Thoughts about the preceding letters:This is perhaps due to the lack of perspicacity of our intelligence, but we confess, with all humility, that we are no more enlightened than before; we will even say that the above explanations confirm our opinion. We were told that the author of the project had a well-defined program, but that he would reserve it, and have it known when the adhesions were sufficient. Such a way of proceeding seems neither logical nor practical to us, because one cannot rationally adhere to what one does not know; however, the letter Mr. Macé was kind enough to write to us, in no way suggests that this is the case; on the contrary, it says: "Each group will necessarily have to make its own program,” meaning that the author does not have one of his own. As a result, if there are a thousand groups, there may be a thousand programs; it is the open door to the anarchy of systems.
He adds, it is true, that the fundamental point is clarified, in the clearest and most distinct way, by the indication of the goal, that is: "To carry out pure and simple education, apart from any concern of sect. and party.” The goal is commendable, no doubt, but we only see good intention there, and not the indispensable precision in practical matters.
He adds: “Any circle that would infringe it would automatically exit the league.” That is the denunciatory measure. Well, these circles will be free to leave the League, and to form others alongside, without believing to have been unworthy of anything; this is then the main League broken from its beginning, for the lack of a unified and whole view. The indicated goal is so general that it lends itself to an error of very contradictory applications, in that each one, interpreting it according to their personal opinions, will believe to be right. Where is the authority that can legally pronounce this exclusion? There is none; there is no regulatory center with the capacity to assess or control individual programs that deviate from the general plan. Each group being its own authority, and its center of action, it is the sole judge of what it does; under such conditions, we believe it to be impossible to reach an agreement.
So far, we only see a general idea in this project; now, an idea is not a program. A program is an outline from which no one can consciously deviate, a plan drawn up in the most minute details, and that leaves nothing to the arbitrary, where all the difficulties of execution are foreseen, where the ways and means are indicated. The best program is the one that leaves as little as possible to the unpredictable.
“It was quite impossible for me to specify anything," says the author, "since the measure of action of each group will necessarily be determined by its means of action.” In other words, by the material resources at their disposal. But this is not a reason. Every day plans are made, projects are worked out subordinated to the possible means of execution; it is only by seeing a plan that the public decides to join it, as they understand its usefulness and see the elements of success in it.
What should have been done first, and foremost, would be to point out, with precision, the gaps in the education that one proposed to fill, the needs that one wanted to meet; say: if one intended to promote free education, by remunerating or compensating teachers; found schools where there are none; to make up for the insufficiency of instructional material, in schools too poor to provide them; provide books to children that cannot afford them; found incentive prizes for pupils and teachers; create courses for adults; to pay men of talent to go, like missionaries, to give instructive lectures in the countryside, destroying superstitious ideas there, with the aid of science; define the purpose and spirit of these courses and conferences, etc., those things and others. Only then would the aim have been clearly specified.
Then, it would have been said: “To achieve it, we need material resources; we appeal to the men of good will, to friends of progress, to those that sympathize with our ideas; that they form committees by departments, districts, cantons or communes, responsible for collecting donations. There will be no general and central fund, each committee will have its own, the employment of which will be done according to the outlined program, proportionate to the resources at its disposal; if it collects a lot, it will do a lot, if it collects little, it will do less. But there will be a steering committee, responsible for centralizing information, transmitting the necessary notices and instructions, resolving any difficulties that may arise, printing the seal of unity onto the whole, without which the league would be an empty word. A league means an association of individuals marching, by mutual agreement and in solidarity, towards the achievement of a determined goal; however, as long as everyone can understand this goal their own way, and act as they please, there is no longer either league or association.
An essential point, that does not seem to have been thought through, is this: Being the proposed goal permanent, and not temporary as when it is a question of a calamity to be relieved, or of a monument to be erected, it requires permanentresources. Experience proving that one should never count on regular and perpetual voluntary donations, if one operated directly with the proceeds of donations, this fund would soon be absorbed. If we want the operation not to be stopped at its very origin, it is necessary to build up an income, so as not to live on its capital; therefore, capitalize subscriptions in the safest and most productive manner. How, and with which guarantee and under which control? This is what any project, based on the application of capital, must above all foresee and determine, before collecting anything, just as it must also determine the use and distribution of funds, paid in advance, in the event that, by any cause whatsoever, it would not be continued. By its nature, the project has an economic part that is more important, for its future depend on that, and that is totally lacking here.
Suppose that before the establishment of insurance companies, a man would have said: “Fires cause devastations every day; I thought that, by associating and contributing, one could mitigate the effects of the calamity; How? I do not know; subscribe first, and we'll notify you later; you yourselves will seek the means that will suit you best, and you will come to an understanding.” No doubt, the idea would have been laughed at by many; but when one had set to work, how many practical difficulties would not have been encountered, for lack of having a previously developed foundation! It seems to us that the case is about the same here.
The letter published in the Annals of Labor, and reported above, does not further elucidate the question; it confirms that the plan and execution of the project are left to the arbitrary and to the initiative of the subscribers; however, when the initiative is left to everyone, no one takes it. Moreover, if men have enough judgment to appreciate whether what is offered to them is good or bad, not all of them are able to develop an idea, especially when it embraces such a vast field, as this one. This elaboration is the essential complement of the first idea. A league is an organized body that must have regulations and statutes, to walk together, if it is to achieve a result. If Mr. Macé had established statutes, even provisional, to submit them later for the approval of the subscribers, who would then be free to modify them, as it is the practice in all associations, he would have given a body to the League, a point of connection, while it has neither.
We even say that it does not have a flag, since it is said in the aforementioned letter: The league will not teach anything, and will have no direction to give; it is therefore superfluous to worry now about the more or less liberal opinions of the person who seeks to found it. We would understand this reasoning if it were an industrial operation; but in an issue as delicate as teaching, that is considered from very controversial points of view, that touches on the most serious interests of the social order, we do not understand how the opinion of the one who is the founder can be ignored, the one that must be the soul of the company. This assertion is a regrettable mistake.
From the vagueness that surrounds the economy of the project, it results that, by subscribing, no one knows what or for what he is committed, since he does not know what direction the group, that he will be part of, will take; there will even be subscribers that do not belong to any group. The organization of these groups is not even determined; their membership, their attributions, their sphere of activity, everything is left in the unknown. No one has the capacity to summon them; contrary to what is practiced in similar cases, no supervisory committee is set up to regulate and control the use of funds, paid in advance, and that serve to pay for the costs of propaganda of the idea. Since there are overhead expenses paid with the subscribers' funds, they should know what these are. The author wants to give them all the latitude, to organize themselves as they see fit; he only wishes to be the promoter of the idea; be it, and far from us the thought of raising the least suspicion or mistrust against his person; but we say that, for the regular progress of an operation of this kind, and to ensure its success, there are indispensable preliminary measures, that have been totally neglected, and that we regrettably see, in the very interest of the thing; if it is on purpose, we believe the idea to be unfounded; if it is forgotten, it is unfortunate. We do not have the skills to give any advice in this matter, but here is how one generally proceeds in similar cases.
When the author of a project, that requires a call for public confidence, does not want to assume alone the responsibility for the execution, and also in order to surround himself with more enlightenment, he first gathers a certain number of people whose names are a recommendation, that associate with the idea and elaborate it with him. These people constitute a first committee, either advisory or cooperative, provisional until the final constitution of the operation and the appointment of a permanent supervisory board by the interested parties.
This committee is a guarantee to the latter, by the control it exerts upon the first operations, for which it is responsible for reporting, as well as the initial expenditures. It is also a support and a discharge of responsibility to the founder. The latter, speaking in his name, and supported by the opinion of several, draws from this collective authority a moral force that is always more preponderant over the opinion of the masses than the authority of one. If this had been done for the League of Teaching, and if this project had been presented in the usual forms, and in more practical terms, the members would, undoubtedly, have been in greater numbers, but as it is, it leaves too much to the undecided, in our opinion.
Although this project was given over to publicity, and consequently, to the free examination of each one, we would not have spoken about it, if we had not been, in some way, constrained by the requests that were addressed to us. In principle, on things that, from our point of view, we cannot give full approval, we prefer to remain silent so as not to create any obstacle.
Having been asked for new explanations, since our last article, we felt the need to justify our way of seeing with more accuracy. But again, we are only giving our opinion, that is not binding to anyone; we would be happy to be the only one with such opinion, and that the success of the endeavor proved us wrong. We wholeheartedly associate ourselves with the mother idea, but not with its mode of execution.
