The President, in the paragraph of his message above quoted, recalls two of his “arguments” before the Swedish American Republican League, of Chicago, which arguments I had the honor to hear. In one instance he was flourishing about our ideal of popular government and said: “What we are all struggling for, what we all recognize as the highest ideal in society, is _equality of opportunity_.… Of course perfect equality of opportunity is _impossible_,” then _why_ it is impossible followed for a paragraph. It was so nicely and redundantly redundant, so resilient in phrasing, so honestly _earnest_, that one just _had_ to go along with our President, whether or not one could see how “the highest ideal in society” could possibly be found in a chase after the “impossible.” At another point in his kindly persuasive Come-unto-me discourse, he pointed out to us how liable a “majority of the people” is to “make mistakes by hasty action and lack of deliberation.” Then, after a paragraph of beautiful foliage, the President cited the anti-trust law of 1890 as an evidence of the advantages and beneficent results of ample “deliberation” before taking action in matters of “grave import”. He explained that the decision of the Supreme Court was at first “misunderstood, or if not misunderstood, was improperly expressed, so as to _discourage_ those who were interested in the federal power to restrain and break up these industrial monopolies. _After twenty years’ litigation_ the meaning of the act has been made clear by a decision of the Supreme Court, prosecutions have been brought and many of the most _dangerous_ trusts have been _subjected to dissolution_.” It was all so fine, so lulling if not luring! It made one feel as if he were lost or had gone to sleep looking for himself. But when in a comfortable seat, in the owl car, where the jostle of the wicked world was so toned down and gentled as to permit a little analytic thought, that beautiful illustration of the value of making haste slowly and of long, careful “deliberation” when acting on matters of vast import recurred to us--that Anti-trust Act. “After twenty years” careful deliberation, the Supreme Court was able to decide what the act meant! Was able, also, to decide what its _own prior decisions meant_ and prosecutions were then brought and “many of the most dangerous trusts have been subjected to dissolution!”