Earlier text: THE CONSISTENT LIFEHow They Became Convinced
By Editor
[Believing it would be of interest to our readers, the editor of the Signs of the Times has asked Sabbath-keeping ministers and evangelical workers to tell in a few words the scripture or scriptures, the truths and principles, which constrained them to accept the unpopular truth of the seventh-day Sabbath. These testimonies must not exceed 500 words. Let us hear from all.] In the summer of 1882 a Seventh-day Adventist minister, named J. G. Wood, came to Gunn City, three miles from our country home. He preached there for six weeks, and from the first night we became interested. The more we went the more we wanted to go. Some nights would be so dark that we would have to let the horses have the lines going through a narrow, crooked timber road, and up and down steep banks in crossing a creek. But they took us through safely every night. I remember one night, as we were on our way to meeting, Brother Henry Hoover, a neighbor, said, "We will hear on the law to-night." I wished to myself that he would not speak on that subject, for everything else had been made so plain that I was sure that subject would be made plain, too, and I would have to believe it. I wished that we might be left in ignorance on that point, as I had been fighting against it. But by this time my husband had become so much interested that he had begun to argue the Sabbath question, saying that these things were true, and that the seventh day was binding. I said that if we keep one-seventh part of the time, that is all that God requires of us. I worked hard with him, and at times I could get him to doubt; but hearing another sermon would stir him again, and then I would have to work with him further. The last time I had him nearly ready to let all go, that night I had a dream which gave me considerable anxiety. The next day a Baptist lady visited us, and I told her of my dream. She said it was a warning to me to let my husband alone. She knew that he had been an infidel, and also knew that I was against his keeping the seventh day. That night the Sabbath question was brought up in full, and the minister read from Catholic works that the Catholic Church had made the change, and that she had no Bible authority for it; that neither Christ nor the apostles had anything to do with it. That ever settled the question for me; my husband and I kept the next seventh day together. We rejoiced in the truth, and still rejoice, praise the Lord, for His wondrous works in a wondrous way.
AMY KIVETT. 'I WISH,' says a woman of God, 'that more ministers had the courage of the young man who received a call immediately after he left the theological seminary. He had graduated from his college with honors, and then prepared for the ministry. He was very much elated at his call to fill a pulpit so soon. He started on Sunday morning with his manuscript to preach his first sermon. As he approached the pulpit he saw the words, made with scarlet pinks on a bank of white pinks, behind the pulpit, 'Sir, we would see Jesus!' 'The Holy Ghost did His work on the conscience of the young preacher. He gave out the hymn, the congregation sang, and then, before kneeling, he said: 'I answered your call. I am your minister. I came to your church this morning with my sermon, but I can not read it. All that I can see are the burning words you have placed for me to look at—' Sir, we would see Jesus.' O my people,' he exclaimed, 'how can I show Him to you when I have not seen Him myself? But bear with me, I will seek Him. I will see Him, and then I will show Him to you.' And then he prayed, and the people wept, and they all prayed, 'Show me Thyself! I beseech Thee, show me Thy glory.' 'Need I tell you that that young man preached Jesus, showed Jesus, and that the people saw Him? O, how hungry the people are for Jesus, and if the ministers knew Him (not about Him), the people would see Him.'—Sel. In April, 1888, I was working on a farm for a man by the month. We were planting watermelon seed, and a very delicious variety was wrapped in a part of the SIGNS OF THE TIMES. After the seeds were taken from the paper the man threw the paper down, and we went on with the planting. I saw the heading of an article, written by Mrs. E. G. White, entitled "Spiritual Gifts." I folded the paper and took it home, and at a leisure time I read the article and others that I thought had the right ring. Seeing also the announcement that if other reading matter was wanted, it could be supplied from the SIGNS office, I sent for some, and was almost convinced by the reading I received. In the fall Elder J. D. Pegg came to our town and pitched his tent, and we were invited to attend the meetings. We attended, and became convinced, with about sixteen others who took their stand for the Lord. I am happy to-day that I have ever tried to hold up the banner of Jesus thus far, for it is the joy of my life in these days of peril. JAMES POTEET. CHRISTIANITY AND SECRET SOCIETIES.
By Editor
LET us say at the outset that we are not condemning the men, the persons, who belong to secret societies, not even the members of the Ku Klux Klan, or the Mafia. The case of each one rests with God. To the great Jehovah each one will have to give an account of himself, and no society or fraternal organization will be of any help in any way. The Judge will know, and He will render just sentence. What we wish to discuss is the principles of these societies and of Christianity. At the basis of these societies will be found one or more of these motives:— 1. They are organized for mutual protection. This doubtless was the origin of them in the ancient tribal days. 2. They were organized, not only for protection of members, but also for aggressive conflict. Better to secure this and to keep the secret plans for attack and defense, members were sworn to secrecy and known to each other only by certain signs. 3. They were organized for educational purposes in various heathen mysteries, known only to certain members of certain cults. 4. They are in later days organized for mutual helpfulness in the enlargement of the circle of friendship and acquaintance. 5. They are organized for somewhat the same purposes as insurance societies, to help members in time of accident and sickness, and their families in case of death. In all these it will be seen (1) that the motive is selfish, or (2) that it depends on lack of faith in God. 1. It is selfish, for each one joins his society, not that he may help others, but that he may himself get help. It is himself he wishes protected; it is his enemies he wants defeated; it is himself that he wishes benefited. The thought is wholly selfish and worldly. 2. Some will contend, however, that they do this for the sake of wife or children. But in this case they are trusting in men, not God. They are making flesh their arm. And, after all, if industry, economy, and wisdom were used throughout life, in the great majority of cases, one would save more than he would ever get from a secret society. Many men spend a competence in their societies with no more benefit, no more help, than the non-society man. Christianity is founded on no such principles. Consider the following:— 1. The Basic Motive.—Jesus Himself thus lays down the foundation motive of Christian character: “If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” And He emphasizes the thought by continuing: “For whosoever would save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life for My sake shall find it.” Matt. 16: 24, 25. This truth is often repeated. The self-denial of Christianity is the very opposite of the self-seeking of secret societies. 2. The Good of All.—Christianity seeks the good of all men. “As we therefore have opportunity, let us do good unto all men,” exhorts an apostle. Jesus declares that this spirit should be manifest even toward our enemies: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” You are not to do this for policy’s sake, hoping to receive profit on your investment, but “lend, hoping for nothing.” 3. Faith in God.—The Christian’s case is not hopeless. To serve God rightly is not unwise nor imprudent. Godliness has the promise of the life which now is and of that also which is to come. Let the Gentiles seek after and make their first thought the wealth, the clothing, the food of the world; Jesus says, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” The Bank of Heaven is a good place to invest. The counsel of Heaven is good advice to follow. Man may know that God will care for him and his if he is doing God’s work. This does not mean that man may throw away prudence, economy, thrift, diligence, or good common sense; but that he should use all these in the better service of God. From all of the blessings of faith secret societies almost invariably hide the soul. Worldly advantages promised by men hide from the immeasurably superior, vaster, eternal advantages promised of God, and which He wishes to build into an eternal character. Secret societies blind by leading the soul to believe that their codes of morals are equal to that of Christianity; and yet, these society “standards” are nearly always for the actions of members with respect to each other. For instance, the standard of virtue in one noted society demands that the members shall swear not to violate the chastity of a fellow member’s wife or daughter, knowing her to be such. Christianity demands and will give inherent virtue which will not violate the chastity of the wife and daughter of the veriest stranger or the bitterest enemy. 4. Christianity has no secrets which she withholds from a single soul. She has her secrets, her mysteries, so deep that the keenest scientist or profoundest philosopher can not discover by his own wisdom, yet so simple are they that a little child may know them. Harmony with God by faith in Jesus Christ opens their profoundest depths, and gives us blessed fellowship with God and His Son Jesus Christ. While a volume might be said, we wish to remark in conclusion that in Christianity is found every good thing in precept and promise and power that is found in any organization on earth. The glories of all worldly organizations are but imitations, or at best but borrowed, and sullied in the borrowing. We regret that the Master’s professed people have not been better witnesses of Christ. All this comes because they have not known Christ, in self-denial, in power. Measuring Christianity by a backslidden church, men have turned to societies of men, have hewed them out cisterns that never satisfy. God longs that they shall look beyond men to Christ Jesus, who offers all, who spake openly, and in secret said nothing; who had naught to hide, naught to cover, but who revealed all the fullness of good in Himself for every soul who would receive Him. “SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX.”
By Editor
THE above is given as the number of the beast in Rev. 13:18. The position has been frequently taken in this paper that the beast of Rev. 13:1–10 is a symbol of church-and-state government; and that that particular phase under the head which continued forty-two months, which was wounded unto death and was healed, had reference to the Papacy as a persecuting power. We think there is sufficient proof of this apart from verse 18; but that verse has been given as corroborative evidence. The evidence is found in one of the titles of the pope, “Vicarius Filii Dei,” the “Vicegerent of the Son of God.” The numerical value of the Roman letters in the above Latin title is as follows: V=5; i=1; c=100; i=1; u (the same as v in Latin)=5; i=1; l=50; i=1; i=1; D=500; i=1;7total, 666. The letters a, r, s, f, and e have no numerical value in the Roman system. This has been disputed. It has been said that there is no such assumption of title, and that no miter of the pope ever bore such inscription. In view of this the following correspondence between Mr. H. S. Weaver, of Baltimore, and Cardinal Gibbons and his secretary will be of interest:— Copy of a Letter from H. S. Weaver to Cardinal Gibbons, Baltimore, Md. Baltimore, Md., Jan. 13, 1904.
HIS EMINENCE, JAS. CARDINAL GIBBONS,
Baltimore, Md.
Dear Friend: There is a claim made by the Seventh-day Adventists that on the crown or mitre of the pope there is, or at some time in the past has been, the following inscription, “Vicarius Filii Dei,” which inscription means, “In stead of the Son of God.” Would you kindly oblige me with the information as to whether or not this claim is true?
Thanking you in advance for your kindness, I beg to remain, Yours very sincerely,
903 Woodley Street. H. S. WEAVER. Reply of the Cardinal's Secretary to the Above. Cardinal's Residence,
408 N. Charles Street,
Baltimore.
Jan. 18, 1904.
DEAR MR. WEAVER: Your favor is received. In reply, his eminence desires me to inform you that “Vicarius Filii Dei” means the “Representative of the Son of God.”
Yours truly,
WM. T. RUSSUT, Secretary. Copy of Second Letter to the Cardinal's Secretary. Baltimore, Md., Jan. 18, 1904.
MR. WM. T. RUSSUT,
Cardinal's Residence, City.
Dear Friend: I have received your answer to my letter to his eminence, for which favor I feel indebted, but it did not contain the answer to the main question, which was, Does the inscription, “Vicarius Filii Dei,” appear on the crown or miter of the pope, or has it at any time in the past appeared on the crowns or mitres of any of the popes?
Trusting you will pardon me for troubling you again, I beg to remain,
H. S. WEAVER. Copy of Answer to the Above. Baltimore, Md., Jan. 26, 1904.
MR. H. S. WEAVER—
Dear Sir: In reply to yours of 18th inst., I beg to say that I can not say with certainty that the words, “Vicarius Filii Dei,” are on the pope's tiara. But the words are used by the cardinal who imposes the tiara at the coronation of a pope.
Yours truly,
[Signed] WM. T. RUSSUT, Secretary. This is quite conclusive. “The words [Vicarius Filii Dei] are used by the cardinal who imposes the tiara at the coronation of a pope.” That of itself would meet the prophecy; the inscription on the tiara, which may have been, would be corroborative of the main fact, the assumption of a self-imposed title. If Herbert Spencer had placed the same thought on the Bible and the Christian religion that he did upon his own pet schemes, he would have found much more comfort and assurance in faith in Christ than in his "rational" philosophy. He seems to come at last to that conclusion. The last paragraph of his 1,200-page autobiography, according to Mr. Baily Millard, reads:— Thus religious creeds, which in one way or another occupy the sphere that rational interpretation seeks to occupy and fails, and fails the more the more it seeks, I have come to regard with a sympathy based on community of need; feeling that dissent from them results from inability to accept the solutions offered, joined with the wish that solutions could be found. If Mr. Spencer had but looked beyond the creeds of men to the Word of God, he would have found sufficient evidence upon which to base an assuring faith, a faith the truth of which experience would ever demonstrate. Better, far better, the dying words of the old Gospel hero: "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give to me at that day; and not to me only, but also to all them that have loved His appearing." THE Lord has ordained that the Gospel shall be preached in all the world by men. There is reason in this; it is becoming that such of His creatures as know by experience what it is to be saved from sin shall be the natural channels through which to impart the knowledge of the Gospel. Experience is a wonderfully effectual preparatory school. Even of Christ Himself it is said that “it behooved Him in all things to be made like unto His brethren, that He might become a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” Why did it thus behoove Him for such an end?—That He might have the experience of those in whose behalf He was to minister. “For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted.” Therefore, the plan of disseminating the Gospel through the agency of men is a logical one. Those who have been rescued from sin by the grace of God, and knowing the temptations of their fellowmen who have not as yet been rescued, are naturally supposed to have imbibed that spirit of love and sympathy that actuated their Master. If this is not so, there is something wrong with the professed conversion and experience. Unless such be the case, there can be no really successful work. First, it is necessary that there be a love for one another; for the Lord says, “By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have love one to another.” Then there must be the love of sinners, and a real sympathy for them in their lost condition, else nothing can be done for them. For these reasons, the Lord needs men for His work. He needs humble men, who “have no confidence in the flesh.” He needs unselfish men, who consider the salvation of souls a thing to be desired more than their own personal comfort or gain. He needs men like Moses, who will choose “rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;” who will esteem the “reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt,” or of any other earthly country. He needs men like Paul, who feel that “wo is me, if I preach not the Gospel;” who have but the one aim in view, and that is to be about the Father’s business, to fall in line with the Captain of our salvation in the work of seeking and saving that which is lost. It is not necessarily a spirit of presumption to assume that the Lord has need of you, whether you be man, woman, or child, if you are imbued with a love of souls, and realize that of your own self you can do nothing, but have faith to believe that you can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengtheneth you. “The harvest truly is plenteous, but the laborers are few.” The situation is urgent, and, altho it be the eleventh hour, the Master is saying, “Go work to-day in My vineyard.” The Lord is not ashamed to say that He has need of instrumentalities that are apparently of very little value. On one occasion, when He desired to ride into Jerusalem, He was not backward in saying that He was in need of a young ass on which to ride. Luke 19:31. He recognizes value in servants with but one talent, and, on one occasion, when He had cast a legion of devils out of a man, He immediately set him to work as a home missionary. Mark 5:15–20. The Lord has need of you, and there is no occupation so profitable as His service. But more than all, every one, saint or sinner, has need of Him. It seems to teach good common sense in the matter of head covering, doesn't it? Every man who preaches or prays in public should do so with uncovered head, and, according to verse 14, with moderately short hair; for it is a shame for a man to have long hair as do women. On the contrary, a woman should distinguish herself from men in the dress becoming to her. She ought not to wear short hair; and if she is shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. Verse 15 tells us that God has given woman her hair for a covering. Therefore, if she wear long hair, as God designed, she need not be veiled or covered. The dress of Christians, both men and women, should be modest, fitted to the occasion, and proper to the sex. But the apostle plainly declares that there should be no contention over this matter. Verse 16. Please explain what is meant by the "host of heaven" of Isa. 34:4. Read in connection with the text Isa. 13:13; 51:6; Joel 2:31; Rev. 6:12-14. The very universe itself will be shaken in the great day of God, and all that is identified with sin, shall vanish away. 2 Peter 3:10. The atmospheric heavens are included, and we know not how much beyond. Will you please give an explanation of Matt. 16:18, 19, in your Question Corner, especially verse 19? The Catholics claim that as the foundation of their church, and that Peter was the first priest, and was ordained of Christ at that time. Note (1) That Peter had just confessed Jesus to be "the Christ, the Son of the living God." (2) Jesus answered that Peter was blessed because of the acceptance of this truth, and that it was not revealed to him through flesh and blood, but was a revelation to Peter from God. (3) Then Jesus declared to His disciple, "Thou art Peter [petros, a stone], and upon this rock [petra, a rock," the Christ, the Son of the living God, and confession of Him] will I build My church." (4) Peter tells us that Christ is this foundation, and that upon Him believers as living stones are builded. 1 Peter 2:5. Paul tells us, "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 3:11. (5) As Peter was the first to confess this truth, the Lord chose him to be the first to preach the Gospel of salvation to both Jews and Gentiles. Acts 2:14; 10:34-48; 15:7, 8. Yet, tho he was first to make known the Gospel, James presided at that first counsel in Jerusalem. Acts 15:13-21. (6) The opening and closing, the binding and loosing, rested not in Peter, but in the message that he bore. To accept it was salvation and freedom; to reject it was bondage and destruction. The Bible illustration of this is found in Jeremiah's commission. Compare Jer. 1:9, 10 with 18:7-10. The binding and loosing, the building and overthrowing, depended on the acceptance or rejection of the message. And so it was with Peter and all the apostles. John 20:23. (7) Every true minister who preaches God's true Gospel bears the same power; and he who does not preach that true Gospel, has not that power, whatever be his profession. THE SECOND COMMANDMENT AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
By Editor
THERE are a few good souls who object to the use of illustrations in the SIGNS OF THE TIMES, tho many times the illustration, to many others, makes the subject treated plainer and the lesson more impressive. Some learn readily through the ear; some through the eye. Both methods of teaching, oral instruction and object-lesson, in pictures or figure of some sort, has been used from ancient times. To say nothing of what the monuments tell us, we turn to Holy Writ. When God's center of worship was established in Israel, the sanctuary was made according to His direction, the likeness of the things in the heavens, after a pattern showed to Moses. Upon the curtains of that sanctuary were inwrought figures of angels; and many other things might be mentioned. "But was not all this in transgression of the law of the second command of the Decalogue?" Some of our friendly critics ought so to say; but we know it was not. "But does not the command forbid the making of any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath?"—It does, and there were the likeness and image of things in both places in the sanctuary and temple. "But was not their making a transgression of the law?"—No, it was not. The explanation lies right here: That whole command forbids the making of anything to worship; for service is worship. Matt. 4:10. The sanctuary was not made to worship, but to worship in. The whole object lies in the motive, the purpose, the object of making, and the use to which the object is put. If the commandment forbids the mere making, manufacture, of "a graven image" or "any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth," then our friends ought to go houseless, shoeless, hatless, naked; for every garment, nearly, is made after another garment or pattern, hats after other hats, shoes after other shoes. Houses are likenesses of other houses. When the two and one-half tribes were settled beyond Jordan, they built an altar as a witness, patterned after the altar of the Lord. Joshua 22. Joshua thought they did wrong, but when he heard their explanation, he was satisfied. Moses made, at the command of God, an image, a likeness, of the fiery serpent which abounded in the wilderness, and set it upon a pole. Those having faith in God, who looked to it by faith in His word, lived. Did he transgress the Second Commandment?—No. But in Hezekiah's day the Israelites were worshiping that serpent of brass. Did they do wrong?—Yes; and the good king broke it in pieces, calling it "Nehushtan," "a piece of brass." When king Ahaz made an altar after the pattern of one he saw in Damascus, it was sin, because he did it for worship. Men may pervert the holiest thing to idolatrous use. They may make idols of the needed things of every-day life. Not a few women "adore" a hat or a bonnet, and men a watch or a horse. An artist may worship his picture or the people the artist through the picture, or the picture and the art may be made to teach a great moral lesson. If people worship the pictures in this paper, we are no more responsible than was Moses for the worship of the brazen serpent. The illustrations are used to make more attractive and clear the truth of the Gospel of Christ. ONE of the principal works of the enemy of souls is the perversion of Scripture. He has been engaged in it for a long time. He used it in the temptation of Christ, and we need not expect to see him abandon it in the insidious temptations which he will bring upon the last generation of men. One of the most subtle perversions of this kind we have seen is that of the following text: "As he thinketh in his heart, so is he." Now the New Thought teacher has perverted that thought into this: "I am that which I think I am." At first glance we may think the two expressions are the same, or at least that they are in harmony; but they are as far apart as righteousness and unrighteousness, as light and darkness, as life and death. The first is light, and the perversion of it is darkness. In the first there is an admonition, which, if heeded, will lead into the path of righteousness and life. The second is a false guide, pointing souls into the way of unrighteousness, presumption, and death. But wherein do they differ?—The first teaches simply that the thoughts we dwell upon form our character. If we think unrighteous thoughts, unholiness is woven into the very fiber of our life; our soul becomes tainted, and, if we continue the unholy thoughts, the corrupting process goes on until the decay is complete, and we are lost. On the other hand, if we train the mind to dwell upon the pure and good and true, our lives will become pure and good and true. In short, our characters will partake of the character of our thoughts. One has well expressed it thus: "We become like that which we contemplate." Another: "By beholding, we become changed." But the New Thought perversion of that scripture has in it the very dogma which deceived angels and brought rebellion into heaven and sin into this earth. If "I am that which I think I am," then, by thinking I am God, I can become such. Satan tried that, tried to usurp the throne of God. We know the result. He was cast out and his followers with him. Then he came to this earth, and taught the same doctrine to our first parents, promised them wonderful knowledge, and declared: "Ye shall be as gods." And we know the result of that. We see it in the poverty, misery, strife, and sin that have saturated the human race, and turned man's once beautiful home into a plague-spot and a charnel-house. If I declare, "I am that which I think I am," then I make myself my own final judge. If I declare, "I am holy," "I am worthy of eternal life," I am seeking to usurp the place and prerogative of God, who alone has the power to judge in the matter. That we have not misjudged the fruits of such teachings may be readily seen from the presumptuous assumptions of divinity by the leaders and teachers of the New Thought. We may expect to meet many such sophistries and perversions of the Word in these latter times. It behooves the child of God to follow closely the teachings of the Word, and turn a deaf ear to everything that leads away from the pure and simple Gospel. THE COST OF WAR.
By James Creelman
[By James Creelman, the noted war correspondent.] MR. GLADSTONE once, in a budget speech—cited by Mr. Morley as a text to the chapter of his biography dealing with the Crimean War—made the following impressive statement:— “The expenses of a war are the moral check which it has pleased the Almighty to impose upon the ambition and lust of conquest that are inherent in so many nations. There is pomp and circumstance, there is glory and excitement about war, which, notwithstanding the miseries it entails, invests it with charms in the eyes of the community, and tends to blind men to those evils to a fearful and dangerous degree. The necessity of meeting from year to year the expenditure which it entails is a salutary and wholesome check, making them feel what they are about, and making them measure the cost of the benefit upon which they may calculate.” The conflict between Russia and Japan must soon demonstrate the soundness of Mr. Gladstone’s view of the increasing cost of war as an influence for peace. There can be no doubt in the minds of those familiar with the subject that the comparatively small expense attending the war of 1894, in which Japan not only vanquished China, but won her footing in the family of nations, had much to do with the light-hearted enthusiasm in Japan for a war against Russia which preceded the night attack on Port Arthur. The military glory won by the Japanese in that short and one-sided war, not to speak of the enormous money indemnity and the cession of the rich island of Formosa, were stupendous rewards for such a trifling outlay of money and sacrifice of blood. For ten years, therefore, Japanese policy has been more or less blind to the financial devastation involved in modern war on a large scale. With less than 50,000 men she drove the Chinese from Korea, invaded Manchuria, captured Port Arthur and Wei-Hai-Wei, smashed the Chinese navy, and compelled the oldest and most populous empire in the world to sue for peace—all within seven months. As a business investment—from a pagan point of view—the war with China was a paying business investment for Japan. But the present war in Asia is a different thing. Russia must send her reinforcements more than 5,000 miles by rail. Japan must carry all her troops across the seas. Hundreds of thousands of men must be put in the field on each side. All this aside from the cost of maintaining and operating war-ships. It is estimated that Japan’s available army at the present time aggregates about 400,000 soldiers. The cost of landing this force on the Korean or Manchurian coast at the rate of, say, $10 per man, exclusive of horses, artillery, and supplies, would be $4,000,000. Mr. Roche, formerly minister of commerce of France, believes that the cost of maintaining the Japanese forces will not be greater than $1.25 a day for each man, including clothing, equipment, food, transportation, and munitions. He estimates the cost of war to Japan, including the navy, at about $1,000,000 a day. If this be a fair valuation of Japan’s fighting expenses, it will take the entire earnings of more than 8,000,000 Japanese toilers to support the war, at the average wage rate of twelve cents a day. This, out of a total population of about 45,000,000. In other words, more than one-third of the male population of Japan can barely earn the daily cost of the struggle. Nor is the loss to Japanese commerce included in the estimate. In the Turko-Russian War it cost Russia about sixteen cents a day to support each soldier in the field. But that was in a densely-populated, fertile country, with comparatively inexpensive transportation. It is different in Manchuria. All supplies must be drawn from a great distance. Clothing, transportation, and food are dear. Besides, before the Russian troops can take the field—aside from the 150,000 said to be in Manchuria now—they must be carried more than 5,000 miles by rail. Putting the naked cost of transportation at one cent per mile for each soldier, the cost of carrying 100,000 troops—excluding artillery, horses, and supplies—would be at least $5,000,000. Mr. Roche believes that when Russia has got over the first expense of her war with Japan, her army and navy will cost her from $1,500,000 to $1,750,000 a day, so long as she has to fight only in the Far East. Assuming the larger figure to be correct, it will take the wages of 7,000,000 Russian laborers to meet the expenses of the war. All this relates to the war of Russia with Japan in Asia. But if the conflict should spread to Europe, if the great powers should take the field against each other, the estimated cost of the struggle, under modern conditions, is staggering. Official figures show that in 1871 it cost France more than $2,000,000 a day to keep an army of 600,000 men in the field against the Germans. But today France claims to be able to mobilize, within forty-eight hours, about 2,000,000 men and 600,000 horses and mules. Germany can put 2,550,000 men in the field, Austria 1,300,000, and Italy 1,200,000. Schaffe, the Austrian economist, declared in 1896 that a war, involving the European continental powers, would cost France $5,100,000 a day, Russia $5,600,000 a day, Germany $5,000,000 a day, and Austria $6,000,000 a day. According to Mr. Roche, a conflict between the European powers to-day would cost, for the first two months, including the initial outlay, the immense sum of $400,000,000, and, if 3,000,000 soldiers should take the field, the daily cost would amount to $6,000,000 a day. With these estimates in sight, even tho they are mere approximations, it is not hard to understand why the statesmen of Europe are straining their wits and their energies to confine the present war to Asia. If it takes the wages of 15,000,000 men to pay the daily cost of the war between Japan and Russia—a war confined within the radius of 1,000 miles—what would a general conflict mean to the overtaxed population of Europe? THE FATAL FRUITS OF LYNCHING.
By Editor
LYNCHING is something which grows by what it feeds upon. At first, as punishment for a crime for which the penalty provided by law is confessedly inadequate, it gained a certain sympathy for its essential justice, however much it was disapproved for the illegality of its methods. But no wrong walks the earth alone. Lynching, as a remedy for a legal wrong, cultivated a spirit of disregard of law, which has burst the bonds which confined it to a correction of the inadequacy or ineffectiveness of the law. The lynching spirit could not be gorged with the meager supply of victims from one small class of criminals. It swiftly spread its bloody, greedy hands to gather food for its insatiate maw from negro criminals of all shades of guilt, and in its latest and most revolting outbreak at St. Charles, Ark., at least six out of the thirteen negroes killed were not even charged with any crime, but were called out and shot merely as "a warning to others." The spread of this malignant moral disease has already included white men as well as negroes within its fatal toils, and has given plain tokens of its existence, dormant or active, in every section of the country. But, repulsing and shocking as it is in its open outbreaks, its tortures of its victims, its burnings at the stake, its unprovoked slaughter of innocent men, the worst effect of the lynching spirit, which has spread its miasma over the land, is beyond question in the subtle growth among the people of all classes of a readiness to resort to acts of violence on very slight provocation. How common this murderous spirit has become is too little realized. Human life has cheapened perceptibly, but so hidden has been the decline, in the moral sense, of the value of this precious thing that it has not made the impression it ought to make. We shudder at the killing of thirteen negroes in one small town in Arkansas, but are not shocked at fifteen murders in New England in the month of March. We praise the vigorous action of Governors Montague, of Virginia, and Vardaman, of Mississippi, and Durban, of Indiana, in promptly calling out the military forces to prevent lynching, but what is needed is a general public sentiment, so strong, so vigorous, so outspoken against all acts of violence of every sort as to give warning that all illegal resort to force will be promptly and severely punished.—The Watchman. And yet it is a fact that punishment for crime does not have the deterrent influence upon the criminally inclined that it is expected to have. Men commit the gravest crimes almost under the shadow of the penitentiary. Men who have seen a man burned or hanged or shot to death for that terrible crime against womanhood have gone from the awful scene, and committed the same offense. Our prisons are filling up with persons who have seen their fellows punished for the same crimes that sent them there. The great army of men wearing prison stripes is not doing so through ignorance of the fact that punishment follows crime. They are wearing the stripes in spite of their knowledge of that fact. The moral fiber of the world is weakening, and with that weakening is coming a strange indifference to the consequences of crime. It is one of the sure indications that the culmination of earth's career is drawing nigh. THE LABOR QUESTION IN DES MOINES.
THIS city has been experiencing considerable agitation of the labor question for several days. Some of the trade-unions are opposed to working with non-union men, while members of the business men's association are determined to enforce “open shop” rule. The question of wages, or of abuses demanding correction, has not entered into the controversy for wages, and general conditions have been satisfactory. But when the unions began to pass resolutions that they would not work with non-union men, the contractors and dealers in material united and decided to take action. As a result, some branches of work have been almost suspended, concerns furnishing building material of various kinds refusing to contract with either union or non-union men until the question was settled, the evident intent being to effect a lockout until the open shop was established. The word was given out that the trade-unions here would receive financial assistance from other parts of the country, and that the question of open9or closed shop would be fought out in Des Moines this summer. Thus the situation seemed to be assuming grave proportions. However, it now seems possible that the matter may be adjusted without serious trouble. The feature of special interest in the situation has been the combination of wholesale and retail dealers in building supplies with the contractors to defeat the unions. There have been many instances where unions have joined in a strike from sympathy, for the purpose of helping their neighbor union gain its object. Now we see developing a general union of the forces of capital in opposition to the general federation of the labor unions. Thus another step is taken in the great conflict between capital and labor, and it would seem that the culmination could not be far distant.—Workers' Bulletin.