no time for them. In short, we give so much attention to classical culture, dead issues, ancient customs, extinct civilizations, and abstract generalizations that we have little time for the civics, political science, the industrial work, and for the great problems of the day that make for citizenship.

But these conditions will not always prevail. Public education is the organized effort of the state to make a better citizen. To this end we must not forsake the past nor forget the present. But clinging to what is good we must add to the curriculum the subjects that will give the desired civic knowledge. And far more important than this knowledge is the moral training, both direct and indirect, that will lead the individual to use this knowledge in the highest interests of the state. Civic character is the supreme end of public education. For manhood is better than knowledge, integrity is better than wisdom, goodness is superior to greatness, and the soul of the citizen outranks his intellect as gold outranks the dross. Character overtops all titles, caps all careers, crowns all virtues, and is the sum total of all the qualities that give dignity and moral worth to the citizen. And the school will not fulfil its highest mission as an institution of the state until it gives these two qualities in the fullest measure and thus accomplishes its complete purpose.

PROBLEMS OF GREATER AMERICA

CHANCELLOR E. BENJAMIN ANDREWS, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA, LINCOLN,

NEB.

[An Abstract]

The statesmen who opposed expansion, however astray in other regards, have proved quite right in prophesying that our new national path would be thorny. It has pitfalls on both sides and in front. Vexing problems confront us, that will not down, yet are bitterly hard to solve.

A better diplomatic service is greatly needed. The United States has never been strong in this branch of statesmanship and has often suffered because of such lack. Now, our multiplied possessions bringing us into more numerous relations with other countries, this shortcoming becomes vital. More attention must be paid to the means of rearing and educating diplomatists, men skilled in international law and practice, at home in modern history, and acquainted with the most prominent public men in all the foremost lands. John Hay was the sort of diplomat I mean. May his example be prolific. We have only begun, not completed, the work of providing model government for our colonies. The United States is a colonial power like Rome of old and England in modern times, nor is it absurd to suppose that we may improve upon those exemplars in the just ruling of dependent peoples. If we ever cease being a colonial power it will not be in the lifetime of any hearing me tonight. So far as our epoch is concerned, whatever party is in power, one of the great tasks incumbent on us will be to see how equitably, smoothly, and humanely subject races can be governed.

We must not make the mistake, which Great Britain made in French Canada and in Dutch Africa, of trying to enforce the use of English. Also steer clear of all unnecessary offense to religious ideas and usages or to social customs. Leave much to the natural force of civilizational ideas. Secure justice between man and man; further education; make life and property safe. Traverse native notions and habits so far as is necessary to compass those ends, but no further.

Above all, train for self-government. Let none of the difficulties now facing us in the management of our Philippine and Porto Rican wards lead us to lower our aim or the dignity of our undertaking in their behalf to lead, educate, and train them till they are in condition to govern themselves either under the flag or out from under the flag. May the thought of tolerating a crown colony like India, the people without part in their own government and without hope of attaining such, never find support in this country. Some tribes under the flag may need a hundred years of schooling before they can be granted autonomy but let the hope of it be theirs every step of the way. For the most part we have asserted and maintained the Monroe doctrine without any sense of the responsibilities involved, a dog-in-the-manger policy. Roosevelt was the first president to acknowledge distinctly these responsibilities. It will not do to forbid other nations attempting to aid progress in Central and South America unless we offer such aid in every way. If we continued to stand off and ordered others to do so, the best moral sense of the world would condemn us and approve intervention by progressive European powers. We should then have to give up the Monroe Doctrine or fight to

maintain it.

The president deserves support in San Domingo, risky as his course certainly is. If persisted in, no doubt that policy will sooner or later give us practical suzerainty over San Domingo, Venezuela, and perhaps other states, such as Great Britain exercises in Egypt. But if you thwart the President, taking the stand that we cannot have aught to do with San Domingo's or any other state's internal affairs, European nations will immediately take post in San Domingo and at some rate or other do what Mr. Roosevelt is attempting. The same will happen a little later in Venezuela. That is, European powers, one or more, will be planted in America, and your vaunted Monroe Doctrine. will have gone by the board.

A problem of the utmost importance relates to the position of the United States on the Pacific Ocean. We have a longer Pacific coast line than any other nation, and behind the best part of it in our Pacific states a great civilized empire. This section of our dominion is not adequately protected. When the Isthmian Canal is done, our Pacific coast is almost as vulnerable to European navies as our Atlantic coast. True, there is now no prospect of trouble between us and any European government, but no one is wise enough to assure us that this happy condition will be permanent.

One could name a number of possible happenings or conditions any of

which might occasion war between us and some transatlantic power. Our commercial or tariff policy might set things ablaze. Mismanagement under the Monroe Doctrine might.

No doubt peace sentiment has made great progress in Europe of late, but it has made none among our Pacific neighbors, the Japanese, the Chinese, and the Russians, all of whom are very near us to the west. The Japs, of course, will not make war upon us over the San Francisco school difficulty, but their readiness to assert themselves and to parade what I must call a very doubtful right of theirs shows a certain sauciness with which we shall have to reckon sooner or later.

It is a great mistake to think Russia disposed of as a Pacific Ocean factor. She has given up Port Arthur but not Vladivostok, which is on Pacific water that never freezes enough to interfere with naval operations; nor is it absurd to suggest that Port Arthur may in no very long time be again in Russian hands. The last war with its defeats did not in the slightest change Russia's Pacific ambitions. She has only drawn back to jump farther at the next attempt.

It would be erroneous to regard this country as safe from Russia and Japan because of their hostility, out of hope of using one against the other. Nothing would be more natural, considering all things, than for these two powers, fierce as their hate is now, to make common cause for the division of China, together defying us and the world. They both covet China and each is in a way to dominate large portions of that empire. A similar conspiracy, involving the temporary co-operation of rival nations, has twice availed to partition Poland. Russia had a hand in that crime and has not forgotten.

Suppose China remains intact but untutored, save by these Asiatic neighbors, China itself may easily threaten our peace. The military power of China, roused, drilled, marshaled, and led, is frightful to contemplate. China could on provocation furnish again infinite hordes such as Jenghis Khan led into central Europe centuries ago. He lost without minding them 5,000,000 men, filling, at the one battle of Liegnitz, nine sacks with the right ears of slain enemies, and countermarched, not because beaten, but recalled by the death of the Great Khan at home. And this China with its appalling ability to overrun, to crush, to work world-devastation, China, our rival in the Pacific and so near, does not love us at all; and is subject to the influence of two other immense and warlike nations, both near us, two rivals of each other, it is true, but each a rival of ours. No patriot knowing aught of history or of man can deny that here is a situation calling for solicitude and preparation. We need new strength on the Pacific, its islands and its shores, even if we meditate naught but self-defense. But there is another duty. The future of China depends eminently upon us. If we remain apathetic touching Pacific interests, saying: The Atlantic is our ocean; its interests suffice us: what care we for things so far west! mark my word, the Jap or the Muscovite or the two together will determine China's future and it will not be very high

or worthy. If, however, we by our attitude, utterances, and acts, without braggadocio or belligerency, yet firmly, say to all the world: We are a Pacific Ocean power and shall defend and use our rights and influence on that splendid ocean in every legitimate way within our means, Muscovites and Japs will attend, with the benign result that China will be free to develop the enormous slumbering good her civilization contains and to complete the same by adopting the best culture that the United States and Europe can give.

WHAT FRACTION OF THE PUPILS IN OUR SECONDARY SCHOOLS CANNOT DERIVE COMPENSATING

ADVANTAGES THEREFROM?

W. J. S. BRYAN, PRINCIPAL OF CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL, ST. LOUIS, MO. The question under consideration is the ability of pupils of secondary schools to profit sufficiently from their connection with the school to make it worth while for them to remain in it. What percentage of high-school pupils have reached the limit of their education on account of natural capacity or defective previous training, and are therefore wasting time in a vain attempt at self-improvement? There is a wide difference between the number of pupils who cannot derive compensating advantages and the number who do not make the most of their opportunities through indifference, or lack of application, or social distractions, or disinclination to exert themselves.

The consensus of opinion of twenty-five principals of high schools in the larger cities is that only a very small percentage of pupils cannot profit from attendance, however many might derive greater benefit.

The period of development.-The duration of the period of development increases as the animal rises in the scale of being. The inference to be drawn from this fact is that the higher the stage of civilization attained by any people, the longer the period of preparation must be for the young of that people who are to fit into that civilization and to intelligently carry it forward to greater heights, if the biological analogy holds, and the individual in his mental and spiritual development is to pass in succession the various antecedent stages.

The need of more scholastic education than can be secured in the eight years of the grammar school is now generally conceded. The consciousness of this need is shown by the establishment of high schools in every city of the land and by the very general demand for the provision of like facilities of edu. cation for the rural districts through consolidation and transportation of pupils to a centrally located high school. The recognition of this imperative need has been fixed in the consciousness of the people, if we may judge by the large increase in the number of secondary schools and pupils.

The proportion of educable pupils.-The proportion of the educable increases with the growth of the art of teaching, and the adaptation of courses of study to the capacity and stage of development of pupils. The failure to

reach individual pupils by a given method or mode of presentation does not suggest to the wise teacher hopeless density, but rather the need of different or special treatment to be determined by study of pupil and accurate diagnosis. The pupil is to study the subject; the teacher is to study the pupil in order to teach him through the subject as a means of education. The self-activity developed in the pupil is the measure of the teacher's skill and the evidence of his success. It will not be safe for the teacher to conclude that the pupil who fails to grasp a subject carefully presented is lacking in intelligence. The real problem is how to make such a presentation of a subject as will stimulate the mind of the pupil to appropriate it. There is reason to believe that in the spiritual realm, as well as in the physical, action and reaction are equal, and it will be well for the teacher to assume the truth of this law. It is natural for teachers to commend themselves for skill when they succeed in conveying their ideas to others readily and forcefully, and to attribute their failure to communicate a thought to another to the dullness of the other in comprehension and not to their own poverty of expression or inadequacy of statement. Are we not able to draw from our own youthful experiences evidence of great disparity in the ability of teachers?

For each pupil the fixed quantity is his own capacity or need, the variable is the ability of the teacher to meet the need. Whatever the state or condition of the pupil, the remedy is to be sought and applied by the teacher, if the desired result is to be secured. To take this view of the relation of teacher and pupil is to magnify the teacher's office or function.

Who are entitled to secondary education ?-There has been a development in the ideas of the public as to the extension of the privileges of education. Early in our history leaders of thought saw the justice and the wisdom of making a broad highway for the passage of those who would ascend to the heights of the university from the first level of the primary school. All are familiar with the great conception of Thomas Jefferson, including in one complete system of public education all stages, from the lowest to the highest, a conception now practically realized in many states of the Union. But the legal right does not give the individual ability to exercise it, and there may be those who fail to avail themselves of their legal right because of limited capacity or because its exercise would be too costly. To determine whether the individual can derive compensating advantages from attendance on a secondary school we must ascertain the cost of attendance and the advantages to be derived. What, then, is the cost of attendance? To the pupil, in time, at least four years, from fourteen to eighteen or nineteen; in money, approximately five dollars a week, or one thousand dollars in all-about enough to feed and clothe him. This expense, if the pupil goes to school, will, in most cases, be borne entirely by parents. What is the annual cost to the public per pupil enrolled in the high school? Approximately, $60. These two items, the earning capacity of pupils and the cost to the public for tuition, constitute the total expense of a high-school education, in all about twelve hundred and