NO. 5
THE TWO OKFIOKS.
103
wonderful. Collegians seem to hnvo tin
especial altacluncnt to the term, Tor in
the titles to their literary productions it
may he seen in connection with almost
ivny other noun in the language. It
would he a relief to to the render, or hear
er as the case may ho, if its occurrence
were made less frequent hy the use of
paraphrases.
THE TWO OFFICES.
While it is true, in the intercourse of
nations and people, that some are emi.
nently calculated to lead, it is also true
that others arc calculated to follow.
Some arc not satisfied unless they can be
at the head superintending and command
ing with undisputed authority others,
on the contrary, arc not only satisfied to
follow, but are quite unwilling to assume
the responsibility of leaders, and are con
tent in their humbler sphere of subordi
nation. Let us illustrate this by looking
at it in the light of military operations.
Were we to look for the highest merit,
it wouk'. probably be a serious question
whether we should find it among the lead
ers or the lead. Were we to look over the
fields of human carnage from the earliest
times until now, we probably would search
the records in vain to find a man whose
motives could not be questioned at some
particular period of his career. The lead
ers arc brought more prominently before
the world, becauso they stand, as it were,
representatives of the whole. Their
deeds arc rccordcJ; their successes and
failures: their virtues and vices arc spread
out upon the pages of history, but gener
ally tainted more or less by the prejudice
and partiality of the historian. Lauded
by a friend, and blamed by an enemy, the
character of history suffers to a greater or
less degree at the hands of unscrupulous
men.
Those who have conducted nations
through their most perilous struggles,
those whom we call military leaders, are
praiseworthy on account of the service
they have rendered in bringing a nation
back to a state of prosperity, and in re
storing the natural order of things, which
results in human happiness.
Th'ey are men of responsibility, watched
and criticised hy others looking on, who
arc interested in the result.
Their success docs not depend solely
upon their own devotedness to their coun
try and their cause, but, to a groat extent,
upon the devotedness, fidelity and obedi
ence of subordinates.
Take now a visit to the battle field for
the purpose of observation. Look upon
the faces of those noble heroes whoso
countenances are stern even in death.
Look at the humble soldier, whose name
never appears upon the page of lmtory.
Scrutinize closely the face of another, and
notice the honesty, fidelity, and loyalty
depicted upon the fi'.cc of him whose
grave is not strewn with flowers, and at
whoso memory no tear is shed, save by
the family living in obscurity in some
distant part. Consider the man who, be
ing sacrificed upon his country's alter, re-,
groltcd that he had "but one life to osc'
in the holy cause.
Let your thoughts also revert to the
prisoner in his dungeon. Commence at
the bottom of the ladder, and proceed up
wards, taking in all ranks from the high
est to the lowest; take the noblest and
best from each class, and search for the
highest merit. "Where docs it lie? I
think you will conclude that representative
men from each class are equally meritori
ous. In the broad sense, they arc not of
equal responsibility. Neither is the ser
vice of one equal to that of another, hut
personal merit 01 demerit belongs to each,
regardless of the sphere in which he
moves. While the leader and follower
areequaliy responsible for personal deeds
yet this is not true in regard to the final
result of great military enterprises. The
leader is the one looked too by the waving
multitude, as the one to whom they have
committed their dearest interests, with the