NATIONALIZATION OF UNIVUBSITY EXTENSION. 503 



we must always bear in mind tlieir constitnency. They are the 

 scliools of the populace as well as of the higher classes. If we 

 take the attitude of mind of the average American citizen and 

 compare it with the standards of life represented by the public 

 schools, and then take the culture of the educated classes and com- 

 pare it with the ideals set forth by private institutions, we shall 

 find that, relatively speaking, the public schools are on much the 

 higher plane ; and surely no other mode of comparison can com- 

 mend itself to our sense of fairness. Instead, therefore, of mis- 

 trusting the lesson of the public schools, I should be glad to 

 believe that in five years — no, in ten years — university extension 

 would be doing in its line as effective work as our poor common- 

 place public schools are doing in theirs. 



I have tried briefly to answer the expressed objections to the 

 nationalization of university extension ; but these do not repre- 

 sent to me the gravest of the possible objections which might be 

 urged, and I am also disposed to believe that under the editorial 

 comment there was a more fundamental dissent in mind. The 

 question, I take it, is essentially not one of experience as to what 

 sort of a servant the Government has been in the past, but is the 

 deeper question of the proper function of government. Had ex- 

 perience shown the public service to be relatively poor instead of 

 being, as I believe, relatively good, I should still advocate its min- 

 istration if social studies led to the conclusion that public serving 

 was desirable. The remedy would then lie, not in abolishing the 

 service, but in purifying it. On the other hand, had experience 

 been most favorable, more favorable by far than it has been, and 

 could it be shown on sound theoretical grounds that such govern- 

 mental activity was mischievous and likely to lead to encroach- 

 ments upon ultimate personal liberty, it would be one's clear duty 

 to set one's self resolutely against the public convenience and 

 abolish such dangerous service. 



Speaking in a large way, there are in America to-day two 

 classes of political thinkers : those who believe in a paternal 

 government, which shall say what one shall eat and drink, what 

 one shall wear^ how long one shall work, at what age one shall 

 send one's children to school, what precautions one shall take 

 against loss of life — in a word, a government which shall be a 

 special if not always a very wise providence to each of its citi- 

 zens; and there are those who, mistrusting this meddlesome 

 paternalism, would go to the other extreme, and would limit the 

 functions of Government to a minimum. The first class is apt to 

 include those well-meaning but mischievous reformers who wish, 

 like the prohibitionist, to cure society by medicine in place of 

 hygiene, and that part of our professional class who have drawn 

 their social ideals from bureaucratic Germany. The second class 



