Part 2

The low level of spirituality attained by the average church member disgusts the man of the world, who sees no distinct advantage in religion beyond possibly a social one. The average Christian thinks only of his personal safety and has no concern for his neighbor. His is mainly a selfish religion, and such poor samples are abroad of what God is supposed to do that the successful business man, who knows how he feels about results, discounts such enormously, and looks upon the whole thing as beneath his notice.

Democracy has produced lawlessness enormously. It begins in the family, where parental control is at a big discount. The grown boy gets his way at any cost to others’ business.

He has learned to ignore law and authority from the beginning. The laws of the community are evaded, then the laws of the State, then of the Federal government. He believes he is a law unto himself. There is no law of God to need his attention. There is no God to trouble about. The book of God is never read. The day of God is utterly ignored. The future life does not concern him, so he needs no Gospel, no mission, no Saviour, no prayer, and the whole thing is gone.

The dollar values everything. How much happiness, how much pleasure, how much for himself.

Mr. Soltau, however, does not think that the Bible has lost its power. None of the modern intellectual and worldly developments satisfy the secret cravings of the soul.

EDUCATION PRESCRIBED AS ANTIDOTE FOR WAR.

President Faunce Believes the Spirit of Perpetual Peace Is Lurking in Public Schools.

Since the majority of evils spring from ignorance, education is the surest safeguard of virtue. It is a strong perversity that continues against a real understanding of the truth.

If war is an evil—moral, economic—as both economists and moralists generally admit, the hope of universal peace rests upon education. For that reason the suggestions made by President H. P. Faunce, of Brown University, in a speech at New Haven, carry the greater weight. He said:

No great movement is permanent until placed on an educational basis. Whatever enters the public mind through the schools enters as sunshine and rain into the fiber of the oak. A world-wide movement is now in progress, having as its object not the reformation of human nature, not the disbanding of all armies and navies, but simply the establishment of a better means than war for the settling of the disputes that must occur as long as the nations endure.

Already great results have been accomplished. Arbitration has been substituted for war in the majority of the cases. War is now the exception, not the rule, in case of international quarrel. It is not true that “in time of peace we must prepare for war,” but rather that in time of peace, we must prepare to make war impossible.

There is a growing appreciation throughout the world of the irrationality and futility of war. We have come to realize that the simultaneous discharge of pistols at fifty paces is no more likely to establish justice than the tossing of pennies or the throwing of the dice.

When the duelist became absurd, dueling was dead. The time is surely coming when the international duel will seem, in the face of international opinion, an utterly stupid way of settling differences.

What can we do in the public schools? We can inculcate the broad principle that rational men, when they differ, should appeal to reason and not to force. Already our schoolboys do this in athletics. They are accustomed to accept the decisions of umpires and referees without whining or complaint. The athletic field is a direct training for arbitration on a large scale.

We can teach in our schools that peace hath her victories no less renowned than war. We are learning to exalt a new type of heroism—the heroism of the social settlement of the city missionary, of the men and women who are devoting their lives to the uplifting of social conditions in the heart of our great cities. This newer heroism must be taught in our public schools.

We can inculcate the brotherhood of man in every class in our schools, and in every study that is taught. We can show that racial antagonisms are baseless and brutal. Each of the various races makes its own contribution to modern civilization. The last address of John Hay was an appeal for this point of view; for earnest endeavor on the part of all men and women in responsible positions to inculcate the method of arbitration as a substitute for the utilities of war.

GERMANY’S FIGHT FOR COMMERCIAL SUPREMACY.

Study of Other Nations’ Needs and Mastery of Their Languages Give Her Advantages.

If the rise of the United States to a position of first importance has been the great phenomenon of the last decade, the tremendous strides made by Germany in commerce and industry should be placed only second in importance. The reasons in the one case cannot be the reasons in the second; whence the value of a descriptive analysis of the German advance, such as the article by Dr. Louis Elkino, which appeared in a recent number of the _Fortnightly Review_. He writes:

If I were asked to say what has contributed most to Germany’s progress, I should unhesitatingly mention the development of patriotism in its best sense in the individual, and, though this historic fact cannot be proved by the usual methods of the statisticians, we know beyond doubt that the nation has come to work together as a firm and united organization.

His conclusions on the importance of education were:

There can no longer be any doubt that Germany’s industrial advance is mainly due to the extent and thoroughness with which technical education is being conducted. Briefly stated, the secret of the pronounced success of the technical colleges in the Fatherland lies in the fact that they have kept pace with the ever-increasing scope of all branches of science in general, and, to the same extent, with the ever-increasing demands of the present-day industrial enterprises upon scientific investigation and research.

And, in addition, the number of subjects and sciences taught is constantly being added to, while, on the other hand, the harmonious blending of the practical with the theoretical has greatly furthered the development of the scientific spirit in all its essential details.

Another important cause is the great pains taken to master foreign languages.

German firms are competing strongly with British firms in markets which, at one time, were almost entirely in the hands of British merchants, and this is not surprising, for the British representative, as a rule, has little or no knowledge of the language of the country in which he travels for orders, while the German is able to speak it fluently. It is extraordinary that British firms should continue to send abroad representatives who can speak no other language but their own.

Efficiency of method is not the least of the main contributory factors.

It is thoroughness which, perhaps more than anything else, Germans have to thank for their present happy state of abounding prosperity. It has enabled Germany to overcome one crisis after another in commerce and finance, inasmuch as it helps to the discovery of where the weakness lies. Economists teach that small concerns cannot exist side by side with large ones when they are in competition, but this is disproved in the world of German enterprise. The small firms flourish almost equally with the large ones; like the great trusts, they are able, when they wish, to sell cheaply in foreign markets. Both employ the same methods. This partly explains how it is that, though there has been a concentration of wealth and of enterprise into the hands of a limited number of people, a vast amount of money has been distributed more or less evenly into the hands of the population of the country as a whole.

“AMERICANS PERFECT CHILDREN IN BUSINESS.”

Bernard Shaw Says Our Stratum of Romanticism Prevents Us from Knowing the Real Thing.

George Bernard Shaw is never afraid to express an opinion on any subject, and apparently he is never at a loss for the opinion. The other day he expressed his views on business, saying:

The most striking peculiarity about business men is that I have never met one who understands the slightest thing about business.

Business men have certain set, conventional methods. Propose to them a way of doing business that departs from their usual method, and although the new way may mean more profit, they will not accept it unless forced to, and even then they believe they are being swindled.

My own way of doing business is perhaps novel, but it is neither harsh nor unfair. But it is novel, and therefore the men I deal with object to it, although they themselves are the gainers by doing things my way and not the way in which they are used. Yet they regard me with suspicion. It is very much as if you offered a man five dollars for doing something for which he had previously been in the habit of receiving a dollar, and having him denounce you as a swindler.

Not content with generalities, Mr. Shaw went on to discuss Englishmen and Americans as business men.

In making an agreement with an Englishman, you may be sure of one thing: if it is not entirely to his advantage he will not keep it.

An Englishman, when he wants a house, or money, or anything else, knows that in order to get what he wants he has to sign something. He does not care what he signs as long as he gets what he wants. After he obtains the money or the house, or whatever else he stood in need of, if he finds the agreement he signed disagreeable, he will denounce the man who holds it as a knave or a scoundrel and as one who is trying to take unfair advantage of him.

In my own experience with Englishmen, the terms of my agreements, satisfactory at the time of signing, have afterward proved irksome. They would then come to me and say: “Surely, Mr. Shaw, you cannot expect to hold us to such outrageous terms”; and when I would point to the agreements bearing their signature, they would retort: “Surely, Mr. Shaw, you are a gentleman!”

After all, the Jew is the only man who knows what he is signing, and will keep absolutely to his agreement.

Americans are perfect children In business. They have a stratum of romanticism that prevents them from knowing what business really is. This childish, romantic spirit impels them to be doing things, to cut somebody out, to do something that nobody else has done, or to do a greater thing than anybody else has ever done. Accidents, of course, will happen, and sometimes they make money. But the percentage of failures in America is something terrible. We never hear of these. Every attention is centered on the conspicuous few who have made success.

Shall we apply to Mr. Shaw the words of Horace,

Aliena negotia curo Excussus propriis,

which, being interpreted, is: “I attend to the business of other people, having lost my own?” It were fairer, perhaps, to say that, in his rôle of witty playwright, everybody’s business is Mr. Shaw’s.

QUEEN MARGHERITA ON THE SPHERE OF WOMAN.

She Abhors “Race Suicide,” and Condemns the So-Called “Emancipation” of Her Sex.

The Dowager Queen Margherita of Italy has been expressing her disapproval of “race suicide” with no less frankness than President Roosevelt. Not often is a queen interviewed; less often is a royal interview more than a collection of perfunctory phrases, polite, but insignificant. Yet Queen Margherita has been saying:

A childless family is incomplete. There is a poetry and a pathos about childhood which appeal to every right-hearted woman. Most women, though they may not be able to put this idea into words, feel it. They have the maternal instinct. Hence the remoteness of race suicide.

Women show their intellectuality by rearing healthy and great children, just as much as they do by writing books or painting pictures. The wife who deliberately refuses to bring children into the world must have something wrong with her moral make-up.

I am very pleased to know that there is a movement in the United States in favor of large families, and that President Roosevelt has put himself upon record as favoring them. European women have begun to look for light to their sisters of the United States.

On the subject of woman’s “emancipation” Queen Margherita is equally outspoken:

I am absolutely opposed to any extravagant theories of what is called the emancipation of women. In whatever condition of life a woman may be placed, her first duty is the negative one of not giving up the qualities that distinguish her sex. Above all, she should guard against developing the trait of men. A blending of ancient reserve with modern independence would give us the ideal woman.

BIG BURDEN OF DEBT CARRIED BY BOSTONIANS.

Statistics Show That Ten Per Cent of Them Owe for Food, Rent, Clothing, and Funeral Expenses.

Charles F. Pidgin, chief of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics of Labor, has been inquiring into the question of debt. Statistics issued by the Bureau show that at least ten per cent of the residents of Boston are in debt for their food, rent, clothing, furniture, and for funeral and other expenses. These people are thus partly supported by others. Mr. Pidgin says:

Debt has gained such a hold upon the people of to-day that the only sure way to decrease the number of people who owe money, not only for extravagances but for sustenance, seems to be to begin with the children, and devise some scheme by which thrift may be taught in the public schools. The generation which is growing up should be taught to have a horror of indebtedness, and how to earn money, how to save it, and how to spend it wisely.

The effect of intemperance is taught in the public schools. Why should there not be some sort of course of study that will show the effect of indebtedness on a person’s life and character?

The children nowadays do not, as a rule, know the value of money. When they want spending money they go to their parents and ask for it. When it is gone they ask for more. Neither the parents nor the children in most cases know how much money goes in this way, and the youngsters are not called upon to exercise judgment in spending the money.

The little newsboys on the street work hard for their money. They know the value of every cent, and that they must save for a rainy day.

If other children were taught to earn a little, instead of having it always given to them, they would make better citizens and would know how far a dollar should go.

If parents who give their children money when they ask for it would, instead, give them a stated sum each week or month for spending money, and make it an object for them to save it, it would go a long way toward prejudicing them against debt.

I believe in allowances for children, and for wives, too, for that matter. It makes them responsible for a certain sum, and nearly always they will take a certain pride in making it go as far as possible.

Chief Watts, of the Boston police, does not think that debt is a cause of crime. He says:

I never heard of any one stealing to pay their debts, and although being in debt may have an influence on a certain class of criminals—such as shoplifters and embezzlers—I do not think that it has any influence on the general run of crime.

So far as suicide and murders are concerned, I can’t recall a case of suicide where the person had been worrying about debt, neither can I recall a murder that debt had anything to do with.

It’s girls, not debt, that cause murders and suicides—not that I blame the women; I should not want to be understood that way—but love-affairs are generally the cause of police records along those lines. Men seldom get desperate from debt. I believe that the general tendency of every one is to pay his debts if he has half a chance.

It was a Massachusetts sage—Emerson—who wrote:

Wilt thou seal up the avenues of ill? Pay every debt as if God wrote the bill!

WANTS RIFLE-SHOOTING MADE NATIONAL SPORT.

Lord Roberts Believes Patriotism Should Cause It to Take Its Place With Golf and Cricket.

Lord Roberts has been pleading for the instruction of all able-bodied citizens of England in rifle-shooting. He says, in the London _Express_:

The rifle is our national weapon of to-day, but unhappily neither law nor custom enjoins that the manhood of our country should learn its use. Cricket and football are our national pastimes; why should we not make rifle-shooting another?

Rifle-shooting is a sport—a game attractive enough in itself; and every marksman should bear in mind that in learning how to shoot he is fitting himself as a member of a great empire to take up arms for the defense of his country. Rifle-shooting should be at once a national pastime and a patriotic duty.

The reasons for this suggestion are not few. “Bobs” proceeds to make the most of his case, for he goes on to say:

The American authorities, in the recently published rules for the “promotion of rifle practise,” gave it as their opinion that, “in estimating the military efficiency of a soldier, if we consider ten points as a standard of perfection, at least eight of these points are skill in rifle shooting,” and with that opinion I quite agree.

If, then, the scheme which I have been strenuously advocating for some time past is carried to a successful conclusion, we shall be a nation whose manhood will be for practical purposes all efficient soldiers—an efficiency, moreover, that can be obtained without the least interference with industrial or professional pursuits.

But for the whole scheme to be successful, it is desirable that boys, youths, and men should be given a certain amount of military training and instruction in the use of the rifle.

It is, I am aware, urged against my proposals that they are little short of conscription. I have frequently asserted before that I am altogether opposed to conscription as being totally inapplicable to an army the greater part of which must always be serving abroad.

Surely there is all the difference in the world between a nation, every man of which is obliged to serve in the ranks of the regular army and perform while in those ranks all the onerous duties of a regular soldier during times of peace and for small wars, as is the case on the Continent, and a nation which, while maintaining a regular army for foreign service, asks every man to undergo such a training as will fit him to take a useful part in a great national emergency when every true Briton would be, in point of fact, certain to volunteer, and only the shirkers, the unpatriotic, and the disloyal would be content to remain passive.

The people of this country should identify themselves with the army and take an intelligent interest in what the army has to do, and not regard it as something quite outside the national life; and this they would certainly do if military training became universal and rifle shooting a national pursuit.

We need not be afraid that such training and a generally acquired efficiency with the rifle would result in a spirit of militarism that would make us anxious for war. I believe, and would I could persuade haters of militarism to believe, that there is no surer guarantee of peace than to be prepared for war; and if every able-bodied man is prepared to play the part of the strong man armed, his own and his country’s goods will remain at peace.

Those who cry out for greater military efficiency and those who argue that less attention should be given to the things of war are seeking by opposite means the same result—the abolishment for all time of “that mad game the world so loves to play.”

What the Big Newspaper Writers Are Saying

Napoleonic Theory of the Relations of Man’s Stature and Genius—Iconoclasts vs. American Traditions—Time is Ripe for a Substitute for the Saloon—The Cash Value Placed by Law on the Life of a Man—Manual Labor Makes New Converts—Girard a Shining Model for Philanthropists—Advantages Resulting From Wealth’s Marriage Into “the Working Classes”—Does a Stepmother Make a Good Mother?—American Stomachs Are Not Deteriorating—Influence of Hate on the Efficiency of Armies—Early Risers on the Defensive.

_Compiled and edited for_ THE SCRAP BOOK.

RELATIONS OF A MAN’S STATURE AND GENIUS.

Evidence Produced to Disprove Napoleon’s Theory That Short Men Are the More Intellectual.

What is the height of genius? How do its physical inches correspond with its altitude of mind and soul? These questions are a subject of curious inquiry with the Boston _Herald_.

Napoleon the Great, a short man, surrounded himself with a staff of short men. He did not care to look like a pygmy among his subordinates. Doubtless vanity contributed to his preference for few inches. He said of General Kléber: “He has all the qualities and defects of a tall man.”

Napoleon would not only have agreed with Lombroso that great men are short men, but he went further than that; he altered the stature of Frederick the great, of Alexander, of Cæsar, to suit himself. He always insisted that they were short men, but the chroniclers of their times tell us otherwise.

The chroniclers of Napoleon’s time seem to have been struck by his own fancy, for they made him as short as they conveniently could. His old friend Bourrienne wrote Napoleon’s height as five feet two inches. Constant put it at five feet one inch. But, after all, these were old French measures.

Captain Maitland’s testimony is more to the point. It was to Captain Maitland that Napoleon surrendered on board the Bellerophon. Maitland measured him and recorded the fallen conqueror’s height as five feet seven inches, English. That, by the way, is half an inch more than the stature of Lord Roberts.

The Test of Figures.

But the Napoleonic theory does not bear the test of figures. Intellectual power in its varied manifestations is not found at its utmost strength in small men only. It takes men as it finds them—tall and short, thin and plump—and it seems to rather like height.

Thackeray was six feet four inches. So was Fielding. Scott, Walt Whitman, and Tennyson were six-footers. Goethe, the elder Dumas, Robert Burns, and Longfellow were five feet ten inches. J. M. Barrie is only five feet five inches, and Kipling only five feet six inches. Edwin A. Abbey has the same height as Barrie; so has Alma-Tadema.

Lord Curzon is six feet one inch, George Westinghouse is over six feet two inches, Andrew Carnegie is five feet four and a half inches, President Roosevelt is five feet nine inches. Mr. Gladstone was five feet nine inches. Sir Henry Irving was an inch taller.

Edmund Burke and Oliver Cromwell were five feet ten and a half inches, which, by the way, is the height of the present Prime Minister of England, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Wellington was half an inch taller than Napoleon.

That trio of great admirals—Nelson, Blake, and Sydney Smith—were a little under five feet six inches. Bismarck was a tall man, but not so tall as George Washington, who was six feet three inches. Sargent, the great painter, is six feet; Carlyle, Darwin, Huxley, and Ruskin were six-footers.