Earlier text: THE MISSION OF CHRIST1616.—Change in the Calendar.
How and where do we find a change of eleven days in the calendar, as, for instance, in placing Washington's Birthday February 22, instead of February 11? The Europeans first reckoned time by the imperfect Julian Calendar, in which 365 days constituted a year, with one day added every four years. This imperfection, by which the spring equinox, sun time, differed from the civil time, had amounted in 1752 to eleven days. Pope Gregory XIII. prescribed the Gregorian Calendar, or "New Style" of reckoning time, in 1582, by "calling Oct. 5, 1582, October 15, and continuing the count ten days in advance, and by making the terminal years of the centuries 1700, 1800, 1900, etc., common years of 365 days each, except when the year was a multiple of 400, as 1600, 2000, etc."—"Standard Dictionary." England did not make the change till Sept. 3, 1752, when September 3 became September 14, at which time the imperfection amounted to another day. According to the Old Style, or Julian Calendar, Washington was born February 11; according to the New Style, February 22. The difference is now twelve days. Nearly all Christendom, except Russia and Greece, use the New Style. Our January 26 is in Russia January 14. This does not in any way affect the day of the week. Russia's week days are the same as ours. Will you kindly give me whatever explanation you can, either through the "Question Corner" or by letter, on 2 Kings 24:8, and 2 Chron. 36:9. The number in 2 Kings 24:8 is doubtless correct. The mistake occurred in copying in the original manuscript. There are a few such in the Bible. The Lord would not have counted a boy eight years old a wicked king. How can "mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" be applied to Christ? and in what shall His government increase? 1. To the Son belongs the name and titles of His Father. Heb. 1:4, 8. Surely He is mighty. He hath conquered gloriously all foes; He called into existence the worlds. 2. He is the everlasting Father; for all God's spiritual children have been begotten by Him. He is the second Adam, a father forever. 3. The expression does not necessarily mean that His government will go on increasing forever, tho we believe it will from other consideration; but His government having increased, and peace having been established, this happy condition of peace will persist forever. When Jesus Christ comes and sin is destroyed He will be King of kings and Lord of lords. That kingdom thus extended over a sinless creation, will never end. Will you please explain the meaning of spirit, soul, and body in 1 Thess. 5:23. When the Lord breathed into Adam's "nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul," was Adam then composed of a spirit, soul, and body? If so, what are we to understand by spirit and soul? "Spirit" and "soul" are synonymous in this respect, that they often mean life, tho not always the same life, or life controlled by the same law. Both words are used with a wide latitude. Sometimes they refer to a whole personality. "God is a Spirit," that is, a spiritual being. Christ is made a "quickening Spirit." Angels are spirits. Demons are spirits. "Man became a living soul." "Eight souls were saved in the ark." "Every living soul died in the sea." "Soul" also means the individual life, the earth-life, subject to the law of the physical organism, whether of man or beast. Matt. 16:26; Luke 12:20, 22, 23; Gen. 1:30, margin. So "soul" may be used in 1 Thess. 5:23 of the physical life with all it comprehends of physical impulses. "Spirit" is the life God-given, the life flowing direct from the Fountain in harmony with God's law, received direct by faith on the part of the individual. In these uses of the word only the converted man has the spiritual life. All have the soulical life. Mark 12:30, we apprehend, is designed to include the powers which man possesses. The "heart," the affections; the "soul," the physical impulses and perceptive faculties; the "mind," the reason and reflective faculties; the "strength," all the abilities of the physical and mental powers. The above will, we think, explain Heb. 4:12. It is said that 1 Kings 6:1 should read "five hundred and eightieth," instead of "four hundred and eightieth." Please explain the ground of this claim. So far as the original text is concerned, there is no other reading. One of the fathers, Jerome, we believe, quotes that scripture, but leaves out the year. For this and other reasons, some scholars have concluded that the matter of the year is an interpolation. The added smaller sections seem to amount to more than that. But we have not space to discuss this here. For a brief, condensed work on Biblical Chronology, see "Sacred Chronology," by S. Bliss, revised by A. T. Jones. For sale at this office; price, $1.00. Please explain John 7:39. Was the Spirit striving with men in Old Testament times? What difference is there in receiving the Spirit now from Old Testament times? We do not know that there is any difference between these times and the ancient days as to the reception of the Spirit. It came by prayer and the study of God's Word anciently; it comes in the same way now. When Christ was upon the earth, His disciples looked to Him and His personal presence. His absence became necessary, in order that they might learn the power of His Spirit at all times in all places, coming into the hearts and lives of all believers, through Jesus Christ, the Divine-human Saviour. 1622.—The Confederacies of Prophecy, and Life Insurance.
Does the confederacy the Lord warns His people against cover the insurance policy on their property? We do not understand that it does. That is not a matter of confederating together, by which men are bound by the moral or immoral conduct of others. Sometimes insurance is absolutely demanded on account of mortgage on property, etc. Does this mean Joshua or Jesus? The context clearly reveals that Joshua is meant, and so nearly all translations in English render. Joshua in the Hebrew is the same as Jesus in the Greek; the same as Hosea in Hebrew is Osee in Greek; or as Diego in Spanish is the same as James in English. SABBATH IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
ONE of the arguments against the Sabbath of Jehovah is that it is not commanded in the New Testament. But what has that to do with it. Neither is it there abrogated. A law is in force till it is repealed in the same public manner as it was enacted. There is no prohibition of image-worship in the New Testament; and where is the third commandment enjoined? That argument which would prove that the Sabbath was abrogated would prove that every one of the Ten Commandments are no longer binding. THE New Testament is not a book of laws. Jesus gave many injunctions, but they were the mere developing of principles found in the Decalogue, the magnifying of the law, a work which the prophet declared Christ would do. Isa. 42 : 21. The New Testament everywhere indorses the Decalogue, everywhere appeals to it as authority, honors it, and shows its far-reaching breadth and depth. The New Testament is but a record of the unfolding of the Gospel of God. It shows the verity of the reality to which prophecy, type, and symbol pointed. It marks the cessation of all ceremonies which pointed forward to Christ's sacrifice, resurrection, and priesthood, showing that they have all been met in the Lamb of God, the Light and Life of the world, our great High Priest. It also marks the beginning of those rites and ceremonies which point backward to the death of our Lord and forward to His coming. The change in passing from the Old Testament to the New is the mere change of rites and ceremonies which mark the progress of God's plan in the Gospel of Christ. MARYLAND'S ACT OF TOLERATION.
By John D. Bradley
Who Were Responsible for It?
THE recent declaration at a very public Roman Catholic celebration in Washington, by the president of the Board of Commissioners for the District of Columbia, Mr. Henry B. F. Macfarland, in which he participated, that "Roman Catholics, in the Maryland Assembly of 1649, passed the act for religious freedom, then almost unique," and that the Roman Catholics "who set up the standard of spiritual liberty in Maryland deserve to be praised with the Pilgrims of Plymouth," has not passed unchallenged. In the Washington Post, of December 5, appeared a communication from Chase Roys, in which he wrote as follows: Several good citizens would like to know where Mr. Macfarland finds his authority for the statement that the "Roman Catholics, in the Maryland Assembly of 1649, passed the act for religious freedom," etc. First, George Bancroft, author of several excellent histories of the United States, says in effect that there never was any Roman Catholic colony in Maryland—that "the thirteen colonies were all Protestant; even in Maryland the Roman Catholics formed scarcely an eighth, perhaps not more than a twelfth, part of the population. Their presence in other provinces, except Pennsylvania, was hardly perceptible. . . . America was most thoroughly a Protestant country." The Jesuit Father White says (Vol. III, p. 362, 7th series of the Jesuit work, "Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus"), when writing from the colony to the head of the order in England, thus: "In a country like this, newly planted, and depending wholly upon England for its subsistence, where there is not, nor can be, until England is re-united to the [Roman Catholic] church, any ecclesiastical discipline established by law of the province, or granted by the prince, nor any provincial synod, nor spiritual courts created, nor the canon law accepted, nor ordinary or other ecclesiastical person admitted [as such], nor the Catholic religion publicly allowed; and, whereas, three parts of the people, or four, at least, are heretics [Protestants]," etc. Could a colony which was seven-eighths Protestant be properly called a Roman Catholic colony? Edward D. Neill, a historian of that day, says that in 1649 an Act of Toleration was passed by the Maryland Assembly, which consisted of thirteen persons—nine Protestants and four Roman Catholics—and he gives the names of them all in his work, "Founders of Maryland." He further says that the nine Protestants voted for the act of toleration and the four Roman Catholics against it, and that the next year, when they again met, the four Roman Catholic members objected to taking the usual oath, on account of the act of toleration. Three of them finally did take the oath, but the fourth one, Thomas Mathews, refused, was censured, and expelled. Neill gives the reason ("Founders of Maryland," p. 120) why the papists opposed the "act of toleration." He says: "This act was contrary to the teachings of the Church of Rome, since it was the recognition of Christians who rejected the pope." It is, nevertheless, true that Lord Baltimore did urge the Maryland Assembly to pass an act of religious toleration, but he was driven to this extremity by the English Parliament, which was at that time intensely Protestant. Baltimore had appointed a Roman Catholic lieutenant-governor to govern the colony while he, Baltimore, was absent in England. The colonists took alarm at this act, and petitioned Parliament to take care that the American colonies should be kept under Protestant control. To leave no excuse to Parliament for acting on this petition, and while it was still pending—a period of some two years or more—Lord Baltimore had the Assembly of Maryland pass the famous Act of Religious Toleration. He also dismissed Governor Greene, and installed Stone, a Protestant, as governor, apparently for the same reason. This was two years after a much more liberal act had been passed by Rhode Island. "Fiat justitia ruat coelum." And on December 12, appeared this communication in the Post, from W. M. Yale: Editor Post: I was present at the open-air meeting in connection with the dedicatory services of Carroll Hall, and heard Commissioner Macfarland's address, in which he gave the Roman Catholic members of the Maryland Assembly credit for the passage of the Toleration Act of 1649. I was very much surprised at his remarks at the time, and was pleased to note this reply to them by Mr. Chase Roys. This lets a little daylight in on the situation, and clears the question of much of its fog. It is up to Mr. Macfarland now to explain how he came to make the statements referred to, and what was the source of his information. Cardinal Gibbons has quite clearly expressed the general attitude of the Catholic Church upon the question of universal religious freedom, in his work, "The Faith of Our Fathers." On page 269 of this work is the following: "Religious liberty may be tolerated by a ruler when it would do more harm to the state or the community to repress it. This is the true Catholic teaching on this point, according to Becanus, and all Catholic theologians." The Catholic Church tolerates religious liberty under certain circumstances, but it does not teach it as a right to be universally enjoyed. Like many other churches, when oppressed or denied justice and equal rights, the Catholic Church has plead for the freedom of its own people. But this is not the basis of true religious liberty. He who stands for this must plead not simply for the right of one class, but for the right of all classes, to choose their own religion and to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences. This, and this only, is genuine religious liberty. Will Mr. Macfarland please explain his public utterances respecting this matter on the occasion referred to? These communications are in the interests of truth, both as respects the historic facts regarding the enactment of the Maryland Act of Toleration, and the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to religious liberty. Of course, Mr. Macfarland will not deign to explain his utterances to these inquirers. The declaration is not a desire to pervert history, but a desire, which seems to be a weakness of many public men in these days, to please Roman Catholics, and, therefore, on occasion, to accept their version of certain matters of history affecting Roman Catholics or the Roman Catholic Church. There are many other people besides Roman Catholics, and even some who think they are thoroughly grounded in the principles of religious liberty, and who profess to be its representatives and advocates, who are not entirely without the need of such admonition as is given in the above communication, as to what is genuine religious liberty. AN IDEAL LABOR ORGANIZATION.
THE most honorable and the most successful labor organization in the United States is the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers. And the reason for this enviable position is that the order recognizes that non-union engineers have the same right to live and to work that the brotherhood men have. The order recognizes the fact that men do not get their natural rights from membership in an organization. The following item from the Headlight gives a clear idea of the brotherhood's position, from first hands: Grand Chief Stone, of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, in an address at a great gathering of labor organizations in Fort Worth recently, spoke strongly for the "open shop." Standing as a "firm believer in union labor and the right of laboring men to organize," he declared that when an organization compels a man to join it against his will, it interferes with the personal liberty guaranteed him by the Constitution of the United States. "The railway orders," he said, "stand head and shoulders above all labor organizations, for they have the 'open shop.' On almost every road in the country we work side by side with men who do not belong to our orders. No man is forced to join us. We try to show him how he would be benefited by belonging to us, and where his interests are, but we never say to him to join us or you can not earn an honest living by working here. I do not believe any man ever made a good member of any organization who was forced to join it against his will; for the chances are that, when opportunity offers, he will prove a traitor, and betray you." This is a much higher plane of unionism than the Federation of Labor, which declares that no non-union man shall work, if the union can prevent him; and which tacitly sanctions violence in carrying out this principle. SUNDAY ENFORCEMENT NEWS AND COMMENT.
AN item that appeared recently in the Sioux City (Iowa) Journal stated that "the councilmen of Hornick unanimously favor an ordinance for closing of the barber shops on Sunday, with not less than a $5.00 fine as penalty, and a committee has been appointed to draft said ordinance." It was recently reported from Elgin, Ill., that "there is a movement on to do away with Sunday funerals. Funeral directors and every driver in the city have decided to take no part in funerals held on Sunday, and it is understood that the ministers are also in favor of the movement." Chairman Amundson, of the town board of Emerald, Minn., recently issued this "Public Warning:" "To whom it may concern: Several complaints have been sent me regarding Sunday hunting and shooting, and requesting me to notify all concerned in a friendly way to be kind enough to discontinue the same. Those concerned please take heed." The clothing dealers of Faribault, Minn.,7 "have agreed to close their places of business every Sunday during the year 1905." "The movement was inaugurated by the retail clerks' association, to which the proprietors acquiesced"—in obedience to something in the way of compulsion, it may be depended on. The Indianapolis News, of December 9, reported that "the war of the union barbers on Sunday work shows no indication of ending," and that "seven affidavits charging barbers and proprietors with keeping open their shops on Sunday" had just "been filed in the court of Justice of the Peace Stout." The cases of three barbers previously arrested on the charge of violating the Sunday law had just "been taken from Stout's court to that of Justice Sheppard on change of venue." "For selling shoe strings on the Sabbath," two men were arrested in Minneapolis, Minn., on November 28, according to the Times of that city, which remarks that "there should be no law against selling either shoe strings or collar buttons on any day," and that such a law "is provocative of more profanity than good." On December 8, Mayor Cullom of Duluth, Minn., notified the manager of a local theater which had advertised a Sunday performance, "that such was the will of 'the powers that be' in Duluth, that if any theatrical companies are caught laboring on the Sabbath, within the city limits, they will be prosecuted according to law." The manager "at once complied with the mayor's command, and had the Sunday show stricken from his list of theatrical engagements." It seems that the action of the mayor was due to "a storm of wrath among the religious element" because of the proposed Sunday performance. In Brooklyn, N. Y., on December 21, "Magistrate Furlong held James Rollo, a barber, accused of having violated the Sunday barber law at his shop, 1840 Broadway, on Sunday, December 11, for the court of special sessions." Rollo was given until the next morning "to furnish $200 bail." He was arrested as the result of a complaint by barbers. At Joliet, Ill., on December 17, "information was filed in the county court by State Attorney Heise against fourteen Joliet saloon-keepers for violating the Sunday-closing law." Capiases were at once issued and the papers filed with Sheriff Ray for service. Labor Men Using Sunday Laws to Force Favorable Settlement.
In Atlanta, Ga., on December 4, "cases were made against several railroad employees under the ordinance which prohibits manual labor on the Sabbath day." "During the trial of the cases before Judge Broyles an abrupt postponement was secured by consent of all parties, upon the statement that the case would probably be adjusted without the aid of the courts." The prosecutions were made at the instance of Secretary Puckett, of the Georgia Federation of Labor, and were for the purpose, it seems, of bringing the railroads entering Atlanta to terms with the labor organization regarding Sunday work. This statement of the matter by the attorney for the labor organization appeared in the Atlanta Constitution, of December 9. The Georgia Federation of Labor was made acquainted with the fact that the yard men, or a majority of them, were required to work nearly all day Sunday, and, after investigation, decided to have cases made against the railroads for violating the Sunday laws. Pending the trial before Recorder Broyles, overtures were made for a friendly settlement of the matter. These overtures were met in a conciliatory spirit, and, having been informed as to the hours which would be satisfactory to the railroad employees, I was authorized and directed to negotiate with the railway companies. After several conferences an agreement was reached, entered into by every superintendent of the railroads entering Atlanta, that no switching or work would be done in the yards between the hours of 10 o'clock A.M. and 2 o'clock P.M., and between 6 P.M. and 8 P.M. on Sundays, all men affected to receive pay for a full day's work. The entire matter has been adjusted satisfactorily both to the railroads and railroad employees, and there will doubtless be no further trouble in the premises. "WHAT IS CHRISTIAN CITIZENSHIP?"
This is a question that frequently occurs to me, and it has again been very forcibly impressed on my mind from reading an article in a little pamphlet, entitled, "Christian Citizenship, or the Moral Regeneration of Society." The article referred to advocates the doing away of evangelistic work among individuals, and converting men by nations; that is, passing religious laws, and compelling men to obey them. Will that not lead to religious intolerance which will end in persecution? Is there any nation on earth where all the people agree as to their religious doctrines? Then, how is it possible to convert a whole nation to any one religion without trespassing upon one's rights? Are you acting up to all the requirements of the Golden Rule, when you compel another to obey the dogmas of your religion whether he believes it or not? The Golden Rule says, "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets." Matt. 7:12. "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things." Phil. 4:8. Supposing that some one of our law makers should get a bill through Congress, requiring every one to observe the ordinance of baptism by immersion. This would do infants no good, and it might kill some adults to baptize them against their will. But you say this would not be right. But is it not as much right as to compel one to do as you say on other questions? What do you think about it? THE sale of intoxicating liquors in army posts, under the auspices of the government itself, finds an ardent opponent in Col. Noel Gaines, inspector-general of the Kentucky State Guard. While the Army and Navy Gazette would fain ridicule his opposition to the "canteen," it gives him credit for good service while an officer of the army in the Philippines. The army officers who favor the sale of liquors in the garrisons argue that it keeps the soldiers from seeking strong drink in low dives on the outside. Colonel Gaines makes the point that if strong drink at a distance is bad, it must be worse when brought within closer range. On this point he says: If pointing a loaded rifle at you from a distance of a hundred yards would be considered dangerous, would the danger be lessened by bringing it closer to you? Would you not rather say, Take it farther away! or, rather, take it away altogether? . . . Tempting is the devil's business, and should be his business only, and not the business of a free government. On the point of raising the morale of the army, about which a good deal is said in this connection, the people might as well understand that armies are not moral institutions at best. The drilling of men in the use of deadly weapons and in the art of killing their fellow-men, and the glorifying as heroes those who are the most successful in this line, is not calculated to improve their morals. Much has been said about strong drink causing desertions, but that is not generally the cause. Drinking is the cause of most of the petty offenses of soldiers, and the lowering of the naturally-low morale of military association; but when it comes to the matter of desertion, the drinking men are not usually the ones who desert. Desertion, under ordinary circumstances, is caused by utter disgust with the service, especially disgust with the petty tyranny and pomposity of autocratic "rank." Drinking and gambling are the principal causes that bring men to the point of enlisting in the army—excepting in times of special call in a temporary emergency. And the argument of army officers that it is necessary to provide opportunity for strong drink in the army posts in order to hold the men, is not very commendatory of the class of men who compose the army. It is a very poor inducement, from the standpoint of association, for the young men of "character" whom the government is always seeking as recruits for the army. The Russian situation has taken on a more peaceful aspect during the week. While strikes continue in different parts of the empire, the great strikes at Moscow, St. Petersburg, and Warsaw are being broken down by the presence of the soldiers and the promises of better treatment from employers. The czar has met a committee of representatives of the laborers, and has promised substantial reforms in their interest. Some reports go so far as to state that the czar is about to abolish the bureaucracy and autocracy; but these reports are doubtless exaggerated. It is certain, however, that disaffection in the army and the rising spirit of the people have impressed the czar with the necessity of reforms in the government. Ten million dollars was embezzled in the United States during the year 1904, according to the statement just compiled by the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York. These do not include the operations of such persons as Mrs. Chadwick, but are plain steals, followed by confession or by the disappearance of the guilty parties. New York State headed the list, and California stands second. The four states in which the largest embezzlements occurred are as follows; New York, $1,851,583; California, $1,058,825; Pennsylvania, $987,233; Ohio, $830,208. The amount embezzled per capita was greatest in California, where the rate was $1.28 for every thousand of the population. The Supreme Court has made permanent the injunction against the beef trust. By the terms of this injunction the packing companies which comprise the trust are forbidden to make agreement between themselves not to bid against each other, to combine for the purpose of fixing prices, or to agree among themselves to bid high in certain markets for the purpose of inducing large shipments of cattle, with the intention to create an overstock to be bid in at low prices, to keep a blacklist of dealers for mutual use, or to get or attempt to get less than lawful rates for transportation. Passive resistance to the English Education Act continues to be exercised in both England and Wales, and the Education bill is becoming more and more unpopular with the people. In cases where "passive resisters" have been haled before the court, and sentenced for non-payment of the obnoxious tax, the magistrates have felt that it would be best not to enforce the sentences. The London County Council has also shown its disapproval of the education measure. Premier Combes of France, who has been making such a heroic fight against clericalism in the government, has tendered his resignation. Whether his resignation was brought about by the influence of those whom he was opposing is not definitely known, tho it is certain they were doing all they could to bring about his defeat. He has, nevertheless, accomplished a great deal in the matter of the separation of church and state. Governor Folk of Missouri has issued a set of rules which he hopes will do away with a large portion of the objectionable lobbying at the state capital. It is safe to say that these rules will not be to the liking of a great portion of the legislators, who have been receiving thousands of dollars from these lobbyists for the passage of certain laws. There is a prospect that Guatemala will soon be involved in trouble with her European creditors, as that government is not able this year even to pay interest on her indebtedness. In view of possible complications over this matter, Germany is said to be courting Mexico, knowing that the latter country is hostile to Guatemala. The bill taking the building of the Panama Canal out of the hands of a committee, and placing it in the hands of the President of the United States, has been approved by the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. The bill also authorizes the government to purchase a controlling interest in the Panama Railroad. The California Assembly has passed the bill for the recession of the Yosemite Park to the national government. The indications are that the measure will also pass the Senate. It is hoped that by this measure this famous park will receive better attention than it has received at the hands of the state. The United States Government, on February 1, took charge of the customs of Santo Domingo. A force of 200 marines have been taken from Panama, and landed at Guantanamo for use in Santo Domingo, if their presence should be necessary there. Russian officials have laid the blame for the insertion of a charge of grape in the saluting charge that nearly cost the life of the Russian family, at the door of private Bogdanoff, who is said to be a member of a revolutionist society. Great ice floes are reported in the North Atlantic, causing trans-Atlantic shipping to change their courses farther to the south. The entire coast line of Nova Scotia, except the extreme south, is blockaded by the ice. Detectives have discovered a well-organized band of boys and young men throughout the country, who make a business of robbing wealthy guests of hotels. These boys are mostly employed as bell boys. As a result of the recent events in St. Petersburg, the Boyevaya Society has condemned the czar to death. It was this society which condemned and killed Minister Von Plehve. A landslide into Lake Loen Land, Norway, on January 15, caused a high wave which swept the shores of the lake, and resulted in the drowning of 59 persons. The impeachment trial of Judge Swayne, of the District Court for the Northern District of Florida, has begun in the Senate of the United States. There has been a vast increase in immigration from Russia during the past few months. The number who arrived in December amounted to 58,926. A new planet of the thirteenth magnitude has been discovered by Professor Wolf, of Heidelberg, Germany. There is a strike of 900 lumber-wagon drivers in Chicago at the present time. GENERAL KUROPATKIN's attempt to surprise Marshal Oyama, and turn the Japanese left flank for the purpose of getting into the rear of the Japanese, has turned out to have been an ill-timed and unfortunate move for the Russians. They were themselves surprised in the resistance they met. The Russians admit a loss of 10,000 men in killed and wounded, and it is reported that the Japanese loss was 7,000. The Russians themselves see nothing but a defeat in this engagement, and are blaming General Kuropatkin for the move which sacrificed so many men, and gained nothing. Fighting continues at this writing, but only by the artillery. The weather in the vicinity of these armies is said to be moderating, and the armies are reported to be now preparing for a great battle. One report indicates that the Japanese right wing is engaged in a movement designed to turn the Russian left. There have been rumors from European sources that negotiations are in progress looking to the establishment of peace; but these are unconfirmed.