The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-08-14

and tribes which. while truthful. are at the
Same time moro or less warlike. The autnor
finds the common trait In the fact that they
are not subject to coercive rule. That this Is
30 with tribes which are peaceful he has shown
in tho second volume OF his Principles OF
Sociology" and he now adds the Significant
circumstance that the same thing is true OF
truthful tribes which are not peaceful. Ihus
the Holt entots who consider their word sacred
vet who have frsauen wars a. out territories.
are governed by an assembly deciding by
q majority. The head men have but
little authority. Then again. the Iroduoia
who were distinguished for their love
OF truth, but who carried on hostilities
with their neiGhbors. were under tho controi
OF a council OF lfty elected sachems who
could be deposed by their tribes. Among the
Patagonians Also who are at once truthful and
wnrlike. there Ia but feeble government, FOL
lowers deserving their chiefs II dissatisfied.
OF the Khonds, who believe truthfulness to be
q sacred duty. yet who hive sanguinary con-
nicts respecting their lands. We are told by
MACPHERSON that the spirit of equality per-
yades tho whole constitution OF their society;
their community is governed by the influence
OF its natural heads alone. to the ontire exclu-
sion of the principle Of coercive authority.
The observations Of travellers tend to show
that it Is the presence or absence OF despotic
rule which leads to prevalent falsehood or
prevalent truth. 1t was an ancient saying
that Lying 10 the vice Of slaves" untruthful-
ness being looked upon as a sort OF refuge !or
tho weak and oppressed. Mr.. Spencer finds
this view Of unverncity verified in civilized
communities. OF European peoples. those sub
ject to the most absolute rule are the Rus
slnns, and their extreme untruthfulness Is no.
torious. The history Of feudal Europe is full OF
proofs Of mendnclty which. beginning with
the ruled. infected the rulers. In England a
like state OF things existed. II. with the uni
versal and lcathsome treachery OF which evory
statesman Of every party was continually
guilty during Elizabeth's reign. while mo-
narchical power was still but little qualified.
We contrast the veracity Of statesmen In re-
cent days. We see . striking instance OF
the relation between the untruthfulncss
which existed during tho conntrys subjec-
ton to tyranny and the truthfulness which
arises along with the increase OF liberty.
It follows that such connections as are
trsceabls between mendacity and life OF
external enmity. and between veracity and
a lie of internal amity. are not due to
any direct relations between violence and
lying and between peacefulness and truth
telling. but arc due to tho coercive social
structure which chronic external enmity
developed and to tho non-coercive social
structure developed by q life OF internal
amity. To which Mr. Spencer would add that
under the coercive condition there is little or
no ethical. or rather pro-ethical. reprobation
Of lying. That is to say. mendacity. far from
being abhorrent and dishonorable. is not even
recognized as Instantaneous to society.
Under the non-coercive condition. the pro-
OF. .ical reprobation OF lying on the score OF
social harmfulness. and in considerable meas
ure the ethical reprobation on the score OF
dshonorableness and wrongfulness becomes
strong.