Chapter C: L. S. C. Work (2)

We have received the following document, which will, we have no doubt, meet a hearty response among members of the C. L. S. C. everywhere: “The Counselors of the C. L. S. C., acting in this instance without the knowledge of the Superintendent of Instruction, but in consultation with President Miller and Secretary Martin, propose that, in honor of JOHN H. VINCENT, the 23rd of February, the anniversary of his birth, be designated ‘Founder’s Day,’ and as such be entered on the calendar of the organization for future observance by the members, as one of their Memorial Days. Signed by Counselors J. M. Gibson, William C. Wilkinson, Lyman Abbott, Henry W. Warren, and approved by President Lewis Miller and Secretary A. M. Martin.” With this came a letter stating that at the banquet of the New England graduates of the C. L. S. C., held in Boston on Saturday, February 23, it was announced that the Counselors had decided unanimously to adopt the resolution. We believe we are not wrong in saying that members of the C. L. S. C. everywhere will be heartily pleased with this honor conferred on Dr. Vincent. Indeed, we predict that there will be a universal lament because the Counselors did not adopt the measure long enough before February 23rd to have made it possible for the circles to have celebrated this year instead of being obliged to wait until February 1885.

There are many reasons why this measure is peculiarly acceptable to the members of the C. L. S. C. The majority of our readers feel that in this course of reading they are personally indebted to Dr. Vincent for a plan which has been of infinite service to them. They know, too, that he is their friend, thoughtful of their interests, mindful of their trials and hindrances. They will heartily rejoice in the new Memorial Day as that of a personal friend and benefactor, and will celebrate it with the peculiar delight and enthusiasm with which we love to honor our friends. There are more powerful reasons for observing the day than this feeling of love and gratitude. The days we do celebrate are in memory of men whose written thoughts are leavening the world. We delight to honor them for their thoughts. We honor Dr. Vincent for the strong thoughts which he has wrought into acts. There are many minds capable of brilliant ideas, of philanthropic plans; but there are few capable of carrying them out, of making them active agencies in society. It is this ability to make a plan a reality, to prove it, which is a distinguishing characteristic of Dr. Vincent’s mind. He has that rare gift, first-class organizing ability. A course of reading planned for those who wanted to read, but did not know what to undertake, had been often tried, on a small scale, before the C. L. S. C. was organized, but to extend such a course to the world at large was a new idea, and to most minds one entirely impracticable. The magnitude of such an undertaking would have staggered any man but one of the broadest sympathies and largest organizing powers. As Dr. Vincent had both of these qualities, he did not hesitate to undertake the organization, especially since he had the prestige of Chautauqua, with its wonderful history, behind him, and Lewis Miller, Esq., his friend and co-laborer, to lend a helping hand in the great work. A purely unselfish enterprise is always treated skeptically by the world at large. The flaws in the C. L. S. C. have been persistently pointed out. Steady sustained enthusiasm in the face of such difficulties is the quality of a hero, and it has been with this unfailing faith and interest that Dr. Vincent has met every doubt or complaint. Very much of the success of the C. L. S. C. is due to this one characteristic in its founder. His warm sympathies and broad humanity, joined to his mental ability and enthusiasm, make him a typical nineteenth century hero; a man whom the world delights to honor, and whom the readers of the C. L. S. C. will be glad to remember by celebrating Founder’s Day.

POLITICAL METHODS.

With quite sufficient reason, the public mind has long been disturbed by our political tendencies. This dissatisfaction does not arise from the fact that in matters of principle and public policy, intelligent people think we are on dangerous roads. In what are called questions, such as those of banks, tariffs, coinage of silver, payment of the national debt, etc., etc., it may be that the majority would prefer changes of policy; but there is a conviction abroad that we are as a people free to change in these matters if we really and earnestly desire new policies which we are able to define. Our feeling of apprehension springs from the knowledge that our political methods are bad, undemocratic and dangerous, and from a fear that the fountains of public life are being defiled by the wicked spirit of “practical politics.” It is not easy to corrupt the moral sense of such a people as ours. The level of intelligence is high, and patriotic impulses are strong in us. And yet we have gone down some steps. At the end of the war, men physically wrecked refused to take pensions; they would not take pay for a religious self-sacrifice. Now, men who came out of the army without a scratch and are still sound in health swear falsely to obtain pensions. These greedy seekers of pensions did not dream fifteen years ago that they could sink so low. Any one of them would then have said: “What, is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?” Their fall is directly traceable to the corruption of the civil service, to the fact that in the theory of our public life, bounties should be given to men who handle political organizations successfully. Salaries for civil service are bounties to be had by scrambling for them, or by earning them in the service of Party.

The theory of “practical politics” converts the salaries paid for public service into a pool which parties are organized to secure for distribution among the sergeants, corporals, lieutenants, captains, colonels and generals of the order. “What are we here for,” cried a delegate in the Republican National Convention of 1880, “if we are not after the offices?” That indignant question expressed the very heart of the practical politicians. A party, in his view, is an organization to get offices. And as much of its work is, in the same view, secret, dirty and wicked work, he believes that the party should be under the strict control of “bosses.” Each town should have its leader, all the town leaders should be under the control of the county leader, and county leaders should obey the state “boss”—and the edifice should be crowned with a national committee of “bosses.” This committee the politicians struggled to create by the famous theory of “the courtesy of the Senate.” That theory made the President the clerk of the party’s Senators in each state. It gave Senator Conkling the vast Federal “patronage” of New York to distribute at his will. The edifice was not crowned; the Senatorial “boss” system went down in the terrible struggle of the spring of 1881. Our readers know that history. We do not recall it to reproach anybody. Senator Conkling was the victim of a theory that he ought, under the rule of “the courtesy of the Senate,” to be President within the state of New York. The theory is silent now; it will rise again if the people do not disestablish political machines in towns, cities, counties and states.

Turning to a more gloomy side of the subject, we observe that there has been a vast increase in the amount of money spent in politics. Thousands of persons are, while we pen these lines, living on the patrons who hire them and send them forth to “mould public opinion”—or in the choicer phrase of the men themselves, “to set things up.” It is the business of this perambulating political machine to invent and distribute lies, to purchase useful sub-agents, to promise funds for the election day bribery. The floating vote increases each year, and four-fifths of this vote is a corrupt vote—the voters stand about the market place waiting until some man shall hire them. We tolerate and smile at all this business—except the concealed bribery—and this tolerance of ours is the sign that the malarious atmosphere of “practical politics” is beginning to weaken our moral sense. If we are still in full vigor, this year will probably afford us a large number of opportunities to wreck the local political machine—without distinction of party. Reform will have to begin by disestablishing local machines and bruising with conscience votes the men who corrupt the popular verdict with money.

WENDELL PHILLIPS.

We are glad, though at a late hour, to pay, with many others, our tribute to the ability and worth of Wendell Phillips, and to review his life and work. Glad to do this, for his life was clean and clear, the kind men love to honor; his work was that of the philanthropist and patriot. He had entered his seventy-third year, having been born November 29, 1811, in a house which is still standing on the lower corner of Beacon and Walnut streets, Boston. He came from one of Boston’s aristocratic families; for several generations the Phillipses were well known, rich and influential. His father, John Phillips, was chosen first mayor of Boston in 1822, in a triangular contest, with Harrison Gray Otis and Josiah Quincy as rival candidates. Young Phillips had the best of educational advantages. He prepared for college at the famous Boston Latin School; entered Harvard in his sixteenth, and graduated in his twentieth year. One of his classmates was the historian Motley, a man, like Phillips, of handsome person, of courtly manners, and high social position. From college Phillips passed to the Cambridge Law School, from which he graduated in 1833, and the following year he was admitted to the bar. But he was not long to follow the law.

The public career of this man whose name is known in every land, dates from a certain illustrious meeting held in Faneuil Hall, Boston, in 1837. It was an era of great excitement. In Congress, John Quincy Adams, the undaunted, was presenting petitions for the abolition of slavery, in the midst of the howls and execrations of the friends of the institution. Elijah I. Lovejoy had been murdered by a pro-slavery mob at Alton, Illinois, while defending his printing press. Two years before, Boston had witnessed the mobbing of Garrison. Phillips himself was a witness of the spectacle, and the following year he joined the American Anti-Slavery Society. A meeting was called in Faneuil Hall by Dr. Channing and other friends of freedom to express indignation over Lovejoy’s murder. That meeting will long live in history. Jonathan Phillips, a second cousin of Wendell, presided. Dr. Channing and others spoke. At length, the Attorney-General of the State, James T. Austin, took the platform and delivered a speech in direct opposition to the sentiments which had been expressed. It was not without effect. The people cheered as the speaker declared that Lovejoy died as the fool dieth, and placed his murderers by the side of the men who destroyed the tea in Boston Harbor. The meeting, designed to be one of indignation for the murder of Lovejoy, bid fair to turn into a meeting of approbation. But Wendell Phillips was the next speaker, and he had not spoken long before the tide was again reversed. This, his first public plea for free speech, human freedom and equal rights, was wonderfully effective. It carried the audience and established at once the speaker’s fame as the foremost orator of the anti-slavery cause.

From this time on, until in those years of blood the shackles were struck from the slaves of America, Phillips was a man of one work. He lived for the cause of abolition. His motto might have been: “One thing I do.” By the side of Garrison he stood, in full sympathy with his ideas. His name has long been the synonym of extreme radicalism. He held, with Garrison, that the constitution was “a league with hell,” and would not vote, or take an oath to support the iniquitous document. In the years before the war of the rebellion, he freely advocated a dissolution of the Union; but when the war came, he was found a stanch defender of the Union cause. In that band of once execrated, but now honored abolitionists, who “prepared the way of the Lord,” there may have been others who did as effective work as Wendell Phillips; but he was the incomparable orator, gifted with eloquent speech to a degree unapproachable. Stories of his power over an audience will long be told. Delightedly the people have listened to his silver tongue and chaste diction when he spoke upon purely literary themes; the lyceum in our land had no more popular lecturer. But he will live in our history as the matchless abolitionist orator. Since the death of slavery he has been a prominent worker in different reform movements, and the advocate—as it seems to us—of certain vagaries, but his fame is inseparably connected with the colored race, of whose rights he was the devoted, unselfish, and fearless champion. His private life was singularly simple, sweet and beautiful. His wife, an invalid of many years, his devotion to whom was beautiful indeed, survives him; and an adopted daughter, Mrs. Smalley, wife of the well known newspaper correspondent, is also left to mourn his loss.

FLOODS.

In this country and in England the ravages of high waters have become a matter of much seriousness and alarm. Nor have we failed to observe that in recent years the floods have been far greater and more numerous than they were a generation ago. This is due, we are told, to the clearing away of the forests, allowing the water to rush, unhindered by the undergrowth and fallen leafage, into the rivers, thus causing their sudden swell and overflow.

The serious and practical question is how to avert, in some degree at least, the frequent wholesale destruction of life and property, as has been experienced in the exposed districts during the last few years. It is mere nonsense to talk as some have done of condemning the flooded districts as dangerous and unfit for human habitation. Any one acquainted with the human family knows how little it is restrained by the motives of fear or danger in choosing its dwelling-place. Men will build their houses where the ashes of muttering volcanoes fall on their roofs, and with the knowledge that underneath their foundations lie their predecessors buried by former eruptions. How absurd, then, to talk of abandoning as places of human dwelling those great valleys, the most fertile, and in many other ways the most highly favored on the continent. For fertility of soil and beauty of situation, the valleys of the Ohio and Mississippi may safely challenge the world.

Neither will it do to say that by heeding the warnings given by the Signal Service Department much of these calamities can be averted. The Service published its warnings to the people of the Ohio valley a week in advance of the recent floods, but no attention was paid to them. And though the time is coming when the statements of meteorological science will command general confidence, still it will not suffice to avert the great loss of life and property. Men are not easily warned, and besides there is the impossibility in many cases, of providing against danger and loss, even though warning has been received.

Since it is now too late in the Ohio and Mississippi valleys for the method at present being discussed, with reference to the waters of the Hudson, viz.: To spare the Adirondacks, there is nothing left but to refer this important subject to the State and National Committees on “Levees and other Improvements against Destructive Floods.” Nor do we have to look long for encouraging examples of this mode of prevention. A large part of Louisiana is habitable and cultivable only through the protection afforded by hundreds of miles of levees. For six centuries Holland has shown to the world what can be done by this method of protection. Her whole North sea coast and a hundred miles of the Zuyder Zee is provided with dikes, her constant safeguard from inundation. Before the dikes were built in the thirteenth century, a single flood destroyed 80,000 lives. At an annual expense of $2,000,000, those rich lands yielding their luxuriant pastures and crops of hemp and flax, are defended from the waters.

We are persuaded that this is the only solution of the flood problem in this country. Whether partial or entire, it should be attempted without delay. In the light of recent experience government can not begin its work too soon. The vast amount of property swept away during the last decade would have gone no little way in defraying the expense of dikes as solid and sufficient as those of Holland. Add the amount given by Congress for the relief of the suffering districts, together with the amount given in benevolence and sympathy for the same purpose, and the sum is much increased. By procrastination we may expend in the above painful manner treasure equal to the whole cost of the needed protection before the work is begun. Let us hope that the year will not pass without decisive action by the government.

EDITOR’S NOTE-BOOK.

A party is reported in Ohio claiming to organize C. L. S. C. local circles, taking collections, etc. Now be it known that no agents for such purposes are appointed by the Chautauqua authorities. Such self-appointed agents are likely to be swindlers. Our workers render their services voluntarily. We appoint no agents.

* * * * *

General Gordon’s proclamation of freedom for slave-holding and slave-dealing in the Soudan has created a great surprise. It is even suggested that his religious enthusiasm has toppled over into insanity. Perhaps we can not hope to understand the case. But we need not misunderstand the facts. Slavery was never practically abolished in that country. Even in Egypt it continues to exist. General Gordon has not reëstablished slavery. Starting from that fact, we may easily reach the inference that the heroic and simple-minded Gordon has merely done away with one of the pretexts by means of which corrupt Egyptian officials plundered the natives. Slavery can not be abolished by slave-traders, and their ways of enforcing any law which naturally renders it odious and despicable.

* * * * *

John Ruskin is not always exactly level with common sense, but perhaps he is nearly right in saying “Never buy a copy of a picture. It is never a true copy.” It would probably be much wiser in people who pay considerable sums for copies of old paintings if they spent their money upon inferior original works by living artists. We have come to a place where the tide should turn in favor of our own young artists; and we believe the turn in the tide is not far ahead.

* * * * *

The weather prophets have let us alone this winter. But on the Pacific coast a sidewalk philosopher has tried to explain the cold weather of the sunset slope. He says that an earthquake off the coast of Japan has filled up the Straits of Sunda, and so diverted the warm current that should flow to the coast of Oregon. This is an improvement upon the last prophet, who regulated the weather astrologically—by studying the positions of the stars. The new man comes back to the earth and is chiefly at fault in his facts. We welcome him in the room of the astrologer of last year.

* * * * *

“Ruined by speculation.” They have to keep that “head” standing in the newspaper offices. The last case which has fallen under eye is that of a bank in Philadelphia, whose manager speculated in tin. When a bank fails, or a trustee betrays a trust, we always ask: “What did he speculate in?” The story is trite. We know of nothing better to write than the laconic advice of General Clinton B. Fisk: “DON’T!”

* * * * *

Sir James Caird was part of a commission to study the causes of the great famine in India in 1876-7, and has written a book on the subject. The trouble of course is that the farmers are poor, their methods bad, and that population keeps ahead of the food supply. One mode of relief is emigration. This reminds us that Charles Kingsley, who studied the Hindoo laborers in the West Indies, wrote very enthusiastically of their qualities. Will the Hindoos come into our own South, and what will come of it? In the West Indies, Kingsley says that negro and Hindoo lived and worked together peacefully. We may not like it, but that side of the world is top-heavy with humanity, and steam will go on distributing the people among the less crowded nations.

* * * * *

What is money worth in this country? The discussions at Washington, and the prices of government bonds, seem to show that it is worth between two and three per cent., and there is not much doubt that a hundred-year government bond bearing only two per cent. would sell at par. An incident in New York City confirms this opinion. A recent call for bids on city bonds bearing three per cent. interest, and payable in five years or thirty, at the will of the city, was answered by bids for six times the amount required at from par up to 103⅓. If short New York threes are at a premium, a long government two would be worth par. Why, then, it will be asked, do _we_ pay from six to ten per cent. in different parts of the country? The answer is that _risk_ and superintendence of _short loans_ makes the difference. The real value of money is found by taking for a measure long loans, in which there is absolutely no risk. The _Times_ of New York expresses the opinion that thirty-year threes of that city would sell at 115.

* * * * *

A correspondent of the New York _Evening Post_ furnishes some interesting incidents in the life of Joel Barlow, the father of American epic poetry. Redding, Conn., was the early home of Barlow, and the visitor is shown the house in which the poet constructed his commencement poem in 1778. It is said that Barlow’s one romance was a common one among college students. He fell in love with a sweet girl whom he privately married soon after graduation. He served as a chaplain in the Continental army, but at Redding he is best remembered as the promoter of several industrial enterprises designed to promote the welfare of the town. Barlow was not a great father of our epic, but his sons have, perhaps, not greatly surpassed him.

* * * * *

The enthusiasm of science, in alliance with the passion of boys for killing birds, is making trouble in Massachusetts. The taxidermists want birds to stuff, and average boys want to slay birds. The law is loose, and any boy can get a license to kill birds in the service of science. The dead birds are oftener eaten than stuffed. The song birds and insectivorous birds are rapidly diminishing. Of course the boys rob the nests of the birds and kill the young in the nests. There is a period in a boy’s life when he loves such work. Maine has abolished the system of licensing taxidermists, in consequence of the wholesale slaughter of birds that went on under that system.

* * * * *

There is no doubt that the tobacco habit, or any other bad habit, can be more easily overcome with the aid of prayer than without it. But there are two objections to a common way of stating the case. The first is that many tobacco users have ceased using it without the aid of prayer. The second objection is that there is danger of teaching that men cannot reform bad habits without _special_ divine help. The word we spell c-a-n-t has two meanings, and both are present in the plea of helplessness. It is understood, of course, that God helps men who help themselves; that is the reason why a wicked farmer can raise good crops by being a good agriculturist, though he is a bad sinner.

* * * * *

Congress is struggling with a foreign copyright bill. The bill is a bungling one and really opens the American market to free trade in books. This _may_ be desirable, but it is well to keep distinct measures in different baskets. The free book question belongs in the tariff bill. International copyright means putting a foreign author on a level with the home author. We ought to do it without delay, but we need not confer any favors on foreign publishers in a copyright bill. We have international patent-right, but we did not think it necessary when we protected the foreign inventor to put the foreign maker of the inventor’s machines under shelter of the “Free List.”

* * * * *

John Bright is still the most vigorous handler of a rhetorical club in all England. In the course of the great debate, last month, in the House of Commons, the Tories of high birth were badly represented by two or three orators of their rank. Mr. Bright crushed them fine by saying that “the brothers and sons of dukes use language more virulent, more coarse, more offensive and more ungentlemanly than is heard from a lower rank of speakers.” We suspect that the sentence is the reporter’s, not Bright’s; but the rebuke which he administered made a sensation which reminded Englishmen of the days when he described the political “Cave of Adullam” and its inhabitants.

* * * * *

The Prussian Chamber of Deputies recently debated the question of dueling, especially in the universities. A critical member began it by complaining of the idleness, drinking, gaming and dueling of the students. The curiosity which the debate brought to light is the fact that though dueling is forbidden by law, it has powerful friends in the Chamber and the government. Germany has forbidden the barbaric custom; but young Germans grow up in the belief that dueling is manly, and their seniors remember that they had the same disease in the universities. The German people are very sensitive to foreign criticism on this point; and probably the other civilized nations will by and by ridicule German dueling out of existence.

* * * * *

Curiosities of speech are always interesting, and it is a delightful business for grammatical people to scold their neighbors. The New York _Tribune_ has had a bout with a few score correspondents on the duties of the neuter verb between subject and predicate; which must it agree with? The _Tribune_ says with the real subject; the other folks say there are two subjects, and that the verb must agree with the last. All the malcontents quote “The wages of sin is death.” The _Tribune_ has three or four answers; its best is that _death_ is the true subject; its second best is that wages used to be singular. In “The Contributors’ Club” of the _Atlantic Monthly_, another class of errors is discussed, such as the dropping of _h_ in _which_ and _when_, a common thing in and around New York, and the suppression of _r_ in many words. The English say _lud_, we say _lawd_. While just touching this interesting topic we call attention to a Meadville eccentricity. It is the rising inflection at the end of questions, such as, “Is he _sick_?” Can any reader tell us whether this locution (or rather inflection) is a localism only?

* * * * *

There is a lamentably large number of illiterates in the United States. Let us reduce the number as fast as possible. But let us stop assuming that the spelling book will rub the Decalogue into the conscience. Our immediate troubles and dangers come from literates who are as bright as lightning, and almost as destructive. We shall not get moral education by way of the spelling book. The statistical proof that we do is defective. We may count up the illiterate rogues in prison with much satisfaction, if we forget that the literate rogues are too smart to be caught and caged. Moral character does not result from intellectual training. Thirty years ago we had this straight, and taught that an educated bad man was a much more dangerous beast than an uneducated bad man.

* * * * *

A few kind-hearted people have for several years conducted a crusade against horse-shoes. They claim that the horse-shoe is a piece of unprofitable cruelty. They furnish examples and drive their own horses unshod. Among their examples is this: “In Africa, a horse working in a post-cart does, barefoot, over hard ground, twenty-four miles in two hours.” One view is that our horse-shoeing bill would pay off the national debt in a few generations. It is rather remarkable that these reformers do not receive more attention. We hope they will soon get the general ear; hence this note.

* * * * *

President Eliot, of Harvard, in a recent address, makes a suggestion which is likely to arrest attention. The clergy are likely to have a monopoly of classical education, perhaps of liberal education, if present tendencies are not overcome. One of these tendencies is to give candidates for the ministry a monopoly of Greek study in colleges. President Eliot thinks that increased and more thorough study of English may help in resisting the tendency toward purely mechanical education. English study of a thorough sort requires and promotes classical study. We add our thought that real liberal education is a fruit of study _after_ the school-boy discipline, and that a classical revival and an English literature revival are both clear possibilities of the Chautauquan organization and methods. The most thorough study, with the best helps, is within the plan of our university.

* * * * *

Salmi Morse was last year at this time struggling to exhibit his “Passion Play” in New York. The religious feeling of the country won a conspicuous victory in defeating the purpose of Mr. Morse. Near the end of last month the dramatist drowned himself in the East river, and an actress whose relations to him were questionable, is trying to gain notoriety by a theory that a rejected suitor of hers murdered Mr. Morse. There are a dozen good morals in the story.

* * * * *

Frederick Douglas having at 70 married a white wife, the public has had to listen to a great many homilies on the general subject of inter-marriage among races. We are not about to add another to the long list of sociological essays. We suggest two things: First, it is best to leave the whole matter to individuals. Therefore, the laws which forbid marriage between whites and blacks should be repealed. Second, the real evil—if there be one—is scarcely touched by the prohibitive laws. As Mr. Douglas puts it: It is permitted to white men to beget children by dark-skinned mothers, provided they do not marry these mothers of their copper-colored children. The nobler of two ignoble white men—the one who marries the black mother of his children—should be left in peace until we can invent some means of punishing the ignoble wretch who does not marry her. The former is a very rare man; the growing lights in the African face show us that the other men are numerous.

* * * * *

Everybody has heard of the “Great Eastern” steamship, an eighth of a mile long and thirty feet under water. The great ship was a failure, and after an unsuccessful pursuit of genteel occupations for many years, she has gone to Gibraltar to be used as a coal hulk. If any sailor ever loved this leviathan, he will feel “the pity of it” in this unromantic end; and most of us feel a touch of sadness in reading the story.

* * * * *

The honors paid to the dead Arctic explorers in New York, on Washington’s birthday, lost none of their significance by the association. The flags were at the peak in honor of the father of his country, in the morning; in the afternoon they dropped to half-mast in memorial mourning for the heroes of the ill-fated “Jeannette.” To young eyes seeing both memorial honors, the spectacle must have been inspiring—as showing that the paths to glory are still open to heroic souls. The booming guns, the wistful and reverent throngs, the military tramping along the streets, all had the same cheering lesson. We do not measure men or honor them by success; for utter failure heroically faced we have the funeral pageant and the historic record. We are not at all interested in the North Pole. We soberly think the Arctic exploration business a foolhardy one. But we forget our indifference, and our sober judgment, when we meet the cold corpses of those who have vainly fought the cruel North—and say, “Well done; like heroes you died; like heroes you shall be buried.”

* * * * *

In the graduating list published in the February CHAUTAUQUAN, the name “J. Van Alstyne,” from New Jersey, should be Wm. L. Van Alstyne, Jr.; also the name Emily Hancock, which appears under New York, should be under Indiana, and “Mrs. John Romeo,” of New York, should read Mrs. John Romer.

* * * * *

A correspondent kindly calls our attention to two errors in THE CHAUTAUQUAN for February. We “stand corrected.” Whittier’s birthday comes on December seventeenth, instead of the sixteenth, as stated on page 302, and there are thirty-eight states in the Union, not thirty-nine.