Never in any country in the world has the worship of mere talent been carried to such an extent as in France. And the word “talent” is not here intended to imply capacity, but rather a kind of aptitude enabling its owner to shine. It is the kind of superiority in which is involved so much address and readiness of wit that it quickly degenerates into savoir faire, whereas genuine “capacity” leads its possessor to varied excellence, whence force of character and steadfastness of will can never be quite absent, or the capacity is an inferior one. But among the curiosities of French civilisation too superficially studied by foreigners is the habit of identifying every sort of superiority with the superiorities recognised by “society” and the “Court”—those of birth, position, and fashion.
A very remarkable proof of this lies in the attribution of honesty itself only to a certain class. The word “les honnêtes gens” was distinctive of those only who had the necessary qualifications for moving in the highest spheres—anything lower than that was not in the magic circle; and, besides the assumption of “honesty,” and of certain qualities constituting the British notion of a “gentleman,” talent was also instinctively ranked as belonging properly to those of a distinguished social standing. (more…)
We recently came across an article in one of our most esteemed contemporaries, remarks the Sanitary Plumber, in which, under the above title, the writer had sought to illustrate the difference between the honest employe, whose interests were identical with those of his employer, and the indifferent mechanic who seems to have no care or thought beyond the fact that he is paid for his time, and that as long as he puts in the requisite number of hours and maintains a show, of doing something, he is furnishing a fair equivalent for his wages.
Unfortunately, the remarks offered by the writer are only too true. There are plenty of such workmen in the market, but the question is, are the employers not to a certain extent to blame for their existence? Let us explain. One of these unsatisfactory mechanics finds his way into a shop and it does not take long to discover his presence. The proper thing for the employer to do, after giving him due warning, is to lay him off. He is an unprofitable servant, and no one is bound to keep him.
Stern necessity will compel him very soon either to mend his ways or he will go to the wall—that is, if he does not bring up in some snug harbor where his employer is as slack as himself. “It is the opportunity that makes the thief,” is an old and well proved proverb, and it is the fact that they find employers willing to put up with them that is responsible for the existence of so many of these circulating nuisances.
It may seem strange that employers should be so blind to their own interests as to tolerate such an unprofitable servant. Sometimes carelessness is the cause of their indifference, sometimes they are ignorant of the failings of their men for obvious reasons, or they may have good cause for keeping such men on their books. This much is certain, if the employer knew his duty and did it, these makeshift mechanics would be compelled to give place to better men.
Another fruitful source of the careless workman is the shop were everything is done in a slipshod manner. “Hurry up, it’s good enough;” has spoiled many a good man, and if an employer habitually crowds his men with more work than they can properly accomplish, denies them the right as it were to honestly perform their alloted tasks, he has only himself to blame if eventually they become as careless as he is.
Where such shiftlessness involves a loss to the customer it becomes culpable dishonesty, and the employer who permits this has only himself to blame if he becomes eventually the victim of his workman’s lack of rectitude.
We are weary of reading dolorous complaints and criticisms where the power to remedy the evils complained of rests with the complainer. There would be an immediate and permanent decrease in the number of lazy and negligent workmen if every employer kept up to the mark himself and had those he paid do the same thing.
A business man, speaking of one of the most pushing and active men in his employ said to me recently, “He does a lot of work but spoils much of it. He will work like a tiger to get a lot of things done, to make a record in output, but he botches so many things that the net result of his work is not nearly so effective as is that of others who do not make half the splurge, the push and noise that he makes.
Now to have to do a lot of work in order to make a big show does not amount to anything. Lack of thoroughness, of completeness, makes it worse than useless. People who make a splurge, young men with spasmodic enthusiasm, spasmodic effort however great, however spectacular, do not get the confidence of level-headed men.
It is the man who does everything he undertakes just as well as it can be done; who takes a pride in putting the hallmark of excellence upon everything that passes through his hands; the man who does not have to do his work over and over again, but who starts well and does everything to a finish, who is quiet, energetic and industrious, this is the sort of a man that comes out best in the end. (more…)
Peter Hagaman was a large man, fully six feet tall, bony and muscular. He had a rugged face, coarse dark hair and dark eys. He stood erect, had a stalwart appearance, and was very strong…
Notwithstanding his size, he was quick in movement, and deft in every branch of his vocation. His ful eys, set in a ful face, exprest the generous impulses of his nobl character. Benevolence was the leading trait of the moral element of this strong man. To hav plenty, to deal generously with all, to be kind to the poor, to encurage everything that tended to improve the condition of society and make the world better was his aim and effort.
A feature of the man is seen in this litl occurrence: One day Nelson Young Esq., said to him: “Mr. Hagaman! Why do you not sel that piece of timber?—It wil bring you a handsum price; the muney at interest wil be a handsum incum; and you, as long as you may liv, wil never need so much timber!”
Mr. Hagaman replied: “When I came into the world, there was timber here for my use; when I die, I wish to leav what I can for the use of those who liv after me.” Of that element that we call selfish his hart was barren.
…We mention these things that parents may not be disappointed, or expect more from the occupation of a garden than it can at a very early age afford. A garden is an excellent resource for children, but they should have a variety of other occupations: rainy days, and frost and snow will come, and then children must be occupied within doors.
We immediately think of a little set of carpenter’s tools, to supply them with active amusement. Boys will probably be more inclined to attempt making models than drawings of the furniture which appears to be the most easy to imitate; they will imagine, that if they had but tools, they could make boxes, and desks, and beds, and chests of drawers, and tables, and chairs innumerable. But, alas! these fond hopes are too soon dissipated.
Suppose a boy of seven years old to be provided with a small set of carpenter’s tools, his father thinks, perhaps, that he has made him completely happy; but a week afterwards the father finds dreadful marks of the file and saw upon his mahogany tables; the use of these tools is immediately interdicted until a bench shall be procured. Week after week passes away, till at length the frequently reiterated speech of, “Papa, you bid me put you in mind about my bench, “Papa” has its effect, and the bench appears. (more…)
