stead of a normal inspiration. I do not care to take up the time of the association. I only ask to be counted as opposed to all the underlying principles of this paper. The gentleman wishes to know what I would do with criminals? Punish them to the full extent of the law. Should I take life in doing it? If necessary, I would without hesitation. I will go as far as he in my efforts to reform and prevent; I do not deny that in this particular our modern society is greatly at fault. But we are not to forget that society owes a duty to its law-abiding citizens as well as to the criminal; and that the first step in discharging that duty is to learn to call a crime a crime, and a criminal a criminal.

PROF. EDSON, OF IOWA COLLEGE:-I am glad so ready and fitting an answer to the sentiments of the lecturer has been given in the remarks of the gentleman from Burlington. I could not sit still in a convention of teachers and listen to such statements. If I understood the lecturer I must protest against teachings, which, should they prevail, would destroy government in our families and schools, and in the State, and would produce successive generations of Guiteaus. We must teach that every sane being is responsible for his acts, and that we are not fated to do wrong in any such sense as to destroy our accountability. The lecturer intimated that "offenses must needs be" and that our Savior was crucified in fulfillment of prophecy, but for all this, Peter boldly declared to these same murderers of our Lord, "him ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain." Sins cannot be charged off upon society, nor can the depravity and circumstances of men be urged by criminals as excuses for their crimes. As teachers we must hold, and teach the young that they are responsible for the evil characters they form, and the evil deeds they do, and that no matter how one is situated or tempted, he has a helper and deliverer in God, who says to all, “Call upon me in the day of trouble (temptation) I will deliver thee and thou shalt glorify me." With entire good will to the earnest and eloquent lecturer, I feel bound to say thus much and earnestly protest against his teachings.

66

PROF. A. HULL, OF IOWA CITY :--The two gentlemen who have preceded me have made it unnecessary for me to say much. But I desire to add a few things to what they have said. The paper to which we have listened was so very fine in its rhetorical and oratorical features, that I was really afraid it would pass for more than it was worth in the most essential feature-its logic. As I said to a friend at my side during the reading, "that production is rotten at the core." I desire to say further, of all the gospels that do not now need to be preached, this new gospel of the gentleman is the one. Crime, he says," is only disease," punishment is retaliation," " virtue and vice do not differ in kind, but only in degree," "most men," two-thirds, I think he said, "are insane," "it is only a question as to the form of insanity, and who can tell that?" These are some of the leading thoughts of the paper. Now, though I never asked to be exempt from punishment on the score of insanity, if this doctrine is to be accepted and acted upon as true, I think I shall hereafter plead not guilty, because insane-as the gentleman shouted a few minutes ago--a short but unanswerable argument to the teaching of that paper, and as good an answer as it deserves. I hope, teachers of Iowa, for the sake of our country and humanity, we shall ever have the courage to call sin and crime by their true names, and to acquiesce in the righteous and necessary punishment that they bring upon the transgressor.

PROF. A. MCCALLA, OF PARSONS COLLEGE, FAIRFIELD:-There is danger in the vigorous protests which the last speaker has made against the prevailing doctrine of the paper, that some of its really good points may be overlooked. I protest most earnestly against the theory that criminals are not to be blamed or punished for their acts, but the

point made by the essayist that the propagation of criminals is a grave danger to the State, and calling for legislation to prevent, is a point that ought to be emphasized. I can not exactly see how such severe measures can be sanctioned from the essayist's point of view, though from the stand-point of those who regard crime as crime and criminals as guilty such strong repressive measures are justifiable. The subject is a delicate one to discuss, but in the near future, with the spread of scientific knowledge and of the statistics of heredity and crime the whole land must come to see the necessity of strong and well enforced legislation in this direction. It is not necessary to go to the length advocated, (only half in earnest, doubtless) by the famous English author of "Euthanasia" and kill off all the weak and wicked,--the hopeless imbecile and pauper. This is indeed the law of nature and the law followed by the wild races, but is not feasible in the light of Christian culture. But it is a position easily defensible that pronounced criminals be made incapable of procreation. The race can never reach its highest tide mark of development till some such regulation finds a place in our laws.

PROF. S. T. BOYD, OF PARSONS COLLEGE:-Man in his present condition necessarily needs a standard of right. This standard is not in himself. It is an objective thing and we believe it to be the revealed word of God. This word directs what man ought to do and ought not to do. It also teaches that certain rights are delegated to man, in order to preserve the welfare of society. Among them is the punishment of wrong doers. Any teaching which ignores this does wrong and strikes at the peace and happiness of society. It is this tendency to disregard divine truth as a standard of right and as a guide of our lives and a rule of faith and practice that is encouraging wrong doers and fostering crime in the land. Man is accountable for his actions and whoever teaches otherwise, would destroy the very foundations of civil and social security.

A MEMBER--What would you do, Mr. Lewelling, with a culprit who had been found guilty of the highest crime?

MR. LEWELLING:--I would incarcerate him or more properly speaking I would "sequester" him for life.

PRESIDENT KING, OF CORNELL COLLEGE:--This answer of the gentleman contains a concealed fallacy when taken in connection with the principles advocated in his paper. For if his theory be correct, that individuals are not responsible for their conduct and hence that it would be unjust to execute them for the highest offenses it would be equally unjust to visit upon them a slightly lower penalty, such as confinement for life. For to be forcibly cut off from all one's public and social rights and privileges is also a severe penalty, little if any milder than that of death. As penalties, they differ less than is commonly supposed, and their chief difference is that of degree and not of kind. After the gentleman has convinced himself that there is no such thing as just, human penalties, he can not consistently elect one form of penalty, even if it be a little milder than the highest. Furthermore, as a matter of common observation confinement is not a sure protection against the highest crimes. So long as there is life there is an appeal for liberty. We know how the protracted punishment of the worst men awakens sympathy. Even the lawyers who prosecute and the judges who sentence them join in urgent petitions for their release, and frequently the authorities yield under such pressure. So the penalty of confinement often finds an early end. I am glad to find that the association is so unanimously in favor of the good old doctrines of right and wrong, and that men should be held accountable for their wicked actions because they are conscious that they voluntarily consent to commit them when they might have done otherwise.

on

The Association took a recess of ten minutes.

State Superintendent-elect, Hon. J. W. Akers, then read his paper

THE TEACHER'S RESPONSIBILITY AS A CITIZEN.

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW TEACHERS:-From the fact that a discussion of the teacher's responsibilities as a citizen has been thought necessary, it may be inferred that, for some reason, our profession is not exerting the influence it should, in matters pertaining to the well being of society. While this may be assumed to be a fact it need not necessarily be thought to arise from any disposition on the part of teachers to shirk the duties. or avoid the responsibilities which are understood to belong to them. If they have failed to occupy the whole field of duty and responsibility, it has not been without a desire to know their true place, and an effort to measure up to every demand, that may have been justly made upon them. Most professions are beset with a temptation, either to over-reach propriety and good judgment, in the exercise of their good offices for the benefit of the public-or on the other hand, to retire from public notice, and to confine themselves within what they conceive to be the proper limits of their calling. If teachers have erred, it has been on the side of a disposition to avoid the appearance of being presumptive and meddlesome which in these over-reaching times may be pardoned. However it is no less an error, and the disposition however amiable, which leads to it, should be so controlled as that it shall not interfere with efficiency nor cripple the usefulness of teachers as citizens. It is a mistake to suppose that the teacher's profession is an isolated one, or that its responsibilities may be limited to a faithful and zealous discharge of duties in the school room; and yet such a mistake may be defended by arguments that are not without force. Teachers may argue, that they do not shirk from duty and responsibility in the larger circles of society on account of any indifference to the great and beneficent ends for which society exists, but that owing to the nature of their calling, by virtue of their intimate association with childhood and youth, the burden of their toil is directed to secure these same great ends. It is argued that the teaching and training of the child will go far to determine the character of the citizen, and that the teacher who faithfully discharges this duty, will through this means, ultimately exert a potent influence on society; and that the duties of the teacher's calling are so numerous, so confining and burdensome, as to leave neither time nor energy, for the discharge of what may be termed the responsibilities of citizenship. As a counterpart of this, it is further argued that the teacher comes from his field of labor, with a tired body and an over-taxed brain, and that he cannot serve society to better purpose, than by giving his leisure hours to the renewing of his strength, to the restoration of his wasted powers and to preparation for the labors of another day.

These are the arguments by which the honest teacher is led into the error of releasing himself from civil responsibility, and of reducing his life to the routine of class-room work. Such a course, if persisted in, will convert the school room into a cloister and the teacher into a monk. Before proceeding to a consideration of the teacher's responsibilities as a citizen let us pause, to consider briefly the arguments to which reference has been made. First, that the teacher who educates and trains the child ultimately exerts a potent influence upon society, and thus meets and discharges a just proportion of the responsibilities of citizenship.

To this we may reply, that as a sole means of being helpful to society, the relief it brings is too remote; and furthermore its value is lessened by the possibility of its never being exerted at all. Society needs and demands our assistance to-day. Our opportunities are passing away, and reformatory and salutary measures fail, for a lack of that assistance which

we may render in the hour of present need. If the community in which we live is immoral, and the friends of truth and right are rallying to the standard of improvement and reform, is it possible that we can find contentment and justification in the reflection that when the children we are instructing, shall have succeeded to the management of affairs the condition of that community will be very much improved? If so, I fear we are over-given to contentment, and are disposed to seek a solution too easy and simple, to the great and intricate problem of life. That the duties of the teacher's profession are as burdensome as they should be, is admitted; but are they peculiarly so, as compared with those of other professions? It is only those who are busy and know the value of time, who can be the most useful to society. A change is often a source of recreation, more valuable than rest; and is it not just possible that we have too much of rest, so-called, and not enough of recreation? The lawyer, the physician, the merchant and the mechanic are expected to bear the burdens and to incur the responsibilities which society imposes. Anything we may offer, by way of excusing ourselves, they may offer also; and it is probable that all our excuses will fail us in the end, so that if we should be charged with neglecting our duties as citizens, we shall be found without defense and therefore guilty.

What are the teacher's responsibilities as a citizen? They may be classed as Moral, Social, and Political. As to his moral responsibilities, the field is large and inviting. No person should be more earnestly and heartily committed to a high standard of morals in a community than he who occupies the position of a teacher. Any one of moderate observation and experience knows that a high and pure moral sentiment is necessary to thorough and elevating work in the school room. However faithfully and well the work may be done, it would not be pleasant to dwell upon the consequences of associating a large number of children together, under the influence of a low moral sentiment. Since the moral standard of the school cannot rise much above that of the community, the responsibility of the teacher as a citizen, becomes at once apparent. How should his influence be exerted so that his responsibility may be met and most fully discharged? First, by being himself an example unto all men. At all times and under all circumstances, illustrating the beauty and consistency of that high code of morals, which is none other than the word of God. His manner of life in every particular-his walk and his conversation, if judged by that high standard, must endure the trying test. There must be no double standard of morals. There is danger, that we have one for our teaching and another and lower one for our practice. If so, we are inconsistent and false. We are ourselves in the lower and looser standard. In the school room we wear a mask and the penetrating eyes that meet us there will not be long in seeing through it. Indeed our true character will soon become an open secret in the community. It needs not that well authenticated facts, establish the looseness of the teacher's morals. Let only the breath of suspicion fasten its relentless hold upon him, and he sinks down into a mire from which he cannot rise, and whereas he should be a power to uplift society, his influence henceforward, will rather tend to drag it down. He should therefore not only eschew evil-he must avoid its appearance. Second, he should earnestly cooperate with every movement of a public character, looking to an improvement in the morals of the people. He should be in sympathy with those who advocate temperance and sobriety. Indeed he should be one of them. He should be an active member of the public library association. He is in position to know something of the corrupting and debasing influence of low and trashy literature upon the morals of the young. If booksellers flood the community with such literature he should remonstrate against it, and other means failing, he should use the press to expose and denounce them. He should aid in securing a class of lectures which would

elevate and refine the people. Men should be sought after who would purify, and clarify the moral atmosphere. Let the teachers of Iowa effectually bar every community against those itinerant pretenders who go about in the name of science, spiritualism, and other isms, to deceive the people and impose upon them, that which is not science, and that which is spiritualism only so far as it is inspired by the spirit of evil. Third, he should wield his pen for the good of public morals. In every discussion having a moral bearing, he should give forth no uncertain sound. For instance if in the colums of the local press, the practice of keeping open theatres on the Sabbath, is defended, let the teacher speak out plainly and emphatically against it, over his own signature. He may be set upon by the powers of darkness. No matter, he can appeal to the higher sense of the people, and will not fail of their support and defense. He must of course not be medllesome or officious. He must use both judgment and discretion in all he does, or he will fail of being useful and only bring evil upon himself.

The moral responsibilities of the teacher shade imperceptibly into those which are social. To encourage society in its efforts to elevate and refine the taste-to purify the speech-and to enrich the mind of the people, is a duty which approaches the sacredness of a moral obligation. 1 Next to grace, the people need culture. Not that superficial veneering which spends itself upon toilet, and foolish conventionalities but that deeper work of social regeneration, which subdues and softens-gives a finish and a polish to the entire being-which gives sweetness to the temper-luster to the eye and radiance and loveliness to every feature. Culture in the truest and highest sense is a fitting companion for the Christian religion-it silences the boisterous, stops the loud mouth and clothes the nude man in his right mind. The responsibility of the teacher socially, lies in this direction. The people need educating as to the highest and purest sources of social pleasure and delight. There is an inordinate disposition to cultivate mirth and to indulge the palate, to the exclusion of true culture and refinement. The entire responsibility of this improvement does not lie at the door of the teacher, but, owing to his position and opportunities a large proportion of it justly belongs to him. He should therefore mingle freely with society, that he may know its needs, and improve his opportunities to influence its employments. One of the purest sources of social refinement is to be found in literature. Exercises and conversation may be continually directed to authors and their writings. Of course any one who attempts this will soon discover that the beauties of literature are not appreciated except by a small minority of many social gatherings, and therefore cannot at once be made a means of enjoyment and improvement. This, while it may be unfortunate, presents a fine field for the tact and the talent of the teacher. The plainest of our people enjoy the beauties of nature and art. The landscape-the smooth mown lawn-and the murmuring fountain. They delight in beautiful halls, elegant churches, and pleasant drawing rooms. These are indeed all important to the elevation of society, but it is a greater privilege to be admitted to a seat in the temple of literature there to meet the greatest authors, past or present, as a friend meets a friend. Who will break the seals of these delightful volumes, and introduce them to those who are indifferent to the riches they contain? The teacher is certainly well fitted to do good in this direction, and while it may seem a difficult undertaking, the influence exerted by the profession over a considerable period of time, would result in an improvement that cannot be estimated.

As to political responsibilities, time will not permit us to speak at length. They are both numerous and important; but to discharge them in such a way, as to increase the usefulness of the teacher, and avoid injury to himself requires the exercise of great prudence and sound judgment. The teacher should always bear in mind that his position is not a political office, and