of your spirit. We would not go forth into this unknown future of ours in our country and the unknown future of the world without stopping at least at this time to secure some benediction from the past."

There is a man who is very much in the eye of the American public today, one of the greatest manufacturers of our country, who said not long ago—and it was quoted in all of our newspapers-that he was not interested in the past, that the past had no meaning for him, that the man of affairs must live today wholly in the present and with an eye toward the future. Ladies and gentlemen, I wish to state-and in stating this I believe I express the feeling of every one here that we at least dare not forget the past and the lessons of the past. I believe in every progressive movement in this country, and I believe that we cannot make too great progress in certain directions. Let us make all the progress that we can, not merely the progress that our self interest would urge, but that our intelligence also can justify. But, as we go forward into the future of the great progressive movements of the day, I beg of you that we take something of the past with us. The absolute condition of any progress of which we may be proud is that in rushing forward along the line of that progress we should seek to conserve the essential values of the past.

And what is more valuable in this inheritance than that which comes to us from these founders of colleges? What is most distinctive about their lives, which we may well emulate? I could touch upon many things would time but permit it. But I have only one idea I would like to present to you concerning these men and what they may teach us tonight. It is this: That these founders of colleges had with the idea of the School, so planted with it that they could not distinguish the two, the idea also of the Church; and with the idea of the School and the Church was a third, also indistinguishable in their thought and in their feeling, that of the State. The men who founded Rutgers College in the old Colony of New Jersey were the public spirited men of their day.

They were not only interested in education, but they were pioneers also in the cause of God and His Christ. And when the call came at the time of our Revolution, we find that they were patriots, willing to lay down their lives for the sake of their country. And having made America free they gave their best thought to the fundamental constitution which should govern us throughout all the years to come.

In these ideas of the school and of the church and of the state there was one underlying element that they all had in common, and I would characterize that as the "group" idea. These men were not particularly interested in themselves; there was no individualism in their theory of life; it was the service of the group. If that group happened to be at the time the school, the college, they gave their hearts and thoughts to it; the other group, of the church, they identified their lives with it; and the larger group of the state, their nation, they were willing to lay down their lives for it. Today I think in our education we are perhaps neglecting this idea, not only in the schools and colleges, but back to the first school, that of the home. We are unconsciously holding out before our young men and our young women the idea of an individual career in life as the aim of all living. Now I say no! God forbid that the young man should go out from Rutgers or Princeton or any of our institutions with the idea that he should look out for himself from the commencement day to the end of his life and cut clear from the beginning his path of success, his petty career! What about the group to which he belongs, which he should serve? He may say: "I have no group to which I belong. I have no responsibilities to any group of men." If that is his answer I say: "God help him in this age, when we are all living and feeling together; where our destiny is one, high and low, rich and poor."

In this land no man can live for himself and no man can die for himself. Our fathers had this idea. It was the main impulse of their lives. They could not express it in words; I can not express it in words. Words are

too feeble. But they had two great symbols to which they referred from time to time in their lives, and they were the last symbols before their eyes when those eyes closed in death: the symbol of the Flag and the symbol of the Cross. And they are not two symbols, after all, but they are one. The symbol of the cross certainly is that of vicarious sacrifice, and I would like to insist also that the symbol of the flag is that of vicarious sacrifice. Looking at our flag superficially, our first thought perhaps is we glory in it because it is our protection. That is only part of the story, ladies and gentlemen. That flag does not merely protect us, but we citizens of this country are to protect that flag and all that it stands for; and with that spirit we must look upon it as a symbol of sacrifice, just as the cross is the symbol of sacrifice, for the citizen of our country. And the young man who leaves the college must be taught that this is the first and the central and the last lesson of his education: The symbol of the flag is that of sacrifice. What is patriotism? Love of country, yes. Love of country that shows itself in consciousness of obligation and a readiness for sacrifice, not only in times of war, but also in times of peace.

And finally, Mr. President, my best wish for you in your administration, and for the welfare of Rutgers is that you may so discharge the trust that is committed to you that in the coming generation the children yet unborn may rise up and call you blessed, as you today gratefully celebrate the inheritance which you have in the founders of this institution of a past generation.

President DEMAREST: The relation of Rutgers to colleges and universities in the State of New York has been varied and constant through the years, and especially has there been interesting personal bond with what we call the University of the State of New York, at Albany.

A very early graduate of Queen's College, Simeon DeWitt, became Chancellor of the University of the State of New York, and in more recent years David Murray,

so long a professor here, became Secretary of the Board of Regents of the University, to return still later to Rutgers as a trustee.

Dr. Finley now represents the Regents, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York. We have been acquainted with him, not simply in that office, but as, prior to that, in the Faculty of Princeton University. He was also connected earlier than that with one of the so-called small colleges, with which this college, of course, has an especial fellowship.

I have great pleasure in introducing to you Dr. John Huston Finley.

SPEECH

JOHN HUSTON FINLEY, LL.D., L.H.D.

President of the University of the State of New York

MR. PRESIDENT, AND MR. GOVERNOR, AND I SALUTE ALSO THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION, DR. KENDALL, IN WHOSE EDUCATIONAL TERRITORY I AM-LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, AND MEN OF RUTGERS: I was informed on reaching this place tonight that it is a mere fortuity that Rutgers College is not located in Albany. That it is here is due to the highmindedness of an Albany man whose name has been mentioned gratefully here tonight. We may well applaud his disinterested highmindedness. On the other hand, it would have greatly contributed to my convenience if Rutgers College had been located in Albany, for I had to come all the way down from Albany this afternoon and I have to go all the way back to Albany tonight. And I am sure that Mr. Loree is sorry with me that Rutgers College is not located in Albany. We have there an institution referred to as the University of the State of New York, a mystical sort of an institution which has no professors and no students. If Rutgers College, with its professors and students, were there, it would have been more profitable for the D. & H. Railroad.

Still, I am very glad, after all, that Rutgers College was not established in Albany, because President Dema