The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-11-14

snouio pc carerui not to lead his hearers astray.
 Chancellor Andrews is well known for his defense of the rich. and to a certain extent he is right. This ever lasting denunciation of rich men is the very extreme of demagogy. and is in- dplged in because those who do it think
 1t will be popular. It is one of the strong points with the small politician when he can think of nothing else to win favor and office from the thought less. President Roosevelt is good at denouncing the predatory rich" and thus stirring up dissatisfaction and ill., feeling among the people. It is very strongly contended that one of the causes of the late financial furry came from the ill-advised attacks made on capital by men in hisA places.
 whether that is true to the extent that some claim may be doubted, per- haps. but the fact remains that this continuous howl against rich men and corporations is hurtful That fact does not lessen the absurdity. to call it by no harsher name. of such remarks as that sof Chancellor Andrews. By say- ing>that the newspapers which denounce the rich ought to be hung" we suppose he meant the editors. What sense Is there in such assertions before class of young men? To carry out his ideas would be to strike down the freedom of the press--a much greater crime than the offence for which he would hang the newspapers. We may de- precate and condemn the spirit which incites some of the newspapers to be forever denouncing those who are so fortuaate as to be weaithys-sut we mote earnestly condemn the spirit exhibited by Professor Andrews. h short, such teachings do far more harm than does the habit of the newspapers against which he inveighs. The laws of praco have no place in a republic.
 But even the absurd Andrews out break is not as dangerous as the teachl ings of Professor Drake. for to carry, out his advice would be to at once up- set our whole theory of government We are well aware that the idea of monarchy is not really distasteful to some Americans whether it is be- cause of their real desire for strong government or because of a feeling of dissatisfaction and disgust at some phases of our modern politics matters little, for If their desires could be grati- fled 1t would be the end of free govern ment in this country.
 But the most singular feature of Professor Drakes plan is that he should select Roosevelt as the person to be endowed with kingiy power. We can only account for 1t on the theory that he would make the transition from freedom to tyranny as complete as pos sible. and that would be the certain result of placing kingly crown on the head of Roosevelt. Of all public men now in responsible positions, in this country we do not know of one who would be more dangerous as a king. Russia itself never had a more unfeeling tyrant than he would be if he had the power. The idea of king is bad enough. but the very thought of such a king is unbearable.
 Now, we cannot dismiss such ex- pressions as these by calling the Pro. lessor crank or a revolutionary. nor can. we brush It aside by saying that no one VIII be influenced by them for neither would be correct. The Profess sor may be crank. but he occupies an influential position, and his teach ings. will influence many of the young men who listen to him. It is well known that evil teachings and influences spread rapidly and widely and the teachings of instructors like Andrews and Drake are bound to have bad effect. The right thing to be done is for the faculties of colleges and universities to get rid of such teachers and guard against them in future.