Earlier text: THE PREACHER FOR THE TWENTIETH CENTURYFAMILY TIES BREAKING UP.
By T.
The apostle Paul gives a long list of evils that are to make the “last days” “perilous.” His words are these: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.” 2 Tim. 3:1-5. It will be observed that one of the evils mentioned in the foregoing list is that of being “without natural affection.” In other words, the ties of kindred, “natural affection,” will be broken up; they will be disregarded by such a large class that the “last days” will have added peril because of it. The Lord plainly foretells this; and when the “last days” are reached, if we have our eyes open and our minds awake, we shall have no difficulty in seeing the thing the Lord predicts. The papers are full of the stories of wife murder and husband murder, of fathers and mothers murdering their children, of children murdering their parents, and of brothers and sisters murdering each other. These things are significant facts, and show how greatly “natural affection” is lacking in order for such unnatural crimes to be committed. All murder is unnatural, but it would seem that the ties of “natural affection” ought to protect us against having the dagger of death driven into us by our own kindred. Even the brute will protect its own offspring to the extent of dying for it. One of the basic ingredients in this destruction of “natural affection” that is going on is the widespread decay of the lifelong affection that should exist between husband and wife. It used to be considered a disgrace for a man and his wife to quarrel, and finally separate; but it has come to be very fashionable, and by large numbers of people it is no longer looked upon as so very disgraceful. Upon this point the New York World has a short editorial under the title “Whither Are We Drifting?” It is full of significant facts and is as follows:— “Justice Giegerich’s record-breaking score of 119 divorce cases disposed of in twenty hours is suggestive. So also is the fact that the Newport (R.I.) divorce calendar for the current term is the longest ever known in that city. “Whatever the cause may be, the fact is well established that divorce is on the increase in this country as a whole, and that New York is pre-eminent in this respect among Eastern States. Rhode Island has the largest number of divorces of any Northern State, but New York leads both New Jersey and Pennsylvania. “The returns of 1890, the latest we have, showed that in that year two in every 2,072 of our population were divorced persons; that 3,402 persons were divorced in the State of Massachusetts alone, and that the total number of persons divorced in the United States annually was 60,484. Taking into account our increase of population since 1890, it must be approximately true that 75,000 persons will be divorced during the current year in this country. “The increase of American divorces has been remarkably rapid. No longer ago than 1870 only 3½ per cent. of marriages were dissolved by the courts. In 1900 the percentage was 8, and if the same rate of increase is kept up the closing year of the twentieth century will find 58.8 per cent. of all American marriages dissolved by the courts. In other words, the year 2000, if we go on as we are going, will find more divorced than married persons living in the country. “The divorces granted in all other civilized countries put together do not equal the number granted in the United States. And while our population is growing at the rate of 23 per cent. per annum, the number of divorced persons is increasing at the rate of nearly 70 per cent. per annum. All of which may well make sober-minded citizens, who understand that the strength of a nation is its marriage altars rather than its divorce courts, ask themselves, Whither are we drifting?” The relation that should exist between husband and wife is the closest tie that binds. And the Master speaks very plainly upon this question of divorce. The record says:— “The Pharisees also came unto Him, tempting Him, and saying unto Him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And He answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say unto Him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Matt. 19:3-9. The foregoing principles are not recognized as they were once. This fact is perfectly evident. And with the tie being broken that binds husband and wife together, what will be the end of the evils of the unnatural affections that are growing out of it? T. THE LIBERTY INVOLVED.
By S.
THE French Government, exasperated over the power wielded by the Roman Church in governmental affairs, has recently passed laws designed to check that power and counteract that influence. The government found an empire within the republic, working for its own ends and working against the interests of the French nation. It therefore struck at the religious associations with a view to depriving them of the right to receive gifts of property. It was found that the wealth possessed by these associations amounted to $200,000,000; and thru the influence of this wealth much of their political prestige was secured. The government hoped, by thus curtailing this source of power, to remove the greatest menace to its own existence. Commenting upon this action of the French Government, the Christian Work says, “This means less liberty to the individual, but also means more strength to the republic.” Now it is well known that the Roman Church has little friendship for the French republic; but the doctrine that a government gains strength by abridging the liberties of individuals is as wrong and as dangerous as that work against which France is now struggling. France attempted to follow the example set by the United States when it struck out for liberty; but the doctrines of that church, which has always hampered its progress in that direction, blinded the eyes of her statesmen to the true principles of liberty. Thus she has been struggling long and fruitlessly to rid herself of a clerical despotism that clings to her with the tenacity of a cuttle-fish. It was just because France did not learn the lesson of what constitutes national strength and national stability, that she is now battling against national disruption and disintegration. She acted upon the old doctrine that the individual exists for the State; that the interests of the State may be promoted by the sacrifice of individual liberty. The moment she did that, she doomed herself to all the troubles thru which she has passed. Instead of gaining strength by abridging liberty, she gained dissensions, discords, and threatened dissolution. The doctrines which she imbibed from the Catholic Church have so blinded her to what is true, and right, and expedient, that she is unable to find the true path out of the difficulty. Had France boldly and definitely declared for a separation of Church and State, and then lived up to her declaration, she would have completely avoided the rocks which have threatened her destruction more than once. America started right; she started on that principle, and it made her great and substantial. Now her retrogression is beginning, because she is going back to those very principles which made France weak. America started out on the principle of the liberty of the individual and the protection of his rights. To carry out this principle, the separation of Church and State was absolutely essential; and upon this principle her national code was drawn. The result was a government that received the admiration of the liberty-loving in all quarters of the earth; and her influence compelled other nations to grant a greater degree of liberty to their subjects or see them melting away by emigration. France still continued the connection between Church and State, and, while she claimed a voice in the appointment of church officials, could not—or should not—logically refuse to those officials an interference in the affairs of the State. At any rate, the interference followed as a natural consequence; and France is where she is to-day as a result of that course. Now she would attempt to remedy her own weakness, which came as a result of her own action, by a direct abridgment of the right of associations to hold property. Her instability came about as a result of failure to perceive and act upon the principles of true liberty; but her proposed remedy is still another step into the darkness. All this came as a consequence of rejecting the Gospel of the Reformation, and acting upon that medieval doctrine that the stability of government is increased by abridging the liberties of the people. The principle of Church and State union can be carried out only where such a doctrine holds sway. America is swinging back to that doctrine, as is seen in recent important acts of legislation, such as the dictum of the Supreme Court that this is a Christian nation; congressional legislation in the matter of Sunday-keeping; and the late decision of the Supreme Court making America’s island possessions a plaything of the moneyed men, and compelling their inhabitants to pay a tax not exacted from the rest of the people, a discriminating duty. That which makes all this possible is that Americans have lost the power to see what is involved in the principles upon which their government was originally founded, and are gradually being swept back to those principles which are responsible for the present dangerous condition of the French nation; and sad as it is, there are religious journals in the country, the above-named being one, that see nothing dangerous, nothing disastrous, nothing destructive to national integrity, in the policy of abridging the liberties of the people. Such are “blind leaders of the blind,” and the ditch toward which they are leading one another is not far distant. Nations do not gain strength by actions of this kind; neither is the church true to her Spouse while united to the powers of earth. There is a weighty principle involved in the abridgment of individual liberty. S. AS REPORTED last week, the Cuban Constitutional Convention adopted the Platt amendment; but it did so by incorporating into its acceptance the explanation recently given to their delegates in Washington by cabinet officials. The Cubans who desired that the amendment should be accepted, thought it necessary to do this in order to insure its acceptance when the matter came to a vote in their convention. In any case, it was a wise thing for the Cubans to have expressed in their acceptance, in undeniable form, the understanding given them of the meaning of the Platt amendment. If that explanation was what was really intended, it would seem that there could be no objection to having it incorporated in that document. However, the Cubans have learned to their astonishment and dissatisfaction that the work of their convention has been rejected by the Washington Government, and that it must be done over again; that the Platt amendment must be accepted "substantially" and as it stands, and without any printed explanations. The question now is whether the convention which accepted the amendment with the explanations included in it by a majority of one vote only will be able to pass it now without the explanations attached. The outlook for the acceptance of the amendment by the Cubans seems darker now than at any time in the past, especially since the officials have shown an unwillingness to have their "explanations" go into print. The prospect of real independence for Cuba grows less with each new difficulty. Should the Cubans become exasperated and begin a war, and American troops be sent to the island to suppress the outbreak, the island could never hope for independence, and the declaration of Congress that9the people of Cuba "are and of right ought to be free and independent" would be hustled out of the arena along with the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The spirit of large humanity and justice which begat the American Government is fading out of the ethics of the nation at large, and this is manifest in nearly every national transaction. In speaking of the arguments for the relaxing or repeal of Sunday laws before the Massachusetts Legislature, the Congregationalist of Boston remarks that— “The listener to the debates doubtless noticed that the greater aggressiveness in argument, the most push and energy, were with the minority [those for repeal], while the action of the majority did not reveal the desire, familiarity with fundamental principle and force of personal conviction which are imperative for permanent triumph, but seemed to rest to be rather upon an inherited training, upon conservatism, and upon a supposed indorsement by their constituents. If this diagnosis is correct, the Sunday issue is not settled yet, and those who support the present restrictive laws need to make themselves more familiar with their own ground, and to instruct their children and neighbors.” And Sunday laws and Sunday sacredness rest largely on “inherited training.” There is reason why there is no personal conviction. True personal conviction rests on the truth of Scripture, and innate, equal justice to all; but Sunday sacredness and Sunday laws have behind them neither the Scripture nor justice. The Sunday issue “is not settled yet,” nor will it be till men yield to God, or the great Judge of all rises up and pronounces sentence against the counterfeit which has deceived so many, and the tyrannous means by which it has sought establishment. There it will be settled, and the Sunday will not be; but thruout eternity, “from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before Me, saith the Lord;” not compelled to come save by love. The Campaign to Repeal the Anti-Canteen Law
By a unanimous vote the Association of Military Surgeons, in session at St. Paul, Minn., May 31, passed a resolution in favor of the repeal of the anti-canteen law. The resolution claims that intemperance and disorder have increased since the abolition of the canteen, and the association recommends its re-establishment on grounds of “sanitation, morality, and discipline.” Of course this action is a direct result of persistent and systematic misrepresentations on the part of the liquor element, and that portion of the daily press which it has been able to influence in its behalf. Reports of drunken disturbances have been created where none occurred, and drinking places have been multiplied by false reports where no such increase took place. That the case has been misrepresented by the press and the liquor element has been proved beyond a doubt by the temperance press. It was predicted when the anti-canteen law was passed that just such a campaign would be resorted to by the liquor interests for the repeal of the law, and this action is one of the first steps in that campaign. CHINA’S quick agreement to the indemnity demand, after the amount was decided upon, is reported to have been due to the threat that the powers, after a certain date, would impose upon China a fine of $1,000,000 a day until the indemnity was agreed to. The form of the guarantee which China is to give for the payment has not yet been determined upon. The Chinese court is still objecting to the matter of interest on the indemnity. It has been decided to transfer gradually to the Chinese officials of Peking, during the month of June, the administration of the city. Considerable numbers of the foreign troops are moving toward the seaboard. A dispatch from Shanghai states that Boxers are again making trouble in all districts where there are no foreign troops. One report states that on May 26 a fierce fight was raging near Tien-tsin between Boxers and native Catholic converts. AMERICANS are getting control of French corporations in a way that is very displeasing to the general French public. Many French industries have gone into the hands of trusts after the example of American combinations, but the latest combination, which has just been made public, intends to control absolutely the surface and underground passenger traffic of the city of Paris. These various passenger-traffic concerns have voted to head their respective boards with men representing American capital. This preponderance of American interests in Paris passenger traffic was effected by secret and gradual buying of every share of stock offered at the exchange until the people representing American capital had a majority everywhere. THERE seems to be some probability that quarrymen and stone-dressers will gradually be crowded out of their occupation by the use of artificial stone. In the manufacture of this stone, sand is heated and mixed with about 12 per cent. of cement. The mixture is then placed in steel moulds, which are in turn placed inside a large steel cylinder, which is securely closed. Boiling water is then turned in under pressure sufficient to force it thru the sand and cement in the moulds. This slacks the cement, but as the steel moulds do not allow any expansion, the mixture becomes as hard as stone, and is dried under a heavy pressure. The result is a very hard stone, which can be supplied in shapes desired much cheaper than the natural material. THE following extract from an article in the Neuste Wiener Tageblatt, an influential Austrian journal, will show something of the way sentiment is being formed in European nations against the influence and power of the United States: “America is the common enemy of all; an enemy so formidable that each European country must succumb unless leagued with the rest of Europe. Even united Europe will have a hard fight.” The writer of the article from which this is taken was advocating the formation of a European customs league against the United States. This matter is becoming a live question among Europeans, and is a direct outgrowth of the grasping spirit of American capitalists. SEVERAL engagements have occurred in South Africa within the past week, in which both sides have suffered considerably in the loss of men. In two engagements on May 22 and May 25, the British lost 42 killed and 101 wounded. Immediately following these engagements came one near Pretoria in which the British lost, according to report, 46 killed, 80 wounded, 600 prisoners, and six guns. Another engagement is reported near Johannesburg, in which the British lost 174 in killed and wounded. There is a possibility that the last two engagements are confounded reports of the same battle. General Kitchener was planning to hold the Boers in northern Transvaal, and bring the conflict to an end there; but the Boers in small companies have broken thru his cordon and are moving south. Thus the bitter contest bids fair to drag along for months. FIVE men, of whom one was an Indian and two were half-breeds, were hanged to a railroad bridge at Lookout, Modoc County, Cal., on the night of May 30. The men were in the hands of constables who had arrested them for petty stealing, and were being held for examination, when the mob overcame the peace officers and hurried the arrested men away to execution. Governor Gage has offered a reward of $5,000 for the arrest of the lynchers; but the officers have as yet no clue to their identity. THE census bureau has published the first half of the final census report on the population of the United States. The report shows that Rhode Island is the most densely populated State in the Union, having 407 inhabitants to the square mile. Massachusetts comes next with 349 inhabitants to the square mile, and New Jersey third with a little more than 250. THE bodies of thirty-one babes were recently discovered in the cellar of an undertaking establishment in Birmingham, England. This is but another indication of the increased lack of natural affection which was to characterize the last days. How much of this infant slaughtering is going on continually only the Lord Himself can tell, as little of it is ever brought to light. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER has placed at the disposal of a body of prominent medical men $200,000, to be available for immediate expenditure in original scientific research into problems of medicine and hygiene. An association known as the “Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research” will have charge of the expenditure of this money. THE sitting of the Austrian Reichstag on May 30 broke up in open disorder and tumult. The president was wholly unable to preserve even a semblance of order. One party walked out of the house in a body, with the other party denouncing them as traitors to the country. DR. HERZL, the founder of the Jewish Zionist movement, has recently had several audiences with the sultan of Turkey and received from him several decorations, which seems to indicate that the sultan is looking with more favor than formerly upon the Zionist movement. THE national machinists’ strike is still in progress, with accessions to the ranks of those already idle. The machinists have returned to work only in those shops which have granted the demand for a nine-hour day with the same pay as formerly received for ten hours’ work. THE bubonic plague is rapidly spreading in Hongkong. Cases among the Asiatics during the past month have averaged 40 daily and among the Europeans 12 daily. The epidemic now prevailing is attributed to bad drainage. SIR HENRY JOHNSTONE, British commissioner in Uganda, Africa, has discovered a variety of giraffe having five horns. It is named helladotherium, is part ox, part giraffe, and was thought to have been extinct for centuries. THE TAFT commission for the Philippines have asked for 600 school teachers to come to the Islands and take up school work. Of this number 100 have already been selected and their sailing time appointed. THE Turkish Government is reported to have rescinded its action in reference to typewriters, and will now admit them. This action was taken in response to the protests of the foreign embassies. TURKEY has made her first payment on the cruiser which the Cramps Shipbuilding Company is to build for her. Turkey is in the race of war preparation along with all the rest of the world. A REPORT from Mexico states that during the fire which has been raging on the isthmus of Tehuantepec recently, 70 persons were surrounded by the flames and burned to death. UNITED STATES Minister Edwin H. Conger has announced that he will sail again for China on July 7, which is the date of the expiration of his two months’ leave of absence. THE Turkish Government has issued an order that Armenians who become naturalized citizens of either America or Russia shall not be allowed to return to Turkish territory. A REPORT from Russia states that 40 men were shot to death and 150 others wounded in a conflict between soldiers and strikers at Alexandrovsky, on May 20. TWENTY-ONE miners perished in the burning of a mine in Waldenburg, Prussia, on May 25. HOW ABOUT SUNDAY LAWS?
By Mrs. E. M. Peebles
THE above query is suggested to my mind by the present agitation on the matter of Sunday closing, and I proceed directly to the proposition, namely, Sunday legislation is at once both unamerican and unchristian. It is unamerican because this country has been the cradle of liberty, and a refuge for the oppressed from every land and clime; and its flag has been the symbol of liberty and freedom to all people of whatever nationality, color, or religious belief. It is unamerican, because the first amendment to the Constitution is to the effect that “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” and because the founders of this great republic fought, bled, and died to secure the boon of liberty to themselves and their posterity. They held “these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;” and that they have a right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. It is unchristian because the great Founder and Originator of the true Sabbath, who calls Himself its Lord, has said, “Render therefore unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” Matt. 22:21. The Sabbath, in its true sense, is strictly a religious institution, and can only be rendered to God. It can not be affected by legislation. Sunday legislation is unchristian because it forces upon the people a day which, like the penny shown to our Saviour when He uttered the above principle, bears only the image and superscription of the government, and not that of Him who established the Sabbath; and State legislation can never change its character or make it holy. State legislation upon matters of conscience is subversive of every principle of religious liberty. It is not the power of the State that is needed, but the transforming power of the Gospel, preached in its purity, changing the heart and life, and making men new creatures in Christ Jesus. Then they will need no Sabbath law except the one written by Jehovah, and the Spirit of God moving upon an enlightened conscience. The Sunday-closing laws will place as a substitute for God’s holy Sabbath (see Gen. 2:1-3; Ex. 20:8-11) the Sunday-Sabbath, that “wild solar holiday of all pagan times;” and it seems to me that the public conscience is becoming terribly and almost hopelessly mixed, and not able to discern between the sacred and the common. We read of a time when this would be the case: “Her priests have violated My law, and have profaned Mine holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and profane [or common], . . . and have hid their eyes from My Sabbaths, and I am profaned among them.” Eze. 22:26. Why, I ask, in this twentieth century, should these self-styled national reformers seek to “place all religious laws and usages upon an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of our land”? Are they tired of liberty of conscience and of a free country? I am fully persuaded that many of these people do not see whither the undercurrent is tending. I am inclined to look charitably upon them. They do not see that these are steps backward to the old days of Church and State union, when majorities ruled in matters of conscience, and trampled upon the rights of the few. DISCIPLINE IN THE HOME.
By Elizabeth Polhemus
I BELIEVE in discipline, and plenty of it, applied by parents and guardians, principally to themselves. Why so?—Because the moral atmosphere which emanates from a parent's habitual state of mind is the strongest disciplinary influence brought to bear upon a child. Fathers and mothers, by constant discipline, must keep their hearts and consciences pure from self-indulgence and wrong motives, if they wish their children to be unselfish and honest. A mother must first govern her own temper if she expects her children to be sunny and sweet-tempered. Children are not permanently so much influenced by what we say to them in particular, as by the general effect of our character and conversation. “Thou shalt and shalt not” does not make character. You can govern a child by compelling him to do what you require. You can punish him if he takes your cookies, and he will not touch them. But when he is beyond your sight and authority, unless he loves honesty and hates theft, he will take cookies. We are continually criticizing people's motives, dress, etc., yet insist that our children speak kindly of their friends. They may in the presence of our guests, because it is apt to be at that time we insist upon this principle being enforced. As they go out into the world, they carry their parents' true spirit of charity with them. Fine characteristics that are laid on the outside by force are not going to be permanent. Children build their characters from within by a constant absorption from those with whom they come in contact. An example set for an occasion is of very little use. The insight of children is keen; they see beyond all disguises. It is better in the end to wear no mask in our child's presence. Social custom or our own vanity may incite us to false pretense in other company; it will not deceive our children; they are forever watching us, and, sad to say, often learn, by first loving the deceiver, to love deception. There is not a punishment invented that leads a child to reverence truth so much as having the actions and words of its parents strictly honest. If we examine closely, we shall be surprised to find in how many ways we do not have the courage to act sincerely. Have we never lost anything, or done something imprudent, indulged in some extravagance, all of which we have concealed for days, for fear we might be laughed at or reproved? Is it not cruel, is it not pitiful, that failing thus, we at the same time are punishing some wee little tot for not having courage to confess an accident? There is no evil into which children so easily and so universally fall as that of lying. Make a child understand that a lie is one of the greatest sins. Then if you find that from a lack of courage he is inclined to conceal his mishaps, be slow to punish. If when children break things, or come to grief in any way, and they confess, we never fail to impress upon their minds how glad we are that they had the courage to tell, and that nothing could happen that would grieve us so much as their deceiving us could, they will tell very few untruths. I approve of expressing deep sorrow for imprudences committed, for careless losing and breaking, but never whipping or shutting up in closets. Fear of punishment or ridicule is the foundation for most lies. Next comes the question, “How shall I discipline my children to make them unselfish?” “First cast out the beam out of thine own eye.” Everything nowadays tends toward making the parent selfish. There are great care and thought spent on methods, and the selection of nurses, kindergartens, and instructors, so that the parents may be left free to do as they choose—free to respond to the many outside calls—and thus they have very little direct contact with their children. The children of to-day are self-reliant, wonderfully accomplished and intelligent, but O, so hard! they show that the “lullaby bosom” is no more. Mothers are not brooding over their little ones in constant watchfulness and loving care. They have given up the holy trust and responsibility to strangers. But to come directly to the children. I think we foster and encourage selfishness in many ways by the use of the words “yours and mine.” I believe that where there is more than one child, it would be better for them to have all toys in common. When meals are served in the nursery, have them take turns in presiding at the table, serving all before helping themselves. From the very beginning let them help each other in all ways. If one has been made unusually happy, have a family rejoicing, if it has been only a sleigh-ride or a small gift. Foster the spirit that one child can not rejoice alone—they are one in joy and sorrow.—Elizabeth Polhemus. A PALE little lad in a west-bound train, glanced wistfully toward a seat where a mother and her merry children were eating lunch. The tears gathered in his eyes, tho he tried to keep them back. A passenger came and stood beside him. “What’s the trouble?” he asked. “Have you no lunch?” “Yes, I have a little left, and I’m not awful hungry.” “What is it, then? Tell me; perhaps I can help you.” “It’s—it’s so lonely, and there’s such a lot of them over there, and—and they’ve got their mother.” The young man glanced at the black band on the boy’s hat. “Ah,” he said gently, “and you have lost yours?” “Yes, and I am going to my uncle; but I’ve never seen him. A kind lady, the doctor’s wife, who put up my lunch, hung this card to my neck. She told me to show it to the ladies on the car, and they would be kind to me; but I haven’t shown it to any one yet. You may read it, if you like.” The young man raised the card, and read the name and address of the boy. Below were the words, “And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, He shall in no wise lose his reward.” The reader brushed his hand across his eyes, and was silent for a moment. Then he said, “I’ll come back very soon,” and made his way to the mother and her children. And presently little George felt a pair of loving arms about him, and a woman’s voice, half sobbing, calling him a poor, dear little fellow, and begging him to come with her to her children; and for the rest of that journey, at least, the motherless boy had no lack of “mothering.”—New York Tribune. The following extract from Chosen People gives some interesting facts in regard to the custom of the Jews in preparing meat for food. We quote the article entire:— “God commanded the children of Israel not to eat blood. ‘For it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel, No soul of you shall eat blood,’ Lev. 17:11, 12. ‘Only ye shall not eat the blood; ye shall pour it upon the earth as water.’ Deut. 12:16. Hence the Jews kill cattle or poultry with a knife, so that the victim shall bleed freely, and the blood be poured out upon the earth, and none of it be absorbed by the members of the body, as is the case when animals are killed by blows. But the scribes and so-called wise men of old were not satisfied with this pure and plain command of God, and added to it hundreds of precepts of their own.” “Some of these traditions demand that a masculine expert, who is pious and obedient to the rabbi, shall do the killing. Moreover, this man, whom they call the ‘Shochet,’ meaning killer or slayer, must have separate knives for cattle and for poultry, each knife must be so long and so wide, so sharp and so smooth. In order that the animal’s death may be easy, there must not be the least indentation in the edge of the knife. The old rabbis stated that slaying with a rough knife made death very painful, and that it was as difficult to take thorns out of wool as for the spirit to depart from the body when killed in such a way. But the perfectly sharp and smooth knife made death as easy as drawing a hair from milk. Therefore the shochet must frequently bring his knives for inspection to the rabbi, who examines them by passing his finger-nail up and down the edge to discover the slightest cut or damage.” “The origin of this custom came from the command, ‘Neither shall ye eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field; ye shall cast it to the dogs.’ Ex. 22:31. So they argued and reasoned that if an animal is killed with a rough knife, it is just as if it were torn of beasts, and hence becomes unfit for Israel’s consumption, and must be given to the dogs.” “The Hebrew word for torn of beasts is trayfa. The rabbis of old called all meat which was not dealt with after their precepts, ‘trayfa.’ If the shochet has a perfect knife, and is an expert, and meets all the requirements of the law, which he has to study for years before he is given a diploma; and yet if he breaks the Sabbath by smoking a cigar, or doing the slightest work, the animal that he slays is trayfa. But if everything is all right, the meat is called kosher, meaning fit and right. If any one should use the meat of an animal which has not been slaughtered by the right shochet, in the right way, all his dishes would be rendered unfit for further use.” “The Jews do not use the whole animal, even when kosher. They eat the forequarters only. The hindquarters, including the tenderloin and porter-house steaks, and all which seems best to a Gentile, is set aside, because of Gen. 32:32: ‘Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day; and as they can not extricate this sinew and its branches, they will not eat the meat.’” “The shochet, after slaughtering the steer, opens it carefully against its lungs, and thrusting in his hand, which he moves with great perception and delicacy, he brings forth a lung. Then some one inflates it, and if any disease is discovered, or if there is the slightest aperture so that the air escapes, then the whole carcass is trayfa. Then again there are many laws about other members of the animal, such as, if both linings of the stomach are perforated, the beef is trayfa; or if the liver is smaller than an olive, or if there are any holes in some organs of the body, the meat is trayfa.” “There are in the code of laws sixty-seven chapters treating on Sh’chitah (slaughtering) and trayfa. These chapters contain 517 sections, besides many commentators’ opinions and by-laws, which the shochet must study. Still, he is not expected to know them as well as the rabbi, to whom all doubtful cases are referred. A shochet must practise for a long time, and must be skilful, active, and brisk, in order to be fit for this work; he must be strong in mind and in nerve, his hand must be steady, and he must be careful in every particular.” “The chief laws require that as he draws his knife twice over the throat of an animal, he must sever the gullet and windpipe; he must not stop, he must not press down the knife; nothing must be above the knife; the gullet and windpipe must not be out of their proper places while being severed, and the cut must be in the middle of the throat.” “There is one large slaughterhouse in New York,—the Gouverneur Slip Slaughterhouse,—where these rules are observed, and where there is an authorized11rabbi in attendance to examine the shochet’s knives and the carcasses. They kill from 1,600 to 1,900 cattle each week, and from there the real kosher meat, with labels attached, comes to retail dealers. But the majority of small dealers deceive their ignorant customers, for they also put on labels and place large signs of kosher in their stores. Some of them have their own slaughter establishments, their own shochets, and their own overseers and examiners, who act as rabbis. The ignorant Jews do not know that there is a difference, and so buy their meat of any butcher who has a kosher sign and can affix a label to his meat.”