The Jasper weekly courier. [volume] (Jasper, Ind.) 1858-1922, 1877-06-29

ttt - viz Rt0t tNHG III lily nAttts
said a dealer in cordagc, pointing to a
not very large rope which lay coilcd up
on the floor
:. In what way il it hestP' I inquired.
"In strength" he replied.
A friend who was present pointed 10
much larger rope near by, saying that
il must surely be stronger, for the size
was greater.
The man Of rope then went into de-
scription Of the process Of manufacture,
and different kinds Of rope. from whale
line up 10 the largest hawser. His ex-
PLANTATION was SO clear. that we readily
saw that a cable owed its strength. not
SO much 10 the amount of MANILA il
contained per fathom, as to the close
union existing between the ribres, or. in
other words, that pound OF MANILA
made into loosely twisted rope. one
foot long, would not be so strong as the
same amount Of material closely twisted;
or, more properly, 4 loosely twisted
rope, weighing a pound to the foot.
would not be nearly so strong As hard
twisted rope of the same material and
weight and yet the loosely twisted,
weak rope would look the largest of the
two.
A familiar example Of this Is shown
by the shoemaker, who untwists his
hempen thread when he wishes to break
il. This untwisting does not rob the
thread Of single fiber, and vet il j. so
weakened, that the thread, which before
almost defied man to break il with his
naked hands, will now part with such
ease, that il can hardly be called break
ing. very few of the fibcrs holding firm
ly enough 70 require fracturing. Its
strength depended more upon the close
union Of the fibers than upon their indi-
vidual strength.
II is not unusual 10 find persons who,
like the rope dealers friend, look upon
size and strength as synonymous. This
impression is much more general than
some would suppose. We frequently
hear people speaking Of some unusually
large man, saying, ...Just look at
him; | would not like 10 have him take
hold Of me-" Or Of a church. at is |
very strong church--over three hum
drcd members Corporations are
judged in the same manner-the number
and wealth Of its members being tax en- \
as the standard Of its strength: and vet
the fallacy Of this i apparent To any who
will take the trouble 10 examine the facts
Of the case. Great size does not always \
indicate corresponding strength. Even
In physical contests the largest does not
always prove the best man That this
Is true Of individuals probably no one
will dispute. Yet many who acknowl-
edge this are unwilling to apply the
same line Of reasoning to societies, to
whom il Is certainly more APP
plicable than TO individuals. II
Probably many Of these same false
theorists could recall circumstances that
would clearly disproyc their own theory
IF strength in proportion TO size. In
act, we are certain that the most strik-
ne illustrations Of this are found in the
.asc of numbers in societies, whether
ocial, educational, political or religious.
Many men " are likely to have many
ninds,'' and instead Of unity Of pur-
rose, there will be more or less ndivid-
ity-they will be less closely united.
Is great bodies exert more powerful,
attractive influence upon the lesser, so
wo or three great minds, running in
ifferent directions. will soon be sur
oundcd by their attendant satellites.
'hus our society i split into factions.
md 50 completelyis this untwisting =
done, that societies composed
4 hundreds, or even thousands, are
ften broke in two with as much appa-
ent ease rs the shoemaker breaks his I
bread. Surely the strength Of the !
amily, society, association, church,
r nation, depends upon the close unity
xisting between the individual mem
ers.