E. BENJAMIN ANDREWS, EX-PRESIDENT OF BROWN UNIVERSITY. (See the article on "The New Ostracism" by Hon. Charles A. Towne, pp. 440-451.) ΤΗ This is true liberty: when freeborn men, What can be juster in a state than this? Euripides. HESE lines, better known from Milton's use of them as a motto to "Areopagitica" than from their original employment by the great Greek dramatist, may well serve as an introduction to an article designed to call attention to some particulars wherein liberty of speech, which includes liberty of instruction, and is the surest pledge, as it was the culminating achievement, of free institutions, is shown to have been partially lost already and, unless present tendencies are withstood, to be doomed to early extinction in the United States. Not, indeed, that thus far the laws have specifically limited the right to the expression of opinion, although lately the courts have in some instances used the writ of injunction as a substitute for unobtainable repressive legislation; nor that in the realms of religious, philosophical, and even political discussion, so long as the latter deals with pure abstractions, a man may not still "speak free" his honest thoughts, either by word of mouth, if he can find listeners, or in print, if he can find readers; — but that, in the domain of economic inquiry, as to questions of a nature to be submitted to political determination, especially if of present or imminent pendency, the expression of opinion is no longer free in fact.. Custom and usage are stronger than statutes and guarantees. Conditions may nullify law. A legislature, for exam So also ple, may undertake to assure absolute freedom of contract to every citizen, but circumstances may nevertheless compel millions to subscribe to terms dictated by scores. may the theory of a state and the letter of its laws guarantee absolute liberty of action to every voter in the casting of his ballot, yet all the while the control of that high function of his supposed sovereignty be as completely distinct from his own will as though he had signed it away by power of attorney. Thus it is wholly possible that a people should preserve all the outward forms and verbal warranties of liberty while drifting under the worst abuses of practical despotism. These come through usages instigated by powerful and selfish interests in the community and deriving their sanction from a permissive public opinion. In the United States to-day we need to be every whit as watchful respecting the growth of customs (with their accompanying justifying sentiments) whereof the natural operation is to limit the freedom appropriate to our institutions, as in regard to attempts at fundamental changes in our organic and statutory laws. The latter can rarely be accomplished in secret, and may be usually left to the fortunes of inevitable examination and debate. But the former, mysterious in origin, silent in action, and subtle in effect, elude common observation, are not easily exposed, and may long defy reformation. It can be regarded as nothing short of a marvellously happy circumstance if, when some especially dangerous and insidious purpose is afoot, there shall occur so startling and flagrant an example of what is aimed at as to shock the patriotic conscience of the country and, before "damnèd custom" has quite deadened it, arouse it to activity. Two such occurrences have recently drawn the attention of the people of the United States to the danger that menaces their liberties through the control of the great educational forces of the country by influences distinctly hostile to the general good: the dismissal of Prof. Edward W. Bemis, from the faculty of the University of Chicago, about two years ago; and the recent enforced resignation of Dr. E. Benjamin Andrews from the Presidency of Brown University. The former circumstance caused much comment at the time, but lacked somewhat the conclusive and exemplary character of the latter, because the dismissing powers undertook some kind of explanation in the Bemis case that left the real occasion of their action slightly and formally in issue; while in the Andrews case the motive is avowed with perfect and astounding candor. Everybody is familiar with the history of the University of Chicago. Though depending practically upon the liberality of one man, no other institution of learning has ever been so prodigally endowed. Its founder and chief patron, evidently determined that his memory should "outlive his life" more than "half a year," was not content to depend alone on Hamlet's recipe and "build churches," although he had already acted upon it quite extensively. He seems to have feared that, if he relied on churches only, his posthumous reputation for benevolence might possibly suffer somewhat from his connection with the organization and development of the most gigantic, unrighteous, and oppressive monopoly in all the modern enginery of predatory commercialism. The taint of Standard Oil might prove stronger than the odor of sanctity exhaled from a few modest and unassertive churches. His case required something more than the ordinary tribute with which contemptuous wickedness, when it lies down to die, tries to mitigate the severity of the common judgment which it has all its life despised and outraged. What so apposite to his need as a great university, lavishly supplied with buildings, appliances, faculties, libraries, money; aggressive, demonstrative, devoted to his ideas, and eternally redolent of himself? The very thing! Only a few millions of dollars were required, and these were easily to be procured. A fraction of a cent per gallon added to the price of illuminating oil would soon make good the expense. Talk of the philosopher's stone: it would have been but a sorry device compared to this new alchemy which converts necessity into gold, robbery into charity, and objurgation into eulogy. To levy unwilling subsidy from whole commonwealths and sanctify the action by devoting a portion of the avails to chapel-building; to seize by mingled force and fraud a vast range of iron-hills and appurtenant railways, with the usufruct of tributary cities, and stifle the resentment of humanity by taking the humanities into partnership in the business: these are conceptions beyond the audacity of all preceding centuries and whose realization would have rendered infamous any age but ours. In the University of Chicago Prof. Edward W. Bemis held a position as an instructor or associate professor in the department of sociology. His duties comprised both class work inside the university proper, and, under the auspices of the institution, lectures in University Extension courses outside. He is a man of exceptional acquirements in his specialty, as may be seen from the following statement by the well-known authority Prof. John B. Clark: Doctor Bemis has unusual qualifications for giving instructions in sociology in an institution where this branch of science is to be taught in a scientific way. His range of learning is very extensive and his training in economics has been very thorough. He has clear insight and sound judgment. His views are conservatively progressive, and he seems to be a safe guide for students. He was a careful investigator of the problems of municipal government, and had largely studied such subjects as street-railways, gas manufacture, police management, etc., and had written much and with authority thereon. In the somewhat broader field also of monopolies in general, and labor questions, including strikes, boycotts, and lock-outs, he was a painstaking and indefatigable inquirer. On all these matters his deliverances were characterized by perfect candor and moderation, though it was plain that he was free from the common fault of bias in favor of the powerful interests of society, and that he possessed a sincere sympathy with those whose condition places them at a disadvantage in many of the struggles of life, though not blind to their shortcomings. He construed his liberty as a teacher in a broad spirit, and did not hesitate to state a fact he learned or an opinion he entertained. If, for example, he found that gas could be profitably made and furnished at a fraction of what the citi zens of Chicago were paying for it, he had no reluctance to say so. If he ascertained that the municipal ownership and operation of gas-works had been successfully undertaken in |