2 66 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



I am not alone in my view of Mr. Spen- 

 cer'a teaching upon this point. In his criti- 

 cism of The Kan versus the State, in The 

 Popular Science Monthly, vol. xxvii, p. 170, 

 Trof. ile Lareleye says, "The law that Mr. 

 Herbert Spencer desires to adopt is simply 

 Darwin's law — the survival of the fittest." 

 < >n page 1 T'J, after citing a passage explaining 

 the manner in which natural selection among 

 animals is accomplished, M. de Laveleye 

 adds, " This is the ideal order of things 

 which, we are told, ought to prevail in hu- 

 man societies." In his Rejoinder Mr. Spen- 

 cer evades this by saying that his Social 

 Statics was written in 1851, while Darwin's 

 Origin of Species was written in 1859. This 

 le - itisfactory so far as the expression " sur- 

 vival of the fittest" is especially "Darwin's 

 law," but the principle is involved in the 

 operation of the u large, far-seeing benevo- 

 lence" which kills off the weak and helpless, 

 by whatever name it is designated. Mr. 

 Spencer docs not seem to complain of M. de 

 Laveleye's imputation, if the latter means 

 "the survival of the industrially superior, 

 and those who are fittest for the require- 

 ments of social life." I understand Mr. 

 Spencer to oppose carrying the struggles of 

 the "tooth and claw" period into our indus- 

 trial era, but that he is willing to permit the 

 operation of the principle of natural selection 

 with more civilized weapons. 



In his Rejoinder to M. de Laveleye, Mr. 

 Spencer, after speaking of the distribution 

 of aid by the Government, says, " If others, 

 in their private capacities, are prompted by 

 affection to pity or to mitigate the evil re- 

 sults, by all means let them do so " ; but 

 this assumes the tone of mere sufferance 

 when he immediately adds : " No power can 

 equitably prevent them from making efforts, 

 or giving money, to diminish the sufferings 

 of the unfortunate and the inferior ; at the 

 same time that no power can equitably co- 

 erce them into doing so." I understand this 

 to mean that there is no right in the state to 

 interfere with private charity, if any one is 

 moved to it. In another place Mr/Spencer 

 says (p. 189), "Without wishing to restrain 

 philanthropic action, but quite contrariwise, 

 I have in various places argued that philan- 

 thropy will better achieve its ends by non- 

 governmental means than by governmental 

 means." I understand by this that Mr. 

 Spencer has no wish to " restrain " philan- 

 thropy, and he believes the voluntary form 

 better than the compulsory ; but he does not 

 claim any wish to promote charity, and the 

 kind of "philanthropy" he has in mind 

 seems to be only such as is consistent with 

 his other doctrines. As he views it, true 

 philanthropy is best expressed by non-inter- 

 ference. The greatest happiness is worked 

 out by the law of consequences, which in 

 reality is a " large, far-seeing benevolence." 

 'Inevitably, then, this law in conformity 

 with which each member of a species takes 

 the consequences of its own nature ; and In 



virtue of which the progeny of each mem- 

 ber, participating in its nature, also takes 

 such consequences : is one that tends ever to 

 raise the aggregate happiness of the species by 

 furthering the multiplication of the happier 

 and hindering that of the less happy. All 

 this is true of human beings as of other 

 beings" (Data of Ethics, p. 190). 



I have tried to present the grounds on 

 which my statement regarding Mr. Spencer 

 rests. I think he means to encourage self- 

 reliance as the primary virtue of humanity, 

 and that he seriously believes that what is 

 known in the world as " charity " weakens 

 it. The question is not now whether he is 

 right or wrong, but whether or not this is 

 his teaching. I am aware that my words 

 can be so interpreted as to represent Mr. 

 Spencer as indifferent to human beings other 

 than himself, but that is not my meaning. 

 He distinguishes between acting " to t/ie 

 detriment of others " and acting " without 

 active concern for others' 1 '' (Data of Ethics, p. 

 227), and I use the words " without concern 

 for others " in his own sense. If you think 

 the word " active " modifies the meaning in 

 any important way, I am willing to introduce 

 it in my sentence, if I can be assured that 

 "concern," which is but passive and not 

 active, has any meaning. Otherwise the ex- 

 pression " active concern " is a pleonasm. 



Mr. Spencer's doctrine is, as I interpret 

 it, that, if each looks out well for himself, 

 then all will be happy, at least as soon as 

 " adaptation " has been realized ; and until it 

 has, no amount of solicitude for others or 

 sacrifice in their behalf can possibly realize 

 their happiness. 



Very respectfully yours, 



David J. Hill. 

 University of Rochester, 



Rochester, N. Y., April 12, 1890. 



THE SUSPENSION BRIDGE. 

 Editor Popular Science Monthly : 



Sir : In reply to the letter of Mr. Gustav 

 Lindenthal (vol. xxxvi, page 844), criticising 

 my remarks as to the lack of stability of sus- 

 pension bridges (page 478), I would like to 

 make the following statement : 



I do not consider it at all necessary that 

 my remarks upon any of the different types 

 of bridges should be followed by the words 

 "as usually built," as, from thetitle of the 

 article, The Evolution of the Modern Rail- 

 way Bridge, I could not possibly refer to any 

 mode of construction other than that in gen- 

 eral use or some antiquated method. 



I did refer to the suspension bridge as 

 "usually built," and as such it is very defi- 

 cient in rigidity, and in practice it has been 

 found almost impossible to so brace it later- 

 ally and vertically as to render it in any way 

 a desirable bridge for the passage of our 

 modern heavy trains at a high rate of speed. 



I refer simply to the suspension bridge 

 up to its present point of evolution, both as 



