ment in the
community, and as they pay admission, they stay to
hear. I believe that a considerable part of the
progress that is now being made along the line of
moral and political reform is traceable to the
influence of the Chautauqua.

A writer in _The Outlook_ (September 18, 1918) says:

I have studied the Chautauqua speakers. They
command the admiration of the honest critic. They
deal with serious subjects as experts. They carry
men, women and children on to the conclusion of
the longest lecture by knowing when to lighten at
the proper moment with a story or a lilt of humor,
or sometimes a local reference. Said a village
woman in my hearing of a fellow-speaker on the
problems of patriotism, "I thought at first he
would be hard to follow, but I surely hated when
he had to stop." The thermometer was reported to
be 105 deg. in the tent. The speaker held the rapt
attention of the people for an hour and a half in
a philosophical presentation of the causes of the
war and our responsibilities in consequence. It
was like reading a solid book and condensing it
with marked success into one hearing. It was
typical, and twenty millions are reported to be
listening to such addresses in Chautauqua tents
the country over.

In the magazine _The World To-Day_ (September, 1911), I read the
following by George L. Flude:

A few years ago I saw Senator Robert M. La
Follette address a crowd of eight thousand people
at Waterloo, Iowa. For two hours and a half he
jammed insurgent Republicanism into that crowd. He
was at that time the only insurgent in the party
and had not been named yet. The crowd took it all
in. They were there to be instructed, not to hear
a partisan speech. Hence their attitude,
regardless of party affiliation, was a receptive
one. He absolutely converted that crowd into
insurgents and they did not know it. For five
years La Follette crammed and jammed
"non-partisan" talks into Chautauqua crowds
through Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, Nebraska,
and Kansas. The average audience was probably
about four thous