The State has a similar responsibility for taking care of the young. Whatever may be their endowment by nature, that is, by birth, they need the nurture which is necessary to bring out and develop fully the gifts of nature. The State should smite anything that stands in the way of the proper nurture or feeding of the young. If the State is to prosper, it must protect the weak against the encroachments of the strong; and of all classes, the children of the State need its protection most.
If organized capital provides so little pay for labor, that the laboring man can not properly feed his children, then the State should dehorn that organized oppressor, as the farmer dehorns the unruly bull or boss cow. No profits to the individual or the organization, even though they be members of the State, can compensate for the robbery of the children of the State. If the State on investigation finds that the money that should purchase food for the young goes into the till of the publican, then the State should smite the publican in its wrath—not the individual publican, who perhaps may feel that he is earning his bread in the only way for which he is fitted, but the system which makes it necessary for the prosperity of the producer of intoxicating liquors, to corrupt so many hundred of our youth for every thousand dollars of invested capital. (Applause.)
If we have a system existing, whether in the State or the Nation, which can thrive only on the debauchery of the young and on the robbery of the child, by taking that which should go for food to support it, then it is time that the State and the Nation should control it to a point where it can neither seduce the young or rob the child; and that point is suppression. We must do that or do worse, namely, pay the price. We are in fact paying that now. The individual who will not keep account of his expenses is in danger of bankruptcy, no matter how great his resources; and the State which refuses to count the cost of any institution or system which tends to debauch morals, and corrupt the young, is on the way to destruction. For there is no avoiding the payment of the cost, whether we keep account or not; and that cost is not merely the dollars and cents, but starved children, blasted lives, broken hearts, ruined homes, increase of poverty and an increase of criminality, which is beyond the possibility of mathematics to compute. The State can afford to tolerate nothing whatever that stands in the way of proper nurture of the young; nor can it safely endure anything which tends to dwarf them physically, mentally or morally. (Applause.)
The State, however, will always succeed best by removing the causes that lead to improper nurture, or to the formation of vicious or criminal habits. The State can not endure poverty, grinding poverty, among any class of its people; nor can it endure having its children poorly housed. The slum is the enemy of the State and of every citizen of the State. The vice and crime of the slum reach out to the west end or the east end or the avenue, or wherever the wealthy and prosperous congregate, thus saying to all men: We are brothers. The poverty-stricken may well say: If you will not give us our rights, if you grind our faces, we will not merely levy toll on your pocketbooks, but we will infect you with our vices.
If we are to have the highest efficiency in the next generation, the State (and by the State I mean the government, whether State or National) must see to it that infancy is protected from the abominations of soothing syrup, and “sleep-easy,” that usurp the place of the catnip tea and other herbs which soothed infantile pains in the days of our grandmothers. It is useless to expect efficiency, if we pour into the innocent lips of unsuspecting childhood the habit-forming drugs which benumb the brain, stifle sensibility, and lay the foundation for incurable vices when the babe has grown to manhood. Let us get back to the ideals of the ancient psalmist, who, contemplating the future of the chosen people, uttered the prayer that “our sons shall be as plants grown up in their youth, and our daughters as cornerstones fashioned after the similitude of a palace.” That is, a plant carefully cultivated, spreading freely, its roots drawing sustenance from the soil beneath, its leaves drawing sustenance from the air and sunshine, bracing itself against the storm; the daughters the cornerstones of the home, with all the adornment that we bestow on a palace fit for the abode of royalty. Let us go back to this ancient ideal, if we are to be a happy people, whose God is Jehovah.
If we are to maintain human efficiency, the State must lay a heavy hand on the venders of impure food. After what Dr. Wiley has told you, there is no need for me to enlarge on this cause of inefficiency. Suffice it to say, there was a time in the memory of some of the older men, when there was no pure food question. Our oatmeal, our cornmeal, our flour came from our own farms. There was no shorts in our buckwheat, no white earth in our flour. If our meats were tainted, it was due to our own negligence. In these latter days we have become by force of circumstances more completely “members one of another,” drawing our food from all parts of the habitable earth; and hence the State must protect us from imposition. If we are to reap the benefits which come from the modern system of division of labor, we must not quibble about the expense involved in enforcing honesty in those who feed us.
If we are to have efficiency in the generation now entering upon the stage, or in the one to follow, we will need to make radical changes in our system of education. No matter what the natural endowment, it will be comparatively inefficient unless properly developed. Education does not consist of putting in but of drawing out. Culture is simply the proper development of the gifts of nature. All children are born with the capacity for doing, and doing well, some small part of the work that needs to be done in this great world of ours. This capacity is usually indicated by a strong preference for that kind of work. The capacity for doing is largely a matter of inheritance, and education is simply the development of this capacity. No education which fails to develop what is in the child is worth having; but no matter what may be the natural endowment, the capacity to govern in State or Nation, or to build a road, or to plow a straight furrow, or polish a pin, every child must have put into his possession the tools by which he can secure that education which will fit him for his life work. He must know how to read, that he may be in touch with his fellow-man. He must know how to write, that he may communicate his thoughts to other men. He must know how to reason, that he may put this and that together and draw conclusions. These lie at the foundation of all education.
Some education is acquired in mastering the “Three R’s,” namely, the power to observe—to see things—to tell what is seen and to draw conclusions; but the “Three R’s” are, however, merely the tools by which we ourselves afterwards acquire an education. In spite of all the money we spend on rural education (in my State from 42 to 50 per cent. of all rural taxes), our children neither read well nor write well nor reason well. How can they when our rural schools average twelve pupils, most of them less than ten, and often five, three, or only two or one pupil, and are taught mainly by persons themselves but poorly educated, and who are teaching simply to acquire the experience necessary to secure a position in a city school. Neither the reading nor the writing nor the arithmetic of these schools has any connection with the farm nor any relation to farm life, nor is the teacher as a rule in sympathy with that life. Yet this is all the education that 90 per cent. of the farmborn will ever receive.
Little education this for the mighty task of feeding the world at prices that those not on farms can afford to pay. If the farm boy was so thoroughly drilled in reading that he could read to himself with understanding and read to others with expression, if he could express his thoughts so clearly and fully that the dullest could understand, if he could see things as they are, and tell accurately what he sees, he would in time without further teaching become a leader of men.
The farmborn, however, usually fares better than the townboy in the race of life. In growing up in the open country he learns what books can not teach—the know-how, so far as farm operations are concerned—and needs but to learn the reason why. The townborn, as a rule, has no opportunity to acquire the know-how by following the occupation of their parents; and hence much of his school life is spent in acquiring information which, apart from its educational value, is of no sort of use to him in after life. What the farmborn need, if they are to be efficient in life, is an opportunity to learn in a secondary school in the open country the reason why. What the townborn need is secondary education which will fit them for the work they are to do. If our farmborn are to be efficient, they must have centralized schools taught by teachers who have selected teaching as their life work and are paid accordingly, and thus be able to acquire in the open country a secondary education that will enable them to see clearly the reason why they should plow, or sow or feed. If our townborn are to be efficient, they must have in addition to a thorough mastery of the “Three R’s,” which is the birthright of every child, such training as will fit them for their life work.