We have several times referred to the famous case of the Cincinnati school board upon religious exercises in the public schools. We have printed a part of the speech of Hon. Stanley Mathews at the trial of the case. In the decision of the court, two of the judges, Hagans and Storer, decided in favor of religion in the schools. The third member of the court, Judge Taft, dissented. The case then went to the Supreme Court of the State, though the question involved in the appeal was not strictly whether religion should be taught in the schools or not, but whether the school board had the right to prohibit it if it chose. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Superior Court, deciding that the school board had such power under the constitution and laws of the State of Ohio. This of course was indirectly a decision that religious instruction, or the conducting of religious exercises, is not one of the functions of the State of Ohio. This question being involved, though indirectly, the Supreme Court took occasion to express its views upon the question. The decision was rendered by Chief Justice Welsh. That part of the decision in which the views of the court upon the question are given, we here present to the readers of the SENTINEL. The argument is unanswerable, and we commend it to the careful consideration of the American people:
“BOARD OF EDUCATION, CINCINNATI,
vs.
MINOR ET AL.
“We are told that the word ‘religion’ must mean ‘Christian religion,’ because Christianity is a part of the common law of this country, lying behind and above its constitutions. Those who make this assertion can hardly be serious, and intend the real import of their language. If Christianity is a law of the State, like every other law it must have a sanction. Adequate penalties must be provided to enforce obedience to all its requirements and precepts. No one seriously contends for any such doctrine in this country, or, I might almost say, in this age of the world. The only foundation—rather, the only excuse—for the proposition that Christianity is a part of the law of this country, is the fact that it is a Christian country, and that its constitutions and laws are made by a Christian people. And is it not the very fact that these laws do not attempt to enforce Christianity, or place it upon exceptional or vantage-ground, itself a strong evidence that they are the laws of a Christian people, and that their religion is the best and purest of religions? It is a strong evidence that their religion is indeed religion ‘without partiality,’ and, therefore, a religion ‘without hypocrisy.’”
“True Christianity asks no aid from the sword of civil authority. It began without the sword,332and wherever it has taken the sword it has perished by the sword. To depend on civil authority for its enforcement is to acknowledge its own weakness, which it can never afford to do. It is able to fight its own battles. Its weapons are moral and spiritual, and not carnal. Armed with these, and these alone, it is not afraid nor ashamed to be compared with other religions, and to withstand them single-handed. And the very reason why it is not afraid or ashamed is that it is not the ‘power of men,’ but ‘the power of God,’ on which it depends. True Christianity never shields itself behind majorities. Nero, and the other persecuting Roman emperors, were amply supported by majorities; and yet the pure and peaceable religion of Christ in the end triumphed over them all; and it is only when it attempted itself to enforce religion by the arm of authority, that it began to wane. A form of religion that cannot live under equal and impartial laws ought to die, and sooner or later must die. Legal Christianity is a solecism, a contradiction of terms. When Christianity asks the aid of the government beyond mere impartial protection, it denies itself. Its laws are divine, and not human. Its essential interests lie beyond the reach and range of human governments. United with government, religion never rises above the merest superstition; united with religion, government never rises above the merest despotism; and all history shows us that the more widely and completely they are separated, the better it is for both.”
“Religion is not—much less is Christianity or any other particular system of religion—named in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States as one of the declared objects of government; nor is it mentioned in the clause in question, in our own constitution, as being essential to anything beyond mere human government. Religion is ‘essential’ to much more than human government. It is essential to man’s spiritual interests, which rise infinitely above, and are to outlive, all human governments. It would have been easy to declare this great truth in the constitution, but its framers would have been quite out of their proper sphere in making the declaration. They contented themselves with declaring that religion is essential to good government, providing for the protection of all in its enjoyment, each in his own way, and providing means for the diffusion of general knowledge among the people. The declaration is, not that government is essential to good religion, but that religion is essential to good government. Both propositions are true, but they are true in quite different senses. Good government is essential to religion for the purpose declared elsewhere in the same section of the constitution, namely, for the purpose of mere protection. But religion, morality, and knowledge are essential to government, in the sense that they have the instrumentalities for producing and perfecting a good form of government. On the other hand, no government is at all adapted for producing, perfecting, or propagating a good religion. Religion, in the widest and best sense, has most, if not all, the instrumentalities for producing best forms of government. Religion is the parent, and not the offspring, of good government. Its kingdom is first to be sought, and added thereto. True religion is the sun which gives to good government all its true lights, while the latter merely acts upon religion by reflection.
“Properly speaking, there is no such thing as ‘religion’ of the State. What we mean by that phrase is, the religion of some individual, or set of individuals, taught and enforced by the State. The State can have no religious opinions; and if it undertakes to enforce the teaching of such opinions, they must be the opinions of some natural person or class of persons. If it embarks in this business, whose opinions shall it adopt? If it adopts the opinions of one man, or one class of men, to what extent may it group together the opinions of all? And where this conflict exists, how thorough will the teaching be? Will it be exhaustive and exact, as it is in the elementary literature and in the sciences usually taught to children? And if not, which of the doctrines or truths claimed by each will be blurred over, and which taught in preference to those in conflict? These are difficulties which we do not have to encounter when teaching the ordinary branches of learning. It is only when we come to teach what lies ‘beyond the scope of sense or reason’—what from its very nature can only be the object of faith—that we encounter these difficulties. Especially is this so when our pupils are children to whom we are compelled to assume a dogmatical method and manner, and whose faith at last is more a faith in us than anything else. Suppose the State should undertake to teach Christianity in the broad sense in which counsel apply the term, or the ‘religion of the Bible,’ so as also to include the Jewish faith, where would it begin? how far would it go? and what points of disagreement would be omitted?
“If it be true that our law enjoins the teaching of the Christian religion in the schools, surely, then, all its teachers should be Christians. Were I such a teacher, while I should instruct the pupils that the Christian religion was true, and all other religions false, I should tell them that the law itself was an unchristian law. One of my first lessons to the pupils would show it to be unchristian. That lesson would be: ‘Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.’ I could not look the veriest infidel or heathen in the face and say that such a law was just, or that it was a fair specimen of Christian republicanism. I should have to tell him that it was an outgrowth of false Christianity, and not one of the ‘lights’ which Christians are commanded to shed upon an unbelieving world. I should feel bound to acknowledge to him, moreover, that it violates the spirit of our constitutional guaranties, and is a State religion in embryo; that if we have no right to tax him to support ‘worship,’ we have no right to tax him to support religious instructions; that to tax a man to put down his own religion is of the very essence of tyranny; that however small the tax, it is the first step in the direction of an ‘establishment of religion;’ and I should add that the first step in the direction involves the fatal step, because it logically involves the last step.
“But it will be asked, How can religion, in this general sense, be essential to good government? Is atheism, is the religion of Buddha, of Zoroaster, of Lao-tse, conducive to good government? Does not the best government require the best religion?—Certainly the best government requires the best religion. It is the child of true religion, or of truth on the subject of religion, as well as on all other subjects. But the real question here is not, What is the best religion? but, How shall this best religion be secured? I answer, It can best be secured by adopting the doctrine of this seventh section in our own bill of rights, and which I summarize in two words, by calling it the doctrine of ‘hands off.’ Let the State not only keep its own hands off, but let it also see to it that religious sects keep their hands off each other. Let religious doctrines have a fair field, and a free, intellectual, moral, and spiritual conflict. The weakest—that is, the intellectually, morally, and spiritually weakest—will go to the wall, and the best will triumph in the end. This is the golden truth which it has taken the world eighteen centuries to learn, and which has at last solved the terrible enigma of Church and State.
“Among the many forms of stating this truth, as a principle of government, to my mind it is nowhere more fairly and beautifully set forth than in our own constitution. Were it in my power, I would not alter a syllable of the form in which it is there put down. It is the true republican doctrine. It is simple and easily understood. It means free conflict of opinions as to things divine. It means masterly inactivity on the part of the State, except for the purpose of keeping the conflict free, and preventing the violation of private rights or of the public peace. Meantime, the State will impartially aid all parties in their struggles after religious truth, by providing means for the increase of general knowledge, which is the handmaid of good government, as well as of true morality. It means that a man’s rights to his own religious convictions, and to impart them to his own children, in harmless acts of worship towards the Almighty, are as sacred in the eye of the law as are the rights of person or property, and that, although in the minority, he shall be protected in the full, unrestricted enjoyment thereof. The ‘protection’ guaranteed by the section in question means protection to the minority. The majority can protect itself. Constitutions are enacted for the purpose of protecting the weak against the strong, the few against the many.
“As with individuals so with governments, the most valuable truths are discovered late in life, and, when discovered, their simplicity and beauty make us wonder that we had not known them before. Such is the character and history of the truth here spoken of. At first sight it seems to lie deep; but, on close examination, we find it to be only a new phase or application of a doctrine with which true religion everywhere abounds. It is the simple doctrine of conquering an enemy by kindness. Let religious sects adopt it toward each other. If you desire people to fall in love with your religion, make it lovely. If you wish to put down a false religion, put it down by kindness, thus heaping coals of fire on its head. You cannot put it down by force; that has been tried. To make the attempt is to put down your own religion, or to abandon it. Moral and spiritual conflicts cannot be profitably waged with carnal weapons. When so carried on, the enemy of truth and right is too apt to triumph. Even heathen writers have learned and taught this golden truth. Buddha says: ‘Let a man overcome anger by love, evil by good, the greedy by liberality, and the slanderer by a true and upright life.’ Christianity is full of this truth, and, as a moral code, might be said to rest upon it. It is in hoc signo, by the use of such weapons, that Christianity must rule, if it rules at all.
“We are all subject to prejudices deeper, more fixed, on the subject of religion than on any other. Each is, of course, unwary of his own prejudices.B33A change of circumstances often opens our eyes. No Protestant in Spain, and no Catholic in this country, will be found insisting that the government of his residence shall support and teach its own religion to the exclusion of all others, and tax all alike for its support. If it is right for one government to do so, then it is right for all. Were Christians in the minority here, I apprehend no such policy would be thought of by them. This is the existing policy of most nations in the world. Christian countries, however, are fast departing from it. Witness Italy, Prussia, Spain, and England. The true doctrine on the subject is the doctrine of peaceful disagreement, of charitable forbearance, and a perfect impartiality.
“Three men—say a Christian, an infidel, and a Jew—ought to be able to carry on a government for their common benefit, and yet leave the religious doctrines and worship of each unaffected thereby, otherwise than by fairly and impartially protecting each, and aiding each in his searches after truth. If they are sensible and fair men they will so carry on their government, and carry it on successfully and for the benefit of all. If they are not sensible and fair men, they will be apt to quarrel about religion, and, in the end, have a bad government and bad religion, if they do not destroy both. Surely they could well and safely carry on any other business, as that of banking, without involving their religious opinions, or any acts of religious worship. Government is an organization for a particular purpose. It is not almighty, and we are not to look to it for everything. The great bulk of human affairs and human interests is left by any free government to individual enterprise and individual action. Religion is eminently one of these interests, lying outside the true and legitimate province of government.
“Counsel say that to withdraw all religious instruction from the schools would be to put them under the control of ‘infidel sects.’ This is by no means so. To teach the doctrines of infidelity, and thereby teach that Christianity is false, is one thing, and to give no instruction on the subject is quite another thing. The only fair and impartial method, where serious objection is made, is to let each sect give its own instructions elsewhere than in the State schools, where, of necessity, among other subjects of instruction, there are many others which can more conveniently, satisfactorily, and safely be taught elsewhere. Our charitable punitive, or disciplinary, instructions stand on an entirely different footing. There the State takes the place of the parent; to him will act the part of a parent or guardian in directing what religious instruction shall be given.
“The principles here expressed are not new. They are the same, so far as applicable, enunciated by this court in Bloom vs. Richards, 2 Ohio Street 387, and in McGatrick vs. Wason, 4 Ib. 566. They are as old as Madison, and were his favorite opinions. Madison, who had more to do with framing the Constitution of the United States than any other man, and whose purity of life and orthodoxy of religious belief no one questions, himself says:—
“‘Religion is not in the purview of human government.’ And again he says: ‘Religion is essentially distinct from human government and exempt from its cognizance. A connection between them is injurious to both. There are causes in the human breast which insure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of law.’
“In his letter to Governor Livingstone, July 10, 1822, he says: ‘I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of religion from civil government, in every case where it does not trespass on private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite doctrine with me.’
“I have made this opinion exceptionally and laboriously long. I have done so in the hope that I might thereby aid in bringing about a harmony of views, and the fraternity of feeling between different classes of society, who have a common interest in the great public institution of the State, which, if managed as sensible men ought to manage it, I have no doubt will be a principal instrumentality in working out for us what all desire,—the best form of government and the purest system of religion.”
Decision rendered December, 1872.
The International Sunday Congress.
By J. Faulkumier
It is known that there exists an international federation for Sunday-keeping, having its headquarters at Geneva. This society sums up as follows its object, which “has been and will remain the same:” “To remind everyone of this declaration of the Holy Scriptures, ‘Remember the Sabbath-day to keep it holy.’”
With the object of giving its work a new impetus, the federation organized in Paris, under the patronage of the French Government, an international congress for the weekly rest from the hygienic and social standpoint. This congress334was convened within the precincts of the exhibition from September 24 to 28.
Some may perhaps think it strange that the congress should have been organized with the sole object of showing the hygienic and social benefits of an eminently religious institution. It will, perhaps, be asked whether the observance of the fourth commandment will have made great progress when the world shall have been convinced that the weekly rest-day has very material hygienic and social advantages. To this it is answered that we must make a distinction between the physical and religious rest; and, although the religious observance is much to be preferred, the physical rest itself is an unmixed blessing.
The objector may ask whether, if this distinction be correct, the weekly rest, separated from its religious, which is its main, character, may still prove a beneficent institution; if it is not probable, rather, that this regular day of leisure, devoid of its religious associations, will become an occasion of dissipation and demoralization; if this is not indeed a fact of which every week gives us renewed demonstration.
It must be confessed that these objections have much weight, and that, far from answering them, the congress has, on the contrary, confirmed them. I have before me the eleven resolutions voted by the congress on this twofold question, “The weekly rest from a social and hygienic standpoint.” In these eleven propositions, the argument drawn from the moral nature of man, from his morality, from his moral progress, occurs no less than seven times. Now what is this moral argument if it is not a religious argument? What is moral progress without religion, unless the members of the congress be advocates of a system of morals independent of religion, which we will not suppose? This sevenfold reiteration of the moral argument is an admission of the essentially religious character of the institution. On this point an American delegate strikingly said in the congress: “The declaration that the civil institution of a rest-day is distinct from the religious institution, for myself as well as for others, is not true.”
The ecclesiastical aims of those who agitate this question manifested itself in several ways at the congress. The most striking instance, perhaps, was in the seven resolutions voted on the “weekly rest-day and the railroads.” These resolutions urge the suppression of labor on the railroads—the time being seven times specified—on Sundays and holy days. Thus it is seen that the ultimate object is to secure the State enforcement not only of Sunday-keeping, but of church holy days as well. This brings us far from the weekly rest on the hygienic basis.
The question of Sunday laws was dealt with largely in the congress. As has been seen, the weekly rest is essentially a religious institution, and its hygienic and social benefits are inseparable from its religious character. Thus we would have civil laws enforcing religious observances, which would constitute an infringement of the sacred rights of conscience in a matter between each individual and his Creator. This objection was recognized by advocates of Sunday laws, and an attempt was made to meet it by very feeble and illogical arguments.
We were glad, however, to see in the congress a calm but firm protest against State intervention in the Sunday question. This intervention some said would constitute an immense injury. They did not want, even in order to secure what they considered a great blessing, to surrender their Christian liberty into the hands of the State. Once started on this course, where would the State bring us? and how could it be stopped if it went too far? Much better, they said, to do the work ourselves, than to accept a disastrous intervention.—J. Faulkumier, in Present Truth, London, England.
They Subvert the Gospel.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
The Christian Statesman of August 22 contains an extract from one Dr. Bellville on “The Change of the Sabbath,” which shows again how completely the imbibing of National Reform ideas tends to wipe out what knowledge of the true gospel of Christ one may already have. The writer says:—
“Expositors are of the opinion that the 118th psalm is a direct prediction that the day of Christ’s resurrection was to be the day on which the Sabbath should be kept under the gospel dispensation; and if it does, the first day is established beyond a doubt. The fourteenth verse of this psalm reads: ‘The Lord is my strength and song, and is become my salvation.’ Now, this fact was accomplished when Christ arose from the dead; for Christ never became the salvation of the world until the resurrection.”
This will be news to thousands of Bible students. If Christ was not the salvation of the world until the resurrection, then one of two things must be true,—either there was no salvation for anybody until after the resurrection, or else there was another Saviour besides Christ. That the first of these is not true may be proved by any child that has read the Old Testament; for, aside from the many passages which show the writers to have a full knowledge of saving grace, we have the recorded fact that Elijah and Enoch were taken bodily to heaven. These two instances prove that there was salvation for mankind before the resurrection. And that the second position is not true is proved by the words of Peter, who said that besides the name of Jesus there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. Yet in order to have a show of authority for Sunday observance, and thereby to have a still further show of authority for Sunday legislation, Sunday advocates boldly deny the fundamental principles of the gospel.
The more one studies this so-called National Reform movement, the more he will be convinced that it is the most subtle scheme for the undermining of Christianity that Satan ever invented. While National Reform Sunday-law advocates are making wholesale charges of atheism against those who differ with them, we should like to see them show some indication of a knowledge on their part of what Christianity is. All the avowed infidels that the world has known, from Celsus to Ingersoll, have not done so much against the Christian religion as the National Reformers are doing. E. J. W.
Sunday-Law Petitions.
By R. C. PORTER
It may be surprising to those unacquainted with the proceedings of the National Reform party, to witness the rapidity with which numbers can be added to the list of petitioners for the passage of a Sunday-Rest law, under the supervision of W. F. Crafts, field secretary of the American Sabbath Union.
At the close of an address delivered by him in the lecture-room of the First Baptist Church of St. Paul, Minn., September 29, he called for all who desired to express themselves in favor of the passage of a Sunday-Rest law, to make it manifest by rising. No sooner had part of the audience risen than the pastor, without taking the trouble to count, declared the number standing to be two hundred.
Mr. Crafts allowed this to pass without entering a word of protest, and it therefore evidently met his approval.
The pastor said he had counted the chairs in the morning. Knowing the number of chairs, he considered himself prepared to decide at a glance, with sufficient accuracy, as to the number to be added to the list of petitioners of those favoring the passage of a Sunday-Rest bill. Such guesswork would not be allowable in ordinary business petitions, but this movement seems to be a very prolific movement in easy and quick methods in the petition work. R. C. PORTER.
Box 1058, Minneapolis, Minn.
Professor Wilder’s Lectures.
PROFESSOR H. A. WILDER, of Spokane Falls, lectured on Monday and Tuesday evenings in this city to fair audiences, his subject being “Civil Government and Religion.” The fact of his lectures being given in the church led us to believe that he was an advocate of the Blair Sunday bill and favored the move on foot looking to the union of Church and State. We were agreeably surprised to find that his ideas are exactly the reverse of this. While a Christian, he opposes any union of Church and State, or the passage of stringent Sunday laws, maintaining that no authority for such can be found in the Bible or the experience of successful civil governments. He thinks that no man can be made religious by force, and holds that it is the idea of Protestantism to persuade and appeal to the moral nature of men, consequently it can have no affiliation with Catholicism, which would set ecclesiastical authority above the civil, and bring force to bear where persuasion fails.
The Professor is a fluent and pleasant speaker, and we regret that our limited time and space forbid a more extended notice of his lectures. We trust he will favor us again in the future.—Oregon Scout, September 19, 1889.
“Rome and the Republic.”
HON. WILLIAM J. ARMSTRONG, of Washington, D. C., who last winter had the honor to be invited by all the leading members of Congress to deliver one of his lectures before that body, lectured recently in the First Methodist Episcopal Church of this city, on “Rome and the Republic.” Mr. Armstrong prefaced his remarks by saying that it was not his purpose to assail the followers of the Roman Catholic faith. That would be shamefully un-American, and altogether too much like a revival of the middle ages. What he objected to, and would make the essence of his theme, was the attempt of the head of the Roman Catholic Church to inculcate the infallibility of the pope, and that all the temporal affairs of man must subserve his religious belief. When the Catholic Church suffers its followers to worship without restraint according to their own convictions, let there be no interference. But when the church attempts to teach that the pope is mightier than God, and would have this doctrine made the prevailing element of all civil law, then it is time for a liberty-loving people to object.
The Roman Church, said the speaker, has demanded for a thousand years, and does to-day, the subordination of citizenship to its temporal power. That church has always maintained that whatever is for man’s best welfare should rule; religion is of greatest importance to him, therefore religion should rule. In short, the church first, the citizen afterward. This has been the argument that has filled an ignorant, groping world with so much human suffering.
After considering the papal theory and its consequences, Mr. Armstrong contrasted it with the American doctrine of total separation of Church and State. “Washington,” remarked the speaker, “said the State should not legislate on matters concerning the conscience of man. Pope Leo XIII. says we should make all civil laws conformable to the church, and to regulate religious thought. Here we have the authority of Washington and the pope on a very important question. It is needless to ask which Americans will accept. Against the interference of the church in all civil affairs, the State, clothed in the white garment of religious freedom, has set its face forever and forever.”
He argued that the government has no business to interfere with religion. It is only one step between a religious government and the religious Inquisition.
Mr. Armstrong then quoted the Catholic Review, and Cardinal Manning, to show that Rome is the sworn enemy of republican institutions. “But,” he added, “the pope of Rome and the Catholic Church are not the only dangerous enemies of our government.
“There sits in the Senate of this nation an old, straight-laced, narrow-minded, bigoted, theocratic Puritan who represents one of the New England States, but in spirit represents the mediæval ages. He has no vices, but he is one of that kind who would burn a soul to save it. At a late session of Congress he introduced an amendment to the Federal Constitution to establish a system of free schools in which should be taught the common branches and the ‘principles of the Christian religion.’ The amendment also provided that Congress should have power to enforce that amendment by appropriate legislation.”
The speaker said that right in the wake of this remarkable amendment that was proposed there was formed what is known as the National Reform Association, advocating the establishment of a common and uniform religion, to be woven into, and become, in fact, the substantial part of, the organic law. This was to be brought about by a convention of all the creeds in the nation, which the speaker characterized as a motley, loveable gathering of harmony let loose.
“This, my countrymen,” thundered Mr. Armstrong, “is Protestant Romanism, and, if anything, it is more infamous than Catholic Romanism. This is the same way that religious persecution was planted in the fourth century, and saddled on Europe for more than a thousand years. Right here to-day, under the shadow of the American flag, there is an attempt to establish a Protestant Rome. Think of it!
“And there are thousands of misguided cranks outside the National Reform Association who are supporting the movement.”
Here the speaker referred particularly to the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. He told of their late National Convention, how they got into a passion for passing resolutions, and among other absurd things passed a set of resolutions approving of the sentiments and course of the National Reform Association, and also a resolution that the religion of Christ should be the fundamental element of our civil law.
“Poor, misguided creatures,” said he, “they are victims of misplaced zeal. With their resolutions they are worse than the curse they pretend to wage war against. Just one taste of a silly resolution, like the red flame in the cup, gives them a burning desire for more, and they seldom stop short of a regular debauch, that, if it don’t destroy the soul, at least destroys common sense. They are a body who doubtless mean well, but are, like all other cranks, stirred and impelled by conviction instead of intelligence. My advice to them is to stop imbibing resolutions and go home. Let the affairs of State alone, at least, and, if they must do something, let them continue their warfare against King Alcohol.”
Jonathan Edwards he characterized as a religious fanatic. Edwards said, and adhered to it, “We want a State religion and we are going to have it.”
All these circumstances, the speaker thought, were like the realities stepping out of one of the mediæval pictures, life size, into the present time. He thought, however, it would be some time yet before the changes threatened would come to pass.
Altogether the lecture was a masterly arraignment of both Roman Romanism and Protestant Romanism, and of all who are aiding and abetting the schemes of the National Reform Association.
The Burden of Paternal Government
NOTHING is so galling to a people not broken in from the birth, as a paternal, or, in other words, a meddling government, a government which tells them what to read, and say, and eat, and drink, and wear. Our fathers could not bear it two hundred years ago; and we are not more patient than they.—Macaulay.
Advertisements.
ADVERTISING RATES made known on application. No advertisements of patent medicines, novelties, cigars, tobacco, liquors, novels or anything of a trivial, intemperate, immoral or impure nature accepted. We reserve the right to reject ANY advertisement.
Pacific Business College
PACIFIC Business College,
320 Post St., S F.
Life Scholarship, $75
Send for Catalogue.
THE YO SEMITE VALLEY, BIG TREE GROVES, Etc.
“In the Heart of the Sierras”
Is the only book ever issued which in any way does justice to this wonderful Valley and its surroundings. The
FULL-PAGE ARTOTYPES
Are the most charmingly characteristic of any illustrations ever produced, and are perfectly true to life, having been photographed direct from nature.
THE WONDERFUL YO SEMITE
Is here presented in all its beauty and majesty. The book is just the thing for agents to handle, and good reliable agents are wanted everywhere to introduce this book. Our outfit is perfection itself and our terms to agents are VERY LIBERAL. Send for circulars and full particulars. Address,
PACIFIC PRESS PUBLISHING CO.,
Or 43 Bond St., N. Y. Oakland, Cal.
Folding Sawing Machine
BY ONE MAN. Write for descriptive catalogue containing testimonials from hundreds of people who have sawed from 4 to 20 cords daily. 25,000 now successfully used. Agency can be had where there is a vacancy. NEW INVENTION for filing saws sent free with each machine, by the use of this tool everybody can file their own saws, saves you time and do it better than the greatest expert can without it. Adapted to all cross-cut saws. Every one who owns a saw should have one. Ask your dealers or write FOLDING SAWING MACHINE CO., 308 to 311 South Canal Street, Chicago, Ill.
A $65.00 Sewing Machine!
For $18.00.
Black Walnut Furniture Cover, Drop Leaf, 5 Drawers and Full Set of Attachments. Warranted.
19 Tea? Family Scale, $1.00.
1,000 other Articles 1/2 to 1/4 usual price. Send for Catalogue.
CHICAGO SCALE CO., Chicago.
