Chapter IV: Part 4

We need civic righteousness. The best constitution that the wit of man has ever devised, the best institutions that the ablest statesmen in the world ever have reduced to practice by law or by custom, will be of no avail if they are not vivified by the spirit which makes a State great by making its citizens honest, just, and brave. I do not ask you as practical believers in applied Christianity to take part one way or the other in matters that are merely partisan. There are plenty of questions about which honest men can and do differ very greatly and very intensely, but as to which the triumph of either side may be compatible with the welfare of the State—a lesser degree of welfare or a greater degree of welfare—but compatible with the welfare of the State.

¶But there are certain great principles, such as those which Cromwell would have called “fundamentals,” concerning which no man has a right to have more than one opinion. Such a principle is honesty. If you have not honesty in the average private citizen, or public servant, then all else goes for nothing. The abler a man is, the more dexterous, the shrewder, the bolder, why, the more dangerous he is if he has not the root of right living and right thinking in him—and that in private life, and even more in public life.

¶Exactly as in time of war, although you need in each fighting man far more than courage, yet all else counts for nothing if there is not that courage upon which to base it; so in our civil life, although we need that the average man in private life, that the average public servant, shall have far more than honesty, yet all other qualities go for nothing or for worse than nothing unless honesty underlie them—not only the honesty that keeps its skirts technically clear, but the honesty that is such according to the spirit as well as the letter of the law; the honesty that is aggressive, the honesty that not merely deplores corruption,—it is easy enough to deplore corruption,—but that wars against it and tramples it under foot.

¶¶I ask for that type of honesty, I ask for militant honesty, for the honesty of the kind that makes those who have it discontented with themselves as long as they have failed to do everything that in them lies to stamp out dishonesty wherever it can be found, in high place or in low. And let us not flatter ourselves, we who live in countries where the people rule, that it is ultimately possible for the people to cast upon any but themselves the responsibilities for the shape the government and the social and political life of the community assume. I ask, then, that our people feel quickened within them indignation against wrong in every shape, and condemnation of that wrong, whether found in private or in public life.

¶We have a right to demand courage of every man who wears the uniform; it is not so much a credit to him to have it as it is shame unutterable to him if he lacks it. So when we demand honesty we demand it not as entitling the possessor to praise, but as warranting the heartiest condemnation possible if he lacks it. Surely in every movement for the betterment of our life, our life social in the truest and deepest sense, our life political, we have a special right to ask not merely support, but leadership from those of the Church. We ask that you to whom much has been given will remember that from you rightly much will be expected in return. For all of us here the lines have been cast in pleasant places. Each of us has been given one talent, or five, or ten talents, and each of us is in honor bound to use that talent or those talents aright, and to show at the end that he is entitled to the praise of having done well as a faithful servant.[31]

¶Steps have been taken by the State Department looking to the making of bribery an extraditable offence with foreign powers. The need of more effective treaties covering this crime is manifest. The exposures and prosecutions of official corruption in St. Louis, Mo., and other cities and States have resulted in a number of givers and takers of bribes becoming fugitives in foreign lands. Bribery has not been included in extradition treaties heretofore, as the necessity has not arisen. While there may have been as much official corruption in former years, there has been more developed and brought to light in the immediate past than in the preceding century of our country’s history.

¶It should be the policy of the United States to leave no place on earth where a corrupt man fleeing from this country can rest in peace. There is no reason why bribery should not be included in all treaties as extraditable. The recent amended treaty with Mexico, whereby this crime was put in the list of extraditable offences, has established a salutary precedent in this regard. Under this treaty the State Department has asked, and Mexico has granted, the extradition of one of the St. Louis bribe-givers.

¶There can be no crime more serious than bribery. Other offenses violate one law, while corruption strikes at the foundation of all law. Under our form of government all authority is vested in the people and by them delegated to those who represent them in official capacity. There can be no offence heavier than that of him in whom such a sacred trust has been reposed, who sells it for his own gain and enrichment; and no less heavy is the offence of the bribe-giver.

¶He is worse than the thief, for the thief robs the individual, while the corrupt official plunders an entire city or State. He is as wicked as the murderer, for the murderer may only take one life against the law, while the corrupt official and the man who corrupts the official alike aim at the assassination of the commonwealth itself. Government of the people, by the people, for the people will perish from the face of the earth if bribery is tolerated. The givers and takers of bribes stand on an evil pre-eminence of infamy. The exposure and punishment of public corruption is an honor to a nation, not a disgrace. The shame lies in toleration, not in correction.

¶No city or State, still less the Nation, can be injured by the enforcement of law. As long as public plunderers when detected can find a haven of refuge in any foreign land and avoid punishment, just so long encouragement is given them to continue their practices. If we fail to do all that in us lies to stamp out corruption we cannot escape our share of responsibility for the guilt. The first requisite of successful self-government is unflinching enforcement of the law and the cutting out of corruption.[10]

A Square Deal
and
The Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine is not a part of international law. But it is the fundamental feature of our entire foreign policy so far as the Western Hemisphere is concerned, and it has more and more been meeting with recognition abroad. The reason why it is meeting with this recognition is because we have not allowed it to become fossilized, but have adapted our construction of it to meet the growing, changing needs of this hemisphere. Fossilization, of course, means death, whether to an individual, a government, or a doctrine.

It is out of the question to claim a right and yet shirk the responsibility for exercising that right, when we announce a policy such as the Monroe Doctrine we thereby commit ourselves to accepting the consequences of the policy and these consequences from time to time alter.

¶Let us look for a moment at what the Monroe Doctrine really is. It forbids the territorial encroachment of non-American powers on American soil. Its purpose is partly to secure this Nation against seeing great military powers obtain new footholds in the Western Hemisphere, and partly to secure to our fellow republics south of us the chance to develop along their own lines without being oppressed or conquered by non-American powers. As we have grown more and more powerful our advocacy of this doctrine has been received with more and more respect; but what has tended most to give the Doctrine standing among the nations is our growing willingness to show that we not only mean what we say and are prepared to back it up, but that we mean to recognize our obligations to foreign peoples no less than to insist upon our own rights.

¶We cannot permanently adhere to the Monroe Doctrine unless we succeed in making it evident in the first place that we do not intend to treat it in any shape or way as an excuse for aggrandisement on our part at the expense of the republics to the south of us; second that we do not intend to permit it to be used by any of those republics as a shield to protect that republic from the consequences of its own misdeeds against foreign nations; third, that inasmuch as by this doctrine we prevent other nations from interfering on this side of the water, we shall ourselves in good faith try to help those of our sister republics, which need such help, upward toward peace and order.

¶As regards the first point we must recognize the fact that in some South American countries there has been much suspicion lest we should interpret the Monroe Doctrine in some way inimical to their interests. Now let it be understood once for all that no just and orderly government on this continent has anything to fear from us. There are certain of the republics south of us which have already reached such a point of stability, order and prosperity that they are themselves, although as yet hardly consciously, among the guarantors of this doctrine.

¶No stable and growing American republic wishes to see some great non-American military power acquire territory in its neighborhood. It is the interest of all of us on this continent that no such event should occur, and in addition to our own Republic there are now already republics in the regions south of us which have reached a point of prosperity and power that enables them to be considerable factors in maintaining this doctrine which is so much to the advantage of all of us.

¶It must be understood that under no circumstances will the United States use the Monroe Doctrine as a cloak for territorial aggression. Should any of our neighbors, no matter how turbulent, how disregardful of our rights, finally get into such a position that the utmost limits of our forbearance are reached, all the people south of us may rest assured that no action will ever be taken save what is absolutely demanded by our self-respect; that this action will not take the form of territorial aggrandisement on our part, and that it will only be taken at all with the most extreme reluctance and not without having exhausted every effort to avert it.

¶As to the second point, if a republic to the south of us commits a tort against a foreign nation, such for instance, as wrongful action against the persons or citizens of that nation, then the Monroe Doctrine does not force us to interfere to prevent punishment of the tort, save to see that the punishment does not directly or indirectly assume the form of territorial occupation of the offending country. The case is more difficult when the trouble comes from the failure to meet contractual obligations. Our own government has always refused to enforce such contractual obligations on behalf of its citizens by the appeal to arms. It is much to be wished that all foreign Governments would take the same view, but at present this country would certainly not be willing to go to war to prevent a foreign Government from collecting a just debt, or to back up some one of our sister republics in a refusal to pay just debts, and the alternative may in any case prove to be that we shall ourselves undertake to bring about some arrangement by which so much as is possible of the just obligations shall be paid. Personally, I should always prefer to see this country step in and put through such an arrangement rather than let any foreign country undertake it.

¶I do not want to see any foreign power take possession permanently or temporarily of the Custom Houses of an American republic in order to enforce its obligations, and the alternative may at any time be that we shall be forced to do so ourselves.

¶Finally, and what is in my view really the most important thing of all, it is our duty, so far as we are able, to try to help upward our weaker brothers. Just as there has been a gradual growth of the ethical element in the relations of one individual to another, so that with all the faults of our Christian civilization it yet remains true that we are, no matter how slowly, more and more coming to recognize the duty of bearing one another’s burdens, similarly I believe that the ethical element is by degrees entering into the dealings of one nation with another. Under strain of emotion caused by sudden disaster this feeling is very evident. A famine or a plague in our country brings much sympathy and some assistance from other countries. Moreover, we are now beginning to recognize that weaker peoples have a claim upon us, even when the appeal is made, not to our emotions by some sudden calamity, but to our consciences by a long-continuing condition of affairs.

¶I do not mean to say that nations have more than begun to approach the proper relationship one to another, and I fully recognize the folly of proceeding upon the assumption that this ideal condition can now be realized in full for, in order to proceed upon such an assumption, we would first require some method of forcing recalcitrant nations to do their duty, as well as of seeing that they are protected in their rights.

¶In the interest of justice it is as necessary to exercise the police power as to show charity and helpful generosity. But something can even now be done toward the end in view. That something, for instance, this nation has already done as regards Cuba, and is now trying to do as regards Santa Domingo. There are few things in our history in which we should take more genuine pride than the way in which we liberated Cuba, and then, instead of instantly abandoning it to chaos, stayed in direction of the affairs of the island until we had put it on the right path, and finally gave it freedom and helped it as it started on the life of an independent republic.[30]

Boasting and blustering are as objectionable among nations as among individuals, and the public men of a great nation owe it to their sense of national self-respect to speak courteously of foreign powers just as a brave and self-respecting man treats all around him courteously. But though to boast is bad and causelessly to insult another, worse; yet worse than all is it to be guilty of boasting, even without insult, and when called to the proof to be unable to make such boasting good. There is a homely old adage which runs: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.” If the American nation will speak softly and yet build, and keep at a pitch of the highest training, a thoroughly efficient navy, the Monroe Doctrine will go far. I ask you to think over this. If you do, you will come to the conclusion that it is mere plain common-sense, so obviously sound that only the blind can fail to see its truth and only the weakest and most irresolute can fail to desire to put it into force.[32]

¶One of the most effective instruments for peace is the Monroe Doctrine as it has been and is being gradually developed by this Nation and accepted by other nations. No other policy could have been as efficient in promoting peace in the Western Hemisphere and in giving to each nation thereon the chance to develop along its own lines. If we had refused to apply the Doctrine to changing conditions it would now be completely outworn, would not meet any of the needs of the present day, and indeed would probably by this time have sunk into complete oblivion. It is useful at home, and is meeting with recognition abroad because we have adapted our application of it to meet the growing and changing needs of the Hemisphere. When we announce a policy, such as the Monroe Doctrine, we thereby commit ourselves to the consequences of the policy, and those consequences from time to time alter. It is out of the question to claim a right and yet shirk the responsibility for its exercise. Not only we, but all American Republics who are benefited by the existence of the Doctrine, must recognize the obligations each nation is under as regards foreign peoples no less than its duty to insist upon its own rights.

That our rights and interests are deeply concerned in the maintenance of the Doctrine is so clear as hardly to need argument. This is especially true in view of the construction of the Panama Canal. As a mere matter of self-defense we must exercise a close watch over the approaches to this canal; and this means that we must be thoroughly alive to our interests in the Caribbean Sea.[14]

¶The Monroe Doctrine should be the cardinal feature of the foreign policy of all the nations of the two Americas, as it is of the United States. Just seventy-eight years have passed since President Monroe in his Annual Message announced that “The American continents are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European power.”

¶In other words, the Monroe Doctrine is a declaration that there must be no territorial aggrandizement by any non-American power at the expense of any American power on American soil. It is in no wise intended as hostile to any nation in the Old World. Still less is it intended to give cover to any aggression by one New World power at the expense of any other. It is simply a step, and a long step, toward assuring the universal peace of the world by securing the possibility of permanent peace on this hemisphere.

¶During the past century other influences have established the permanence and independence of the smaller states of Europe. Through the Monroe Doctrine we hope to be able to safeguard like independence and secure like permanence for the lesser among the New World nations.

¶This doctrine has nothing to do with the commercial relations of any American power, save that it in truth allows each of them to form such as it desires. In other words, it is really a guaranty of the commercial independence of the Americans. We do not ask under this doctrine for any exclusive commercial dealings with any other American state. We do not guarantee any state against punishment if it misconducts itself, provided that punishment does not take the form of the acquisition of territory by any non-American power.

¶Our attitude in Cuba is a sufficient guaranty of our own good faith. We have not the slightest desire to secure any territory at the expense of any of our neighbors. We wish to work with them hand in hand, so that all of us may be uplifted together, and we rejoice over the good fortune of any of them, we gladly hail their material prosperity and political stability, and are concerned and alarmed if any of them fall into industrial or political chaos. We do not wish to see any Old World military power grow up on this continent, or to be compelled to become a military power ourselves. The peoples of the Americas can prosper best if left to work out their own salvation in their own way.

A Square Deal
and
The World’s Peace

More and more war is coming to be looked upon as in itself a lamentable and evil thing. A wanton or useless war, or a war of mere aggression—in short, any war begun or carried on in a conscienceless spirit, is to be condemned as a peculiarly atrocious crime against all humanity. We can, however, do nothing of permanent value for peace unless we keep ever clearly in mind the ethical element which lies at the root of the problem. Our aim is righteousness. Peace is normally the handmaiden of righteousness; but when peace and righteousness conflict then a great and upright people can never for a moment hesitate to follow the path which leads towards righteousness, even though that path also leads to war. There are persons who advocate peace at any price; there are others who, following a false analogy, think that because it is no longer necessary in civilized countries for individuals to protect their rights with a strong hand, it is therefore unnecessary for nations to be ready to defend their rights. These persons would do irreparable harm to any nation that adopted their principles, and even as it is they seriously hamper the cause which they advocate by tending to render it absurd in the eyes of sensible and patriotic men.

¶There can be no worse foe of mankind in general, and of his own country in particular, than the demagogue of war, the man who in mere folly or to serve his own selfish ends continually rails at and abuses other nations, who seeks to excite his countrymen against foreigners on insufficient pretexts, who excites and inflames a perverse and aggressive national vanity, and who may on occasions wantonly bring on conflict between his nation and some other nation. But there are demagogues of peace just as there are demagogues of war, and in any such movements as that for The Hague conference it is essential not to be misled by one set of extremists any more than by the other.

¶Whenever it is possible for a nation or an individual to work for real peace, assuredly it is failure of duty not so to strive; but if war is necessary and righteous then either the man or the nation shrinking from it forfeits all title to self-respect. We have scant sympathy with the sentimentalist who dreads oppression less than physical suffering, who would prefer a shameful peace to the pain and toil sometimes lamentably necessary in order to secure a righteous peace. As yet there is only a partial and imperfect analogy between international law and internal or municipal law, because there is no sanction of force for executing the former while there is in the case of the latter.

¶The private citizen is protected in his rights by the law, because the law rests in the last resort upon force exercised through the forms of law. A man does not have to defend his rights with his own hand, because he can call upon the police, upon the sheriff’s posse, upon the militia, or in extreme cases upon the Army, to defend him. But there is no such sanction of force for international law. At present there could be no greater calamity than for the free peoples, the enlightened, independent, and peace-loving peoples, to disarm while yet leaving it open to any barbarism or despotism to remain armed.

¶So long as the world is as unorganized as now, the armies and navies of those peoples who on the whole stand for justice, offer not only the best, but the only possible, security for a just peace. For instance, if the United States alone, or in company only with the other nations that on the whole tend to act justly, disarmed, we might sometimes avoid bloodshed, but we would cease to be of weight in securing the peace of justice—the real peace for which the most law-abiding and high-minded men must at times be willing to fight. As the world is now, only that nation is equipped for peace that knows how to fight and that will not shrink from fighting if ever the conditions become such that war is demanded in the name of the highest morality.

¶So much it is emphatically necessary to say in order both that the position of the United States may not be misunderstood, and that a genuine effort to bring nearer the day of the peace of justice among the nations may not be hampered by a folly which, in striving to achieve the impossible, would render it hopeless to attempt the achievement of the practical. But while recognizing most clearly all above set forth, it remains our clear duty to strive in every practicable way to bring nearer the time when the sword shall not be the arbiter among nations.

¶At present the practical thing to do is to try to minimize the number of cases in which it must be the arbiter, and to offer, at least to all civilized powers, some substitute for war which will be available in at least a considerable number of instances. Very much can be done through another Hague conference in this direction, and I most earnestly urge that this Nation do all in its power to try to further the movement and to make the result of the decisions of The Hague conference effective. I earnestly hope that the conference may be able to devise some way to make arbitration between nations the customary way of settling international disputes in all save a few classes of cases, which should themselves be as sharply defined and rigidly limited as the present governmental and social development of the world will permit. If possible, there should be a general arbitration treaty negotiated among all the nations represented at the conference. Neutral rights and property should be protected at sea as they are protected on land. There should be an international agreement to this purpose and a similar agreement defining contraband of war.

¶During the last century there has been a distinct diminution in the number of wars between the most civilized nations. International relations have become closer, and the development of The Hague tribunal is not only a symptom of this growing closeness of relationship, but is a means by which the growth can be furthered. Our aim should be from time to time to take such steps as may be possible toward creating something like an organization of the civilized nations, because as the world becomes more highly organized the need for navies and armies will diminish.

¶It is not possible to secure anything like an immediate disarmament, because it would first be necessary to settle what peoples are on the whole a menace to the rest of mankind, and to provide against the disarmament of the rest being turned into a movement which would really chiefly benefit these obnoxious peoples; but it may be possible to exercise some check upon the tendency to swell indefinitely the budgets for military expenditure.

Of course such an effort could succeed only if it did not attempt to do too much; and if it were undertaken in a spirit of sanity as far removed as possible from a merely hysterical pseudo-philanthropy. It is worth while pointing out that since the end of the insurrection in the Philippines this Nation has shown its practical faith in the policy of disarmament by reducing its little army one-third. But disarmament can never be of prime importance; there is more need to get rid of the causes of war than of the implements of war.

¶I have dwelt much on the dangers to be avoided by steering clear of any mere foolish sentimentality because my wish for peace is so genuine and earnest; because I have a real and great desire that this second Hague conference may mark a long stride forward in the direction of securing the peace of justice throughout the world. No object is better worthy the attention of enlightened statesmanship than the establishment of a surer method than now exists of securing justice as between nations, both for the protection of the little nations and for the prevention of war between the big nations. To this aim we should endeavor not only to avert bloodshed, but, above all, effectively to strengthen the forces of right. The Golden Rule should be, and as the world grows in morality it will be, the guiding rule of conduct among nations as among individuals; though the Golden Rule must not be construed, in fantastic manner, as forbidding the exercise of the police power. This mighty and free Republic should ever deal with all other states, great or small, on a basis of high honor, respecting their rights as jealously as it safeguards its own.[14]

¶Among Washington’s maxims which he bequeathed to his countrymen were the following: “Observe good faith and justice toward all nations” and “To be prepared for war is the most effective means to promote peace.” These two principles taken together should form the basis of our whole foreign policy. Neither is sufficient taken by itself. It is not merely an idle dream but a most mischievous dream to believe that mere refraining from wrong-doing will insure us against being wronged. Yet, on the other hand, a nation prepared for war is a menace to mankind unless the national purpose is to treat other nations with good faith and justice. In any community it is neither the conscientious man who is a craven at heart nor yet the bold and strong without the moral sense, who is of real use to the community, it is the man who to strength and courage adds a realizing sense of the moral obligations resting upon him, the man who has not only the desire but the power to do his full duty by his neighbor and by the State.

¶So in the world at large the nation which is of use in the progress of mankind is that nation which combines strength of character, force of character and insistence upon its own rights, with a full acknowledgment of its own duties toward them.

¶Just at present the best way in which we can show that our loyalty to the teachings of Washington is a loyalty of the heart and not of the lips only is to see to it that the work of building up our Navy goes steadily on, and that at the same time our stand for international righteousness is clear and emphatic.

¶Never since the beginning of our country’s history has the Navy been used in an unjust war. Never has it failed to render great and sometimes vital service to the Republic. It has not been too strong for our good, though often not strong enough to do all the good it should have done.... Our possession of the Philippines, our interest in the trade of the Orient, our building the Isthmian Canal, our insistence upon the Monroe Doctrine all demand that our navy shall be of adequate size and, for its size, of unsurpassed efficiency. If it is strong enough I believe it would minimize the chance of our being drawn into foreign war. If we let it run down it is as certain as the day that sooner or later we shall have to choose between a probably disastrous foreign war or a peace kept on terms that imply national humiliation.

¶¶Our navy is the surest guaranty of peace and the cheapest insurance against war, and those who, in whatever capacity, have helped to build it up during the past twenty years have been in good faith observing and living up to one of the most important of the principles which Washington laid down for the guidance of his countrymen. Nor was Washington the only one of our presidents who showed far-sighted patriotism by support of the Navy. When Andrew Jackson was in Congress he voted for the first warships we ever built as part of our regular navy, and he voted against the grant of money to pay an humiliating tribute to the pirates of the Barbary States. Old Hickory was a patriot through and through, and there was not an ounce of timidity in his nature, and of course he felt only indignant contempt for a policy which purchased an ignoble peace by cowardice instead of exacting a just peace by showing we were as little willing to submit to as to inflict oppression. Had a majority of Jackson’s colleagues and successors felt as he did about the navy, had it been built up instead of being brought to a standstill, it would probably never have been necessary to fight the War of 1812.

¶With the great powers of the world we desire no rivalry that is not honorable to both parties. We wish them well. We believe that the trend of the modern spirit is ever stronger toward peace, not war; toward friendship, not hostility, as the normal international attitude. We are glad indeed that we are on good terms with all the other peoples of mankind, and no effort on our part shall be spared to secure a continuance of these relations. And remember that we shall be a potent factor for peace largely in proportion to the way in which we make it evident that our attitude is due, not to weakness, not to inability to defend ourselves, but to a genuine repugnance to wrong-doing, a genuine desire for self-respecting friendship with our neighbors.

¶The voice of the weakling or the craven counts for nothing when he clamors for peace; but the voice of the just man armed is potent. We need to keep in a condition of preparedness, especially as regards our navy, not because we want war, but because we desire to stand with those whose plea for peace is listened to with respectful attention.[5]

¶The true end of every great and free people should be self-respecting peace; and this Nation most earnestly desires sincere and cordial friendship with all others. Over the entire world, of recent years, wars between the great civilized powers have become less and less frequent. Wars with barbarous or semi-barbarous peoples come in an entirely different category, being merely a most regrettable but necessary international police duty which must be performed for the sake of the welfare of mankind.

¶Peace can only be kept with certainty where both sides wish to keep it; but more and more the civilized peoples are realizing the wicked folly of war and are attaining that condition of just and intelligent regard for the rights of others which will in the end, as we hope and believe, make world-wide peace possible. The peace conference at The Hague gave definite expression to this hope and belief and marked a stride toward their attainment.

¶Probably no other great nation in the world is so anxious for peace as we are. There is not a single civilized power which has anything whatever to fear from aggressiveness on our part. All we want is peace; and toward this end we wish to be able to secure the same respect for our rights from others which we are eager and anxious to extend to their rights in return, to insure fair treatment to us commercially, and to guarantee the safety of the American people.

¶Our people intend to abide by the Monroe Doctrine and to insist upon it as the one sure means of securing the peace of the Western Hemisphere. The Navy offers us the only means of making our insistence upon the Monroe Doctrine anything but a subject of derision to whatever nation chooses to disregard it. We desire the peace which comes as of right to the just man armed; not the peace granted on terms of ignominy to the craven and the weakling.[7]

A Square Deal
and
The Essence
of
Christian Character

I think that each one of us who has a large experience grows to realize more and more that the essentials of experience are alike for all of us. The things that move us most are the things of the home, of the Church; the intimate relations that knit a man to his family, to his close friends; that make him try to do his duty by his neighbor, by his God, are in their essentials just the same for one man as for another, provided the man is in good faith trying to do his duty.

¶I feel that the progress of our country really depends upon the sum of the efforts of the individuals acting by themselves, but especially upon the sum of the efforts of the individuals acting in associations for the betterment of themselves, for the betterment of the communities in which they dwell. There is never any difficulty about the forces of evil being organized. Every time that we get an organization of the forces that are plainly striving for good, we are doing our part to offset, and a little more than offset the forces of evil.

¶I want to read several different texts which it seems to me have especial bearing upon the work of brotherhoods like this, upon the spirit in which not only all of us who are members of this brotherhood, but all of us who strive to be decent Christians are to apply our Christianity on week days as well as on Sundays. The first verse I want to read can be found in the seventh chapter of Matthew, the first and sixteenth verses.

¶First: “Judge not, that ye be not judged,” sixteenth, “Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.”

¶“Judge not that ye be not judged.” That means, treat each of us his brethren with charity. Be not quick to find fault. Above all be not quick to judge another man who according to his light is striving to do his duty as each of us hopes he is striving to do his. Let us ever remember that we have not only divine authority for the statement that by our fruits we shall be known, but also that it is true that mankind will tend to judge us by our fruits.

¶It is an especially lamentable thing to see ill done by any man who from his associations with the Church, who from the fact that he has had the priceless benefits of the teachings of Christian religion, should be expected to take a position of leadership in the work for good.

¶The next quotation I wish to read is found in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, thirty-seventh to fortieth verses inclusive: “Then shall the righteous answer them, saying, ‘Lord, when saw we thee a hungered, and fed thee, or thirsty, and gave thee drink?’

¶“‘When saw we thee a stranger and took thee in, or naked, and clothed thee?’

¶“‘Or, when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?’

¶“And the King shall answer and say unto them, ‘Verily, I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren ye have done it unto me.’”

¶That is what this brotherhood means; by trying to worship our Creator by acting toward his creatures as He would have us act; to try to make our religion a living force in our lives; to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

¶The next text I wish to read is found in I Corinthians, thirteenth chapter, beginning, with the first verse. “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity I am become as sounding brass, as a tinkling cymbal.”

¶“And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith so that I would remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.

¶“And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. Charity suffereth long and is kind, charity envieth not, charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.

¶“And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three, but the greatest of these is charity.”

¶Let each of us exercise the largest tolerance for his brother who is trying, though in a different way to lead a decent life; who is trying to do good in his own fashion; let each try to show practical sympathy with that brother; not be too quick to criticise.

¶In closing I want to read a few verses from the Epistle of James, from the first chapter twenty-seventh verse:

¶“Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this: To visit the fatherless and the widows in their affliction and to keep himself unspotted before the world.”

¶If a man will try to serve God the Father by being kindly to the many around him who need such kindness and by being upright and honest himself, then we have the authority of the Good Book for saying that we are in honor bound to treat him as a good Christian and extend the hand of brotherhood to him.

¶Every thinking man, when he thinks, realizes what a very large number of people tend to forget that the teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally—I do not mean figuratively, I mean literally—impossible for us to figure to ourselves what this life would be if these teachings were removed. We would lose almost all the standards by which we now judge both public and private morals; all the standards toward which we, with more or less resolution, strive to raise ourselves. Almost every man who has, by his life work, added to the sum of human achievement of which the race is proud, of which our people are proud, almost every such man has based his life work largely upon the teachings of the Bible. Sometimes it has been done unconsciously, more often consciously, and among the very greatest men a disproportionately large number have been diligent and close students of the Bible at first hand.

¶Lincoln,—sad, patient, kindly Lincoln, who after bearing upon his weary shoulders for four years a greater burden than that borne by any other man of the Nineteenth Century, laid down his life for the people whom, living, he had served so well,—built up his entire reading upon his early study of the Bible. He had mastered it absolutely; mastered it as, later he mastered only one or two other books, notably Shakespeare; mastered it so that he became almost a man of one book, who knew that book and who instinctively put into practice what he had been taught therein; and he left his life as a part of the crowning work of the Nineteenth Century.

¶You may look through the Bible from cover to cover, and nowhere will you find a line that can be construed into an apology for the man of brains who sins against the light. On the contrary, in the Bible, taking that as a guide, you will find that because much has been given to you much will be expected of you, and a heavier condemnation is to be visited upon the able man who goes wrong than upon his weaker brother who cannot do the harm that the other does, because it is not in him to do it. I plead, not merely for training of the mind, but for the moral and spiritual training of the home and the church; the moral and spiritual training that have always been found in, and that have ever accompanied the study of this book; this book, which, in almost every civilized tongue, can be described as ‘The Book,’ with the certainty of all understanding you when you so describe it.

¶The immense moral influence of the Bible, though of course, infinitely the most important, is not the only power it has for good. In addition there is the increasing influence it exerts on the side of good taste, of good literature, of proper sense of proportion, of simple and straightforward writing and thinking.

¶The Bible does not teach us to shirk difficulties, but to overcome them. That is a lesson that each one of us who has children is bound in honor to teach these children if he or she expects to see them become fitted to play the part of men and women in our world.

¶If we read the Bible aright we read a book which teaches us to go forth and do the work of the Lord; to do the work of the Lord in the world as we find it; to try to make things better in this world, even if only a little better, because we have lived in it. That kind of work can be done only by the man who is neither a weakling nor a coward, by the man who, in the fullest sense of the word is a true Christian—like Great Heart, Bunyan’s hero. We plead for a closer and wider and deeper study of the Bible, so that our people may be in fact as well as in theory, ‘doers of the word, and not hearers only.’

REFERENCE NOTES.

The figures which appear in the text have reference to the source from which that particular extract was made, and the reader can refer here if need be to the occasion and time when such words were uttered. Of course everything of a purely local or ephemeral nature has been omitted, and only the more vital truths which concern our daily lives and the commonweal have been gathered here, and these the average reader will find a help and guide in which he will be inclined to put an abiding faith.

-----

Footnote A:

National Teachers Association.

Footnote 1:

From an address before the Hungarian Club, N. Y. Feb. 14, 1905.

Footnote 2:

Extract from an address at Little Rock, Oct. 25, 1905.

Footnote 3:

From an address before the Republican Club, N. Y. Feb. 14, 1905.

Footnote 4:

Address at Symphony Hall, Boston, Aug. 25, 1902.

Footnote 5:

Address before N. Y. Chamber of Commerce, Nov. 11, 1902.

Footnote 6:

Address at Antietam, Sept. 17, 1903.

Footnote 7:

Extract from Message to 57th Cong. 1st Session.

Footnote 8:

Address to Brotherhood of Local Engineers, Chatt. Sept. 8, 1903.

Footnote 9:

Extract from Message to 57th Cong. 2nd Session.

Footnote 10:

Extract from Message to 58th Cong. 2nd Session.

Footnote 11:

Extract from Message to 59th Cong. 1st Session.

Footnote 12:

Address at Topeka, May 1, 1903.

Footnote 13:

Address at Bangor, Aug. 27, 1902.

Footnote 14:

Extract from Message to 59th Cong. 1st Session.

Footnote 15:

Address at Sioux Falls, Apr. 6, 1903.

Footnote 16:

From address at Logansport, Sep. 23, 1902.

Footnote 17:

Address at Grace Dutch Reformed Church, Washington, Nov. 12, 1905.

Footnote 18:

From Letter of Acceptance of Nomination, Sep. 12, 1904.

Footnote 19:

Address before Union League, Phila., Nov. 22, 1902.

Footnote 20:

Address at dedicatory exercises New High School, Phila. in honor of
Dr. Nicholas Butler, N. Y. Apr. 19, 1902.

Footnote 21:

Nov. 22, 1902.

Footnote 22:

Address at Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. Palo Alto, May 12, 1903.

Footnote 23:

Address at Univ. of California, Berkeley, May 14, 1903.

Footnote 24:

Spoken at Lincoln’s Monument, Springfield, Ill., June 4, 1903.

Footnote 25:

Address at Univ. of Pa. Feb. 22, 1905.

Footnote 26:

Extract from letter to Governor Durbin of Ind. Aug. 6, 1903.

Footnote 27:

Address at Atlanta, Oct. 20, 1905.

Footnote 28:

Address before Nat. Educ. Asso. Asbury Park, July 7, 1905.

Footnote 29:

Address in Alabama, Oct. 24. 1905.

Footnote 30:

Address at Chautauqua, Aug. 11, 1904.

Footnote 31:

Address at Pan Amer. Miss. Service, Cath. S. S. P. & P., Washington,
Oct. 25, 1903.

Footnote 32:

Address at Chicago, Apr. 2, 1903.

Footnote 33:

Address before National Mothers’ Congress, Washington, May 13, 1905.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. P. 122, changed “because they the” to “because they are”. 2. P. 129, changed “oppression of maltreatment” to “oppression or maltreatment”. 3. P. 155, changed “which give rise” to “which gives rise”. 4. P. 162, changed “But will” to “But it will”. 5. P. 166, changed “else count for” to “else counts for”. 6. P. 181, changed “announced that the” to “announced that”. 7. P. 182, changed “the Americans. We” to “the Americas. We”. 8. P. 193, changed “of unsurpassing efficiency” to “of unsurpassed efficiency”. 9. Footnotes 10. Silently corrected obvious typographical errors and variations in spelling. 11. Retained archaic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed. 12. Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.