Puslapio vaizdai
[ocr errors]

says, speaking of a visit to the house of Thomas Mifflin: "Here we had much conversation with Mr. Charles Thomson, who is, it seems, about marrying a lady, a relation of Mr. Dickinson's, with £5000 sterling. This Charles Thomson is the Sam Adams of Philadelphia." In a foot-note to his article Mr. Bowen says, " Thomson was the father-in-law of Elbridge Gerry." This also is an error. Mr. Thomson was twice married. His first wife was a daughter of Charles Mather of Chester County, by whom he had two children, who died in their infancy. By his second wife he had no children, and hence it is very clear that he was not the father-in-law of Elbridge Gerry. Mr. Gerry's wife was a Miss Ann Thompson, daughter of James Thompson of New York City, a man of great prominence in his day, and on his mother's side connected with some of the oldest families in New York. For details of this statement I refer Mr. Bowen to the "Memoirs of Elbridge Gerry," by James T. Austin, p. 502.


Mr. Bowen, however, is not the only person who has fallen into error about Charles Thomson. In Drake's 'Dictionary of American Biography," in a sketch of Gerry, Mr. Drake says: "He married Ann, daughter of Charles Thomson, Secretary of Congress," and adds that she died at New Haven, March 17, 1849, aged eighty-six years. In "Appleton's Cyclopædia of American Biography," a very valuable work, it is stated that Charles Thomson “had just come to Philadelphia in September, 1774, with his bride, a sister of Benjamin Harrison, the signer." PHILADELPHIA.

Horatio Gates Jones.

Imperial Federation.

IN the April number of THE CENTURY MAGAZINE Charles H. Lugrin of Fredericton, New Brunswick, writes: "I do not recall the name of a prominent public man who favors the project [of Imperial Federation]; while several may be named . . . who have put themselves on record against it."

Will you allow me to correct this statement by referring to the latest list of the council of the Imperial Federation League in Canada, which I inclose, and which contains the names of two ministers of the Dominion, twelve senators, including the speaker, more than fifty M. P.'s of the Dominion, the Roman Catholic archbishop of Halifax, the Anglican bishop of Nova Scotia, four lieutenant-governors, and many wellknown names in all branches of public life.

Mr. Lugrin also states that " A few branches of the Federation League have been established in the Dominion." The facts are these:

A year ago branches were in existence in Montreal, Ingersoll, Victoria, B. C., Halifax, Peterboro, Ottawa, and Toronto. Since then branches have been organized in Brantford, Port Arthur, St. Thomas, Orillia, Lindsay, and county of Victoria; St. John, N. B.; Chatham, Ontario; Pictou, N. S.; Wiarton, Belleville, and Kingston; and there are in course of formation, branches at Woodstock, Picton, Cookstown, Barrie, Calgary; Yarmouth, N. S.; St. Mary's, Vancouver, B. C.; Winnipeg, Paisley, Brampton, and Hamilton.


Arthur H. Loring, Secretary Imperial Federation League.

Salmon P. Chase's Training for Finance.

IN a recent number of THE CENTURY the biographers of Mr. Lincoln, speaking of Mr. Chase, say:

preparation for his exacting task than great natural abiliWithout any special previous experience, without any other ties, unswerving integrity and fidelity, and unwearying industry, he grappled with the difficulties of the situation world and will forever enshrine his name in the memory in a manner which won him the plaudits of the civilized of his fellow-citizens.

The statement above, italicized by me, is perhaps not strictly correct. It is true that Mr. Chase was primarily a lawyer, yet it is also true that he was a trained financier. So early as 1834 he was appointed solicitor at Cincinnati of the old United States Bank.

In that year the Lafayette Bank of Cincinnati was established. I have before me as I write the original minutes of the Board of Directors of that bank for the first ten years of its existence. From these I find that Mr. Chase was one of the first Board of Directors, and continued a director for nearly ten years. In addition to this, he was made Secretary of the Board at its first meeting and solicitor of the bank. The latter office he held also for nearly ten years. At the time of this election he was but twenty-six years of age. I have looked carefully through the minutes, and they disclose the fact that he was in constant attendance at the meetings of the Board, and took a controlling direction in the affairs of the bank. He was constantly placed at the head of the most important committees, such as that of preparing the by-laws.

It also appears from the minutes that he gave minute attention to the business, and was severely exacting. The resolutions in his handwriting, which I inclose, evidence this.1

At the time he took so prominent a part in the affairs of this bank, while so young a man, his associates numbered among them some of the most famous men of that city of that day-Josiah Lawrence, the president, Judge Este, Neff, Jones, and others. This bank became a leading bank of the city, and now, transformed into a national bank, maintains its original high character. Here, as elsewhere, his work is enduring. Thus for ten years, in the formative period of his life, from twenty-six to thirty-six years of age, he had the double training of a bank director and solicitor of the bank — and this in one of the chief cities

of the country.

As a bank lawyer, he ranked first in his profession. Before he became a member of Mr. Lincoln's Cabinet he had been for six years United States senator. While excluded by the pro-slavery majority from the

1 The resolutions are as follows: "Resolved, 1. That in no case shall any mortgage upon real estate be received as security for any loan or discount, unless the applicant for such loan or discount shall have furnished a complete abstract of the material parts of the title papers of such real estate, and also of all adverse claims, legal and equitable, to such real estate, to the solicitor whose duty it shall be carefully to examine such abstract and to furnish to the President his written opinion thereon, which opinion, together with the abstract, shall be lodged with the cashier. 2. That in all cases where any real estate, received as security for any loan or discount, shall be released from the operation of any mortgage before the debt secured thereby shall have been fully paid, the attendant expenses shall be paid by the applicant for such release. 3. No discount or loan shall be granted to facilitate the payment of any debt on which suit has been commenced or judgment rendered unless the applicant for such loan or discount shall pay the costs of such suit or judgment, including attorney's fees.'

committees, because he "belonged to no healthy political organization," it was yet his duty to consider the finances of the nation; and where duty called him to act it was his habit thoroughly to inform himself. He had also been for four years Governor of Ohio, with a general supervision of the finances of that great State. During this time occurred the famous defal

cation of Breslin, the State Treasurer. Mr. Chase, as

governor, at once took possession of the treasury, and with a master's hand brought order out of chaos, and so satisfactorily to the State that what seemed at its honor. So it would seem that he had had that special training which fitted him for his mighty task. When he met the great bankers of New York he met them not as a stranger, but as one of them, initiated into the mysteries of their craft. It was well. Mr. Chase's achievement was not the flash of genius that bewilders, but the natural result of trained powers.

first to be a blemish to his administration redounded to

Allow me a word in another relation. The extracts

from the diary and letters of Chase given in this history of Mr. Lincoln are not pleasant reading. But the picture has its relief. They were written chiefly in the weary, waiting year-1861-62. The most effective pages of this history are, perhaps, those relating to McClellan. The grouping of the facts presents a progressive climax that is simply crushing-but is it not reactionary? Is not the emotion it excites one of painful pity for McClellan and something akin to indignation that those in power should have borne so long with him? Remember that Chase was present and saw all - saw the grand army of the Union wasting away in hopeless inactivity; saw it again, led to battle in a desultory way, defeated piecemeal by a foe inferior in numbers; saw it when victorious retreating from its vanquished enemy; meanwhile saw the debt of the nation piling up mountain high, threatening a financial abysm that would engulf all.

The situation was without precedent. No other nation could have borne those loans. For many months Mr. Chase was in daily apprehension of a catastrophe, blasting alike his country and himself. The responsibility was his. Others spent; "he smote the rock"; and yet he was ignored! He felt himself neglected, and chafed as the strong man bound. Perhaps it would have been better had he suffered in silence; and yet perhaps complaint brought relief.

Born to command, a courtier he could not be.

A letter he wrote me of date August 29, 1862, portrays his feelings during the McClellan régime. I close with this extract from it:

Since the coming of General Halleck, I have known no more of the progress of the war than any outsider. I mean so far as influencing it goes. My recommendations had been, before he came in, generally disregarded, and since have been seldom ventured. I did, in one or two conversations, insist on the removal of General McClellan, and the substitution of a more vigorous and energetic and able leader; on the clearing out of the Mississippi; and the expulsion of the rebels from East Tennessee - all which might have been done. But though heard, I was not heeded. I hope for the best. Those who reject my counsels ought to know more than I do. At all events little is now left for me, except to administer as well as I may under existing circumstances the complicated and difficult concerns of my own department.

[blocks in formation]

Retaliation in Missouri.

THERE are errors in the April installment of the "Life of Lincoln " relative to the part taken by me in the execution of ten rebel guerrillas at Palmyra, Missouri, in October, 1862, in retaliation for the abduction and murder of a Union citizen of that town. With the opinion of Messrs. Nicolay and Hay on what

they term "a punishment tenfold as severe as that demanded by the Mosaic law" I need not concern myself. The statement that my action was under the authority of the State of Missouri is an error. The letter of General Curtis quoted to sustain that statement appears (according to a foot-note on page 860 of Vol. XXII. of the "Official Records ") never to have been sent; or, if sent, he was afterwards ashamed of its misstatements, for he forwarded to Washington a copy of a letter taking entirely different ground for refusing to treat with the rebel authorities in their investigation of the execution.

The fact is that while I was at the time a brigadier

general of Missouri State troops, I held a commission as colonel of the 2d Missouri Cavalry, a regiment of State militia mustered into the United States service. As such I had been assigned, June 4, 1862, by the department commander, General Schofield, to command the district of North-east Missouri (see Vol. XIII., page 417, of the " Official Records "), and instructed by him to" take the field in person and exterminate the rebel bands" infesting that section. General Schofield expressly enjoined (see Vol. XIII., page 467, of the " Official Records "): "Do not be too moderate in the measure of severity dealt out to them. Carry out General Orders No. 18 and No. 3 thoroughly."

General Order No. 18 (see Vol. XIII., page 402, "Official Records ") states that:

Rebel officers and men are returning to their homes, passing stealthily through our lines and endeavoring again to stir up insurrection in various portions of the State where peace has long prevailed, and there still remain among the disaffected who never belonged to the rebel army a few who avail themselves of every opportunity to murder Union soldiers and destroy the property of citizens. all troops of the State in hunting down and destroying The utmost vigilance and energy are enjoined upon these robbers and assassins. When caught in arms engaged in their unlawful warfare they will be shot down upon the spot. All good citizens who desire to live in peace are required to give their assistance to the military outlaws who infest this State, and those who shelter and authorities in detecting and bringing to punishment the give them protection. Those who fail to do their duty in this matter will be regarded and treated as abettors of the criminals.

It will thus be seen that I was acting directly under Federal authority as an officer of the United States Army and in accordance with my official instructions as such. Moreover, the ten guerrillas executed (not one of whom but had committed murder under circumstances of atrocity) were selected from twenty-two who had previously been formally tried by a United States military commission and sentenced to death, so that their death was but hastened by the act of retaliation, the remaining twelve of the twenty-two convicted being soon afterwards shot in pursuance of their sentence by the officers in command at Macon City and Mexico, Mo. Nor was there unseemly haste in thus carrying out the sentence already pronounced against these unfortunate men. Public notice was given that the ten men would be shot unless within ten days the


abducted Union citizen (Andrew Allsman, seventy years of age and a non-combatant) was returned unharmed to his family. During that period of ten days, my ranking officer, General Lewis Merrill of the regular army, and General Curtis, who had succeeded General Schofield in command of the district of Missouri, September 26, 1862, were fully advised of my action. In a letter to me dated January 22, 1880, referring to an attack on me in the United States Senate relative to this matter, General Merrill wrote as follows:

No notice appears to have been taken of the other executions, and no reflections were ever made that I know of on either General Curtis or myself, though equally responsible with you, and indeed having the greater responsibility, in that we were your superior officers and could have stopped your action had duty allowed it. Both General Curtis and myself had to listen to many heartrending appeals to take this action, and both uniformly refused. The event showed it would have been weakness and failure of duty to have listened, for the executions practically ended all guerrilla operations in North Missouri, and restored peace to the community to such an extent at least that it was possible thereafter to commit to the civil authorities the trial and punishment of most of the crime which was thereafter perpetrated. Before this the civil authorities were utterly powerless. You have long suffered from falsehood and misapprehension in this matter, and it gives me great pleasure to do what I can to right you, as I know no more tender-hearted soldier than yourself ever lived, and no more painful duty could have been imposed upon you than that involved in the execution of these criminals; but I also know that you never permitted personal pain to swerve you from the plain line and demand of duty, however stern and hard it should be.

[ocr errors]

Such an investigation of this affair as President Lincoln made before appointing me a brigadier-general (November, 1863) will convince any unbiased inquirer that my action sprung from neither "mistaken zeal nor "uncurbed passion," as my present critics infer, but from an imperative sense of duty. Since the issue of the April CENTURY an interview with General Merrill has appeared in the St. Louis "Globe-Democrat" (April 2), in which he relates that he was summoned by telegraph to report to the President, and immediately repairing to Washington, ignorant of the reason for the summons, appeared before President Lincoln at a time when the members of the Cabinet were seated about him. General Merrill then proceeds as follows:

"I was ordered to report to you, Mr. President," I said, after being presented. "Yes, General. .. I want to inquire about that shoot

ing in Missouri."

"I can give you a written report in a few minutes that will explain all," I said.

"I don't want anything in writing, General. I want you to tell me the story."

I told it to him as I have to you, with this addition: "I telegraphed you a number of times asking your approval of the order and asking you, Mr. President, to issue the order yourself, but I asked in vain; and as it was a necessity, I took the responsibility. It was my duty, and I have never felt a twinge of conscience that suggested I did other than right to my trust."

The President came up, laid his hand on my shoulder, and said: "Remember, young man, there are some things which should be done which it would not do for superiors to order done."

By his manner I inferred that had he ordered me to do what it was essential for me to do, political complications would have arisen which would have been troublesome. He evidently meant that he justified my course himself, but preferred not saying so, and left me to understand that my judgment was trusted, and to be exercised by me in emergency.

[blocks in formation]

IN the April CENTURY, the authors of the "Life of Lincoln " have fallen into a mistake as to the conduct of Governor Seymour during the draft riots, which should be corrected. I saw the audience in the City Hall Park which Governor Seymour addressed on the occasion referred to at page 929. It was not a crowd of rioters. He did not address the rioters at all. The people whom he there addressed were a multitude of persons naturally attracted to the City Hall by the news that the governor of the State, whose arrival was anxiously expected, had actually come. He used in speaking to the multitude the expression that he and Mr. Everett commonly employed in addressing an audience -"My friends." There was no mention in the speech that the draft justified the riots, and I know that the governor used the whole authority which the law gave him to suppress the riots. Nor can it be truly said that he did all he could to embarrass the Government, or to rouse the people against it. On the contrary, he was thanked by the Secretary of War for his active and energetic coöperation in forwarding troops to meet the Confederate forces. Indeed, one embarrassment during the riots was that the city had been completely stripped of uniformed militia, who had been sent forward by Governor Seymour to meet the invading enemy. Everett P. Wheeler.


The "Life of Lincoln "— a Correction.

ON page 927 of the April CENTURY the authors of the "Life of Lincoln " speak of Brevet BrigadierGeneral Alexander S. Diven, one of the provostmarshal generals of New York, as a " War Democrat." Mr. Ausburn Towner writes by way of correction to say that General Diven "was, originally, a Free-soil Democrat,' one of that faction of the old Democratic party that, uniting with the Free-soil Whigs,' formed the Republican party. He was a member of the State Senate of New York in 1858-59, having been elected such as a Republican and by Republicans, and therefore was one of those who composed the first Republican Senate of that State. He was elected as a Republican and by the Republicans of his district, then the 27th (the Elmira district), to the 37th Congress, 1861-62, leaving his seat to help organize the 107th Regiment, which he commanded until he was appointed to the position named in the History.' He can hardly, with truth, be classed as a War Democrat,' unless you so class Secretary Chase or any other Republican leader who had been a Democrat."

One Reason of the Inefficiency of Women's Work. is at the beck and call of her husband and children and

By subordinating self-improvement to her various domestic and social duties a woman not infrequently defeats her own end: the sum-total of her usefulness in these very directions is less than it might be if she gave some time each day to intellectual culture. We are standing on the solid platform of practical usefulness and are not considering the delights of knowledge for its own sake; for all of charity is not bread and butter, and all of motherhood is not mending. Many a mother, by an excess of devotion to her little son, unfits herself to be a mother to the same boy when he goes to college; for he needs sympathy as much in his higher studies as he did in his blocks and his marbles. The wisest mother will not merely see that her child is fed, and clothed, and instructed, and made good and happy for the time being. She will be careful to keep as far as possible on a level with his intellectual stature, so that his mental attitude towards her may not change with his physical - so that the man may feel, as did the baby, that his mother is not only the best, but the wisest, of women.

Honest Dick Steele's reference to Lady Elizabeth Hastings, that "to love her was a liberal education," is oftener quoted than deserved; and yet this is the friendship which every woman of intelligence and will can give to her husband and to her children. Surely an intelligent woman needs only to appreciate the value of such an equipment in order to feel that time spent in gaining it is not wasted that it affords a sufficient reason for taking one hour at least out of twenty-four from the other duties of life, however absorbing they may be.

The actual knowledge which comes of intellectual work is of great value, but this is not all. It is not the mere facts gained, but the mental discipline acquired, which give to the habit of study its highest justification, its chief value as a sort of mental gymnastics.

The idea is notorious among men that women cannot do business, cannot carry on a connected line of thought, cannot follow and appreciate an extended argument. Like most generalizations, this admits of large exceptions, but it is in the main true. We all know, for example, how impossible it is to converse with some women. They interrupt us in the middle of what we consider an interesting and valuable train of thought, and run off on a side-track, without the slightest appreciation of the discourtesy of which they are guilty or of the fact that our conversation was making logical approach towards some definite point. Their own remarks are never directed by any other than the "word suggestion" method: one thing "reminds" them of another indefinitely, and they become confused in a hopeless labyrinth of parentheses, with out attempting to extricate themselves, and without even being conscious that they are lost. The same method is followed in their actions as in their thought processes.

We do not attempt to say how much of this is owing to a native lack of logical power; but we are convinced that it is largely due either to defective early training or else to long-continued intellectual stagnation after school-days are over - probably to both. A woman's occupation, it is true, consists largely in heterogeneous details; she is subject to constant interruptions; she

of the world in general; she is sometimes imposed upon and tyrannized over, often without realizing the extent of the humiliation; and she is seldom brave enough to be willing to seem disobliging. The result of all this is that, to a certain extent, she loses her individuality. In short, she becomes deficient in sense of proportion and in power of analysis.

When the situation is thus viewed it becomes a little difficult to say whether intellectual stagnation should be treated as cause or as effect. Certainly the character of one's occupation has a strong reflex influence upon the character of one's thoughts, and it cannot be denied that the same degree of system is impossible in a woman's work as in a man's. However, our object is not to cavil with fate, but to consider what are the best methods of procedure under existing circumstances; and from this point of view intellectual stagnation appears as the cause of much that is defective in the work of women.

The laws of habit and of exercise hold good of the mind as well as of the body. The hands perform most easily familiar actions; the mind, kept alert by constant exercise, is ready for any emergency. If we keep our minds wide awake by constantly studying and doing genuine thinking in some definite direction; if we learn to analyze the various elements of a subject and see their true relative importance; if we learn to weigh and balance arguments with nice discrimination; if we keep at our command, by constant practice, the power of concentrating our thoughts - these healthy mental habits will have a wholesome influence upon everything that we do. When a thousand different claims are made upon our time and attention the habit of analysis will stand us in good stead, and we shall have the strength of mind to do the most important things, and to leave the others undone, instead of helplessly attending to whatever important item happens to be brought to our notice first. When hard problems must be solved and difficult questions answered, the habit of reflection and quick decision will be found simply invaluable. When the distractions of the kitchen, the nursery, and the street make life one vast hubbub, the habit of concentrating thought and fixing attention will make it possible to form and keep in mind fixed purposes, and to make intelligent efforts towards carrying them out. In short, an active mind is as necessary an equipment for every-day life as a strong body, and a proper early education is not sufficient to keep either the mind or the body in healthy condition. They both need vigorous and habitual exercise if the power for work is to be kept at its maximum. Moreover, if the opportunity for healthy development does not lie in the course of a person's ordinary occupation, that is just the case in which it must be sought. A fieldlaborer needs no gymnasium, but a sedentary man does; a professional student will naturally have an active mind, but a wife and mother, whose affections are occupied more than her intellect, needs to set up a sort of home gymnasium for intellectual culture, and to practice in it faithfully.

It is not without a keen appreciation of the inherent difficulties of the case that these suggestions are made. Probably no class of people meet more obstacles in matching practice to theory than the women of whom we speak, but it is none the less necessary that their

theories should be sound. The inherent difficulties of the case make it only the more necessary to have a sure footing and a true aim.

Subjects and methods and times for study must always vary with individual cases; several good suggestions have been given in former numbers of THE CENTURY. Our design is simply to suggest the proper mental attitude in the matter. If a woman considers an hour of aggressive, absorbing intellectual work as much an essential of a symmetrical day as sleep, or food, or exercise, -if her ultimate object in the study is increased power for actual work, she will be much more likely to study than if she regards intellectual occupation as either a useless effort or a selfish indulgence. Of course there are crises in life when study must be suspended, just as proper rest and exercise are dispensed with under special pressure, and there are probably some cases in which it is actually impossible; but this does not alter the fact that it is well to be in the habit of sleeping and of exercising, and, we would add, of studying.

Mary A. Johnson.

The Decline of the Editorial,

IT has been urged with pertinacity that the editorial leader should be signed by the writer, and unresponsive pity has been called upon to rise in behalf of the man whose talents find no recognition in the anonymity of the daily press. For my part, I know of nothing more unfortunate than would be such a change in custom, and I sincerely hope the desire for change, for the unusual, will not lead to its adoption generally. The potency of the editorial "we" has suffered enough in the last dozen years without this final blow, and that it has retained its power at all has been due to the willingness of great minds to sacrifice the repu tation for the advantages of the freedom of the anonymous form. The decadence of newspaper influence would follow the change almost inevitably, and the fault would be the writer's, not the reader's. An appeal to all who use their pens as bread-winners would, I think, bring a response that the sense of responsibility is not less when the writer is unidentified, while a broader view is commonly taken and more courage shown in the expression of opinions which may provoke dispute, yet may, none the less, be eternally true. The tendency of the individual is to avoid quarrel, and the avoidance of quarrels is the gravest of newspaper blunders. To arouse some antagonisms is almost as necessary as to make friendships, in a progressive journal.

Journalists should need no warning, however, against the use of the first person, singular, in view of the decline of the editorial which most of them are aware of, though not so many will admit it. If Mr. Matthew Arnold had not spoken, one might appeal to the average citizen for confirmation of the declaration that the editorial has, in fact, declined. By this let it not be supposed that the leader is not so able (to use a favorite newspaper word) as in the earlier days, for a comparison of the editorial page of to-day with the page of twenty years ago shows no falling off, but rather a gain in method and matter. It is simply that the editorial is not read with the attention once given it, that it is now merely one department of the newspaper, receiving the consideration of the subscriber if

his horse-car journey happens to be long enough. Of course a good deal of this neglect has been due to the increased size of the more prosperous papers and the vast extension of the field they cover. The news columns are so much more interesting than they used to be! But there have been other causes at work, and the great increase of personalism the word is used in a broad sense is to blame for the loss of respect for the purely editorial utterance. The "managing editor," the executive officer of the newspaper, is the really responsible party. How dare an editorial writer advance an original opinion on a subject of national importance when the chief executive on the other side of the partition has received "specials " from Washington and every State capital giving the views of men of all shades of opinion on the issue involved, many of them speaking with an authority which readers will accept as conclusive? Why venture to discuss the prospects of European war, when Bismarck's opinions, construed by Salisbury, may be had for money paid to maintain a social lion as correspondent in London? The editor of the metropolitan journal is driven to discuss phases instead of the subject-matter, or, perhaps, devotes himself to praise of the enterprise that has obtained the important expression found in our news columns of this date! The editorial writer has, alas! not even the title of " editor" in some cases, and the conductor of more than one powerful journal to-day never puts pen to paper.

That the editorial page may soon disappear altogether is a dreadful possibility; and if it is to be committed to the care of the elegant essayist, writing over his own signature, there will remain no reason for its existence in its present form. The pressure for space in every great daily is severe, and it now requires a stern front to hold the three or four columns sacred for editorial utterances. Give the news editor his opportunity and he will abolish the essayist without a qualm of conscience.

Yet one cannot see the approaching doom of a department in journalism so powerful as this without an effort to avert it. A force so potential as the daily newspaper should be something more than the mirror of events which the executive forces of journalism are making it. Let them pursue their glorious career undisturbed and hire the Prince of Wales for special society correspondence, or the Pope for theological discussion, if they can; but let the editorial “ we" remain. The leader writer must, however, give in this daily work a cause for his existence, and that can be found only by some change in method.

Far be it from me to suggest aught to the learned and "able" writers of the editorial page in the great cities, yet there have been occasions when an editorial expression of opinion might have been of tremendous value, backed by that mysterious anonymity of which I have spoken. Some readers, I know, looked in vain for such an editorial discussion of the longshoremen's strike not long ago that would have shown real knowledge of the matter and an opinion based upon that knowledge. The instance is, perhaps, hardly a fair one, but there should be, it seems to me, a more thorough study of current public agitations by editorial writers who now avoid them, or, worse yet, slur them over with vague generalities. No so-called "expert" opinion could take the place of the editorial discussion so

« AnkstesnisTęsti »