Prevention, or Promotion?
A paragraph I have seen in the Boston Transcript is full of sense. There is on the outskirts of the city proper a large drinking-fountain for horses, which bears this inscription: "Erected by the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals." In the paragraph referred to, a correspondent suggests, as a "more positive, humane, and alluring inscription," the following: "Erected by the Massachusetts Society for the Promotion of Kindness to Animals."
To be sure! Why not? And why not extend the principle to all similar societies, and to the entire system of reform enterprises?
For example, the many societies "for the prevention of cruelty to children,"—would they lose their force if they should become societies for the promotion of kindness to children? The "Societies for the Suppression of Vice,"—would it take the backbone out of them if they were to become societies for the inculcation of virtue?
Prohibition of the saloon is good, but the inspiration of self-control is far better. It is fine to prevent Sabbath desecration, but it is much finer to promote Sabbath observance.
There are two quite distinct classes of reformers,—the negative and the positive. The one aim of the first class is to keep certain folks from doing evil; the one aim of the second class is to inspire them to do good. The second aim may be precisely as definite as the other; and oh, it is ten times as attractive and fruitful!