EDITOR'S TABLE. 



125 



you-pleaso system." We ask whether 

 everything that is left to private enter- 

 prise can properly be said to be left to 

 a "go-as-you-please system." If so, all 

 we can say is, that the system in ques- 

 tion, call it as you will, produces some 

 very good and marvelous results. Lais- 

 sez-faire has made the railway systems 

 of this country and of England ; it has 

 made great steamship companies and 

 telegraph companies and life-insurance 

 companies ; it has organized the most 

 gigantic industrial and commercial en- 

 terprises, and provided in the most won- 

 derful manner for the whole material 

 life of the community. To say that a 

 social function not controlled by the 

 Government must necessarily fall into 

 disorder (which, of course, is what the 

 term "go-as-you-please " is meant to 

 imply), is to go further than our corre- 

 spondent probably meant to go, or than 

 any sensible man would go; and yet 

 the contrast he seeks to draw between 

 governmental methods and the go-as- 

 you-please system involves this as a 

 general principle. But is there no go- 

 as-you-please in governmental methods? 

 Is our public-school system free from 

 the intrusion of vicious political influ- 

 ences? Are not teachers in different 

 states agitating at this very moment for 

 some greater security in their positions 

 than can be enjoyed under existing laws? 

 And do not they feel that their useful- 

 ness is continually being impaired by 

 their dependence on the favor of trus- 

 tees who are themselves dependent on 

 the political machine? We know of no 

 go-as-you-please that is more destitute of 

 all moral impulse or direction than the 

 go-as-you-please of municipal politics. 

 It is really go-as-the-boss-pleases, and 

 the boss goes for the offices and the 

 plunder by the most direct road ! "We 

 attach the educational interests of the 

 community to precisely the faultiest part 

 of our whole political system, and then 

 exult that we have rescued it from 

 the regime of go-as-you-please ! Well, 

 when we say " we," we must be al- 

 lowed to exclude ourselves, for we don't. 



Our proposition is characterized by 

 our correspondent as " revolutionary." 

 We think the word too strong ; call it 

 radical if you like, seeing that it goes 

 to the root of things ; but we think it 

 a mild form of revolution to propose 

 that people should not look to the Gov- 

 ernment to educate them. We should 

 like to see the people educating the 

 Government ; and the people could do 

 this if they would only first educate 

 themselves. 



Our correspondent has the true dem- 

 ocratic spirit, and does not want to see 

 classes formed in this free country ; 

 nevertheless, he talks of "the poor" as 

 people whose children ought to be edu- 

 cated at the expense of the " wealthy 

 tax-payers." If this is not establishing 

 classes with a vengeance we don't know 

 what is. We hold that nothing would 

 tend more to raise the spirit of the poor 

 and enhance their sense of citizenship 

 and of social equality than to feel that 

 they did not depend on the rich for the 

 education of their children, but that 

 they provided for that all-important ob- 

 ject by their own labor, and, if neces- 

 sary, self-denial. If the rich are to con- 

 tribute of their substance to the poor 

 under legal compulsion, why should 

 education in particular be the thing for 

 which they are called to pay ? Why not 

 provide shoe-leather or blankets, and 

 let the poor have the benefit that as- 

 suredly would come to many of them 

 from having a direct interest in their 

 children's education? But the whole 

 idea of the rich being bound to con- 

 tribute to the maintenance of the poor 

 is a vicious one. If such an obligation, 

 properly enforcible by law, exists, then 

 let us not hesitate to say it there 

 must be something rotten in our eco- 

 nomics ; and we can not too soon apply 

 ourselves to finding out what that is, 

 instead of dealing in weak and ineffect- 

 ual palliatives. 



But, we are told, the public-school 

 system educates the people more rap- 

 idly than private education could pos- 

 sibly do educates a greater number in 



