Box 13-015 THE TATLER, THE MONTREAL HERALD (WRITTEN BY [REV.] CALVIN MCQUESTEN)
May 24 1902
From: THE TATLER
The Montreal Herald, Saturday, May 24, 1902
Andrew Carnegie's spectacular offer to pay $20,000,000 to the United States to be allowed to announce to the inhabitants of the Philippines that they would be granted their independence as soon as a settled government could be established upon the islands, does not appear to have drawn forth very enthusiastic expressions of appreciation. It was a curious freak, to be sure.
This would-be philanthropist seems to have become dissatisfied with his ordinary attempts to make his image beloved to all people. The public is so slow to grasp the doctrines of his "Gospel of Wealth," and so skeptical about believing that his self-glorifying reason for addressing millions is that those who toiled for him might enjoy "The advantages of poverty," of which he loves to talk, but which he so generously denied to himself. They are so slow to realize that with a father's love he starved their stomachs, only that he might feed their minds by public libraries. And in his disgust and desperation he conceives the stupendous idea of buying everlasting fame by purchasing the freedom of a nation. How he ever imagined the United States could consider such an offer, I am at a loss to understand. Did he expect the government to admit that only for a monetary consideration was it willing to do justice to a weaker people? The very suggestion was so ridiculously inconsistent. With one breath he talks to workingmen about "triumphant democracy" and in the next he proposes to make the democracy of the United States hireling of the plutocrat Andrew Carnegie.
His Fellowship a Sham
I do not wonder that Henry George Jr., in speaking of Mr. Carnegie's address to the graduating class of a mechanical school in New York, in which he called them "brothers" and referred to himself as "one of your fellow workmen," branded his pretense as a sham and humbug. It is hard to conceive of much "fellowship" between workingmen and the capitalist who was the active lead of the Carnegie Steel Company of Pittsburg when that corporation and its employees were engaged in some of the most frightful industrial wars that this continent has ever known. It may have been encouraging to these young men to hear the great master money-maker tell them that riches come from honesty and diligence alone, and to hear him say: "No one can cheat a young man out of success in life. You young lads have begun well. Keep on. Don't bother about the future. Do your duty and a little more and the future will take care of its self."
Assurance for the Future
That restful assurance of their future must have been somewhat shaken a few days later, however, if they happened to read the account of a meeting of the London Chamber of Commerce at which the ruin threatened to English interests by Mr. Carnegie's American steel trust was discussed, and the managing director of a large manufacturing establishment said:
"The most crucial question of to-day is how to meet the competition of the United States, the American peril. It can only be done by getting rid, as the Americans do, of that army of employees from 50 to 60 years of age who retard our Industrial progress. It would even be cheaper for us to retire them at half pay and substitute young men. Americans don't employ men of over 45 years. Men after that age are forced to take positions at lower earnings. Even men with high salaries up to 45 are after that glad to work for one-tenth of what they had been getting when young."
The Fruits of Disinheritance
"Has a father, who has brought up a son in affluence, and accustomed him to all the luxuries of wealth, the right to cut that son off without a penny, just because he does not approve of his choice of career?" This problem naturally propounds itself in connection with the shocking tragedy in which Malcolm Ford shot his brother, Paul Leicester Ford, the famous novelist, and then took his own life. It was on account of Malcom's persistent determination to devote him to athletics, that the father of the two boys, on his death, left the younger son not one dollar of his $2,000,000 estate.
Harrassed with financial difficulties, Malcolm's mind became unbalanced, and double tragedy was the sequel. From all that it was said of him, he appears to have been an athlete and sportsman of the highest type, a man of exemplary habits, warm-hearted and industrious. By his contributions to the sporting columns of the New York papers, and the other products of his pen, he earned what would have been a comfortable income for the family of a man brought up under ordinary circumstances. But to the millionaire's son economy was an unknown art, and would have been competency to another man was poverty to him. The result was debt, anxiety, insanity, tragedy. The question is, "Who was to blame?"
Co-Education and Higher Education
Co-education is the Main Pillar of the Republic," is the somewhat startling heading of a recent article by a prominent woman writer, in the Chicago Record-Herald; and I could not resist the challenge to take issue on the question. In the article itself, the writer appears to treat co-education and the higher education of women as one and the same thing. Now I am perfectly ready to concede the advantages of higher education for women and I believe that both boys and girls should receive the best education that circumstances may permit. And under present conditions, where the exigencies of business life compel the boys of a family frequently to leave school at an earlier age than the girls, the circumstances are rather in favor of the girls.
But co-education is surely quite a different education from higher education:
Equality Vs. Uniformity
I am not surprised, however, that an American woman writer should confuse the two. One of the most regrettable features of the utterances of public women in the Republic to the South of us, is the tendency, in advocating equal rights for women, to identify equality with uniformity. The ideal of too many American women is to be like the American men. They do not seem able to realize that their English sisters may have a distinctly feminine ideal and yet hold a position quite equal to that of the male members of society.
Demerits of Co-education
No arguments are advanced in favor of co-education by the writer in question, who confines herself to the advocacy of higher education for women which she terms co-education. Now to my mind there are very distinct advantages to be derived from the education of the sexes in separate classes. I think that this is particularly the case when pupils are at an age where it is somewhat difficult to maintain discipline. Girls are naturally more sensitive and docile than boys, and it is a comparatively easy thing for a teacher to preserve order among them. But where there are mixed cases and a boy is impertinent to or even defies a teacher his conduct must have a hardening effect upon the girls present and with their immature judgment some of the more hoydenish of them, especially, are likely to mistake boldness and effrontery, for manliness and courage, and copy such unladylike behavior. There is also, it seems to me, a distinct advantage in having men teachers for boys, and lady teachers for girls. The ideal teacher is the one who can imbue his scholars with something of his own personality, and it is obvious that a women teacher cannot serve as a model for boys, or a man teacher for girls.
The boy King of Spain who now takes up the sceptre as the heir of a line of ancestors who in previous ages filled land and sea with the splendid tumult of their deeds is the sole reigning monarch of that house of Bourbon which for centuries furnished monarchs to so many European nations.
For more than a thousand years since that great progenitor of kings, Robert the Strong, fell in combat against the Norsemen, the Bourbons, his descendants, have exercised the kingly office, sometimes weakly and foolishly, but always in a manner which has justified the aphorism which so perfectly describes the character of the race: "The Bourbons learn nothing and forget nothing." This is why the modern world has cast them off in France, in Italy and in America.
To redeem Spain, to make the name of Bourbon great and respected once more, is a task which, if the young King has the will, the genius and the power to accomplish it, will place his name with those of the most illustrious ancestors who slumber in the vaults of Escurial or the tombs of St. Denis. But if the spirit of his race is strong in him that he neither forgets nor learns he will be the last of the crowned Bourbons, and the thousand years of that family's rule will end in disaster and disgrace.
At last the old ocean has been successfully broken to harness and at a place about eight miles from San Francisco, the great Pacific is pumping water as steadily as an old workhorse in a treadmill. At a point on the Pacific coast four miles north of Santa Cruz, where the waves surge against the sandstone cliffs that rise thirty feet above high tide, there are two wells in the sandstone sunk to six feet below the ebb, and opening at the bottom into the ocean. They are a few feet from the edge of the cliff. In the foremost well is a float, and in the second a common force pump. The float and the pump are fastened at the end of a sixty-foot timber, counter-balanced over a pair of small car wheels on the bank. The rush of the waves fills the wells, raising the float. Then, as the water recedes, the 600-pound weight of the float falls upon the piston of the pump and the salt water is forced into the tank 125 feet about the sea level. The plant is the property of the city of Santa Cruz, and the water is used for sprinkling purposes. The machinery, which is in charge of the inventor, has been improved in several details since its erection in 1897, and it now develops about four horse power through a float equal to sixteen horse power could be put in. There is an average of seventy feet of down stroke per minute in ordinary weather, which often increases to one hundred feet and over in rough weather, and never falls below thirty feet. The device may be considered practical up to about twenty-five or thirty horsepower at a cost of $100 per horse power for installation; but, as the sites are innumerable along the coast, the units could be indefinitely multiplied. The cost of maintenance is almost nothing and the motor may be readily stopped at any time by filling a small counter balanced tank of water, which raises the float. There are on the patent records at Washington, 231 appliances for utilizing the force of ocean waves but the machine at Santa Cruz appears to be the only one that has proved permanent or of practical value.