Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Dr. Dix. And a little fellow with a big soul never tries to shield insolence with his little body. But enough of this. Go on with your cases. Frank Williams. If a burglar should break into your house.

James Murphy. If a robber should attack you in the street.

Dr. Dix. With all due respect to your coolness and courage, boys, I think it scarcely probable that many of you will enjoy such opportunities to display those admirable qualities, however much you may covet them. Never mind doubling up your fists now, there's no immediate danger that I can see. [Laughter.]

--

Without reference to any incident that has occurred among us, let me remind you that there is a wide difference between a blow struck in self-defence and one struck in mere revenge. And let me remind you, boys, and girls too, that there is a kind of self-defence besides that against blows upon the right cheek. There are enemies within our own bosoms far more dangerous than any we are likely to encounter without. Against them the good boy and the good girl will fight with all the heroic chivalry they possess.

Mary Rice. I understood you to justify self-defence, Dr. Dix. Are we not told that if any man smite us on the right cheek, we are to turn the other also?

Dr. Dix. I am not aware that I have as yet expressed any decided views on the subject of physical self-defence. We will talk further upon this subject next week.

XII.

WHEN THE GOOD BOY WILL NOT FIGHT.

Dr. Dix. Suppose that when men were struck upon the right cheek they always turned the other also, how would the great aggregate of fighting and quarrelling the world over be affected?

Mary Rice. It would be very much diminished, of

course.

Florence Hill. I should say it would disappear altogether, if everybody acted on that principle, for nobody would strike in the first place.

Dr. Dix. Well, suppose half the world were inclined to strike, but the other half were not inclined to return the blows.

Thomas Dunn. I think the effects would be very different with different people. Some would no doubt be satisfied with the blow they had already given, and would have no disposition to repeat it.

Dr. Dix. Do you think they would have no feeling besides that of satisfaction?

Thomas Dunn. They might think the blow was deserved, that no more than justice had been done, and they might suppose that the reason why it was not returned was because the other party viewed it in the same light.

Dr. Dix. Even granting this to be the case (which, as human nature is constituted, would not be likely to occur very frequently), how would they probably regard such an exhibition of patient submission to justice?

Thomas Dunn. They might admire it; that is, if they did n't despise what might seem a want of spirit.

Dr. Dix. But the supposition is that they regard the forbearance shown as due only to the sense of justice. Thomas Dunn. In that case, of course they could n't but admire it.

Dr. Dix. Don't you think it possible that they might even feel something like regret,- that they might wish they had shown a like forbearance?

Thomas Dunn. Some might feel so.

Dr. Dix. A person of real magnanimity would, would he not?

Thomas Dunn. Yes, sir.

Dr. Dix. And if he were not a person of magnanimity, would it matter very much to the other how he felt?

Thomas Dunn. I suppose not.

Dr. Dix. At all events, the quarrel would be stopped. Thomas Dunn. It might be, in that case. But there are other people who, if they find they can abuse anybody with impunity, will keep on doing so.

Dr. Dix. Do you think there are many such? Did you ever see an example?

Thomas Dunn. Indeed I have. He is known among schoolboys as a bully. Among grown-up people he has different names. I lived in a town once where there was a man who was always cheating the minister, because he thought he was too pious to quarrel."

66

Dr. Dix. And did the minister submit without protest?

Thomas Dunn. I never heard of his protesting. All I know is that the same thing was going on when I left the town.

Dr. Dix. What do you think the minister ought to have done?

Thomas Dunn. I think he ought to have prosecuted the rascal for swindling. He ought to have done so for the sake of his family, if not for his own sake. Because he was smitten on his right cheek he had no right to

turn their left cheeks also. Because a man took away his coat he had no business to give him their cloaks, whatever he did with his own.

Dr. Dix [coldly]. It seems to me you make a digression for the sake of the opportunity to be caustic. We were speaking of quarrelling, not of prosecution in a court of justice.

Thomas Dunn. Is n't prosecution a species of quarrelling?

Dr. Dix. A court of justice bears a relation to private individuals similar to that which a court of arbi

tration bears to nations. The legitimate purpose of both is the same: to prevent or settle quarrels and see that justice is done. So, in a legal prosecution of the man who wronged him and his family, your minister could not justly be charged with quarrelling. On the contrary, if he found that personal appeals to the man's conscience and generosity were of no avail, he should be credited with resorting to the only peaceable means of righting a wrong that lay within his power, arbitration.

Is it not possible, however, that the good man feared lest the remedy might prove worse than the evil, — lest, in short, it might prove more costly to go to law than to submit to the imposition?

Thomas Dunn. My uncle offered to pay all the costs if he would sue the man.

Dr. Dix. Ah, there might be costs that your uncle could not pay. I know something of the relations between country clergymen and their parishioners.

Louisa Thompson. You called a court of justice a court of arbitration to prevent quarrels. In reality is there not more quarrelling there than almost anywhere else? Isn't the prosecution itself generally one long quarrel between the lawyers?

Dr. Dix. We must admit that even lawyers are not free from human imperfections. [Laughter.] There

need be no more quarrelling in determining the truth and its proper consequences in a case at law than in a question of science or mathematics. That men pervert and abuse their proper functions in the judicial department of human society, as they do in all other departments, is no reason why the citizen should not perform his own proper function as a member of society.

Not that he should be ready to appeal every trivial disagreement. Generally, not only magnanimity and dignity, but even common sense and common policy, dictate the quiet ignoring of minor injuries from our neighbors. Florence Hill.

deal to go to law:

Besides, as you said, it costs a good poor people cannot afford it.

Dr. Dix. Yes, indeed, it costs! Often far more than the wrong it cures. But to resent the wrong in other ways is more costly still; for it costs what is more precious than gold and silver. Better suffer in person and property than in heart and character. And, heart and character aside, it is better to make a little concession, even if in doing so we suffer injustice, than to live in unending enmity with our neighbor.

Henry Phillips. Is there not danger that we may encourage our neighbor to continue in his wrong-doing, as the man did that Dunn told us of ?

Dr. Dix. That person is an example of only one class of men, I am happy to believe of only a comparatively small class. The more probable result of our forbearance would be to awaken feelings of shame and repentance in those who have wronged us. Me generally have a pretty fair knowledge of what is rigl and just. When their judgment is not clouded by anger, hatred, or revenge, they usually know when they are in the wrong, whether they confess it or not. And there is nothing which will sweep away those clouds from their minds like turning the other cheek also. There is nothing like a soft answer to turn away wrath.

« ПретходнаНастави »