PUBLIC DUTIES 
 of EDUCATED 
 
 MEN An Address 
 
 Delivered by William F. Herrin 
 June the Fourteenth, Nineteen 
 Hundred and Ten, atCorvallis 
 Oregon, During the Quarter 
 Centennial Jubilee Exercises of 
 Oregon Agricultural College 
 
 WITH THE COMPLIMENTS 
 
 OF 
 
 William F. Herri 
 
 N 
 
 1?
 
 
 en 
 
 >- 
 
 «3u 
 
 ■ s 
 
 c:.!
 
 PUBLIC DUTIES OF 
 EDUCATED MEN 
 
 President Kerr, Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 
 THIRTY-SEVEN years ago this month I received my 
 degree from Corvallis College. Many since then 
 are the changes that have come over the spirit of my 
 dream. Nor have the passing years left untouched 
 or unchanged our Alma Mater. Then she was 
 encountering the struggles incident to the founding 
 of a college in a pioneer country. Now, though still 
 young, and with the promise of the years fair before 
 her, she has won a recognized and enviable place among the 
 colleges of the West. Thirty-seven years is no great stretch 
 of time in the history of an institution, though in the measure 
 and significance of man's life it may count for the greater part. 
 As I stand here today the air seems vibrant with the echoes of 
 half-forgotten yesterdays and the memories of my student life, 
 with its hopes, its trials, and its joys. There comes, too, 
 recollections of the sustained effort required to unlock the 
 treasures of learning, and, when these had been in some part 
 gained, the buoyant hope inspired by real conquest. Now, 
 from the vantage ground of added years and an ampler experi- 
 ence, perhaps I am in a better position than those of you who 
 are just on the threshold of life, to judge of the relative values 
 of the things for which men strive. And it seems to me that 
 the rewards of the scholar are more fruitful of real happiness, 
 and make more for permanent satisfaction, than the rewards 
 gained in ordinary business or professional pursuits, for the 
 scholar deals with that learning which is the finer essence of our 
 intellectual life, which "has been purified and sifted in quiet 
 
 [3]
 
 rooms, to which passing fashions of thought do not penetrate." 
 The pursuit of truth for its own sake brings us to know the 
 human spirit in its unchanged and unchanging nature, to know 
 the things which abide with us, and to reject that which is 
 ephemeral and of only passing interest. In the words of 
 President Wilson of Princeton University: 
 
 "The fountains of learning become the fountains of per- 
 petual youth. At them are our minds renewed ; at them do we 
 drink of the pure waters undenled, whose sources lie below all 
 circumstance, all accident, all surface temperature or season. 
 After we have tasted of them, much of the talk of the day seems 
 like the mere lees of cheap wine of the vintage of yesterday. 
 We are renewed by learning, in the sense that our minds are, 
 as it were, brought back to the original and first bases of 
 thought, to direct communion with all that is primitive and 
 permanent, and beyond analysis and conjecture." 
 
 It is therefore with real pleasure that I find myself here 
 today after the lapse of so many eventful years. And mingled 
 with that pleasure is a sense of responsibility and genuine 
 concern as to what I should say on this occasion that might 
 be of value to you. Upon reflection it has seemed to me that 
 I could not better employ this opportunity than to bring home 
 to you, with such emphasis as I can, the truth of a conviction 
 that has more and more gained upon me as the years have 
 gone by. That conviction, briefly put, amounts to this: that 
 upon the educated men and women of this country, and more 
 especially upon the graduates of our colleges and universities, 
 there devolve public duties and civic responsibilities which 
 they may not, without proving recreant to their trust, either 
 ignore or evade. Just what some of these special duties are, 
 it will be the purpose of this address to indicate; but at the 
 outset let me declare my wish to avoid, in what I have to say, 
 any narrow controversial spirit, and to keep as closely as 
 possible upon ground that is not debatable. At the same time 
 I shall follow my convictions though they may seem to run 
 counter to certain ideas advanced in the name of reform. 
 
 16]
 
 Never, in the history of our country, has there been greater 
 need for intelligent public leadership than now; and it is my 
 firm opinion that the college or university that makes no 
 attempt to equip its students for such leadership, even though 
 it may turn out competent engineers, expert chemists, and 
 skilled lawyers, has failed signally to achieve one of the im- 
 portant ends for which it exists. Every student, no matter 
 what his special "course" may be, whether it be civil or mechan- 
 ical engineering, or biology, or the humanities — every student 
 should receive instruction in what, for want of a better term, 
 I shall call the philosophy of our political institutions. I would 
 not be understood as implying that our colleges and universities 
 do nothing toward this end. That would not be true. What 
 I am pleading for is that this instruction shall not be limited, 
 as it is at present, to a comparatively few students in institu- 
 tional history, but that it should be made more general. I 
 emphasize this point because I have seen so many otherwise 
 intelligent men and women who, when it came to a question 
 of grave public policy, were at the mercy of every political 
 charlatan that appeared. Educated and estimable citizens, 
 who could not be deceived for a moment by a quack who would 
 offer them some patent nostrum as a cure for all the ills that 
 flesh is heir to, will yet accept without question any political 
 "cure-all" that may be offered them. Nowadays most edu- 
 cated people are rightly skeptical concerning short cuts to 
 health, or short cuts to happiness, but offer them a short cut to 
 political perfection and they become credulous almost to the 
 point of superstition. 
 
 Now we cannot reasonably expect the great mass of the 
 people to exercise critical judgment in matters in which they 
 have not been trained, but surely the state has a right to expect 
 that its educated men and women shall give it the benefit of 
 their more mature judgment when matters of grave public 
 import are being considered. An active and intelligent interest 
 in public affairs is therefore a duty that one who has profited 
 by a collegiate education cannot escape. Nor could any field 
 
 [ i 1
 
 more interesting or more important challenge his attention. 
 Glance for a moment at some of the interesting aspects pre- 
 sented by this subject. Thirty years ago, commerce between 
 the states moved almost entirely without regulation, so far as 
 the National Government was concerned. Now we have an 
 elaborate code of laws enacted by the Congress of the United 
 States, designed to regulate our interstate commerce and the 
 corporations and individuals engaged therein. Similar laws 
 have been and are being enacted by the different states to 
 govern their local concerns. The government of our cities 
 and municipalities has given rise to many vexed questions, 
 which are still unsettled; the laws governing the elective fran- 
 chise have undergone and have yet to undergo many important 
 changes. Upon all these subjects, and many others closely 
 affecting the individual citizen, our laws may be said to be in a 
 formative period, and the questions raised are vital and far- 
 reaching and have necessarily provoked and are provoking 
 much public discussion. We may sum up all this agitation 
 and discussion as an effort to better our government and to 
 remove the evils which have arisen under the laws heretofore 
 existing. No good citizen can fail to be interested in these 
 questions, and I think no one will take issue with me when I 
 say that one of the highest duties resting upon the citizen is to 
 take an active interest in the politics of his country, to do his 
 utmost to secure the best government possible, and especially 
 to oppose any innovations or tendencies which may be incon- 
 sistent with the principles of representative government 
 upon which its stability and permanency must ultimately 
 depend. 
 
 In its last analysis our government is essentially a govern- 
 ment based upon and controlled by public opinion. It follows, 
 therefore, that: 
 
 "In proportion as public opinion is wise and enlightened, 
 the government will be enlightened and wise. In other words, 
 the people will always have as good a government as their 
 intelligence and patriotism deserve, and no better. In the long 
 
 [ 8]
 
 run, government can be made better only by the improvement 
 of the public opinion upon which it rests." 
 
 In his American Commonwealth, Mr. Bryce devotes much 
 space to the consideration of public opinion, its nature, its 
 growth, and its influence in the evolution of government. In 
 speaking of the national characteristics of our people, he says : 
 
 "The Americans are at bottom a conservative people, in 
 virtue both of the deep instinct of their race and of that practical 
 shrewdness which recognizes the value of permanence and 
 solidity in institutions. They are conservative in their funda- 
 mental beliefs, in the structure of their governments, in their 
 social and domestic usages. They are like a tree whose pendu- 
 lous shoots quiver and rustle with the slightest breeze, while 
 its roots enfold the rock with a grasp which storms cannot 
 loosen." 
 
 Mr. Bryce here strikes the keynote of the American 
 character and indicates the sources of that public opinion 
 which has thus far controlled the destinies of our nation. 
 It was this conservatism which molded and produced the 
 American Constitution, which has construed its provisions and 
 formulated the laws which have been enacted and enforced 
 since its creation. To this conservatism, more than to anything 
 else, Mr. Bryce points out, is due the stability of our govern- 
 ment and its institutions and the success which our people 
 have achieved in self-government. It is interesting, therefore, 
 to consider for a moment whether we are in danger of losing 
 this conservatism, whether there are tendencies in present-day 
 legislation, or in reforms recently proposed, which may carry 
 us from our moorings to new and strange seas of political 
 experiment, and expose us perhaps to danger of national 
 shipwreck. 
 
 As ours is a government controlled by public opinion, it is 
 important to inquire what that opinion is, and how it is formed. 
 Much has been written about public opinion as a governmental 
 and political force, yet we have no generally accepted definition 
 of the term; in fact, it is a thing most elusive and most difficult 
 
 [9 1
 
 to define, resembling in this respect some of the great facts and 
 problems of human existence with which we constantly deal, 
 as well as some of the natural forces with which physics is 
 concerned. If we will but reflect a moment, however, we will 
 see that it is the great things of existence that most persistently 
 elude analysis or even description. Who, for instance, has 
 ever given us an adequate definition of life ? Yet, almost since 
 the dawn of history, this problem has engaged the most pro- 
 found intellects, and today we are no nearer the solution than 
 we were centuries ago. But the fact that we cannot adequately 
 define life does not make it any the less worth living. And so 
 it is with the phenomena that lie at the threshold of emotional 
 and of religious experience, and with the secret of human per- 
 sonality, and with what we call the national spirit, or the moving 
 impulses of a people. All these are important forces in human 
 life and determining factors in human development, yet they 
 elude definition. In the sphere of physical science we have 
 like difficulties. Who, for example, has ever satisfactorily 
 defined electricity? Yet that does not prevent us from using 
 electricity nor from recognizing it as one of the greatest physical 
 forces at the disposition of man. 
 
 Therefore, though we find it difficult or even impossible 
 adequately to define public opinion, that need not blind us to 
 its importance nor to the tremendous part it plays and has 
 always played in shaping our institutions and in determining 
 the form of our government. Though we may not say pre- 
 cisely what public opinion is, I think we can say with some 
 degree of positiveness what it is not. It is not, and never was, 
 what is said or done by the frenzied mob, and whether the mob 
 is a small isolated group of men acting under the stress of great 
 excitement, or is an entire community in the passing grip of 
 the mob-spirit, our conclusion must be the same : that what is 
 done or prompted by the mob-spirit can in no proper sense of 
 the term be said to be a manifestation of public opinion. We 
 may then say that public opinion is the opposite of the spirit 
 which controls the mob or goes with any excitable, passionate 
 
 [ 10 ]
 
 action. I would say that the true public opinion of a people is 
 and must be the result of their serious, deliberate thought. 
 Therefore, public opinion, in the sense in which I use the term, 
 is the deliberate and reasoned judgment of the community. 
 
 It is a curious but significant fact that our newspapers 
 rarely invoke public opinion except in times of public excite- 
 ment. They then speak of "public sentiment being fully 
 aroused," or of "public opinion demanding" this or that. 
 They apparently assume that public opinion — the deliberate, 
 reasoned judgment of a community — manifests itself most 
 unmistakably at times of great public excitement. Public 
 passion may show itself at such times, public caprice, public 
 prejudice, perhaps, but not public opinion in the true meaning 
 of that term. We must constantly bear in mind the great 
 difference between public opinion and public clamor, the 
 former a deliberate and reasoned judgment giving expression 
 to the sober second thought of a law-abiding community, the 
 latter a momentary or temporary ebullition of passion or 
 excitement, hysterical rather than rational — the one construc- 
 tive and making for the best and highest interests of the com- 
 munity, the other essentially destructive and transitory, and 
 almost always at variance with the forces that make for per- 
 manence and stability. 
 
 Obviously, then, the formation and growth of public 
 opinion, of this force so impalpable yet so powerful for good 
 or evil, becomes a matter of grave national importance. People 
 sometimes mistakenly imagine that public opinion is something 
 different from the collective opinion of the individuals who 
 compose the public; they seem to think that they have but 
 little part in its formation and direction, and that the only way 
 to ascertain what it is, is to accept what the newspapers say 
 about it. Now this passive attitude of the people in regard to 
 the creation and direction of public opinion often leads to their 
 being deceived as to what it really is, and sometimes permits 
 a small but clamorous minority temporarily to foist its views 
 and policies upon the community. 
 
 [ 11 1
 
 As a matter of fact, the formation and growth of public 
 opinion is an intricate and complicated process. Not only is it 
 difficult at any particular moment to ascertain what it is, but 
 it is slow in manifesting itself. Now this slowness in mani- 
 festing itself, far from being a drawback, is a decided advantage. 
 On this point I cannot do better than to quote again from 
 Mr. Bryce: 
 
 "We must remember," says the author of the American 
 Commonwealth, "how much is gained as well as lost by the 
 slow and hesitating working of public opinion in the United 
 States. So tremendous a force would be dangerous if it moved 
 rashly. Acting over and gathered from an enormous area, in 
 which there exist many local differences, it needs time, often a 
 long time, to become conscious of the preponderance of one set 
 of tendencies over another. The elements both of local differ- 
 ence and of class difference must be, so to speak, well shaken 
 up together, and each part brought into contact with the rest, 
 before the mixed liquid can produce a precipitate in the form 
 of a practical conclusion." 
 
 Bearing this point in mind, I would have you notice how 
 wisely planned our political machinery is for giving expression 
 to true public opinion, and for preventing public excitement 
 from working the mischief it might otherwise produce. It is 
 not my purpose to review the entire system of checks and 
 balances which is so noteworthy a feature of our system of 
 government, but to direct your attention to the wisdom of 
 having our elections occur at definitely fixed and stated inter- 
 vals, and of having the tenure of office of our public officials 
 determined by law. I take up this aspect of my subject rather 
 than another because so many of the short cuts to political 
 perfection would in a short time nullify these advantages which 
 make so directly for the stability and permanence of our 
 government. 
 
 One of the advantages of having our elections come at 
 fixed and stated intervals is, to quote the words of President 
 Taft, used in a slightly different connection: 
 
 [ 12 ]
 
 "To impose obstructions to sudden emotional movements 
 of the people, not taken with the deliberation necessary to 
 secure wisdom; movements that ought to be delayed and held 
 up until they could pass not only under the observation of 
 Philip drunk, but of Philip sober." 
 
 In other words, our elections coming at fixed intervals, 
 preceded as they are by campaigns of education and instruction, 
 makes it possible for public opinion to crystallize and to sepa- 
 rate itself from the hastily formed and ill-considered judgments 
 incident to the heat and excitement of nominating conventions. 
 
 It is easy, therefore, to understand that if our elections were 
 not held at stated times fixed by law, but were held instead at 
 indefinite times, according to contingencies which might arise, 
 the result of such elections might easily turn upon the tempo- 
 rary excitement and passions of the people, and it might be 
 impossible in many cases to have a sufficiently long campaign 
 of education by which might be secured the cool, deliberate 
 judgment of the people, freed from passions and prejudice 
 which often exist temporarily and which for the time exercise 
 a controlling influence. It has frequently occurred in our 
 national elections that public sentiment at the beginning of a 
 campaign, before the questions at issue have been discussed, 
 was strongly opposed to the verdict given after thorough 
 discussion, and I suppose that no one would contend that the 
 judgment of the people, formed after thorough consideration, 
 should not be preferred to a judgment given without such con- 
 sideration, or after only a partial or limited consideration. 
 And I submit that our system of a fixed tenure of office, and 
 of elections held at stated times, is far superior as a means of 
 forming and reaching a sound public opinion than is the 
 English system where a vote in Parliament adverse to the 
 government may precipitate a general election at a time when 
 the public mind is exercised by great passion or excitement — 
 a condition certainly not conducive to a sober or even patriotic 
 judgment. There is no one of us who would not mistrust his 
 own judgment formed in passion or excitement. The wise man 
 
 [ 13]
 
 always sleeps before making up his mind on important matters, 
 and when the whole people, or a community, are to consider 
 and decide important issues, it is more important than in the 
 individual case that the opinion should be made up only after 
 mature consideration and that it should be freed, as far as 
 possible, from the sway of passion or prejudice. 
 
 But let us return a moment to the difficulty of ascertaining 
 public opinion, which is the guide that must ultimately control 
 in all governmental matters. 
 
 I have spoken of the difference between public opinion and 
 public clamor, and how careful we should be not to mistake 
 the one for the other. We saw, too, that the newspapers were 
 not always safe guides to follow, for while they reflect public 
 opinion, they reflect public clamor also, and frequently confuse 
 the two, and perhaps while I have been speaking some of you 
 have been wondering what test I would lay down by which you 
 might easily and infallibly distinguish the genuine from the 
 spurious. But if such were your expectations, I fear I shall be 
 forced to disappoint them. There are no empirical tests which 
 you can apply, any more than formulas for success in life, or 
 rules for the certain attainment of happiness. Problems such 
 as we are dealing with today are too wide and too far-reaching 
 to be solved in this summary fashion. Yet some solution I 
 must indicate, and if you ask me what that solution is, I answer: 
 in education, in the realization of the ideal for which this 
 institution stands. The political salvation of our country 
 today depends upon the leadership of our educated men and 
 women — upon the men and women who have been trained to 
 do their own thinking, and who have been well grounded in the 
 history of their country and in the philosophy of its institutions. 
 The essential part of such education is a thorough understanding 
 of our national history, and an intelligent attachment to the 
 ideals and principles upon which our government is founded. 
 
 You will observe that I include women among those upon 
 whom rest political responsibilities. The fact that women have 
 not generally been granted the suffrage does not absolve them 
 
 14
 
 from this public duty. The depositing of a ballot in a ballot- 
 box is but an insignificant part of the duties of American 
 citizenship. The creating and fostering of intelligent public 
 opinion is an incomparably more important matter^and one 
 in which women may be quite as influential as men, and I have 
 sometimes thought that if those women who have striven to 
 secure the right to vote had but turned their labors toward the 
 formation of a public opinion in furtherance of the aims which 
 they expect to reach through suffrage, they would have accom- 
 plished, and will accomplish in the future, much more than 
 could be gained by the mere privilege of voting. 
 
 It is not going too far to say that the stability attained by 
 our government thus far has been due in no small measure to 
 the fact that in supreme crises, men of responsibility have stood 
 their ground and have done their duty in spite of the clamorous 
 outcry of the multitude and the revilings of an excited press. 
 The men of whom this may be said did their noble part in 
 making and directing sound public opinion. They did not, 
 with "ears to the ground," listen for voices that would lead 
 them to popularity. Rather, having conscientious convictions 
 in regard to the course they would pursue, they declared and 
 maintained that course against all clamor and opposition, and 
 thus proved that in a popular government based upon public 
 opinion, statesmen of the noblest patriotism may exist, and 
 that such a government does not necessarily reduce all men 
 in public life to the level of timeserving politicians. On the 
 other hand, it cannot be denied that there is a type of man in 
 public life, of small intellectual caliber and narrow outlook, 
 who seeks to advance his selfish interests by flattering deference 
 to every passing whim of what he considers "the majority." 
 This is the type of man that has led the best informed of our 
 foreign critics to remark: 
 
 "In America the practical statesman is apt to be timid in 
 advocacy as well as infertile in suggestion. He seems to be 
 always listening for the popular voice, always afraid to commit 
 himself to a view which may turn out unpopular. * * * 
 
 [ 15]
 
 It has been observed that all the subduing power of the popular 
 voice may tell against the appearance of great statesmen, by 
 dwarfing aspiring individualities by teaching men to discover 
 and obey the tendencies of their age rather than to rise above 
 them and direct them." 
 
 "If this happens in America," continues our critic, "it is 
 not because the American people fails to appreciate and follow 
 and exalt such eminent men as fortune bestows upon it. It 
 has great capacity for loyalty, even for hero-worship." 
 
 In support of this view he cites instances where the 
 American people has followed with devotion its great men, 
 saying: 
 
 "A kind of dictatorship was yielded to Abraham Lincoln, 
 whose memory is cherished almost like that of Washington 
 himself." 
 
 It is indeed one of the most hopeful and reassuring signs 
 of our national career that our great presidents have been men 
 who have had to a marked degree the ability to distinguish 
 between public clamor and true public opinion. Washington 
 had this ability in a large measure, and Lincoln, it would seem, 
 had it in even greater measure. To my mind, there is no more 
 striking contrast in American history than that presented by 
 the lives and characters of our two greatest statesmen. Yet 
 in at least one important particular their resemblance was 
 notable: they were both too great in inherent nobility of char- 
 acter meanly to surrender to a clamorous press, or to follow in 
 the wake of a passion-stirred populace. Yet of no two men 
 in all our history can it be so indisputably affirmed that they 
 more truly represented the enlightened public opinion of their 
 times. 
 
 You will recall that this government had not long been 
 founded when a situation arose that was fraught with the 
 gravest consequences, and which if it had not been promptly 
 and wisely met might have jeopardized the very existence of 
 the Republic. In 1793 war broke out between France and 
 England, and threatened to involve the United States. All 
 
 [ 16]
 
 over this country public sentiment was running high in favor 
 of France, and the reasons were obvious. Our country was 
 still smarting from the wounds inflicted by England during 
 the War of Independence. It was almost ten years"s?nce Sir 
 Guy Carlton and his English troopers had sailed away, and 
 yet England contemptuously refused to make a treaty with us. 
 Her troops held our frontier forts, our citizens were still unpaid 
 for the slaves and property she had carried off, her ports were 
 closed to our ships, and she was even seeking to drive our flag 
 from the seas. On the other hand, there was France, our 
 generous ally, to whom we were bound by ties of gratitude and 
 by formal treaties. Had she not been the first to recognize 
 our independence ? In the dark days of our struggle had she 
 not given us generously of her aid ? Had she not sent us ships 
 and troops and money, and helped us in many ways? And 
 now the hour of her struggle was at hand and she turned to us 
 whom she had so generously befriended, and asked if she might 
 use our ports in which to fit out her privateers. What was our 
 answer to be ? 
 
 This was the situation as it presented itself to the public 
 generally and to the press. From all over the country went up 
 the impulsive cry: "Let us help France, who was so generous 
 to us." But Washington, with patriotic and clear vision, said, 
 "No, we must not take sides in this quarrel; we must remain 
 neutral and treat the French and English alike." Then the 
 storm burst. From every side Washington was assailed with 
 criticism. He was stigmatized as disloyal to a friend, traitor- 
 ous to an ally, and unfaithful to his trust. For the moment he 
 seemed to stand alone. He was denounced in the streets, 
 from the rostrum, in the public prints. His house was sur- 
 rounded by the multitude from day to day, huzzaing, demand- 
 ing war against England, cursing Washington, and crying for 
 success to the French. But Washington was not to be swerved 
 from his purpose. He stood firm against the four winds. He 
 suffered, and suffered keenly, but he remained true to his trust 
 in spite of public clamor and in the face of strong public dis- 
 
 [ n ]
 
 approval. And history has vindicated him. Even the public 
 opinion of his day approved of his action; but this public 
 opinion could not make itself heard until public clamor had 
 subsided and reason had asserted itself. That Washington 
 succeeded in steering clear of the rocks is not to be attributed 
 to the fact that there were no false lights displayed to lure him 
 from his course; for of false lights and of darkened counsel 
 there shall never be a lack. 
 
 Of Lincoln's administration this was especially true, and 
 the situation was further complicated by the fact that many of 
 his friends and official advisers, whose honesty was beyond 
 question, openly opposed him because their view of the great 
 issues involved was less comprehensive than his. Scarcely a 
 week passed but deputations representing thousands of his 
 countrymen waited upon him to urge him to change his policy 
 so as to make it conform to their views. When it became 
 evident that Lincoln would not permit honest, though misin- 
 formed and partial, public sentiment to dictate to him, his 
 policy, his motives were fiercely attacked. "No man," remarks 
 Joseph Choate, "was ever made the subject of such unwar- 
 ranted abuse, vilification and ridicule as Abraham Lincoln." 
 And all this at a time when he stood most in need of sympathetic 
 and intelligent support. The attack seemed to culminate when 
 one of the ablest and most influential men of his time suddenly 
 turned against him and smote him with cruel injustice. This 
 man was no other than Horace Greeley, an old friend of the 
 President, the editor of the powerful New York Tribune and a 
 tremendous force in the shaping and directing of public opinion. 
 At this distance of time it is difficult, if not impossible, for us 
 adequately to realize the widespread sensation that was caused 
 when in the summer of 1862, Horace Greeley addressed to 
 President Lincoln his famous Prayer of Twenty Millions of 
 People. It was a move of national significance, and it involved 
 issues of more than passing moment. This "Prayer," which 
 purported to give voice to the sentiment of twenty millions of 
 loyal citizens, practically charged Lincoln with having been 
 
 I is ]
 
 unfaithful to the great trust reposed in him, with having failed 
 to execute the laws of the land, and with having paid a "mis- 
 taken deference to rebel slavery." It was a cruel and unjust 
 criticism, but it was written in the telling style of oTie of the 
 greatest journalists of his age, and it had behind it the tre- 
 mendous power and prestige of a great name and a great per- 
 sonality. It was a protest that might well cause even the 
 greatest to hesitate, nay, even to falter; but Greeley, able as he 
 was, had not taken the true measure of the man with whom he 
 was dealing. Lincoln, without hesitation, composed his an- 
 swer and issued it in the form of that memorable Reply to 
 Horace Greeley, which, in its grave dignity, its unconscious 
 pathos, and its noble severity, stands apart in the history of 
 epistolary literature. And the nation saw that the man whose 
 tender heart could not refuse the widow's prayer to spare her 
 soldier son who was condemned to be shot for desertion, could 
 turn a deaf ear to the prayer of "Twenty Millions" when that 
 prayer clashed with what Lincoln felt to be his duty. 
 
 While but few have the opportunity of rendering to the 
 nation the invaluable and patriotic service which was rendered 
 by Lincoln or Washington, yet every enlightened and patriotic 
 citizen may aid the community in which he lives to reach a sane 
 and reasonable public opinion, and after all, it is the units 
 of individual citizenship which collectively make up the nation 
 and control its destinies. I need not again emphasize the 
 tremendous importance to the community and to the nation 
 of a sound and informed public opinion. I have tried to make 
 clear to you the difference between public opinion and public 
 clamor, a distinction which is of the first importance, but one 
 which, unfortunately, is rarely made. Public opinion, in the 
 sense in which I have used the term, is not the first hasty im- 
 pression that springs from ill-considered or insufficient data, 
 but is rather the sober second thought of a community, formed 
 after deliberate and thorough consideration of the questions 
 at issue. It follows from this that times of great public excite- 
 ment, when passion and prejudice control, are not the times 
 
 I 19 1
 
 conducive to the formation of sound public opinion. It is at 
 just such times, however, that the educated men and women 
 of this country can render their most important public services. 
 They should not lend their influence or their support to the 
 alarmists or the sensationalists of the hour; nor, on the other 
 hand, should they stand passively aside and leave the multitude 
 to its own guidance. The first course is contemptible, the 
 second worse than unpatriotic. 
 
 It has been said that the educated citizen should be the 
 antidote to the demagogue. The demagogue we have always 
 with us, but he is powerless to deceive or mislead the educated 
 man. He has never, it may be said truthfully, been successful 
 for any length of time in misleading even the mass of the people. 
 It is the demonstration of every crisis that the great majority 
 is sound at heart, that it is willing and eager to do what is right. 
 In every instance where it has for the moment failed, the fault 
 may be traced to misinformation or to misplaced faith in 
 unworthy leadership. 
 
 The duty of the educated man is here plainly indicated. 
 It is nothing less than to meet situations as they arise, with the 
 information and the courage with which knowledge and training 
 have equipped him. It is always the duty of intelligence to 
 guide the steps of ignorance, and only the shirk or the coward 
 among educated men will stand back when times and con- 
 ditions call for sound counsels. There are, I know, those who 
 maintain that, in a country where majorities rule, the voice of 
 enlightened judgment is lost in the clamors of ignorance and 
 prejudice. To such I would say that their observation of social 
 movements is at fault, and they have read history to little 
 purpose. The record of American life does not justify a low 
 estimate of the popular capacity to respond to the higher appeal. 
 The trimmer and the timeserving politician always adopt such 
 low estimate, and so long as they can deceive the public they 
 may achieve a limited and temporary success, but the end is 
 always the same. Failure overtakes them in their short career, 
 and oblivion marks them for her own. Our great leaders, 
 
 [ 20 ]
 
 from the day of Samuel Adams until this day, have always 
 been men who have had the courage of their convictions, and 
 who, for those convictions, have had to face public opposition, 
 oftentimes vilification and abuse. Often they stood Bone, and 
 the recognition their hearts yearned for was denied them. But 
 they strove for something higher than popularity, and today 
 they stand on the heights, while the timeserver and the trim- 
 mer are forgotten, or remembered only with contempt. 
 
 I have just been referring to our great political leaders, but 
 what I have said concerning them applies with equal force to 
 the great leaders of journalism. In journalism, as in politics, 
 we have the inspiration of noble traditions and the stimulus of 
 great names and high ideals. If journalism today does not 
 universally occupy the high place it might, it has only itself to 
 blame. Newspapers, in many instances, have misused their 
 great power; they have employed the arts of the demagogue to 
 gain subscribers, just as a certain type of politician employs 
 such arts to win votes. I do not mean to imply that this is true 
 of newspapers generally, any more than it is true of politicians 
 generally. Our country affords many notable instances to the 
 contrary. Here, in this State, there is published a newspaper 
 which has long sustained with signal ability and prestige the 
 higher traditions of journalism, a newspaper whose name has 
 become a synonym for moral and intellectual force, one whose 
 opinions and judgments are accorded serious consideration by 
 thinking people at home and abroad. Such a journal is truly 
 a precious possession, a thing to be valued as among the powers 
 making for right and justice among men. 
 
 It has been said of the profession of teaching that it may 
 be either "the sorriest of trades or the noblest of professions." 
 This dictum is markedly true of journalism. And it seems to 
 me that the political hope of the present century, the first dec- 
 ade of which is now drawing to a close, is very closely bound 
 up with the winning of the press to higher as distinguished from 
 lower standards of judgment, and to a nobler development of 
 wisdom and courage. I am not without hope that the great 
 
 [ 21 1
 
 powers of the press for good or evil will, as time goes on, inspire 
 in it an enlarged sense of responsibility, give it a new birth of 
 devotion to the higher purposes of life. I hold in mental vision, 
 as among the possibilities of a not remote future, a press so 
 provided on the side of its necessities, so lifted above ordinary 
 business considerations, that it may sit in judgment of passing 
 events, inspired only by the true spirit of justice. I have in 
 conception a journalism exalted above considerations of financial 
 gain. Society has found the means to establish a limited group 
 of civilizing and ennobling agencies — notably the church, the 
 library, the art gallery, the college — in a sphere above neces- 
 sities and motives which dominate the workaday world. I see 
 no reason why our journalism should not be sustained by the 
 same methods of endowment which have so notably been 
 applied in this country to other educational agencies. I have 
 no thought of creating a journalism different from the best 
 journalism of our time, only to remove any bias of opinion 
 or motive which may come through strife for financial gain. 
 I venture to suggest that the press in its higher and ultimate 
 development must have a place in this limited company of 
 beneficent things, sustained and cherished for its highest 
 powers, above influences tending to demoralization of judgment 
 and courage. Surely, as time goes on, men must see that the 
 great — I had almost said the supreme — powers of the press 
 should be freed from financial necessities which tend to prej- 
 udice and to bias. I present to you this conception of a 
 definitely and securely independent press as among ideals 
 worth cherishing in connection with the evolutionary march of 
 social organization toward higher standards of responsibility. 
 But my main purpose today is not so much to dwell upon 
 the duties of our public officials, or the responsibilities of our 
 journalists, as to call your attention to the duties and responsi- 
 bilities which you, as educated men and women, owe to your 
 state and to the nation at large. Our government has already 
 entered upon a stage in its development when "shirt-sleeves 
 diplomacy" and "shirt-sleeves legislation" will no longer 
 
 2g
 
 suffice. The problems, both foreign and domestic, that now 
 confront us are many of them intricate and complex in the 
 extreme. They are problems which for their proper solution 
 call for the judgment of the trained specialist. The -first hasty 
 impression of the man in the street will not do. It is therefore 
 incumbent upon you to do all you can, both by precept and 
 example, to discourage hasty and ill-considered action in 
 matters pertaining to the public welfare. Unfortunately, the 
 tendency of certain recent innovations in our governmental 
 machinery makes strongly against the deliberation that is so 
 essential to sound legislation. These innovations proceed 
 upon the assumption that no particular training or skill is 
 necessary to enact good laws, that the opinion of the man in 
 the street is every bit as valuable as the opinion of the experi- 
 enced statesman, and that where a man's intentions are vaguely 
 good, neither knowledge nor judgment is necessary for his 
 guidance. Imagine what would happen if we attempted to 
 conduct a large business upon such a theory; yet the govern- 
 ment has frequently to deal with issues that are far more intri- 
 cate than those that ordinarily arise in private business. Not 
 only this, but involved questions that require cool and dis- 
 passionate consideration may be suddenly precipitated into the 
 political arena — perhaps at a time of great public excitement— 
 and an immediate solution demanded. The resulting legis- 
 lation may reflect the public temper of the moment, but it runs 
 little chance of reflecting true public opinion — the deliberate 
 and reasoned judgment of the community. The latest of these 
 governmental innovations, The Recall, is directly opposed to 
 the principle of representative government. It tends to breed 
 a type of public man who always has his ear to the ground, a 
 man who has no opinions or convictions of his own, and whose 
 one aim is to keep in office by turning himself into a political 
 weathercock, adjusted to catch every passing gust of popular 
 caprice. This is not the kind of man from whom the country 
 has anything to hope. He has no fixed standards of right or 
 wrong, but will always be found on the side of what he believes 
 
 [ 23 ]
 
 to be the majority; if the ratio of numbers should change over- 
 night, his allegiance will change with them, and the morning 
 will find him fighting on the side of that cause which he opposed 
 the day before. 
 
 I have already spoken of that provision of law which pre- 
 scribes stated times for the holding of elections. Under such 
 provision, elections are always preceded by adequate cam- 
 paigns of discussion, and such period for discussion can always 
 be sufficient to clear away the confusion that may exist from 
 want of full information, or temporary passion or excitement. 
 Now one of many objections to the Recall is that it nullifies 
 this advantage. Under its workings, elections may be brought 
 on upon short notice, and at times when the popular mind is 
 least calm, least informed, least capable of judgment. It is 
 calculated not to reserve political action to the mood of calm 
 counsels and sober judgment, but to precipitate it upon the 
 hour of passion and clamor. Furthermore, if it be said that 
 the Recall is necessary to get rid of corrupt officials, who by 
 some mischance may have been foisted upon the public, it 
 need only be answered that, in this respect, society is sufficiently 
 protected under our laws of impeachment. 
 
 These are only a few of the many mischiefs possible, even 
 inevitable, under the Recall scheme. A moment's reflection 
 will show how dangerous a weapon it must be in the hands of a 
 disgruntled and unscrupulous minority, for it may as easily be 
 invoked against good men as against bad men. It is a certain 
 and persistent menace to independence of thought and integrity 
 of action, at the same time holding no terrors for the conscience- 
 less and shifty timeserver more intent upon commending 
 himself to popularity and upon holding his office than upon 
 doing his duty in the face of possible misapprehension and 
 prejudice. Who that is acquainted with the spirit and the 
 discontent of the time can doubt that if the Recall had been in 
 force during the administration of George Washington, that 
 even he, the Father of his Country, would have been called to 
 account for his stand for neutrality in the war between England 
 
 [ 24 ]
 
 and France, and summarily removed from the presidency? 
 And who familiar with the incidents of Lincoln's administra- 
 tion and of the confused state of the public mind in connection 
 with them, can doubt that this, the noblest of all the -figures of 
 the last generation of Americans, would likewise have been 
 dismissed from his post of duty by the distempered recklessness 
 of a passionate and passing hour? Those who urge these 
 innovations may say that it is not proposed to apply the Recall 
 to national affairs, only to state and municipal affairs. My 
 answer is that crises of public aberration and passion occur 
 more frequently in the municipality and in the state than in the 
 nation; and for this reason the Recall principle is all the more 
 vicious in its application to state and municipal affairs. 
 
 I have spoken especially of the Recall because in my 
 judgment this proposal stands for an idea in radical and funda- 
 mental conflict with the scheme of representative government 
 as it has come down to us from the Fathers. But the Recall is 
 only one of a group of proposals offered to the American people 
 in the name of reform, and under that impulse which impels 
 many to seek short cuts to political perfection. Taken in their 
 entirety, these proposals suggest changes that would not only 
 nullify the representative principle but destroy the government 
 which has grown up under it. That government is now almost 
 a century and a quarter old. It has borne us successfully 
 through amazing changes of material and social conditions. 
 It has enabled us to weather the storms of one of the greatest 
 civil conflicts the world has ever known. It has challenged not 
 only the admiration of the world, but has enforced imitation 
 more or less marked wherever civilized races of men abide. 
 It still serves our purposes, still distinguishes us among the 
 nations of the earth. Nobody claims for our Constitution the 
 merit of Utopian completeness, but wise men see that it has 
 not yet reached the limits of its possibilities, nor attained the 
 full measure of what it holds of social and political advantage. 
 The advancing years have made manifest its working efficiency; 
 the strains of time and circumstance have disclosed in it unex- 
 
 [ 25 ]
 
 pected sources of strength. Gladstone's characterization of 
 it as "the greatest work ever struck off at any one time by 
 the mind and purpose of man" remains as true today as when 
 it was spoken. 
 
 As rational men and women you must recognize that per- 
 fection is not to be looked for in human institutions. No general 
 rule of society was ever yet framed, however salutary in the 
 main, that would not work hardship in particular cases, and 
 no political institution will ever be devised through human 
 ingenuity that will not exhibit defects in the course of its 
 operations. And while this knowledge ought not to deter us 
 from laboring incessantly for the betterment of our laws and 
 institutions, it should guard us against the danger of revolution- 
 ary changes. Almost invariably such proposals are found to 
 be false lights, with new colors, perhaps, but not essentially dis- 
 similar from those which precipitancy or quackery are forever 
 holding before the eyes of discontent and credulity. 
 
 It is not difficult to account for the attention which well- 
 meaning but uncritical people give to loudly heralded short cuts 
 to political perfection. That there are those who turn to the 
 support of every new suggestion, earnestly and even in the 
 face of repeated disappointment, is a mark of that aspiration 
 which pervades the American character. But aspiration — 
 even moral aspiration — uninstructed by knowledge, unregu- 
 lated by judgment, may in the sphere of constructive politics 
 work infinite mischief. Those who proceed under its impulses, 
 greedily clutching at everything that offers or appears to offer 
 relief from the shortcomings of our system, may be compared 
 to the man in the crowd who offers his money for a patent 
 nostrum that may mask the symptoms of his disease even while 
 augmenting its real virulence. 
 
 Observation has convinced me that those who lightly 
 propose modifications in the fundamental structures of our 
 government have no true comprehension of the force and 
 meaning of their proposals. Those who so ardently urge these 
 revolutionary modifications do not understand that they would 
 
 [ 26 ]
 
 surely nullify and destroy representative government. They 
 do not stop to consider — in the limitations of their knowledge 
 they do not understand — that the principle of pure democracy, 
 which they would substitute for the representative~principle, 
 is a thing niched from the scrap-heap of past times and dis- 
 credited systems, a device many times used and as often dis- 
 carded as wanting in the elements essential to a permanent 
 or stable government. 
 
 It is for you to whom I speak today, educated men and 
 women, to examine all proposals of political change, in the 
 light of knowledge and under the guidance of judgment, and 
 to appraise each at its true value. It is for you to recognize 
 and to expose the fallacies which too often lie in novelty and 
 pretension, to caution and restrain those who would rush 
 blindly into the field of political experimentation, to instruct 
 the uninformed and the thoughtless that our Constitution 
 affords in itself the best and surest means of constructive and 
 wholesome change. It is for you to insist that such changes 
 as we make shall harmonize with and sustain the integrity of 
 our political fabric. In brief, it is for you, educated men and 
 women, to guard our system against the proposals of a reckless 
 innovation which would cheapen it to a scheme of incon- 
 sistencies, and which would debase our noble Constitution to a 
 thing of shreds and patches. 
 
 I am sure that I make no mistake when I appeal with 
 confidence to men and women of instructed and trained minds, 
 when I appeal to conscience allied with intelligence, on the 
 score of its high and special responsibilities, to cherish that 
 which has come down to us from the Fathers of the Republic, 
 that which has sustained us in a progress unparalleled in the 
 records of mankind. 
 
 t 27 ] 

 
 5 7 j
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 L OCT 
 
 REC'D LD-URL 
 FEB 2 5 199B 
 
 Form L-0 
 
 23m -2, '43a 
 
 AT 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 LIBRARY
 
 L 007 360 499 3 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGII 
 
 AA 000 821 043