302 



THE BEE-KEEPERS' REVIEW 



that might have been more profitably 

 employed; or fallacies were left unexpos- 

 ed. So far, then, the management of 

 discussions has not been a successfand 

 the plan of giving the last word to 0}ie 

 disputant is simply a farce. 



Having reviewed our data, let us go 

 back to first principles. I take four bee- 

 papers. Not one of them but is opened 

 and glanced over first, when other print- 

 ed matter comes with it in the mail. I 

 am entirely dependent on bees for not 

 only a living, but also the realization of 

 all my cherished plans; then, too, all 

 knowledge is related, and in reading and 

 thinking of matters into which we have 

 gone somewhat more deeply than others, 

 we constantly approach a better concep- 

 tion of the universe, and our place in it. 

 Readers, then, have an interest in bee- 

 papers and their contents, not measured 

 by the sum invested in them. They may 

 legitimately criticise, and the autocratic 

 editor is dependent upon us after all. 



Now some one will say "You have a 

 big job on hand. Newspapers are auto- 

 cratic; the immensely popular Ladies' 

 Home Journal is autocratic. Explain 

 their success. " Quite easily done. The 

 majority of mankind have an idea that 

 ultimate fixity of conception on all essen- 

 tial subjects is perfectly attainable — in 

 fact, is already here, and we only have to 

 listen to a few wise men to grasp it. 

 With them the sign of truth is an un- 

 troubled brain. In accordance with this 

 craving, uncertainty is feared and hated; 

 didacticism eagerly welcomed. A smart 

 man, like Edward W. Bok, or Charles A. 

 Dana, with a gift of making narrowness 

 appear breadth, and of concealing dog- 

 natism by specious reasoning, is sure to 

 be popular, even though he is regarded 

 as a degrading influence in American 

 literature by solid thinkers. What if the 

 formei does insist rather more on correct 

 than right conduct ? Few know the dif- 

 ference. To be a social prig is to be suc- 

 cessful; therefore the paper that gives 

 pointers in this line is a complete guide 

 to the philosophy of life; and, when en- 



livened by a fund of superficial!)' acute 

 sayings, quite irresistible. I don't know 

 whether anybody ever tried it, but sh ould 

 imagine no one would ever think of dif- 

 fering with the editor of the Ladies' 

 Home Journal with any expectation of 

 seeing himself in print in its columns — it 

 is so well understood to have authority to 

 teach, but will not discuss. And what- 

 ever applies to that paper applies to those 

 which look upon it as a model. Of course 

 the autocratic editor who systematically 

 caters to tastes intellectually low enough 

 will address a wide public. 



But is this right? Can this course 

 commend itself to the broad-minded 

 man, who wants to do his whole duty to 

 mankind ? We are not babes, but men. 

 If the facts of existence can not be dis- 

 cussed without bickering, it is unfortu- 

 nate, to be sure, but trebly so if we give 

 the matter up and take refuge in intel- 

 lectual sloth. The primary purpose of 

 journalism is to spread truth. The wise 

 teacher knows that if he takes up the 

 whole hour in talking, many of his words 

 will fall upon dull and inattentive ears; 

 but if, Socrates -like, he so manages that 

 his pupils seem themselves to arrive at 

 the knowledge he desires them to have 

 when the hour is up, the}- will not ouly 

 know it thoroughly, but be inclined to 

 strike out in investigations of their own. 

 The suppression of discussion is the sup- 

 pression of truth. It may make a jour- 

 nal uniform in policy, and this may at- 

 tract large numbers of such subscribers 

 as can not bear to have their pet notions 

 opposed; but the greatest, though least 

 remunerative, object of journalism is de- 

 feated. The autocratic editor is not de- 

 pendent on the opinions of the thought- 

 ful foi his income, but he is for the es- 

 teem worth having. 



But why, one asks, should not a legit- 

 imate sphere of activity consist in just 

 making public one's own opinions? Has 

 not a purely editorial publication, for ex- 

 ample, just as much right as any other to 

 the field ? If so, w-hy should not an edi- 

 tor go a little farther, and add the opin- 



