Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

giving the results of the inquiry has been issued, and several newspapers have commented upon its salient features.

The report is somewhat pessimistic and censorious. The evidence gathered seems to show that college men are not superior morally, as college men, to the uneducated or insufficiently educated.

College men are found among the political and commercial "grafters," among the tax dodgers, the breakers of the anti-monopoly acts, the violators of prohibition and other laws. College men, not excepting college presidents and professors, show undue respect for mere wealth and fail to rebuke or discipline the undergraduate sons of rich and influential fathers. College men are found among the supporters of bosses, machines, lobbying for special favors, and so on.

What is the explanation of this moral indifference or worse of so many college men? asks the report, and what can be done to improve their standards and make them a real force for righteousness in the state and nation?

Various answers have been given by college men and newspapers to these questions, but little light has been shed on the subject. One editor has pointed out, however, that all great philosophers and moral teachers, from the ancients down to the moderns, have asserted with emphasis that mere intellectual training does not insure superior morality or right conduct. The will, the "heart," the emotions, they have insisted, must be educated along with the intellect. Intelligence and information furnish "tools," but they furnish tools to the criminal as well as to the virtuous citizen, to the selfish reactionary as well as to the earnest reformer. The making of citizens, the building of character, requires particular attention, and cannot safely be trusted "to take care of itself." The kindergarten, the elementary school, the high school, the technical or industrial school, the college and the university, and the professional schools beyond as well, must severally teach ethics, individual and social, by precept and example. They must inspire, implant high

principles and ideals, in addition to teaching facts, science and abstract or nonmoral principles.

All of this should be obvious and trite, but it is not, and hence there is important work to do along the lines of moral, religious and cultured education in school and college.

As a matter of fact, however, college men need moral training, rather less than the uneducated, simply because they come, as a rule, from classes that are not exposed to serious temptation. Crime and vice are caused largely by poverty, intemperance, evil surroundings, dull monotony and despair. Education, material comfort, agreeable social intercourse, artistic pleasure-things like these make for respectability in conduct, for moral behavior. Moreover, the sins of the rich and educated are generally sins that public sentiment does not strongly and instantly condemn. There are forms or degrees of lawlessness that are tolerated, overlooked, excused by many men and women who are personally above reproach. This has happened in the case of trusts, rebate-taking, disregard of prohibition, etc. As public standards rise the toleration for questionable moral or legal acts vanishes. The campaign against political corruption and graft abundantly illustrates this truth.

While, therefore, character building is essential everywhere, it is most vital and indispensable where ignorance, misery, filth, unhappiness, lack of imagination serve to undermine inherited moral habits and overcome social instinct. The greatest aid to good citizenship and morality is wellbeing, equality of opportunity, industrial and commercial justice. College men, by virtue of their education, certainly can do much to correct and redress wrong in the nation, to prevent and lessen crime from any source.

Bjornstjerne Bjornson

The grand old men of literature and art are passing away. A notable era is closing. The death of Bjornson, Ibsen's only Norwegian rival and comrade, was a loss to the Scandinavian world and to the entire West.

Bjornson, it is true, was not as well known as Ibsen outside of Norway and the northern literary centers. He had not the rare genius of his comrade and contemporary, and his influence on the stage was not nearly so great. But he was extremely versatile and impressionable, and did many things admirably. He was a lyrical poet, a romantic novelist, a playwright, an essayist and propagandist, an orator and political reformer. He is known in America chiefly by several shorter novels or tales and by two or three playsone realistic and modern, “The Gauntlet," which was written in the Ibsen manner, the others psychological and social. He had a deep love for nature and the heroic in man and in nations, and early in his career he found many rich themes for dramas and romances in legend and folklore of Norway. He had an exuberant, picturesque, passionate style, and was called by some the Victor Hugo of the North. Several years ago he was awarded the Nobel prize for literature of an idealist tendency, and certainly he was always an idealist, a militant reformer and apostle of freedom, justice and righteousness in individual and national life. His last play, produced last October, glorified youth and love, thus again demonstrating the irrepressible spirit of optimism and faith that informed all his activities. He was a popular idol, and it has been truly said that he was loved where Ibsen was feared and revered.

Norway, a small country, has produced more than her share of great artists and writers. Ibsen revolutionized the technic of the drama and influenced a whole generation of playwrights the world over. Bjornson, a man of more varied and brilliant gifts, exercised a less direct and potent influence, but his reputation was universal and readers of beautiful prose and verse acknowledge in him a master craftsman and a noble thinker.

Canadian and American Immigration

Congress has not dealt with the immigration question this year, although several proposals and bills on the sub

ject are pending. The mixed immigration investigation commission has not completed its labors, and the decision to await its final report and recommendations is manifestly wise. It is urged by many that we cannot assimilate all the aliens that are again pouring into the country, owing to the revival of industry; that further restriction is necessary and just; that an educational qualification and perhaps a higher head tax might well be imposed on immigrants. On the other hand, eminent and liberal-minded Americans oppose such suggestions as these on the ground that neither an educational nor a property qualification would necessarily exclude undesirables and improve the quality of our immigration, since many vicious and semi-criminal men have money and a smattering of education, while thrifty, honest, able-bodied men and women, who merely seek opportunity in the United States and furnish excellent material for citizenship, are poor and illiterate through no fault of their own.

This controversy is not new, but the investigation and reports of the immigration commission will presumably strengthen one of these positions and Congress will be enabled to legislate more firmly and more intelligently.

Meantime partial and special reports of the commission have supplied interesting data bearing on the immigration problem. One of these covered the much-discussed subject of Canadian immigration policy and its results.

There was a time when the Dominion sought immigration in every quarter. It had an abundance of land, mineral deposits, timber, but lacked population to develop these resources. It paid liberal commissions to agents for bringing it new settlers and workers. It did not discriminate, deport or exclude.

This policy came to an end some years ago. Today Canada enforces a remarkably strict immigration policyone much stricter than ours. She wants farmers, agricultural laborers and men with capital; she does not want persons who remain in congested cities and swell the ranks of the unemployed, the very poor, the public charges. She

does not hesitate to reject men of her own blood if they fall below the standards. She gives the immigration authorities ample power or discretion as regards deportation and exclusion.

As a result, it appears, seventy per cent. of Canada's immigration at present is from the United States and the countries of northern Europe, as against seventy per cent. of our immigration from eastern and southern Europe, territory that is supposed to be less promising from the viewpoint of sound and progressive nation-making. It is claimed that last year 91,000 American farmers, miners and enterprising business men emigrated to Canada, and that the number of such newcomers from America is now steadily increasing. Such figures as these are contemplated with envy by many Americans. Why, they ask, are we losing such valuable citizens to Canada, and is it expedient and right to maintain open gates and open doors to all comers, with such few exceptions as the present law makes against criminals, paupers, etc.? Of course, this attitude completely ignores the traditional and moral-or, as some put it, the "sentimental"-view of immigration in this "land of the free," this "asylum" and "refuge" of the oppressed and disinherited. That we are not called upon to admit idlers, paupers, vagrants and unfit is undeniable; that we have the moral right, or that we are under an actual economic necessity, to demand severe restrictions which would exclude tens of thousands of poor and uneducated but honest and reasonably healthy persons who mean to struggle, work and support themselves, is a proposition many will vigorously challenge. As for Canada, she has different conditions, different traditions and different policies from ours.

« ZurückWeiter »