ondary school curriculum. In this process of reconstruction what is to be the fate of history as a separate subject? May we not look for it to emerge from the reconstructive process richer and larger than before? In this newer history there will be found large space for the history of the Americas and the Pacific. The whole course of history in the secondary schools might well be made to center about these countries as the core. It could be divided into four parts as under the old system if this be considered necessary. One division could be devoted to British America, one to the countries of the Pacific, one to the United States, and one to Latin America. There should be given in this plan a consideration of the essentials of ancient, modern, English, and Oriental history in order to give the background necessary to a comprehensive view of the modern conditions in the Americas and the Pacific. The period of discovery, exploration, and colonization of the New World and the Pacific could very well be dealt with as a whole. Following this a study could be made of the wars as political, economic, and social emancipation. These could be dealt with in the same large and comprehensive manner; and possibly with greater returns than under the old system. A study of each of the four group countries could follow this general scheme, and should result in a larger appreciation of the interdependence and interrelations of peoples and countries. It should also be conducive to that largest of all movements, the establishment of the World State. There should result a larger conception of international-mindedness, a type of mind which the exigencies of the times make imperative.

If the general course suggested above should be deemed undesirable and impracticable as a whole a separate course in Latin American history could be given in the secondary schools. The wedging of an extra subject into an already seemingly overcrowded curriculum need not revolutionize nor even impair the efficiency of the present system. The argument that the curricula are overcrowded should have no terror for the school administrator. The argument is an old

one.

Curricula are seldom overcrowded with essentials. If the community considers a subject essential a place will sooner or later be found for it. The course in Latin American history might well extend over a whole year, and should prove exceedingly valuable to the student. In the first place the course should enlarge and enrich the course in the history of the United States. The need of this change in the American history course was strongly emphasized at the last annual meeting of the Pacific Coast branch of the American Historical Association in San Diego, California. Professor Stephens, Professor Bolton, and others expressed themselves in no uncertain terms in this matter. There were several who wrote to me to the same effect. I give a few of these received in the preparation of this paper. The secretary to the president of the University of Oregon wrote:

"We believe that a certain amount of Latin American history should be offered in secondary schools. There is an unwarranted tendency to make American history, as it is taught in the United States, cover

only the history of the United States, utterly disregarding the history of the countries both to the north and south of us; and what other history is taught in high school rarely covers more than classical and western European history. As our relations with the countries to the south of us grow closer, it is obviously desirable that we should teach our young people the history of these countries. Several of them have histories which are as inspiring as that of our own country."

Doctor Martin, of Stanford University, favors the course in the larger high schools. A knowledge of the history of Latin America would, he claims, be a means of making the teaching of Spanish in the high schools. more effective. He wrote on this subject:

In this connection I may state that, in my opinion, there is a very unintelligent enthusiasm at the present time for Spanish in our high schools. Many of the students who flock into Spanish courses do so in the vague belief that they are fitting themselves for lucrative positions in South America. In most cases the teachers of Spanish know nothing whatever about Latin American conditions, and from this point of view the instruction is frequently valueless. I should be inclined to think that if any of these students who acquire a smattering of Spanish should take a good course in Latin American history their ends would be better met.”

Professor Manning, of the University of Texas, wrote:

"I am very glad to see that you are so much interested in Latin America, and I think it entirely proper that high schools, especially those like your own, having junior college standing, should introduce an entirely separate course on the history of the the Latin American countries. Possibly that course should cover only half a year's work, instead of a whole year, which we are giving to the study here in the University of Texas, and which is being given in a few of the northern and eastern universities. There is no question but that the study of Latin American history will within a few years become as common as the study of general European history, or certainly as common as the history of any one European country. A few schools of college rank and a few of secondary rank must, of course, be leaders in doing this, and since the University of Texas is so near the border, we feel it entirely proper for us to take an advanced stand in this matter, and since you are located almost exactly on the border, I think that your school and other junior colleges of California would do well to take the lead in introducing it into the secondary schools. I have already learned that they are seriously considering this in the schools of Idaho, and have heard from numerous places elsewhere in the United States."

The essentials in the history of Latin America, like those in the traditional four block system, are suitable for our secondary schools. The subject possesses the materials necessary in any course in history in these schools. The subject matter is teachable. There is an abundance, a variety, and a richness of subject

Nor

matter that can be made both interesting and instructive to the student of secondary school age. does the subject matter demand any essential modification in the method of presentation. One may use the traditional method or the newer method, and one will, it seems to me, have succeeded in enlarging the student's experience. The demand upon the teacher who would succeed is great in any course in history; but is especially so in this course. A knowledge of the subject matter is here only of the smallest importance. The teacher who would succeed must be endowed with the rare ability of being able to sympathize with peoples not of his own race. He must be something besides a mere citizen of the United States; he must be an American in the largest interpretation of that word. He must have made a good beginning in the direction of Panamerican-mindedness. I am not denying that the teacher of history in general needs the same generous attitude of mind and sympathy towards humanity. I am merely pointing out that the greater, this endowment the greater the success in teaching Latin American history.

No one would attempt to teach the history of Latin America without constantly correlating it with its geography. The geographical conditions are here if anything even more a key to the proper understanding of the history of these countries than in any other course. The problems of the interplay of environment upon the individual, the individual upon environment here afford a most interesting and valuable study for the student of high school age. Instance the distinct ethnographic types already developed in Latin America. There are new races in the process of formation in the sections distinctly circumscribed by physical barriers that will become more nearly the true American race than may be possible in the United States of North America. Already the gaucho, llanero, montero, and porteno have played a role in the history of states that would be very difficult to parallel in our own country. Is there a single personality, for example, in our own country that has so thoroughly dominated the scene as did Dr. Francia and Francisco Lopez in Paraguay, Rosas in Argentina, Paez in Venezuela, or Diaz in Mexico? The more thoroughly the lives of the men of affairs in Latin America become known the more thoroughly will the great effect of environment be understood and appreciated. It is in this connection that the study of Spanish and Portuguese could be most useful to the Americans of the North. It is well enough to study these languages as a hobby, or for their commercial importance; but there should be something more than that. These languages should be studied for what they really are a key to unlock the treasures of American life, literature, history, and social institutions."

I need merely mention the pre-Columbian era of Latin American history to call to your minds fields of untold riches in romance, art, and history. The great wealth already accumulated and in process of accumulation makes this period one of the most valuable in all history work. The Aztec, Maya, Chibcha,

and Inca civilizations are certainly worthy of very careful study. Most of us already deal with these subjects; but they properly belong, according to our present plan, to the field of Latin American history. The age of discovery, exploration, and colonization, with the proper European background and a right conception of the motives actuating the leading personalities of the age is certainly worthy of careful study by the secondary school student. The efforts to transplant Iberian institutions in the New World should be no less instructive than the efforts of the English, French, Dutch, Swedes, or Russians in the New World. Nor should the history of the struggle of the Spanish and Portuguese for political, economic, and social independence an subsequent national solidarity be less instructive and helpful to the students of the high schools. The efforts made by the newly emancipated Latin American Republics in nation building can hardly fail to be valuable to the student of the evolution of democratic institutions in the United States. The terms " Amazing Argentina" and Brazil the Extraordinary "-terms current in our day-connote really colossal achievements. The problems confronting the peoples of Latin America have certainly been formidable-formidable by reason of the inexperience, inaptitude, and ill-conveived ideas concerning the fine art of self-government. The problems confronting the founders of our republic were simple indeed compared with these. Nor need the peoples of Latin America feel reticent about telling what they have actually achieved in this direction. A knowledge of these achievements should be more generally diffused among our people. There should also be a more definite understanding among the Americans of the similarity of the problems confronting the peoples of Latin America and the United States. It would be more in keeping with the dignity and standing of the United States in the Western World to treat the Latin Americans as compatriots in the effort to develop a true democracy in the New World. What a colossal task for us and for them! but one worthy of effort. In the struggle I am not so sure but that the Latin Americans would outstrip us, not excluding even the Mexicans.

The history of Latin America should be introduced into our secondary schools in order to aid in bringing about more friendly relations between the United States and Latin America. This could be more easily accomplished by a mutual understanding of each other's achievements and each other's problems. This understanding would, of course, tend to improve industrial and commercial relations between the two

groups of countries. This phase of the subject is now very much to the front. I see no real reason why the schools should not render greater services in this field than they are now doing. The coastwise cities of the Americas could do very efficient work by bringing about an exchange of teachers and students in the larger cities of each country. I am less concerned with the commercial phase of the whole subject. I believe that there is something more to this subject than commerce and trade; nay, than bonds, banks,

and credit. The Second Panamerican Scientific Congress declared:

The Congress looked beyond material interest to the things of the spirit, well knowing that an understanding based upon an appreciation of and a respect for the intellectual life and achievements of the Americas would be a great bond of sympathy between the peoples of all the American countries."

I would like to quote at length from this admirable report; but time does not permit. You remember that the Congress strongly urged that not only should the details of the lives of the liberators and statesmen be studied, but that the ideals of the different countries should become the common property of all the American Republics. The following from this same report is highly significant:

It is gratifying to the people of the United States that so much attention to these important subjects is already given in the various American Republies, but it is a source of regret to the advocates in the United States of an enlightened and intellectual Pan Americanism that greater attention has not heretofore been given in the Republic to the north to the interesting history, the continuous development and growth and realization of the ideals of the Latin American peoples."

I commend for your careful perusal the whole of this admirable report (The Final Act by Dr. James Brown Scott. Free from Pan American Union, Washington). It is couched in words befitting the great subject with which it deals. It is both significant and

encouraging. It is an evidence of the presence in our land of individuals with the proper conception of our larger duty in this matter. For there is needed. among us Americans of the North an attitude of mind and sympathy truly Panamerican. Let us hope that American provincialism will soon give way to Panamerican-mindedness and finally to Internationalmindedness.

"Hinter dem Gebirge sind auch Leute."

In conclusion let me quote from President Wilson's speech before the Southern Congress at Mobile, Alabama, 1913:

"I come because I want to speak of our present and prospective relations with our neighbors to the south. I deemed it a public duty as well as personal pleasure, to be here to express for myself and for the government I represent the welcome we all feel to those who represent the Latin American States.

"The future, ladies and gentlemen, is going to be very different for this hemisphere from the past. These states lying to the south of us, which have always been our neighbors, will be drawn closer to us by innumerable ties, and, I hope, chief of all, by the tie of a common understanding of each other.

"We must prove ourselves their friends and champions upon terms of equality and honor. You cannot be friends upon any other terms than upon terms of equality. You cannot be friends at all except upon terms of honor. We must show ourselves friends by comprehending their interest whether it squares with our own or not."

The goal toward which the enlightened teacher of government directs his energies is the development of a civic consciousness; it is an ethical impulse which he wishes to create, not a body of knowledge. The most anti-social boss or political ringster in public life is likely to know more about government than the most alert teacher of civics, possibly more than the most learned professor of political science. He knows all the actual current facts of government, however little he may know about the theory of it or its history. His knowledge is ample. What he lacks. is what the rising citizen needs, the ethical impulse to use his citizenship in the interest of the common welfare as against a particularistic desire for the success of a part of the community. What the teacher of civics should inculcate is a consciousness of mutual dependence, the necessity for mutual helpfulness, and the means best adapted to forward social co-operation. The rising generation must feel the fabric of society about him, respect its texture and contribute to its strength.

But too much of our civics teaching has been merely descriptive of government; and largely descriptive of the worst aspects of government at that. Its object

has been to inculcate knowledge of what is falsely called actual government. The gerrymander, the rider, the joker, the strike bill, the spoils system, the activities of the boss and the heeler; all the diseases of the body-politic have been taught as if these were aspects of government rather than manifestations of the criminal instinct of persons who happen to be active in politics instead of porch-climbing or safeblowing. It is perfectly true that light-fingered gentlemen are and always have been using social institutions as means for relieving the unsophisticated citizen of his surplus wealth; but if one were teaching the science of finance one would not lay great stress on the activities of Jim the Penman, or the expert greengoods man.

Not only is too much attention given to the activities of the parasite, but energies have been wasted in the description of purely ephemeral details such as the number of committees and their names, the number of officials and their salaries, the number of members in a representative chamber and the length of their terms, the number of judges in the courts, and a hundred other things of this sort which good citizens of mature years neither know nor care very much

about. The good citizen is not differentiated from the bad citizen by what he knows about such things as these. He is differentiated by the fact that he performs the few public acts which he does perform with reasonable intelligence; and what he needs to enable him to do this is some basic philosophy of government, some fundamental political theory. He must and will, of course, acquire knowledge of many facts of this sort, but they should be clearly recognized as a by-product of the process of securing philosophical principles.

In addition to many other generally accepted and fundamental political concepts, six may be mentioned as related to the basic problems of all public action. These may be suggested by the following six topics: Party organization; a true definition of law; the process of legislation; the organization of administration; the principle of home rule (whether municipal or national); and the federation of units for the control of common undertakings. The citizen who has thoroughly digested these six concepts and has an opinion of his own on each of them on the basis of which he may test questions that confront him, has a fair political education, whether he has ever thought seriously of bosses and rings or not.

The future citizen should learn early in his career that party activity is as natural and as unavoidable in a self-governing community as the instinct of boys to run in gangs or of cattle to travel in herds. He must know and understand that the law grows out of the common consciousness of the race and that therefore what might be called "reformers' law " is artificial, unreal, and a mere toy with which to amuse the amateur, neither aiding nor seriously injuring anyone. He must know and understand that under selfgovernment every incorporated unit must be permitted to settle its own affairs; but that where several units are interested in the same problem, reason demands that machinery of federation be called in as a means of arriving at a joint solution.

The object of this paper is to suggest a method of treating one of these six topics in an elementary course in government for college students. The one selected is the organization of administration. The writer has been teaching this subject along the lines suggested below for several years with fairly satisfactory results.

One may begin with the assumption that there is no fundamental difference between the true method of organizing public business and the accepted method of organizing private corporations. Public business. is proverbially mismanaged, partly because we distrust government, and partly because the average man is only tolerably efficient and self-government cannot rise much above his level. Public business will therefore in its management always be somewhat less well managed than the very best private corporations. But public pension systems, for example, bad as they are, are not worse managed than some highly endowed private ones. One should not be too pessimistic in judging government.

The instruction begins with a description of a busi

ness corporation such as a railroad. The interest of the stockholders is explained; then the function of a board of directors as the representative, single-chambered legislature of the corporation. It is made clear that the railroad business is extremely simple as compared with the affairs of a state or city; but that the selection of an efficient head is still difficult enough. The administrative head of such a corporation is selected by this representative single chamber and is given complete control of the business as long as his services are retained. He is permitted to select all his subordinates; is encouraged to lead the directors in legislation if his force of will and character and his store of information are sufficient to enable him to do so. In fact, under the general management of such a man as President Underwood, of the Erie Railroad, the board of directors seems to be not much more than an observing and a safeguarding body.

From the private corporation we go to the discussion of the commission-manager plan of city government. The evolution of the plan is outlined. It is shown that the commission plan worked well enough at first when the broom was new and civic enthusiasm in Galveston and Des Moines at a high pitch; but that after the abnormal conditions had passed and life had flattened out, it was necessary to find a normal method of governing cities. The citizens of a municipality are its stockholders, they elect a board of directors large enough to be fairly representative of the composite interests of the whole city, and the directors (the commission) select a general manager and turn the city over to him for as long as he can retain their confidence. He is permitted to appoint his subordinates, more or less hampered by what we call civil service rules.

This reference to the merit system of civil service protection makes it necessary to recognize that Jacksonian Democracy brought into our government a sort of plague called the spoils system, which took deep root in a country which did not respect efficiency of any kind; a country living on the fat of new lands with inexhaustible natural resources; a country in which the orator and the general held a higher place in public esteem than the engineer, the accountant, and the chemist. In order to get rid of the relics of Jacksonian Democracy it was necessary to set up a wall of protection around public servants which has served to protect the incapable with the capable, the disloyal with the faithful; and it is rapidly becoming apparent that if the chief of the administration is selected as he should be, and given the responsibility and power he should have, much of civil service red tape may be unwound, and the administration may be given power to remove those who would as parasites abuse public confidence. The manager of a city should have a means of removing any public servant in his city, very much as the manager of the railroad may. If he cannot, then he cannot be held responsible for the efficient administration of the affairs of the city.

Next, it is unfortunately necessary to bring to the attention of the student the condition of the govern

ment of some of our American commonwealths. It is unfortunate that young minds must be muddled by having placed before them such pictures of confusion, anarchy, formless irresponsibilty, as is represented by the government of New York State and other commonwealths; but possibly such horrible examples may be useful. When it is realized that the governor has no cabinet, that the affairs of the state are conducted by some 150 to 170 boards, commissions, and other officers, serving for all sorts of different terms, appointive or elective in all sorts of ways, and removable, if at all, through methods which make it almost impossible to unseat them, the contrast between this sort of a tangled web and the beautiful system which human experience has evolved when not hampered by "politics" is apparent.

This condition of anarchy (i. e. no government), has grown out of Jacksonian principles, aided by the theory of separation of powers with checks and balances. Jackson's school seemed to think that an American was good enough to fill any position he could get, and it made but little difference to them how he got it if he were loyal to the party. This attitude, with our other unfortunate heritage, the theory of the separation of powers, threw the control of government out of the hands of the public officials into those of the private party leaders; and we shall never put it back into responsible hands except by destroying these two false concepts through educational processes.

Next is described the organization of the government of the United States, where the president is the general manager. It is true he is not elected by the representative assembly as in the case of the corporation and the municipality; the congress was not entrusted with this duty because Montesquieu, misunderstanding the government of England in the time of Walpole, who ruled all England; and supposing that a separation of powers prevailed in England, wrote that fact into a book which dazzled the eyes of our constitution makers. The result has been that our presidents were for a period selected by a caucus of congress and since then have been chosen by a quasirepresentative assembly called the party convention. It is true that we go through the form of a general election in which some fifteen million people vote for a man about whom they know nothing whatever, and the candidate of that convention gets into office which can raise the greatest campaign noise, or by chance, as is frequently the case. It isn't such a bad system, after all, except for its expense, hypocrisy and sham.

The organization of our federal administration departs from the principle of administration which is being illustrated in two conspicuous respects. First the method of election is different, and we in this follow the same plan as Brazil and one or two other inconspicuous states, as against the practice of all the progressive countries of the world. The other respect in which we depart from type in our federal government is in senatorial confirmation of presidential appointments. I have sought in vain for a single instance where this power in the hands of the senate did any real good; and the examples of its harmful

results are written into every chapter of our history. Only recently President Wilson was prevented from securing the appointment to the Federal Reserve Board of a Chicago banker of the highest repute. The case of the Federal Trade Commissioner is, however, a more conspicuous example of the abuse of this arrangement.

The author of the bill which created the Federal Trade Commission, its most intelligent advocate, not a politician but a conservative reformer, a man who in New Hampshire opposed the leader of his own party because of the latter's conspicuous lack of usefulness, was rejected by the Senate at the request of this leader (a senator) and for no other reason. Any one who has instances of useful results from the existence of senatorial confirmation of appointments in any state or in the Federal system will confer a favor on the present writer by calling his attention to them.

Let us now test our principle by reference to the government which is conceded in most quarters to be the finest example of political evolution; one which has been hampered least by abstract theory; one which has been carefully guarded by safe conservatism while stimulated by a spirit of stern impatience with special privilege of any sort.

The government of England applies this principle more clearly than does any other public organization with the possible exception of the commission-manager plan of municipal government. The stockholding citizens of England elect a board of directors called a House of Commons; this House of Commons selects a general manager called the Prime Minister; the Prime Minister selects all of his immediate aides who constitute his executive committee and who are his heads of departments. There is no written constitution to limit what the Commons through the Prime Minister may do. There is a King and a House of Lords who have served as conservative influences somewhat as our written constitutions have, and we do not know whether it would be desirable to do without both written constitution and aristocratic conservatism at the same time or not.

In direct imitation of the English constitution, or under the influence of the ideas which the study of this constitution have awakened, most of the other progressive countries of the world have adopted the parliamentary system of executive organization. France, although she has a president elected for a term of years, has relegated him to a position described by the facetious remark that while our president rules without reigning and the English king reigns without ruling, the French president neither rules nor reigns. Like France and England, the other liberal countries have provided that the real head of the administration shall be the chairman of a committee of the representative assembly, shall serve as long as he can keep the confidence of the legislative assembly, and so long as he does serve shall be in practically absolute control of the administrative departments of the government. They all, of course, without much blowing of trumpets, leave most of their civil servants in se