SUPT. C. B. GILBERT of St. Paul, Minn.-I rejoice that at last the schoolmaster has a higher idea of patriotism than the average citizen, because in that is the only hope of the future. I came up here with fear and trembling, expecting to hear members discuss the relation of the great Ego which we call the nation. I have not heard a word of it. All of these schoolmasters have told you that patriotism is the sentiment that leads; that the country is not represented by the domestic cat which loves the spot where it lies down to sleep, or by the undomesticated cat which drives you away from its lair or eats you up. But the country is simply an opportunity for service and cultivation of the doctrines we have heard. That doctrine, you and I, schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, believe. The motto which we take away from here is not, "My country against the world," but, "My country for the world." Now, the practical question comes, How are we to impress this truth upon the children? Not by what we have been wont to call education-reading, writing, and arithmetic-and the filling of the mind with knowledge, and the training of the powers so as to make them strong; that does not make them patriots. The most powerful men that history has known have many of them been the very worst, and I regret exceedingly that this generation has seen a reviving of one of the great examples of selfishness-who stands for selfishness above all those that ever lived-Napoleon. Napoleon is to-day the ideal of millions of boys of this land. We schoolmasters must put down such stuff.

Now, society is not the result of a social compact. It is a divine institution given to man by the Father, that he might make the most of himself and then give himself for the good of others; because it is through society, as has been well said by Dr. Bartholomew, that man can do the best service. Hence, we must create such an atmosphere about the child in school that he shall become habituated to the thought that he is a member of society; that he may serve society, and through society the world. That is the business of the teacher, inspired by the gentle spirit of the Master. This influence you can carry with you into the schoolroom, so that it will take hold of the children. It is your duty to create an atmosphere so that the children shall, from day to day, live in love and live in service, and go out from the schoolroom to serve mankind; not to fight them but to serve them by noble deeds-serve them in all the glorious ways that have been referred to this morning. It is a powerful influence for good and for patriotism which the teachers of this land can exert, so that the whole world may be inspired with the spirit of love toward mankind. You, ladies and gentlemen, and you alone can do that.

STATE SUPT. J. R. PRESTON of Mississippi.-I have listened with profound pleasure to all that has been said, and the noble and high ideals of patriotism that have been set up for us. I represent in some ways, not the trans-Mississippi, not the North, not the East, but I represent the far South-the State of Mississippi. I had the honor a few years ago of reading a paper at the National Educational Association in Toronto on the subject of teaching patriotism, and the foundation principle that I laid down there I believe to be true to-day. I find reported in the papers of this morning that the true patriotism is to live for one's country. That is what we are trying to do. Fellow teachers, in this great nation, with us of the South the problems of the past have been submerged in the history of the past. The problems of the present are pressing with mighty weight upon our greatest energies, and we are trying, in faith, and in patriotism, and in truth, and in honor, and in honesty, to meet these problems day by day, according to the best light and the best knowledge and the best thought which we possess. We are honest; we are sincere; we are struggling with great difficulty; and we come and claim from you a charitable appreciation of the efforts we are making. We come and ask you to do what we are trying sincerely to do- to lay aside all prejudice, and to teach

the right, and cease to teach or allow to be created any of the baneful feelings of hate which once tore asunder this mighty country. We come to you with open hearts, and we believe that the teachers have a grand opportunity-the grandest opportunity and the grandest power-to allay prejudice, to smother hate, to come to a consideration of this question with fairness and with justice, and we believe that this great Union, established as it is upon the principles of justice and equality, is worthier to-day of the love and admiration of every citizen, North and South, than it ever was, or than any portion of it separated apart ever could have been.

Let us forget all that is past, and remember the great issues that are before us to-day. Let us grapple with them in faith and truth and honesty. Let us look at them with all the intelligence that we can summon. Let us, as teachers, feel that here is the work of the nation, and let us enter into it with a profound love, not for the North or South, the East or the West, but love for this whole nation.

THE EFFECT OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION ON
EDUCATION.

BY JOSEPH LE CONTE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, CAL.

Like all great truths, the idea of evolution has been held in a vague way even from the earliest dawn of thought. But only very recently do we observe any attempt to apply it to life. We find the explanation of this in the profound difference between the old philosophy and modern science in their respective attitudes toward truth. To the old thinkers, pure thought and gross matter, the ideal and the real, belonged to two different worlds. They never dreamed of bringing down their noble thoughts to the practical concerns of life to apply them to social organization, or politics, or religion. These glorious ideas were for the delectation of thinkers only. These daughters of the intellect were too pure and holy to be married to the grossly practical. They were vestal virgins about the sacred altar of truth; beautiful exceedingly, but forever barren. To modern science, on the contrary, every truth has, and must have, its practical application. The tree of knowledge must bear appropriate fruit for the material benefit of humanity. Evolution is now, therefore, applied to practical life, because it has passed from the domain of vague philosophic speculation into that of definite scientific knowledge. This change has not taken place all at once, but only by the successive labors of many men, each contributing his own characteristic part. It was the part of Lamarck to awaken scientific attention and deeply stir the scientific mind. It was the part of Darwin to convince the scientific mind of the truth of the evolution of the

organic kingdom. It was the part of Spencer to extend the law of evolution to embrace every department of nature, and thus to make it applicable to society, to religion, and to education. It was the part of Huxley to fight the battles of evolution and to conquer its acceptance by the intelligent, but unscientific, public. It was, and is, the part of American evolutionists to complete the evidence from palæontology where it was weakest, and also-for we are less hampered by tradition here than elsewhere-to apply it fearlessly, yet I hope reverently, to religious and social thought.

The final effect has been to revolutionize our whole view of nature and of man, to change the whole attitude of the mind toward truth, and thus to modify deeply our philosophy in every department; and, therefore, also to modify profoundly our theory and methods of education. It is this effect on education that I wish to bring before you this evening. But the subject is so large, and my time so short, that I can only touch lightly some most salient points.

I would be glad to point out to you how the theory of evolution indirectly, but in a most important way, affects education (as it does all departments of thought) by simply elevating the intellectual standpoint and widening the intellectual horizon; but I must forego this and proceed at once to its direct effect on our theories and methods of education. And here, as you already anticipate, I must speak first of all of its immediate effect on biology; and then afterward on all its indirect effects, through biology, on nearly all the higher departments of thought. These I shall call higher lessons taught in the school of evolution.

Organic evolution is evolution par excellence. In the mind of Darwin evolution was, and in the minds of very many it still is, identified with the theory of origin of species by descent with modifications. To many it means only a continuous genetic chain of all organisms from the earliest to the present, and, therefore, a bloodkinship among all existing organisms from lowest to highest. It is to Spencer that we owe the extension of this law of continuity to every realm of nature, and thus this mode of thinking to every realm of thought. Organic evolution, therefore, whether of the individual or of the organic kingdom, is the type of evolution. In that department the battle of evolution was fought and won. Right here, in the origin of new organic forms, was found the barrier to the acceptance of the law of continuity-the stronghold of supernaturalism in the realm of nature. When this barrier gave way, the whole domain of thought was immediately conquered. It is right, then, that I should take up this department first.

There is a striking contrast between the old natural history and the new biology. The one is, perhaps, best represented by Audubon,

the other by Huxley. In the one imagination predominates, in the other reasons; in the one love of field and forest and mountain, in the other thoughtful work in the laboratory. The one studies form and habits, the other structure and function. The characteristic implements of the one are the shotgun, the insect-net, and the dredge, of the other the scalpel and the microscope. In the ideal biologist, these two must be united in equal proportions. Such union was nearly realized in Agassiz and Darwin, because they stood just at the parting of the ways. Zoologists now belong mainly to the one class or the other, but predominantly to the second class. In botany, the differentiation has not been so extreme. The change is, therefore, best illustrated in zoology.

Such, then, is the contrast between the old and new style naturalist. The change may, perhaps, be regretted by some, but was absolutely necessary in the development of biological science. The old-style naturalist had been working from time immemorial, enthusiastic in traveling, observing, collecting, describing, classifying; in a word, gathering the materials of science; but thoughtful men began to ask, "Where is the science itself?" "What light does all this throw on the real problem of life?" "What is the meaning of the classification so laboriously constructed?" "What is the meaning of the facts of geographical distribution of species gathered by such extensive traveling?" The old natural history as a real science seemed to have reached its limit, if it was not indeed moribund. Collections of dry plants were contemptuously compared to gathered hay. Geographical distribution of organisms was a tiresome chaos of curious facts without connecting idea. Just then came evolution -a great new idea, informing and giving life and meaning to this dead mass of facts, bringing order out of this chaos, "creating a soul under the dry ribs of this death." The true meaning of classification is at once revealed, viz., the various degrees of blood-kinship in descent. Geographical distribution of organisms is at once completely explained by migrations produced by the glacial epoch and the slow evolution-changes produced by a changed environment, physical and organic. The strange and hitherto inexplicable course of embryonic or ontogenic development becomes now but a brief recapitulation of the phylogenic or family history. It is easy to imagine the prodigious impulse given to the sciences of life. The deepest problems of plant life, animal life-yea, of human life and social life-seemed now within reach of science. The army of investigators was increased tenfold. Biological laboratories sprang up everywhere, on lake- and sea-shores, and, still more numerously, in schools, colleges, and universities.

Such was the intellectual impulse given by the introduction of a great new idea. But great new ideas always involve new methods of work, and, therefore, new methods of teaching. The new method has been called by different names. I will call it the "evolution method." But as this is only one of many methods of science, I must introduce its discussion by a few words on scientific methods generally.

We all know the prodigious enlargement of the domain of modern thought produced by the birth and rapid growth of the sciences of nature. But until recently there has been but little corresponding change in the subject-matter of education, especially in the lower schools. This was right. The reason is obvious. All attempts to teach science by the old text-book methods gave very unsatisfactory results. Science-teaching as a means of mental culture seemed far inferior to mathematics and the languages. These latter, at least to some degree, threw the pupil on his own resources; but science-teaching by pure classroom, text-book methods is the barest memoriter exercise. Now, science is nothing if not a knowledge of nature at first-hand, and science-teaching is nothing unless, in some degree, it brings the pupil in contact with nature. The new knowledge must have new methods. In a word, science must be largely taught in the field and in the laboratory. This field and laboratory method must supplement every other method in science-teaching. This is now so generally understood that it is unnecessary to dwell on it.

But there is another and deeper sense in which we may use the term method, which is even more important. It is method, not in the sense of use of eye and hand but of use of brain; not in the sense of dexterous manipulation but of orderly thinking. In this sense, scientific methods bear the same relation to intellectual progress that tools, instruments, and machines bear to material progress. They are intellectual contrivances whereby we accomplish results which would otherwise transcend our power. As the civilized man has no superiority over the savage in bare-handed strength, and the great material results accomplished by the former are wholly due to the use of material contrivances called tools, instruments, machines so the scientific man claims no superiority over others in unassisted intellectual power, and the great results accomplished by him in the acquisition of knowledge and in the conquest of nature are wholly due to the use of intellectual contrivances called scientific methods. These are mainly three: 1. The method of symbols, or mathematical method. We all know the power of this method. We all know how by the use of a few numeral digits, a few letters, a and b, x and y, and a few signs, -|- and — and, the veriest school-boy may quickly solve questions which would defy the unaided power