These Talks are for doctors as men, and not necessarily as medical men. Pity the doctor who is only a medical man. Cannot doctors talk to one another upon other subjects than medicin? Let us hope so-let us prove it-and approve of it. I have a few letters that I feel that I ought to talk about a little before the e entire "family" on this bright April Sabbath. One comes from Tenn.-and evidently from the writer's heart-but he insists that it is strictly personal and not for publication. However, I feel that I can, in an entirely impersonal manner, present to you a quotation from it.

"I am seeking, accepting, nothing in
religion more literal than the Bible.
I accept the Bible without modern gloss,
construction, or interpretation.
When

I wish to know anything about the
creation of the earth, I go to the Bible,
not to science. When I want to know
anything concerning the origin, duty,
and destiny of man, I go to the Bible.
Where else can I go? I am satisfied
with what God says. What the Bible
authorizes I can believe and do and feel
safe; but short of or beyond that no
responsible human being has any
promise of justification or warrant of
safety. To hear God, love God, and
reverently, humbly obey Him always
has been, is now, and forever will be the
religion of God's people."

This comes from a reverent and sincere heart, as does the following, tho the following has a brusk, Hoosier style all its own; and as it is rather refreshing, I will present the entire letter, but my purpose is to comment only on the part pertaining to religion.

WOLF LAKE, IND., March 24, 1909. EDITOR MEDICAL WORLD: I have thought many times in the last few months that I would send you some of the "filthy," but now pleading guilty to the charge of pure unadulterated "cussed carelessness," I am inclosing you my check for $3, which you are supremely entitled to. The ridiculous things that I see in THE WORLD every year are well worth the price; so the endless flow of good things is all velvet. So you see that I don't think much of those poor devils that accuse you of robbing them simply because you stept on their narrow political views.

Say, by the way, what is your religion? I see in last WORLD that you abuse one poor devil because he dared to refer to Taft's religion, and in the next breath you belittle Bryan's religion. If the true Christian religion is any different today from the kind that my mother confest and was baptized in, in a little log schoolhouse way back in the early fifties, I have not yet been informed of it. If you have discovered some newfangled religion, cut bias and ruffled down the back, that beats the "old kind," I think it is up to you to give the formula to the family.

Why is it that you never hear of any one bobbing up and criticizing your Busi

ness Talks, while so many are gnashing their teeth over your political talks? To me, politics is a business proposition, and believe that when a man's politics is right his religion is not far out of the

way.

Pardon me, Dr. Taylor, for blurting in on your time, but indeed I was fearful that if I sent check without writing you a personal word you might think I did not appreciate all these "Please remits" I have been getting.

With best wishes, and assuring you that you have my consent (I couldn't stop THE WORLD anyway) to warm it to these hide-bound politicians in your Monthly Talks, I am

227

Very respectfully, J. E. LUCKEY. This touches me in a particularly sympathetic way, for my mother also had her religious life back in Indiana, and way back in the middle of the last century, and I venture it was about the same kind as that of Dr. Luckey's mother. What our mothers did, and what they believed, we regard with a peculiar reverence. But this should not prevent us from looking rationally at the subject of religion. And when we do, the first thing we see is that there is a great difference between religion and theology. In fact, they are very different things. Our religion is our life; our theology is our views and beliefs about certain things: as infinity; the two eternities-the one behind us and the one before us; the universe; the earth and its records; ancient peoples and their lore; our origin, destiny, etc.

Our mothers' religion was their precious lives— lives of service and devotion; of loving counsel and infinit concern for our welfare. Preachers prated to them about theology, and our mothers thought they believed it, but they didn't know. There is one place, however, where all interests merge and end; and that is before the question of a future life. And here the preachers render their best service. Before the coffin they pour out a wealth of sympathy, and precious words of consolation and hope for the grief-stricken mourners. And the clergy and the church render other important services that we could not afford to spare.

But the belief that the Bible is the source of all religion (or theology either) cannot be maintained in this day of wide and deep scholarship. Many a deeply religious life has been lived, and is being lived, under the same sun that shines upon us, without knowledge of the Bible. God is great, and many are His people on this little Earth, and perhaps on many other heavenly bodies. Let us not be narrow. And above all, let us not accuse God of narrowness.

On the other hand, let us admit that the Bible contains, mingled with much crude theology, much deeply religious literature. That its theology is crude is not strange, considering its origin and times. The so-called Bible scholars of the old-fashioned type were those who could quote the most verses and tell the various Bible stories with the greatest readiness and accuracy. Most of us know or have known old-fashioned people (as Uncle Josh or Sallie Peoples) who who made it a rule to read the Bible thru every year. These people knew much about the textual contents of the Bible, but they knew little or nothing about the Bible. Modern

biblical scholarship commits few if any verses to memory, and does not aim to read the Bible thru a great many times, but it seeks to think and study as it reads, and also to investigate collaterally at the same time, so as to learn as much as possible about the Bible itself, as well as its contents.

Let us take a hasty look at the Bible for a few minutes from the outside, and what do we see? First we see that it was a growth and an accumulation, covering about eight centuries B. C. and about two centuries A. D. Second, that it is not a book at all; but a collection of books-a small library-bound together. These books were of various origins, are of various merit, and have various spiritual values. It is much like as if we were to take some old history of early times, some old work on sanitation, a section of a census report, some stirring reform speeches, a Methodist hymn book, letters from various sources, etc., and bind them together and call the collection one book. Uncle Joshua never thought of that while he was reading the scriptures, and he never thought of the date and source and purpose of the various books as he read them. f

never did until I read something of the work of biblical scholars. I suppose I thought that the entire Bible came directly from the hand of God at the same time, gilt edge and all, somewhat as the tablets of laws are supposed to have been given to Moses pictures of this act are given in some of the illustrated Bibles.

As to textual uncertainties in the original, I quote from a rather old edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Not only during the use of the old Phenician character, but even after the more modern square or Babylonian letters were adopted, the written text of the Bible was consonantal only, leaving a certain scope for variety of pronunciation and sense. The loose state of the laws of spelling and the great similarity of several letters made errors of copying frequent. The text of Micah, for example, is often unintelligible, and many hopeless errors are older than the oldest versions. But up to the time of the Alexandrian version, manuscripts were in circulation which differed not merely by greater or less accuracy of transcription, but by presenting such differences of recension as could not arise from accident. The Greek text of Jeremiah is vastly different from that of the Hebrew Bible, and it is not always certain that the latter is always the best."

And so it goes on in similar tenor for greater length than can be quoted here. For details, see the many interesting works on textual criticism (by deeply religious men and scholars of the church). We see already that we will have to give up the old idea that the Bible, every word, to the dotting of every i and the crossing of every t-"every jot and tittle "-is the "word of God," and every part of equal value and importance. Imagin a manuscript without vowels, and with great uncertainty in the consonant characters, etc., as above mentioned in the chief authority of the world!

I remember how shockt I was when I learned that the chapter divisions, the verse divisions, the chapter headings, and the subjects at the top of the pages, etc., were not "inspired.”

Robert Stephens, of Paris, a printer, in the 16th century, divided the New Testament into verses (edition of 1551). The division of the Old Testament into verses dates from Rabbi Isaac Nathan, of the 15th century. And the present chapter divisions of both Testaments date from Cardinal Hugo (French), in the 13th century. I well remember my horror at the discovery that these things were not from God"direct from the hand of God, as I had always thought and as I had been taught, as I had understood my teaching, for no exception was ever made of these parts when I was taught that the Bible was the inspired word of God.' But now I see that these additions are only instruments of convenience; and their usefulness is acknowledged by the fact that they have been universally adopted, and have stood without question, tho many of the divisions could be vastly improved. The chapter headings and running subjects at the top of pages were added by different translators, chiefly the King James translators, in 1611.

In the German universities the professors (paid by the State) are free to teach whatever they believe (if they can substantiate it with reasonable proof, of course), and such teaching will not endanger their position. Imagin such freedom in our religious educational institutions, as Princeton, or (in economics) in our capitalistic institutions, as the University of Chicago! Well, this freedom of investigation and teaching in the German universities has given the German biblical scholars a decided lead. Their critical examination of the Bible began to bear interesting fruit about the time of our Revolutionary war, and it has gradually percolated into English literature, and then into American literaturebut, I am sorry to say, that most of our clergymen have not yet found it out. If you speak to them about it, they will usually say, "These men are attacking religion.' This is not true, for they are, as a rule, among the most devout men in the world, and church men, as a rule. If Uncle Josh and Sarah Peoples would read these investigations concerning the Bible, instead of reading the text thru every year, they would learn far more about the Bible, and their "religion" would be increast rather than decreast. At least it would be interesting for them to read and compare the different translations and versions. Long ago I placed in my library, alongside of the authorized or King James translation, the translation that is used by the Catholics, and the Old Testament as used by the Jews, and now recently I have gotten the Twentieth Century New Testament, which is a free translation into modern English as we use it every day in our ordinary books and newspapers. This last, as all the others, is thoroly orthodox, being done by scholars "representing various sections of the Christian Church.' It is very interesting. The books are differently arranged from the old arrangement, the new arrangement here adopted being a step toward chronological order. can get this volume thru your book dealer, or by sending $1 to Fleming H. Revell Company New York, Chicago, Toronto, London, or Edinburgh. But the above contain only variations of text, and hence but little of textual criticism (the argument is omitted), and nothing at al of what is called "the higher criticism," which compares facts from various sources and make deductions.

You

Now let me make quite a jump, and deliver what will be to many a terrible shock-it will seem so, but it will not be in reality. A few years ago we were entertaining a learned professor of Cornell University-Professor of Semitic Languages-the group of languages in which the greater part of the Bible was originally written or preserved until translated into later tongues. During a very interesting evening I askt him what were the latest results of the scholars engaged in the higher criticism. He said that he was then engaged on a work dealing incidentally with the birthplace of Jesus. I told him of my visit to Bethlehem-" but," he said, "that was not His birthplace; He was born in Nazareth!" Then he proceeded briefly with an argument proving his statement.* Here go the story of the manger, the Magi, the Star of Bethlehem, the donkey ride into Egypt, etc.! One of our family particularly was greatly distrest. soled by saying, "What difference where He was born, just so he was born? And there is no doubt as to that." And I followed by reminding her that the supposed date of His birth had been changed several times, and that it was finally fixt where it is to coincide with a pagan feast celebrating the passing of the shortest day of the year and the beginning of the lengthening of the days.

I con

But now, Dr. Luckey, I have said enuf for one dose and I will not need to give any more doses if you and the rest of the brethren who may be interested will read advanced (and reverent) books about these things-and don't blame our poor dear sainted mothers for not knowing what we are just finding out ourselves. Certainly the importance of the Bible is sufficient to inspire us to seek rational information concerning it and its contents.

$470,000,000 to $480,000,000. About 4,000 estates pay the bulk of these taxes.

This is the substance of a report by Charles M. Pepper, who has been investigating the subject for the Department of Commerce and Labor in connection with the tariff revision.

Revenue from the death duties, Mr. Pepper says, is a little more than half that from excise imposts and considerably more than half the amount realized from the income tax. The gross capital value of the estates contributing in 1908 was more than $1,500,000,000, and the net value was a little below $1,400,000,000. The gross value of the personalty was $1,113,000,000, and of the realty $415,000,000.

Of the various classes of inheritance taxes the chief sources of revenue are estates proper, which last year netted approximately $71,500,000; legacies, $19,500,000, and successions, $3,500,000.

On a little more than $1,000,000,000 gross capital value of personalty, shares or debentures of public companies were valued at $480,000,000; mortgages, $93,000,000; loans on bonds, notes, etc., $67,000,000; stocks or funds of the United Kingdom, $45,000,000; foreign stocks or bonds, $55,000,000; insurance policies, $41,000,000; household goods, $34,000,000.

The value of the personalty abroad subject to the death duties has fluctuated since 1899 from less than $20,000,000 to above $75,000,000. In 1908 the value was only $20,000,000.

Ágricultural land furnishes considerably less of the total duties than household property and business premises. The net capital value of the legacies from which duties were collected in 1908 was $405,000,000, while the succession duty was realized on a total capital valuation of $90,000,000.

In the rates of duties for successions, legacies, and estates, estates of less than $500 are exempt. The duty ranges from 1 percent on estates from $500 to $2,500, up to 10 percent on estates of $3,600,000 to $5,000,000. Above $5,000,000 there is a graduated scale.

There were 67,500 estates contributing to the inheri tance taxes in 1908, while those exempt were 18,000, of which about 1,700 were insolvent. The largest number of estates, 17,456, were those between $5,000 and $50,000, aggregating a valuation of $326,000,000, or about 23 percent of the total. Of the 67,533 estates contributing in 1908, 3,915 were of $50,000 and upward, and aggregated a total of $1,400,000.

A division of the funds accruing from death duties is made between the exchequer and the local taxation Generally, the proportion allotted to the local taxation accounts is above 30 percent.

繩

There is little that need be said politically this month. Congress is struggling with the tariff bill, and is making rather more rapid progress than is usual with a general revision bill. The protected interests are getting together, as usual, to influence Congress in their favor, while the people are looking to their elected representativs to look after the interests of the masses of the people I fear a rather uncertain dependence. If the people could vote directly on measures, the lobby of the favored interests would not avail. Then wouldn't we have free lumber? And wouldn't we have a millionaires' National inheritance tax? Maybe we will have the latter, any way, for I see by the papers this morning (April 19th) that the western progressiv republican senators are talking of joining the democratic senators to secure that feature as a part of the new tariff law. In this connection, the following clipping will be of interest:

BRITISH INHERITANCE TAX GIVES $90,000,000 A YEAR.

HALF AS MUCH AS REALIZED FROM EXCISE IMPOSTS OR FROM THE INCOME RATES. WASHINGTON, April 11.-British inheritance taxes, drawn from a population of 44,000,000, yield $90,000,000 to $95,000,000 annually, out of a total internal revenue of

We would carry the exemption far above the $500 limit. I would like to see all estates under $1,000,000 exempted, so as to make it exclusivly a millionaires' tax, but I would have it heavy on them-particularly I would have the progression rapid, affecting estates of multiples of $1,000,000. We have more millionaires and multimillionaires than any other country, and none of them pay anything like their proper share of taxation while they live; then let us make it up out of their estates after they are dead. They can well spare it, particularly after they are dead, and-well, we don't want this class of citizens, anyway.

State Legislatures.

Every second winter most of the state legislatures meet. The winter just closed has been one of these biennial legislativ winters. Much could be written on what the different legislatures accomplisht and what they did not accomplish. Special interest centered in the work of the Nebraska legislature, as that was the legislature (democratic) of the defeated candidate for President. Suppose we have Mr. Bryan to speak for the legislature of his state. Here is an editorial from the Commoner (of April 9th) upon the subject:

"A RECORD-NOT A PROSPECTUS." One of the commercial agencies issues every year a pamphlet entitled, "A Record-Not a Prospectus," in which it gives the business situation during the year. The title of this little pamphlet is appropriated at this time because it is a fitting description of the session of the legislature which has just closed. This legislature was democratic-the first democratic legislature in the

history of the state of Nebraska. The democrats and populists together have controlled some of the previous sessions of the legislature, but, for the first time, Nebraska has a democratic governor, a democratic state senate, and a democratic house of representativs, and the democrats of Nebraska are proud of the record which has been made.

First, the house of representativs adopted a plan by which the committees were selected by caucus rather than by the speaker. This was in harmony with the plank of the democratic national platform, which denounced Cannonism. The democrats of the national house of representativs are on record as protesting against the present method, whereby the speaker becomes a despot and obtains control of legislation by his appointment of the committees. Nebraska has commenced a reform which ought to spread thruout the country and revolutionize parliamentary methods at Washington.

Second, House Roll No. 1 embodied the Oregon plan for the election of senators by direct vote of the people. It passed the house and senate by practically a party vote and was signed by the governor. It inaugurated reform number two-and an important reform it is. Hereafter, candidates for the legislature will have an opportunity to promise to support the senatorial candidate receiving the largest number of votes in the state, and they will find it to their advantage to sign such a pledge. This will give to the people of Nebraska the opportunity they have long coveted to secure the popular election of United States senators. If the legislature had done nothing else, this measure alone would have justified the session and been full compensation for the cost of the session. Mr. Bryan began nearly twenty years ago to advocate the popular election of senators, and he is glad to record this step which Nebraska has taken toward more responsive government.

The third reform was the enactment of the measure providing for the guaranty of bank deposits. This reform was promist in the democratic national platform and endorst in the state platform. In passing the bill the legislature has kept faith with the people, and one cannot read the bill without recognizing that it not only creates a guaranty fund, but provides for the best system of regulation to be found in the United States. Among the meritorious features of the bill, so far as regulation is concerned, are two which are practically new. First, a relation is establisht between the capital and surplus, on the one hand, and the loans on the other. No bank is allowed to loan more than eight times its capital and surplus. This provision will prevent the accumulation of enormous deposits upon a narrow basis of capital and surplus. Oklahoma put such a provision in her banking law a year ago, and it will doubtless be adopted by other states. The second provision makes it a criminal offense for a bank official to violate the law in regard to the amount to be loaned to one person, firm, or corporation. The national banking law prohibits the loaning of more than one-tenth, but there is no penalty except the suspension of the bank, and this is seldom invoked, and, when invoked, throws the punishment upon the community and the stockholders. The Nebraska law puts the penalty upon the official who violates the law, and he is the one who should pay the penalty.

The Nebraska law collects a fund of one percent on the total deposits, the fund to be raised by semi-annual assessment of a quarter of one percent. After that, the fund is replenisht by a semi-annual tax of one-tenth of one percent with provision for an emergency assessment at any time, not to exceed one percent in any year. While the fund thus raised is not large compared with the total deposits, and while the maximum emergency assessment is very conservativ, still the security given to the depositor is absolute, and it is just as well to give this security in such a way as not to create unnecessary fear among the stockholders of the banks.

The essence of a guaranty law is that ALL OF THE BANKS SHALL STAND BACK OF EACH BANK, and this is the system inaugurated in Nebraska. It is only in extraor dinary cases that the emergency assessment will be resorted to, and the cases will be still more rare when more than one percent will be necessary. Even in such an emergency, should it arise, the depositor will not lose his money but will simply suffer a delay in payment, but as his claim will draw interest, he will not suffer any actual loss. In the inauguration of this system for the protection of depositors, Nebraska has taken a long step in advance and the democracy of the state may well point to this law as a justification of the confidence reposed in the party at the last election. Mr. Bryan introduced in congress, more than fifteen years ago, a measure substantially like the one that has just been adopted by the legislature, and the readers of The Commoner will pardon him if he expresses great gratification at the final adoption in Nebraska of this far-reaching reform.

The fourth reform measure adopted by the Nebraska legislature is embodied in a law which compels the publication of campaign contributions before the election. This measure carries out the plank of the last national

democratic platform on this subject and crystallizes into statute the growing sentiment in favor of honest politics. It need scarcely be added that Mr. Bryan is pleased to see the democratic legislature of his home state fulfill this platform pledge and leading the way to purer politics.

In providing for the popular election of senators, Nebraska is second to Oregon; in providing for the guaranty of banks, Nebraska is second to Oklahoma; in the matter of publicity, so far as information has reacht this office, Nebraska takes the lead, as she does in rejecting the offer of Mr. Carnegie to pension university professors with the proceeds of steel trust bonds.

Nebraska also takes her place in the front rank in regard to the teaching of the duties of citizenship. The regents of the state university are commended for the emphasis they have placed upon the courses that deal with the science of government, political economy, and sociology, and a school of citizenship is recommended.

Other notable measures of general interest and carrying with them important reforms were passed by the Ne braska legislature. A list of these measures is printed in this issue for the benefit of Commoner readers.

I am willing to say, so far, so good. But that is all I can say, for there was at least one important omission. We confidently expected the Nebraska legislature to make at least some move for Direct Legislation this year, at least a provision for submission of a constitutional amendment on this subject to a vote of the people at the next general election. But even that was denied us. What kind of a "critter" is the Nebraska democratic legislator, anyway? His state platform definitly demanded Direct Legislation, and the principle has been in his National platform more than once, and now he even denies the right of the people of Nebraska to vote upon it! Strange! Do they, like the republicans, sometimes say things they do not mean-say them for political effect, to be gone back on, later? Where was Mr. Bryan? True, his Commoner contained articles in favor of the Initiativ and the Referendum, and the Recall, too, I think; and in his speech before the legislature he also referred favorably to the matter. Other political demands of the platform were carefully lookt after, and I believe that it would have required only a little insisting on his part to have taken care of this, too. All the above boasted accomplishments scarcely makes up for this omission. If the democrats don't look out, the republicans will beat them in securing this primary right for the people. Look at republican South Dakota, Oregon, and Maine! Oklahoma is the only democratic state that has a really The democrats good Direct Legislation system. must back up their "wind" with more good faith and actual accomplishment, when they have an opportunity.

C. F. TAYLOR, M.D.; DEAR DOCTOR:—I'm a life-long republican, a civil war veteran, and a "Grand Army man. My vote is to keep on with your Monthly Talks. They are instructiv and very interesting, full of hard sense that should be read and appreciated by men of either (or any) party, unless too "hide-bound" to reason and reflect. Have been a subscriber to and reader of THE MEDICAL WORLD for 20 years (since 1888). Very truly yours,

McKnightstown, Pa. R. B. ELDERDICE. Any man who can write as above has reason to be proud of it; and his friends should be proud

of him.

Dr. D. A. Gove, of Orting, Wash., humorously says: "I feel sorry for the few brethren who lose their trolley' and denounce THE WORLD the moment they cannot indorse some article which appears in its columns."