a stockholder. He has been paying the bulk of the National taxes thru the tariff for so long, that he should see that the rich "ante up" for awhile. The poor man must learn to look after his own interests, like the rich men do. Let a political sentiment arise from the masses in this country, and in every party, demanding the above, and it will come easily. The leaders in Congress, and the President, know that it is due, and are now willing to grant a part of the above program. Let us press for all of it. But if they will give us an inheritance tax rapidly progressing on estates above $1,000,000, and the corporation tax that they are now considering, we will be satisfied for the present. Then an income tax will not be so badly needed, and that is harder to collect, anyway; but we want the constitutional amendment to make it possible in the future if we should need it.

If you would write to your congressman and senators, you would find that a good way to make your sentiments count for something. Perhaps you do not realize to what extent your representativs would be influenced by a good strong letter from you. They all "have their ear to the ground" nearly all the time. Let them hear something. Make the burden of your demand, the inheritance tax, the corporation tax, and the income tax amendment resolution. It never seemed probable that Congress would pass all of them at this time, and it now seems probable that only the last two will be passed. mand all of them, and particularly the inheritance tax. Now is the time to strike for all of them, for a general revenue bill will not be taken up by Congress again for a long time. No difference what your party. Let your congressman and both senators know your sentiments. Your letter will have weight. Later:

More Millionaire Foolishness.

De

"I often used three different pairs of gloves a day," said Mrs. Gould, "and would buy them four dozen at a time, ranging in price from $3 to $8 a pair.

"About a dozen morning gowns a year would be my usual needs, costing anywhere from $59 to $100 each, and I can recall ordering twenty-two dinner gowns in one year, though fifteen or twenty would be my usual number. These, often very elaborately ornamented, would cost from $350 to as high as $800 each.

Gowns and More Gowns.

"Fifteen to eighteen reception gowns, costing from $250 to $350 each, and sometimes more, were the usual requirements of a season.

"As for street gowns, at least twenty-four of these would be necessary to carry one thru the year. Such gowns cost from $100 to $200 each, and one cannot wear the same one in the evening or afternoon that one had worn in the morning.

"Half a dozen house gowns, always very expensiv, as high as $350 each, in fact, would hardly be enuf to see one thru a season, nor would the same number of negligee gowns, worth all the way from $50 to $175 each, according as they are lace covered or plain, be really enuf for a season's wear.

"I have always had six or seven different tailored suits every season, costing from $90 to $150 each, and about four riding habits would see me thru the year, at an outlay of $600 for the four. Yachting suits come high, because of the individual embroidery on them of names, club flags, and so on, and as they are readily soiled or spotted when at sea, at least twenty was my usual complement on the Niagara, Mr. Gould's palatial yacht. The serge suits average about $150 each, tho the duck suits for warm climates come cheaper, say $50 apiece.

"Furs? It is impossible to place a figure. A black caracal muff and a boa cost me $225, a black caracal skirt $700, and a black otter boa $125. I used all of these for automobiling, besides a $300 fur coat, a couple of fur suits, and the regulation cloth or serge suits. These furs get very shabby quickly.

"I had garments of every imaginable fur, coats of chinchilla, sable, caracal, baby lamb, sealskin, squirrel,

and Norwegian martin, with neckpieces of sable, white fox, and black fox, and hats to match in various furs. "Then, for every evening or dinner gown, one should have a wrap to match, never less than six of these, and costing from $250 to $500 each. The mere incidentals of lace, scarfs, fans, umbrellas, handkerchiefs, perfumes, writing papers, veils, toilet articles, and the infinit number of dainty articles that a woman surrounds herself with cannot even he guessed at in number of expense unless one has actually to buy them.

"Flowers are an important_item. True, we had our own conservatories at Castle Gould, but away from there flowers must be bought, and they run away up to hundreds and thousands of dollars a season, without even thinking of table decorations. The little bunch of violets for the corsage in the forenoon, the orchids or roses in the afternoon and evening, mean all the way from $5 to $20, without undue extravagance, for each nosegay.

"My taxicab alone cost $500 a month, and that is considered reasonable, while my simple suite at the Belmont, a bedroom, bath, and sitting room, without maid, costs $300 a week with meals served in my rooms. always kept two maids when I could afford, and the pair cost $75 a month with dresses besides.

"The subject of pocket money is another thing impossible to estimate. A millionaire's wife cannot offer a waiter small silver or divide a dollar between four or five waiters. It means a dollar to each man, and prob. ably $5 to the one in charge.

"Besides, when one visits, all the servants must be tipped at the house where one stops. If one goes there regularly a handsome present at Christmas or Easter might be proper, but if it is just an incidental week-end, then every servant in the household must be remembered, and the total is no small figure. These expenses, my check stubs show, have averaged $40,000 a year, all told, with the unmentioned trifles of doctors' bills, theatres, luncheon parties, hairdressers (a very expensiv luxury), dentists, traveling, couriers, and so on, to be counted in. But the cost of maintaining a household is an entirely different matter."

Read this to your wife and see if she doesn't say that millionaires should be taxt, in one or more of the ways suggested in this Talk. Mrs. Gould is suing Howard Gould for a separation and $200,000 per year alimony. He has offered her $25,000 per year. Let the above recited extravagance and foolishness be read by all the women in this country, and there will be a wholesome sentiment against millionaires.

Bible Ignorance.

Now let us change the subject-and we will take the above up again next month if Congress has, in the meantime, concluded its labors and given us a new revenue law. We will take up some interesting correspondence in response to Talk in last issue. And before I begin I wish to warn any who are afraid of the truth, afraid of learning the truth, afraid of new ideas, to not read any farther. Better stop right here. In fact, any such who are taking THE MEDICAL WORLD would better stop it, for we do not cater to that kind of a clientele; these pages are very liable to be dangerous to the peace of mind of such a clientele. Here is a man of the above kind, and he did the wise and consistent thing by stopping THE WORLD coming to him. He is an Ark. brother (Little Rock). He didn't like my comments on the Bible in May WORLD, and says: "I don't want you to send me another copy. I don't want anything of the kind to come into my home." Of course, we stopt. I wonder what he would have thought of the June Talk? But he is content. He thinks he has all the truth, and any more disturbs him. Or possibly he does not understand, and does not want to understand. I suppose he thinks that Moses wrote the Pentateuchpossibly he does not know what portion of the Bible the Pentateuch is. Possibly he thinks that the Bible, complete, gilt edge, metal clasps and all, was given to Moses on the mountain. It is difficult to conjecture what may be (and what may not be) in the mind of a person who is

unwilling to learn. A Japanese sage and an American traveler were watching people bowing to images in a temple in the Far East. The American askt the sage: "Are these people worshiping the_images, or worshiping God thru the images?" The sage said: "It is difficult to learn what is going on in the mind of an uneducated person."

And here comes another brother (from Mo.), and he is not an ignorant man in most things, and he says: "Say, Brother Taylor, why did you try to throw dirt on the Bible?" Well! the idea! And who has been trying to "throw dirt on the Bible"? I have been trying to "throw dirt on" Bible ignorance, and I propose to continue. The Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament) and the Christian scriptures (the New Testament) form the most remarkable literature that the world has ever produced; and ignorance concerning same in a professional man, or in any person who pretends to any education at all, is positivly criminal-educationally speaking. I stand for a rational study of the scriptures; and that rock is so solid and firm that no one can ever doubt the stability of my foundation.

A Pennsylvania brother says:

You expected a deluge of letters following your higher criticism of the Bible. Well, I suspect many felt as I did, that the lion of religious controversy was just yawning and would go back to sleep if we kept quiet. Some things in the Bible are difficult of understanding and belief, but not half as incredible as the theories of higher critics; and these same theories are discredited and changed several times in a generation.

The Cornell professor and his "ipse dixit" will be forgotten a generation hence, while the Bible continues to be the guide and hope of the major portion of mankind. So please, Doctor Taylor, don't open the floodgates of theological discussion.

I do not wish to, and will not "open the floodgates of theological discussion." And I do not wish to rouse "the lion of religious controversy." But truth must be taught, and I am a teacher, and I must not shirk my duty. Ignorance is the demon that we should all fear and fight. I have not yet, in these columns, attempted the heights of the higher criticism. I have confined myself to the lower, or textual criticism; and have only referred to Prof. Schmidt's book (and it deals with certain points in higher criticism). It is dangerous to prophesy that his conclusions on these points will be "forgotten in a generation." German scholarship agrees with those conclusions already; and English and American conservativs have not been able to shake them. They are practically admitted by American scholarship. Will you be so kind as to mention some of the theories of the higher critics that "have been changed several times in a generation"? Any that have been wrong should have been changed when more truth was learned, just as we are constantly doing in medicin; but I cannot bring any to mind, but you seem to think that you can. We should be as anxious and willing to learn the truth about the Bible as about medicin.

A Beautiful Letter.

An Illinois brother writes a beautiful letter, which I deeply appreciate. But he speaks of the Bible and religion as tho they were synonymous; and as tho the Bible is the only source of religion, and the only way in which God has revealed Himself-the only way in which He speaks to man. Suppose I give you the letter so you can judge for yourselves:

DR. C. F. TAYLOR; DEAR DOCTOR:-I have read and reread your talks on religion. I am imprest that you

overlook the vital part of religion. You say your mother had her religious life which you respect; and with the next breath say that that does not prevent us from looking at the subject rationally. I agree that it does not; but the question would arise, what is the rational view of religion? True it is that many learned men advance theories in regard to religion, and there are many seem ing contradictions in the versions of the Bible; but how are we to get at the real meaning of the Bible? In Matt. 11:25, Jesus said, "I thank Thee, O Father, because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes." We are taught that God is a spirit and seeketh such to worship Him that worship Him in spirit and in truth. If God is a spirit, and the Bible is spiritually discerned, how are we to get at the real import of the Gospel of Christ if we fail to seek Him in a spiritual way?

Many learned deny the operations of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of men, and when they do they lose sight of the vitalizing principle of the Gospel. We owe everything we have that has a tendency to better the race to the Gospel of Christ. Men are looking for a substitute for the real Gospel that works in the hearts, and thus they theorize and speculate on the different versions in trying to find what will satisfy their carnal desires, and in so doing deny the existence of Christ in their hearts. You are aware, Dr. Taylor, if we believe the Bible we cannot discard the spiritual part and accept the historical. The most reliable and profound history we have is found in the Bible; and the very existence of the Bible at this time, after it has withstood all the criticism of the past, proves very conclusivly to me the truth that the Bible is the revealed word of God. You infer, Dr. Taylor, in the June WORLD, that any answer to your theories would be prompted by our "evil propensities." I don't think that is a fair accusation. Can we not defend what we know to be right without our evil nature asserting itself? I think we can. The Bible needs no defense. The truth of the Gospel working in the hearts of the people, transforming their lives and making them better citizens, is defense enuf.

It disgusts me with thinking men when they criticise the Bible and try to make us believe that education and advanced thought will change our views of religion; and having never tested it, deny the operations of the Holy Spirit in and on the hearts and lives of men. My dear Doctor, if you have failed (and I fear you have, from what you say in regard to your rational view of religion) to get the real vitalizing principles implanted in your heart, you had better in your quiet moments take a view of your heart and see if there is not a something wanting that you have never been able to explain; and a some thing that the theories of all the scholars in this world are not able to supply. This can only be obtained by making a personal application of the teachings of Christ, and sincerely asking Him to make a personal applica tion of Himself to your heart. Then the Bible will be a new book to you, and the little things that men are theorizing about will be as nothing, and the facts of the future and that eternity only can reveal to us what God has in store for us, will be so indelibly fixt on your heart that you will care for the theories of learned men only in so far as they show how superior the real thing is to their theories. Then, I believe, you will see and realize the religion of your mother. I inclose $ for THE WORLD, the best of the good medical journals to me. Greenville, Ill. J. C. WILSON.

P. S.-I offer no apology for this.

Indeed, Doctor, you have no occasion for making any apology. I recognize the beautiful spirit of your letter; and you have certainly proved one of your contentions: that religious matters can be discust in a really religious spirit. However, it was not my purpose to discuss religion, except to indicate that religion can be gotten, and is gotten, from various sources. And it is natural that those who get their religion from only one source and know of only one source, should believe that there is only that one source. I have tried to make my mind cosmopolitan. I get my religion from many sources. God reveals Himself to me in many ways. I cannot believe that when the Bible was completed He withdrew Himself from the world and humanity, and has since been "loafing on His job." I believe that if He ever revealed Himself to the hearts of men, he has done so since the Bible was completed. and is doing so now. But no more of this now. For I will become voluminous if I am not care(Continued over next leat.