efficient democratic citizenship. It gives definite embodiment to the ideals of the school, and supplements the efforts of home and church. It works adroitly, by a thousand specific habits, to anchor a boy to modes of right living as securely as if held by chains of steel; but best of all, it exhibits positive genius in devising situations that test a boy's self-reliance and give full scope to his talent and originality and leadership. These two aspects of the scout program are so evenly balanced and so nicely adjusted as to make them well-nigh pedagogically perfect. The entire organization is a machine capable of working wonders, not only in the moral regeneration of the American boy, but also in fitting him to assume the duties of an American citizen.

Scout leadership. The more delicate and intricate the machine, the greater the need of skilled operators. On you, therefore, who assume leadership in the Boy Scout movement rests a heavy responsibility. If you are true to the motto of scouting, you, too, must " be prepared." You must know that your business is not primarily to make cooks or campers or hikers or students of nature, nor even efficient workers in any vocation. All these are means to ends, not ends in themselves. The real purpose of your office is to help boys to translate the Golden Rule into concrete terms and to keep themselves physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. I have tried to show you that the method you must follow is the simple one of fixing habits and creating situations that invite leadership. The danger is that the very simplicity of procedure may betray you into mistaking means for ends. It is the mistake that so many fraternal organizations for

adults make; it is the error into which so many teachers fall. Be prepared to measure every task by its results in character building. Weigh the relative value of the habits that you can inculcate. Fix the best ones by insistent practice, keep them alive by repetition, and make each one a step to a higher level. Then strive to locate responsibility; put on a boy' shoulders all the load that he can carry; increase it as he gathers strength; let him feel the joy of mastery; and reward him according to his service. The program for the future. If your vision is faulty, the ditch that yawns for blind leaders of the blind is not far ahead of you. On the other hand, if you see things straight and see them whole, you have every inducement to demonstrate your ability to lead. Opportunities to show initiative, self-direction, and self-control are not confined to the boys of your troops. Splendid as your program is, it is not beyond the reach of improvement. Genius gave it life, and only genius can keep it alive. If ever this program, which I have praised so highly, becomes formal; if your work as scoutmasters and scout leaders drops into routine; if your system of administration gets so enamored of its success that it becomes autocratic, you will all be on the highroad to oblivion. The best of athletics may grow stale, and the strongest team may fail from over-confidence. It is relatively easy to build up a business, but it is extraordinarily difficult to keep it at its maximum efficiency. The maximum efficiency of this great movement depends finally upon the worth of your contributions to it. The call still is for men of vision, men with initiative, men of nerve and daring, men who, by every test, are fit to be called "good scouts."

T

CHAPTER XII

EDUCATION FOR DEMOCRACY 1

HE teaching profession, it seems to me, is singularly indifferent to the signs of the times. Either

we are content to attend to business as usual because we don't know what else to do, or we fail to realize the significance of the revolution which is upon us. It would seem that of all vocations, ours should be the quickest to respond to the call to democracy, and the first to propose ways and means of making democracy safe for the world. Inasmuch as a confession of not knowing what to do belies our claims to professional leadership, and failure to understand the meaning of events implies an awful ignorance of precisely that history which we are supposed to teach, I am obliged, out of polite consideration for my coworkers, to seek elsewhere for the causes of our somnolence.

Our faith in democracy. — The truth is, as I see it, we teachers are much like other folks; we have not taken our democracy very seriously. We have all wanted to do as we pleased, and to be let alone in working out our own individual salvation. For this private advantage, we have been willing to entrust our civil government to the tender mercies of petty politicians and party bosses; we have winked at the violation of law, and tolerated slavery, and serfdom, and industrial oppression; we have

'A revised reprint from the TEACHERS COLLEGE Record, May, 1918.

been indifferent to the ravages of plunder and greed, and to the losses due to administrative inefficiency. All these faults we have been guilty of at times, and worse, if worse there be- but such faults as these are in reality the concomitants of our virtues. We have sinned in these respects, simply because our faith in mankind is so strong. We are essentially optimists, and we have relied on the best in humanity to overcome the worst. In evidence of our national good intent I have only to point out what has happened when the public conscience has been aroused. Political parties have been punished for their shortcomings, slavery has been abolished, plunderers have been overwhelmed, the thraldom of child labor has been lightened, corporate greed has been checked, and the prohibition of social evils has been enjoined by highest law. It is characteristic of the democratic mind to believe the best of all mankind, to have faith that somehow the good will triumph over the bad. But it is equally true of the individualist that he wants his own way, and that he will wreak his vengeance upon those who persistently betray his confidence. The present world commotion shows that the optimists have been betrayed by those in whom they put their trust. Vengeance is mine, is their watchword. The outcome bids fair to match the bitterness of their disappointment.

The obligation of democracy. -The striving of the world towards democracy is as old as human society. The "inalienable rights of man" are the natural outcome of the instinct to self-expression and self-realization. The doctrine of brotherly love formulated by Jesus and propagated by the Christian Church as a world religion,

has been bedded deep in the consciousness of the modern world. But nowhere has there been a democratic State. The age-long struggle between autocracy and democracy has never resulted in the complete suppression of the one or the complete victory of the other. At best the result has been an aristocracy or oligarchy, with leanings towards autocracy or towards democracy. The ordinary affairs of life go on much the same under any decent government. One must keep off the grass, if the park is worth preserving; keep the fire-escape clear, if safety is essential; observe the regulations of the health officer in time of quarantine; pay one's debts, and live up to contracts; help others when they are in need; tell the truth, fear God, and shame the devil. It matters a great deal, however, what is one's attitude toward these obligations and how one comes to recognize them as obligations. If the attitude is one of subservient acquiescence engendered by fear, or even by unquestioning obedience to external authority, the leaning is towards autocracy. If, on the contrary, conduct springs from an understanding of the necessity of such action, or if obligation is accepted after reasonable consideration by those concerned, the emphasis is democratic.

A study in extremes. Our policy has been to abide by the rule of the majority. We have advocated liberty under the law, and assumed that the law was just. Now the previous question is being put. Is the law just? Who shall say? What is liberty? On the answer to these questions depends all our future happiness, all our hope for ourselves, for our children, and for our country. If justice cannot be assumed by the rule of the majority, who shall decide what is right? Shall a group of intellectuals?