for the use of teachers and to do it at once; and it was widely advertised by the American publishers that an authoritative abridgment of the "Outlines of Psychology" by the author himself would soon appear. It need hardly be said that the author, who knew the subject thoroughly, and had created the work, was the most competent man to prepare from it a briefer volume, which would require much adaptation and new statement; because justice to teachers and to a most important subject could not be done by merely ripping out mechanically a part of the larger book and printing it separately. But Principal Reinhart, of the Paterson High-School, paid no attention to any such consideration. He cut out what he wanted from the volume, added some notes, and applied to Messrs. Appleton to print it, which of course they declined to do; and he then found another publisher to carry out his very questionable project.
Now, our only concern hero is with the moral complexion of this affair, in connection with what goes for "higher education" in the public-school system of this country. A great deal is said about the low state of moral education in our public schools; but the grave question arises as to the competency of the directors of even our "high-schools" to teach it. Moral education is a matter of principles applied to practice; it inquires into the grounds of right and wrong in conduct, with a view of determining what things are proper to do and what are forbidden as immoral or unjust. It aims simply to ascertain and enforce upon the individual right rules for the guidance of personal action in daily and practical life. The obligations of morality are clear enough; what is wanted in the schools is the explanation of their fundamental importance, their sacredness, the sophistry by which they are evaded, and their pointed application to the conscience of the young.
Is the Principal of the Paterson High-School, a fit person to give such instruction? Could ho explain to his classes the moral difference between stealing Mr. Sully's book and stealing his watch? Could he explain to his Jersey students why they should not steal the paper and binding of Bardeen's volume as he has its contents? If ho should say to them that paper, ink, and binding are sacred things and not to be appropriated without payment, while the soul of the work, the part sought and prized as a power in our education, has no value which ho is bound to recognize, would they not be justified in replying to the argument by throwing the book at his head? The Principal of a high-school who, at this time, will appropriate literary property which he has no moral right to touch, who will rob an author simply because he is helpless and must intrust his book to the public honor, and who will mutilate a work which he knows the author is himself revising and making over for the specific objects recognized—such a Principal may comply with the State standard of competency to control a high-school, but, in our opinion, he is not fit to give instructions in moral education.
The Paterson Principal will, of course, have his excuses. lie may say: "The appropriation of foreign books is a common thing; it is done, and has been long done, by respectable people; I am no worse than they are." But this will not do. When a professional literary freebooter says: "I care nothing for the rights of foreign authors; I propose to take their works as long as I can profit by them and keep out of jail; 'what are you going to do about it?'"—his case is not a proper precedent for the principal of a high-school charged with the duty of forming the moral characters of pupils committed to his charge. He is to teach them that what is intrinsically wrong is not made anything else because others indulge in it. Of course, he can quote many bad examples which
