ing syllogism. Nothing should be endowed that will not be successful; an endowed newspaper would not be a success; therefore, a newspaper should not be endowed. The truth of the major premise will be acknowledged by all; it is so obvious; the negative, therefore, will not take time to prove it; but will at once attempt to show that an endowed newspaper would not be a success, and, when it has done this, it will submit the question.

There are only two good reasons for endowing a newspaper: First, that it may be entirely independent in its views and the expression thereof; and, second, that it may take a high moral ground and refuse to serve the spicy tit-bits of scandal and filth which cause such pleasant titillations to the gustatory nerves of the large majority of newspaper readers. If it does not meet both of these requirements it is not a success, and should not exist, for the simple reason that there are already enough subservient, time-serving, garbagegathering newspapers.

In the first place, then, the endowed newspaper could not be independent. If it is endowed by the government it will be strongly tinged with the views of the party in power. If it is endowed by private individuals it will insist upon the political shibboleths of its founders. If they are republican, it will be republican; if democratic, it will be democratic; if mugwump, it will be mugwumpian; in fact, the only way in which it could be made independent in its views would be to get it set on foot by a number of wealthy gentlemen, who should be of all possible political proclivities and yet so high-minded and disinterested as to turn their backs upon party and join hands in setting in motion an engine which should eventually destroy all parties. It may be possible to get together such a body of men; but it is so exceedingly improbable in this nineteenth-century America that the negative uses the improbability as its strongest argument.

But, granting to the affirmative that all the initial difficulties have been overcome, and a thoroughly impartial paper has been established, how long would it retain its impartisan character? It is extremely unlikely that men will be found in every generation to manage it, who are so public-spirited

and magnanimous as its founders. We are willing to admit that the editors might always be so chosen that all political parties would be equally represented upon the editorial staff, but we cannot admit that they would always be so chosen. In fact, such a newspaper would be too much of a plum for our poor humanity to resist plucking, and not many years would elapse before some astute, lawyer-politician would find the way to the hearts of those who had it in trust, and make them believe that it was for the best interests of the country that the paper should espouse some little job in which he was just then particularly interested. The negative, then, thinks that our newspaper, as an independent organ, would not be a success.

Let us see how it would meet the second requirement, i. e., what power it would have as a moral agent. If we examine one of the large dailies, which our endowed newspaper is to supplant or raise to its own standard, we will find that its managers are very shrewd men. We will find that not all its columns are filled with gossip of public and private immoralities; but that part of them are devoted to business interests and part to religious subjects. In short, we will find that the paper is calculated to fill the wants of all. Now, if we turn from the paper itself to its readers, we will find that some read only the business calls and quotations; others post themselves on politics; others gloat over the voluptuous descriptions of their bare-bosomed sisters at some ball, gotten up to raise funds for the support of the society for the suppression of vice, and still others read Dr. Talmage's last sermon. The differences between these classes of readers are just as marked as the differences between the kind of reading they indulge in. The cry that the newspapers debauch their readers' minds is all bosh! The cleanminded man does not read the questionable parts of newspapers. The headings make plain to him what is fit to be read and what not, and never is he deceived as to the character of an article, unless it is when he has read through some thrilling account of an escape from death to find out at the end that if he had taken home with him a bottle of Mother Winslow's Soothing Syrup he would not have been obliged

to walk the floor with his twelve-months old the night before. The newspaper is purely a business enterprise. It takes the world as it finds it. Men want society scandal and the like, and the newspapers furnish it. If people wanted nothing but a Sunday-school magazine the newspapers would outbid each other in their efforts to get the thoughts of the best men on the international lessons. They do not want this, however, and the Mail and Express proves it, for Colonel Shepard, who tries to make the Mail and Express a moral paper, has run behind just $50,000 a year ever since he had it in control. Now what does all this prove, if it is not these two things: First, that the strictly moral newspaper is not needed because the already existing papers furnish moral matter enough for those who wish such reading; and, second, that a strictly moral newspaper would be bought only by those who are disgusted with the present newspapers and wish to express disapprobation of their timeserving character. And, if this is so, what is the use of the endowed newspaper? What is the good of spending money to issue something which those whom it might do good will not read? If the Mail and Express runs behind $50,000 per annum what would we not expect of our endowed newspaper? It is no argument to say there is to be so large a fund behind it that a loss of $50,000 or $100,000 per annum would not be felt; for that is not a true statement, and such a loss would eventually exhaust the largest capital. What conclusion can we honestly come to, then, other than this, that the strictly moral newspaper would not be a success? But, if it is not a success as a moral agent, and if it is not a success as an independent organ, what sort of a success can it be? Is there anything before it but failure? Therefore, since nothing should be endowed which will not be successful; and, since an endowed newspaper can not be a success, the negative would advance the opinion that newspapers should not be endowed. W. H. KELLY, '91.

NOT

THE DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT.

long ago there appeared, in one of our illustrated weeklies, a cut representing "Uncle Sam," with outstretched arm, sweeping the crowned heads and titled aristocracy of our planet headlong into empty space. Behind the ludicrous exterior lies the grand truth of the rapid and substantial growth of the democratic spirit. The old world gave it birth but refused it inheritance, banished it to the new. A long and bitter struggle lay before that feeble band, the champions of liberty in America. Bravely and manfully did they meet it. Nature and natives had been subdued when its old enemy, imperialism, again threatened its existence. After eight years of suffering and sacrifice, of victory alternating with defeat, hope with despair, the principle of freedom came forth from that fiery trial triumphant ; baptized in tears, consecrated by blood, then was America "the land of the free, the home of the brave."

As yet its limits were narrow and circumscribed. But the spirit of freedom is inherent and universal; so must be, eventually, its kingdom. No imaginary line, stretched by human hands, can set its bounds. It swept westward to the ocean, crossed the Mexican frontier and traversed the Central American states. Kingdoms vanished; republics took their place. Defeated and crushed to earth it arose with renewed zeal, new inspiration, new hope of success. It established its outposts beyond the gulf and unfurled its banner over the southern peninsula.

The magnificent empire of Brazil, with its broad expanse, its vast undeveloped wealth, still remained true to the principles of monarchy. Upon her centered the hopes and fears of the monarchs of the old world and their sympathizers in the new. Would she keep the faith or follow in the footsteps of her faithless sisters?

In 1841, Dom Pedro II came to the throne. Though concealed from mortal eyes, the fate of Brazil had been decided. A man of deep human sympathies, of wise and liberal political views, broad and catholic in his religious opinions, no truer republican ever adorned a throne, no nobler brow

was ever encircled by an imperial diadem. The elevation of his people, the development and prosperity of his country, were the ambition of his life; and to this end all the powerful energies of his nature were diverted. His countless plans and labors history can never record. By his hand were all those mighty instruments of civilization applied. Schools were established, commerce encouraged, the church advanced, and from his hand fell the blow that freed the last slave and banished chains from the western world forever.

The seed that he had sown was fast ripening for the harvest. His experienced eye foresaw the end, yet no hand was raised to avert it. With apparent secret satisfaction he awaited the crisis. At last the moment arrived. The mine of his own construction was fired. The last great act of evolution had taken place, and Brazil stood forth stripped of all the trammels of imperialism, a new-born republic, symmetrical, free, full-grown, like Minerva from the brain of Jove.

Well may the friends of liberty sympathize with the fallen emperor. His sacrifices must touch the hardest heart. We see him in youth, surrounded by wealth and luxury, heir to a throne, rearing an altar to liberty, immolating thereon all the aspirations and ambitions of a man, all the affections of a father. We see him, when bowed with age and enfeebled by care, thrust out by an ungrateful people to the tender mercies of a soulless sea; we see him in exile, homeless, uncrowned, crushed by national and personal grief, and with sublime faith in eternal justice we say, "well done" servant of humanity, thou shalt be crowned with immortality.

To Dom Pedro the cause of freedom owes a debt of gratitude. None have labored more effectively in her cause, none more disinterestedly. To him Brazil owes her present and the possibilities of her future; a half century of wonderful progress both moral and material, a revolution without a parallel in history, a nation regenerated, but no confiscation, no blood-stained battlefields, no widows, no orphans, no graves.