FRANKLIN K. LANE

[Footnote 2: Address delivered by Secretary Lane at the University of

Virginia, Feb. 22, 1912. Reprinted from the University of Virginia _Alumni

Bulletin_, and from _The American Spirit_, by Franklin K. Lane (Copyright,

1918, by the Frederick A. Stokes Co.). By permission of the author and of

the publishers.]

It has not been an easy task for me to decide upon a theme for discussion

to-day. I know that I can tell you little of Washington that would be new,

and the thought has come to me that perhaps you would be interested in what

might be called a western view of American tradition, for I come from the

other side of this continent where all of our traditions are as yet

articles of transcontinental traffic, and you are here in the very heart of

tradition, the sacred seat of our noblest memories.

No doubt you sometimes think that we are reckless of the wisdom of our

forebears; while we at times have been heard to say that you live too

securely in that passion for the past which makes men mellow but unmodern.

When you see the West adopting or urging such measures as presidential

primaries, the election of United States Senators by popular vote, the

initiative, the referendum and the recall as means supplementary to

representative government, you shudder in your dignified way no doubt, at

the audacity and irreverence of your crude countrymen. They must be in your

eyes as far from grace as that American who visited one of the ancient

temples of India. After a long journey through winding corridors of marble,

he was brought to a single flickering light set in a jeweled recess in the

wall. "And what is this?" said the tourist. "That, sir," replied the guide,

"is the sacred fire which was lighted 2,000 years ago and never has been

out." "Never been out? What nonsense! Poof! Well, the blamed thing's out

now." This wild Westerner doubtless typifies those who without heed and in

their hot-headed and fanatical worship of change would destroy the very

light of our civilization. But let me remind you that all fanaticism is not

radical. There is a fanaticism that is conservative, a reverence for things

as they are that is no less destructive. Some years ago I visited a fishing

village in Canada peopled by Scotchmen who had immigrated in the early part

of the nineteenth century. It was a place named Ingonish in Cape Breton, a

rugged spot that looks directly upon the Atlantic at its cruelest point.

One day I fell into talk with a fisherman--a very model of a tawny-haired

viking. He told me that from his fishing and his farming he made some $300

a year. "Why not come over into my country," I said, "where you may make

that in a month?" There came over his face a look of humiliation as he

replied, "No, I could not." "Why not?" I asked. "Because," said he,

brushing his hand across his sea-burnt beard, "because I can neither read

nor write." "And why," said I, "haven't you learned? There are schools

here." "Yes, there are schools, but my father could not read or write, and

I would have felt that I was putting a shame upon the old man if I had

learned to do something he could not do." Splendid, wasn't it! He would not

do what his father could not do. Fine! Fine as the spirit of any man with a

sentiment which holds him back from leading a full, rich life. Yet can you

conceive a nation of such men--idolizing what has been, blind to the great

vision of the future, fettered by the chains of the past, gripped and held

fast in the hand of the dead, a nation of traditionalists, unable to meet

the needs of a new day, serene, no doubt self-sufficient, but coming how

far short of realizing that ideal of those who praise their God for that

they serve his world!

I have given the two extremes; now let us return to our point of departure,

and the first question to be asked is, "What are the traditions of our

people?" This nation is not as it was one hundred and thirty-odd years ago

when we asserted the traditional right of Anglo-Saxons to rebel against

injustice. We have traveled centuries and centuries since then--measured in

events, in achievements, in depth of insight into the secrets of nature, in

breadth of view, in sweep of sympathy, and in the rise of ennobling hope.

Physically we are to-day nearer to China than we were then to Ohio.

Socially, industrially, commercially the wide world is almost a unit. And

these thirteen states have spread across a continent to which have been

gathered the peoples of the earth. We are the "heirs of all the ages." Our

inheritance of tradition is greater than that of any other people, for we

trace back not alone to King John signing the Magna Charta in that little

stone hut by the riverside, but to Brutus standing beside the slain Cæsar,

to Charles Martel with his battle-axe raised against the advancing horde of

an old-world civilization, to Martin Luther declaring his square-jawed

policy of religious liberty, to Columbus in the prow of his boat crying to

his disheartened crew, "Sail on, sail on, and on!" Irishman, Greek, Slav,

and Sicilian--all the nations of the world have poured their hopes and

their history into this great melting pot, and the product will be--in

fact, is--a civilization that is new in the sense that it is the blend of

many, and yet is as old as the Egyptians.

Surely the real tradition of such a people is not any one way of doing a

certain thing; certainly not any set and unalterable plan of procedure in

affairs, nor even any fixed phrase expressive of a general philosophy

unless it comes from the universal heart of this strange new people. Why

are we here? What is our purpose? These questions will give you the

tradition of the American people, our supreme tradition--the one into which

all others fall, and a part of which they are--the right of man to oppose

injustice. There follow from this the right of man to govern himself, the

right of property and to personal liberty, the right to freedom of speech,

the right to make of himself all that nature will permit, the right to be

one of many in creating a national life that will realize those hopes which

singly could not be achieved.

Is there any other tradition so sacred as this--so much a part of

ourselves--this hatred of injustice? It carries in its bosom all the past

that inspires our people. Their spirit of unrest under wrong has lighted

the way for the nations of the world. It is not seen alone in Kansas and in

California, but in England, where a Liberal Ministry has made a beginning

at the restoration of the land to the people; in Germany, where the citizen

is fighting his way up to power; in Portugal, where a university professor

sits in the chair a king so lately occupied; in Russia, emerging from the

Middle Ages, with her groping Douma; in Persia, from which young Shuster

was so recently driven for trying to give to a people a sense of national

self-respect; in India, where an Emperor moves a national capital to pacify

submerged discontent; and even in far Cathay, the mystery land of Marco

Polo, immobile, phlegmatic, individualistic China, men have been waging war

for the philosophy incorporated in the first ten lines of our Declaration

of Independence.

Here is the effect of a tradition that is real, not a mere group of words

or a well-fashioned bit of governmental machinery--real because it is ours;

it has come out of our life; for the only real traditions a people have are

those beliefs that have become a part of them, like the good manners of a

gentleman. They are really our sympathies--sympathies born of experience.

Subjectively they give standpoint; objectively they furnish background--a

rich, deep background like that of some master of light and shade, some

Rembrandt, whose picture is one great glowing mystery of darkness save in a

central spot of radiant light where stands a single figure or group which

holds the eye and enchants the imagination. History may give to us the one

bright face to look upon, but in the deep mystery of the background the

real story is told; for therein, to those who can see, are the groping

multitudes feeling their way blindly toward the light of self-expression.

Now, this is a western view of tradition; it is yours, too; it was yours

first; it was your gift to us. And is it impertinent to ask, when your

sensibilities are shocked at some departure from the conventional in our

western law, that you search the tradition of your own history to know in

what spirit and by what method the gods of the elder days met the wrongs

they wished to right? It may be that we ask too many questions; that we are

unwilling to accept anything as settled; that we are curious, distrustful,

and as relentlessly logical as a child.

For what are we but creatures of the night

Led forth by day,

Who needs must falter, and with stammering steps

Spell out our paths in syllables of pain?

There are no grown-ups in this new world of democracy. We are trying an

experiment such as the world has never seen. Here we are, so many million

people at work making a living as best we can; 90,000,000 people covering

half a continent--rich, respected, feared. Is that all we are? Is that why

we are? To be rich, respected, feared? Or have we some part to play in

working out the problems of this world? Why should one man have so much and

many so little? How may the many secure a larger share in the wealth which

they create without destroying individual initiative or blasting individual

capacity and imagination? It was inevitable that these questions should be

asked when this republic was established. Man has been struggling to have

the right to ask these questions for 4,000 years; and now that he has the

right to ask _any_ questions surely we may not with reason expect him to be

silent. It is no answer to make that men were not asking these questions a

hundred years ago. So great has been our physical endowment that until the

most recent years we have been indifferent as to the share which each

received of the wealth produced. We could then accept cheerfully the

coldest and most logical of economic theories. But now men are wondering as

to the future. There may be much of envy and more of malice in current

thought; but underneath it all there is the feeling that if a nation is to

have a full life it must devise methods by which its citizens shall be

insured against monopoly of opportunity. This is the meaning of many

policies the full philosophy of which is not generally grasped--the

regulation of railroads and other public service corporations, the

conservation of natural resources, the leasing of public lands and

waterpowers, the control of great combinations of wealth. How these

movements will eventually express themselves none can foretell, but in the

process there will be some who will dogmatically contend that "Whatever is,

is right," and others who will march under the red flag of revenge and

exspoliation. And in that day we must look for men to meet the false cry of

both sides--"gentlemen unafraid" who will neither be the money-hired

butlers of the rich nor power-loving panderers to the poor.

Assume the right of self-government and society becomes the scene of an

heroic struggle for the realization of justice. Take from the one strong

man the right to rule and make others serve, the right to take all and hold

all, the power to grant or to withhold, and you have set all men to asking,

"What should I have, and what should my children have?" and with this come

all the perils of innovation and the hazards of revolution.

To meet such a situation the traditionalist who believes that the last word

in politics or in economics was uttered a century ago is as far from the

truth as he who holds that the temporary emotion of the public is the

stone-carved word from Sinai.

A railroad people are not to be controlled by ox-team theories, declaims

the young enthusiast for change. An age that dares to tell of what the

stars are made; that weighs the very suns in its balances; that mocks the

birds in their flight through the air, and the fish in their dart through

the sea; that transforms the falling stream into fire, light, and music;

that embalms upon a piece of plate the tenderest tones of the human voice;

that treats disease with disease; that supplies a new ear with the same

facility that it replaces a blown-out tire; that reaches into the very

grave itself and starts again the silent heart--surely such an age may be

allowed to think for itself somewhat upon questions of politics.

Yet with our searchings and our probings, who knows more of the human heart

to-day than the old Psalmist? And what is the problem of government but one

of human nature? What Burbank has as yet made grapes to grow on thorns or

figs on thistles? The riddle of the universe is no nearer solution than it

was when the Sphinx first looked upon the Nile. The one constant and

inconstant quantity with which man must deal is man. Human nature responds

so far as we can see to the same magnetic pull and push that moved it in

the days of Abraham and of Socrates. The foundation of government is

man--changing, inert, impulsive, limited, sympathetic, selfish man. His

institutions, whether social or political, must come out of his wants and

out of his capacities. The problem of government, therefore, is not always

what should be done but what can be done. We may not follow the supreme

tradition of the race to create a newer, sweeter world unless we give heed

to its complementary tradition that man's experience cautions him to make a

new trail with care. He must curb courage with common-sense. He may lay his

first bricks upon the twentieth story, but not until he has made sure of

the solidity of the frame below. The real tradition of our people permits

the mason to place brick upon brick wherever he finds it most convenient,

safest and most economical; but he must not mistake thin air for structural

steel.

Let me illustrate the thought that I would leave with you by the

description of one of our western railroads. Your train sweeps across the

desert like some bold knight in a joust, and when about to drive recklessly

into a sheer cliff it turns a graceful curve and follows up the wild

meanderings of a stream until it reaches a ridge along which it finds its

flinty way for many miles. At length you come face to face with a great

gulf, a canyon--yawning, resounding and purple in its depths. Before you

lies a path, zigzagging down the canyon's side to the very bottom, and away

beyond another slighter trail climbs up upon the opposite side. Which is

our way? Shall we follow the old trail? The answer comes as the train

shoots out across a bridge and into a tunnel on the opposite side, coming

out again upon the highlands and looking into the Valley of Heart's Desire

where the wistful Rasselas might have lived.

When you or I look upon that stretch of steel we wonder at the daring of

its builders. Great men they were who boldly built that road--great in

imagination, greater in their deeds--for they were men so great that they

did not build upon a line that was without tradition. The route they

followed was made by the buffalo and the elk ten thousand years ago. The

bear and the deer followed it generation after generation, and after them

came the trapper, and then the pioneer. It was already a trail when the

railroad engineer came with transit and chain seeking a path for the great

black stallion of steel.

Up beside the stream and along the ridge the track was laid. But there was

no thought of following the old trail downward into the canyon. Then the

spirit of the new age broke through tradition, the canyon was leaped and

the mountain's heart pierced, that man might have a swifter and safer way

to the Valley of Heart's Desire.

Modern American Prose Selections · 第 10 / 51 题