niversity and ascertain what becomes of her
children? Take up, then, Dr. Palmer's Necrology of the Alumni of Harvard
from 1851 to 1863. You will learn, that, while the average age of all
persons who in Massachusetts die after they have attained the period of
twenty years is but fifty years, the average age of Harvard graduates,
who die in like manner, is fifty-eight years. Thus you have, in favor of
the highest form of public education known in the State, a clear average
of eight years. You may examine backward the Triennial Catalogue as far
as you please, and you will not find the testimony essentially
different. The statement will stand impregnable, that, from the time
John Harvard founded our little College in the wilderness, to this hour,
when it is fast becoming a great University, with its schools in every
department, and its lectures covering the whole field of human
knowledge, the graduates have always attained a longevity surpassing
that of their generation.

And you are to observe that this comparison is a strictly just
comparison. We contrast not the whole community, old and young, with
those who must necessarily have attained manhood before they are a class
at all; but adults with adults, graduates with those of other avocations
who have arrived at the period of twenty years. Neither do we compare
the bright and peculiar luminaries of Harvard with the mass of
men,--though, in fact, it is well known that the best scholars live the
most years,--but we compare the whole body of the graduates, bright and
dull, studious and unstudious, with the whole body of the community.

* * * * *

To the array of evidence which may be brought from all the registries of
all the states and universities under heaven, some may triumphantly
exclaim, "Statistics are unworthy of trust." "To lie like statistics,"
"false as a fact," these are the stalest of witticisms. But the
objection to which they give point is practically frivolous. Grant that
statistics are to a certain degree doubtful, are they not the most
trustworthy evidence we have? And in the question at issue, are they not
the only evidence which has real force? And allowing their general
defectiveness, how shall we explain, that, though gathered from all
sides and by all kinds of people, they so uniformly favor education?
Why, if they must err, do they err so pertinaciously in one direction?
How does it happen, that, summon as many witness