EVOLUTION 



vailed throughout the biological and historical ages, 

 instead of the rule of the strong, of the dominance 

 of might over right as we see right; suppose one 

 species had not preyed upon another, the bird upon 

 the insect, the cat upon the mouse, the lion upon the 

 antelope, the carnivorous upon the herbivorous and 

 the graminivorous, or one tribe of man upon an in- 

 ferior tribe; instead of all this, suppose the rule of 

 justice, of fair play, as we see them, gentleness, 

 meekness, pity, the strong giving way to the weak, 

 the little fishes favored by the big, what would 

 have been the probable effects upon the course of 

 organic development? Could the process of evolu- 

 tion have resulted in the higher forms? If all Na- 

 ture's ways were ways of gentleness and justice 

 and love, where would the living world be standing 

 to-day? 



Or, if we confine our consideration to man alone, 

 what would his development have been had the rule 

 of love and disinterestedness prevailed? Could there 

 have been any progress? If the Cro-Magnon man, 

 of which Professor Osborn writes so lucidly, had 

 not forced to the wall the earlier type of men, 

 would Europe be what it is to-day? 



Does not our supposition strike at the very foun- 

 dation of development? Would there have been 

 any superior races, any ascent in the scale of life, 

 had not the strong prevailed over the weak? 



Does the question of right and wrong come into 

 283 



