colleges are manifestly desirable. In far too many instances the high school curriculum does not contain any provision whatever, for the study of political science in general, not to mention the special phase of municipal problems; nor of the most important study of economics, the science of the production of wealth, its consumption, and what is of greatest importance now-a-days, the distribution of wealth; while very seldom indeed is sociology, the science of society, attempted in the public schools.

About the only subject of this nature ever undertaken is the study of the civil government of the United States. In too many cases it is but a formal study of the constitution, instead of the practice of citizenship. While in many cases the boy's only introduction to this subject is by the aid of a woman teacher, who has had but little opportunity in the past for displaying any vital interest in the subject of government. The dawn of woman suffrage will doubtless remove any such disability as may have previously existed.

Certainly it is not democratic to leave to the few who are college trained men and women a monopoly of the advantages of this training in applied citizenship. When every man, and soon every woman, will be a voter, it is due the principles of the forefathers of this Republic that the greatest breadth of view and familiarity with the public questions of citizenship should be secured. The ballot presupposes regular study, deliberation, and comprehension of public questions. The responsibility of government in America is with the masses. Rome became the Eternal City because her citizens were devoted to her welfare, and because they realized what direct benefits they derived from her government.

AMERICANS TRUST TOO MUCH TO LUCK. Americans have been frequently accused of acting as though they believed that Deity in a special sense looks after their nation. Whatever the mistakes of the past may have been in our government the normally unfortunate consequences have not resulted. The land has been rich and there has been plenty of it for everybody, so that prodigality has not yet produced bankruptcy. Mistakes in government, with a vigorous, active, and young nation, have not as yet entailed the greatest and most far-reaching dire results. With the great increase in population, with the vast increment coming from foreign lands, with the consequent complexity of social relations following, with the production of vast wealth and the changing financial status, it is to-day highly imperative that the suffrage be exercised by an electorate thoroughly conversant with present conditons, with the aims and theories of the Republic.

In the past, public discussion was a potential force in government. In the early days of America, the New England towns had their mass meetings. Public business was transacted by the people, after all the voters had had the opportunity to be present at the regular sessions of government, and to engage in the discussions that came before the town. That active participation in government gave a strong citizenship to the community, of self-reliant individuals, keenly alert to present needs, and conversant with past conduct and policies. It gave a loyalty to the government, making a people's government with direct legislation. It afforded a practical training in citizenship.

As the nation grew in numbers the principle of representation was of necessity resorted to and the discussion was accordingly restricted to the lawmaker. He was elected by his fellow-members of the political organization to which he belonged. This had two main results. It removed government with its responsibilities and duties somewhat from the voter and citizen. He still continued to exercise the right to vote, but it was at long range, without having had the personal opportunity of participating in its discussions as formerly in the town meetings. Government became to the masses more or less impersonal, except for the emoluments of office, which continued to be sought after, and which were now more numerous. The citizens had generally lost sight of the Roman's attitude towards government, and only in times of great crises, such as a war, showed the depths of their loyalty.

PARTISANSHIP DISCOURAGES PATRIOTISM.

In the second respect it tended to make a partisan out of the voter. Political parties are a decided good, and are not in themselves an evil. As long as men have opinions and as long as public questions apparently admit of two or more solutions so long political parties must continue in a free land. The danger from such political machinery is that men come to esteem the organization more highly than they do the ends of government. In religion they may forget that Sunday was made for man and not man for the day of rest and worship. Parties exist primarily for the citizen, for all the citizens, and not for the party affiliations alone. The party has undertaken to manage public affairs according to its declared program, embodying political and public measures in the government for the common good of the fatherland. The party is, therefore, obligated to serve all the citizens. Too often political parties have not taken such views of their responsibilities. They have been encouraged in a narrow interpretation of their rights by the blind following and the indifference of the average party man. Discussion has been removed

from the masses and loyalty to party has been too often substituted for an espousal of separate measures upon their intrinsic merit.

As a corollary to the foregoing the evils of graft and corruption naturally follow such conditions. These enemies of the Republic enter legislative halls with practical impunity. The recipient of the money or of the offered advantage believes the people will never know. His assumption is based on the expectation that the people will not be informed adequately on the merits of the bill. The powerful lobby relies on such conclusions. Despotic monarchs have likewise been content. The wiles of the lobbyist, the grafter, and the monarch have been overthrown by an aroused public interest. Publicity is a great safe-guard.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION THE ONLY SAFE POLITICAL EDUCATION.

Public discussion must be brought home to the individual citizen and voter in order that narrow partisanship may be superseded by a broad statesmanship on the part of the electorate for the lasting good of the citizenship. To secure such needed results

the arguments and facts must be presented for both sides. The speeches delivered in Congress are scattered broadcast through the land; that is, a speech by a Congressman is sent to his admirers and constituents. Thus but one side of the public controversy is presented, and but a single individual's view of that one side. The voter needs a competent discussion, giving the vital facts of both factions. Otherwise there must be a blind following of party principles and leaders. The safety of the political parties, and the greatest progress for the nation, require such a wholesome attitude.

Political parties in times of campaign, every two or four years, engage in a general discussion of their own policies and to some extent those of the party that chances to be in power. Whatever uncertainty political campaigns may or may not inject into business and finance, they undoubtedly constitute an admirable opportunity for educating the masses along the public questions of the day. This opportunity, however, will be but partially met if the campaign is conducted along narrow partisan lines. real campaign of education it must set forth honestly and fairly the facts and considerations of both sides. While it would be well for parties to remember also that duties to government are active, and that civic duties are continuous.

To be a

DELIBERATE BODIES ARE BEST FORMS OF CIVIC EDUCATION.

Formerly the voter felt he had discharged his duty when he had elected his political representative and had charged him with the solemn responsibility of looking after the affairs of the public. The successful business man who employs a clerk continues to keep in touch with the work of the employee. He is familiar with the requirements of the office, and he understands the best method which must be employed to secure the maximum profit. So with the

alert citizen. He must know the essentials of public questions in order to correctly value the public office holder's conduct. And this he cannot intelligently do unless he has access to the arguments of both sides.

Some effective attempts have been made to aid the public in reaching correct decisions. The press, the pulpit, and the lecture platform have been powerful factors in our civilization and justly continue to be such. They instruct and inspire and mold public opinion. They all lack to a large degree the advantages, however, held by deliberative bodies. An open discussion in which a man knows his statements are liable to be challenged and overthrown if not adequately supported, has superior advantages. An occasional open discussion would doubtless help to keep an organization in closer touch with its constituents and the community, thus increasing its efficiency in many cases while tending to eliminate the dead timber. The press, pulpit, and platform do admit of replies. They have the disadvantage of being tardy at best and delayed until the next opportunity, at which time much of the first interest has been dissipated. An educator may inadvertently do himself and the cause he represents a gross injustice if, as a partisan, he upholds argumentatively only one side of a live public question.

THE DAILY NEWSPAPER AND ITS DEFECT. The American people are distinctively a newspaper reading nation. But the average newspaper is intensely partisan in politics. A very large majority by the journal that enters their home daily like an of its readers believe absolutely the affirmations made old household friend. As a rule but a single side of the public questions is presented; and that is made so forceful, emphatic, and plausible that there seems to the average daily reader to be no other tenable position. The average citizen does not have time to think out the replies and arguments of the opposition. He accepts the conclusions of his regular paper as a matter of fact the same as he accepts his of coffee for breakfast. Thus American voters very frequently cast their ballots without having had such opportunities for considering the claims of another party than their own.

cup

The American press is free: it is as free as the people and seldom more so. The journalist says he must print what his readers demand or they will discontinue their subscriptions. If the press is simply a mirror to reflect the present status of the public mind, then from what source may we expect the

masses to be elevated?

The popular press of America has been exceptionally courageous in denouncing crime and evil in high and low places. Has it been as fearless in breaking loose from narrow political partisanship? American papers are becoming, however, more and more independent as the voters are breaking free from oldtime prejudice and partisanship. It is the policy of some daily publications to conduct a department where open communications are printed under some

such caption, as: "Speaking the Public Mind," or "Communication." Here there appears more or less of an exchange of opinions on public questions, usually, however, of a purely local nature.

Occasionally the daily press and more generally a certain class of weekly journals print extracts and comments from other publications presenting the comments of the press generally in regard to such topics as the following: a president's annual or special message; the question of the Japanese in California; the Panama Canal Tolls; the currency and banking proposals. In such cases the reader gets a combination of the views of opposition papers and is at liberty to draw his own conclusions when he has read both sides of the question, doing so frequently without knowing the political bias of the various journals.

NEWSPAPER DISCUSSIONS TO BE TWO-SIDED ALWAYS. The time may be close at hand when the people will demand the same open and impartial newspaper examination of vital issues which affect the Republic as they do to-day in theory and more or less in fact in regard to a court trial. There the evidence is made public in the court-room, in the published accounts of the trial. Both sides are given a fair hearing in order that society, through its official representatives, may reach correct conclusions. It is eminently right that impartial trials be held in order to protect the individual member of society.

Is it not likewise important that the best interests of the group of individuals, the community, the state, the nation, be safe-guarded by allowing the voter to have possession of all the facts through the medium of the public press? This is of the utmost impor

tance since he has substituted the ballot for the bullet, and we do not want him to go back to the bullet. Justice and equity and righteousness must then prevail under government or the masses will conclude that they have been deceived and that their forms of government are a miserable failure.

Other organizations and agencies in the past have placed a strong emphasis on public discussion. There formerly flourished the vigorous rural movement known as the Farmers' Grange. It not only accustomed its members to the practice of debate and public discussion, but it gave the men a training which stood them in good stead when they were later elected to the legislature or other public office. They entered upon their duties with this experience behind them; while they and the community shared common interests as well. Their discussion of the railroad problem, of the rights of the farmer, of the views of the community, these blazed the way for the present wholesome railroad legislation. They may be said to have started the agitation of conservation of natural resources, and to have been the precursor of the present social conscience. The outgrowth of concerted action springing from organized public interest and debate is surely a decided benefit in a land of school houses, churches, and newspapers. Then there were formerly debating clubs; they ex

isted in town and country, with a membership of the leading men of the community. They have largely given way to commercial clubs which are to-day a source of influence in many localities, a sort of clearing house for community development, with men considering in open session civic policies.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION IS PUBLIC CONFERENCE AND

COMPROMISE.

Not only will better conclusions be reached where there is a group of counsellors, or a plural interest, but the support of the people will be thereby more easily won. The advantage of a union in conference is frequently recognized by referring matters to a committee to deliberate upon the measure and to report its conclusions. The committee is expected to hold a conference. If that body brings in a majority and a minority report to the main organization, the lines of discussion have then been outlined by the committee. If, however, the committee, as often happens in such cases, never holds a meeting, the advan

tage of the exchange of ideas is lost. The chairman frequently calls up the members of his committee one at a time when they are busy, asks if they approve of such and such conclusions, gains their consent, and thus the discussion by the committee is absolutely dispensed with. Such a procedure will probably lead to an inferior report. Since the members did not take the time to fully canvass the question it was naturally a hasty conclusion and the advantages to be derived from mutual discussion were lost.

The value of public discussion was recognized by the German Kaiser in 1899-1900. At that time he was very desirous of securing the approval of his people to his plan for vastly increasing the naval appropriations. Accordingly representatives of the crown appeared in public places; at the beer gardens, in concert halls, where in an attractive and forceful way they set forth the advantages and disadvantages of the proposal. Occasionally some one in the audience would raise a question and the speaker would at once attempt to answer any objection of the questioner. In this educational campaign the Emperor was highly successful and soon had the satisfaction of seeing his staggering budget for militarism voted. better cause, that of world peace. What a pity the plan could not have been used in a

THE RECALL, EDUCATION AND OPEN DISCUSSION.

Undoubtedly the most notable instance of public discussion in America was the series of debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas. It was probably those debates that prevented Douglas from receiving the necessary two-thirds majority of his party in the national convention, resulting in two Democratic tickets being placed in the field, thus making Lincoln President and the Civil War inevitable. In Mason City, Iowa, Judge Albert Cummings recently made use of town meetings for discussion of the question of commission form of govern

ment.

With the disappearance of war, which formerly called men to take arms to show their colors, there

cern.

It should not be left to the shipping interests and to politicians to decide. Immense issues are involved which are destined to affect the rank and file of our citizenship. We cannot afford in a people's government to make many grave mistakes. The opinions of the great mass of American citizens can be relied upon. Some will make mistakes, but the deliberate conclusions of the masses are as much to be relied upon as ever.

The test of discrimination and political sagacity, we are told, is shown in the success or failure of direct legislation and the recall. If the voter op

poses all measures submitted as constitutional amendments or because a list of nine or ten contains one or more to which he is stoutly opposed he marks them all in the same manner through lack of information or indifference, then there is a vital need as never before for the open discussion that the masses may adequately handle the elaborate machinery of govern. ment with which they are now invested.

Public discussion, then, given with zeal and in good faith, will lead men to respect the opinions of others, even the views of men of a different political party; they will become less partisan. It will consequently enlighten the people; and their correct information will keep party leaders from taking undue advantage of the people.1

1 Reprint No. 15 from "Civic Progress," American Civic Alliance, 135 Broadway, New York.

The lure of one's ancestral line is the source of much research and intellectual excitement for many American families; and happy is the seeker who can make a real connection with the European branch of his family. Miss Anne Hollingsworth Wharton has guided her friends "through colonial doorways," among French chateaux, and along Italian ways. Her latest volume now directs their steps to the English ancestral homes of certain famous American families. The itinerary through England touches scenes and buildings sacred because associated with the Pilgrim Fathers, the Franklins, the Washingtons, the Penns, and other noted Americans.

In a genial gossipy way the author tells of her experiences in visiting these places, and narrates the legends and history connected with each. A day is spent in the north of England visiting the Brewster manor-house at Scrooley, the home of William Bradford at Austerfield, and the town of Boston, where the Pilgrim Fathers were once confined in cells of the town hall.

In Ecton, near Northampton, the author shows us the quaint old town where lived the ancestors of Benjamin Franklin. The wise autobiographer visited this region himself during one of his sojourns in England and made record of his family connections. Miss Wharton takes us to the old inn, "World's End," to the church of St. Mary Magdalen, where some of the Franklins lie buried, and to the manor-farmhouse, of somewhat doubtful antiquity.

Probably the most interesting chapters in the volume for most people will be those describing Sulgrave and the Bringtons, the homes of the Washing

1" English Ancestral Homes of Noted Americans," by Anne Hollingsworth Wharton. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1915. Pp. 314. Illustrated. $2.00, net.

ton family. The author gives an interesting account of recent researches in Washington genealogy, by which the relationship to the Sulgrave Washingtons is established. An account is given of the Sulgrave church and of the Washington manor-house. Of the latter is said, "Sulgrave Manor is now little more than a farmhouse and is sadly in need of repair, yet there are indications that it was a building of size and importance in its day. Over the front entrance is a shield embossed in plaster, now quite indistinct, said to have once borne the Washington arms. In the two spandrels of this principal door are the Washington arms, with the mullets, or stars, and the bars sunk instead of relieved, and in the apex of the gable the arms again appear above the royal arms."

...

The British Committee for the Celebration of the Hundred Years of Peace between England and the United States has purchased the Sulgrave manorhouse as a memorial of the friendship and blood relationship of the two nations.

Naturally the Penn family attracts the attention of our author. An interesting chapter is devoted to Penshurst, the estate of the Sidneys, one of whom, Algernon, influenced so largely the colonizing plans of William Penn. Then follows a "Penn Pilgrimage" beginning at the site of his birth-place in London, then to the church, Allhallows, Barking, where he was baptized, then to King John's Farm, where he was married, to his early home, and to Jordan's meeting-house where he is buried.

Other journeys take the author to the homes of old Virginia and Maryland families and to a number of ancestral I shrines in and out of London." The work is written throughout in a delightful personal style and will be enjoyed by any American possessing historical proclivities.