The Normal Record. June 1899

              THE NORMAL RECORD.
dramatic, to the love of glory, and to the regard for self. The phrase has for France in
a surpassing degree three virtues, and is
therefore the third power of virtue. The
United States of America is yet a youthful
nation. It is therefore, perhaps, not too
little to say that its phrases and its temper
both past and present are summed up in
some term expressive of its irrepressible desire to move on. What better one could be
found than "next."
In the experience of each of us this expression is early found as a doom of justice and as
a watchword of democracy. As blockheads
"next" sends us to the foot of the class: as
loyal believers in the sacred doctrine of rotation in office "next" insures to us the right
to get the succeeding prize, be it a drink of
water, a chance for a shave, or a political
snap. Properly speaking "next" should always be next in any direction; popularly
speaking it is always next before, or that
which is about to come. Otherwise why
should "who next?5' mean the unknown
"dark horse" just about to flare into sight?
And "what next?"—why should it be so difficult a thing to think of it as savoring in the
least of historical inquiry? We want the
news, but we want them while they are still
overspread with the glow of conjecture and
futurity, before they have ceased to be
"next."
Just as we are anxious to know the next
as soon as any one else, and to be next when
anyone else has led the way, so do we go on
in entire and heartless forgetfulness of him
who was "next" and afterwards "was" and
now "has been." "Next" like the joyful
bells of New Year is at once a herald of glad
tidings and an epitaph. "The King is dead,
long live the King" is not more solemnly congratulatory,'and not being so democratic is _
scarcely so hopeful for the other would-be
Kings. "Next" is the palladium of our liberties and the badge of our transitoriness.
It would be a nice bit of investigation if
one were to determine accurately and in such
a way as to apply to our rapidly varying
conditions just what suffices to make a person "next." Whether it is age, as in the inheritance by entail, or swiftness of foot as
with the Alaskan miner who would secure
the most desirable claims in the  newest  dis
covery, or loudness of voice such as determines precedence in the Austrian legislative
assembly, who can tell? That it should be
the last no one can doubt since it is by far
the most democratic method of selection.
By some it is carelessly asserted that degree of intelligence is the proper criterion.
But this standard, however ideal, is an impractical one is certain. No one can determine who is the most intelligent, but a
nickel-in-the-slot machine can obviously test
the strength of a man's lungs.
And this brings me to an extraordinary
quality that belongs to societies that believe
in "next." They are eminently practical.
Having decided that everyone is to have a
chance to hit upon the most feasible method
of settling who is to enjoy the chance next.
Whether there shall be a monopoly of
chances depends on whether there are
enough to go around. That there may be
some danger in this regard may readily be
seen from the following calculation: Suppose there are one hundred shares per year
and ten thousand people, each of whom
lives on the average fifty years. This means
that during a man's lifetime he has one
chance in two of getting a chance, and even
then the law of next gives him only a year in
which to have his chance if he gets it. Under
such conditions a cursory examination would
suggest that "life is not worth living." In
order to remove the difficulty as much as
passible the law of next must be rigidly applied. Any restriction of its operation it
may readily be seen will result in reducing
the number of chances, with the result of
dangerously increasing the prevalent discontent and despair.
It is therefore necessary to give each one
only one chance and to make the conditions
for getting even this one just as uniform as
possible. Herein lies another defect of the
method of deciding by intellectual superiority.
Some would have a handicap practically in
surmountable. Strength of voice, on the
other hand, is, if we leave out of consideration the female sex, a quality in respect to
which we all stand on equal terms. Hence
it is the true democratic method of selection
and "he who runs may. read" becomes "he
who howls is next." This probably accounts
for so many diseases  of   the  throat   in   our