Chapter XXXIII: Part 33

It is estimated that of the above named membership over 325,000 are women. Of the $600,000,000 of assets, at least $100,000,000 is a gain credit to the sharer. It is believed that an average of at least three members of a family contribute toward the payment of the dues and interest, and although seventeen hundred thousand names are on the books, nearly five million persons actually contribute.

These societies have done more to teach the people practical thrift than any known device ever promulgated. Thrift is described as “good husbandry, economical management in regard to property, success and advance in the acquisition of property, increase of worldly goods, vigorous growth, as a plant.”

“He is a good wagoner that can turn in a little room.”—Bishop J. Hall.

“Economy is the parent of integrity, of liberty and of ease, and the beautiful sister of temperance, of cheerfulness and health. Without economy none can be rich, and with it few can be poor.”—Dr. Johnson.

While these literary economical truths proclaimed in all ages by wise men, which they themselves very seldom knew how to put into practical use, have no doubt caused millions to think and wonder how to do it, they, altogether, have not built half as many rounds in the practical ladder of “thrift” as the poor workingman who successfully induces his next door neighbor to save one dollar a month out of his _waste_ money, and with it subscribe for one share of stock in a well-managed building society. Building society advocates have done much inducing, but always in a practical way. They have not merely proclaimed that “economy is wealth;” that “the best security for civilization is the dwelling,” but they have taken the arm of their friend and neighbor and have led him to the society meeting-room and shown him just how they saved their own money. They have also taken them into their own homes and told them, “This is my own home, paid for, or nearly so, through the aid of the building society.” In this way lessons in the practical benefit of thrift are daily given.

“Examples demonstrate the possibility of success,” said Colton many years ago.

Alexander Dumas brought the matter home to the door of every man when he said, “All the world cries, ‘Where is the man who will save us? We want a man!’ Don’t look for this man, you have him at hand. This man—it is you—it is I—it is each of us.... How to constitute one’s self a man? Nothing harder if one knows not how to will it; nothing easier if one wills it.”

It would seem that building society advocates were created to teach men how to will it. In this line of work they have certainly been eminently successful. To what class of citizens do these advocates belong, good, better, or best? In the early history of these associations they were organized and almost wholly managed by mechanics and laboring men; managed honestly, conservatively, and successfully; and to this “class” belongs the honor of organizing, conducting, and carrying to a point of magnitude and usefulness, that commands the admiration of financiers the world over, the building societies as conducted in Pennsylvania and other States.

The honest, thrifty home-seeker has proved himself to be the “best” citizen so far as managing a building society is concerned. When failures have occurred, the main causes have been the introduction into the management of financial ideas emanating from the brains of theoretical bankers and literary economists.

The man who works at the bench mending shoes has a better idea of what a dollar will do than the man who has at his command hundreds of thousands of dollars belonging to other people, but who never was blessed with the necessity of earning a real dollar by his own labor. The conservative building society is one of good common sense and not of class. It would be difficult to bankrupt a building society conducted by men endowed with honesty and good common sense. The “better citizen” is the man who spends less than he earns, pays his debts promptly, would rather give his neighbor a dollar than steal a dollar from him, looks upon the home institution as holy and sacred, strives to own a home of his own, obeys the laws and looks the world straight in the face. This “class,” without a penny to begin with, caused Philadelphia to be known the world over as “the City of Homes.”

In the many interesting cases of men redeemed from the habit of unthrift through the agency of building associations, and placed on the road to moderate fortunes, there are sometimes two sides to the story. One side is that related by the individual who has been saved from future poverty, and the other side that which could be related by the wife and mother, if she did not prefer and really strive to hide from the outside world the life she had been leading, its trials and gloom. The man simply tells how many days in the week he preferred not to work, and how he never tried to save a penny. The wife could tell how little the husband brought into the home in the way of money, and what her awful anxiety had been. One side is public property, for it is told by the husband for the purpose of inducing others to make a new departure on the road to thrift and home-ownership. The other side is supposed to be sacred, but it is only a secret in a sense that it is not proclaimed. No man who is often voluntarily away from his work, having a “good” selfish “time,” spending the earnings of days of actual work, need imagine that his friends and neighbors are ignorant of what the life in his home is, for it is as plain to all as if the house was constructed of clear glass.

Every man of good health, who will make an honest and determined effort, has it in his power to change such a home as has been described into a palace of joy, comfort, and happiness, and even beauty.

There are many thousands of men and women throughout the land who would not to-day have their own roof over their heads but for the building society and the thrifty habits acquired through it.

The officers and members of these societies are men who have, by degrees, worked their way on the path to independence, and they are highly respected by all who know them, and pointed out as examples by their neighbors.

Members of these societies, after becoming firmly established in thrifty habits, delight in relating their own experience as well as that of others. There are thousands of interesting cases on record, of which samples are given below:—

A short time ago, at a house of mourning, the members of the family called the writer’s attention to a girl about fifteen years of age, who had volunteered her services to the family until after the funeral. This remark was made: “Our case is sad enough (the death of a father), but the child you saw at the door has a father who has been confined to the house with a lingering illness. There are several younger children, and one girl older than the one you saw. The two girls have been working in a mill, but on short time. Their case is sadder than ours, and they were the first to volunteer to help us.” The above is the sad part of the story, but there is a silver-lined side, since ascertained. The father joined a building society some years ago and bought a house for $2000, and while on his sick bed received a paid-up deed for his home, the building society shares having matured.

It is now twenty years since a big, strong man, under the influence of strong drink, visited the office of a building society secretary and asked if a Mrs. —— had any shares in the society. The books were examined and an affirmative answer was given. The next question was, “How much has been paid in on the shares?” Answer, “Three hundred and sixty dollars.” The inquirer brought his fist down on the secretary’s desk and exclaimed:—

“So it is true, is it? I will stop that game; that woman is my wife, and I have just heard that she is going to draw out the money and run away.”

The secretary measured the man, and, risking a fight, determined to hasten a climax.

“So you are the husband of Mrs. ——, are you?”

“Yes, I am.”

“And you are drunk?”

“Yes, sir.”

“How long have you been drinking?”

“For a long time.”

“Have you given your wife any money lately?”

“No, sir.”

“Have you given her any of the money in this society?”

“I don’t think I have.”

“Your wife takes in washing and goes out house-cleaning, does she not?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You eat at home without paying anything towards the support of the house?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You have nice children, and your wife takes good care of them?”

“Yes, sir.”

“You admit that all this is true?”

“Yes, sir.”

“Now, will you answer me an honest question?”

“I will.”

“Don’t you think that you are just the kind of a man that a good woman like your wife would be justified in running away from?”

“I do.”

The secretary asked who told him that his wife was going to run away; and he answered that it was a friend.

The secretary then addressed him as follows:—

“When your wife comes to the society, I have noticed that her hands were sometimes split and bleeding from hard work, and I know that she is saving this money to keep you and the children from the almshouse. In the first place, you should give up drinking and keep away from the people who have been talking against your wife; and then I would advise you to go home at once and tell all to your wife, and get down on your knees before her and ask her pardon.”

To the utter surprise of the secretary the man shook hands with him and emphatically gave his word that he would act on the advice given.

Not the strangest part of the incident is that the advice was exactly followed. From that time until now the man has abstained from drink. As soon as he got work he took shares in the society, and in a few years three of his children had subscribed for shares. Only recently two of the children withdrew shares to buy homes of their own. This is the kind of practical work done by every building society in every State in the Union, and the State as well as the entire country is the gainer by it.

Of course it goes without saying that the building society knows no secret plan for the payment of dues and interest greater than the borrower can afford. It does, however, point out a way for every man to gain a home of his own, but the price of the house must be in keeping with his income. If this rule is not observed the result is almost always failure to gain the desired object. It is an old saying that it is almost wise to go in debt for a home, but it is decidedly unwise to contract for a home that requires every dollar of income to keep it up.

Every home buyer should allow himself some margin in order to provide for the possible rainy day. The man who cannot save over twenty dollars a month outside of actual living expenses commits a serious error when he signs a contract requiring him to pay twenty-five dollars every four weeks. In doing this he robs himself first, and, second, is unfair to his family. It would be to his advantage to place aside three or four dollars out of the twenty dollars named as a nest egg.

This applies in particular to the careful man, who has been taught in the school of thrift. The man who has been unthrifty may be able (when he graduates) to save thirty dollars a month even when he thinks he cannot save anything. Building society managers make it their business to warn the thrifty not to undertake too much, and also to lead the unsaving into habits of economy.

Only recently a judge on the bench said, “Such associations, when properly conducted under judicious restrictions and management, are a helpful blessing and encouragement to any community. But the ambitions and extravagance of some borrowing members place themselves in a burdensome condition.... Far better for the public, the associations, and their membership, that many small loans be made rather than a few in number and large in amount. Moderate homes and a moderate price should be the criterion.... Their primary purpose was and should continue to be to promote industry, frugality, and saving, and convert the shiftless and discouraged tenant into a self-reliant and contented home-builder.”

Building societies since their inception have supplied the means for home purchasing, but these companies do not generally take any part in the erection of houses. Most of the small homes in Philadelphia have been built by those engaged in the business of building houses for sale.

Here is a picture of a row of houses containing seven rooms each. The purchase price is $1400 each. The lots are 14 feet wide and 60 feet deep. The houses are brownstone and brick. They have good cellars, portable heaters, and range in kitchen, hot and cold water in kitchen and bathroom. On the first floor there are three rooms,—parlor, dining-room, and kitchen, and outside shed. Front door opens into vestibule; entrance to parlor from entry, and also from dining-room. Two front bedrooms over the parlor, bathroom in centre, and sitting-room back of the bathroom. The dining-room extends over the width of the lot less stairway room, and receives light from skylight. The kitchen has a window opening towards the back shed or backyard. A small toilet room occupies a small portion of the back shed.

Any person known to be prompt in the payment of dues and interest may purchase such a home by the payment of $200 in cash, and giving a building society mortgage for the balance of the purchase-money, namely, $1200.

The monthly cost would be about as follows:—

Monthly dues $6.00
Monthly interest 6.00
------
Monthly total $12.00

A fairly prosperous building society will mature its shares in twelve years, and at the end of that period the home would be free from debt. During this time the borrower must pay taxes and water rent, amounting to some $25.00 per year. The total payments would be about as follows:—

First payment $200.00
Dues and interest 1728.00
Taxes and water rent 300.00
--------
Total $2228.00

This seems like a considerable sum of money for a house worth $1400. But it must be remembered that the borrower has lived in the house during these twelve years, and that he has saved in rent that he would have paid elsewhere, at least $1800.

He has paid $2228.00
He has saved 1800.00
--------
Real cost of house $428.00

Now he is the full owner of his own home. During the next twelve years he will have nothing to pay but taxes and water rent, and possibly some slight repairs, at the most not over $400 all told.

His next door neighbor is still a renter, and pays $1800 to his landlord during the second period named; and the two accounts compared show:—

Rent payer $1800.00
House owner 400.00
--------
Saving $1400.00

This is equal to a saving of, say, $10.00 a month for 144 months, and if used in the purchase of ten shares of building society stock would be worth at the time named $2000, instead of $1400 merely saved. The neighbor who is a tenant is still paying rent and owns neither a stick nor a stone, while the building society borrower owns one house free and also has the command of $2000 in cash, all on account of his house-owning experiment.

V. THE BANQUET.

It is customary for the directors of these societies, at their own expense, to celebrate the closing of a successful year, and have as their guests representatives from other societies. “The banquet” includes officers from fully fifty companies, some being directors of four or five associations. At these gatherings experiences are related and subjects for the advancement of the cause are discussed. Every individual present on these occasions volunteers the information that he owed all he possessed to the building society and its teachings.

What the bottles on the table may have contained, it matters not now, for they are empty and are not capable of doing any harm.

EPOCH-MAKERS OF THE CENTURY

BY REV. A. LEFFINGWELL,

_Rector of Trinity Church, Toledo, Ohio_.

Every century has had its epoch-making characters,—men and women who dominated and directed the thoughts, purposes, activities, and achievements of their times. The nineteenth century is distinguished above all others by the number and quality of those who came to stand for the inception, advance, and culmination of the world’s great movements and who highly exemplified in their careers the enterprise and genius of their day.

The object here is to designate, and make brief mention of, some of those who have fairly earned the title of epoch-maker, with the hope of providing a delightful historic study, and further enhancing the instructive value of a volume addressed to the triumphs and wonders of the century.

STATESMEN, ORATORS, AND JURISTS.—Abraham Lincoln (b. February 12, 1809; d. April 14, 1865) sprang from the masses, and grew up with their institutions rather than with the learning of the schools. He grew into leadership because he was one of the “million,” had hard sense and was true. As a forcible exponent of the sentiment of his party he was elected President in 1861. His election was the signal for secession and war. His mastery of the most delicate situation in the history of his country was superb. His patience, his perseverance amid hard trials, his wisdom of administration, his adaptation to the march of events, his striking and educative speech, his determination to preserve a union of States, all led grandly and inevitably to the crowning act of his noble career,—the abolition of slavery in the United States in 1863.

There is no sadder chapter in history, and no greater loss for any nation or time, than that of his taking off (after being a second time honored by the presidency) at the hands of an assassin, on the night of April 14, 1865.

Jefferson Davis (b. June 3, 1808; d. December 6, 1889) stood for the cause of the South against the Union, as it took concrete political form in the shape of the Confederacy, of which he became the only President. Though, perhaps, lacking the ability of such leaders as Calhoun and Stephens, he was a conscientious and persistent advocate of the doctrines which culminated in war, and as chief executive ruled with energy and firmness.

Henry Clay (b. April 12, 1777; d. July 29, 1852) was a born orator and natural party leader. In statesmanship he was intensely patriotic and always able, being highly informed and skillful in debate. He came to stand as the champion of those doctrines which the Whig party supported, such as protection to home industries, internal improvements, and reciprocity. Upon the question of slavery which agitated Congress during most of his career he generally assumed an attitude of compromise, and fathered so many measures of a pacifying nature that he was called “the great pacificator.”

Daniel Webster (b. January 18, 1782; d. October 24, 1852) typifies the gigantic and imposing in New England intellect and physique. As early as 1820 he stood at the very head of American orators, a fame soon to be followed in the ranks of law and statesmanship. At first he opposed the doctrine of protection, but subsequently gave his support to Henry Clay’s “American policy.” In the United States Senate, he won the titles of “expounder of the Constitution” and “supporter and defender of the Union,” by his masterly denunciations of the doctrine of nullification.

James Monroe (b. April 28, 1758; d. July 4, 1831) reached the presidency twice, once in 1817, and again in 1820. His last administration was characterized as “the era of good feeling,” during which new States were admitted, Florida was acquired, the Louisiana boundary defined, slavery prohibited north of certain lines, and many provoking controversies with England were settled. In 1823 he signalized his administration by promulgating the now famous “Monroe Doctrine,” which was a warning to Europe that monarchical governments would not be allowed to interfere in the affairs of either North or South America.

John Quincy Adams (b. July 11, 1767; d. February 23, 1848) typed the Federalism of the early part of the nineteenth century, and won the highest place in scholarly statesmanship. In diplomacy he filled many prominent and difficult positions at home and abroad. As sixth President of the United States, he was opposed by a majority in Congress, and consequently failed to distinguish his administration. He was the forerunner of those sentiments which culminated in organized opposition to the doctrine of human slavery.

John C. Calhoun (b. March 18, 1782; d. March 31, 1850) was twice Vice-President of the United States, and as Senator became the leading exponent of the doctrine of States’ rights and nullification of federal tariff laws. He ranked with Clay and Webster as a debater and constitutional expounder, and the three were known as “the Great Trio.” In him the pro-slavery cause found its subtlest, ablest, and most logical defender. With a fully stored mind of highly metaphysical turn, a fearlessness and persistency that were matchless, and a character above reproach, he greatly endeared himself in the South, and his writings are held in high esteem by men of his school of politics.

Rufus Choate (b. October 1, 1799; d. July 13, 1859) was probably the best-equipped scholar of the public men of the century, and was unusually brilliant as orator, lawyer, and publicist. Next to Mr. Webster he was the greatest member of the Massachusetts bar. He may be called the American Lord Erskine.

Count Camillo Benso di Cavour, of Italy (b. August 10, 1810; d. June 6, 1861), found a life-work in the unification of the Italian States. By pursuing a masterly course in European diplomacy he brought the states of North Italy into unity, and finally, through the efforts of Garibaldi, those of Southern Italy became united with them in one kingdom under the rule of Victor Emmanuel in 1860. Though not a man of “blood and iron,” like Bismarck, he was the equal of his great German contemporary in diplomacy.

William Ewart Gladstone (b. December 29, 1809; d. May 19, 1898) was four times premier of England. As orator, political leader and statesman, and critic in the immense range of subjects he covered, his genius was without parallel. It may be said that his was the mightiest personality and most catholic and powerful intellect of any Englishman. He championed the cause of Christianity among all nations, sounded the first trumpet call of Italian liberty, opposed Turkey as a Mohammedan power, raised England’s commercial prosperity to the highest notch, unraveled the entanglements of Beaconsfield’s ministry, inaugurated the most astonishing reforms in all directions, but especially in the church, education, army, and among the labor unions. It is almost impossible to name any matter of national or international importance in which his personality and genius were not felt for good.

Alexander Hamilton (b. January 11, 1757; d. July 11, 1804) was by all odds the ablest jurist and statesman of the early constitutional era of the United States. He became the first Secretary of the Treasury, and lifted the finances of the government from utter prostration to high prosperity. As fiscal organizer his success was unparalleled, and all after administrations of the Treasury have been practically along the lines he first laid down. He was easily the leader of that party which looked with disfavor on “States’ Rights,” and favored a strong central government.

Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield (b. December 21, 1804; d. April 19, 1881), stood, as premier, for English “territorial aristocracy” and for that “territorial expansion” which fixed the wide boundaries of the Indian Empire, made Queen Victoria Empress of India, taught both Russia and India to refrain from meddling with England’s possessions, made the English voice preëminent in the disposition of Continental territory, and completely defeated the schemes of Russia against Turkey. Under him the middle classes lost, and the laboring classes gained, political power. His career greatly heightened the national institutions and character, as well as the international reputation and power, of his country.

Thomas Jefferson (b. April 2, 1743; d. July 4, 1826) stood in the past century as an able exponent of American rights, and his views were incorporated into the Declaration of Independence, of which he was the acknowledged author. He equally stood as the leading exponent of that political school of thought which favored decentralization, or limitation of the powers of the central government. After his election to the presidency in 1800, he signalized his administration by what is known as the Louisiana purchase, for $15,000,000. In thus enlarging the area of the country by boundaries of vast extent, he became one of the earliest and most enthusiastic of expansionists, and that without reference to the modernly mooted question of “government without the consent of the governed.”

Richard Cobden, of England (1804–1865), was a humanitarian of great native breadth and liberality, largely increased by travel and constant observation. He was a powerful leader in the famous Manchester School of English statesmen. His share in modern progress was fourfold; first, in securing the repeal of the odious tax on corn in 1846; second, in urging arbitration rather than arms as a final resort to settle international disputes; third, in negotiating with France the Commercial Treaty of 1860, which Mr. Gladstone said no other living man could have secured; fourth, in his vigorous and successful opposition of all efforts to enforce England’s recognition of the Southern Confederacy during the late civil war.

Prince Otto E. L. Bismarck, of Germany (b. April 1, 1815; d. July 30, 1898), blended the unerring instinct, great far-sightedness, fertility in invention and expedients, and adroit diplomacy of a statesman, with absolute fearlessness, inflexible purpose, indomitable energy, and resistless force. Thoroughly German, he was preëminently and always Prussian, and his great life-work was the accomplishment of German unity with Prussia at the head. This he achieved by the humiliation of Austria and France, and the gradual accession of all the distinctively German states.

Wendell Phillips (1811–1884) exemplified the wonderful power of the skillfully colloquial in public speech, and is a type of the American orator who devotes his ability to correct public abuses, right public wrongs, and educate the public mind and taste. Chiefly as an avowed abolitionist, as advocate of the temperance cause, as champion of the Indians and of woman’s rights to the ballot, and as untiring mover in improving the nation’s penal institutions, Mr. Phillips most largely contributed to public weal and progress.

James Gillespie Blaine (b. June 31, 1830; d. January 27, 1893), whether serving in the House, Senate, or Cabinet, had few equals as a statesman, debater, parliamentarian, or enthusiastic political leader. Though often disappointed in his aspirations for the presidency, he lost none of that wonderful power which he had acquired by reason of his energy, tact, skill, personal magnetism, and knowledge of public men and measures. He became the special champion of the doctrine of reciprocity, and by its practical application during Mr. Harrison’s administration proved its benefits to commerce and international trade relations.

By his splendid series of decisions and opinions, Joseph Story (September 18, 1779; September 10, 1845) shares with John Marshall the merit of determining and of developing towards its fullest capacity the power of the United States Supreme Court, as set forth in the Constitution, over state courts and state legislation. He also practically constructed the United States Admiralty Law and, even to-day, his “Commentaries on the American Constitution,” in connection with both of his foregoing services, is a standard work. He represents the broad and powerful American judicial mind, which has contributed so largely to the integrity of the Union.

James Kent (b. July 31, 1763; d. December 12, 1847) was professor, judge of chancery, justice and chief justice of the N. Y. Supreme Court, and chancellor of New York. He possessed immense legal learning, and to him is primarily due the creation of New York courts of equity. His exhaustive “Commentaries upon American Law” is accepted at home and abroad as one of the great classics of American law literature.

Francis Wharton was born March 7, 1820, and died February 21, 1884. Although at the age of forty-three he exchanged law for the ministry, he still showed the legal tendency of his mind in a long career as professor of ecclesiastical and international law in Boston institutions. He enriched the literature of his profession by many valuable and standard works on law, municipal, state, national, and international, and, under Mr. Cleveland, was of great service to the administration as United States Examiner of International Claims in the Department of State.

Louis Adolphe Thiers, of France (b. April 16, 1797; d. September 3, 1877), was editor, historian, and statesman, and in the latter role became a distinguished leader of French thought and polity. His greatest service to his country was after the Franco-Prussian war, when the Assembly elected him chief of the executive, with the title of “President of the Republic.” In this capacity he was particularly successful in negotiating the terms of peace with Germany, and in fulfilling all the conditions of peace.

(Copyright, 1896, by F. Gutekunst.)]

William McKinley (b. January 29, 1843) became a leading champion of the doctrine of industrial protection at an early period in his congressional career. In 1883 Hon. W. D. Kelley said of him: “He has distanced all his colleagues in mastering the details of the tariff.” The Tariff Act of 1890 came to be popularly known as the “McKinley Bill.” Elected President in 1896, his administration was signalized by that humanitarian interference in behalf of struggling Cuban patriots, which culminated in the Spanish-American war, and the most unprecedented triumph of modern times. It had the added distinction of rounding out the nineteenth and introducing the twentieth century.

WARRIORS.—Napoleon Bonaparte (Napoleon I.), soldier, statesman, and Emperor of the French (b. August 15, 1769; d. May 5, 1821), was the greatest of the world’s masters in the art of war. His numerous campaigns, conducted with a brilliancy never before equaled, had for their object the humiliation of the countries of Europe, and the establishment of an imperial policy in which France should be supreme. This he came very near to effecting, in spite of closely combined and persistent opposition. None of the frequent coalitions formed to thwart his ambitions and stay his martial progress proved absolutely effective till that of March 25, 1815, was formed, which put an army of 700,000 men in the field against him. It was a part of this army that he met at Waterloo, June 18, 1815, where defeat awaited him, together with the eclipse of his gigantic influence and phenomenal genius.

Ulysses Simpson Grant (b. April 27, 1822; d. July 23, 1885), graduated at West Point and had a brief military experience in the Mexican war. On the breaking out of the Civil War he reëntered the Federal service from civil life, and by exceptional fertility of resource achieved a series of victories in the West which led to his command of all the Union forces, with the specially conferred title of lieutenant-general, a title subsequently raised to that of general. By the brilliant, persistent, and simultaneous campaigns he carried through in the East and West, he further clinched his title as one of the world’s greatest generals, and ended the conflict with honorable peace. He was honored twice with the presidency of the nation, and through the trying period of reconstruction his wise statesmanship cemented the Union his sword had preserved.

Arthur Wellesley Wellington of England (b. May 1, 1769; d. September 22, 1852), attained his first real military distinction in the campaigns of the English in India. He further added to his fame in the campaign against France in the Spanish peninsula. But his greatest glory as a warrior was reached in 1814, when, with the aid of the Prussian marshal Blücher, he defeated Napoleon at the decisive battle of Waterloo. He was afterwards honored with a seat in the House of Lords, and as Prime Minister of the Tory party, but his statesmanship proved to be of an inferior and unpopular order.

Helmuth Karl Bernhard von Moltke, of Germany (b. October 26, 1800; d. April 24, 1891), was the world’s greatest exponent of strictly scientific warfare. He made the Prussian army a most powerful and dangerous machine, and led it triumphantly against Denmark and Austria. By dint of strict organization and drill he made the armies of the German Confederation equally effective, as was shown in the Franco-German war (1870–71), which was a series of brilliant victories, ending with the capitulation of Paris and the downfall of Napoleon III. and his empire. His greatness lay in the fact that cool, sober calculation always dominated his greatest audacity of plan.

Simon Bolivar, or Bolivar y Ponte (b. July 25, 1785; d. December 17, 1830), justly earned the surname of “The Liberator.” The first and greatest of those South American patriots who struck against the tyrannical colonial system of Spain, he achieved the independence of the three States of Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru, secured their recognition by the civilized world, and lived to govern them with the wisdom and moderation of a wise executive.

Robert E. Lee (b. January 19, 1807; d. October 12, 1870), graduated at West Point, and was in the constant military service of the United States till the breaking out of the Civil War. He then transferred his services to the Confederacy, and speedily became the highest exponent of its military powers. Honorable, just, energetic, persistent, skillful in offensive or defensive warfare, schooled in strategy, full of devices and combinations to overcome desperate situations, he prolonged a hopeless struggle to an astounding degree, and met defeat and surrender without dishonor. He readily ranks as one of the world’s greatest generals.

Lajos (Louis) Kossuth of Hungary (b. April 27, 1802; d. March 20, 1894), as writer, lawyer, and statesman, came to stand for Hungarian freedom. After the declaration of independence of his country in 1849, he became its military and political ruler, but was forced by Russian intervention and domestic rivalry from his high place, and escaped to foreign lands to pass the balance of his life in eloquent but fruitless appeals in behalf of his cause and people.

Giuseppe Garibaldi, of Italy (b. July 4, 1807; d. June 2, 1882), typed the restless, daring soldier, the impulsive statesman, and the energetic defender of freedom. He shared Count Cavour’s desire for a free and united Italy, and grew to be a great popular hero. Upon his capture of the two Sicilies, he presented them to Victor Emmanuel, thus consummating his life dream of unification, and his desire for a government in which the wishes of the people were, to some extent, recognized.

NAVAL HEROES.—Stephen Decatur (b. January 5, 1771; d. March 22, 1820) attained the rank of captain in the U. S. Navy for his gallant exploit of burning the frigate Philadelphia in the harbor of Tripoli, after she had been captured by the Tripolitans. He won further fame as commodore in the war of 1812, and again in the war with Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli. Quick to comprehend emergencies and prompt in action, he was a type of the dashing and absolutely fearless American seaman. True to his fiery nature, he found his death in a duel with Commodore Barron.

Oliver Hazard Perry (b. August 23, 1785; d. August 23, 1819) was rewarded with the rank of captain in the U. S. Navy for the remarkable courage and dash which eventuated in the memorable victory over the British fleet in Lake Erie, September 10, 1813. This victory gave the Americans control of the Great Lakes and hastened, more than any single event, the conquest of the Northwest and the end of the War of 1812. He saw further honorable service as commander of the Mediterranean squadron, and died at Port Spain, on the island of Trinidad, of yellow fever.

David Dixon Porter (b. June 8, 1813; d. February 13, 1891) grew and ripened gradually into one of the great naval captains of the nineteenth century. His courage and energy, large experience, and intimate knowledge of the rivers and seacoasts of the country fitted him for the great emergencies of the Civil War. Many of the victories of the Union armies in the West were due to his cöoperation with gunboats. He greatly aided in the initial success of Farragut’s expedition up the Mississippi, the reduction of Vicksburg, and other strongholds upon Western waters. The greatest victory of his life was the capture of Fort Fisher. He wrote a history of the U. S. Navy during the war, a work commended by all naval nations. On the death of Farragut, 1870, he reached the high rank of admiral.

David Glascoe Farragut (b. July 5, 1801; d. August 14, 1870) supplies the highest type of the skillful, cautious American naval commander, backed up by extraordinary dash and boldness. His signal achievements during the Civil War were the destruction of the Confederate fleet in the Mississippi, the capture of New Orleans, the passage of the forts at Port Hudson and the batteries at Vicksburg, and the capture of Mobile. For his brilliant and successful services the rank of vice-admiral was especially created for him by the government, and afterwards that of admiral.

John Adolf Dahlgren (b. November 13, 1809; d. July 12, 1870) was a prime agent in developing the Naval Ordnance Department and its works at Washington. He invented and made the well-known Dahlgren guns. During the Civil War he commanded the South Atlantic blockading squadron, of some ninety vessels, and did splendid service for the Union cause. He was author of many naval articles and books, some of the latter being used as text books by the government.

Raphael Semmes (b. September 27, 1809; d. August 30, 1877) types more fully than any other the naval dash and efficiency of the Confederacy. In him, as commander of the Sumter and Alabama, the merchant marine of the United States found its direst enemy, and his exploits upon the ocean won for him a fame which overshadowed those of even higher rank, but whose services were limited to narrower fields of naval activity.

Admiral George Dewey (b. December 26, 1837) acquired considerable naval experience in the Civil War. At the breaking out of hostilities with Spain (1898) he was in command of the U. S. squadron in Eastern waters, and was ordered to destroy the Spanish fleet in the harbor of Manila. His attack was prompt and daring, and it ended in one of the most notable victories in the history of naval warfare. In a few hours the entire fleet of Spain in the Orient was swept away, together with her power, and the United States was placed in possession of a new and magnificent island empire whose maintenance and government may change the whole history of the Orient, if not of the world.

Admiral Sampson’s contribution to the century’s progress lies in the line of skillful preparation for emergencies, and promptitude in meeting them. He became an epoch-maker in the history of the United States by means of the great and decisive victory over the Spaniards, won by the fleet under his command in the waters off Santiago.

PREACHERS AND TEACHERS.—The Rev. James McCosh (b. April 1, 1811; d. November 6, 1894) was an able leader of that great school of literary men, scholars, educators, and aggesssive practical thinkers which this century chiefly seems to have produced.

His contribution to modern progress lies mainly along three lines:—

First, in his efforts to obtain the Free Church of Scotland, and establish it.

Second, in his most successful administration of the affairs of Princeton College while he was president of that institution.

Third, by his numerous, original, and powerful writings, chiefly controversial and philosophical.

The Rev. Charles Hodge (b. December 28, 1797; d. June 19, 1878) was a fine example of the modern expositor of the dogmas of Calvinism. Strong in conviction and persistent in purpose, a clear, logical thinker and writer, he naturally became a very powerful leader, his influence being particularly felt in establishing the present exalted position of the Presbyterians, especially of the old school division. This influence was wielded partly from his chair as Professor of Didactic, Exegetic, and Polemic Theology, and especially in the famous Princeton Review, which owes its greatness chiefly to his editorship and contributions.

Philip Schaff (b. 1819; d. October 20, 1893) is a type of the scholar who, through profound research and interpretation, has created an epoch in theology by his contributions to the nineteenth century, mainly in historical and exegetical branches.

Henry Ward Beecher (b. June 24, 1813; d. March 8, 1887) easily earned the reputation of the greatest pulpit orator of his day. As pastor of Plymouth (Congregational) Church in New York, his genius and remarkable eloquence attracted and held one of the largest congregations in the United States. Spontaneity, tact, emotion were elements of his oratory, and these were always supplemented by force, depth, subtilty, and quick grasp of intellect and heart. His versatility was phenomenal. Journalism, literature, politics, social life, philanthropy, parochial organization, and even agriculture and many other branches were touched upon by him, and all with results varying from excellent to extraordinary.

Ralph Waldo Emerson (b. May 25, 1803; d. April 27, 1882) passed through the career of teacher and preacher to that of general writer, lecturer, and poet. He should probably be classed with the metaphysicians or philosophers. His publication of “Nature” in 1835 marked a new era in American thought. From subsequent addresses and works may be dated the intellectual movement which was called _Transcendentalism_, and which was a reaction against formalism and tradition. He lacked the method essential to the foundation of a new philosophy, but his works form a permanent addition to the highest literature of the human race.

Phillips Brooks (b. December 13, 1835; d. January 23, 1893) was one of those phenomenal preachers of the century who won the hearing and hearts of his auditors by largeness and liberality of thought; spirituality, earnestness, self-sacrifice, and great love; and by beauty and poise of character. He seldom preached doctrine, but relied on the efficacy of ardent exhortation, and the finding and kindling of the good in each auditor.

Charles H. Spurgeon (b. June 19, 1834; d. January 31, 1892) stands as a type of the great popular preacher and leader in charitable work. With Baptist view’s, he revived his own denomination and exerted a helpful influence on all others. No divine of his time swayed so resistlessly the immense audiences he attracted. His plain sermons were always lightened with happy illustrations and delivered with rare power and personal magnetism, and they had the exceptional quality of retaining much of their charm and persuasiveness when in print.

Friedrich Froebel of Thuringia, Germany (b. April 21, 1782; d. June 2, 1852), was a born educator, and his great life-work lay wholly in that direction. He studied not so much to get knowledge of particular branches as to discover their natural unity and hidden connection. He was the advocate of the new education, and pushed the system of Pestalozzi far beyond its author’s dreams. According to Froebel, man and nature are governed by the same laws; and, by his observation of both, he reached his idea of what man’s development should be, and how to accomplish it. True development must of course proceed from within, from self activity. And as every age of man is complete in itself, its perfect development can come from only such development in the preceding age. Hence, the necessity of properly training and educating young children. This course of reasoning resulted in his invention of the kindergarten system, together with his self-sacrificing devotion in training teachers, and in his heroic perseverance notwithstanding bitter opposition, or indifference.

Victor Cousin, of France (b. November 28, 1792; d. June 15, 1867), was a renowned epoch-maker of the century in founding the school of systematic eclecticism in philosophy. His system sets forth a doctrine of catholic comprehension and toleration of others. Few men did more in official and private life to advance the cause of general education in France.

William Wilberforce, of England (b. August 24, 1759; d. July 29, 1833), with Pitt and Clarkson, led in the cause of freeing the slaves, being himself the greatest type of the English abolitionist. For forty-six years he maintained unceasing and relentless warfare against slavery, and his priceless gift to the present century was the final and complete extinction of slavery and of the slave-trade in the British possessions.

HISTORIANS.—William H. Prescott (b. May 14, 1796; d. January 27, 1859) proved himself to be an epoch-maker in the sense that he combined the worth of history with the brilliance and fascination of the novel, and developed the entirely new field of Spain’s career at home and in her colonies. His “Ferdinand and Isabella,” “Conquest of Mexico,” “Conquest of Peru,” and “History of Philip II,” all obtained a world-wide circulation, and both placed and kept their author in the highest rank of modern American historians.

François P. G. Guizot, of France (b. October 4, 1784; d. September 13, 1874), was both statesman and historian. In the former capacity he held several important public positions, and from 1840 to 1847 was, as Minister of Foreign Affairs, really at the head of the government. His many proposed reforms brought on the revolution of 1848 and the dethronement of Louis Philippe. Though ranking as one of the greatest of French statesmen, his highest and most enduring reputation rests on his historical writings, which are very numerous, and the chief of which is his “General History of Civilization in Europe.” His works are classics of historical research, and inspiring forerunners of the modern method of treating history.

James Anthony Froude (b. October 23, 1818; d. October 20, 1894) ranks as one of the brightest of England’s writers and historians, though not one of the most reliable. His writings are characterized, in the main, by ultra-Protestantism; and in his two most important works, “The English in Ireland in the 18th Century,” and “The History of England,” he endeavors to justify his country’s severe treatment of the Irish Romanists, to establish Henry VIII. as the chief champion of English independence, and also to bestow upon her ministers much of the credit popularly supposed to belong to Queen Elizabeth.

John L. Motley (b. Massachusetts, April 15, 1814; d. England, May 29, 1877) typifies the patient and painstaking searcher for truth in the development of national history; and also the sympathetic, graphic, and spirited painter of the scenes, events, and characters which he presents. His “Rise of the Dutch Republic,” “History of the United Netherlands,” and “Life and Death of John of Barneveld” are all undeniably great contributions to the historical literature of the present century, besides being monuments to the exacting toil and research of years.

Henry Thomas Buckle, of England (b. November 24, 1822; d. May 29, 1862) is a conspicuous type of the patient and learned historian. His principal donation to modern progress is “The History of Civilization in England,” a work whose novel theories created an epoch in the philosophy of history, and called forth much controversy. According to him, civilization was due not so much to moral or religious influence as to material causes,—soil, climate, food, atmosphere, etc.

George Bancroft (b. October 3, 1800; d. January 17, 1891) was equally renowned as statesman and historian. As a member of President Polk’s cabinet, he was instrumental in founding the Naval Academy at Annapolis and the Naval Observatory at Washington. As minister to Prussia he negotiated several foreign treaties, and ably conducted the settlement of the “Northwest Boundary” question. But his great life-work was his “History of the United States,” on which he labored untiringly till his death. It is the most exhaustive, philosophic, and inspiring of our national histories.

Richard Hildreth (b. June 28, 1807; d. June 11, 1865) was one of the century’s valuable contributors to the welfare of the United States by his “History of Banks,” his many works on morals and politics, and chiefly by his great life-work, “The History of the United States,” a production of great labor and masterly detail, but somewhat heavily written.

Thomas Babington Macaulay, of England (b. October 25, 1800; d. December 28, 1859), was noted as essayist and statesman. But his genius lay especially in history, in which line he was enabled to furnish the world with his great life-work, that most remarkable and valuable “History of England,” which quickly attained a circulation never before equaled by any similar publication. Though at times partisan and partial, he was still fortunate in throwing his great strength on the side of right.

EDITORS.—Horace Greeley (b. February 3, 1811; d. November 29, 1872) was founder of the “New York Tribune.” He took rank as one of the ablest editors of his day, and stood the foremost political advocate and controversialist of his time in America. He made of his paper a splendid property, and through it exercised an influence that reached far down among the masses. He lost much of his popularity by his advocacy of universal amnesty and impartial suffrage, after the close of the Civil War, and gradually drifted into the Liberal Republican party. This party, in alliance with the Democrats, placed him on the presidential ticket in 1872. He was disastrously defeated, and died from the effects of hard campaign work and grief.

James Gordon Bennett (b. September 1, 1795; d. June 1, 1872), founder of the “New York Herald,” was the most spirited and daring of those pioneers who revolutionized the journalism of the century. In his paper he broke away from high prices and prosaic methods, and inaugurated the era of cheap prices, racy news, and independent expression. He practically developed the present organization of newsboys, the use of the telegraph in securing news, and the American system of European and war correspondence.

William Cullen Bryant (b. November 3, 1794; d. June 12, 1878) united the scholarship of the general literature and the grace of a poet with the genius of a high-toned and brilliant editor. He gave to his paper, the “New York Evening Post,” a rank and influence seldom attained in journalism, especially when it is considered that its patrons were chiefly of the educated and higher business classes. He represented the cleanest and most intellectual journalism of the century.

John W. Forney (b. September 20, 1817; d. December 9, 1881) was founder and owner of “The Philadelphia Press.” The journalism of the century can boast no more indefatigable and brilliant pen than his, nor did any journal of his day occupy a more commanding place amid the discussions incident to the Civil War and subsequent periods of reconstruction. He was also editor and owner of the Washington, D. C., “Chronicle.”

Charles Anderson Dana (b. August 8, 1819; d. October 17, 1897) is an instance of a scholar and publicist who found a true, though late, outlet for his genius in the realm of independent journalism. Under his editorship and management the “New York Sun” became the model news medium of the country, and its editorial, financial, and other departments were conducted with an ability and conscientiousness that commanded the widest confidence. He was associate editor of “The New American Cyclopædia,” and compiler of the admirable “Household Book of Poetry.”

Joseph Medill (b. April 6, 1823; d. March 16, 1899) rose to the high rank of editor-in-chief and principal owner of “The Chicago Tribune,” through the schooling afforded by connection with several minor papers. No man of the century was more thoroughly imbued with the true editorial instinct. Of dignified and prudent expression, broad and keen thought, ever alive to the privileges and power of the press, he made his journal a model of excellence in all its varied departments as well as a colossal property.

Joseph Pulitzer (b. 1847) was founder and editor of “The St. Louis Post-Dispatch,” and afterwards became owner and editor of “The New York World.” Like the elder Bennett he ranks as one of the dashing, daring editors of the century, whose aim is to gain notoriety and extraordinary circulation for his journal by strong, and often vituperative, attack upon public men and things, and by tireless efforts to secure general news of a unique and sensational character, at whatever cost.

Murat Halstead (b. 1829) rose to editorial distinction, and became a strong factor in the life of the middle West, through his connection with the “Cincinnati Commercial,” which he raised to a flourishing financial condition, with immense power in municipal, state, and national politics. In 1890 he became editor of “The Standard-Union,” Brooklyn, N. Y.