repetition has made only the more a miracle sent into the world a new
life, destined to save a nation. No star, no sign, foretold his coming.
About his cradle all was poor and mean save only the source of all great
men, the love of a wonderful woman. When she faded way in his tender
years, from her deathbed in humble poverty she dowered her son with
greatness. There can be no proper observance of a birthday which forgets
the mother. Into his origin as into his life men long have looked and
wondered. In wisdom great, but in humility greater, in justice strong,
but in compassion stronger, he became a leader of men by being a
follower of the truth. He overcame evil with good. His presence filled
the Nation. He broke the might of oppression. He restored a race to its
birthright. His mortal frame has vanished, but his spirit increases with
the increasing years, the richest legacy of the greatest century.
Men show by what they worship what they are. It is no accident that
before the great example of American manhood our people stand with
respect and reverence. And in accordance with this sentiment our laws
have provided for a formal recognition of the birthday of Abraham
Lincoln, for in him is revealed our ideal, the hope of our country
fulfilled.
Now, therefore, by the authority of Massachusetts, the 12th day of
February is set apart as
LINCOLN DAY
and its observance recommended as befits the beneficiaries of his life
and the admirers of his character, in places of education and worship
wherever our people meet one with another.
Given at the Executive Chamber, in Boston, this 30th day of
January, in the year of Our Lord one thousand nine hundred and
nineteen, and of the independence of the United States of America
the one hundred and forty-third.
CALVIN COOLIDGE
By his Excellency the Governor,
ALBERT P. LANGTRY,
_Secretary of the Commonwealth_.
God save the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
XXVII
INTRODUCING HENRY CABOT LODGE AND A. LAWRENCE LOWELL AT THE DEBATE ON
THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS SYMPHONY HALL
MARCH 19, 1919
We meet here as representatives of a great people to listen to the
discussion of a great question by great men. All America has but one
desire, the security of the peace by facts and by parchment which her
brave sons have wrought by the sword. It is a duty we owe alike to the
living and the dead.
Fortunate is Massachusetts that she has among her sons two men so
eminently trained for the task of our enlightenment, a senior Senator of
the Commonwealth and the President of a university established in her
Constitution. Wherever statesmen gather, wherever men love letters, this
day's discussion will be read and pondered. Of these great men in
learning, and experience, wise in the science and practice of
government, the first to address you is a Senator distinguished at home
and famous everywhere--Henry Cabot Lodge.
[After Senator Lodge spoke he introduced President Lowell:]
The next to address you is the President of Harvard University--an
educator renowned throughout the world, a learned student of
statesmanship, endowed with a wisdom which has made him a leader of men,
truly a Master of Arts, eminently a Doctor of Laws, a fitting
representative of the Massachusetts domain of letters--Abbott Lawrence
Lowell.
XXVIII
VETO OF SALARY INCREASE
TO THE HONORABLE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
In accordance with the duty imposed by the Constitution, a bill
entitled, "An act to establish the compensation of the members of the
General Court," being House No. 1629, is herewith returned without
approval.
This bill raises the salaries of members from $1000 to $1500, an
increase of fifty per cent, and is retroactive. It is necessary to
decide whether the Commonwealth can well afford this additional tax and
whether any public benefit would accrue from it.
These are times that require careful scrutiny of public expenditure. The
burden of taxes resulting from war is heavy. The addition of $142,000 to
the expense of the Commonwealth in perpetuity is not to be undertaken
but upon proven necessity.
Service in the General Court is not obligatory but optional. It is not
to be undertaken as a profession or a means of livelihood. It is a
voluntary public service. In accord with the principles of our
democratic institutions a compensation has been given in order that
talent for service rather than the possession of property might be the
standard of membership. There is no man of sufficient talent in the
Commonwealth so poor that he cannot serve for a session, which averages
about five months, and five days each week, at a salary of $1000--and
travel allowance of $2.50 for each mile between his home and the State
House. This is too clear for argument. There is no need to consider
those who are too rich to serve for this sum. It would be futile to
discuss whether their services are worth more or less than this, as that
is not here the question. Membership in the General Court is not a job.
There are services rendered to the Commonwealth by senators and
representatives that are priceless. For the searching out of great
principles on which legislation is based there is no adequate
compensation. If value for services were the criterion, there would be
280 different salaries. When membership is sought as a means of
livelihood, legislation will pass from a public function to a private
enterprise. Men do not serve here for pay. They seek work and places of
responsibility and find in that seeking, not in their pay, their honor.
The realities of life are not measured by dollars and cents. The skill
of the physician, the divine eloquence of the clergyman, the courage of
the soldier, that which we call character in all men, are not matters of
hire and salary. No person was ever honored for what he received. Honor
has been the reward for what he gave. Public acclaim and the ceremonious
recognition paid to returning heroes are not on account of their
government pay but of the service and sacrifice they gave their country.
The place each member of the General Court will hold in the estimation
of his constituents will never depend on his salary, but on the ability
and integrity with which he does his duty; not on what he receives, but
on what he gives; and only out of the bountifulness of his own giving
will his constituents raise him to power. Not by indulging himself, but
by denying himself, will he reach success.
It is because the General Court has recognized these principles in its
past history that it has secured its high place as a legislative body.
This act disregards all this and will ever appear to be an undertaking
by members to raise their own salaries. The fact that many were thinking
of the needs of others will remain unknown. Appearances cannot be
disregarded. Those in whom is placed the solemn duty of caring for
others ought to think of themselves last or their decisions will lack
authority. There is apparent a disposition to deny the
disinterestedness and impartiality of government. Such charges are the
result of ignorance and an evil desire to destroy our institutions for
personal profit. It is of infinite importance to demonstrate that
legislation is used not for the benefit of the legislator, but of the
public.
The General Court of Massachusetts is a legislative body noted for its
fairness and ability. It has no superior. Its critics have for the most
part come from the outside and have most frequently been those who have
approached it with the purpose of securing selfish desires of their
clients or themselves. A long familiarity with it increases respect for
it. It is charged with expressing the abiding convictions and conscience
of the people of the Commonwealth. The most solemn obligation placed by
the Constitution on the Executive is the power to veto its actions. In
all matters affecting it the General Court is entitled to his best
judgment and carefully considered opinion. Anything less would be a
mark of disrespect and disloyalty to its members. That judgment and
opinion, arrived at after a wide counsel with members and others, is
here expressed, in the light of an obligation which is not personal,
"faithfully and impartially to discharge and perform" the duties of a
public office.
XXIX
FLAG DAY PROCLAMATION
MAY 26, 1919
Works which endure come from the soul of the people. The mighty in their
pride walk alone to destruction. The humble walk hand in hand with
Providence to immortality. Their works survive. When the people of the
Colonies were defending their liberties against the might of kings, they
chose their banner from the design set in the firmament through all
eternity. The flags of the great empires of that day are gone, but the
Stars and Stripes remain. It pictures the vision of a people whose eyes
were turned to the rising dawn. It represents the hope of a father for
his posterity. It was never flaunted for the glory of royalty, but to be
born under it is to be a child of a king, and to establish a home under
it is to be the founder of a royal house. Alone of all flags it
expresses the sovereignty of the people which endures when all else
passes away. Speaking with their voice it has the sanctity of
revelation. He who lives under it and is loyal to it is loyal to truth
and justice everywhere. He who lives under it and is disloyal to it is a
traitor to the human race everywhere. What could be saved if the flag of
the American Nation were to perish?
In recognition of these truths and out of a desire born of a purpose to
defend and perpetuate them, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has by
ordinance decreed that for one day of each year their importance should
be dwelt upon and remembered. Therefore, in accordance with that
authority, the anniversary of the adoption of the national flag, the
14th day of June next, is set apart as
FLAG DAY
and it is earnestly recommended that it be observed by the people of
the Commonwealth by the display of the flag of our country and in all
ways that may testify to their loyalty and perpetuate its glory.
XXX
AMHERST COLLEGE COMMENCEMENT
JUNE 18, 1919
To the son of any college, although he does not make his connection with
his college a profession, a return of Commencement Day recalls many
memories. It is likely also, after nearly a quarter of a century, to
cause some reflections. It is, I suppose, to give tongue to such
memories and reflections that after-dinner speaking is provided. After
all due allowance for change of perspective, going to college was a
greater event twenty-five years ago than it is to-day. My own memories
are not yet ancient enough to warrant their recalling. The greater
events of that day are too recent to need to be related.
But I should fail in my duty and neglect my deep conviction if I did not
declare that in my day there was no better place to educate a young
man. Most of them came with a realization that their coming meant a
sacrifice at home. They may have lacked a proficiency in the arts of the
drawing room which sometimes brought a smile; but no competitor met the
Amherst men of that day on the athletic field or in the postgraduate
school with a smile that did not soon come off. They had their pranks
and sprees, but they had the ideals of a true manhood. They were moved
with a serious purpose. He who had less lacked place among them. They
are come and gone from the campus, those men of the early nineties, and
with them went the power to command.
Those were days that represented especially the spirit of President
Seelye. Under his brilliant and polished successor the Faculty changes
were few. There was Professor Wood, the most accomplished intellectual
hazer of freshmen. There was Professor Gibbons, who was strong enough in
Greek derivation so that every second-year man soon had a clear
conception of the meaning of sophomore. After demonstrating clearly that
on the negative side the derivation of "contiguity" was not "con" and
"tiguity," he advised those who could not with equal clearness
demonstrate its derivation on the positive side to look it up. There
were Morse and Frink, Richardson, Hitchcock, Estey, Crowell, Tyler, and
Garman. All these and more are gone. The living, no less eminent, I need
not recall. As a teaching force, as an inspirer of youth, for training
men how to think, that faculty has had and will have nowhere any
superior.
"So passed that pageant."
The college of to-day has taken on a new life, a new activity. Military
training then was a spectacle for the Massachusetts Agricultural
College. To-day Amherst welcomes its returning soldiers, and but a
little time since divested itself of the character of a military camp to
resume the wonted garb of peace. Yet it is and has been the same
institution,--a college of the liberal arts. In this so-called practical
age Amherst has chosen for her province the most practical of all,--the
culture and the classics of all time.
Civilization depends not only upon the knowledge of the people, but upon
the use they make of it. If knowledge be wrongfully used, civilization
commits suicide. Broadly speaking, the college is not to educate the
individual, but to educate society. The individual may be ignorant and
vicious. If society have learning and virtue, that will sustain him. If
society lacks learning and virtue, it perishes. Education must give not
only power but direction. It must minister to the whole man or it fails.
Such an education considered from the position of society does not come
from science. That provides power alone, but not direction. Give a
savage tribe firearms and a distillery, and their members will
exterminate each other. They have science all right, but misuse it.
They lack ideals. These young men that we welcome back with so much
pride did not go forth to demonstrate their faith in science. They did
not offer their lives because of their belief in any rule of mathematics
or any principle of physics or chemistry. The laws of the natural world
would be unaffected by their defeat or victory. No; they were defending
their ideals, and those ideals came from the classics.
This is preëminently true of the culture of Greece and Rome. Patriotism
with them was predominant. Their heroes were those who sacrificed
themselves for their country, from the three hundred at Thermopylæ to
Horatius at the bridge. Their poets sang of the glory of dying for one's
native land. The orations of Demosthenes and Cicero are pitched in the
same high strain. The philosophy of Plato and Aristotle and the Greek
and Latin classics were the foundation of the Renaissance. The revival
of learning was the revival of Athens and Sparta and of the Imperial
City. Modern science is their product. To be included with the classics
are modern history and literature, the philosophers, the orators, the
statesmen, and poets,--Milton and Shakespeare, Lowell and Whittier,--the
Farewell Address, the Reply to Hayne, the Speech at Gettysburg,--it is
all these and more that I mean by the classics. They give not only power
to the intellect, but direct its course of action.
The classic of all classics is the Bible.
I do not underestimate schools of science and technical arts. They have
a high and noble calling in ministering to mankind. They are important
and necessary. I am pointing out that in my opinion they do not provide
a civilization that can stand without the support of the ideals that
come from the classics.
The conclusion to be derived from this position is that a vocational or
technical education is not enough. We must have every American citizen
well grounded in the classical ideals. Such an education will not unfit
him for the work of the world. Did those men in the trenches fight any
less valiantly, did they shrink any more from the hardships of war, when
a liberal culture had given a broader vision of what the great conflict
meant? The discontent in modern industry is the result of a too narrow
outlook. A more liberal culture will reveal the importance and nobility
of the work of the world, whether in war or peace. It is far from enough
to teach our citizens a vocation. Our industrial system will break down
unless it is humanized. There is greater need for a liberal culture that
will develop the whole man in the whole body of our citizenship. The day
when a college education will be the portion of all may not be so far
distant as it seems.
We live in a republic. Our Government is exercised through
representatives. Their course of action is a very accurate reflection
of public opinion. Where shall that be formed and directed unless from
the influences, direct and indirect, that come from our institutions of
learning. The laws of a republic represent its ideals. They are founded
upon public opinion, and public opinion in America up to the present
time has drawn its inspiration from the classics. They tell us that
Waterloo was won on the football fields of Rugby and Eton. The German
war was won by the influence of classical ideals. As a teacher of the
classics, as a maker of public opinion, as a source of wise laws, as the
herald of a righteous victory,--Amherst College stands on a foundation
which has remained unchanged through the ages. May there be in all her
sons a conviction that with her abides Him who changes not.
XXXI
HARVARD UNIVERSITY COMMENCEMENT
JUNE 19, 1919
No college man who has ever glanced at the Constitution of Massachusetts
is likely to miss or forget the generous references there made to
Harvard University. It may need a closer study of that instrument, which
is older than the American Constitution, to realize the full
significance of those most enduring of guaranties that could then be
imposed in behalf of Massachusetts institutions.
The convention which framed our Constitution has as its president James
Bowdoin, a son of Harvard. He was a man of great strength of character
and cast an influence for good upon the deliberations of his day worthy
of a place in history more conspicuous than is generally accorded to
him. He had as his colleague on the floor no less a person than John
Adams. It is not necessary in this presence to designate his alma mater.
There were others of importance, but these represented the type of
thought that prevailed.
In that noble Declaration of Rights the principles of freedom and
equality were first declared. Following this is set forth the right of
religious liberty and the duty of citizens to support places of
religious worship and instruction; and in the Frame of Government, after
establishing the University, there is given to legislators and
magistrates a mandate forever to cherish and support the cause of
education and institutions of learning. These were the declaration of
broad and liberal policies. They are capable of being combined, for in
fact they declare that teaching, whether it be by clergy or laity, is of
an importance that requires it to be surrounded with the same safeguards
and guaranties as freedom and equality. In fact the Constitution
declares that "wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused
generally among the body of the people, are necessary for the
preservation of their rights and liberties." John Adams and James
Bowdoin knew that freedom was the fruit of knowledge. Their conclusions
were drawn from the directions of Holy Writ--"Come, know the truth, and
it shall make you free."
These principles there laid down with so much solemnity have now the
same binding force as in those revolutionary days when they were
recognized and proclaimed. I am not unaware that they are old. Whatever
is, is old. It is but our own poor apprehension of it that is new. It
would be well if they were re-apprehended. It is not well if the great
diversity of modern learning has made the truth so little of a novelty
that it lacks all reverence.
The days of the Revolution were days of reverence and of applied
reverence. Teaching was to a considerable extent in the hands of the
clergy. Institutions of learning were presided over by clergymen. The
teacher spoke with the voice of authority. He was treated with
deference. He held a place in the community that was not only secure but
high. The rewards of his services were comparatively large. He was a
leader of the people. From him came the inspiration of liberty. It was
in the meeting-houses that the Revolution was framed.
This dual character little exists now, but the principle is the same.
Teaching is the same high calling, but how lacking now in comparative
appreciation. The compensation of many teachers and clergymen is far
less than the pay of unskilled labor. The salaries of college professors
are much less than like training and ability would command in the
commercial world. We pay a good price to bank men to guard our money. We
compensate liberally the manufacturer and the merchant; but we fail to
appreciate those who guard the minds of our youth or those who preside
over our congregations. We have lost our reverence for the profession of
teaching and bestowed it upon the profession of acquiring.
This will have such a reaction as might be expected. Some of the clergy,
seeing their own rewards are disproportionate, will draw the conclusion
that all rewards are disproportionate, that the whole distribution of
wealth is unsound; and turn to a belief in and an advocacy of some kind
of a socialistic state. Some of our teachers, out of a like discontent,
will listen too willingly to revolutionary doctrines which have not
originated in meeting-houses but are the importations of those who lack
nothing but the power to destroy all that our civilization holds dear.
Unless these conditions are changed, these professions will not attract
to their services young men of the same comparative quality of ability
and character that in the past they commanded.
In our pursuit of prosperity we have forgotten and neglected its
foundations. It is true that many of our institutions of learning are
well endowed and have spacious buildings, but the plant is not enough.
Many modern schoolhouses put to shame any public buildings that were
erected in the Colonies. I am directing attention to the comparative
position of the great mass of teachers and clergymen. They are not
properly appreciated or properly paid. They have provided the
foundations of our liberties. The importance of their position cannot be
overestimated. They have been faithful though neglected; but a state
which neglects or refuses to support any class will soon find that such
class neglects and refuses to support it. The remedy lies in part with
private charity, in part with government action; but it lies wholly with
public opinion. Private charity must worthily support its clergymen and
the faculty and instructors of our higher institutions of learning; and
the Government must adequately reward the teachers in its schools. In
the great bound forward which has been taken in a material way, these
two noble professions, the pillars of liberty and equality, have been
neglected and left behind. They must be reestablished. They must be
restored to the place of reverence they formerly held.
The profession of teaching has come down to us with a sanction of
antiquity greater than all else. So far back as we can peer into human
history there has stood a priesthood that has led its people
intellectually and morally. Teaching is leading. The fundamental needs
of humanity do not change. They are constant. These influences so potent
in the development of Massachusetts cannot be exchanged for a leadership
that is bred of the market-place, to her advantage. We must turn our
eyes from what is to what ought to be. The men of the day of John Adams
and James Bowdoin had a vision that looked into the heart of things.
They led a revolution that swept on to a successful conclusion. They
established a nation that has endured until its flag is the ancient
among the banners of the earth. Their counsel will not be mocked. The
men of that day almost alone in history brought a Revolution to its
objective. Not only that, they reached it in such a condition that it
there remained. The counterattack of disorder failed entirely to
dislodge it. Their success lay entirely in the convictions they had. No
nation can reject these convictions and remain a republic. Anarchy or
despotism will overwhelm it.