Zbc TUniverstt^ of (CbtcaaoPfiCC $J«00 FOUNDED BY JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER Single CopiesPer Year . 5 CentsUniversity RecordPUBLISHED BY AUTHORITYCHICAGOGbe TUniversitE ot Cbtcago ©tessVOL. Ill, NO. 48. PUBLISHED EVERY FRIDAY AT 3:00 P.M. FEBRUARY 24. 1899.Entered in the post office Chicago. Illinois, as second-class matter.CONTENTS.I. The Treaty of Peace with Spain. By Head Professor H. P. Judson 315-321II. Official Notices 321III. A New Course in Pedagogy 322IV. The Calendar 322The Treaty of Peace with Spain.BY HEAD PROFESSOR H. P. JUDSON,The University.The provision of the peace treaty about which controversy has most raged has been that relating tothe Philippine Islands. May I, then, ask you to consider with me the questions involved in this part ofthe treaty alone ?The provision is that Spain cedes to the UnitedStates jurisdiction and sovereignty in the archipelagoknown as the Philippine Islands.In making terms of peace the President found himself confronted, in the words of a distinguished opponent of his policy, not with a theory, but with acondition. We were at war with Spain. In the legitimate operations of that war our fleet had destroyedthe Spanish squadron at Manila and our land forceshad captured the city and its garrison. The Spanishpower in the islands was shattered by American military and naval force.The insurrection, smoldering and all but extin-*An address made at the Junior College Assembly, February 20, 1899. guished in the early months of 1898, burst into flameas a result of the American war with Spain. Theinsurgent leader was transported from Hongkong toLuzon in an American ship, and his followers wereallowed to take arms from the captured Spanish arsenal at Cavite. Owing directly to the paralysis of theSpanish military power which resulted from the campaign of Dewey and Merritt, the insurgents wereenabled to overrun the interior of the island of Luzonand to make rapid headway in other islands.In brief, then, the situation was this : The Spanishpower in the islands was virtually eliminated. TheAmerican forces held the capital of the archipelago,with its bay, harbor, and fortresses. The insurgents,as a result of the American victories, were in possession of the interior of several islands. A large partof the archipelago was still held by its more or lesssavage inhabitants, controlled neither by Americansnor by insurgents.What was to be done ? One of three things.1. By the treaty of peace the Spanish power mighthave been restored. This was possible. The capturedgarrison of Manila could have been released. The repatriated troops from the West Indies could havebeen transported to the Philippines. The Europeansquadron remaining to Spain could have taken theplace of that destroyed by Dewey on May Day, 1898.Who can doubt that these forces would have beenadequate to regain Spanish control of the islands ?But this would have made the United States practically the ally of Spain in the restoration of her au-316 UNIVERSITY RECORDthority over a colony which had escaped from it. Themere statement of this fact is a sufficient discussionof the settlement suggested. It was out of the question.2. The archipelago might have been turned over tothe government established by the insurgents — thePhilippine Republic.This measure would at once involve a variety ofcomplications. The insurgents are Malays, the mainbodies being Tagals, in the north, and Visayas, in thesouth. There is no definite union between these two— no assurance that they do or can permanently acttogether. Further, even if they should do so, theytogether do not form much more than about one half ofthe whole population of the archipelago. The remainder, including many quite barbarous natives, havenever had any political relation whatever with theMalays, having been merely held with them underthe common authority of Spain. Even this authorityhas been very vague in many cases, amounting to amere shadowy protectorate in the Sulu group of islands. How, then, could we expect the sovereignty ofthe Malays, even if they should act together, to beadequate for the formation and maintenance of a common government?But even assuming that the heterogeneous mass ofpeople in the islands could form a common government, the vital question is this :Is there good reason to believe that such a government would be capable of maintaining a fair degree ofsocial order, of affording reasonable protection tolife and property, and of performing international obligations ? These are the marks of a civilized government — marks without which it is not customary forthe family of nations to admit a new state to international recognition.We have destroyed the old sovereign authority inthe Philippines. The establishment of the new republic in its place would be our act. We, then, should beresponsible before the civilized world for the sufficiency of that republic to perform ordinary govern.mental operations. Having destroyed a Spanish hellin those islards we could not permit a Malay hell totake its place. If the native government should proveinsufficient — if life and property should be destroyed —it would at once be necessary for the United States tointervene, in which contingency we should be in no better case than we are now. If we should not intervene,we may be very sure that the European governmentswould — and we all know what that would mean. German marines landed at Manila would come to stay.France and other powers would seize other portions ofthe archipelago by way of " compensation." The net re sult of Dewey's victory would be the colonial aggrandizement of nations which do not love the UnitedStates, and which a year ago in all probability wouldhave been only too glad to interfere with our foreignpolicy, had it not been for circumstances beyond theircontrol. I have a high respect for the German Empire, and a very warm regard for German people in thiscountry. But my affection for the Kaiser's government is not sufficiently strong for me to be willing toreward Admiral von Diederichs for his conduct inManila Bay in the summer of 1898, by paving the wayfor putting him in that bay in the place of AdmiralDewey in the summer of 1899.Under these circumstances it seems to me that theUnited States would not be warranted in relinquishing control to the Filipino organization without verygood ground for believing that it would be safe so todo. Is there such ground?The Philippine Malays have had practically no experience in government. It was radically differentwith our forefathers in 1776. They and their ancestorsfor centuries had been accustomed to manage theirown political affairs. Independence made no difference so far as social order was concerned. But withthe Tagal all would be new. Their only knowledgeis theoretical — their only model that of Spanish misrule.It is true that among them a certain number areeducated, wealthy, and intelligent. But the masses areignorant. Their known character is not such as towarrant much confidence in their political stability.The Oriental peasant has been described by an acuteobserver as "half child, half tiger." We know thefrightful brutality of their war against the Spanish in1896— a brutality for which they had only too abundant examples. The Spaniards charge them withsimilar brutalities in the treatment of prisoners in1898. The charge is denied, but we do not know thatit is erroneous. We certainly ought to know that theTagalos are innocent of such fiendishness before trusting them with full political power. We know that inthe recent hostilities against our troops our own deadwithin their lines were stripped and mutilated, andthat more than once the flag of truce has been violated.One of the initial grievances of the insurgents againstus is the fact that they were not allowed to loot thecity of Manila — as in fact they did loot the townof Cavite before Dewey could land his blue jackets.The brown gentleman who has been representing theTagalos for some time past in Washington, and whofound it convenient, owing to some inscrutable premonition of coming events, to make a hasty trip toMontreal twenty-four hours before his compatriotsUNIVERSITY RECORD 317attacked General Otis at Manila, has been busy indetailing certain atrocities of the American army committed in the course of those operations. We do notneed a denial from Otis. We know what Americanofficers and soldiers are.It is true that the Tagalos have issued certain highsounding manifestoes, which have earned great admiration in some quarters at Washington. Withoutinquiring too nicely into the authorship of these documents — the Tagal emissaries were acute enough to retain American attorneys — it is necessary only toremark that people of experience in Asiatic affairs arecareful not to take Hindoo and Malay language at itsface value. We shall err grievously if we are innocentenough to suppose that the meaning of words has norelation to the character and mental habits of thosewho use them. The Spaniard greets you with thesonorous statement that " his house and all it containsare yours." No one would be more startled then heshould you take him at his word and take possessionof the premises. These Tagal manifestoes are in themain merely words.Under all these circumstances it would seem to methat we should hardly be warranted in turning overthe archipelago at once to the sovereignty of theTagalo Malays. There is no sufficient reason to feelassurance of due protection for life and property, andno little ground for apprehension of confusion andanarchy. We must remember, too, that it is notmerely natives who are concerned. The Europeanpopulation is not large, some 15,000, perhaps — butEuropean property interests are very considerable.They cannot be risked in what at best is an uncertainty. The sovereignty of the Malay republic wouldmean anarchy within a month, European interventionwithin two months.3. All that remains is to do what the treaty implies,to assume over the islands full control — for the timebeing, at least, full sovereignty. We must maintainorder and law. We must enable the natives to govern themselves just as much and far as possible. Ifand when they prove that they are able to maintainan orderly independent government, then and not tillthen shall we be warranted in withdrawing our supremacy. To my mind it is by no means primarily aquestion of national aggrandizement or of commercialpolicy. It is simply a case of moral necessity. I cansee no other course which we can follow with dignityto ourselves, or with safety to the people and the inter-e sts which the fortune of war has placed in our hands.But, it is objected, this is imperialism. " Imperialist," "imperialism," permit me to say, are epithets,designed to be opprobrious, which are devised and used as convenient substitutes for argument. The policywhich the war has forced upon us in both the Indiesis one which can in no fair sense be called imperialism,as that term applies to the colonial policy of Europeannations. It is no more imperialism than is our presentgovernment of territories, or than is and has beenfrom the first our government of Indian tribes in thiscountry. The essential difference is here — in no suchcase do we expect the existing governmental relationto be permanent. We expect our territories some dayto be states or parts of states. We hope that someday the Indians may be merged in the general mass ofour citizens. We hope that the civilized or partly civilized people in the Philippines may in time become aself-governing nation. Meanwhile we must hold sovereignty in trust for them.Again, objection is made that this is but the firststep in a policy of unlimited expansion. The distinguished gentleman * who addressed us at the last convocation — a gentleman whose eloquent speeches ithas been my great pleasure to hear a number of timeswithin the last thirty years, speeches usually in opposition to the existing administration, whatever thatmight be — spent much time and ingenuity in showingthe effect on our democratic republic when our Congress and our electoral colleges should contain representatives from the state of Cuba, the state of PuertoRico, the state of Hayti, the numerous states to beformed from Mexico, and the several states to be formedfrom Central America, when we shall have annexed allthese lands with their Latin and Indian and negropopulations, I am only surprised that he did not addto the list the whole of South America, Central Africa, the Chinese Empire, and the north pole — noneof which, so far as I am informed, has yet beenseized by European colonizing powers. The likelihoodof the admission to our union of states of these landswhich he did not enumerate seems to me quite asstrong as the admission of those which he did enumerate. I have not as yet seen a person who believes inunlimited expansion, or who desires to admit theseLatin lands as states. Some of our statesmen in thepast, of whom Thomas Jefferson was one, and some ofour people today, have favored the admission of Cubato statehood. I do not share that view, and I believethat those who do are not numerous. I do not believethat it has entered the dreams of anybody, unless it bethe nightmare visions of some who oppose the treaty,that the Philippine Islands will ever form a part ofour union. In fact, our eloquent Convocation oratorwas merely creating an iridescent soap-bubble, across* Hon. Carl Schurz.318 UNIVERSITY RECORDwhich he painted in rainbow letters in which lurid redpredominated, "unlimited expansion." But if youbring it in contact with a hard fact, it vanishes, andyou find that, like all bubbles, it contains nothing butwind. There is no policy of unlimited expansion. Noris there reason for a strong nation like the UnitedStates to fear that the annexation of a petty island inthe West Indies is dangerous because it will necessarily lead to a policy of unlimited expansion. We mightas well refrain from drinking the water of our hydrantsfor fear that we should drain Lake Michigan dry. Wecan drink what we need and leave the rest to the fishes.Another objection is that as soon as the peace treatyis ratified, at once the Philippines become a part ofthe United States, its motley peoples become citizensof the United States, protected by all the immunitiesof the constitution and covered by our whole systemof legislation — to the great inconvenience, discomfort,and danger of our institutions. In another place * Ihave endeavored to discuss the questions of constitutional law involved in annexation, and there is no timeto go over that ground now. But by way of summingup what I believe to be the true principles applicableto the case, I will read a few words from an editorialin a prominent New England journal, the HartfordCourant: "There are some things the ratification ofthe treaty will not do. It will not make the Philippines a part of the United States. It will not extendthe constitution of the United States over thoseislands. It will not make the Filipinos American citizens and electors. It will give them no opportunitywhich they did not enjoy just as fully this time lastyear to compete with American workingmen in thelabor market, nor will it let in their products free ofduty to compete with American products. The ratification of the treaty will leave them outside the constitution, outside the tariff, outside the immigrationlaws. It will not enable them to scramble over or tocrawl under. We may add, for the more effectual re-assurement of some excessively alarmed orators, thatit will not in the least affect the difference betweenthe Philippine climate and the American climate, norshorten by a single marine league the distance fromManila to New York." This I believe to be substantially correct. Our constitution and institutions willsuffer no shock from the ratification of the treaty ofpeace.But, it is urged, if we acquire territory outside ofAmerica, at once our hallowed Monroe doctrine isshattered to fragments,Is it ?*The Review of Reviews, January 1899. I cannot fail to notice, at the outset, that some ofthose who are most solicitous on this ground are thevery ones who four years ago were sure either that theMonroe doctrine had long since passed into historyand was no longer applicable to existing affairs, or, atall events, that the interpretation of it by SecretaryOlney was impossible. I am glad to see a revivedinterest in this very important phase of our foreignpolicy.But so far as the acquisition of West India orEast India Islands by the United States is concerned,I am of the opinion that the Monroe doctrine is nomore in question than is the Copernican theory of theuniverse. It is, of course, a matter of interpretation.The best statement of the Monroe doctrine I find in aletter of Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, datedOctober U, 1823 : " Our first and fundamental maximshould be never to entangle ourselves in the broils ofEurope. Our second, never to suffer Europe to inte'r-meddle with cis-Atlantic affairs.""The broils of Europe," as such, we scrupulouslyavoid. We do not concern ourselves with the questionof Alsace-Lorraine, or of Constantinople, or of Crete.But this can by no means be stretched to cover thePacific Ocean, of European interests in which in thepresent form no one dreamed in 1823. We expectEurope not to interfere in affairs which are purelyAmerican. We refrain from interference in affairswhich are purely European. That is the essence ofthe Monroe doctrine. The islands of the South Seasbelong to neither category. The Monroe doctrine isnot touched by the treaty.But the difficulties and complications which willnecessarily envelop us if we undertake to administerthe Philippines even temporarily are made a seriousobjection to the treaty. That these difficulties will beconsiderable cannot be doubted. But we threw awayour freedom from such complications when we intervened in the affairs of Cuba. Having once enteredthis path we must walk through it to the end. It isthe " irremeabilis error " of Virgil, if you choose, thoughI for one have no fear that it is the " f acilis descensusAverni." Our task in any sense can be no easy one.But difficulties can be met. The fact that they arein the way is of itself no insuperable objection.Nations, like individuals, we have more than onceseen rise to meet grave emergencies, and from strifeand effort have come unsuspected strength, and self-reliance which can come only from strength which hasbeen tested. I would not shrink from a duty or fromany task of present importance merely because it willtry the patience, the energy and the wisdom of therepublic to carry it to a successful conclusion.UNIVERSITY RECORD 3i9We shall make mistakes, no doubt. War has beendefined to be a series of mutual blunders, in whichthe side that makes the fewer is apt to be victorious.Politics is not essentially different, even in its higherregions. College faculties are not infallible. Evencollege students have been known to be guilty of mistakes. He is not the wise man who is never a fool— we are all that at one time or other. But theessence of wisdom consists in not being the same kindof a fool twice. And so, while in the administrationof our duties in the West Indies and the East I haveno manner of doubt that we shall not always do just theright thing at the right time, yet I have sufficientconfidence in the republic to believe that these mistakes will not be vital, and that in the end we shall bringabout the right thing — if not at just the right time,at least sufficiently near it for all practical purposesBut again with great force and eloquence the treatyis attacked because under it American sovereignty isextended over the islands in both Indies without consulting the inhabitants. The Declaration of Independence is quoted as a text, to the effect that governments derive their just powers from the^consent ofthe governed.This is one of those glittering and dangerous generalities in which the soul of Jefferson delighted, butthe truth of which appears only with many qualifications and exceptions. In its naked, unlimited senseit is not true at all and the United States has neveracted as if it were true. In 1776 the Tories outnumbered the Whigs in more states than one, but theywere kept under by violence. In 1776, while Jeffersonwas penning the Declaration, the negroes were slavesin every one of the thirteen colonies. In 1803 thissame Jefferson as president consummated the purchase of Louisiana without, for a moment, consultingthe French and Spanish population — in fact knowingthat a plebiscite would have resulted in an almostunanimous adverse vote. This great apostle of popular rights governed these people against their will,annexed their land to the United States against theirwill, and paid absolutely no attention to what theymight or might not want in the premises. He wasperfectly right in so doing. He knew that the imperative interests of the United States demanded the annexation of Louisiana. Against that paramount interest he was too practical a statesman to balance ashadowy political theory. In 1861 a large section ofthe Union very strongly desired to set up a separategovernment of their own. Any very literal applicationof the Declaration of Independence would have implied the dissolution of the Union. But in entire disregard of "the consent of the governed" the United States put on foot a large army and a strong navy andcrushed secession by force. In truth in the wholeeconomy of the world the general welfare takes precedence of the wishes of small groups. It must be so,or civilization and progress would be impossible.It is on this theory that European civilization hasfor four centuries been waging a war of conquest withbarbarism. In our own country civilized life has displaced that of the aboriginal savages. It is vastlybetter for the world that this is the fact. But it hasbeen accomplished against the bitter opposition of theaborigines, and with the result of their virtual extermination. Africa is being rapidly subjugated bythe civilized nations of Europe. The natives do notlike it. The dervishes in the Sudan vigorously objected to English and Egyptian supremacy, and wereconvinced of the advantages of civilization only whenmowed down by Kitchener's machine guns at Omdur-man. But the liberty which African savages want isa liberty for murder and slavery and cruel oppression.The world belongs to civilization, not to barbarism.In the process of making civilized power supremethere are mistakes and wrongs and needless suffering,there is no doubt. But the large result is that peaceand order and prosperity, and a great measure of human happiness take the place of the unspeakableferocity and brutality and squalid misery of savage life. And " the consent of the government " isnot asked,The principles of the Declaration of Independencemake very attractive themes for oratory. Their precise application to existing conditions, their reasonableinterpretation, the probable consequences of their useas doctrines of law, are for the orator matters of littleconsequence. The main thing is to employ glowingand picturesque speech, to capture the imagination,to be eloquent — that is oratory. Wendell Phillipswas an orator. When he was denouncing somebody ina flood of impassioned and elegant English, he wasgrand. But put him in charge of public affairs for asingle week, and he would have brought the state toutter confusion. Invective is comparatively easy.Constructive statesmanship is tremendously difficult.I have sometimes thought that Shakspere musthave had a foreboding of the American mugwump,when he put in the mouth of Portia the well-knownwords : " If to do were as easy as to know what weregood to do, chapels had been churches, and poormen's cottages princes' palaces. It is a good divinethat follows his own instiuctions : I can easier teachtwenty what were good to be done, than be one of thetwenty to follow mine own teaching."We Americans have inherited the disposition to re-320 University recordgard those whom we have selected for administratorsof the republic as common enemies. We act on the theory that they are presumably actuated by base motives and endowed with slender talents. Whateverthey do, or refrain from doing, we at once make matterof violent outcry. Would there not be sounder patriotism and deeper wisdom in adopting a more sympathetic policy? Those who are entrusted with responsibility must see things in a different light from mereirresponsible critics. Let us to be sure, freely judgetheir acts in the light of our own knowledge and reason. But ought not the first presumption be thatthey are right, at least in the difficult and perplexingquestions of foreign policy? In the long line of presidents since George Washington, I believe there hasnot been one who has not on the whole been actuated bymotives the most sincerely patriotic. There have beenfew whose abilities and acquirements have not eminently fitted them for their great duties. There hasbeen hardly one who has not been deepened and ripenedin character by the great weight of responsibilityin his high office. Yet Washington was bitterly reviled, and the end of the republic was predicted, because the first president, disregarding popular clamor,set his name to the treaty of 1795 with Great Britain.In 1803 Jefferson bought the vast Louisiana territory.In consequence he was abused without limit — thetreaty was denounced as infamous and foolish — theearly dissolution of the union was confidently foretold.Almost everybody attacked Abraham Lincoln. Hewas too slow for the radicals, too fast for the conservatives. His policy meant the sure and early ruin of therepublic. But time in each case has vindicated thewisdom of the great presidents whom I have named —and history today is in doubt as to which of the threewas after all the greatest. The republic yet owes eachof them a lasting debt for the beneficent results of thewise measures which they firmly guided to successamid a storm of obloquy.I have no sympathy with political pessimism. Ihave no fear that the republic has entered on a downward path, or that its ruin will date from the ratification of the treaty with Spain. I believe that the greatmass of the American people are sound and true —and in the end the treaty merely refers the questionsgrowing out of the war to the people through theirduly authorized representatives at Washington. I donot believe that those representatives are on the wholecorrupt or incompetent. They are a fair reflex of theaverage public opinion and character.Let us differ freely in our opinions. But let us notconclude that the universe is going to smash if ourown notions do not prevail. Let us remember that " everybody is always wiser than anybody." Above all,let us as students beware of intellectual Phariseeism.Wisdom was not born with the colleges, it will not diewith the universities. And I do think that our scholars need to learn political hopefulness. The republicis getting better, not worse. Because things are notperfect, it by no means follows that everything is bad.The republic would not be worth saving, life would notbe worth living, if the views of some of our intellectualleaders were true. They are not true. A cynic neveryet did the world any good. His function, as his namesignifies, is merely to sit at the door of the temple andbark at the stream of progress as it sweeps by. Hopefulness, helpfulness, constructiveness — these are whatwill make our nation better and stronger.To our foreboding friends in the present emergency, I would merely say that the republic is notgoing to immediate destruction. We have made otherarrangements.Indeed, our nation has been on the highway to ruinmany times.In 1788 the Virginia State Convention was considering the ratification of the Constitution for theUnited States proposed by the Philadelphia convention over which George Washington presided — thatconstitution which has now so well stood the stormsof more than a century. One of the most influentialdelegates, the famous orator Patrick Henry, was bitterly opposed to ratification. He worked against itand voted against it. He declared that he saw theawful immensity of the dangers which the proposedplan of government threatened. " Our own happinessalone," he exclaimed, " is not affected by the event.All nations are interested in the determination. Wehave it in our power to secure the happiness of onehalf of the human race. Its adoption may involve thethe misery of the other hemisphere." At this pointthe convention reporter inserts in brackets: "Here aviolent storm arose, which put the house in such anuproar that Mr. Henry was obliged to conclude."*That storm has seemed to me peculiarly unfortunate.We shall never have the privilege of being thrilledwith the picturesque vituperation and melancholyforebodings with which Patrick Henry would doubtless have enveloped the now venerable constitution.In 1803 Mr. Jefferson effected the Louisiana purchase— a transaction which most of our historians todayagree in regarding as second only in importance to theDeclaration of Independence and the adoption of thefederal constitution. But in the autumn of that yeara leader of New England political thought wrote to a* Proceedings of the Virginia Convention, June 24, 1788.UNIVERSITY RECORD 3.21friend in reference to the Louisiana treaty: "Now,by adding an unmeasured world .... we rush like acomet into infinite space. In our wild career, we mayjostle some other world out of its orbit, but we shall,in every event, quench the light of our own."*That was Fisher Ames, diplomatist, scholar, senatorfrom Massachusetts. He was so eminent a man thathe declined the Presidency of Harvard College. Hiseloquence it was that John Adams called " divine."Ninety-five years have passed since then, and thelight of the republic is not yet quenched. We mayhave jostled some other worlds from their orbits — onehas been badly jostled within the year just past —but the acquisition of Louisiana has not yet provedthe ruin of the nation.In January, 1811, a bill was pending in the Congressof the United States to enable the Territory of Orleans to enter the Union as a state — the State ofLouisiana. In the debate a leading member from NewEngland opposed the bill on every ground, political,constitutional, ethical. I quote a few sentences fromhis long and powerful speech :" If this bill passes it is my deliberate opinion thatit is virtually a dissolution of this Union ; that it willfree the states from their moral obligation, and, as itwill be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some,definitely to prepare for a separation, amicably if theycan, violently if they must." This constitution never was, and never can bestrained to lap over all the wilderness of the West,without essentially affecting both the rights and convenience of its real proprietors. It was never constructed to form a covering for the inhabitants of theMissouri and Red River country. And whenever it isattempted to be so stretched over them, it will rendasunder." Why, sir, I have already heard of six states, andsome say there will be at no great distance of time,more. 1 have also heard that the mouth of the Ohiowill be far to the east of the contemplated empire.. . , . It was not for these men that our fathers fought.It was not for them this constitution was adopted.You have no authority to throw the rights and liberties and property of this people into a 'potch-pot'with the wild men on the Missouri, nor with themixed, though more respectable race of Anglo-His-pano-Gallo Americans, who bask on the sands, in themouth of the Mississippi." I have no concealment of my opinions. This bill,if it passes, is a death blow to the constitution. It* Fisher Ames to Gore, Oct. 3, 1803. may, afterwards, linger ; but, lingering; its fate will,at no very distant period, be consummated."These were the words of Josiah Quincy, of Massachusetts. Quincy — the very name is the quintessenceof New England respectability. Mr. Quincy wasleader of the opposition in the House of Representatives. He was a distinguished scholar and author, andfrom 1829 to 1845 he was the eminent and able president of Harvard College.The bill passed. Louisiana became a state. Notsix, but nine states have been' formed from the territory bought from France, and Massachusetts did notsecede from the Union. The Constitution has beenstrained without rending asunder, not only to theRocky Mountains but clear to the Pacific Ocean." The wild men of the Missouri " have invaded eventhe halls of Congress, one of those "wild men" indeed,being for six years the brilliant senator from the stateof Missouri, the Hon. Carl Schurz. Eighty-eight yearshave passed since Mr. Quincy's speech on the Orleansbill. The Constitution is still "lingering." It bidsfair to linger for many generations to come.Let us turn in closing from New England scholarswith their gloomy f orbodings to the deeper faith of aNew England poet :" Thou, too, sail on, O ship of State !Sail on, O Union, strong and great !Humanity, with all its fears,With all the hopes of future years,Is hanging breathless on thy fate !We know what master laid thy keel,What workmen wrought thy ribs of steel,Who made each mast, and sail, and rope,What anvils rang, what hammers beat,In what a forge, and what a heat,Were shaped the anchors of thy hope !Fear not each sudden sound and shock ;'Tis of the wave, and not the rock ;'Tis but the napping of the sail,And not a rent made by the gale !In spite of rock and tempest's roar,In spite of false lights on the shore,Sail on, nor fear to breast the sea !Our hearts, our hopes, are all with thee ;Our hearts, our hopes, our prayers, our tears,Our faith triumphant o'er our fearsAre all with thee, — are all with thee ! "Official Notices.Official copies of the University Record loi theuse of students may be found in the corridors andhalls of the various buildings in the University quadrangles. Students are requested to make themselvesacquainted with the official actions and notices of theUniversity, as published from week to week in theUniversity Record.322 UNIVERSITY RECORDA New Course in Pedagogy.IB 1. Educational Psychology.Instead of the Elementary Course hithertoannounced under this head, a more advancedcourse for Senior College and graduate students,presupposing the introductory work in psychology, will be offered. The course is intended tobe the psychological correlate of ProfessorDewey's course in the Philosophy of Educationgiven this quarter. The processes of imageryand habit, attention and interest, observationand reasoning, feeling and will, will be studied,genetically and analytically, in their relationsto methods of instruction and the subjects ofthe curriculum. In connection with the latter,the psychology of language, mathematics, andart will be especially considered. Special pointsin Professor Baldwin's Mental Development,Dr. Harris' Psychologic Foundations of Education, and the Herbartian psychology will bediscussed. Mj. Spring Quarter, '99 ; 2: 00.Dr. Moore.Calendar.february 24 — march 4, 1899.Friday, February 24.Chapel-Assembly : Divinity School. — Chapel, CobbHall, 10:30 a.m.Physics Club meets in Ryerson Physical Laboratory,Room 32, 4:00 p.m.Papers: "The Polarization of Electric Waves," by E. E.Burns; "The Surface Tension of Mercury," by E. S.Johomiott.Saturday, February 25.Regular Meetings of Faculties and Boards :The Administrative Board of the University Libraries, Laboratories, and Museums, 10:00 a.m.The Faculties of the Graduate Schools, 11:30 a.m.Sunday, February 26.Vesper Service, Kent Theater, 4:00 p.m.Rev. Wm. M. Lawrence, D.D., will speak.Union meeting of the Y. M. C. A. and Y. W. C. A.,Haskell Museum, 7:00 p.m.Monday, February 27.Chapel Assembly : Junior Colleges. — Chapel, CobbLecture Hall, 10:30 a.m. (required of Junior CollegeStudents).Material for the UNIVERSITY RECORD mustorder to be published in the issue of the same week. New Testament Club meets in the Parlor of MiddleDivinity Hall, 7:30 p.m.Subject for discussion : " The Use of the New Testamentin Dealing with Those Who are Unwilling to Unite witha Church." Messrs. Allen and Coleman will lead.Tuesday, February 28.Chapel-Assembly: Senior Colleges. — Chapel, CobbHall, 10:30 a.m. (required of Senior College Students).Division Lectures before the Junior Colleges by Associate Professor MacClintock, in Kent Theater,10:30 a.m.Botanical Club meets in Botanical Building, Room 23,5:00 p.m.Assistant Professor S. Watas6 will discuss " Some RecentPhases of the Centrosome Problem."Wednesday, March 1.Last day for receiving applications for fellowships.Division Lectures before the Senior Colleges by thePresident in the Chapel, Cobb Hall, 10: 30 a.m.Meeting of the Y. M. C. A., Haskell Museum, 7:00 p.m.Faculty of the College for Teachers meets in FacultyRoom, Haskell, 8: 00 p.m.Thursday, March 2.Graduate Assembly. — Chapel, Cobb Hall, 10:30 a.m.Philosophical Club meets in the Lecture Room, CobbHall, 8:00 p.m.Dr. Triggs will speak on " Some Parallels between Ethicsand ^Esthetics."Friday, March 3.Chapel-Assembly : Divinity School. — Chapel, CobbHall, 10:30 a.m.Mathematical Club meets in Ryerson Physical Laboratory, Room 36, 4:00 p.m.Head Professor Moore reads a second paper on "CrinklyCurves."Notes : " On the Roots of a Certain Class of Algebraic Equations," by Mr. Donecker; "Darboux's Generalizationof Ivory's Theorem," by Mr. Lunn; " Concerning LinearDifferential Equations," by Dr. Boyd.Student Conferences on Difficulties in Connectionwith the Bible. Chapel, Cobb Hall, 4:00 p.m. and7:30 p.m. (see p. 311).Saturday, March 4.Regular Meetings of Faculties and Boards :Meeting of the Administrative Board of PhysicalCulture and Athletics, 8:30 a.m.The Faculty of the Junior Colleges, 10:00 a.m.The University Senate, 11:30 a.m.Student Conferences on the Bible. Chapel, CobbHall, 4:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. (see p. 311).e sent to the Recorder by THURSDAY, 8:30 A.M., in