Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About Hesperian student / (Lincoln [Neb.]) 1872-1885 | View Entire Issue (Dec. 10, 1886)
THE HESPERIAN. t program were given each term, it would answer this purpose much better than the present arrangement. Finally, I would suggest that factional strife ought not to enter into the discus sion of this question, but it should be settled in the way most advantageous to the whole University. E. D. H. "ENTAENOUS." The Hesperian has at different times ventured opinions on political matters, and again feels warranted in expressing it scli on the probabilities of .the submission of a prohibitory amendment at the next legislature. The circumstances un der which the republican party placed such a plank in its platform will warrant us in asking the question, Will the re publican majority in the next legislature favor submission? It is patent to all that we must look, for the present, to the re publican party for any legislation in this direction, because it holds a majority, if for no wider or weightier reason. Is the republican party in sympathy with the movement, and will this clement be represented in the legislature this win ter? Judging from the last state convention, we believe that the "common herd" favor, while the leaders oppose the sub mission of the amendment. It could easily be seen that the house was divided in the convention, leaders against people. Since the men who go to the legislature are less the represen tatives of the party and party sentiments and more persons placed there by other influences, we cannot look for the ex. pression of the real party sentiment as brought forth in the convention. But again, the republican papers throughout the state arc accounting for democratic gains by the change in the republi can platform. Whether or not this be the true cause, is it at all likely that the republican party, as a party, will press the question farther? Will they not rather turn and oppose the measure with the hope of retrieving in some small degree what they deem themselves to have lost? From this point of view it seems hardly probable that a prohibitory amendment will be placed before the people by our next legislature. There appeared in the Journal of November 23rd an arti cle from Baltimore, the ring of which sounds so familiar tha1 we arc tempted to believe that we know its author; the drift o which is so nearly in accord with our views on labor organi zations and strikes that we must notice its trend. First noting the great importance ot the subject in hand, Mr. W. then pro ceeds to show how widespread the movement is becoming. The church has been brought to recognize the deep-seated causes which are moving the laboring classes in the matter of organizations, and, says our author, the enthusiasm of its ministers "is not merely that of theological students who have Utopian ideas elaborated from a study of the alleged communism of the early Christians, but of men who in trying to get fellow men to be honest and decent have found in their way social and industrial evils for which society, as an organ ic unit, is in part responsible. One and all they applaud the organization of labor because they see that as a state exists, not for the purpose of waging war, but for the preservation of peace, so these bodies of united laborers must soon learn in the hard school of experience that the best thing about be ing able to make a hard fight is that it enables one to keep out of it." We of th western states are scarce w illing to acknowledge a sufficient cause for all this agitation. We are inclined, says Mr. W., to term it a "mere, gratuitous raising of a breeze." "But such," says he, "it certainly is not There is doubtless much that is factitious and even malicious in the fuss made about the problem, but the fact of the matter is that not only has something got to be done about it, but that a great many things have got to be done, and after they arc accom" plished there will probably be as many more on hand." Strikes have a value for the labor organizations whether or not they always succeed in getting what they demanded. They are the tests which try the metal of those who would put themselves forward as leaders. They teach the strikers the "evils of attempting the impossible." It is often a mat ter of life and death with the laborer. And our essayist right ly remarks that 'no human being has a right to let himself be killed off without making a luss about it. If he or she can show good sense in the kind of a disturbance made, why so much the better; but it is at any rate his duty to raise a rum pus.' There can be no question but that is the duty of every man to protest against inhumanity and injustice shown him by his fellow man; and this is the real underlying cause and justification of the strike. The project of adding to the common school system of some of our large cities a department for training in the common haudicrafts, though not exactly new, yet is sufficiently so to meet with the disapproval of the New York City school board because of the supposed exaggeration of its merits. Germany has tried it and testifies to its utility. Other European coun tries give the same testimony. Several of our large cities ev idence the success of that system in our own country. Yet New York City, through prejudice, refuses to adopt what the world has pronounced a success. Why is not the adoption of that plan in accord nce with the spirit of liberal education? Parents wish their sons to learn a trade and, of course, send lhcm to the only place where they can do so, to the apprcn 'iccship. All their time is taken in learning the trade and no imc is left for cultivation in any other direction. Their sons arc getting an education in a particular line, but have to pay for that privilege in hard manual labor, or sometimes in cash, while at the same time the parents arc paying for the educa tion of somebodyelse's children, who happen to choose a lit tle different line of study. So, from a standpoint of justice to all, it is not fair to give an opportunity for the study of one particular line of study to the exclusion of all other branches of education, which is practically to the exclusion of all the youth whose bent of mind seems to lie in a different field. Not only is the exclusion carried out in our present school system, but we refuse to offer to the future mechanic an opportunity for a general cultuie, inasmuch as we require his whole time to be given to our particular line or he shall not share those advantages at all. 'But, he should first get a good practical education and then learn his trade.' In other words he should begin to build an education of one character, then, dropping that, begin building one of another. It is self-evident that such a process would be inadvisable. After the first principles of a common school education have been mastered and the youth is ready to begin learning his trade, would it not be better if, in connection with the work at the trade, he should keep up his work of acquiring a general education, of acquir ing and sustaining a desire for reading. One can readily see that such a course would of necessity tend to the elevation of our craftsmen, make them not only conversant with live prob lems, but prepare the way for a broader cultivation in their own particular line. Night schools, someone says, will not work. How many boys after a long, hard day's work, will attend a night school? Recreation is necessary and the even ings should be devoted to securing it. How many parents I who now are compelled to apprentice their sons to craftsmen iL' . j
