lished conventions, not to say fictions, of the teaching profession, than if it were wholly dependent on the free response of the public.
Another objection that we make is that the idea of using the proceeds of taxation in aid of the movement gives it too indeterminate a character. Prof. Henderson's own language shows this. "Once established," he says, "these district central offices of the Department of Education might, with perfect propriety, go a step further and provide, under suitable conditions, for part of the expense of an extension course where the proceeds from the sale of lecture-tickets were not sufficient. With the people themselves directly creating each center, electing their own subject, choosing their own lecturer, and paying for all or part of the local expense, I really do not see how the movement could become commonplace or mercenary in its character by being systematized under national auspices." The words we have italicized are significantly vague. Will it be pretended, besides, that the agency disposing of the Government grant would not have a great deal to say as to the mode of its application, and would not, in many cases, override local choice as to subjects and lecturers? If of two localities, both aspiring to the grant, one fell in with all the views of the district center, while another stood out for some plan of studies of its own, can any one doubt that the tractable locality would have much the better chance of getting it? Another point is that as soon as it became a matter of distributing Government money, all kinds of local jealousies would arise; and politicians would appear upon the scene to demand that their special localities should not be neglected. We incline to think that, if Prof. Henderson could only be brought into contact with two or three average Congressmen wrangling over what they would regard as a division of the spoils, his confidence in the beneficent influence of a subsidy would be somewhat shaken.
We do not know how our contributor arrives at the induction he puts forward with so much confidence that "the sum of American public infamy is neither absolutely nor relatively so great as the sum of American private infamy"; but we must be allowed to question the value of the formula. We are told that the Government is corrupt only because the people are corrupt. There is doubtless some general truth in the statement; but it ought not to be forgotten that one way in which the corruption of the people shows itself is in taking money in taxes which they could not get in any other way, and to which they have no right. Appropriation-hunting has long since been reduced to a science, and no one who has carefully watched the politics of this or any other democratic country can doubt that every additional appropriation made by the Legislature becomes to some extent an additional corruption fund. Granting even that the appropriation once voted is honestly expended as a matter of account, the very granting of it in many cases was an act of theft viewed from one side and an act of bribery viewed from another. The locality or interest that clamors till it gets what it wants, without regard to the general welfare, virtually steals; and the combination of politicians that procures the appropriation aids in the theft for purposes of bribery. To say, therefore, that such money does not stick to the hands of the officials who expend it is not saying much. They doubtless, as Prof. Henderson hints, are more or less compelled to be honest—the dishonesty was perpetrated in the passing of the vote by which the money was obtained in the first place. When Prof. Henderson tells us that our officials are not so bad, and that we should not be afraid of the Government which is our own creature, he misses the mark. We are not afraid of the officials, whose functions are
