enough propelling men are more vocal in criticism than in constructive suggestion, but in this problem of educating leaders or producing more "heads" and fewer "hands" some points at least are clear.

It is clear, for example, that there is an urgent and steady demand for scientifically trained men such as our technical schools are now producing; and, further, that the output now coming into the market is of excellent quality.

Our system which produces these men, though of very recent design, has been a wonderful success. The technical schools have done a great public service, but they have not really attempted to turn out men characterized by boldness, imagination, and a deep religious faith. The training of our scientific schools puts the emphasis on caution and highly developed powers of reasoning, which lead men to scepticism and not to faith and make them careful rather than courageous.

Your successful system for training leaders must take another road. In such men you must develop poetry, imaginative boldness, the power of vivid conception, and enthusiasm. You must teach them salesmanship and not science, and before all, through all, above all, must be the spirit of service, human sympathy, and a burning religious faith.

These points, I believe, will meet with general assent: that the method and the results of the training in our scientific schools are remarkably successful in doing what they have undertaken; that they do not profess to train men in those qualities of leadership which I have tried to define; and that more leaders are needed if our industrial system is to survive. The magnitude and tyrannical power of

that system has now reached a point (sometimes referred to as the dominion of machines) which has enslaved and will destroy us if man does not regain the upper hand.

Inspired leaders must be found or our Frankenstein will devour us. Some modification in our system of training or tuning men for industry is imperative for survival, and experience encourages us to

recognized a way will be found.

I recognize what a parade I make of my ignorance when I venture to offer a solution, but I can hardly leave the subject without a gesture in that direction.

And first I would remind you of the great truth which has been rediscovered and well described in our time, namely: that the educational motor is a threecycle engine, whose cylinders are romance, technique, and generalization. To produce effective power they must be ignited in this order; if you begin with the second -technique-the others will not go off. The young mind which is first fired with the romance of the subject will fire the second cylinder automatically and also the third.

The boy with a burning interest in his work will insist on learning the technique of it--you will hardly need to teach it to him, for he will grab it out of your hand. But if you force the technique upon him before you have lighted his interest, the result will commonly be that the first and third cylinders will never go off at all and your engine must run on one cylinder instead of three. Rather, you must produce perfect ignition in the cylinder of interest. If you do that, the second will go off with a bang and ignite the third which is the most powerful-the cylinder of generalization where the gases from romance and skill combine to achieve great constructive work.

OVERDEVELOPING TECHNIQUE

school never achieved sufficient grasp of fact; he was relatively loose minded and therefore vague and dangerous. The reaction from this has developed the slave of the formula, as well as the lamp, whose essential weakness lies in the assumptions that there are no other forms of fact, that all facts are of the mathematical sort, and that there are no spiritual facts. But I bid you observe that God and the

Make them do it until they know just what it feels like, and then move them up rapidly through the departments requiring skill into the executive offices where the administrative work is done, until you shoot them out at the top and into the sky whence they can get an airplane view of the whole show.

NOT EXPERTS, BUT MEN OF VISION

F COURSE their productive value

facts in the universe. They cannot be reduced to a formula and so the engineers disregard them, with the result that the men have crystalized into dangerous automatons.

Nothing is more fatal to leadership than this atrophy of the soul which divorces men from life and makes them hermits in the whirl of industry.

A fierce veracity and sincere worship of fact is not weakened by spiritual faith. The most faithful and heroic men are the most starkly sincere. The changes in this generation have been so rapid, and the achievements of the higher education so monumental, that we have almost forgotten how, twenty years ago, the successful manufacturer despised a collegebred man. A high school diploma as the maximum, and then to work. Teach the boys to read, write, and cipher, and then put them into the mill-that was the formula of the man of the old school. It sounds old-fashioned nowadays, but I believe that it contained a germ of truth which we should do well to develop somewhat in this wise. Give the boys a high school training and a college course in the liberal arts, designed to fire their imagination, and give them the widest vision of life, particularly that part which is the most essential, the spiritual life of the race. This, followed by a short highpressure cycle of technical training, will fit them for apprenticeship in some great industrial enterprise at a nominal wage.

There the third cycle of generalization or applied experience will begin. Let them start at the bottom and spend some months working their way up from the ranks in daily contact with laboring men. Don't spare them the heavy dirty work.

OF

they may even be in the way. But if you call it a part of the school system, plenty of great industries will be willing to take them in. In fact, some of our most successful ones are doing something very like this now. It should be greatly extended and operated through the college organizations as regular departments of business administration. Men so trained will not be experts at anything, but they will have been given a glimpse of an industrial enterprise as a whole, as a human instrument for the service of man, and they will have had a chance to see men with the greatest capacity for leadership actually hewing away at a job. That is the way to make young men see visions. Example "has it all over" precept. Let the boys see the great men at work and if they have the right stuff in them it will burst into flame. They will not be trained men in the modern sense, but most men imagine or dream better if they don't know too much. Loaded heads, like loaded stomachs, produce not dreams but nightmares. If you compare the educational equipment of Plato with that of a modern professor of philosophy, or of Jim Hill and Henry Ford with your trained engineers, you will perhaps catch a glimpse of my idea. Faith and idealism are the qualities that drive the world forward; all leadership is based on them. We too often stifle when we ought to stimulate them.

My faith in God and my hope for man force me to conclude that in the eternal race of science with the soul, the soul will win; and therefore, if you would be upon the winning side, educate the spirit before the mind.

T

HE Olson-Hickson theory of crime can be re-stated for present purposes in a sentence: "Crime is caused by a physical defect of the emotional centers; and this defect is inherited and incurable." Numerous readers of these articles have been disturbed by what seems to them to be a conflict between this theory and the facts of life as they have observed them. "If," they ask, "the cause of crime is an inherited and incurable defect, how do you account for the authentic cases of criminals who have reformed?" And they ask, also, “If the public accepts this mechanistic and fatalistic view of crime, why bother with religious or ethical training, when those who are predestined to commit crimes must therefore commit them anyhow?"

These are perfectly natural questions, but they are not unanswerable. There is

no conflict between the theory and the facts. But to understand the harmony between them, it is necessary first to recall how we get our ethical ideas fixed in our consciousness, and why we regard certain acts as crimes.

First of all, remember that crime is merely an act which the common conscience of the community has come to feel

is opposed to the common welfare. Polygamy, for instance, is now regarded as a crime in America. But any student of history knows that a majority of the human race still regards polygamy as a virtue, and that of all of the peoples who have inhabited the earth since the dawn of time, an overwhelming majority has sanctioned the custom. Numerous other examples could be cited of acts which are regarded as crimes at one time or place, but are elsewhere regarded as virtues. Therefore, it is not necessarily the act itself that constitutes the crime: it may be the feeling of the community toward the act that makes it a crime. Therefore, a criminal is, strictly, a man who knows that his neighbors have declared a certain act to be a crime, but who nevertheless performs that act.

ABSENCE OF A COMMUNITY CONSCIENCE

IT IS at this point that the OlsonHickson theory parts company

Hickson theory parts company with the present conceptions of crime. The popular idea of the criminal is that he violates this community conscience willfully. The Olson-Hickson idea of the criminal is that he violates this community conscience because he has a defective emotional center that does not

feel about the act the way the community feels about it.

The importance of this word "feel" cannot be over-emphasized, because it exactly describes the scientific fact about conscience. "Conscience" and "con

sciousness" are two very different things. "Conscience" is what we apprehend about right and wrong through our emotions. "Consciousness" enables us to apprehend only the abstract idea of right and wrong. Let us apply this idea practically to a sample case from real life.

CONSCIENCE OF A THREE-YEAR-OLD

WHE

HEN your son, aged three years, pulls a cat's tail till she yowls with pain, he cannot be charged with cruelty. He is simply ignorant. He has never pulled a cat's tail before and he has no idea of the effect of his act on the cat. The yowl is simply a new noise, and as he is interested in exploring whatever is new, he pulls again to see if the same cause always produces the same effect. You, however, have an elaborate set of ethical conceptions that prevents you from pulling the cat's tail. You know that it hurts the cat, and you have been taught

and seek thereby to arouse in him a lively feeling of your displeasure. Either way, what you do is to appeal to his emotions and not to his intelligence. What you hope is that always thereafter, when he starts to pull a cat's tail, he will be restrained by the recollection of the particular emotion which you instilled into him at that first time.

This, indeed, is the way you yourself got practically all your own standards of conduct. What you learned about conduct at your mother's knee is the most powerful influence in your life and its power flows, not from what she said, but from the tone in which she said it. As you grew older, you got other lessons in conduct in church. They are associated in your mind with the emotional mood induced by hushed voices, the music of the organ, and the sober light from stained glass. Older yet, you got lessons in conduct from the world about you. If you ever did an unsportsmanlike thing, which affected your future conduct more-the sneer of the man that saw you do it, or his words explaining why he disapproved?

WHERE EMOTIONS ARE DULLED

pain. Also, you have been taught that it is ignoble to take advantage of your size to oppress animals smaller than yourself. Now you have the task of getting these ethical conceptions over into the consciousness of your three-year-old son. How do you go about it?

Do you try, in even, unemotional language, to explain the abstract terms right" and "wrong" to a three-year-old intelligence and then assure your son that the consensus of community opinion, based upon the experience of the race, condemns pulling a cat's tail as an act calculated to have a bad effect on community morals? You certainly do not. What you do is to use a certain tone of voice and a certain expression of countenance that convey to the child your feeling about pulling a cat's tail. Either you say "poor kitty," and stroke the victim, thereby seeking to arouse pity in the child's breast; or you say "bad boy"

worth while, because lessons in conduct almost invariably are conveyed in such a manner as to implant a permanent emotional feeling associated with the ideas that are conveyed. Mothers and preachers both know this principle by instinct. But there must be an emotional structure in the child capable of receiving an emotional impression, or all the emotional education in the world will have no effect. The criminal never got this normal emotional association fixed in his mind, because his mind was defective on the emotional side.

What, then, of the reformed criminal? If he committed his crime because of an incurable emotional defect, how did he overcome his impulse to commit others? Of course the answer may be that he did not have this emotional defect-it has been repeatedly explained in these articles that, although nearly all crimes are com

mitted by emotional defectives, there are crimes that are committed by normal people acting under normal emotions under abnormal stress. "Unwritten law" murder is such a crime. But there are many others. For example, one of the hardest tasks of the drill sergeant in the training camps during the late war was to get men into the spirit of the bayonet drill. He had to teach them to charge a dummy man and stick a bayonet through him, and to do it with enthusiasm. So deeply rooted in most of the recruits was the horror of killing, that the sergeant had to use every resource of his imagination to work the rookies up to an emotional state where they could stomach the idea of attacking the dummy in earnest.

OF TWO EVILS, CHOOSE THE LESS

HIS aversion to killing is the product of

education, for the idea of killing an enemy is a natural idea and as old as the race. The rookies had a hard time, then, to unlearn an educated emotion and relearn a natural emotion. Some of them never could do it. So profound was the horror in some cases, that some men deserted rather than face the possibility of having to kill. (Of course, some cowards simulated this horror, but there unquestionably were cases in which this was the genuine cause of desertion.) Now desertion in time of war is a very serious crime. But in these genuine cases, the "criminal" had to choose between what to him were two crimes, and he chose what was to him the lesser crime. No defective emotional machinery was involved here, unless it be that a too-sensitive emotional response is as bad as the true criminal's characteristic, which is a toodull emotional response.

"But," you may object, "you have chosen a case of a very special kind. What about the man who once stole or forged a check, and then got religion and reformed and never committed another crime all the rest of his life. What about him?"

First, let it be said that these authentic cases of reformation are rare. They

are much rarer than they are popularly supposed to be. Probation statistics are frequently cited to show that many criminals do not repeat. The trouble with probation statistics is that they are not accurate. Most of them are carried only a few months from the date of release, and if the probationer does not relapse within, say, a year, he is recorded as a successful case of reform. But often the probationer has merely removed to another community or another state, where he relapses and his new record does not connect with the old. Or he diesthe criminal type usually dies young. Or he becomes clearly insane and is committed to an institution-the criminal type has a heavy percentage of the more familiar kinds of insanity. Or he exhausts his nervous vitality-the criminal type is so constituted physically and lives

early loss of energy-and becomes a relatively harmless "panhandler," "bum," or "down and outer." Or he lands in a home for the feeble-minded-the cruel criminal type practically always has an epileptic component that eventually brings him to incarceration in an institution for epileptics.

CRIMINALS WHO DO NOT REFORM

NOTHER alternative is common.

Men of the intellectually higher criminal type, who combine good intelligence with a bad emotional response, frequently enact in real life the story of the play, "Within the Law." They do not reform; they simply sharpen their wits. Endowed with enough intelligence to do it, they continue to be as bad as ever, but they are careful to commit acts that do not involve them in legal complications. Everybody knows men who, according to the judgment of the community, continually do mean things, or dishonest things, or questionable things, but always in such a way that they are within the technical right of the law. They "get away with murder." Many "reformed" criminals are in this class.

Some

of them do shady lobbying in legislatures. Some of them manage crazy religious