A LETTER TO A BOYMy Dear Young Friend: I do not know you personally, have never grasped your hand and looked into your eyes, but your letter makes me think well of you.In the first place, it discloses the fact that after all your careful preparation for the debate,you made an extemporaneous speech. Good. No one can be a debater on any other terms. It is possible that one may be an orator and be unable to leave the written form, but the gift of extemporaneous expressionis absolutely essential to a debater.To think on one’s legs—that’s a gift; and it seems that you have it.Again, I learn from your letter that youknewyou had on your hands a hard task in maintaining the unpopular side of the debate, and that you did not shrink from the burden. Good again. That’s the way to become aman. The boy who is ever on the lookout for the easy job, the popular side, and who runs away from obstacles or opposition, will always remain a boy—and not much of a boy at that.There is but one rule for you if you want to be a man—absolutely but one—and that is to do your level best to reach a clear, correct idea of what is right, and then stick to it and fight for it, in spite of the “world, the flesh and the devil.”This rule will make you enemies, and will give you just about as many hard knocks as are needful to your health, but if you want to be aman, that’s the price you’ve got to pay.You say you found difficulty in securing impartial judges.Well, I should think so.The “impartial judge” is one of those pleasing fancies with which we amuse ourselves, for the reason that we can’t help it. We have got to get decisions some way or other, and we don’t quite like the idea of settling grave questions by spitting at a mark, or of guessing whether it is heads or tails in the tossing of a coin—therefore, we resort to “the impartial judge.”It is one of the jokes of Christian civilization which nobody laughs at because we have agreed that it is not a joke.Just between me and you, the “impartial judge” is brother to the “non-partisan editor,” and twin-brother to the “disinterested office-seeker.”You say that it is generally wrong to criticize the conduct of those who make decisions.You are mistaken about that. It is generally the proper thing to do. And it is often theonlything you can do. True, it is not as much satisfaction as we are entitled to, but it’s something.What would baseball be, if we couldn’t cuss the umpire?How could lawyers who lost their cases blow off the indignation, if they couldn’t cuss the judge?You state that you were not cast down by the decision which went against you. Right. Why should you be?Whatever wastrue, previous to the decision, wastrueafterward.And there’s where our political leaders fall down.They go about the country telling the people that a certain candidate for office is “unfit for the nomination,” and after he is nominated the same politicians claim that thenominationmakes him fit.How can anominationmake a bad man good?That’s a deferred question which W. J. B. will answer some day or other, and you will then see it done to the queen’s taste.Evidently you are not discouraged by the fact that you went up against a tribunal which wouldn’t yield to reason, eloquence, fact or fancy—a tribunal which had made up its mind before its members heard your speech. Right again. It’s yourdutyto furnish the convincing argument; it isnot in your powerto supply judges with minds open to conviction.Bigger men than you have run up against immovable obstacles of that kind.Consider W. J. B., for instance. He found, in New England, a lot of tribunals, the low, the high and the middle, which were not to be convinced that he, W. J. B., was entitled to $50,000 that old Mr. Bennettthoughthe was leaving to our Nebraska friend by will.You and I would think that as the money belonged to Bennett, and Bennett had declared in writing that W. J. B. should have it, the judges would not interfere.But theydid. No amount of eloquence, of the best W. J. B. sort, could budge them an inch. Our Nebraska friend got knocked out all along the line.Did it cast him down?Not in the least. He is as cheerful—not to say saucy—as you are overyourlittle tumble. That is just the way to be: but one should always try to get somelessonout of one’s defeats, so that one will know better how to do next time.If you should ask W. J. B. what lesson he has learned from that series of knockdowns in the New England courts, he would answer: “The next time a benevolent Yankee comes to my house, and offers to make me a bequest of $50,000, I will take him out and introduce him to a safe and sane lawyer who knows how to draw a will.”Cultivate what isbestin your character and mind.Do notimitateanybody.Study good models for the purpose of making the best possible man out ofyourself.Develop yourpride—not your vanity, conceit or egotism.Be too proud to stoop to anything mean.Associate with thebestpeople. If among your companions there are those whose talk or conduct is vile, weed them out from your life.I feel deeply on this point, and I repeat, WEED THEM OUT.Cultivate the honesty which makes a man what heappearsto be.Don’t be a sham.Be a reality—as earnest, powerful and fearless as is possible to your nature.When defeat knocks you down, don’t lie there. As soon as you get your breath back, rise, brush the dust off, and go up against the enemy again.Reach a clear conception of what you want to do, andcando; be sure that this is something noble in itself—then hammer away with all your might,and keep hammering.Remember that modesty is almost as becoming to a man as to a woman, but thathumilityhas no place in man’s relation to man.If you are not as good as any other man, it’s your fault.The world, and all its rewards, are as much yours as anybody’s.But remember this also: the raceisto the swift, and the battleisto the strong, USUALLY.If you would win the race,be swift; if the battle,be strong.
A LETTER TO A BOY
My Dear Young Friend: I do not know you personally, have never grasped your hand and looked into your eyes, but your letter makes me think well of you.
In the first place, it discloses the fact that after all your careful preparation for the debate,you made an extemporaneous speech. Good. No one can be a debater on any other terms. It is possible that one may be an orator and be unable to leave the written form, but the gift of extemporaneous expressionis absolutely essential to a debater.
To think on one’s legs—that’s a gift; and it seems that you have it.
Again, I learn from your letter that youknewyou had on your hands a hard task in maintaining the unpopular side of the debate, and that you did not shrink from the burden. Good again. That’s the way to become aman. The boy who is ever on the lookout for the easy job, the popular side, and who runs away from obstacles or opposition, will always remain a boy—and not much of a boy at that.
There is but one rule for you if you want to be a man—absolutely but one—and that is to do your level best to reach a clear, correct idea of what is right, and then stick to it and fight for it, in spite of the “world, the flesh and the devil.”
This rule will make you enemies, and will give you just about as many hard knocks as are needful to your health, but if you want to be aman, that’s the price you’ve got to pay.
You say you found difficulty in securing impartial judges.
Well, I should think so.
The “impartial judge” is one of those pleasing fancies with which we amuse ourselves, for the reason that we can’t help it. We have got to get decisions some way or other, and we don’t quite like the idea of settling grave questions by spitting at a mark, or of guessing whether it is heads or tails in the tossing of a coin—therefore, we resort to “the impartial judge.”
It is one of the jokes of Christian civilization which nobody laughs at because we have agreed that it is not a joke.
Just between me and you, the “impartial judge” is brother to the “non-partisan editor,” and twin-brother to the “disinterested office-seeker.”
You say that it is generally wrong to criticize the conduct of those who make decisions.
You are mistaken about that. It is generally the proper thing to do. And it is often theonlything you can do. True, it is not as much satisfaction as we are entitled to, but it’s something.
What would baseball be, if we couldn’t cuss the umpire?
How could lawyers who lost their cases blow off the indignation, if they couldn’t cuss the judge?
You state that you were not cast down by the decision which went against you. Right. Why should you be?
Whatever wastrue, previous to the decision, wastrueafterward.
And there’s where our political leaders fall down.
They go about the country telling the people that a certain candidate for office is “unfit for the nomination,” and after he is nominated the same politicians claim that thenominationmakes him fit.
How can anominationmake a bad man good?
That’s a deferred question which W. J. B. will answer some day or other, and you will then see it done to the queen’s taste.
Evidently you are not discouraged by the fact that you went up against a tribunal which wouldn’t yield to reason, eloquence, fact or fancy—a tribunal which had made up its mind before its members heard your speech. Right again. It’s yourdutyto furnish the convincing argument; it isnot in your powerto supply judges with minds open to conviction.
Bigger men than you have run up against immovable obstacles of that kind.
Consider W. J. B., for instance. He found, in New England, a lot of tribunals, the low, the high and the middle, which were not to be convinced that he, W. J. B., was entitled to $50,000 that old Mr. Bennettthoughthe was leaving to our Nebraska friend by will.
You and I would think that as the money belonged to Bennett, and Bennett had declared in writing that W. J. B. should have it, the judges would not interfere.
But theydid. No amount of eloquence, of the best W. J. B. sort, could budge them an inch. Our Nebraska friend got knocked out all along the line.
Did it cast him down?
Not in the least. He is as cheerful—not to say saucy—as you are overyourlittle tumble. That is just the way to be: but one should always try to get somelessonout of one’s defeats, so that one will know better how to do next time.
If you should ask W. J. B. what lesson he has learned from that series of knockdowns in the New England courts, he would answer: “The next time a benevolent Yankee comes to my house, and offers to make me a bequest of $50,000, I will take him out and introduce him to a safe and sane lawyer who knows how to draw a will.”
Cultivate what isbestin your character and mind.
Do notimitateanybody.
Study good models for the purpose of making the best possible man out ofyourself.
Develop yourpride—not your vanity, conceit or egotism.
Be too proud to stoop to anything mean.
Associate with thebestpeople. If among your companions there are those whose talk or conduct is vile, weed them out from your life.
I feel deeply on this point, and I repeat, WEED THEM OUT.
Cultivate the honesty which makes a man what heappearsto be.
Don’t be a sham.
Be a reality—as earnest, powerful and fearless as is possible to your nature.
When defeat knocks you down, don’t lie there. As soon as you get your breath back, rise, brush the dust off, and go up against the enemy again.
Reach a clear conception of what you want to do, andcando; be sure that this is something noble in itself—then hammer away with all your might,and keep hammering.
Remember that modesty is almost as becoming to a man as to a woman, but thathumilityhas no place in man’s relation to man.
If you are not as good as any other man, it’s your fault.
The world, and all its rewards, are as much yours as anybody’s.
But remember this also: the raceisto the swift, and the battleisto the strong, USUALLY.
If you would win the race,be swift; if the battle,be strong.
There are thousands of boys and girls, some in schools and colleges, some not, who are anxious to learn, to develop themselves and to RISE.
Many, many things they yearn to know which the class-room teachers do not teach.
Many a subject they are eager to study, if somebody will but show the way.
Often there are speeches to be made, essays to be written, debates to be prepared, and the boys and girls simply do not know how to start about it.
For instance, they are suddenly required to speak or write on the question:
“Should the Government own and operate the railroads?”
They have never read anything about it, perhaps. Therefore they inquire:
“Where can we get some literature on the subject?”
These young people do not want someone else to write their speeches or essays; they want nothing more than to be told where to get the materials to work with—the data upon which to construct their own argument.
When I was a boy I felt the need of that kind of help very keenly.
How was I to know what books contained the information sought?
Who could tell me?
I soon found that teachers did not love to be bored by inquiries of that character, and therefore I had to browse around in the library at random for what was wanted.
If the book needed was there, I generally found it, after wasting much time in the search.
If it was not there, as frequently happened, I was at my row’s end. I had to debate without the full preparation which should have been made.
To help out many a student who may be troubled as I used to be, I am going to improvise and conduct in this magazine a modest littleEducational Department.
Primarily it is meant forthe young people. But the rule will be made as flexible as I feel like making it.
Age limits are not fair—no matter whether Osler was joking or not.
It is not my plan or purpose to write anybody’s speech or essay; but, where there is a subject of real importance to be discussed by word or pen, I am willing todirect the preparationof the student by telling him or her where the necessary information can be had.
It would perhaps not be improper for me to suggest some general ideas on the subject to be discussed—these ideas to be worked out and put in form by the student.
Often I might render good service to the boys and girls by telling them where the books they need can be bought at the lowest price.
It took me many years to learn how to buy books, and it is a thing worth knowing—unless you have more money than I ever had.
The letters written to me in this department will be published as written; but the names of the writers will be withheld.
Therefore, no correspondent need be embarrassed in making inquiries.
My replies will be given in the magazine.
Hereafter all letters asking for information—historical, literary, political, economic—will be answered through the EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT.
P. S.—Students are requested not to ask help on this subject, viz.:
“Resolved, That there is more happiness in the pursuit than in the possession.”
Those whose duty it is to maintain “the pursuit” will please consult Mr. Bryan; those who sustain “the possession” are referred to Mr. Roosevelt.
Those orthodox partisan editors who sneered at my comment on W. R. Hearst as a man whodidthings while others were talk—talk—talking, will please study the election returns from Chicago and hand me out revised opinions.
That was a Hearst fight, and Hearst himself was personally in the thick of it. He said little and accomplished much.
Wouldstilllike to swap a score or two of mere talkers like—well, no matter—for another such myth as Hearst.
A wise man—and his name is Dennis—has an article in the April number ofEverybody’sto prove that free trade has created in England that poverty-stricken mass of humanity which he includes under the general name of “Hooligan.”
According to Mr. Robert Hunter, the Hooligans of the United States aggregate 10,000,000—and we haven’t had any free trade, either.
Evidently the wise Mr. Dennis has not located the true cause of poverty in England.
It was famine, and the high price of bread, which forced Sir Robert Peel to abandon protection and to carry free trade into effect.
Bread was cheapened and the cost of living reduced.
Didthatinflict such great misery upon the poor?
If the wise Mr. Dennis will study the subject more thoroughly he will probably reach the conclusion that poverty in England is the product of land monopoly, a vicious financial system and a governmental establishment in which a lot of hereditary bloodsuckers prey upon the body politic.
Free trade is the law of nature; it never did, and never can produce national misery, poverty or decadence.
If the wise Mr. Dennis will study the subject thoroughly he will discover that the Corn Laws of 1815 were passed for the purpose of giving special benefits to the landlords of Great Britain. By the poor the act was regarded as such a direct attack upon themselves—such a barefaced design to make them pay higher prices for the necessaries of life—that resistance to the law grew riotous and had to be put down by force.
Says Justin McCarthy, the historian:
“The poor everywhere saw the bread of their family threatened, saw the food of their children almost taken out of their mouths, and they broke into wild extremes of anger.”
But the soldiers were called out, the riots put down, and a sufficient number of the poor hanged to quell the remainder.
Thusthe land monopolists of Great Britain—many of whose titles to their enormous holdings are tainted with all manner of fraud and wrong enforced and odious law which robbed the poor to benefit the rich.
In 1817 the troops were used again to crush the laborers who were crying out against oppression.
In 1819 soldiers were used once more.
Then the submission of despair brought quiet times until 1830, when the people again attempted to throw off the hateful yoke of barbarous laws. In the House of Commons Sir Francis Burdett denounced the Duke of Wellington as
“Shamefully insensible to the suffering and distress which were painfully apparent throughout the land.”
“O’Connell declared that many thousands of persons had to subsist in Irelandon three half-pence per day.”
A tolerably successful workingman sometimes got sixty-five cents a week, and the price of the four-pound loaf wastwenty-five cents.
From 1830 to 1836 matters went from bad to worse. Business was depressed, trade stagnant, poverty severe in many parts of the country.
In 1838 a crisis came. Three-fifths of the manufacturing establishments of Lancashire shut down. Thousands of workmen were thrown adrift, moneyless, foodless, desperate.
It was then that three great men, Cobden, Bright and Villiers, seized the leadership of Discontent and began the famous crusade againstProtection, as typified in the Corn Laws of Great Britain. “Vested interests,” of course, raised the usual howl.
The land monopolists stubbornly closed up in lines of sullen opposition to reform. They beat off every attack, pocketing year after year the famine prices which the people were compelled to pay for bread.
Suddenly, in the summer of 1845, a cold, wet, sunless season fell upon the British Isles and the whole potato crop of Ireland—the sole dependence of the vast majority of the Irish people—rotted.
The food of Ireland was gone; in her poverty she could not pay the English landlord’s price for bread, and the Corn Laws forbade her buying the cheap bread of America and Continental Europe.
It wasthenthat Lord John Russell attacked the whole system ofProtectionas “the blight of commerce, the bane of agriculture, the source of bitter divisions among classes,the cause of penury, fever and crime among the people.”
It wasthenthat the great Tory Minister, Sir Robert Peel, followed the promptings of his heart and determined that the people should have cheaper food.
He abolished the Corn Laws, and conferred inestimable blessings upon the common people of his country.
The noble act cost him his political life—for that was the penalty which outraged land monopoly, led by Disraeli, inflicted upon its former chief.
The Corn Laws were repealed in 1846.
Mr. Dennis comes along and tells us thatFree Tradeis responsible for “Hooligan”—for poverty in England.
Mr. Rider Haggard—now in this country in the interest of Hooligan—ought to know as much about the poor of Great Britain as Dennis knows.
What does Rider Haggard say?
That the present deplorable condition of the English poorbegan with1874.
How, then, can that condition be connected with the Corn Law repeal?
May it not be logically connected with legislation of more recent date?
Or may it not be connected with economic developments elsewhere?
Tremendous changes in the conditions of people in Europe and America have been brought about by financial legislation much more nearly contemporaneous with 1874 than the repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846.
Then, again, the vast addition to the wheat and corn areas in the United States alone have had a mighty influence on prices in Great Britain.
It may be that rents are so high in England that the tenant farmer finds it impossible to pay his tribute to the land monopolist, compete with American grain fields, and have anything left for himself.
Indeed, Mr. Haggard states that one of the reasons why the agricultural laborer is so disheartened in England is thatthere is no chance for him to become the owner of land.
An exchange says:
“The headmaster of an English school says he read Roosevelt’s inaugural to his boys and asked them where it was found. Unanimously they answered, ‘Jowett’s translation of Thucydides.’ Whereupon the headmaster gives us parallel columns to show that Pericles said it all before, onan occasion somewhat similar. But Teddy is too honest to crib; he was deceived by his clerk on oratory. Let it go at that.”
If it is true that Mr. Rooseveltdiduse one of the speeches of Pericles as an inaugural address, Mr. Bryan may wish he had not been so quick with the announcement that it was a poor speech. Pericles is generally considered to have been an orator who would have compared not unfavorably with W. J. B. himself.
The India-rubber qualities of the Monroe Doctrine are being made manifest with a vengeance.
Once we understood it to mean, in a general way, that Europe must “Hands off”—no more conquest, colonization, or extension of the European system to the American Continent.
By Mr. Cleveland, England was told, with firmness, that she couldn’t steal Venezuela’s land, even though the theft consisted of the simple device of moving the boundary line.
With Mr. Roosevelt’s advent to power comes a decidedly new chapter in the evolution of the Monroe Doctrine.
We are to assume a sort of Trusteeship for adjacent governments.
We must see to it that they conduct themselves decently and in order. They must pay their debts to citizens of other countries and behave themselves generally in a way that meets our approval.
Mr. Roosevelt, in advancing the Monroe Doctrine to this extent, has undertaken a big contract for this country.
If we are to be the Policeman for South America, Santo Domingo, Cuba, Mexico and Central America, we must, first of all, have a powerful navy.
This is clear to everybody.
What is not so clear is that a powerful standing army will inevitably follow—as sure as fate, it will follow.
For it is certain that a natural result of our hectoring, bulldozing, overlord attitude toward countries like those mentioned will make them our bitter enemies. South America already hates us, and has cause to hate us.
The manner in which we sanctioned the collection of claims against Venezuela, by the warships of Europe will not be forgotten.
This feeling will be intensified by Mr. Roosevelt’s recent utterances, and will spread through all the peoples affected by it.
If we are to compel these governments to knuckle down to every Asphalt Trust, or other speculative syndicate, which enters the country for the purpose of exploitation, the time will certainly come when our attempts to make them conform to our standard of what is decent and orderly in dealing with plundering corporations will be resisted.
What then?
Our navy can bombard the cities of the coast, but will our marines leave the ships and defeat the land forces of the interior?
Evidently not.
What, therefore, must we do?
Send army against army, as we shall have sent navy against navy.
Consequently the same policy which logically requires a powerful navy will likewise require a powerful standing army.
And our masters know it!
Mr. Roosevelt:
Doyou, also, laugh at young Garfield?
Pleasedon’t give us any more of that silly boy.
More than one-half the voters of Colorado cast their ballots for Alva Adams, candidate for Governor.
But Adams did not get the place.
Less than half the voters supported James Peabody, and Peabody acted as Governor for one day.
Not a soul voted for Jesse McDonald for Governor, yet Jesse gets the whole term of office, excepting the one day given to Peabody.
The voters of Colorado evidently enjoy self-government about as much as it can be enjoyed.