Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

bosses, and the whole great forces of industry, business, and politics seem passing under the dominance of single central control.

Is this centralizing tendency antagonistic or helpful to the Republic? Is it consistent with popular government? Apparently it is antagonistic, against the republican thought of equality of right; each man a ruler and equally sharing the reponsibilities and powers of government. Forms may not be changed. Power seldom cares about forms; it seeks the substance of control. Many and insidious are the temptations which attend the efforts of power to centralize and establish itself: wealth and its offer of luxuries, sweetness of office holding, popular applause, even though manufactured and purchased. He who stands in the center has these and a thousand other strings reaching to every side of the surrounding circle.

We hear to-day many a financial and industrial leader asserting that there is no need of a college training except for the few who wish to follow a merely professional life; that the time occupied in such training is lost to him who seeks to take part in the great industries of the day; that more wisely would it be spent in learning all the machinery and mysteries of organization and business. These assertions have a deeper significance than is ordinarily credited to them. They are the outery of power against equality; the challenge of the forces which seek to polish the material to those which aim at the elevation of the intellectual and spiritual.

If the end of life be the mere perfection of the organization, the mere building up of colossal machines for doing work and making money, then it may be that the young man should commence as soon as possible to learn all the details of organization, all the workings of the machine. But surely the purpose of life is broader, and includes the relations of the individual as well as of the organization and the machine to the larger public and to popular government.

You can not stay this movement toward consolidation and centralization. It is a natural evolution. The commercial spirit is taking advantage of the wonderful facilities given by steam and electricity. Injunction against strikers will not stop it, legislation against trusts will not. Attempting to stay the movement of its chariot wheels by injunction or statute is lunacy, compared with which Dame Partington's effort to stop the Atlantic with a mop was supreme wisdom. Appeal must be taken to the great court of public opinion, whose decrees are irresistible. In that court every man is counsel and man is judge. That court may not stay the movement, but will control it. It can make the movement, with all the wonderful things attending it, subserve the higher thought of ennobling the individual. Who shall lead and guide in that court? Not the demagogue, appealing for selfish purposes to ignorance and prejudice. In the opening hours of the French Revolution Mirabeau roused the rabble in Paris, and the roused rabble whirled social order into chaos, provoking Madame Roland's dying words, "Oh, Liberty, what crimes are done in thy name!" We want no Mirabeau here. We turn to the educated lover of his country, the one who believes in her institutions, who would not destroy but keep pure, and is filled evermore with the thought that true service of public is the greatest glory of man. We look to him in that court for the preservation of the liberty of the individual against the threatened dominance of wealth and organization; to reinvigorate the so-called glittering generalities of the Declaration of Independence; and to fill the land with such a spirit of independence and liberty as shall give new emphasis to the grand old song, "America, the land of the free." We look to him in that court to exterminate the assassin and to put an end to anarchism, so that nevermore in the history of this Republic shall the sad story be told that during forty years, out of seven men elected to its highest office three perished by the hand of the assassin. Here, then, is my answer to the leader of the organization. The organization

may need only one trained in its workings-an always reliable cog in the machine; but the Republic needs something larger, stronger, grander-something more than a cog. It needs the educated man, and that educated man to whom organizations and individuals are simply instruments to subserve the higher interests and glory of the Republic. So it is that in these days of tremendous material activities there is as never before the need for educational institutions filled with the spirit of devotion to the public service.

* *

*

*

*

YALE IN ITS RELATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COUNTRY.

*

[From the address by CYRUS NORTHROP, president of the University of Minnesota.] The real history of a country is not the record of its great men either in war or in peace. It is rather an account of the development and progress of the people; and especially so in this country, where the people's will can govern, and ultimately does govern, and where the wisest leaders, before they speak, listen for the voice of the people. The hope of the country is not in the astuteness and ability of its great men, but in the virtue, intelligence, and good sense of the great body of the people. An institution of learning whose influence, educational and ethical, has permeated the great mass of the people in all parts of the country, affecting alike their ideas, their mode of thinking, their habits of life, their conceptions of public and private virtue, of patriotism, and of religion, has impressed itself upon the character of the nation in a more permanent way and with more wide-reaching results than an institution whose chief glory is the development of a few party leaders.

Probably the man of real genius never owes his success entirely to his college. The greatest men of the world have not got their inspiration from the college curriculum nor the college faculty. Some men have been great without being trained at college, and some have been great in spite of being trained at college. The glory which has been shed on some colleges because eminent men have graduated there is not to be despised, but it is largely accidental. Miami University did not make Benjamin Harrison nor did Dartmouth make Daniel Webster nor did Bowdoin make Nathaniel Hawthorne nor did Yale make John C. Calhoun. These men would have been men of note no matter where they might be graduated. The spirit of man in them was a candle of the Lord, and they could not but shine.

*

*

[ocr errors]

I pass on now to consider Yale's relation to the educational development of the' country. Heredity of blood is much less complex than heredity of mind. Genealogical tables are sufficiently intricate, but they are simplicity itself in comparison with tables of the mind's ancestry showing the forces which have operated to produce and invigorate it. No one can possibly estimate the results which come from the work of the successful teacher in molding the character and quickening the intellect of his students, because the influence of this work goes on in future years in widening circles that at last reach the limits of the country and even of the world. Without any doubt many of the men before me to-day owe something for what they are to the teaching and inspiration of the first President Dwight, who put his own impress on Yale College and in no small degree on other colleges, and sent out into the world as students men who have made his influence a continuous power for more than a century.

So, too, a modest, courteous, scholarly gentleman, a graduate of Yale College, teaches his classes for years in Williston Seminary, each year sending a score or more of well-prepared boys to the principal colleges of New England. His life and influence are not such as the historian will take notice of. He has fought no battles. He has led no great parties to victory. He has outlined no grand policy for the country-perhaps he has not even written a book. But the influence of Josiah Clark, of the class of 1833, did not cease when his life was ended here; and

the Williston boys of his day will carry to their graves the memory of that manly and inspiring teacher; and if any of them have done good work in life, they will not hesitate to attribute it, in no small degree, to his teaching and the inspiration of his life.

Two very eminent Yale men who have had much to do with progress in education in this country, in a certain way, are Noah Webster, of the class of 1778, and Joseph E. Worcester, of the class of 1811, both lexicographers, to whose work most of the American people who are at all particular about their speech have been accustomed to refer as the final authority. The universal presence in schools in former times of Webster's spelling book and its disappearance in these later days will largely explain the increased illiteracy of college students in these days. There is nothing which the secondary schools need so much as a revival of Webster's spelling book, if we may believe published statements respecting the deficiency of students in the elements of English-a deficiency which is not always removed by extensive courses in English literature after students enter college.

The great educational work done by Yale is of course the direct work of training its own students. With few exceptions, the graduates of Yale have recognized the training they received as valuable and have been grateful to the college for it. That all chairs have not been filled with equal ability, that the same chair has not been filled always with uniform ability, that some professors have been better teachers than scholars and some better scholars than teachers, and that the undergraduates have always known just how great the faculty was, individually and collectively, every graduate of the college is perfectly aware. It can not be doubted that the work done here for two centuries has fitted men well for the struggle of life, and that most of the graduates of the college have been respectable and respected in the communities where they have lived and have been recognized as men of influence. But who can tell the story of their lives? In the triennial catalogue of Yale the names of about 20,000 graduates are recorded. Of these about 900 have held positions in Yale or some other colleges, about 3,000 have some special record for public office or work, and about 16,000 have no record beyond their academic degree. Who can tell how much the country or the world owes to these 20,000 men? The number is very small compared with the many millions of people who have lived in the two centuries just gone. And yet I do not doubt that in some way, direct or indirect, the influence of Yale has extended, through those 20,000 graduates, to a large part of these millions, affecting their education, or their ideas, or their principles, or their lives.

It would be invidious to mention the names of distinguished scholars who have contributed to build up the educational work of Yale and make it the potent factor it has been in the education of the country, because it would be impossible to name all. You of former generations and you of the present generation will readily call to mind men who by their learning, vigor, and culture did much more for you than merely instruct. The list is a long and noble one, of which no Yalensian can fail to be proud. Though great men have died, great men have been found to take their places, and the faculty to-day will not suffer in comparison with the faculties of other days.

The roll of presidents is a famous one; but however much we may admire the former presidents, of whom the men in this audience have had personal knowledge-Day, Woolsey, Porter, Dwight, or any of the earlier men-no one doubts that Arthur T. Hadley, son and intellectual heir to the ever-to-be-remembered James Hadley, is at least the peer of the best of them.

Most of the Yale men who have engaged in the work of education have had on them all their lives the stamp of Yale College, and have cherished the Yale ideas and have followed the Yale methods. No other single word describes what these are so well as conservatism." They have held fast to what was good and

[ocr errors]

been slow to enter new and untried paths. The education that in the past had succeeded in giving men power has seemed to them good enough for the future, and they have been slow to accept knowledge without discipline or culture without power. As a result, the manliness, force, and independence which particularly characterize the Yale student have been reproduced throughout the country by the permeating influence of Yale training. "A boat race," said a newspaper correspondent last summer, "is never lost by Yale till the race is ended." He meant by that that every particle of strength would be exerted by a Yale crew to the last stroke, so that the race would finally be won, if it were possible, as it generally is. It is that resolute determination to do one's best in a manly way everywhere in life, without affectation or snobbery or parasitical sycophancy or the undue worship of ancestors, that is the characteristic mark of Yale men, and that is sure to appear wherever Yale men teach. And where have they not taught? North, South, East, and West, Yale educators have been at work founding colleges and academies and schools, formulating the principles of public education and making the policy of new States more liberal even than that of the mother New England, stimulating public interest in new methods and building up graded systems of popular education, with all the varied institutions needed for its protection. The earlier development of this work took the form of attempts to establish in new territory colleges as like Yale as possible. Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, and Hamilton may be taken as examples. The first three presidents of Princeton were Yale men, and to the efforts of the first president, Jonathan Dickinson (Yale, 1706), more than to the efforts of any other man, are due the founding and early development of Princeton University; the work of Aaron Burr, the second president (Yale, 1735), confirmed the Yale tradition in Princeton; and the name of Jonathan Edwards, the third president (Yale, 1720), according to Hallock, “contributed more to the fame of Princeton on the continent, short as was his presidency, than the name of any other official connected with its history." The first president of King's College, now Columbia, was Dr. Samuel Johnson (Yale, 1714). He was the only Episcopalian clergyman in Connecticut; was highly esteemed by Benjamin Franklin, and was urged by him to become president of the institution founded by him in Philadelphia, afterwards the University of Pennsylvania. When King's College was reorganized as Columbia, William Samuel Johnson (Yale, 1744), a distinguished United States Senator from Connecticut and an eminent lawyer, became the first president. He was the first graduate of Yale to receive an honorary degree in law, having been made a doctor of civil law by Oxford in 1776. Dartmouth College had for its founder and first president Dr. Eleazar Wheelock (Yale, 1733), for thirty-five years pastor of a church in Lebanon, Conn. The story of his work for the Indians and the development of his Indian school into Dartmouth College is too well known to need repetition here. The Yale stamp has always been on Dartmouth, and the spirit of the two institutions has been, and is, not unlike. Hamilton College was established by charter of May 26, 1812. It was founded by a Yale graduate, Samuel Kirkland, of the class of 1768, who drew his inspiration from Eleazar Wheelock, of the class of 1733, president of Dartmouth. Like Dartmouth, Hamilton was the outgrowth of Christian work for the Indians. For fifty years of its existence practically all the presidents and professors of Hamilton College were Yale graduates. Among them were some men so eminent that they will not soon be forgotten.

[ocr errors]

The ordinance of 1787, providing for the government of the territory northwest of the river Ohio, contained, among other remarkable articles, a requirement of public provision for education. Its language is: Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

That ordinance has been most faithfully obeyed within the great region to

which it applied, every State carved out of the territory having made noble provision for public education, from the common school to the university. "Ohio University, established at Athens, Ohio, in 1802, bears the double distinction of being the first college in the United States founded upon a land endowment from the National Government, and also of being the oldest college in the Northwest Territory." Dr. Manasseh Cutler was the father of the university. He was a Yale man, of the class of 1765, and a minister of the gospel, pastor in Ipswich, Mass. He drew up the plan for the college and made it as much like Yale as he could, but the legislature modified his plan and assumed large powers in the election of trustees, so that Ohio University, though a child of Yale, did not ultimately resemble Yale as much as it resembled a State university. But that was not because Dr. Manasseh Cutler had forgotten the character of his Alma Mater or had broken away from his Yale conservatism, but simply because other influences were too strong for him to control. Yale influence was thus the first to start higher education in the great Northwest Territory, and the institution founded by Cutler still lives and prospers, with as many students as Yale herself had when I was an undergraduate.

Twenty-four years later, in 1826, when northern Ohio had been well settled by good people from Connecticut, Western Reserve College secured its charter. It was the first college established in the northern half of Ohio. The project to establish it originated with a Connecticut clergyman, Rev. Caleb Pitkin, a Yale graduate, of the class of 1802. The institution was modeled after Yale, not only in respect to the course of study, but also in respect to its governing board, a majority, as at Yale, being clergymen; and of this majority in the beginning four out of seven were Yale men. The first president who was a graduate of a college was Rev. George E. Pierce, D. D., a Yale graduate, of the class of 1816. Of him it is said that "he was thoroughly imbued with the Connecticut idea of a college." That means the Yale idea. Most of the faculty of Western Reserve College were Yale men, and “for a number of years the institution was modeled upon Yale College in the minutest particular." After this statement it is perhaps needless to add, in the language of the president of another Ohio college, that" from the first Western Reserve has been one of the very best colleges in the country." Graduates of Western Reserve are now at the head of several of the most important departments of Yale, while several of the presidents and many of the professors of Western Reserve have been Yale men. Henry L. Hitchcock, of the class of 1832; Carroll Cutler, of the class of 1854, both presidents, and Henry N. Day, of the class of 1928: Elias Loomis, of the class of 1830; Nathan P. Seymour, of the class of 1834; and Lemuel S. Potwin, of the class of 185, may be mentioned, not as a complete list, but as a sample of the Yale men who have made Western Reserve, now expanded into a university, the excellent college it has always been. Illinois College was established in 1829 at Jacksonville, in the limits of what is now the imperial State of Illinois. All the influence leading to the establishment of this college originated at Yale or with Yale men. The promoters of the enterprise "followed the advice of the president and professors of Yale College, and these venerable advisers warned against subjecting the institution to political or denominational control." Rev. Dr. Edward Beecher (Yale, 1831) was the first president. Rev. Dr. Julian M. Sturtevant (Yale, 1826) was his successor, and his presidency was long and prosperous. The college was founded when Illinois had no colleges and had a population of only 160,000. Yale put her impress on the young State and has kept it there to a greater or less degree ever since. Beloit College was founded in southern Wisconsin in 1848. All of its first faculty of two were Yale men. Its first president was Rev. Dr. Aaron L. Chapin (Yale, 1837), who held the office for thirty-six years-till 1886. To-day, as ever, Yale is represented in the faculty of Beloit. The ideas of the founders of Beloit

« ZurückWeiter »