the theater; and some cried one thing and some another; for the assembly was in confusion; and the greater part knew not wherefore they were come together.

The history of the world can be boiled down to this story of Paul and Demetrius and the silversmiths and mob at Ephesus. We have always the same contending forces-Paul, the apostle of a new idea; Demetrius and the silversmiths, whose business is threatened by that idea; and the mob that joins in the hue and cry against the apostle without knowing why. Progress is the resultant of these three forces-special interest and ignorance on the one side, and, on the other, the power of truth. This is the necessary formula for the right understanding of our own or any other age.

Men tell us of our natural resources and the need of their conservation, of the power that is wasted every day, of the wealth that is lost in fire and flood, in raging rivers and plunging falls and arid plains. But greater than all these resources combined is the untapped reservoir of truth, the infinite possibility, the incomprehensible power that is yet to spring from the unfettered brain of man. They who loosen the grip of the past, they who wear away the obstruction of custom and tradition, they who inspire man with faith in himself, teach him the courage to think and to do, they who help to break the chains of prejudice and superstition, of fear and unbelief,-they are the greatest conservators of all, and the wealth of mind which they open up is the inexhaustible resource of man.

Shall the Monroe Doctrine be Abandoned?

John Mellen Thurston

This is an extract from a speech delivered in the United States Senate, January 28, 1896, and was occasioned by the Venezuela Boundary Dispute, President Cleveland having sent the British government a message espousing the claims of Venezuela,—a message that was tantamount to war had not Great Britain yielded. The last three paragraphs of this declamation are markedly "jingoistic,” and require the very strongest force, with ringing, explosive tones.

MR. PRESIDENT, it is gravely argued that our country has outgrown the necessity for any further enforcement of the Monroe doctrine. It is urged that the United States has waxed strong and powerful; that we no longer need fear any foreign interference in our affairs; and that we cannot be affected or disturbed by South American controversies. It is, therefore, insisted that we can now afford to let the other American Republics look out for themselves, and that we should stand supinely by while foreign powers overawe and outrage our weak and defenseless neighbors.

I am not unmindful of the seriousness and gravity of the present situation. We are calling a halt upon that settled policy of aggression and dominion which has characterized the extension of the British Empire from the hour in which her first adventurous prow turned to unknown seas. The history of the English people is an almost unbroken series of military achievements. Her navies are upon every sea, her armies in every clime. No nation can afford lightly to challenge her purposes or arouse her stubborn pride. But does this furnish

any reason why Americans should abandon any settled policy of the United States, or retire from any position which the honor of this Republic and the welfare of America require that we should assume?

Standing upon the floor of the American Senate and knowing whereof I speak, I say to the people of Great Britain that the grave issues which have been settled by brave men upon American battlefields can never be reopened. Sir, there is no division of sentiment in the United States. Let but a single drumbeat be heard upon our coast, announcing the approach of a foreign foe, and there will spring to arms in North and South the grandest army the world has ever known, animated by a deathless loyalty to their country's flag and marching on to the mingled and inspiring strains of "Dixie" and "Yankee Doodle."

Sir, believing that the honor of my country is involved, that the hour calls for the highest expression of loyalty and patriotism, calmly confident of the verdict of posterity, reverently calling God to witness the sincerity of my purpose, I shall vote for the resolution reported by the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I shall vote for it not as an affront to any other nation, but to uphold the dignity of my own. I shall vote for it in this time of profound tranquility, convinced that peace with honor can be preserved. But, sir, I would vote for it just as surely were we already standing in the awful shadow of declared war. I would vote for it were the navies of all Europe thundering at our harbors.

I would vote for it were the shells of British battleships bursting above the dome of the nation's Capitol. I would vote for it and would maintain it at all hazards and at any cost, with the last dollar, with the last man; yea though it might presage the coming of a mighty conflict that would call forth all the resources of our country and all the latent patriotism of our people.

Liberty Under Law

Wendell Phillips Stafford

This selection is taken from a speech delivered at the annual banquet of the New England Society of New York City, December, 1913. The first paragraph contains illustrative references, to be delivered in a conversational style. The next paragraph makes the application. Each of the succeeding paragraphs develops a new topic. The concluding paragraph is particularly strong both in thought and phrasing, and requires moderate rate and sincere, forcible expression.

I SUPPOSE you have all read that most delightful of romances, "Lorna Doone." If you have you will remember the satisfaction you felt when spunky little Ruth Huckaback overturned the doctor's bleeding-basin, and sent the doctor himself about his business before he had quite bled the great John Ridd to death. Very few physicians of the present day but would admit that their profession did need the correction of common sense at that period of its progress. Even theology once needed it. I remember the glee with which the famous Liberal minister, Cyrus Bartol, would quote the reply of the Yankee unregenerate: "If God had made him to be damned, he guessed He had made him so he could stand it."

Now the law is no exception to this rule. On the contrary, no profession so needs to be corrected by the common sense of daily life, for its very province is to deal with the affairs of life. The questions that engage it are questions that cannot be settled in the closet; the decision must commend itself to ordinary minds. The best judges instruct juries in their own language, the language of the farm, the shop, and the street. It is really necessary to do so to secure the best results. And this necessity for stating the law in plain and simple fashion is a powerful factor in keeping the law itself what it ought to be, plain and simple and just in its application.

Above all things else, the people need to look upon the law as their law, and to resent any disobedience of its mandates as a defiance of their will. Ideas have ruled the world and men are only puppets in comparison. Nothing could be better for the people of this land to-day than to be taken possession of by the idea that law, the expression of their own united personality, is a thing noble and inviolable, worthy of every service and of any sacrifice, and that it must and shall be obeyed. There never was a great nation that did not reverence the law. There can be no great nation without cohesion; there can be no cohesion without law.

Liberty under law-that is the noblest motto "ever molded by the lips of man." The world has garnered all its labors, all its triumphs, all its sacrifices in that simple phrase. It holds all memories. There is not a tear that has been shed bv