1899_06_NormalRecord.006 |
Previous | 6 of 18 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
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
Object Description
Title | The Normal Record. June 1899 |
Original Date | 1899-06 |
Description | The Record. Published by the Associated Students of Chico State College. |
Creator | Chico State College |
Location of Original | Archives |
Call Number | LD723 C57 |
Digital Collection | The Record: Chico State Yearbook Collection |
Digital Repository | Meriam Library, California State University, Chico. |
Description-Abstract | The Record served as both a student magazine and a commencement program for Chico Normal School. In the year 1899, it was published almost monthly. |
Date Digital | 2013 |
Language | eng |
Rights | For information on the use of the images in this collection contact the Special Collections Department at 530.898-6342 or email: specialcollections@csuchico.edu |
Format | image/tiff |
Filename | index.cpd |
Description
Title | 1899_06_NormalRecord.006 |
OCR- Transcript | 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 |