OUR MONTHLY TALK.

Perhaps the following letter has sufficient general interest to justify passing it along. The points are various and some of them unique: LOGAN, N. MEX., November 5, 1913. DEAR DR. TAYLOR:-Please find inclosed $1 to pay for WORLD for 1913. It is a shame and almost a disgrace that one is not more prompt in remitting, especially when one could do better.

You will please discontinue my sub. when the time expires, as I am not now engaged in the practise of medicin.

I told one of my patrons about a year ago I was going to quit medicin and devote my whole time to religion, law and politics. He replied, "That would be one hof a mixture." But that is not the way I look at it. I believe it to be a proper and consistent combination-the three should be compatible.

I voted the republican ticket for more than forty years, then last fall voted for Woodrow Wilson for president, and I will give you most of the credit for that. I got the impression from you that Mr. Wilson is a good man, and a good man is the kind we need for President of these United States.

I was not altogether satisfied with Taft, and saw he could not be elected, and I was opposed to Roosevelt, and had a desire to defeat him. So I wrote to several friends editors and business men in different states whom I knew had been friendly to or rather admirers of Roosevelt. All but one replied promptly, and I think all supported Wilson. The one replied a few days before election that he believed Roosevelt to be the greatest man on earth, and hoped he would be elected. I admit, to let the "Colonel" tell the story, he is. I wrote the men above referred to before the nomination. I was working for the nomination of Wilson, as I believed, and still believe, he was the only democratic candidate who could defeat Roosevelt.

If you had as much influence with a majority of your readers as with me, you did more to nominate Wilson than Bryan did. I had confidence in you and did not think you would recommend Wilson as you did unless you knew or firmly believed you were right, altho I differ from you on some political questions.

I think President Wilson might have made a better selection for Secretary of State. I think we have plenty of good men who would be glad to live on his salary-know I would, on half of it. Don't pretend to say I am competent, but believe I could fill the office if I had competent men to do all the work and plenty of good advice, as most of our federal officers have, or at least one or two that I know have, otherwise the work would go undone. I never admired Bryan more than Roosevelt. Bryan loves the almighty dollar too well. Our federal officers are trying to place too wide a chasm between the common people and our public servants-not rulers.

I hold one federal office and one state office, and both don't pay $500 per year; but I can live on it, support family of two, dress as I think respectable, if I do have to wear patches on the seat of my trousers sometimes. We are comfortable and in good health, and we don't go in debt either; but if I should resign or get put out of office which I am looking for-I may have to go in debt.

We have two sons and one daughter, all grown. One son and daughter are farmers; younger son is a railway postal clerk.

I think THE MEDICAL WORLD the best journal I have ever read for the busy practician, and I have been very much interested in your political and religious discourses. Yours fraternally, A. JONES.

I think all will agree that Brother Jones' letter is interesting and suggestiv. I agree with him that religion, law and politics should mix without any trouble. Mr. Bryan very successfully mixes religion and politics, and he used to add law to the mixture without incompatibility. In fact, there is something the matter with a religion that will not mix with any honest and useful calling.

I have been expecting somebody to attack Mr. Bryan for lecturing occasionally for pay while he is Secretary of State; and I have felt "loaded" for such an occasion. The above is only an indirect criticism, and not at all virulent. But it will give me occasion to say two or three things about an episode that has been discust by the newspapers far beyond its importance. In

the first place, I will admit that Mr. Bryan made a mistake in explaining his attitude in the first lecture, and he was peculiarly unfortunate in putting it on financial grounds. But this was only a tactical mistake, and one of the very few tactical mistakes he has made in a very trying career. The chief facts are these: Cabinet officers and presidents have frequently taken vacations without unfavorable comment, and in the case of cabinet members, usually without interest by the public and frequently without the public being aware of the fact. But Mr. Bryan's critics are too watchful to allow his movements to go unnoticed, and too virulent to allow any opportunity for unfavorable comment to escape. Unfortunately, in this instance, by his own remarks, Mr. Bryan gave his critics their opportunity; while if he had gone ahead with just what he did do without any explanation or comment by himself, but little, if any, criticism would have been made, and that little would have been quite generally condemned.

His critics take no notice of the fact that Mr. Bryan raises the moral, religious and ethical plane of thought wherever he lectures, in this way rendering a public service of incalculable value. They do not take into account the fact that he has always delivered as many (or more) public addresses without pay as for pay. Who among his critics have been as generous? In times of critical public emergency Mr. Bryan has freely given his best services without thought of compensation. Notably at the Baltimore convention. If Mr. Bryan had not been there, and rendered almost superhuman service, who can guess what kind of an administration we would now have at Washington? And Mr. Bryan was at Baltimore at heavy private expense. The tools of the "interests" have always attended national political conventions with expenses paid and handsome fees in view. And the "interests" have always calculated on large profits sooner or later resulting from the political services of their tools in conventions, and these profits have usually been realized. Mr. Bryan successfully combatted the tools of the interests, at his own expense, and with no prospect of remote profit. True, he got a prominent office, but he has made financial sacrifices in order to accept it. So Mr. Bryan is again a benefactor instead of a selfseeker. And what other man under the shining stars could have done what he did at Baltimore?

Aspersions have been made as to the value of his services as Secretary of State. Not to go into particulars, I will call attention to only one thing. International peace has occupied the attention of the best minds for at least a century, and efforts in that direction was the redeeming feature of Mr. Taft's administration, but their result was nil. Mr. Bryan's plan, to which I called attention several months ago and which is now generally known, is the only practical plan that has been promulgated, and the only one that has ever been put into practical operation. Most of the responsible governments of the world have now agreed to this plan, and it will render war between any two such nations extremely unlikely in future, delaying the same at least one year in any event, and few people will fight after such deliberate reflection, negotiation, etc. If Mexico had a responsible government, which had signed the agreement, our war vessels would not now be turned toward Mexican waters. This service done

by Mr. Bryan, rendered in the first year of his term as Secretary of State, is worth to this country and to the civilized world more than his salary for a hundred years-indeed, can it be computed at all in dollars? If the Almighty should close the earthly career of Mr. Bryan to-morrow, it would not be long before there would be a general realization that a giant had been living among us-not a warlike giant of old, but a beneficent giant.

Mexico.

I frequently receive interesting letters from subscribers in Mexico, but events are moving so rapidly in that unfortunate country that such letters would be sadly out of date if I were to publish them. Let us glance at a few leading facts: The population of Mexico is estimated at 15,000,000. Of these about 12,000,000 are "Indians"that is, descendants of the ancient Aztecs and Toltecs. These are divided into many tribes in different parts of the country and speak many different nativ languages. As a rule they are gentle, contented people, uneducated and not industrious nor enterprising. Diaz permitted the holders of large estates to take the nativs' lands away from them, and impress them into service. These outrages are really the cause of the present unrest, which will not be removed without a restoration of former rights to these simple people, and now popular education and just taxation of large estates must be added to insure safety for the future.

Of the remaining 3,000,000 people, most are of mixt blood, the pure white element being estimated as low as 100,000. The remarks in the previous paragraf apply to a large majority of the 3,000,000 as well as to the 12,000,000 pure blood "Indians." The common people have been so outraged by the Diaz government, that Huerta nor any other dictator can hope to succeed or "pacify" the country by the Diaz method. By the outrages upon them, the common people have been educated up to the point of determined and dogged resistance to former injustices. Madero was on the right track, but the process is necessarily slow, and both foreign and domestic financial interests fomented discord and discontent, resulting in his murder and the present condition of disorder and the attempted dictatorship of Huerta, with the backing of the financial and monopoly interests against the masses. In any successful and permanent plan of reconstruction the rights and the interests of the masses of the people must be fully recognized and provided for. Education, just taxation, honest and efficient public service on the part of public officials from the president down to the humblest local officerthese three things are the tripod upon which must rest the future up-building of Mexico. A disturbing element has been valuable concessions to foreign capitalists, and our own dear Hearst and Standard Oil are prominent among these offenders. In the reconstruction these concessions must be reviewed and probably scaled down; but perhaps the desired result can best be reacht by appropriate taxation. The following newspaper clipping illustrates how appropriate taxation can operate in the public interest, even in a highly civilized country:

PEERS SELL; HIT BY "PEOPLE'S BUDGET." ENGLISH NOBILITY DISPOSE OF THEIR ESTATES BECAUSE THEY ARE TAXT.

LONDON, September 7th. The breaking up of more big estates, owing to the

working of what is called the "people's budget" of 1909-10, is announced to-day. Last week the Duke of Grafton and the Duke of Newcastle parted with considerable of their holdings, and the Duke of Portland's estates between Newark and Nottingham are in the market.

Lord Shrewsbury has sold 3,000 acres, or nearly all of his Cheshire estate, and Lord Islington is selling his Hilmarten estate of 4,000 acres in Wiltshire.

The imposition of fresh taxes by the budget and the threat of more to come disturbed many holders of large estates who have been receiving virtually no income on the capital value of their holdings, but have not attempted to farm it for the benefit of themselves and the nation. Land speculators are buying most of the big estates, but a few wealthy owners have been able to sell their property in plats direct to the tenants.

I cannot leave the subject of Mexico without expressing my continued confidence in the management of the affair by Messrs. Wilson and Bryan. I am glad that we have not a president like Roosevelt at the present time. Firm moral pressure is better than bluster. Taft resisted the pressure of capital interests for armed intervention for a long time, but the impression is that he was nearly ready to yield to their demands at the close of his administration, and if he had been re-elected, armed intervention would now probably be in progress. Hence my great satisfaction with the present administration in Washing

ton.

Domestic Problems Again.

One of the many evils of wars and rumors of wars is that attention is thus taken away from pressing and important domestic problems. Foreign wars have repeatedly held back internal development in many countries. Many potentates have fomented foreign wars when the waters of domestic trouble had gotten too deep for them. Then domestic problems are forgotten and the sentiment of the nation is unified for the common defense. As a political trick this is nearly worn out. But the principle is still true. Hence a war with Mexico or with any other country would do us great injury by stopping the reforms that the new administration has so well begun.

But I feel that we will have no war with Mexico, tho we may have to aid materially in establishing the right kind of government there. In the meantime, the efforts for an improved currency law will go right along until we get it. The extra session may merge into the regular session before this result is achieved, but it will be achieved. The tariff and currency questions being out of the way for the time, the administration will probably next take up the trust problemand then there will be interesting times. It is predicted that there may be a breaking up of parties on this question, one of the most important to be taken up. Whatever the future trust legislation may be, it is not at all certain that the President will have his way about it as he did about the tariff (a party question); and it may not be decided by a caucus of the dominant party. Thus far in the new administration we have had party solidarity. This condition may not continue. By the time that these lines reach the eyes of most of our readers the regular session will have begun, the long session, and legislativ activity will continue perhaps till next summer, and maybe far into the summer.

A Doctor-Banker Concerning Banking Laws. GENESEE, IDAHO, November 13, 1913. C. F. Taylor, M.D., Philadelphia, Pa.:

DEAR DOCTOR:-Just finisht reading your "Monthly Talk" for November and I don't agree with you; hence (Continued over next leaf.)