I'ft
ft
Conservative *
actual consumptives , is the strongest
factor in the causation of human con
sumption. It prepares the soil in which
the bacillus lives and thrives. So of
every constitutional weakness. The
altruistic tendencies of society are to
foster and inbrced constitutional weak
ness. Thus we constantly increase and
bury still deeper "the submerged tenth"
in the billows of overpowering ina
bility. To use a paradox , this might be
termed the might of inability to bury
itself. More truly it is the weakness of
inability , attempting to cure weaknesses
by multiplying them. This is one of the ,
if not the strongest , examples , of the
antagonism between what is mistakenly
thought to be individual welfare and
the prosperity of the race. It is breeding
self destruction slowly , but surely , it is
undermining national integrity. Speak
ing with apparent harshness , but no less
truly , the most humane , the most chari
table , the most philanthropic people , is
the nation most likely to undergo in
ternal degeneration. The strong ten
dencies to social discontent are the log
ical result of this mistaken philanthropy.
The principle is dangerous to the state ,
no matter what benefit the methods may
be to the individual. The only correct
thing is to face the truth. While we
must continue philanthropic methods in
relation to the individuals in the "sub
merged tenth , " we can and must pre
vent our being engulfed in the same
maelstrom by applying the principle of
fitting might to marriage , and prevent
ing the marriage of those unfit to main
tain themselves.
The Right to Marry.
While the purpose of marriage is sel
dom intelligent procreation , the result
is multiplication of the species. This
is a period of insane devotion to ideal
rights. No such thing as an ideal right
exists , except in the crazy brain of some
emotional reformer. There is no such
thing as a natural right , though might
is right , being the basis of all rights
Few ever think of "children's rights. "
In that respect we have not advanced
much beyond the day of patriarchal
monopoly. Parents still own their chil
dren. Society tries to hold them re
sponsible for their economical well
being , but has not a word to say about
responsibility for their physical and
mental well-being. If there is a right
that should be sacred , that is "founded
on divine law , " that stands impregnable
in Nature , it is a right incomparably
above any right of parents , woman's
rights , or any right , it is that
Every Child Has a Right to he TVell-lIrctl.
By that is meant that every child
should be born physically and mentally
fit to maintain itself in its environment
when it arrives at maturity. No fitter
example could illustrate the principle
that might is right or that weakness can
mil , nnt " 'i
never establish or maintain a right ;
hence
Might Makes Right.
No child can enforce its right to be
well-born. That depends on parental
and ancestral conditions pre-potent to
its very existence. No babe can estab
lish its right to be born of parents
capable of maintaining it. No babe can
establish or maintain a right to be
nourished by a healthy mother. No
child can establish or maintain a right
to the education that will best fit to
maintain itself in the future straggle for
existence. Therefore , not having the
might to establish a single right , the
child has no rights. If might is not
right , if might does not make right ,
what does ? An answer is demanded
from those who have indignantly de
manded that ' -THE CONSERVATIVE" be
stopped , for "upholding such inhuman
and unsafe principles. "
The Right Is Where the Might Is.
The might is in that aggregation of
individuals which is termed society. In
socialism lies the foundation of all
rights. "In union is strength , " that is
might. The principle , though often
wrongly applied , is pretty generally
recognized , that the child belongs more
to society than to its parents. The mis
take is made that the principle is only
applied post-natally , whereas it should
be applied pre-conceptionally. Society
should guarantee to the child the right
of being well-bred as well as being well
born. Why ? To protect itself. Society ,
by its laws of marriage , seeks to protect
itself , individually , from being respon
sible for the birth and support of chil
dren indiscriminately. It goes no
farther. It takes no steps to protect
itself from the care of those children
after they are born , except that it im
perfectly seeks to make parents respon
sible for their maintenance. It oc
casionally clads itself in its might and
asserts its right to protect itself against
pauperism , etc. , by assuming its right to
take a child away from unsuitable
parents. It "unlocks the door after the
horse has been stolen. " The time to
protect itself is to prevent such a child
being born by the state control of mar
riage. There is no other way to untie
this Gordian-knot of the "submerged
tenth. "
FKANK S. BILLINGS.
Sharon , Mass.
1 > R. KLIPHAI-ET NOTT.
I have in the course of my life , says
W. J. Stillrnan in the February Atlantic ,
become more or less acquainted with
many able men , and Dr. Nott was the
most remarkable of all the teachers I
have ever known , considering the limit
ation of his position and profession , that
of a Presbyterian clergyman in a time
when sectarian differences ran high ,
and his sect had no lead in public opin
ion. His own position , to which he had
attained by the force of his character
unaided by any patronage , in a time
when institutions were forming and no
thing was settled in the character of so
ciety , that is , the beginning of this
century , was due to his extraordinary
tact and eloquence. . . . No one but a
pupil could ever have fairly estimated
his force of character , and no pupil
whose intercourse with him was not
arried into the post-graduate years
could measure the ability with which
he advised , especially in political mat
ters , with his old pupils. In the dayd
of his activity , no institution in the
country furnished so large an element
to the practical statesmanship of the
United States as did Union. Seward
was one of his favorite pupils , anl it is
well known that up to the period of the
American civil war he never took a step
in politics without the advice of the
doctor. . . . The doctor's reading of
character and detective powers were
barely short of the miraculous , and his
management of refractory students be
came so well known that many who had
been expelled from the other universi
ties were sent to Union , and graduated
with credit , so that the college acquired
the nickname of "Botany Bay. " . . . In
entering the Church , Dr. Nott had de
prived the world of a statesman of no
ordinary calibre ; but in the eyes of the
Protestant as of the Catholic church , in
the country which had its precedents to
make as in that which had precedents
a thousand years old , the maxim , "Once
a priest , always a priest , " kept him in
the pulpit , to which he had no irresisti
ble call , and to which the accident of
his career only had led him. . . . In
this insufficiency of interest for an ac
tive and influential life , there was only
the educational calling loft to satisfy his
enormous mental activity , and in this
he found his place. The future which
may look for his record in libraries , erin
in the results of research , scientific or
literary , will not find him. to occupy a
position. He had , however , great me
chanical inventive powers , as well as a
marvelous knowledge of human nature :
the former solved the problem , among
others , of anthracite coal combustion
for American steamers ; in the latter
lay his qualifications as the greatest
teacher of young men of his generation.
"Why , " asks the St. Paul Pioneer
Press ( rep. ) , "should the Minneapolis
millers , the New England and Southern
cotton spinners , and the manufacturers
of shoes and agricultural implements
the country through be burdened with a
tariff on their exports to Puerto Rico ,
for the benefit of the few tobacco , sugar ,
and fruit-raisers , who have found a
bugaboo in the proposition of free trade
with the island ? "
