School Trustee Walleck's resolution concerning instruction in foreign languages in the public grammar schools is all right as far as it goes, but it is a halting, halfway measure. Under this resolution, instruction in foreign tongues would be limited to German, Bohemian, Irish, Hebrew, Italian, Swedish, and "Scandinavian". As there is no "Scandinavian" language, the latter may be dropped from the list, and Norwegian and Danish substituted in its place.

Dr. Walleck's plan thus amended represents, of course, a vast improvement upon present conditions. But it is just as open as the system now in vogue to the charge of unfair discrimination. Why are we to leave out French, Polish, Finnish, Icelandic, Welsh, Russian, Spanish, Syriac, Arabic, Japanese, Chinese, and last, but not least, the various Indian dialects represented in this many- 2tongued city of Chicago?

Mr. Walleck says that he wants a foreign language taught only when fifty per cent or more of the total attendance in any grammar school is represented by pupils of one nationality. Why draw the line here? If, as Mr. Walleck says, "citizens of foreign birth who pay their taxes have the right to have their native language taught in the schools," it is illogical, unreasonable, and unjust to abridge this right as proposed in the Walleck resolution.

Whether the attendance in any school of pupils of any particular nationality is large or small, the foreign-born parents of such pupils as do attend pay their taxes, and, according to the premises laid down, certainly have the right to have their native language taught in the school where their children are educated.

No, we ought not to reform in that way. The question of foreign-language teaching in our grammar schools is an important question which must be settled 3right if it is to be tackled at all. It is evident that Mr. Walleck lacks the courage of a truly great reformer. He thought that he must draw the line somewhere; there is where he is mistaken. If we want to be true to the great principle of language-instruction reform, we can draw no line at all in this matter. No halfway measure will do. It is true that half a loaf is better than no bread; but it is equally true that half a reform is worse than no reform whatever.

Let Mr. Walleck frame his language-instruction reform upon sufficiently broad and sweeping lines, and the people will be with him. If such a broad policy be regarded as impracticable at present, it may be permitted to rest for a while, perhaps until our children are ready to take it up. Meanwhile we might properly do away with existing discriminations by limiting, for the time being, the language course in our grammar schools to Uncle Sam's tongue.