« PreviousContinue »
has never known a great passion passing on into a secure and noble devotion the annals of love belong to the literature of fiction; to those who know what love may become in the hearts of the pure and the lives set apart to its service, they are faint transcriptions of an experience that lies for the most part beyond the bounds of speech.
There is a greatness in love as in mind, a superiority which reveals without explaining itself, a genius which is as real as it is inexplicable. The skepticism of those upon whom this divine grace has never rested, the cynicism of those who have lost the power of love through infidelities to its nature and laws, the indifference of those who work with their hands and are content never to look at the sky over their heads, count as little as do the blind man's doubt of the reality of painting, the deaf man's skepticism of the spell of music, the bad man's denial of virtue. In the art of love, as in all things, life is full of the pathos of the searching saying that “unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance; but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.”
@ The Spectator
The great trouble with holidays is that most people don't know what to do with them. This objection, however, the Spectator finds, does not apply to Patriots' Day, that peculiarly Bostonian holiday. Having been in Boston on the nineteenth of April more than once, he can testify that everybody, apparently, goes to Concord and Lexington for the day, if it is at all a possible day for outof-doors. And having gone along himself, he can also testify that it is an exhilarating occasion, full of patriotic thrills, local color, literary associations, and kodak opportunities. The Spectator cherishes a snapshot of two little Italian boys looking up at the statue of the Minute-Man, which—but this is anticipating.
roads. A dozen years ago or so, when Patriots' Day was inaugurated by a great celebration, the bicycle was in its glory, and almost caused an accident. A rider, personating Paul Revere, left the North Church on a duplicate of the famous midnight ride, crying his historic warning as he went under the windows of Boston and Cambridge. But the ubiquitous bicyclers started with him, and never let him go. There were bicycles ahead of his horse, beside it, behind it, and running into it at intervals, in the dark. The original ride may have been dangerous, but not to compare with the perils of the replica. No one ever had the courage to play Paul Revere again. It was lucky for the rider, however, had he but known it, that it was the era of the bicycle and not the automobile. Paul Revere dodging a score of “Red Devils’’ would have been in danger too awful to contemplate.
There were automobiles on the roads, the Spectator noticed, and bicycles too, but not enough of either seriously to disturb the tide of travel that filled the wagons and buggies and carryalls and tally-ho coaches whereon young and old Bostonians braved the breezes boldly. It was more strictly patriotic to travel on the road, because the battle was really fought all along it, and tablets marked this spot and that where historic volleys were fired and stands and retreats were made. Driving out from Boston, of course, the Spectator was going the wrong way, for the fight went the other way, starting in Concord, and pushing back the British, foot by foot, to Lexington. But with speeches being made on Lexington Common, and everybody else beginning the day there, what was the use of carping 2 The Spectator and his friends followed the crowd, and shared the patriotic thrill when the Munroe Tavern was first reached, where, as two tablets along the road told, the British, under cover of Percy's cannon and reinforcements, halted in their harassed retreat, many of them utterly exhausted, lying down in the dust of the road to rest, “their tongues hanging out of their mouths like dogs,” as one chronicler puts it. “Poor things " said a sympathetic young woman in the party. But when she heard the tale of their subsequent eating and drinking and pillaging, killing the tapster who served them, trembling, in the old tavern, and setting it on fire when they had to fall back finally, overmatched and hard pressed, on Boston, she laid her sympathies aside and substituted, “It would have served them just right if every single one of them had been killed !”
There is not, indeed, much room for sympathy with the enemy in the story of Lexington and Concord. The old musket, with the powder-horn hanging from it, carved on the face of the great granite boulder on Lexington Common, recalls vividly the simple valor of the minutemen of '75. It points the direction of their line as it stood that day, and its inscription preserves the words of their captain, Parker: “Stand your ground; don't fire unless fired upon ; but if they mean to have a war, /et it begin here.” It was from this spot that Jonathan Harrington, one of the heroic band, mortally wounded by the first volley, dragged himself across the common to the door of his own little house and died at his wife's feet. The Spectator and his companions visited the old Buckman Tavern, where the minute-men mustered, and the monument, built in 1799, with its inscription beginning, “Sacred to Liberty and the Rights of Mankind,” written by the minister of Lexington, himself eye-witness of the conflict. They went through the Cary Museum, where Major PitCairn's pistols and Paul Revere's portrait and dozens of other interesting things are enshrined; they strolled to the old belfry where the bell was rung to summon the minute-men ; but they came back to the granite boulder, as everybody else did. “The uncertain glory of an April day' wouldn't do as a quotation for the Lexington calendar, would "*" suggested one of the party. “About * much glory was packed into that nine*enth of April as the town can ask.”
tator realized afterwards, holds the climax in the North Bridge and the Minute-Man of Concord. Along the road between the two historic villages tablet after tablet recalled the vain stands made by the English redcoats against the roused valor of the countryside. Past the Wayside, with its memories of Hawthorne, and the wooded ridge behind it from which the hidden and vigilant village sharpshooters picked off one British grenadier after another; past the Orchard House, where “Meg, Jo, Beth, and Amy "once lived, and the queer little weather-worn wooden Hillside Chapel, where Alcott's School of Philosophy emulated the Grecian sages; past the house where the Sage of Concord combined plain living and high thinking for so many famous years, and down Monument Street, the carriage drove slowly, following the unending crowd. Some of the Monument Street children, true daughters of Concord, were playing on the sidewalk, and one, striking an attitude and pointing to a picturesque old house, posed as a mimic guide. “This, ladies and gentlemen, is the Old Manse. Emerson's grandfather here witnessed the battle of Concord from an upper window on this side. Hawthorne's * Mosses from an Old Manse —” “Oh, we all know that s’’ cried her playmates, with shouts of laughter. To be a Concord child, and to know these things, the Spectator felt, is indeed to be privileged from birth.
Children, bicyclers, an automobile or two, a throng of pedestrians and carriages, streamed ceaselessly down Monument Avenue to the North Bridge and its statue, through a double avenue of silent, aromatic pines, whose picturesque quiet seemed to subdue every one into suitable reverence. The only chatterers were the squirrels, who racketed about overhead, making incessant protests against this invasion of their territory. At the end of the vista rose the Monument, and from its foot stretched the bridge across which British and Americans faced each other. “Selected a pretty place for a scrap, didn't they anyway?" remarked an irreverent bi'
To the Editors of The Outlook : AM persuaded that there could be I no very radical difference between The Outlook and those of us who oppose the acceptance by the American Board of Mr. Rockefeller's money, if the same facts were before all our minds. The issue is fairly presented in this sentence: “The Outlook affirms that it is not right for the American Board or for Dr. Tucker or Dr. Gladden to sit in judgment on Mr. Rockefeller.” I will let Dr. Tucker and the American Board speak for themselves; I speak for myself when I say that, in my opinion, it is not only my right, but my duty, and the duty of every American citizen, to sit in judgment on Mr. Rockefeller and upon the thing which he represents. There is no more solemn, no more urgent duty resting upon American citizens, and especially upon American public teachers, than the expression of this clear judgment. Of course it is understood that it is John D. Rockefeller as a factor in the economic, political, and social life of this people with whom we are dealing. We have nothing to do with his relation to other worlds. What uses the Almighty may have for him we do not undertake to determine. Our question is simply what the American people ought to think about him and to do with him. Mr. Rockefeller is not simply a private person. He is the representative of a great system which has become a public
enemy. The organization which he represents has been and now is a gigantic oppressor of the people. The Outlook has seemed to say several times that so long as this public injury is done by legal methods, we may, without scruple, share its gains. If it had come under legal condemnation, we might, it is argued, hesitate to accept its bounty. Well, even if the case is to be put on that low ground, there is abundant reason for our judgment. Mr. Rockefeller and his doings have felt more than once the heavy censure of the courts of law. Again and again in the legal tribunals of Ohio and of the United States his business methods have been denounced. Here is one pronouncement by a judge of the United States District Court, respecting a transaction into which, as the judge said, the receiver of a railroad had been coerced by the Standard Oil Company: “The discrimination complained of in this case is so wanton and oppressive it could hardly have been accepted by an Jonest man having due regards for the rights of others, or conceded by a just and competent receiver who comprehended the nature and responsibility of his office; and a judge who would tolerate such a wrong, or retain a receiver capable of perpetrating it, ought to be impeached and degraded from his position.” (Proceedings in Relation to Trusts, H. of R., 1880, Rep. No. 3,112, pp. 577–578.) Under the precise form of discrimi. nation herein described and characterized by a just judge, the Standard Oil Company was doing business for many years. Mr. A. J. Cassatt, now President of the Pennsylvania Railway, testified that the gains of the Standard Oil Company from this source alone amounted, in eighteen months, to $10,000,000. Does The Outlook say that we have no right to judge transactions of this nature, or the man who practices them and builds up a vast fortune by means of them 2 In 1892 the Supreme Court of Ohio dissolved by a decree the Standard Oil Trust, which had been doing business for ten years, and had amassed several great fortunes. The language of the Court was: “Its object was to establish a virtual monopoly of the business of producing petroleum, and of manufacturing, refining, and dealing in it, and all its products, throughout the entire country, and by which it might not merely control the production, but the price, at its pleasure. All such associations are contrary to the policy of our State, and are void.” Does not such a decision give every citizen ground for judging the policy and the methods of the Standard Oil Company A year or two later the Attorney-General of Ohio wished to find out whether the decree of the Court cited above had been obeyed, so he brought the officers of the company into the Supreme Court, and the Court ordered the Company to produce its books. About this time sixteen boxes of books were carted away from the Company's office in Cleveland and burned. Threatened with punishment for contempt of court, the officers made oath that the books destroyed were not those wanted by the Court. The Court repeated its demand for the books containing the evidence needed, when the Secretary of the Company made answer, under oath, that he could not Produce them— “Because the books disclose facts and Circumstances which may be used against the Standard Oil Company, tending to Prove it guilty of offenses made crimimal by an act of the Legislature of Ohio. “Because they disclose facts and cir
cumstances which may be used against myself personally as an officer of said company, tending to prove me guilty of offenses made criminal by the act aforesaid.” (History of Standard Oil Case in Supreme Court of Ohio, Part II., p. 248.) Does The Outlook contend that transactions which are confessed to be criminal by officers of the Standard Oil Company, under oath, are not to be called in question by us, and that the man who is responsible for them, and who has built his fortune by means of them, is not to be judged 2 There are a good many other court records which throw light on the history of this Company, but these are sufficient. I am surprised that The Outlook should decline to disapprove Mr. Rockefeller's business methods on the ground that they have never been condemned in court. I understand, of course, that this position was taken on account of a lack of information. I hope that I have given The Outlook reason for reconsidering its judgment on this point. I would not, however, rest my own condemnation of the Standard Oil Company and its doings on the judgments of the courts. Much that has been within the letter of the law has been no less iniquitous than that which the law has punished. Its high-handed methods of finance, the unscrupulous and brutal way in which it always pushes its interests, with utter disregard to the ordinary principles of business morality, are too flagrant to be ignored. Every day letters from all over the land bring me instances of the kind of practices which have been characteristic of this Company from its origin. It is probable that through the enormous power which it has acquired as the owner of railroad properties, this group of men, representing what are known as Standard Oil interests, is now exercising a more injurious and oppressive control over the industries of the country than it has ever done at any previous time. All railroad men will testify that “the Standard ” is now in a position to get from many if not from most railway directories about what it wants in the way of classification of freights and establishment of rates. As to this there can be no higher testimony than that of Mr. Charles A. Prouty, a member of the Inter-State Commerce Commission, who says in the April number of “The World To-Day:” “Discrimination in the published rate itself is likely to be much more serious than the rebate. The great trusts and monopolies exercise to-day such control over railway management that they can adjust rates in their own interest. The Standard Oil Company no longer accepts rebates; it makes the rates themse/ves, and the discriminations in its favor are worth enormous sums annual/y to that monopoly.” This form of robbery is probably legal up to date. Is it any less iniquitous because the law has not yet reached it 2 Are we enjoined from testifying against it because no court has yet condemned it? All this evidence, which is not hearsay nor rumor, but which is matter of legal and official record, makes it abundantly clear that this great fortune has been built up by the transgression and the evasion of law, and by methods which are at war with the first principles of morality. Are we, as Christians, forbidden to judge this sort of thing 2 I rather think that it is our first business to be swift witnesses against it. To take that command of our Lord against judging as a sweeping and universal rule is woefully to misinterpret him. Was it not this same Master who poured out his soul in the most scathing denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees who “tithe mint and anise and cummin, but neglect the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and truth ;” who “devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers ?” Was it not he who with a scourge drove the traffickers from the Temple 2 Was not that wrath exemplary 2 Evidently his own brother thought so, for we find him testifying pretty vigorously along this line: “Go to now, ye rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and your silver are rusted; and their rust shall be for a testimony against you, and shall eat your flesh as fire, Ye have
laid up your treasure in the last days. Behold the hire of the laborers who mowed your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth out: and the cries of them that reaped have entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. Ye have lived delicately on the earth, and taken your pleasure; ye have nourished your hearts in a day of slaughter. Ye have condemned, ye have killed the righteous one; he doth not resist you.” (James v. 1–6.) It seems to be clear that the Christian ethics, as it was understood in those days, not only permitted but required the sharpest kind of judgment upon just such characters and practices as those under consideration. The maxim “Judge not,” addressed to responsible American citizens with reference to their attitude toward public enemies, is certainly misapplied. Should we have bidden the Christians of New York not to judge Tweed or Croker? Should we warn our brethren against judging such iniquities as those that have been practiced in St. Louis and Grand Rapids and Philadelphia? It would make it very comfortable for the malefactors. But the first duty of every citizen is to form clear judgments on all such questions and fearlessly to express them. The only force by which law is made effective in this country is the force of public opinion. It is every man's duty to contribute to the creation of a sound public opinion. And that is only done by forming and uttering judgments on the rightfulness or wrongfulness of policies and practices which affect the general welfare. Instead of telling men that they must not judge with respect to such matters, we ought to tell them that they are bound to judge; that they are guilty of a grave neglect if they fail to judge; that they have no right to plead ignorance or incompetency; that they must know the rights and wrongs of these burning questions, and be able to deal with them intelligently and fearlessly. It is our duty as a people to judge this gigantic monopoly. The Congregational people must bear their part of this responsibility. Because they are judges they must not accept gifts from those whom they are called to judge,