you will be interested in consider- ing another extraordinary change which has taken place in the character of states, more especially in modern times — I mean in regard to what states exist for, or what they especially do, or what keeps their governments busy. Suppose a citizen of Athens or Rome, who had been living two thousand years ago, should come back to life again and should be walking through the streets of one of our cities, how would it strike him, would you say? "It would seem strange enough!" you exclaim. Yes, and I wonder what would appear to him as the strangest thing of all. If he went out on a hill and looked down over the city, what would he notice first? "The smoke?" But why so ; he would have been used to smoke two thousand years ago? "Not of that kind?" What, then, would be his first question ? "He would ask what that smoke was, what made it, what it was for, where it came from." And how should we answer him, would you say? "As to that," you continue, "we should tdl him that 4^ THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 427 it came from coal, that it was coal smoke." But would that be a novelty to him ? "Yes, they did not use coal in those days." But the coal was in the earth, was it not? "True, but they had not discovered it." Would his questions stop there? It might be a warm day, for instance, and he would ask, "Why do you have all that smoke on a hot day? You do not need a fire." And how would you answer him? "Why, we should say, 'Yes, but the fires are needed to run the machinery.' " "Machinery !" he would exclaim, "what is that?" You see, he evi- dently would not know much about machinery, and you would have to tell him what it meant. Then he would continue, "True, but what has fire or smoke to do with a machine?" "Oh," you tell him, "the fire boils the water and makes the steam and the steam runs the machine." And would he say to you, "I knew that already; any one ought to know that ?" "No?" But why not? "Because they knew noth- ing about the use of steam' in Athens or Rome two thousand years ago, as a means for running machin- ery. Then what would be the great contrast he would observe between his city and ours? "Why, the machinery and the use of steam." In what way do we apply this in describing the age in which we live; wha.t do we call it? "The age of steam?" No, not quite that; it has some- thing to dO' with industry. "The Industrial Age?" Yes. What if some two thousand years ago or more, in the time of Socrates, for instance, they had begun to have factories and machinery, would the experi- ment have been successful, do you suppose; could they have gone on building up a great city with 428 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. huge factories and all kinds of machines, if they had once begun to find the secret of the process? "You do not see why not?" But think, now. Have we said anything about the life of the people in early times in the great cities, or the early states, contrasted with the life of to-day ? What did the cit- izens have to be, as servants of their country ? "Be soldiers and go to war?" Yes, surely. But we must have soldiers nowadays, must we not? "True," you answer, "but not to the same extent." Then suppose, just at the time when they had been making their machinery and starting their fac- tories in Athens, an army should have come along, rushed in and burned down the city, where would have been the machinery and the factories? "In ashes ?" Yes, I suspect so. In the old days in their life as citizens, what did they first have tO' think about — machinery, factories, industrialism? "No," you reply, "they had to think about being soldiers and about war." But how do we describe that condition of affairs; what sort of a state would it suggest? A word beginning with "M" is what I have in mind. "A military state?" Yes, quite so. But besides that, what if in the republic of Athens the people had come together to make laws ; what problems would they have had to consider in their assemblies, more than anything else, doi you think? "About soldiers and warfare?" Yes; at that time, in so far as the people discussed matters in assemblies, it was largely, I fancy, about making wars or carrying on war, attacking other states, or defending themselves from other states. And what sort of conditions would go with that kind of a state, the military state, as you have called it ? For instance, do you assume that citizens would have been just as free under those circumstances to THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 439 go about and attend to their own aflfairs ? "O'h, no," you answer, "quite the contrary ; they would have to be in the service of the state all the time, ready to go to war at any moment." Then it would look as if somehow in those early military states, a man just belonged toi the state and scarcely belonged to himself at all ; it would be just as if he were owned by the state like a slave. More than that, if the citizens had tO' be going to war continually and giving all their time and attention to military affairs, who would dO' the work ? "Why, pro:bably they would have slaves." Yes, that is true; in the old military states, even where they had what we call a government by the peo^ pie, as you know, they also had slaves, a great num- ber of them, to do the hard work. Do you see the difference, then, in such a military state, how the citizens would be like slaves owned by the state, and the hard work would be done by other people as slaves owned by the citizens; and yet it might be what they called a republic, a sovereignty of the people? Contrast all this, with the conditions nowadays. Do we feel as if we were owned by the state, just like slaves? "No, quite the contrary," you assert; "we belong to the state, but we are free to do as we please in a great many ways ; besides that, we can control the affairs of the state, as free citizens." And whoi do the hard work nowadays, — slaves, for instance? "No, the citizens work, and there are no slaves in civilized countries." What do you assume, more than anything else, has brought this about? "Oh, it may be because there are fewer wars nowadays." Yes, and what else? How do we describe the present age? "As the Industrial Age?" True. Now, for instance, if you were to attend the sessions of Congress at Washing- 430 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. ton for a whole winter, what do you suppose the talk would be about, the legislation, or the new laws that are being passed, — would it be for the most part, about war and military affairs, soldiers, and things like that? "Oh, no, quite the contrary," you say, "that would be the exception and not the rule." What, then, do you fancy, would be the subject talked about in mak- ing new laws ? "Why," you answer, "the industrial life, com- merce." Yes, quite so'j a good deal of the legislation in our states in modern times has to do', not with war or military affairs, but rather with industry, the industrial life, the commerce which is being car- ried on by the people. Then how would you describe the state or nation to-day as contrasted with the state or nation in early times ? You called the early type the "military" one ; what would you call the state of to-day ? You have already suggested the term in describing the age in which we are living. "The Industrial state?" And I wonder if you have an idea what brought about the industrial state. "Oh," you tell me, "that point has already been answered : it is because there are fewer wars nowadays, and because of the use of steam' and the invention of machinery." Do you know when the change took place ? Whose name is most prominently connected with the inven- tion of the steam-engine? I think you must have heard it. "Yes," you say, "it was James Watt." True, and when did he live? "You do not quite know ?" I am surprised at that ; the change brought about l5y that invention is considered the most important, perhaps, in the histoiy of the world. You know the date of our Declaration of Independence ? "Oh yes," THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 43 1 you smile, "1776." Well, it was just eleven years before that time, when Watts made his discovery. And do you know in what country he lived ? Was he an American? "No," you answer, "he was a Scotchman." True, he v/as a working engineer at Glasgow, a plain man of the people, as you see. We speak of him as having invented the steam- engine, although, it is not quite correct tO' put it in that way. There had been engines worked by steam before that, but they had not amounted to much, and perhaps never would have amounted to much if it had not been for the great and important discov- ery by this man. Do you know how the discovery came tO' him? "No?" Why, it seemed to have jumped into hiis mind all at once. He had been wondering quite a long while, why the crude old steam engine was of so little service. He went out one Sunday afternoon for a walk, and was crossing the "Green" in Glas- gow, when all at once the idea came to him how to make a steam engine that would be of service to the world. Then, as you know, along with the steam-engine, came the invention of new machinery, and in th,e course of twenty-five or thirty years, the whole world was changed. There followed the locomotive, trans- forming the world of commerce. Who invented the locomotive, by the way? "George Stevenson?" True, and where did he live? "Why, in Great Britain?" Yes, and what about the steamboat or steamship? "Oh, that was invented by an American, Robert Fulton," you answer. But do you suppose that if these discoveries had been made, as I said, two thousand years ago, they would have transformed the world then? "Perhaps not," you reply. 432 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Why not ? I ask. "Because," you tell me, "as we have explained before, we have a different kind of state now, with fewer wars, more settled conditioins, with a chance to have more legislation concerning the industrial life oi the country." Yes, probably the two changes influenced each other; the new kind of state which was coming, made it possible for industrial life to develop. But besides that, the new industrial life altered the type of the state. You see, great men who in early times would have given all their energies to war and fight- ing, now, instead, turned their thoughts to industry and commerce. With what, then, shall we connect this rise of the industrial state? "Why, withi the theme of the previ- ous lesson," you suggest, "with the rise of the peoi- ple." Yes, I think they go together ; the state of the future probably will be the Industrial State. But what about soldiers and war, will there be any military state left, do you fancy? "Something of it," you answer, "but not so much." I suppose you are right ; we may continue to have wars for a long while to come, but not so many of them ; and they will not be conducted in the way wars used to be conducted. For instance, in the old days, if there was a war between two countries, do you know what used to happen when one people conquered another people? What did they do to the towns or villages or cities of the countries they had conquered? "Burned them down or destroyed them?" Yes, alas, that was the old custom. But would that happen nowadays in war? "Not unless it was necessary," you explain. Quite true; and that, you observe, makes a great difference. Even in war we are more civilized, and it may be THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 433 because we have the Industrial State, rather than the Military State. You see, the rise of the people has changed the world and given us not only a new kind of government, but also a new kind of state. Points of tlie Iiessou. I. That one great contrast in our life to-day from early times is in our industrial system, our factories and machinery. II. That this would have beexi impossible in early times, because of the constant wars, if for no other reason. III. That in early times, states or governments were obliged to be occupied more especially with military matters per- taining to wars and fighting. IV. That the industrial state of to-day is connected not only with the use of coal and invention of machinery, but with the rise of the people and the acquisition of freedom on the part of the people. V. That less war makes more industrial life possible; and more industrial life lessens the numbers of wars. VI. That governments to-day have more to do with indus- trial problems and less with military matters. VII. That the state of the future will tend more and more to become of the industrial type. Sntleg. /. We- ought to rejoice in that warfare has been giving way to industry in the history of civilization. II. We ought to rejoice in that we haive an industrial state and live in an industrial age. Poem. Our father's God ! from out whose hand The centuries fall like grains of sand, We meet to-day, united, free. And loyal to our land and Thee, To thank Thee for the era done. And trust Thee for the opening one. Here, where of old, by Thy design, The fathers spake that word of Thine Whose echo is the glad refrain Of rended bolt and falling chain, To grace our festal time, from all The zones of earth our guests we call. 434 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Be with us while the New World greets The Old World thronging all its streets. Unveiling all the triumphs won By art or toil beneath the sun; And unto common good ordain This rivalship of hand and brain. Thou, who hast here in concord furled The war flags of a gathered world, Beneath our Western skies fulfil The Orient's mission of good-will. And freighted with love's Golden Fleece, Send back its Argonauts of peace. For art and labor met in truce. For beauty made the bride of use. We thank Thee; but, withal, we crave, The austere virtues strong to save, The honor proof to place or gold. The manhood never bought or sold! O, make Thou us, through centuries long, In peace secure, in justice strong; Around our gift of freedom draw The safeguards of Thy righteous law: And, cast in some diviner mould. Let the new circle shame the old! — Whittier. Classic for Beading or Becitatlon. "The experience of the ages that are past, the hopes of the ages that are yet to come, unite their voices in an appeal to us; they implore us to think more of the character of our people than of its num- bers; to look upon our vast natural resources, not as tempters to ostentation and pride, but a>s means to he converted, by the refining alchemy of education, into mental and spiritual treasures; they supplicate us to seek for whatever complacency of self-satisfac- tion we are disposed to indulge, not in the extent of our territory or in the production of our soil, but in the expansion and perpetuation of the means of human happiness; they beseech us to exchange the luxuries of sense for the joys of charity; and thus THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 435 give to the world the example of a nation whose wis- dom increases with its prosperity, and whose virtues are equal to its power. For these ends they enjoin upon us a more earnest, a more universal, and a more religious devotion to our exertions and resources, to the culture of the youthful mind and heart of the nation; their gathered voices assert the eternal truth that in a Republic ignorance is a crime; and that pri- vate immortality is not less an opprobium to the state 'than it is guilt in the perpetrator." — Horace Mann. Fuitber Sug'g'eBtions to Vhs Teacher. If you wish to add to the interest of this theme, you might give figures as to the amount of manu- facturing going on in the world, the amount of coal consumed, the number of people employed in manu- facturing establishments. Show pictures of facto^ ries and factory towns. If desired, you could even go further and give a biography of one of the inven- tors, James Watt, Robert Fulton or Henrv Besse- mer. The life of George Stevenson we should keep for another purpose. It would be worth while to read over the two chapters in Herbert Spencer's "Principles of Sociology," on "The Military State," and on "The Industrial State." These chapters are full of suggestions. But we must remember that Spencer had a theory to prove and we need to be cautious, therefore, lest we use his points too far, ot adopt his theory in detail before it is established. The significance of this discussion in connection with ethical instruction, lies in the effort we should make to center the interest of the young people in a new direction, in so far as their conception of the state is concerned, soi that they shall not connect it so exclusively with soldiers and warfare. The story in connection with the poem could be told, how it was written as the Centennial Hymn for the great 436 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. World's Exposition at Philadelphia, in 1876. This might lead to an account of "World's Fairs" or International Expositions, and their significance in modern times, as illustrative of the new type of the Industrial state. Something could be told of the first exposition of this kind in London in the year 1851, a graphic account of which will be found in Chapter 21, Vol. i., of "The History of Cur Own Times," by Justin McCarthy. CHAPTER XXIX. NATIONAL ANTHEMS. JiIemory Gem — "Not strength of arm, nor keenness of blade, but power of soui and heart won victories." — Johann Gottlieb Fichte. What song is it that we call our National Anthem ; do you know? "My Country, 'Tis of Thee?" "But what do we mean when we speak of it as a 'National Anthem ?' " you ask. An anthem is a song that we call "sacred," is it not? "Yes?" Then, I asume, a national anthem would be a sacred song that we connect with the thought of our country, would it not, or with our sacred feelings in connection with our country ? And what class of persons would sing this hymn ? "Everybody?" But do you mean quite that? Would people over in Europe sing it? "Yes," you assert, "if they were born in this country." Suppose, however, they had never heard about this country, or had not been born here or lived here ; would they use our anthem? "No, probably they would have an anthem oi their own, a national song of some kind for themselves." But this is our national anthem, the song we sing in connection with the love of our country. When do we sing it, at what times, for example? "Oh, on patriotic occasions, whenever we come together to talk about the affairs of our country, or to celebrate important events in the history of our country at the time of our national festivals, — in fact, when- ever the mood takes us and we feel patriotic." 43f 43^ THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. What would be the special national festivals in connection with which we should sing "My Coun- try, 'Tis of Thee?" "The Fourth of July and Washington's birthday?" Yes, quite so; and what else besides those? "Why, there is Decoration Day, when the people decorate the graves of the soldiers who died for our country." Yes, these are some of the occasions when we sing this national anthem of ours. But what do we sing it for, — out of a sense of duty, do you suppose ? "No, not quite that ?" What for, then ? I ask. "Because we like to sing it," you say. You imply, then, do you, that when your heart is stirred in thinking about your country, it is a pleas- ure just to sing the national anthem ? But can you not suggest any other reason why we should sing it? "Well," you continue, "for instance, we may do this in order to show our devotion to our country, so that others as well as ourselves may feel how much we care for this land of ours." Suppose, then, we look a little into the meaning of the words. Do you fancy it ever happens that a person could sing a whole song in English words and scarcely be conscious what the words meant or implied ? "Sometimes ?" Yes, I am afraid you are right. But as this is our national anthem, and we shall sing it a great many times throughout our lives as the sacred hymn connected with the love of our coun- try, surely we ought to know what the various parts of it suggest. Begin now and read the words line by line. When you say, for instance, "Sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing," what do you mean by "land ?" Is it just the soil or earth you stand on? "That is it, in part," you assure me. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 439 But why do you use the words "in part?" Is it something more than just the mere soil or earth you stand on? "Of course," you tell me, "it implies the people as well, the history of the country, the bat- tles the people have fought." But now what doi you have in mind by the word "Liberty?" Why does that come into the song? Does it imply that this is a country where you can do exactly as you please, where you can injure any other man or injure yourself, if you choose ? Is this a land of "do as you like," and is that what you are thinking of when you repeat, "Sweet land of liberty." "No, not exactly that," you suggest; "it indicates that we are not tyrannized over by others, that no one man can rule over us, or make us do just what he may like, in order to please himself, in spite of our wishes." "It is a land," you point out, "where we are free to control our own conduct in so far as we do not injure others or ourselves." But are we altogther free ? Do we not have rul- ers? Do we not have a governor of each state; do we not have to pay taxes ; should we not be obliged to be soldiers in time of war ? "Yes," you continue, "but there is a difference; we choose our own rulers, we vote for them, and so as a people if we are going to war, it is because we choose to do so, and not because our rulers force us to do so." But why do you fancy this word "liberty" was introduced into our national anthem, more than in national anthems in the old world? "Perhaps," you explain, "it was because our forefathers who' came from the old world knew that over there people did not have very much liberty, not being free to choose 440 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. their own rulers, but being obliged to submit whether they wished to do' so or not." Then yoiu assume, do you, that in our national anthem we talk about this "land of liberty" because our forefathers coming to this country felt that there was more liberty over here than in the old world, and that this was to be a free country with a free people, to a much greater degree than in any other parts of the earth. It implies, does it, that our country has a cause to uphold? And what is that cause? "Why," you ex- claim, "it is freedom or liberty." You are right; it implies that we guarantee a man freedom or lib- erty if he comes to live in our country. "Yes, but he does not always get it," you assure me, "even if we guarantee it to him." I am afraid you are right in what you say on that point; some- times people may come here and not be treated at all well. But that is the fault of the people here and not of our government or our constitution or the rules we have adopted for conducting the affairs of our coun- try. According to those rules, we agree to preserve liberty and freedom over here for every law-abiding person. Now go on further. "The land of the pilgrim's pride," you sing. Have you any idea what that refers to? Who were the pilgrims? Can you tell me? "Yes," you answer, "they were the persons who came over here a long while ago in order to escape persecution in the old world ; they could not think or talk as they pleased over there, and so they fled to this country in order to have freedom of thought." Is that not rather strange, that any one should not be allowed even to think as he pleased, as long as he did not try to injure another nian or wrong him THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 44I in any way? Nevertheless it was so. In former times they used even to punish or kill people because of certain thoughts or beliefs which were offensive to others. Hence it was that many a man was glad to escape from the old world and come over here, in order not to be persecuted in that way. And so we think of the "pilgrims" as the people who fled away from the old world in order to. have freedom on this side of the Atlantic. If a man had journeyed here simply in order to make money and then to goi back again, would he have been a "pilgrim" in this sense? I ask. "No, not under those circumstances; if he came here to live, in order to dwell in a free country and have liberty, then he would have been a 'pilgrim.' " Note to the Teacher: If you think it best, go into details and give the exact meaning of this word historically, referring to the Pilgrim Fathers who come over to New England on the Mayflower. Tell them something about that vessel and about Plymouth Rock, and why it is that people in New England celebrated the 21st of December in reference to the landing of the Pilgrims. On the whole, however, perhaps it would be better in talking with the pupils, to enlarge the mean- ing of the word "pilgrim" here, so that they shall feel that all people who have departed from Europe to live here and become citizens of this country have been pilgrims; and that it is to all such persons the song refers. It would be better not to emphasize the point of "religious" freedom, as it might involve discussion on disputed problems of religion. And what sense do you find in that next line, "from every mountain side, let freedom' ring?" .What it is that would sound to us from a mountain side? "An echo?" Yes, surely. Hence you see that this might mean the echo of what is in oiur hearts. It would be as if we had given voice to our love for our country and our love for its freedom, and could hear the echo of the voice in our hearts rebounding from the mountain side. 442 THE Duties of a citizen. Note to the Teacher: There may be some difficully I** reference to the words, "Land where my fathers diedi especially if some of the pupils are of foreign parentage. But it could be explained that we are all, as it were, singing tO' gether, and that we mean the country's fathers, — all those who have helped to build up the country in the past or who^ have died for it. There is a sense, therefore, in which even if oiir fathers were born in another country, we as true adopted citi- zens may claim all the good men who have died over here as if they were our fathers also. The young people should be told that the word "fathers" means here in this connection the forefathers. Look now at the second verse which begins, "My native country, thee, — " What does the word "native" mean? "Oh," you explain, "the country where we were born." Yes, that is true. But is there any reason why we should have a special attachment for the place where we were born? I think so, at any rate. There is always a feeling of tenderness for the home where we may have lived as little children. But how about the people who were not born here, and yet who became citizens? Should they omit this verse when they join in singing our national anthem? "Oh, no, surely not." And why not? "Because they would be singing as citizens of the country, nevertheless. They join in the hymn as a tribute of sentiment to the land of their adoption." Yes, and in a sense, perhaps, they would mean in using such words, that they wish to regard the coun- try just as if they had been born here, and to have the same respect and affection for it as if it had really been their native country. Again, take the next line, "Land of the noble free" What is meant by that? "It impHes," you continue, "the people who are free and are also noble." And would that suggest that everybody here who had freedom was also noble? "Not quite that," you confess. What then? THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 443 "Why, it may indicate that because we are free, we ought all of us to be truly noble people." Yes, I assume that is the right sense of it. When speak- ing those words, think of it as if you were talking of the land where we should all try to be noble people, because we are a free people. Perhaps, however, you may see another point here. Do you know, for instance, what the word "nobil- ity" implies over in Europe when the people use that term? If some one speaks of the "nobles" in England, what does the word suggest ? "Oh, the people who have titles."' Yes, but how do they get their titles? "As to that," you explain, "for the most part they have inherited them from their fathers." That means usually, does it not, that only those persons who inherit titles over there, can belong to the nobility ? But how is it here with us ? "Why," you tell me, "in America we can all belong to the nobility; we can all be nobles, if we make ourselves truly noble and are loyal citizens." Yes, that is another beau- tiful meaning for these words. You can sing it as if you were saying: "Land of the free where we can all belong to the nobility, and where we should all be truly noble." Then as to the next line, "Thy name I love," would it indicate that we love persons' names? "Sometiines ?" Is it just the name itself? "No, not exactly," you point out; "it is rather the person, but because we love the person, therefore we are fond even of the name." Yes, that is it. We can think of the name as a symbol, and so we say, "Thy name I love," as if we said, "Thee, my country, I love." What about the "rocks" and "rills," the "woods ' and templed hills ?" Can people really love material 444 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. objects such as rocks and woods? "No," you answer, "not the mere objects themselves." What do we have in mind, then, by talking about loving the rocks and rills? "Why," you explain, "we are fond of being here among the rocks and rills of this country, where these woods and hills are located ; we like tO' be here in this part of the world ; it is our home and therefore we love our home." Then you mean, do you, in singing of the "rocks and rills," of the "woods and templed hills," that you love your home and what belongs to your home. Look for a moment at the words "the templed hills." What sense do you make out of those words ? Ordinarily we should not think of hills as places where there are temples. It is not customary to have temples on the hills in this country, is it ? "As to that," you suggest, "perhaps it means that we have that same kind of solemn feeling with regard to the woods and hills here, as if there were churches or sacred temples built on them." Yes, that is true. You know, perhaps, that in old times, they used often to select groves where they would put their temples, or a special site on the hillsides, where they would erect one of their temples to their deities; then the people felt that if ever they came to those groves or to those temples, it was sacred ground ; if they entered into such places, they had to take off their shoes or remove their hats, to speak solemnly or perhaps be perfectly silent. It implied that they were to show a reverence for the places where the deities dwelt. You see, do you, that the song implies that we should feel about the soil of our native land, the woods and hills, the same sort of reverence that peo- ple in former times used to feel for their sacred groves where their temple* were located ? THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 44.5 And do you observe any significance in those words, "My heart with rapture thrills ?" "Oh," you explain, "they might mean that when thinking about our country and how fond we are of it, and what it has done for us, somehow we feel very happy, full of joy or gladness, as if we just wanted to sing." Yes, as you know, in old times whenever people felt happy, they wanted to sing, because their hearts were full of rapture. I think now you will begin to understand the third verse better. It carries on the sentiment we have been considering in the first two verses. Have you ever heard the breezes in the spring or the fall? "Surely !" And what do they seem to make, some- times? "Music?" Yes, and have you noticed when the leaves of the trees are moving, when the winds are playing through them, how that, too, sounds like music ? Can you see, then, what those first lines of that third verse suggest : how, in thinking of our coun- try and its freedom and what we owe tO' it, we should like to feel as if the breezes in the music they make, or the leaves of the trees in their special music, somehow were singing the same old song that we sing when we are chanting our national anthem ? This is what we call a "figure of speech," as you understand. We like to assume that all nature is singing at the same time and joining in with us ; the birds, for instance, and the insects, and whatever makes noise. You notice how, in the next three lines, for in- stance, this thought is carried further. Because we are found of our country and love it and like to sing about it, therefore we take pleasure in thinking that everything else here feels in the same way and sings the same song. It is as if we should even like to have the rocks 446 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. break out and sing with us, just as if they could feel what we feel, and so "prolong the sound." The last line, "the sound prolong," is interestirig and suggestive. Sometimes, perhaps, when we come to the end of our singing, it would please us to fancy that all the objects of nature were keeping it up, while we may have tO' be busy about other things; thus prolonging the national anthem, as if it Were being sung all the time. And lastly we come to the fourth verse, which is a form of prayer. When you hear the word "God" spoken solemnly, what does it suggest to you ? "Why," you tell me, "it means the Being who rules everywhere, or the One who makes every- thing, and especially the Power that upholds what is right and good." Yes, that is the thought; it is the great Power so wonderful that we can scarcely describe Him, whom we think of, however, as the Author of everything. And did you ever hear the proverb : "One with God on his side is always in the majority?" What is the point of that saying? "Why, it implies that if we are on the right side in a cause, even when other persons are not, then the great Being ruling all things is helping us and is on our side, too." Now look at the verse. And what does it tell us that "our father's God" is the author of? "Lib- erty?" Surely! We see how that great Power is regarded especially as the author of our liberty. But did we not receive this liberty because our fore- fathers came over to this country and established freedom here? "True," you explain, "but they were enabled to do so because of the love of liberty in their hearts, the courage or capacity and strength which they re- ceived somehow from the Infinite Power ruling the world." Yes. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 447 Hence in singing to "our father's God," it carries on the same sentiment we feel in singing "to our country ;" and that is why this verse follows as a part of the national anthem. As a people, we feel that the Supreme Power is on the side of right and liberty, and, therefore, upholds our country as long as we are true to our principles. You notice likewise the beauty of those two lines, "long may our land be bright, with freedom's holy light." That is a figure of speech again, sug- gesting how the liberty to shape our own lives and not be ruled over by others, is like a light making the whole country full of brightness. We know, for instance, how the sun gives us light, and so makes it possible for us to work and use our freedom. Hence freedom itself seems connected somehow with the subject of light, as if the two be- longed together. The land of light should, strictly speaking, always be a land of freedom. If it were a land of tyranny, then we should somehow think of it as a place of darkness where people would not be able to move about as they pleased. The tyranny of another per- son would be like darkness preventing men from doing what they desired. And thus you see how the song closes with a cry of appeal to the Supreme Power over all, as if that Power were the real King. There is no feeling as if such a king would exercise tyranny, or as if by desir- ing such a king, we should be desirous of living under a tyranny. And do you see why ? "Yes," you explain, "it is because the 'Great God' alluded to in the anthem, gives us freedom and stands by the Right ; hence if we are on the side of the right and exercise freedom in the right way, the Supreme King will not interfere with us. On the other hand, if we did wrong we should need to be 448 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. interfered with and should prefer to have a Supreme King stop us at the right moment by his authority." Can yo« now understand also, the meaning of those four words in the last line of the second verse, "Like that above?" In this we have a reference to the Great King, the author of liberty, as the Power which supports what is right, as the One who up- holds us when we are loyal to our principles. All this while we have been talking only of the national anthem of our own country. What about other nations? Do they also have national hymns, would you suppose? "Why yes, as a matter of course," you reply. But not with the same words? "No, surely not; each country would have its own special hymn, con- nected in some way with its history and institutions." Yes, you are right. I wonder, by the way, if you know what is the national anthem of Great Britain, and how it begins. "God save the King?" Yes, that is the first line. And what is the music, do^ you know? "Why, it is the same tune that we have for 'America.' " And how did that happen, do you suppose? Why did we not choose other music? "Oh, it probably came about," you explain, "because England was really the mother country for us, and the colonies over here once belonged to England. It was natural for us to adopt the same tune, although with other words, just as we have preserved the same lan- guage." And what is the great anthem for France, do you know? "You are not quite sure ?" Well, I can tell you that it is a famous song which arose in connec- tion with the great French Revolution. It was com- posed in 1792, and is called the Marseillaise (pro- nounced Maar-sa-yaz). It is connected in the memory of the French peo'- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 449 pie with the way they acquired their freedom, after overthrowing the tyranny of hundreds of years pre- ceding. You will want some time to know all about this celebrated anthem. What song is often rendered ewer in Germany as if it were a national hymn? "The Watch on the Rhine?" Yes, that is the one we usually think of as the national anthem for Germany. And do still other countries have such national hymns? "Probably so?" In that case, it might be worth your while to find out about them and know something of their history; what the words are, as well as the music. But to come back a moment to our own country. Is the hymn we call "America" our only national anthem? "Oh no," you reply, "there is also the 'Star Spangled Banner.' " True, and do you know when this was written and who' was the author? Note to the Teacher : If thought advisable, the teacher could at this point make a separate lesson by going into an analysis of "The Star Spangled Banner," verse by verse, just as we have done with "America." "Then too," you point out, "there is Yankee Doodle." Yes, but that is not what we should call a hymn or anthem. We are all fond of it, but it is not what we should consider "sacred." It is a "national air," rather than a hymn or anthem. FointB of the IjesBon. L That we call the hymn "America" our national anthem. II. That the words and phrases of this hymn have an im- portant historic significance. III. That our national anthem was written by an Ameri- can author, and is sung to the same air used by the English people for their national anthem. IV. That other countries also have national anthems which have important historic significance. SntleB. I. We ought to know our national anthem, and to sing it reverently as a solemn hymn of devotion to our country. 45° THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. //. We ought to understand the meaning of the words and thoughts of our national anthem, and to appreciate their significance. Classlo fox Beading ox Recitation. "The population of the Old World is full to over- flowing. They are already standing on tiptoe upon their native shores, looking to your coasts with wist- ful and longing eyes. They see here a land blessed zvith natural and political advantages, which are not equaled by those of any other country upon earth; a land on which a gracious Providence hath emptied the horn of abundance; a land on which Peace hath now stretched forth her white wings. They see something still more attractive than all this. They see a land in which Liberty hath taken up her abode, — that Liberty whom they had considered as a fabled goddess, existing only in the fancies of the poets. They see her here a real divinity, — her altars rising on every hand throughout these happy States; and the whole region smiling under her blessed influence. Let but this, our celestial goddess Liberty, stretch forth her fair hand toward the people of the Old World, tell them to come and bid them welcome, — and you zvill see them pouring in from the North and from the South, from the East and from the West. Your wilderness will be cleared and settled, your deserts will smile, your ranks zvill be filled, and you zvill soon be in a condition to defy the power of any adversary." — Patrick Henry, 1I82. Poem — "Amexloa." My country, 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, — Of thee I sing: Land where my fathers died. Land of the pilgrims' pride, From every mountain side Let freedom ring. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 45 1 My native country, thee, — Land of the noble free,— Thy name I love : I love thy rocks and rills. Thy woods and templed hills; My heart with rapture thrills Like that above. Let music swell the breeze. And ring from all the trees Sweet freedom's song! Let mortal tongues awake; Let all that breathe partake; Let rocks their silence break, — The sound prolong. Our father's God, to Thee, Author of Liberty, — To Thee we sing: Long may our land be bright With freedom's holy light; Protect us by Thy might, Great God, our King. ruitber Sngrg'estlons to the Xeacher, At the end of this lesson, it would be well to have the four verses read aloud once again. Then there might be some review, with questions to see whether the pupils have understood the points. At the close of the session, have this special anthem sung for the day. It might alsoi be wise to introduce the name of the author of this anthem. Comparatively few persons know anything about him. Tell them that it was written by a clergyman named S. F. Smith. A short account of his life will be found in the ency- clopaedias. Put down on the blackboard the name oif the man, the tim.e of his birth and the time of his death. Also have the young people write down the name we usually give to the anthem^ — "America." Let each member of the class have a copy of the hymn in his hands while the lesson is going on. He could mark with a pencil the phrases or lines as they 452 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. are explained. The extent to which it may be thought best to go into a detailed study of the national hymns or anthems of other countries, will depend upon the school or family where these les- sons are used. It may be felt at first as if such analysis of the words of a hymn, would tend to inter- fere with its poetry or charm. But this need not happen if it is done in the right spirit. We all know how people will sing the words of a hymn over and over again, without really having any clear concept tion of what the words convey. The language may be nothing more than mere empty sound. Of course, after such an analysis has been once made and the points well impressed upon the minds of the young people, this should be the end of the matter. From that time on, the hymn should be sung without any further scrutiny or dissection. But every young per- son ought surely at some time in his life, to make a thorough analysis of our national hymn. It is to be assumed that no two persons would make such an analysis in quite the same way. The outline in this lesson is merely a hint as to one method which might be pursued. Each parent or teacher will choose his own course in the matter and bring out what points he may think best. Much more might be said con- cerning the national anthems of other nations, with historic material from former times. Opinions may also differ as to whether "America" or "The Star Spangled Banner" should be called our national anthem. CHAPTER XXX. THE OUTLOOK TOWARD A UNIVERSAL STATE : A FED- ERATION OF THE WORLD. Memory Gem — "Till the war-drums throb no longer, and the battle-Hags were furled In the Parliament of Man, the Federation of the world." — Tennyson. Dlalogfue. We talked in our last discussion about the anthems one sings in love of one's country or state. Now we come to the last topic of all ; and it may strike you as rather peculiar. It has to do with the life and death of states. Do states die like people, would you say ? "Yes," you hesitate. And what makes you answer doubt- fully? "Why," you tell me, "it is not exactly the same kind of dying. They may go to pieces; but parts of the state may continue to live in another way, or as belonging to other states." True, and yet has not an actual death taken place? It is not the same country, with the same laws or the same kind of government or the same body of peo- ple controlling it. "No," you admit, "in a sense a state can die." And what makes it die ? How does it come to its death? Could it be killed, as might happen to a single human being? "Yes, in a certain sense," you answer. In what way, for instance ? "As to that, if it quar- rels with another country, or is in war, it may be conquered by the other country and be completely overthrown as a separate state or nation." 453 454 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. Yes, that is a form of death and it is somewhat like being killed in a quarrel. And might it also hap- pen as an accident, just as it could with human beings ? "Surely, in case it is attacked by some larger state where it could not help itself." Yes, a.nd that is, in a sense, how people, too, may be killed by enemies in spite of themselves. But might a state die voluntarily of its own ac- cord, do you suppose? I admit, that is an odd ques- tion. "Perhaps," you confess, "that would be the case if the people decided to have their country joined to another country." "But at any rate," you insist, "that would not be the same kind of death." No, I agree with you. In a sense it might be more in the nature of a Union by which, together they should have more life. And yet that state would give up what we should call its individuality. But would it be possible for states to die of sick- ness or disease, like people, do you think? "Per- haps?" Would it be exactly the same thing ? "Oh, noi of course not ; the state is not a body which may catch diseases, as the human body could do'." And yet you think it might die of sickness. I am, inclined to believe you are right. It could become diseased by a decline in its character and go to pieces in this way. What, for instance, was the greatest empire we read about in antiquity? "Rome?" And why, I urge, does not the Roman Empire exist to-day? It did last for a long while. "Oh, it was attacked by the Barbarians from the North, the half-savage people who overran the Empire and gradually destroyed it." True. But why did not the people of that country resist ? They were civilized. Surely they ought to have been able to stand up against savages. "Yes, but it may be that they did not hold together. Per- THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 455 haps they had ceased to care much for their country. It may be that they thought more of themselves and their own private intersts, than of the welfare of the whole Empire." And what would this mean, do you suppose? What was it they once respected and afterwards gradually ceased to respect? It is that short word beginning with L, we have talked about before. "The law?" Precisely. They lost respect for the laws of their country. ■It is no exaggeration to say that the Roman Em- pire went to pieces because it became sick or dis- eased in its various parts. The citizens lost their moral character and the state lost its character at the same time. Some time in the future you will care to read about what has been called the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." It is a great example, show- ing how states or nations may become diseased through the loss of character. Another term we apply to it is, becoming "demoralized." How about the Greek states ? Perhaps you have heard something of them, or if not, you will in the future. Everybody learns, as they grow older, of the city of Athens as the home of culture two thou- sand years ago. We all know how it actually de- feated a vast army from Asia, saving Europe from being overrun and becoming a part of an Asiatic Empire. And yet, later on, all those states were conquered by Rome. Can you suggest any cause for this ? Was it mere accident, do you suppose, — being overcome and killed by an enemy stronger than themselves ? "Per- haps," you tell me, "it may have been from 'be same cause, as afterward with Rome. The states m Greect may have become diseased or demoralized.' Yes, you are right. It was the same reason. They 456 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. had culture, but they lost character. They were all the time quarreling with one another, and so they could not hold together in order to resist an enemy attacking them. They were rapidly dying, before they were overcome by Rome. How about the present age, do you suppose? Have states died in modern times, just as in the old days ? Do they change as much as formerly ? "Perhaps not quite to the same extent?" And why not? I ask again. "Because it may be that there is more sense of justice nowadays, so that one state would hesitate without any good reason to attack another and try to kill it or absorb it." Yes, and yet the changes go on more or less in modern times just the same. O^ne state may grow and another state may gradually decline or die. Sometimes this happens to a nation in spite of itself ; but perhaps more often it has been because a state got sick or diseased, losing its character, becoming demoralized. The citizens would not respect the law, or the gov- ernment would pass bad laws, or the citizens would not hold together and refrain from quarreling with one another. And in this way it was easier for a conqueror to overcome them. Note to the Teacher : If thought advisable in order to make this fact a little more concrete, show a series of maps of Europe, with its political divisions and the variations which have taken place during the last hundred or two hundred years, — likewise a map of the United States of America. The most of the large encyclopedias now have material of this kind which is easily available. At the same time we do not wish to be teaching history, but shall only be using this in order to make clearer the one point we are endeavoring to bring out or develop as a sentiment. You have said that states may perish by quarreling with one another and coming to blows, one being destroyed or conquered by the other. But what is it that keeps each state within itself from going to THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 457 pieces at any moment by quarrels among its citizens themselves ? "It does happen again and again," you assert. Yes; but why does it not take place more often? I insist. What keeps the citizens in check? "Oh, it is the laws ?" Yes, that is the point and a most important one. It is law and respect for law which tends more and more to hold the parts of a state together and keep it from going to pieces by dissension among the citi- zens. How is it, then, I ask, that there are na laws be- tween states or countries, which should act as a check on dissensions between them, just as we have laws within the state checking the dissensions among the citizens ? "Oh, but there are some laws of this kind," you tell me. Do you mean to say that there is one central gov- ernment between the various countries, a Congress or Parliament, making legislation for all the states? "No, not quite anything of that kind ?" What is it, then? How is it possible that there should be laws controlling the relations between various state or countries? "It may be done by treaties or agreements between the states or govern- ments," you point out. Yes, and what kind of law do we call this ? It is a big name. We might write it down, so that we shall all remember it, although we need not discuss it much further. There it stands : INTERNATIONAL LAW. It is true that there are just such agreements, something in the nature of laws, between various states. Do these laws hold for all the governments or states in the world, would you suppose? "Some of them might ?" 458 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. What kind, for instance? "Why, perhaps laws pertaining to the flag of truce in war." But would savage people recognize this? "Perhaps not?" Then among what class oi nations would such laws hold universally? "Oh, among civilized countries?" But you say that all the international laws are not of this kind. "No, there may be others as agree- ments between special states, which have had Con- gresses together and adopted international treaties." And have these laws between nations come in re- cently, do you suppose, or quite suddenly? "Prob- ably not?" And why not? "Because changes of this kind would only develop little by little. Such laws would begin first as customs, perhaps between certain nations, and afterwards spreads to others." Yes, you are right. Most of these laws which hold for all the civilized states, grew up first as cus- toms before they took shape in treaties. But now there is a great body of agreements, which were for- merly accepted or recognized as fixed customs. And these belong to what we call International Law. In otir public libraries you would find big volumes describing these laws, what they mean, how they have arisen. Some of them may have begun as cus- toms, thousands of years ago, and then acquired wider and wider acceptance as time went on. But why are such laws not broken at any time by a state if it chooses ? "Oh, perhaps the people would be afraid to do this for fear of punishment from other nations." Yes, that would be one reason. But can you sug- gest any other? Is it possible that a nation might keep such laws even if it were not exactly afraid of such punishment? "Yes, it may be that there is such a thing as a growth in morality among nations." I quite agree with you. This is possible and it is The duties of a citizen. 459 a fact in the history of the world. As mankind has become civiHzed, there has come a greater regard for what has been termed the unwritten laws, although the respect for these is still imperfect or far from universal. But what would happen, for example, if states or nations continued to grow better in their morality and there were more and more respect for the un- written laws of justice and right? "Why, there would, of course, be fewer wars. There would be less quarreling between states; there would be less need of soldiers and big armies." Do you think as time goes on, that if the moral character of nations improves, states will be liable toi have longer life and that fewer states will die or perish? "That would seem natural or to be ex- pected," you reply. But is there anything else binding states or nations together, also encouraging them to have respect for the unwritten laws and preventing them from quar- reling? — anything of a more practical nature? What is it that is considered so important now- adays, about which, as we have said in another les- son, there has toi be soi much legislation ? "Industry or commerce?" Yes, that is the point. In early times when each state or country was sus- picious of the other, people could, perhaps, only have business dealings among themselves or among their fellow citizens. But nowadays men have business relations with citizens of all other nations all over the world, at least where states pre civilized. We see, then, that commerce is binding nations together, encouraging a respect for international law. The industry or welfare! of the citizens of one coun- try is interfered with, if the laws between nations are broken or there is a lack of respect for justice between nations. 460 the; duties of a citizen. "If this goes on, then," you ask me, "why should separate states continue to exist? Why may it not be possible for the various nations to come together and have a larger union with one system of laws?" The question you put is a natural one and a great many people have thought about it and asked it for themselves. But do you think this will come right away? "No," you confess, "judging from; the big, armies in existence nowadays and the bad feelings between the various countries, it does not look as if such a union was coming right away." But may it come some time, do you suppose, in the distant future ? "Perhaps," you admit, "if there is a greater respect for law and the moral character of states goes on improving, and commerce binds the citizens of different nations together more closely." Do you mean to say, after such better feelings arose, that the big kingdoms or states might get to- gether and unite and give up their individuality? Would there be nothing left for them to doi, if there were no danger fromi wars or the attacks of other nations ? "No," you add, "we have already said in a pre- vious discussion that there is the industrial state of the future, and there must be legislation concerning industry. People may hold together in states or nations in the future for a long while in the spirit of good fellowship, because they can work together better as fellow citizens." Yes, that is true. Even if there are no wars, we have reason to think that our states or nations may go on living and growing as before, for hundreds of years to come. But, on the other hand, if there are fewer wars and there is an improvement in the moral character of states, what is likely to happen between the various countries? TUE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 461 "Oh, as a matter of course, they would come to act together more, instead of acting in rivalry with one another. The sphere for International Law would extend more and more, and there would be closer and better relations between the citizens of different states. There would be more Congresses held between the governments and more treaties made, perhaps." Yes, this is all possible in the course of the next few hundred years. And in this connection, I want to remind you of two lines of poetry which have been quoted a great deal, and which you see as the Memory Gem for this chapter. They run as follows : "Till the war-drums throb no longer, and the battle- flags were furled. In the Parliament of man, the federation of the world." Do you see any application of these two lines to what we have been saying? "Oh, yes, surely; they suggest that thought about nations coming closer and closer together in more friendly relations, having more laws in common, and working, together more, instead of working against one another." And what is implied in that term, "parliament of man?" Why is it the poet used the singular there, as of one man? "Oh, that is a figure of speech," you say ; "it means mankind, the human race, all the world." And why does he use the word, "parliament?" "It may be," you explain, "because that is the term for the Congress which passes laws over in England where the poet lived." It suggests, then, does it, the idea of a convention or Congress of representatives from all the nations of the world, at some one place, making agreements 462 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. or establishing treaties, or passing laws for all the nations ? "Yes, something of that kind, surely !" And what does the poet mention as the step which must be taken before this could possibly come about ? What does he say concerning the war-drum and the battle^flags ? "He reminds us," you answer, "that this could only happen when there are no more wars, when we do not need to have battle-flags or war-drums, when great armies noi longer are neces- sary." And what else do you think it wonld imply as to the feelings between the citizens of varioiis coun- tries? Would these have to change? "Yes, indeed," you assert, "people would have to give up their prejudices and there could not be the same kind of hatred between the citizens of various nations." YoiU mean that there would have to grow up something of the same kind of feeling between the citizens of various nations, which now exists be- tween citizens of the same country or nation? "Yes?" And would this mean giving up the separate life of each state; would it imply that each state should gO' to pieces or die in order to merge into' such a grand union? "Not at first, at any rate?" And why not? "As to that, it would only come little by little. Such a Congress would be held at first only occasionally, and there would be agree- ments only upon certain points; while in all other matters each state or country would manage its own affairs, just as before." True, I answer, and so' it may not imply that states must necessarily die, at least for a long while toi come. But what would it be, if not precisely the same thing as one single Sovereign-State for the whole world ? Can you think of any other term ? Look at t!:c last words in the two' lines of verse we have just THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 463 been examining ? What is it that the poet calls this union ? "A federation of the world?" Surely. You un- derstand that a federation is not exactly the same thing as an actual union. When a state is once quite formed, its authority is sovereign, as we say : a part of it cannot withdraw if it chooses. But a federa- tion continues voluntary; it only holds together because its members continue to prefer it. And what, then, would be, perhaps, the charac- teristic of this universal union, unlike what we noiw mean by a sovereign state ? "O'h, it would be more in the nature of a voluntary union," you suggest, "a world federation." Yes, that is the point. And will it ever come, do you suppose? "You are not sure of it?" But wait a moment, now. Has it not at least begun to come already? What about that Inter- national Law we spoke of, those customs recognized as binding upon all nations that are civilized ? States now accept them voluntarily. What about the occa- sional congresses or conventions between nations which are held ? Does not this imply that the federa- tion of the world is at least under way, being already slowly started ? "It looks that way," you answer. Yes, I agree with you. If we are to judge by the past and the conditions O'f the present, we may feel that the par- liament of man is already being organized and the first steps taken toward that union of all states. It may go on growing and increasing and there may be more and more of this union. Each century may add something to it. A thousand years hence it may be a full, complete reality. But the people of those days will not be able to look back and say exactly when it began. They can only describe it as having grown up little by little. 464 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. At that time, people may still be citizens of states which exist to-day. But they will also be citizens of a Universal State; the Federation of the World. Duties. /. States or nations ought to cultivate the spirit of good-fellowship with one another. II. States or nations ought to encourage inter- national conferences and the growth of international law. III. States or nations ought to obey international laws, just CDS citizens ought to obey the laws of their own states or nations. IV. We ought as citizens to encourage feelings of good-fellowship with citizens of other nations. V. We ought to feel that our relations to one another as fellow-men are of even higher importance than our relations to one another as citizens. VI. We ought to look forward to the coming of a Universal State which shall unite the whole world under a universal system of laws. Points of the Iiesson. I. That states can die as people die, from various causes. II. That this may happen by accident, by being attacked and overcome by other states, or by becoming diseased like people. III. That states become diseased by losing their character and the respect for law on the part of the citizens; e. g. Greece and Rome. IV. That the growth and death of states still goes on, but less violent deaths occur than formerly because of a greater sense of justice now prevailing. V. That even laws between states have become established, starting first, perhaps, as customs and afterwards becoming fixed as laws. VI. That we have now, therefore, between civilized states, what we call International Law. VII. That as the number of these laws increases there will be fewer wars and a closer coming together between states. VIII. That there is gradually forming in this way a fed- eration of all the states of the world. IX. That there is, therefore, an outlook toward a parlia- ment of man and a universal state. THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. 465 X. That this need not, however, destroy the individuality of separate states, as it will be more like a Voluntary Federa- tion. Classic for Beading or Becitation. "History tells the mournful tale of conquering nations and conquerors. The three most celebrated conquerors in the civilised world were Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon. The first, after ruining a large portion of Asia, sighing and lamenting that there luere no more worlds to subdue, met a prema- ture and ignoble death. His lieutenants quarreled and warred with each other as to the spoils of his victories, and finally lost them all. Caesar after con^ quering Gaul, returned with his triumphant legion to Rome, passed the Rubicon, won the battle of Pharsalia, trampled upon the liberties of his coun- try, and expired by the patriot hand of Brutus. But Rpme ceased to be free. War and conquest had enervated and corrupted the masses. The spirit of true liberty was extinguished; a long line of em- perors succeeded, some of whom were the most ex- ecrable monsters that ever existed in human form-. And Napoleon, that most extraordinary man, per- haps in all history, after subjugating all continental Europe, occupying almost all its capitals, seriously threatening proud Albion itself, and decorating the brows of various members of his family with crowns torn from the heads of other monarchs, lived to be- hold his own dear France itself in possession of his enemies, was made himself a wretched captive, and far removed from country, family and friends, breathed his last on the distant and inhospitable rocks of St. Helena." — Henry Clay. Further Bng'srestlons to tlie Teacher. TTiis series of lessons closes thus with a sentiment. We should not go much into detail on the subject. 466 THE DUTIES OF A CITIZEN. It is simply an outlook suggestive of what may hap- pen in the future, with a sense of encouragement from a survey of the past. We do not wish to indi- cate that there will not always be such a thing as citizenship, but rather to encourage the suggestion that there is a permanency to the state as an Insti- tution, just as with the institution of the Family. In v/hat we have to say about International Law, it is to be remembered that we only introduce this in the same general way and not with any thought in view of giving instruction on this subject. But the young people should be made to realize that such a thing does actually exist and they should be led to feel that some time in the future they will need to know further about it. Oiice more we emphasize the point which has been repeated again and again: treat all this material not as a series of lessons on Civil Government, but as a course of instruction on the "Ethics of Citizenship."