Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2016 
 
 https://archive.org/details/addressesatmeetiOOamer 
 
IMPORTANT. 
 
 Z o 
 
 Vtt\3 
 
 The New Register of the Institute is now in Press. 
 
 TITLE-PAGE AND NAMES OF COUNCILORS WILL BE AS 
 SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES, WITH THE EXCEP- 
 TION THAT NAMES WILL BE ARRANGED ALPHABETICALLY. 
 
 THE NAME OF EVERY COUNCILOR SHOULD 
 APPEAR IN THIS PUBLICATION. 
 
 COUNCILORS WHO HAVE NOT FURNISHED THE 
 NECESSARY INFORMATION ARE REQUESTED 
 TO DO SO AT ONCE. 
 
 A blank form will be furnished for the purpose, upon application, 
 addressed to 
 
 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CIVICS, 
 
 177 Broadway, 
 
 New York. 
 
 
 
NATIONAL CORPS OF LECTURERS 
 
 AND 
 
 FACULTY ASSOCIATES IN HIGHER INSTITUTIONS 
 
 OF LEARNING. 
 
 Councilors of the Institute who are willing to accept 
 invitations to deliver occasional addresses on subjects 
 related to Civics (affairs of government, citizenship, etc.), 
 and who are not now enrolled as members of its Corps 
 of Lecturers, and members of faculties in higher institu- 
 tions of learning who are willing to co-operate with the 
 Institute in its general activities, are invited to send 
 information to this effect at once, in order that their 
 names may be properly presented in the new Register. 
 
 Address 
 
 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CIVICS, 
 
 177 Broadway, 
 
 New York. 
 
[SPECIMEN PAGE, NEW REGISTER.] 
 
 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OE CIVICS. 
 
 REGISTER 
 
 OF ITS 
 
 NATIONAL BODY OF COUNCILORS, 
 
 INCLUDING 
 
 FACULTY ASSOCIATES IN HIGHER INSTITUTIONS 
 
 OF LEARNING 
 
 NATIONAL CORPS OF LECTURERS. 
 
 A. D. 1900. 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CIVICS. 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 [over.] 
 
[SPECIMEN PAGE, NEW REGISTER.] 
 
 COUNCILORS AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CIVICS. 
 
 Foster, Capt. Herbert Sidney. U. S. In- 
 
 fantry. Manila, P. I.; Prof. Milit. Sc., etc., Univ. 
 
 Vt., 1890-8. Commander Vt. Div. S. of V., 
 1891-2; Memb. S. A. R., S. V., M. O. L. L., Soc. 
 Army of Santiago de Cuba. B. Calais, Vt., Aug. 
 
 8, 1858. 
 
 Sanford, Fernando. Prof. Physics, Leland 
 
 Stanford Univ., Cal. Memb. Soc. Am. Wars. 
 
 B. Taylor, 111., 1854. 
 
 Thompson, Hon. Hugh Smith. Comptrol- 
 ler N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 346 B’way, N. Y. City. 
 Capt. C. S. A., Civ. War; late Supt. Educ. and 
 Governor S. C.; Ass. Sec. U. S. Treas.; Civ. 
 Serv. Com. U. S.; Memb. S. R.; Confed. Vet. 
 Camp; South. Soc.; Ref. C.; Century Ass., N. 
 
 Y., and St. Andrew’s Soc., Charleston, S. C., 
 where b. 1836. 
 
 Beaver, Gen. James Addams, LL.D. Law, 
 
 Belief onte. Pa. U. S. Civ. War, Lt. 2d Pa.. 
 Lt.-Col. 45th Pa., Col. 148th Pa. and Bvt. Brig.- 
 Gen. U. S. V.; Gov. Pa. 1887-91.; Judge Super. 
 
 Ct. Pa. 1895; Memb. U. S. Com. on Conduct 
 Spanish War; Trust. Wash. & Jeff. Coll., 
 
 Pa. State Coll., Lincoln Univ.; Memb. S. R.; 
 Milit. Ord. L. L.; U. V. Leg.; G. A. R.; Soc. 
 Army Potomac and West Va.; Pa. German 
 Soc.; U. L. Club, Philad.; B <s) n Frat. B. 
 Millerstown, Pa., Oct. 21, 1837. 
 
 * Bonaparte, Charles Joseph. Law, Balti- 
 
 more, Md. Overseer Harvard Univ.; Trust. 
 Pratt Free Library, Balt.; Memb. Nat. Civ" 
 Serv. Ref. Ass. ; Balt. Charity Org. Soc. ; Nat' 
 Munic. League, etc. B. Balt., Md., June 9, 1851" 
 
 Riggs, Rev. Thomas Lawrence. Supt. In- 
 dian Missions, Oahu, S. D. B. Lacquiparle. 
 Minn., June 3, 1847. 
 
 McConnell, John Preston, A.M. Chair 
 
 Latin & Greek, Milligan College, Milligan, Tenn. 
 Memb. Am. Acad. Polit. & Soc. Science; & Am. 
 
 Hist. Assoc. B. Wayland, Va., Feb. 22, 1866. 
 
 * Cruikshank, James, LL.D. 206 So. Oxford 
 
 St., Brooklyn, N. Y. Princ. Gram. Sch. No. 12, & 
 
 Eve. High. Sch., Brooklyn; Life Memb. Fellow, 
 
 & Secy. Council. Brooklyn Inst, of Arts & 
 Sciences; Assoc. Sup. Pub. Schools. Bklyn., 
 1866-72; Ed. N. Y. Teacher, 1856-58; Institute 
 Lecturer. B. Argyle, N. Y., Aug. 28, 1831. 
 
 Symmes, Frank Jameson. 725 Mission St., 
 
 San Francisco. Merchant; Director Mer- 
 chants’ Assn.; Ex-Naval Officer ; Ex-Pres. 
 Harvard Club; Memb. University Club; V.- 
 P. Settlement Assoc., San Francisco; Also 
 Memb. Naval Bd. Visitors, 1899 & Soc. Am. 
 Wars. B. Kingston, Mass., June 7, 1847. 
 
 *Comstock, Theodore Bryant, Sc. D. Cornell. 
 
 Chicago, 111., 535 Stimpson Block. Mining En- 
 
 g ineer; Chair Geology Cornell Univ., 1875-79; 
 
 hair Mining Engineering, Univ. 111., 1885-89; 
 Director Sch. of Mines, Univ. of Arizona, 1891- 
 95; Pres, do., 1893-95; Founder & Fellow Geolog. 
 
 Soc. America; Memb. Natl. Geog. Soc., Fellow 
 Am. Soc. Adv. Sc.; Memb. Am. Inst. M. E., & 
 Federated Inst, of Eng. Societies, England. B. 
 Cuyahoga Falls, N. Y., July 27, 1849. 
 
 Sherman, Hon. Elijah B., LL.D. Chicago, 
 
 111., 1152 Monadnock Bldg. Lawyer & Master 
 in Chancery U. S. Cir. Court; Lt. Co. C. 9th 
 Vt. Inf. Civ. War; Lt.-Col. & Judge Adv. 1st 
 Brig. N. G. 111., 1877-84; Memb. 111. Legis 
 
 * Member National Corps of Lecturers. 
 
 1877-81; G. M. I. O. O. F. 111. 1874; Memb. G. 
 A. R.; LL.; Vet. Union; U. L. Club, Chicago; 
 Til. Bar Assoc. & Am. Bar Assoc., and National 
 Pres. Delta Upsilon Fraternity. B. Fairfield, Vt., 
 Jun. 18, 1832. 
 
 Conant, Hon. Edward, A.M. Princ. Pub. 
 
 School, Randolph, Vt.; State Supt. Education, 
 Vt., 1874-80; Memb. Const. Conv. Vt., 1870; 
 Delegate National Council Cong. Churches, 
 1865-74-92; Internat. Ditto, 1899; Author Hist. 
 Vt.; Drill Book in English Primary Hist. 
 Reader. B. Pomfret, Vt., May 10, 1829. 
 
 j-Hamilton, Rev.W. E., D.D. Chair of Phi- 
 losophy & Civics in Simpson College, Indian- 
 ola, la. B. New Richmond, O., Oct. 9, 1845. 
 
 Jefferson, John Percival. Manufacturer, 
 
 Warren, Pa.; Lieutenant U. S. Army (West 
 Point). B. Delaware, O., 1852. 
 
 Trafton, William Henry. Editor & Statis- 
 tician, 210 W. 83d St., New York City, Memb. 
 Produce Exchange, Press Association, & West 
 Side Repub. Club, New York. 
 
 Breckenridge, Gen. Joseph Cabell. Wash- 
 ington, D. C., War Dept. Brig. Gen. & In- 
 spect. Gen. U. S. A.; Maj. Gen. U. S. Vols. 
 Span. Am. War Memb. S. A. R.; L. L.; Mil. 
 Ord. Foreign Wars; Ord. Span. Am. War; 
 Soc. Army Cumberland, & Tenn.; Trustee Am. 
 Inst. Civics. B. Baltimore, Md., May 14, 1842. 
 
 Spayd, H. H. Minersville, Pa. Prin. Pub. 
 
 Schools; Color Bearer 149th Pa. Vols. Civ. 
 War; Licentiate Eng. Bap. Ch.; Memb. G. A. 
 R.; Life Memb. Pa. State Teachers’ Ass. & 
 Nat. Ed. Ass. B. Myerstown, Pa., Oct. 26, 1845. 
 
 Kingsbury, Frederick John. Waterbury, 
 
 Ct., Banker. Memb. Yale Univ. Corporation, 
 1881, 1900; Treas. P. E. Diocese of Ct?, & trustee 
 various Educ. & Charitable bodies; Memb. 
 Soc. Col. Wars; Ct. Acad. Sc.; Am. Antiq. 
 Soc.; Am. Soc. Sc. Ass.; Am. Hist. Soc., and 
 Am. Archeolog. Soc. B. Waterbury, Ct. 
 
 f Howard, Hon. Walter E., LL.D. Middle- 
 
 bury. Vt., Lawyer. Chair Polit. Sc. & Hist., 
 Middlebury College since 1889. Ex-Senator 
 & Rep. State of Vt.; Ex.-Memb. U. S. Consular 
 Service, and Pres. Vt. Bd. Norm. Sch. Com- 
 missioners. B. Tunbridge, Vt., May 29, 1849. 
 
 tReed, Rev. George Edward, S.T.D., LL.D’ 
 
 ' ‘Carlisle, Pa. Pres. Dickinson College; Libra" 
 rian Pa. State Library; Former pastor leading 
 churches N. Y. E. Conf. M. E. Ch. B. Brown- 
 ville, Me., Mch. 28, 1846. 
 
 *Logan, Walter Seth. 27 William St., New 
 
 York City, Lawyer. Grad. Yale Univ. 1870; 
 Memb Am. Bar Ass., and Pres. N. Y. State Bar 
 Ass.; Memb. Ord. Founders & Patriots; Colon. 
 Wars; S. A. R.; N. E. Soc.; a liberal patron 
 Arts & Sciences, & popular speaker on Hist. & 
 Economical subjects. B. Washington, Ct., 
 Apr. 15, 1847. 
 
 *Crocker, Hon. George Glover, LL.B. 
 (Harv.). Boston, Mass., 19 Milk St., Lawyer. 
 Pres. Mass. Senate 1883; Chairman Mass. Bd. 
 R. R. Cornrs., 1887-92; Chairman Boston Transit 
 Commission, since 1894; Author “ Principles 
 of Procedure in Delib. Bodies;” G. P. Putnam’s 
 Sons. B. Boston, Dec. 15, 1843. 
 
 t Member Faculty Associates. (over.) 
 
DIPLOMATIC SERVICE AND ITS REQUIREMENTS. 
 
 By Hon. Geo. F. Seward, former U. S. Minister to China. 
 
 There is no diplomatic service of the United States. There is a diplomatic 
 establishment. The Government appoints Ministers from time to time to given 
 parts. These appointments are made from the ranks of onr citizenship, but not 
 from a body of men constituting a service. 
 
 The European Governments select young men for their diplomatic services, as- 
 signing them to duty first in their foreign offices or legations and promoting them 
 step by step for merit. In other words, they adhere practically to the methods 
 which we follow in our Naval and Military services. Our plan permits each 
 President to name whomsoever he pleases for the highest as well as the lowest 
 places, the choice being made usually without regard to prior service. 
 
 There has been no time in the whole history of our country when we have not 
 had some men serving us abroad qualified in a high degree for their duties. We 
 have such men to-day. Mr. Andrew D. White and Mr. Strauss have served under 
 different administrations and may be considered trained diplomatic officers. 
 Their appointments indicate recognition of the fact that experience in diplomacy 
 is valuable. We have also in the establishment at the moment Mr. Joseph H. 
 Choate and General Porter. The native ability and the breadth of general 
 experience of these men stand in place of special training. 
 
 Beyond a doubt men of ability may always be found ready to take service 
 abroad. Sometimes they are attracted by the honor which attaches to the 
 duty. Sometimes they are weary of work at home and are seeking rest. Some- 
 times they find in a foreign post opportunities for study. It is nevertheless 
 safe to say that nine out of every ten persons in our diplomatic service, so called, 
 have been chosen, not for fitness, but for political reasons. This one was active 
 in politics, that one was related to someone active in politics, another was in the 
 way of someone active in politics, that one failed of an election while carrying 
 the party banner and must be provided for, another subscribed heavily for the 
 party’s campaign treasury and so on. 
 
 This haphazard system or lack of system is followed when surely the need of 
 a right system is great. It is not a light thing to be the person selected to make 
 public appearance for our nation at the capital of some other great nation, to 
 mingle with its statesmen in representative capacity, to speak on great occasions 
 and to take part in great public functions. But the social and ceremonial duties 
 of a diplomat are incidental only to his graver duties. There are no international 
 Courts in which international controversies, grave or unimportant, can be tried. 
 There is no power resident in an international agent to demand, to threaten or to 
 use force. He is limited to such influence as his representative capacity and his 
 personal qualities afford. And upon these he must rely to win over the Govern- 
 ment to which he is accredited to the w'ishes and purposes of his own Govern- 
 ment. 
 
 Again, to be the dependable source of information for the foreign office of one’s 
 State is by itself not a light thing. It is difficult for most men to take just views of 
 
D1PL0 MA TIC SER VICE. 
 
 2 
 
 homo questions. It is far away more difficult to judge of questions in a foreign 
 state. It is not merely the case that to get at facts is not an easy task when one 
 is amid a strange people. The facts must he considered and presented with 
 knowledge of local institutions, methods of administration and national 
 idiosyncrasies. The presentation must be absolutely without prejudice. The 
 natural instinct of every man is to believe the morals and the methods, the 
 manners and the fashions of his own country the best, and all morals, methods, 
 manners and fashions which are different, ridiculous if not vicious. All this 
 points to the proposition that a diplomatic agent must be capable of entering 
 into the spirit of the people with whom he lives, of appreciating their institutions 
 and of judging them by their own standards. 
 
 We all know that success in any line of individual effort does not necessarily 
 indicate breadth of ability. The successful lawyer may be a special pleader, 
 the successful preacher a bigot, the successful merchant may know little beside 
 cotton goods or coffee. But the successful diplomat must be many-sided, accom- 
 plished, shrewd, free from prejudices, appreciative and just. He must know 
 what is serious (and that is a serious thing indeed). He must know also how to 
 fit means to ends. He must be a man of character, absolutely honest and abso- 
 lutely incapable of misleading his own Government or that to which he is 
 accredited. 
 
 I am quite aware that many people estimate the quality of a diplomat differ- 
 ently. In their estimation his proper function is often to make the wrong side 
 appear the better, to speak speciously rather than sincerely. Will the man of 
 character do these things ever? Will the man who does such things be accept- 
 able to men of character in the State he represents or in that to which he is 
 accredited? It is only necessary to state the question to enforce the conclusion. 
 If high character is needed anywhere it is needed in diplomacy if permanent 
 success is to be achieved. 
 
 To any right statement of the qualities of a diplomat there must be included 
 this proposition — he must be unselfish. There is a saying that “ Peace hath her 
 victories no less renowned than war.” But a saying quite as true would be, 
 
 ‘ * Peace hath her victories which are not renowned at all.” The victories of a 
 diplomatic agent are generally such. If he heralds them to the world he 
 destroys his usefulness. Perhaps the hardest of all tasks for an American poli- 
 tician turned diplomat is to hold his tongue about his achievements, real or 
 fancied. 
 
 Again, no man probably ever became the spokesman of any nation or of any 
 interest who did not feel the task of moderating and managing his own side 
 greater than of managing the other. Stewart L. Woodford is said to have 
 declared that if left alone he would have averted war with Spain while gaining 
 for Cuba all that America could reasonably desire. The instance is salient, but 
 it illustrates my point. No Secretary of State is gifted with universal knowledge 
 or universal sagacity; neither is any President or Cabinet. The nation’s repre- 
 sentative abroad is, so to speak, casting the line and taking the soundings. If 
 well informed, he is able to chart the course to be pursued. A foreign secretary 
 without able representatives in foreign States is in a very helpless position. 
 
DIPLOMATIC SERVICE. 
 
 3 
 
 A concrete instance of the highest type of a diplomat is Benjamin Franklin. 
 Whether one considers his accomplishments, his common sense, his shrewdness, 
 his constancy, his balance of judgment, his personal charm, his acquaintance 
 with affairs and human nature, his freedom from prejudices, no man was ever 
 better qualified to win respect and to achieve success. If you will keep him in 
 mind as the ideal representative of what the foreign representative of a govern- 
 ment should be you will at least know of what my conception of that ideal is. 
 
 The clash of interests between the European States is such that greater 
 importance attaches to their foreign services than is the case with us. It is 
 Cavour, Bismarck and Disraeli, the men of their day in their respective States, 
 who deal with foreign affairs. But even with us the post of Secretary of State is 
 the leading one, and it is true that the line of Secretaries of State has been more 
 distinguished for ability and the general qualities of statesmanship than the line 
 
 of our Presidents. 
 
 * 
 
 Our Government is based upon moral ideas. It is just these ideas which may 
 be enforced in diplomacy. When the conclusions of a government may be 
 enforced by arms, when the State is great because of its military resources, 
 diplomacy is of less importance. Brute force instead of moral power is at the 
 front. A late representative of our nation in Asia has said that before the 
 victory of Dewey he sab helplessly in his seat, his hands hanging by his side. 
 Was that man aware of the moral weight of his country? Had he learned the 
 alphabet even of his profession? Burlingame once represented America at that 
 same Court. It was in the dark days of our Civil War and no one of our men- 
 of-war was on that side of the globe. Perhaps no diplomatic agent of any nation 
 was ever more respected at that Court or more successful than he. 
 
 I mention the instance of our helpless representative, not to throw a stone, 
 but to illustrate a proposition. Our nation is as ignorant almost of the use which 
 may be made of its diplomatic establishment as the given Minister was of the 
 possibilities of his position. I have quoted Mr. Woodford’s claim that he could 
 have settled the Cuban issue satisfactorily. Our nation was so little acquainted 
 with the idea that great issues may be settled by diplomacy that it drifted into 
 war. Do we, as a nation, appreciate the moral weight of our country ? For 
 America there should never be need of war. We ought never to embark upon 
 any wrong adventure. If right in the issue our strength is such that no exhibi- 
 tion of it should be necessary. As a matter of fact, however, we have never 
 learned how little we need to anticipate war nor how to build and use a diplo- 
 matic establishment which may serve to avert it. 
 
 If regard be had only to issues of peace or war it must be remembered that 
 these have come to us of late with alarming frequency. In ten years we have 
 had a grave dispute with Chili over the abuse of sailors, with England over 
 the Venezuelan boundary matter, and with Spain over Cuba. The two former 
 were settled. The latter resulted in a war which has led to a second war, the 
 end of which is not yet in sight. Diplomacy which would have averted these 
 wars would have been cheap at any imaginable cost. But outside of issues 
 involving war or peace it would be difficult to overestimate the duties of a diplo- 
 matic agent. In a thousand ways he may be useful to his country and his 
 
4 
 
 DIPLOMATIC SERVICE. 
 
 countrymen. In whatever case his State or people touch the State or people to 
 which he is accredited, his services may be.needed. He has a guardianship as 
 respects the private rights of individuals of his nationality and as respects the 
 rights of the commonwealth. He prepares treaties and he enforces the observance 
 of them. He studies and reports upon administrative matters. He watches the 
 course of scientific discoveries and points the way to the utilization of them at 
 home. He is expected tb be broadly useful and the variety and extent of his 
 work is such that he has the fullest opportunities for the exercise of the highest 
 qualities and accomplishments. 
 
 Surely when such is the case we might projierly suppose that our Govern- 
 ment has fitted means to ends in providing an efficient and creditable diplomatic 
 establishment. Our failure to do so is extreme. 
 
 In the first place we do not pay our representatives adequately. This will be 
 evident on the slightest presentation of the facts. 
 
 There are six Ambassadors in the service. The highest salary paid is $17,500, 
 the lowest $12,000. 
 
 Note how this compares with the salaries of men in business employments, 
 railroad presidents, for instance. The latter are paid from $30,000 to $60,000 a 
 year. The aggregate sum paid to six Ambassadors would only pay the salary of 
 the president of a first-class railway one and a half times. 
 
 There are twenty-four Ministers Plenipotentiary. These receive in the aggre- 
 gate $213,000, or about $9,009 each, or individually, say, one-sixth of the salary 
 of a railway president. 
 
 There are four Ministers Kesident receiving altogether $19,000, or less than 
 $5,000 each. 
 
 Considering that a foreign representative must live in a style befitting his 
 capacity as an international agent, does it not seem absurd to pay him, not merely 
 on a lower scale than a business man of high grade, but actually less than com- 
 petent salesmen in wholesale stores sometimes receive. 
 
 In the next place a Minister’s ^official residence should be dignified as suited 
 to his station. With us it is such, in fact, as the given representative is disposed or 
 can afford to make it. This obviously is wrong. The Government should own an 
 official house at each capital and it should be on a suitable scale. Our foreign 
 representatives are often lodged so cheaply that they suffer in public estimation. 
 
 Again, a foreign representative should be well equipped for his work. He 
 should speak the language of the Court to which he is accredited or at least 
 should speak French, which measurably is the language of diplomacy. He 
 should be thoroughly familiar with international law and with the forms and 
 usages [of diplomatic representation. When so equipped he is just fitted to 
 begin the delicate duty devolved upon him. Years of experience will be 
 required to make him a diplomat in the sense that the men trained m the Euro- 
 pean services are diplomats. The rudiments of his profession well acquired will 
 not make him a diplomat in a right sense any more than study in the law school 
 or medical college will make a man fit to be employed for work in the trial of 
 cases or the curing of diseases. Actual work in his proper field will be as neces- 
 sary to his success as it is in the success of men in other vocations. For one 
 
DIPLOMA TIC SER VICE. 
 
 5 
 
 lawyer of the stamp of Webster or Choate, there are thousands who live from 
 hand to mouth. We do not always stop to consider that men able to com- 
 mand success in two or more diverse occupations are far away fewer, in 
 proportion. A man is like a tool. He has fitness when trained for one thing. 
 He cannot readily be made over to fitness for another thing. We Americans con- 
 sider ourselves more adaptable than other peoples. We also think ourselves 
 more virtuous. Perhaps we are, but perhaps also we are more vain. “ Vanity 
 of vanities,” saith the preacher. 
 
 Americans touch government most closely in the administration of local 
 municipalities. He would be a bold American who would declare that there is 
 very much virtue or capacity exhibited in the control of our cities. We touch 
 our diplomatic establishment the least of all our departments. He may be a 
 bold American who supposes we are reasonably successful in it. We cannot 
 take our diplomatic establishment and, so to speak, weigh it in a balance and 
 compare weights with those of other nations. The success of an individual is 
 due to qualities which are equally incapable of being measured. Even personal 
 charms are of an intangible sort. The eye of the poet rolls in a fine frenzy, but 
 an eye habitually rolling in frenzy does not make its owner a poet. It is an old 
 saying that you may vote that a horse shall be a general, but that does not make 
 him so. 
 
 The success of our diplomatic establishment at large must be derived from 
 the success of its individual members. If it is to stand high, if the weight is to 
 be right, the units must be right. If we are to have a right w r eight of units we 
 musl choose them on a right system. And there is no way in private business 
 or in public to be reasonably sure of the merit of any choice of an agent which 
 is not determined from observation of the fitness of the individual in the same 
 line of duty. Until men have proven themselves right diplomats, there is no 
 certainty that they will do diplomatic work well. Until we have a diplomatic 
 service in which each individual may be tested, we will have no way to choose 
 our units with any certainty of being right. 
 
 Is this all theory? I grant it. Is it a reasonable theory? Each must judge 
 for himself or herself. Having so judged, then rack your brains and answer also 
 whether any system which is not right in theory works out well in practice. My 
 own experience is that we might as well try to make water run up hill by gravity 
 as to try to make a success in working any business on wrong lines. One may be 
 a theorist and fail. One cannot be a successful administrator unless consciously 
 or unconsciously he follows a system based on right theory. 
 
 We may distrust the theory of any European State. We may distrust any 
 theory adhered to by all the European States. They all adhere to the idea that 
 a diplomatic establishment must be operated as a service. There diplomatic 
 work is important. The great State has great interests. The small State must 
 conserve and safeguard what it has. Do you find in the practice of the dozen or 
 more European States — this uniform practice of all — any defense for the American 
 system? If you do I will take off my hat metaphorically in presence of your 
 sturdy patriotism and just keep on wondering whether your patriotic hats have 
 unduly compressed the gray matter under them. 
 
I will not undertake to develop tlie details of tlie service system as practiced 
 in Europe. I may say tliat it involves the careful choice of the novices. They 
 must be persons who have won their spurs in the universities. Formerly they 
 had to come from families habituated to the service of the State. We have uni- 
 versity men also, and it is by no means difficult with us to find also persons who 
 have had relations in office. The race of Plunketts, of Murphys, even the stock 
 of Crokers, may not soon die out. So far as this goes we have a broader supply, 
 perhaps, of the raw material for diplomacy than any European power, it may be 
 than all combined. 
 
 Of the ways of culling men for advancement or the reverse practiced in Europe 
 I shall not speak. Seniority is no more the rule for promotions than it was in 
 our Navy in the last war. Incapacity, too, finds its level sooner in a regular 
 service. 
 
 There is one pertinent question about the service plan. Will it have members 
 enough to develop the best results? Will there be room for choice? Europe has 
 found no reason to hesitate on this score. America probably would not. It has 
 always seemed to be, however, that it would be well for us to make the consular 
 establishment also a service and to permit of the choice of diplomatic agents 
 from the lists of both services. There are ten Consuls for one Minister, and the 
 training in each branch is largely similar. 
 
 I am w r ell aware of the failing of human kind which leads people to consider 
 what is as best. I am well aware that a reformer is generally considered an un- 
 practical schemer. There is no use in finding fault with this tendency of human 
 nature. I am fain to believe, however, that the American people are honestly 
 striving for the things which are best. I have no desire to put before you any- 
 thing excepting my conception of what is best. With the question whether the 
 best thing as I conceive it is going to be adopted I am not concerned at the 
 moment. I did not come to you to make prophecies. But I may say this that 
 the thing which is logical and right will come to pass sooner or later unless, 
 indeed, the American state tends to the worse rather than to the better things. 
 
 It is quite true that a vicious system tends to develop on its vicious side. It 
 is also true that when any system has gone very bad remedial measures are likely 
 to be taken. Our system has not yet shown up so badly that the call for a change 
 has become loud. But undoubtedly it is becoming worse. With the machine 
 politicians controlling all nominations to public office, with our Presidents con- 
 sulting machine bosses and deferring to them in all ways, what chance is there 
 that our foreign ministers will be chosen for merit. Joseph H. Choate could not 
 be selected Minister to England until the Republican boss of New York had been 
 consulted. Merit is in fact the last thing which is considered. • Machine politics 
 are everywhere. It is an era of degradation in our public services. It is an era 
 which may be succeeded by a better one. A similar or worse degradation of the 
 public services existed in Great Britain, but better things have come there. 
 When we get beyond machine politics, when the people come to their own, we 
 will get not one, but many, reforms. Until then all reform movements will lag. 
 
THE CENTRALIZATION OF POPULATION AS AFFECTING 
 THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY. 
 
 By Adna F. Weber, Ph. D., Deputy Commissioner of Labor Statistics, 
 
 State of New York. 
 
 For many years tlie portentous growth of our great cities has perturbed the 
 thoughts of American statesmen and publicists, who believe, like their European 
 rivals, that the strength of a nation rests upon the vigor and enterprise of the 
 cultivators of the soil^. “God made the country; man made the city.” The 
 gradual but persistent transformation of our country from a community of land 
 owners into a nation of city-dwellers is one of the most striking social phenomena 
 of the century. The United States has to-day a single city numbering more 
 inhabitants than could be counted in the whole country 100 years ago. Then 
 there were only five American towns with a population of 10,000 or more, and 
 the greatest of these was no larger than Yonkers or Long Island City. Then not 
 one American in thirty was a town-dweller; to-day, every third American you 
 meet has his home in a city (a town of 8,000 or more inhabitants). And at the 
 present rate of change, it will be only one or two decades more before one-half 
 the inhabitants of this country are city people. 
 
 Let it not be thought that this momentous movement of population is the 
 consequence of conditions peculiar to our own country. On the contrary, the 
 same phenomenon appears throughout the old and settled communities of 
 Europe. Leaving out of consideration the newly built cities of the West, 
 brought into being by the swift occupation of that unopened empire, the ob- 
 server will soon recognize that city for city, old Europe equals or surpasses 
 young America. In the last half century Berlin has grown more rapidly than 
 the metropolitan district of New York, including Brooklyn and the Jersey 
 cities; Vienna has distanced Philadelphia; Hamburg, Boston; and Buda-Pesth, 
 Baltimore. In the other countries of Europe cities have been growing up at a 
 Tate scarcely less rapid. 
 
 In Europe, too, the concentration of population is more extreme than in the 
 United States. At least twelve other countries have a larger percentage of 
 urbanites, defining the city as a place of 10,000 population. If the comparison 
 be restricted to large cities (those of 100,000 or more inhabitants), the United 
 States will rank about tenth among the nations in respect to centralization of 
 its population. In England two-thirds of the people are now town-dwellers, 
 while one-third dwell in great cities. Likewise in Scotland, Australia and 
 Uruguay one-third of the people are residents of cities of 100,000. In the United 
 States as a whole the percentage of population resident in such great cities is 
 only 15.5, or one in six; but in individual states this percentage is greatly ex- 
 ceeded. Thus, one-half of the people of New York State confess allegiance to 
 the metropolis alone and another large fraction dwell in Buffalo, Rochester, 
 Syracuse and the two Hudson River towns. 
 
 The causes of such a universal centralization of population in the present 
 century are not deeply hidden. Until the opening of this century, few of the 
 
8 
 
 CENTRALIZATION OF POPULATION. 
 
 large cities of tlie world could have continued their existence if cut off from the 
 country, for they lost more by deaths than they gained in births and depended 
 on the rural districts for recruits. The progress of medical science and of public 
 sanitation has however stayed the ravages of death, so that at the present time 
 the cities enjoy a large excess of births over deaths. This natural increase alone 
 would explain the accelerated growth of cities in recent times. But why does 
 the current of migration from farm and village to city, once so essential to the 
 city’s existence, still move onward in undiminished volume, after the city has 
 demonstrated its ability to supply its own increase? The answer is given by the 
 laws of industry and economics. The centralization of population is simply a 
 phase of the evolution of society. 
 
 Many Americans, even here in the East, can remember the day when their 
 parents not only tilled the soil, but produced their own wool, spun and wove 
 their own clothes, and had their boots made by the village shoemaker. The 
 widening of the social bond has changed all that. The factory and the railroad, 
 mutual allies and friends, have taken away from the tillers of the soil all sub- 
 sidiary occupations and removed them to the city. The miller, the weaver, the 
 shoemaker, the cabinet maker have all moved to town. And this transfer of 
 industries from the country to the city is going on to-day. To-morrow men now 
 at work harvesting or plowing on the farm will be called to the city to make the 
 machinery that will in future plow the fields and harvest the grain. 
 
 The cities are centers of industry and commerce, and as both industry 
 and commerce are always rapidly increasing, while agriculture increases but 
 slowly in obedience to the gradual growth of population, it follows that the cities 
 must continue to absorb an increasing proportion of people. 
 
 The movement of population from the country to the city is attended with 
 certain dangers weich have been frequently proclaimed. The most obvious of 
 these dangers is a deterioration in the physique or morals of the people, brought 
 about by the overcrowded conditions of city life, the lack of pure air and whole- 
 some exercise. A review of the recent vital statistics, however, shows that the 
 death rate of the great cities is being steadily reduced. In one of two of the 
 German States, indeed, the cities are now actually more healthy than the rural 
 districts. Less progress has been made in this country, so far as can be judged, 
 from our imperfect vital statistics; and it is very necessary that the work of 
 reform be undertaken with renewed vigor. We need additional small parks and 
 playgrounds (the lungs of the great city), more stringent building laws and their 
 honest enforcement, and especially more rapid transit, so as to permit working 
 people to move out of crowded tenements to cottage homes on the outskirts. 
 
 Another problem that we shall have to solve is imposed upon us by the con- 
 centration of wealth accompanying the concentration of population. So long as 
 wealth is honestly used, the American people are not disposed to debate the 
 expediency of private ownership. But when the possessors of natural monopolies 
 like gas, water, electric lighting and street railways enter into an alliance with 
 the people’s representatives for the purpose of exploiting the citizen, then there 
 arises a disposition to question the wisdom of private ownership and manage- 
 ment. We cannot blind our eyes to the fact that the policy of public control of 
 
CENTRALIZATION OF POPULATION. 
 
 9 
 
 quasi-public undertakings has so far failed in this country as to provoke a strong 
 agitation in favor of socialism. If socialism is the only remedy left, it is by all 
 means preferable that the first experiments be made in small communities before 
 the State and the nation are called upon to embark upon such a venturesome 
 policy. 
 
 In still another direction can the cities be of service to democracy, namely, 
 in preserving the open competition which our ideals regard as essential in the 
 process of natural selection. The fundamental social problem is how to bring 
 capable men to the front; to put the true social leaders in positions of responsi- 
 bility. In countries where a system of caste prevails, the function of providing 
 leaders is exercised by the aristocracy; and in such countries the need of great 
 arenas or meeting grounds of talent is not felt. But a democracy of such terri- 
 torial extent as our own requires foci of competition as the central instruments 
 of natural selection. Such foci are, in fact, our great cities, and the social 
 service which they render is of incalculable value. 
 
THE PROBLEM OF CHARITY. 
 
 By Edward T. De Vine, Ph. D., Secretary Charity Organization Society, 
 
 New York. 
 
 I trust, and have some grounds for believing, that the problem of charity in 
 its narrower sense is of diminishing importance. By charity in its narrower 
 sense, I mean, of course, that charity which seeks expression in material gifts — 
 of money or kind — the necessity for which arises from some deficiency, either of 
 will or of capacity in the one who receives them. The spirit of humanity has 
 grown ever stronger, more sensitive, more dominating. In no civilized com- 
 munity does it now tolerate obvious suffering from the lack of food, shelter, 
 clothing, medical care, nor in children does it permit an entire absence of edu- 
 cational opportunities, or of other necessary social conditions of normal develop- 
 ment. Organized charity, using that expression as a collective term for relief 
 societies, hospitals, asylums, nurseries, and other established agencies for [the 
 relief and prevention of distress, is a different and, whatever its occasional 
 critics may say, a better thing than the spasmodic, ineffectual and ill- distributed 
 personal charity from which it sprang. It is the unknown term in the earlier 
 problem of charity w T kich has been found and which, to use 'still the language 
 of algebra, we may now substitute to our great advantage in the larger but per- 
 haps, after all, the simpler problem of which we still seek the solution. To the 
 uninitiated it looks like dubious progress to substitute for the simple symbol of 
 an unknown quantity the elaborate and complicated expression in which at a 
 certain stage the known factors insist upon disguising themselves. Even so, 
 there are those who inveigh against present institutionalism in charity and 
 lament the passing of simpler arrangements by which in a primitive society help 
 is given to neighbors. Be patient. Our social progress will unfold in time, from 
 these complicated and as yet too mechanical institutions and agencies, a system 
 which shall have one present completeness and vastness, a symmetrical plan 
 for meeting all types of distress, and for anticipating all possible physical dis- 
 asters, while satisfying better perhaps than at present our legitimate demands 
 for a better adaptation of institutions to varying and irreducible human nature. 
 
 In the practice of charity we generalize too quickly. We form unwarranted 
 conclusions from one, or two personal experiences, or, still worse, we take them 
 ready-made without any experiences at all. We have known, it may be, of some 
 striking instance of undeserved and unavoidable misfortune. Illness, or a rela- 
 tive’s death, or business reverses, or an industrial displacement such as some- 
 times occurs, has left some friend of ours stranded. We have known of the 
 family stock from which he sprang. We have known his industry, his prudence 
 in ordinary matters, his integrity. Without thinking of the matter at any great 
 length, without investigation, of course, for we have known the facts, with a 
 promptness and spontaneity which do credit to both head and heart, we spring 
 to his assistance, help him over his temporary embarrassment, place him under 
 obligations which, since they are but an incident in a lifelong friendship, are 
 justly ignored upon both sides. Help that helps has been given and not help 
 
THE PROBLEM OF CHARITY. 
 
 11 
 
 that harms, and no harm has come of it. Outside of the friends concerned, no 
 one knows of the transaction at all. This experience is not uncommon, but it 
 is an uncommonly dangerous one from which to generalize in the adoption of a 
 line of action which falls to any extent outside the conditions suggested. 
 
 The difficulties in which those are involved who ask help from strangers, or 
 from persons who are richer in the possession of worldly goods than themselves 
 are not often primarily due to causes outside themselves. They are due either 
 to faults which must be eradicated, or, as I think more often, to the absence of 
 qualities, moral or economic, which they and their children must develop unless 
 the dependency is to be permanent. If we are unwilling to contribute to the 
 dependency and weakness of our neighbors whom we do not know personally, we 
 shall not give that which supplies their present apparent needs, creating in them 
 expectations which we do not intend to fulfill, causing them it may be to sink 
 to a lower level still in appeals to others, even for the things which, when we gave 
 to them, they were earning for themselves. Such dependency is progressive and 
 rapid. We are in danger of creating it whenever, without knowledge or reflec- 
 tion, we give in alms that which is asked of us, whether it be money, or clothes 
 or lood, or drink. There is another generalization of an opposite sort to which 
 under modern conditions the average citizen is even more prone. 
 
 He finds that some case of destitution which has especially appealed to him 
 is fraudulent. He gets a very unfavorable report from the investigating society 
 to which he has referred it. The man drinks, the children whose pinched and 
 miserable faces had so drawn upon his pity are borrowed for purposes of beg- 
 ging, the pitiful letter to which he came so near responding with a generous 
 check is one of a thousand sent out to names selected from the Elite Directory. 
 The reaction from the benevolent glow to disappointment and disgust carries the 
 victim to very unjust and unwarranted inferences. He grasps at the suggestion 
 that charity is a vanity and a snare, and that there is no need to help others. 
 He becomes callous and indifferent and thinks that he does his full duty if he 
 sends an annual check to some charity society, and that he will be charitable 
 henceforth by proxy. 
 
 Believe me, neither of these two opposite classes have so much as seen what 
 the problem of charity really is. The view which I would present forbids the 
 charitable from acting upon either of these easy generalizations. 
 
 I said that those who are obliged to ask for help are often without qualities 
 which must be implanted or developed from latent germs. This does not at all 
 necessarily involve any personal condemnation. Those who do not succeed in 
 life may be persons of very attractive qualities. A clergyman preaching from 
 the text, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated,” contrasted the personal 
 qualities of these two ancient Hebrews very much to Esau’s advantage, but 
 then pointed out that for God’s immediate purposes Jacob did have the quali- 
 ties which made him usable in the working out of the great plan of human history, 
 and that Esau, lacking these, although as manly, magnanimous and truthful as 
 his brother, was cowardly, parsimonious and crafty, yet went to the wall. 
 
 Now, the man who is in position to give relief has not the role of a moral 
 judge. He is not expected to give as a righteous re warder of virtue and punisher 
 
12 
 
 THE PROBLEM OF CHARITY. 
 
 of vice. Ho is not called upon to decide, as the unwise nomenclature sometimes 
 used in charity offices puts it, between the worthy and the unworthy. He does 
 not say to himself, at least he ought not to say: I will give to this beggar be- 
 cause I like him, while I will turn my back upon that one because he seems to 
 me to be a villain. Relief given upon this basis has no claim to be called 
 charity. It has no real relation to the welfare of the recipient of the gift. 
 
 If, however, having abandoned absolutely the fruitless attempt to adjust his 
 alms in some way to the personal deserts of the beneficiary, the would-be bene- 
 factdr takes into account the probable effect of his gifts, and if he selects his 
 poor upon the principle that he will give only to those who may receive without 
 injury, there open up before him at once the real problems, the fascinating 
 problems of charity, the more modest but more fruitful problems at which hun- 
 dreds of devoted men and women are working at this moment, to the solution of 
 which I would invite yet hundreds more.. 
 
 Do not think of our problem as one big, burning, baffling question to which 
 an answer once for all can be found — Single Tax, eight hours or Socialism. It 
 requires a long series of scientific experiments, accurately observed and recorded, 
 cautious generalization, judicious comparison, patient investigation. Some light 
 w’e have already. 
 
 For example, widows with small children may be liberally aided through 
 some pension plan, by which rent and perhaps some other expenses are regularly 
 paid. Even if an income large enough to meet all expenses is provided, they 
 still have their full natural burden of caring for home and children. They are 
 not pauperized by the provision of such an income. Dependent to an extent 
 they are naturally and must be if they are to do their duty by their own chil- 
 dren. This is a better form of assistance than to remove the children to an 
 asylum, leaving the mother to earn her living as an unmarried woman might. It 
 is better for the mother to have the task of caring for her own offspring. It is 
 better for them to have the family influences and ties. It is cheaper for the 
 community. So much may be said to be established, but there is even in this 
 particular class of cases still much to be ascertained. From what source should 
 this aid come? First of all, of course from near relatives. But when this fails? 
 From the church if there are church ties? — from a benefit fund to which the hus- 
 band had paid in dues? — from neighbors, from relief societies organized for this 
 purpose, from strangers whom some society makes it a part of its business to 
 interest? — from the public treasury? The one point about the matter on which 
 nearly all thoughtful persons who have considered the matter are united, is that 
 it should not be from the public treasury. About all else we are in a stage of 
 investigation and discussion and experiment. 
 
 Again, there is pretty general approval of whatever can be done either by 
 private charity or from funds raised by taxation to cure disease, to prevent its 
 spread, and to create favorable hygienic conditions. Where, however, is the 
 line which separates in this field the duty of the State from that of private 
 charity? Here lies a most interesting, and in this State at the present moment 
 a most live and important theoretical problem. Shall we establish, as Massachu- 
 setts has just done, a State Sanatorium for incipient cases of pulmonary tuber- 
 
T1IE PROBLEM OF CHARITY. 
 
 13 
 
 culosis, and so attempt to check the ravages of the great white plague about 
 which we have learned so much within a dozen years, but without as yet, as Dr. 
 Pryor, of Buffalo, said recently at the Academy of Medicine, having utilized our 
 knowledge in such a way as to benefit in the slightest degree the great body of 
 the suffering poor whom it ravages as neither war nor all other human diseases 
 combined harass them. It is a live question, with which in one form or another 
 every State must grapple if it would not do violence to the very spirit of charity. 
 
 The problem of charity, put generally, is to enlist for the service of our 
 common humanity the more thoughtful and continuous attention of good 
 citizens in the tasks which fall upon the public and private charitable agencies 
 in the community, to the end that public officials may have our intelligent 
 criticism, our hearty support in the performance of their duty, our apprecia- 
 tion of their reforms and advances, our denunciation if they are recreant; and to 
 the end that our private societies, religious and secular, charitable and educa- 
 tional, those that are highly organized, and those that are modest and largely 
 individual in their plan, whatever their character and scope, may all be infused 
 with a spirit of brotherhood^ that they may be flexible, elastic, responsive to 
 new needs, that they may be fit instruments in the hands of Providence for the 
 regeneration of man and the creation of a new social order. 
 
 That the present discussion may be left in a concrete form it may be in place 
 to point out certain charitable needs of our community at the present time. 
 There are needed homes for aged persons in which those who are left homeless 
 and friendless in old age, but whose lives have been decent, and who, because of 
 good character, should be kept, if possible, from the almshouse. We have 
 many such homes, but nearly all have long waiting lists, and in many instances 
 those who are otherwise suitable candidates for admission to them are debarred 
 because there are no vacancies, or because of strict rules requiring adhesion to 
 a particular religious faith. 
 
 Homes for incurables and for convalescents are also unable to cope with the 
 demand for their shelter. In certain districts day nurseries are needed with 
 careful supervision to prevent their improper use and their unwise location. 
 An increased number of sick diet kitchens would be justified. Increased relief 
 funds that are available, not merely for supplying the bare necessities of life, 
 but for expenditure in a given case, if necessary, in liberal amount, to provide 
 for the entire maintenance of a family for brief XDeriods under exceptional 
 circumstances; a plan by which rent and other necessary recurring expenses 
 may be met for a widow with several small children who is not in position, both 
 to care for the children and to earn their support; institutions for the isolation 
 of advanced cases of consumption, and also for the treatment of incipient cases 
 — all these are needed. Most of all there is demanded an increase in the 
 number of persons who are willing to give personal attention to families with 
 whom they can become acquainted, and whom through a long period of years, if 
 necessary, they can befriend. 
 
THE BENEFITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF WOMAN’S 
 ENTRANCE UPON MAN’S OCCUPATIONS. 
 
 By Mrs. Henry M. Sanders, Pres. League for Political Education, New 
 
 York. 
 
 An occupation belongs to the person who can efficiently work at it without 
 regard to sex. Man’s occupation ? Who made them his ? True, in this coun- 
 try he has long enjoyed a monopoly, due to custom and tradition only, and not 
 to the eternal fitness of things. It is not many decades since man’s occupations 
 were supposed to embrace every kind of work except housekeeping, nursing, and 
 perhaps elementary teaching. Now women have shown that they can do as good 
 work as men, in law, medicine, high schools and colleges, literature, painting, 
 store-keeping, journalism, and in numerous branches of manufacturing, such as 
 printing, bookbinding, pen-making, baking and - agriculture. No occupation can 
 be declared to be man’s and man’s alone, until women through many generations 
 have had free opportunity to engage in it, and have finally failed in it. The 
 list of their industrial achievements is continually growing. 
 
 In Chicago there are three women who intend to be satisfied with their new 
 house. They have not only planned it according to their own ideas of the eter- 
 nal fitness of a house, but are building it themselves. It is said that they have 
 gone about it in a masterful way, with no heed to the crowds of spectators who 
 line the sidewalks during working hours. The house is of brick, and the timbers 
 for the framework were sawed and jointed and nailed without masculine aid. 
 The daughters act as hod-carriers, and supply the mother, who is chief brick- 
 layer, with mortar and brick. 
 
 These three women are demonstrating the capacity of their sex for several 
 trades which custom has hitherto precluded them from attempting, but which 
 should be freely open to them. If a woman wishes to be a bricklayer, carpenter, 
 painter or plasterer, she should have the same facilities as her brother for mas- 
 tering the craft, under the same sort of social safeguards for health and just 
 treatment as he enjoys. Work of all kinds must be done by the person of superior 
 fitness for it. Occupations ought not be sexed. We used to hear of “ gentlemen’s ” 
 occupations, well-paid positions reserved for a few favored families. But 
 Democracy broke down the barriers of those fat preserves and now, “The tools 
 to him who can use them,” is the industrial rule for men. Why should it not 
 also be the rule for woman ? The right to work, the grim demand urged by the 
 unemployed in times of depression, is now put forward in^imes of plenty and of 
 want alike, by women; it should carry the right to wages for their work. Man 
 has too often admitted woman’s claim to an occupation only so long as it -was 
 unskilled and unpaid. Work she has ever had, and domestic drudgery, but fixed 
 wages for her work have hitherto been seldom forthcoming. However, every 
 census shows that in this respect conditions are improving and that an ever- 
 multiplying number of women are entering upon lucrative occupations. But so 
 far in manufactures they do not carry on exactly the same processes as men. We 
 are so accustomed to see men and women artists, teachers, lawyers, authors, and 
 doctors doing exactly the same kind of work that we are apt to forget that pro- 
 
WOMA N’S 0 COUP A TIONS. 
 
 15 
 
 fessional women form only a tiny fraction of the working women of the country. 
 In the cotton and woolen mills, the clothing factories, the boot and shoe shops 
 and the thousand and one smaller industries women are numbered by the ten 
 thousand, while in the professions they are numbered by units. And in the 
 shops and factories at present they usually have branches of work separate from 
 the men’s. When an economist recently tried to verify the oft-quoted statement 
 that women receive less than men for the same work, he found it very difficult 
 to discover cases in which they were doing exactly the same things. The lighter 
 processes, requiring deftness rather than strength, go to them; the heavier pro- 
 cesses to men. Of that natural division, at present, we make no complaint. 
 
 Woman’s muscular development has been retarded by her forced adoption of 
 an indoor life, her abstention from exercise and her exclusion from many occu- 
 pations. But she is fast removing these disabilities. All efficient schools for 
 girls provide gymnastic training; young women bicycle and walk, play tennis, 
 golf and baseball; they have ceased to think it vulgar for them to be healthy; 
 they are even adopting costumes suitable to their play and exercise. This 
 natural procedure will strengthen their bodies in a generation or two and 
 put them more nearly on equal terms with men. 
 
 Nobody can set limits to their physical improvement. Intelligent care and 
 attention continued through the centuries will make them stronger and 
 healthier than they have ever yet been, and prove their bodily equality with 
 their brothers. 
 
 We ask only for a fair field and no favor, confident that, with equal chances, 
 women will not in the long run prove inferior. Give men and women equal 
 opportunities, and let them show in practice what work they are adapted to. 
 Time is on the side of the women; the constant improvement of machinery 
 reduces the area of industry reserved for the brute strength, which long cen- 
 turies of habit have fostered in the men. It is that improvement which has 
 favored the heavy recruiting in the army of women workers within the last few 
 decades. And the process will certainly continue. No power can check Yankee 
 inventiveness, and every invention is woman’s ally, bringing nearer the day when 
 muscular energy will give no advantage iu industry. 
 
 Under those circumstances, what are the chief dangers and benefits ? The 
 benefits are plain. Women become independent beings, their economic freedom 
 is a foundation for building individual character. Being no longer dependent 
 upon father, brother, lover or husband, for a livelihood, they may develop their 
 being in obedience to their own conscience. They are no longer merely append- 
 ages to another. Life may be free; love may be unbiased by sordid reasons. Mar- 
 riage becomes a choice, not a necessity ; love an exchange, not a purchase or sale. 
 Spinsterhood and starvation cease to be synonymous. The excess of girls and 
 women over boys and men, a million in Great Britain alone, and equally large in 
 the “ cotton towns ” of New England and throughout, the Eastern States, are no 
 longer miserable drones, unable to marry under a monogamous law and yet for- 
 bidden to live by honest toil. Women become more self-respecting, and men’s 
 ideas about them more dignified. Both recede farther from the notions of the 
 harem. Both begin to see new principles of life-long fellowship. 
 
16 
 
 WOMAN'S OCCUPATIONS. 
 
 13ut the danger sare no less real. They are the dangers which menace all prop- 
 ertyless workers under our present regime , especially in the infancy of new indus- 
 tries. J ust now, women are in about the same position with regard to the conditions 
 of the employments they enter as men occupied in the middle of the century. 
 They are crowding into new occupations and clamoring to the employers for 
 work. The supply of their labor, particularly in the unskilled grades, is in excess 
 of the demands. In bargaining as to wages and conditions they are individually 
 at a hopeless disadvantage; with the result that their wages are low, their hours 
 long and their work onerous. As wage-earners, they must therefore use pre- 
 cisely the same means of self-protection and advancement as men have success- 
 fully employed. These are of three classes: 
 
 1. They should grasp every chance to improve their skill. They should seize 
 the opportunities to increase their efficiency; not require these to be forced upon 
 them. When a woman who is a clerk has the chance to learn stenography and 
 type-writing, she should eagerly take it, not make excuses and question her own 
 ability to learn. When new machines and new processes requiring greater skill 
 and practice are introduced, women must show a willingness to give the neces- 
 sary steady industry for mastering them. Trade schools and technical classes 
 must be thrown open and frequented by women as well as by men. The hope of 
 marriage must not be allowed to dull the industrial ambition and check the 
 industrial effort. So long as women are content in the sweating dens, the shirt, 
 confectionery, india-rubber, white-lead, wall jDaper, garment, boot and shoe, and 
 hosiery factories to do the least skilled work, and to do it as a stop-gap employ- 
 ment, rather than a life’s business, so long they will be ill paid and held indus- 
 trially in low esteem. 
 
 2. For skilled and unskilled labor alike the next safeguard is essential — com- 
 bination. Women are slower than men to recognize that “union is strength.” 
 Leaders amongst them constantly deplore the difficulty of inducing them to 
 stand together in enforcing their reasonable demands. Consequently they some- 
 times receive wages which their employer knows must be supplemented by the 
 wages of sin. Public protest and individual struggle by the workwomen are of 
 little avail in these conditions. Consider the position of a woman applying for 
 employment in shop or factory. At what unfair odds she stands. Suppose she 
 asks for a living wage and the employer offers a sum far below. If she refuse 
 his terms to her it means starvation. She has no reserve to enable her to hold 
 out. A week’s idleness means a week’s hunger; possibly illness; probably the 
 loss of her rented rooms. But to the employer her refusal will cause the merest 
 trifle of inconvenience, even if he can get nobody else at his own terms. He will 
 eat no morsel the less; his wife and children will still fare sumptuously; at the 
 worst he will simply suffer a slight reduction of his output, an infinitesimal 
 diminution of profit. He can wait till hunger and misery have brought the recal- 
 citrant woman to surrender. Under these circumstances all that I said previously 
 about freedom is a pitiful farce to the workwoman. Opportunity to work for 
 less than substinence wages is a mockery of freedom. Beal freedom demands 
 not only the right to work, but the right to an ample living wage for the work. 
 
 Since in the nature of the case, isolated women and girls cannot exact that 
 
WOMAN’S OCCUPATIONS. 
 
 17 
 
 wage, l^ke tlie men they must form unions, insist on collective bargaining, and 
 stand united. Though the employer may dispense with any one of them, he 
 cannot dispense with all. Acting as a unit they will put themselves more nearly 
 on equal terms with him. At critical times the funds they have accumulated in 
 the union will enable them to hold out for fair remuneration and their whole 
 status will be improved. That woman may enter industrial life upon equal 
 terms with men, nothing is more essential than that they shall learn like the 
 men, to combine. Preferably they should be in a union along with the men who 
 do the same kind of work, acting on the assumption that they will claim the 
 same advantages and render the same services as their male colleagues. 
 
 3. Even unions, however, cannot enforce many of the conditions essential to 
 the health of the worker of both sexes, and the well-being of society. They 
 cannot pisist successfully that all work places shall be properly ventilated, that 
 machinery shall be safeguarded, that refuse gases shall be carried away by fans, 
 that sanitary accommodation shall be provided for both sexes, and that meals 
 shall not be eaten in unhealthy workrooms. Such matters must be enforced by 
 legislative enactment. 
 
 Society has a special interest in enforcing them for women, because no dia- 
 lectic can evade the fact that primarily upon the health of the women depends 
 the stamina of the next generation. Women must have ready access to industry 
 for the sake of their individual freedom and development. But the welfare of 
 society must also be considered and is, indeed, paramount. In the interests of 
 the community we must prevent the sacrifice of women in unregulated industry. 
 Therein lies the chief danger in woman’s entrance upon industrial occupations. 
 If the hideous sacrifice of health and life which always occurs when competitive 
 industry is unchecked were permitted for a few generations the whole nation 
 would greatly suffer. Factory and workshop laws are, therefore, supremely 
 necessary in regard to occupations in which women share. Such protective legis- 
 lation really extends the freedom of the individual as well as preserves the strength 
 of the community. Only five of the States prevent by law the over-working of 
 adult women. In England, in the textile trades, where tens of thousands are 
 employed, they have been saved from excessive hours for over thirty years; and 
 in Quebec and Ontario, ten hours per day, or sixty hours per week, is now the 
 legal maximum for adult women. 
 
 Similar laws should be passed in all the States or the waste of woman life may 
 be terrible. While men are agitating for an eight-hour day, it surely is not too 
 much to ask that women shall not work more than ten hours. 
 
 Ontario’s sanitary regulations, which are better than those adopted by the 
 States, may also be taken as a minimum for the protection of the health of the 
 worker. They enact: 
 
 1. Every factory shall be kept in a cleanly state and free from effluvia arising 
 from any source whatever. 
 
 2. Factories must not be overcrowded. 
 
 3. Proper ventilation must be furnished. 
 
 4. Suitable and separate closets and other conveniences must be provided for 
 both sexes. 
 
18 
 
 WOMAN'S OCCUPATIONS . 
 
 5. Machinery must be fenced and made safe for the worker. 
 
 Laundries, bakeshops and stores, as well as factories and workshops, come 
 under the rules. These regulations should be enforced by a strong staff of 
 factory inspectors, including women. Many complaints could not be made by 
 women to men, that to a woman would eagerly be uttered. Inspectors are also 
 more highly paid than the rank and file, an additional reason for insisting that 
 women shall be amongst them. 
 
 Certain industries known to be deadly in their effects upon the workers, espe- 
 cially young girls, must be rigorously compelled to alter their methods until 
 they are quite safe, no matter what additional money cost is involved. 
 While we want young women to have equal opportunities with young men to 
 learn manufacturing processes, we want neither to be deluded through ignor- 
 ance, and forced by economic pressure, into situations where mutilation and 
 death are more certain than on the battlefield. 
 
 Mr. Whiting in “No. 5 John Street,” describes accurately one such factory 
 in London, when he says “I see the hundreds of hands move wearily as they 
 pass the gate, and I find that all but the quite fresh caught bear traces of this 
 terrible toil. Theirs is an industry of which every stage of every operation costs 
 a fraction of a life. They have all sorts of ‘ funny complaints. ’ Their eyes 
 smart and water as they toil in the penetrating fumes, and they weep with the 
 mechanical facility of experienced crocodiles. They see double at times, and the 
 vast barn-like room swims round them as though its pots, brushes, garments, 
 stuffs and furnace-fires of gas-jet were all but so much ruin in a whirlpool. 
 Sometimes, as I learn in answer to inquiries, they ‘ ketch it in the lungs/ They 
 invariably, as we have seen, ‘ ketch it in the knob ’ in the form of bilious head- 
 ache. The moral effects are even more distressing. They lose their temper for 
 nothing, and will find scope and verge enough for quarrel on a pin’s point. 
 Some have been known to go ‘right off their chump,’ and to be exceedingly 
 rude to the overseers. 
 
 “ Our factory, in truth, is a great spoiler of humanity, and especially of the 
 weaker vessel. It seems to have the same destructive appetite for the latter as 
 some monsters of fable. Their youth and freshness is but raw material, we turn 
 them out as hags in no time— the manufactured article. Alas for their fleeting 
 show of red and white.” 
 
 “Ah, the pity of things marred — blossoms trampled by the hoofs of swine, 
 girlhood cheated of its day. Some of them, like ‘Nance,’ bear it in silence, 
 feeling that it is the price of keeping ‘ respectable. ’ Some snatch their beauty 
 so to speak, out of the fire, and hurry with it to market for what it may still 
 fetch as damaged ware. Others co-operate with the spoiler in his rage for 
 results, and make for the dram-shop, as though they cannot keep their own 
 nails from their own flesh.” Such a description is painfully true of hundreds of 
 factories in Europe and America. Since it is a medical fact that their effect is 
 most deadly upon the women workers, they must be controlled out of existence, 
 if necessary, rather than the hideous sacrifice of health and life be allowed to 
 continue. 
 
 Whatever our opinion upon the question of equal suffrage, we are bound to 
 
WOMAN'S OCCUPATIONS. 
 
 19 
 
 admit that the wide employment of women industrially will of necessity be 
 followed by their political enfranchisement. Working women whose conditions 
 of labor are intimately affected by legislation will not be content to be shut out 
 from opportunities to influence the lawmakers. Unenfranchised persons are not 
 interesting to politicians. They only count votes. Therefore women who work 
 will inevitably press to success the demands for full political rights, which they 
 will go on to use for further amelioration of industrial conditions. 
 
 As the industrial employment of women extends, the collective regulation 
 and control of industry must increase, for the greater the proportion of the popu- 
 lation engaged in the shop and factory, the greater the necessity to see that 
 conditions are just and progressive. 
 
 The thought and work for this progress should command the zeal of all citi- 
 zens and especially of Christian people. Improvement is slow, only because so 
 few citizens recognize their duty to the community. No religious work can be 
 more potent for good than the moralization of industry ; no sin of omission is 
 more harmful than the neglect of our duty to the State. 
 
 With patient study and unwearying ardor the community must mould its 
 arrangements, until to every woman and every man alike there is guaranteed an 
 opportunity, with reasonable exertion, and under pleasant conditions, to earn a 
 generous livelihood. 
 
 i 
 

 
 
I