doing tricks which the gang had taught him. Then they added more fowls to their collection which proved to be the forerunner of a successful poultry yard from which they made a profit by selling eggs and chickens. A boy in an Iowa city, rejoicing in a superior physique but lacking the brains to use it wisely, had bullied, beaten, and terrorized the smaller boys of his acquaintance in spite of parental commands, reproof, and repeated chastisements. A continuation of his brutality finally landed him in the Juvenile Court, the judge of which was sufficiently versed in boy-psychology to attempt the experiment of making him a “boy-policeman” decorated with a tin star, authorizing him to preserve order among the boys of his neighborhood and especially charging him with the duty of protecting the smaller boys from the assaults of the larger. From that time forward, the bully was prepared to “punch the head off’n any feller wot licked a kid.” It is needless to say that there were no more assaults on small boys in that locality. Suggestion had diverted the exercise of his physical prowess from unlawful into lawful channels. James ----, age 15, was changed from a prodigal to a thrifty boy through a plan for saving suggested and encouraged by his father who opened a bank account in his son’s name and offered to add a dollar for every dollar earned by his son. It proved to be a tremendous incentive to industry as well as to thrift. The foregoing incidents furnish typical illustrations of the application of the suggestive method of training as distinguished from the repressive method; and it may be applied either to the individual or to the group with equally good results. The mental and physical energy ordinarily expended in various forms of lawlessness can be directed, unconsciously, into fields of economic and ethical value by the application of suitable suggestions. Negation arouses the spirit of combat; and obedience under these conditions tends to inspire a feeling of surrender and defeat whose influence on character is obviously prejudicial. A father once said, “I have never commanded my son _not_ to do a thing. Instead, I have suggested that I would prefer him to do the other.” In this way, conflict of wills was avoided and the youth was required to make a voluntary choice between two courses in which the father’s preference invariably turned the balance in the desired direction. On one such occasion the boy replied, “Dad, I wish you would tell me I _cannot_ do it and then I would go and do it to show you I can; but when you tell me that it would hurt you, I just can’t do it.”