fear of originality largely irrelevant. Whyrnfear what you cannot have? This cannotrnbe a truth for all times, but merely for anrnage like ours that is old. Someone, afterrnall, must once have discovered that sla’-rnery was wrong—an original moralrnthought, though it cannot be attributed.rnSomeone, equally unattributed, mustrnhave invented drama, someone thernnovel. Someone invented the wheel.rnBut what is done is done. Discovery, inrnits nature, is finite, and Columbus wasrnlucky as well as bold: since 1492 therernhae been no more terrestrial continentsrnleft to be found.rnThe conclusion is not depressing. Itrnwould be selfish to regret the inventionrnof the wheel in order to win fame andrnfortune by inventing it now. Perhaps itrnwould be equally absurd to regret thatrnthere are no more artistic forms to be inventedrnor moral truths to be found.rnGeorge Watson is a fellow of St. John’srnCollege, Cambridge, and the author ofrnThe Literary Critics, The Certainty ofrnLiterature, and British Literature Sincern1945 (St. Martin’s Press).rnLIBERAL ARTSrn’S’I.NFC)RD’MA]’)l’;riIKrnMISTAKESrnFormer St;inford UiiiM-isitv Prt-siclcntrnDoiiakl Kcniiecl, who rcMyicil inrnl’W2 amid the univc-isite’s iiidirc-etrneojl- sciiTicLil. is now tcacfiiiit; a cdiivsernin ethics. ‘I’lic new scniinuv, cnlilii’drn”FVofessional Rcsponsibilitv and Acadfiniern1 h]t,” is designed to teach fiitiiifrnprofessors and adinuiistr.itorsrnliow to handle I’thival ijuestions. repiirledrnI he San l’nim:isi.-fi Clirovidernlatt; last vejr.rnAlthouEjh Kennedy’s cmn ctiiic-‘!rnwere calli-d into (‘|(ii:stion when thernlinilcd Stales ^ovcmmiiil t;haii;cdrnthai Stanffird liad riusnsed uiilhons ofrndrilLirs in tederril rescareli funds, (hernbiology prf)tes.s(ii said lie doesn’t “seernany iroiiv about what happened .iiidrnmv ottering this course. Nobody’srnfound aiihody who is cthiealK deficientrnhere. All of us admitted thatrnSlanfoid had made some mislakesrnWe vveie eonfronlcd withrnJ eliMTi^iiii; slandard. I don’t thinkrnjnvone liere is cthicalb compiomi.rnscd.”rnThe Untimely Deathrnof Vice PresidentrnHobartrnby Harlow A. HydernLittle does history remember therndeath of Vice President Garret AugustusrnHobart at the tender age of 55,rnbarely a month before the beginning ofrnthe present century. Yet we have causernto lament that, in the words of thernPsalmist, this humble personage was notrngranted a span of 70, or even 80, years.rnFor it can be shown that his prematurerndeath loosed an unprecedented series ofrntragic and evil consequences. The legacyrnof Hobart’s early demise was an onslaughtrnof carnage, sorrow, and suffering,rnthe likes of which the world had theretoforernneither seen nor dared to imagine.rnIt is a strange and little-known fact ofrnhistory that most of the calamities thatrnhave befallen humanity during the presentrncentury stem directly from I lobart’srndeath on November 21, 1899. That thisrnobvious cause-and-effect relationship hasrnnot been videly acknowledged is a sadrnbut telling commentary on the competencernof modern historians. To correctrnthis oversight a new outlook on the presentrnera is needed, one that will correctrnthe record and explain how and why ourrnmuch-boasted civilization went awryrnduring the past 90 years.rnThe first and most obvious outcomernof Hobart’s death was the presidency ofrnTheodore Roosexelt. With his pre’iousrnVice President dead. President McKinleyrnneeded a running mate in 1900.rnTheodore Roosevelt, through the contradictoryrnactions of his political friendsrnand enemies, was launched as the newrncandidate for Vice President. Ipso facto,rnupon the assassination of WilliamrnMcKinley, Roosevelt became President.rnAt first blush it does not seem that thernpresidency of Theodore Rooseveltrnshould be considered a “disaster.” Onrnthe contrary, according to the “conventionalrnwisdom,” Theodore Roosevelt wasrnone of our greatest Presidents. In somernrespects this is undoubtedly so. Nevertheless,rnRoosevelt made one tragic andrncompletely unforgivable error whichrncompletely negates the virtues that historyrncredits to his account.rnUnfortunately for the country andrneventually the world, Roosevelt had arnfatal character flaw: he loved a goodrnfight, even from afar. Ever captive ofrnhis animal instincts, the impetuousrnyoung President was eager to embroilrnthe LJnited States in the war betweenrnRussia and Japan. Roosevelt offered tornmediate a peace treaty, the two combatantsrnagreed, and the 1905 Treaty ofrnPortsmouth was the result. At about thernsame time, Roosevelt needlessly involvedrnthe United States in a nasty quarrel betweenrnFrance, Britain, and Cermany overrnthe future of Morocco.rnNever mind that for these effortsrnRooscNclt was awarded the 1906 NobelrnPeace Prize, for there are two reasonsrnwh’ Roosevelt’s so-called “positive”rn(read meddling) foreign policy was thernfirst great mistake of the 20th century.rnFirst, it set a precedent that the UnitedrnStates would henceforth be willing tornstick its nose into Europe’s and Asia’srndisputes and civil wars. Second, wcrnearned Germany’s distrust and Japan’srnlasting enmity for our trouble. Japan’srnanimosity toward the United States festeredrnand grew for the next 3 5 years andrnculminated with the attack on Pearl I larbor.rnJapan came awa from thernPortsmouth negotiations with the hrmrnconviction that the United States hadrnhelped Russia cheat her out of a largernmonetary indemnity. And, as she did inrn1945, Japan vowed not to get mad, butrninstead to get even.rnWith the precedent now set (one thatrnwould haunt future generations), we canrnturn to Big Bill Taft’s titanic-sized mistake.rnBut first let’s see how the presidencyrnof William Howard Taft was anotherrnresult of the death of GarretrnAugustus Hobart. In 1908, Theodorern46/CHRONICLESrnrnrn