our true status. A man's utterance reveals what he is. It is the measure
of his inward attainment. The assertion has been made that for a man to
express himself freely and well in his native language is the surest proof
of his culture. Meditate the saying. Can you think of a proof that is
surer?

But a man's speech does more than lend him distinction. It does more than
reveal to others what manner of man he is. It is an instrument as well as
an index. It is an agent--oftentimes indeed it is _the_ agent--of his
influence upon others. How silly are those persons who oppose words to
things, as if words were not things at all but air-born unrealities! Words
are among the most powerful realities in the world. You vote the
Republican ticket. Why? Because you have studied the issues of the
campaign and reached a well-reasoned conclusion how the general interests
may be served? Possibly. But nine times in ten it will be because of that
_word_ Republican. You may believe that in a given instance the
Republican cause or candidate is inferior; you may have nothing personally
to lose through Republican defeat; yet you squirm and twist and seek
excuses for casting a Republican ballot. Such is the power--aye, sometimes
the tyranny--of a word. The word _Republican_ has not been selected
invidiously. _Democrat_ would have served as well. Or take religious
words--_Catholic, Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist,
Lutheran,_ or what not. A man who belongs, in person or by proxy, to
one of the sects designated may be more indifferent to the institution
itself than to the word that represents it. Thus you may attack in his
presence the tenets of Presbyterianism, for example, but you must be wary
about calling the Presbyterian name. _Mother, the flag_--what sooner
than an insult coupled with these terms will rouse a man to fight? But
does that man kiss his mother, or salute the flag, or pay much heed to
either? Probably not. Words not realities? With what realities must we