recently to find out if the teachers are as re ligious as Dr. John Roach Straton or as patriotic as Mayor Hylan of New York, Mayor Thompson of Chicago, and Mr. William Randolph Hearst.

These assaults upon the freedom of teaching have been supported by the ignorant part of our population, the spokesmen of these new inquisitions have often been mountebanks, and invariably they have been ignoramuses. As a result, educated men have been disposed, partly because they were sincerely contemptuous, partly because they were prudent, to treat the whole matter as a farce which would soon break down through its own inherent absurdity. It is very easy to make light of the Chicago inquisitor who could not recall in the excitement of his patriotism whether it was Nathan Hale or Ethan Allen who regretted that he had only one life to give for his country. It is fairly funny to read that the Mayor of Chicago has drawn up a list of patriots of Polish, German, and Irish descent, who ought to be celebrated in the Chicago schools. But I am not so sure that it is possible to laugh all this off, and I am not so sure but that at the core of all this confusion there is not something of great importance which it behooves us to understand.

I am inclined to think that Dayton and Chicago are landmarks at which it is profitable to pause and ask ourselves whether the theory of liberty which we inherit is adequate. I do not find it adequate. My own experience as a controversial journalist during the last ten years has convinced me that while the intelligence and the wit of the community are opposed to these clerical and patriotic inquisitions, there exists no logically consistent philosophy of liberty with which to combat them. I am thoroughly persuaded that if Mr. Bryan at Dayton had been as acute as his opponents, he would have conquered them in debate. Given his premises, the logic of his position was unassailable. I am no less persuaded that the objects of Mayor Thompson's crusade could be stated in a way which would compel the respectful attention of every thinking man.

I know perfectly well that Mayor Thompson cannot state them in such a fashion. But I see no advantage in winning a cheap victory just because the opposition has a poor lawyer. I propose, therefore, to ignore as irrelevant all the superficial absurdities of the attacks on learning, to ignore the discreditable motives which sometimes confuse the issue, to ignore above all the squalid ignorance which surrounds

these controversies, and instead to examine them sympathetically and dispassionately, not in their weakness and folly, but in their strength. I propose, if you please, to be the Devil's Advocate.

Need I remind you that the real title of that official is Promoter of the Faith?

3. A CURIOUS COINCIDENCE

I should like at the outset to invite your attention to a curious coincidence. I have before me a copy of Jefferson's Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom. This bill, as you know, was accepted in 1786 with a few unimportant changes by the General Assembly of Virginia. It has been called the first law ever passed by a popular assembly giving perfect freedom of conscience, and by common consent it is regarded as one of the great charters of human liberty. I have before me also the text of the bill which was passed by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee on March 13, 1925, entitled An Act Prohibiting the Teaching of the Evolution Theory.

No two laws could be further apart in spirit and in purpose than these two. And yet at one point there is a strange agreement between them. On one vital matter both laws appeal

to the same principle although they aim at diametrically opposite ends. The Virginia statute says that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." The Tennessee statute prohibits "the teaching of the evolution theory in all the universities, normal and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State." You will note that the Tennessee statute does not prohibit the teaching of the evolution theory in Tennessee. It merely prohibits the teaching of that theory in schools to which the people of Tennessee are compelled by law to contribute money. Jefferson had said that it was sinful and tyrannical to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves. The Tennessee legislators representing the people of their state were merely applying this principle. They disbelieved in the evolution theory, and they set out to free their constituents of the sinful and tyrannical compulsion to pay for the propagation of an opinion which they disbelieved. The late Mr. Bryan made this quite clear:

"What right," he asked, "has a little irre

sponsible oligarchy of self-styled intellectuals to demand control of the schools of the United States in which twenty-five millions of children are being educated at an annual expense of ten billions of dollars ?"

Some time ago I pointed out this disturbing coincidence to a friend of mine who has devoted many years of his life to the study of Jefferson. After a few remarks about the devil quoting Scripture, he said that the coincidence shows how dangerous it is to use too broad a principle in justifying a practical aim. That of course is true. Jefferson, like other enlightened men of his time, believed in the separation of church and state. He wished to disestablish the church, which was then supported out of public funds, and so he declared that taxation for the propagation of opinions in which a man disbelieved was tyranny. But while he said 'opinions,' he really meant theological opinions. For ardently as he desired to disestablish the church, he no less ardently desired to establish a system of public education. He thought it quite proper to tax the people to support the public schools. For he believed that "by advancing the minds of our youth with the growing science of the times" the public schools would be elevating them "to the practice