wages are added and the total is given in the increased cost of a building. How in the name of errorless rules of mathematics can anyone expect, even thoug a Democrat, Populist or reformer, that wages for all labor, however employed, can be increased without increasing the cost of buildings?

The Rev. Charles M. Sheldon, in the Iowa Unionist, for August, 1900, instead of rejoicing with the farmer and American workmen because they are getting better prices for their produce and their labor, wails in the following illogical style:

"It costs twice as much to build a house now in America, where I live (Kansas), as it did eight years ago. Why?

"Not because building material is any scarcer. Not because timber and stone and iron and mortar are any less common than they used to be, but simply because men who have this Anglo-Saxon acquisitiveness, and this power to make wealth rapidly, have combined their energies."

Labor and capital in combination are trying to make money for themselves; that their acquisitiveness is being satisfied to some extent is proved by the way deposits in savings banks are growing and farm mortgages are disappearing. This should cause the Rev. Charles Sheldon to rejoice, but it doesn't. Continuing, he says:

"They have seized upon the common necessities of life, things which you and I cannot live without and

develop as God wants us to develop-they have seized. on these common necessities and then have charged for their use what they please; and now it costs twice as much to build a human dwelling in the state where I live as it did eight years ago simply on this account."

True enough. If every workingman will read this statement in the reverse, it is simply a demand to have wages reduced so that all material and all labor used in the construction of a "human dwelling" or a barn for the live stock may cost fifty per cent less than it does now. Those who decry the means by which prices have been raised are simply demanding that prices shall be reduced. Not because it is a crime to raise wages, but because it is not done in their way. To protect themselves from confessing the real cause of their discontent these Cassandries kick up a great dust about trusts. The Rev. Charles Sheldon lays all the blame for the prosperity now enjoyed by farmers and wage-earners onto the trusta We should think he would fear to do so lest these farmers and wage-earners who are rejoicing in the prosperity they are enjoying, guided by his discovery of the course of their prosperity, should give a vote of thanks to the trusts, and a political vote to sustain the party charged with encouraging them. He further says:

"The gigantic formations of capital which have seized upon almost everything which belongs to the

necessities of human life is one of the signs of the times in my beloved land."

So it is, and the contrast between the conditions which the people of this whole country, and the state of Kansas in particular, now enjoy, and conditions fifty years ago, when nothing had been seized upon, is one of the wonders of the world, the most marvels industrial development known in history.

If Populists, Democrats and reformers wish to annihilate trusts, as they profess, they must stop giving credit to the trusts for the prosperity farmers and wage-earners are enjoying. If they don't, they will make a lot of votes for the trusts.

THE GOSPEL OF HATE.

A person may make a mistake once and recover from it, but no person can continue to make the same mistake from the same causes without suffering the inevitable fatal consequences. Four years ago this country was surprised by the preaching of the gospel of hate by William J. Bryan, a candidate for the presidency of the United States. Sagacious observers who had closely studied the methods used by Bryan to gain power and the doctrines taught by him classed him as the most dangerous public man this country had produced since Benedict Arnold. Notwithstanding this, the bogie of party regularity, the lash of discontent and the poison of prejudice came dangerously near electing him. There were many

who feared the results of his teaching the gospel of hate and hypocrisy would be far-reaching and lasting.

The betterment of conditions for all of the people, which commenced so soon after Bryan's defeat in 1896, and has continued with increasing force up to date, seemed to cause men to forget the gospel of hate and adopt the gospel of hope. Reasoning from the logic of cause and effect, many supposed the discipline of defeat, the ripening influence of four years which might have been devoted to study and reflection, and the appearance of new issues of high importance would make Mr. Bryan a far safer man in 1900 than he was in 1896. Before the holding of the national conventions, and while the national committees were laying out the work of the campaign, Mr. Bryan's deportment seemed to confirm this judgment. But since the work of the campaign became exacting, as the pressure increased and the probability of defeat grew more certain, Mr. Bryan has become more and more desperate, until he has thrown all semblance of conservatism to the winds and has again appeared in his true character, an exponent of all the evil civilization has failed to eliminate from human affairs.

The gospel of hate is the doctrine of savages. Identity of interests and mutual respect for common rights are the cohesive forces of civilization. The more civilized men become the easier it is for them to work together on terms of mutual confidence. The teach

ing of the gospel of hate is a crime for which no honest, intelligent man can find justification. As preached by Mr. Bryan it is doubly vicious, as it carries with it the power of a man many believe to be honest and intelligent, and the prestige of his leadership of a composite political organization which has by force of adoption, come to be known by his nameBryanism. He has arrayed under his leadership all the forces of social discontent and anarchy, encouraging the debtor to think of the creditor as an oppressor and the idle and thriftless man to think of the savings of laborious toil and the reward of business energy and skill as robbery from himself. He has lighted the torch of war on property and is waving it in the face of a sober, industrious, contented people, who would be the chief sufferers by its depredations. All the venom of four years ago has been deliberately thought over and wrought over, with new features added, and poured forth with the whirlwind of words that was such a marked feature of Mr. Bryan's campaign in 1896.

Then there was no "militarism," but now, with all the gloating glee of a fiend, Mr. Bryan insults the intelligence of the American people and of the world with the monstrous accusation that Republicans want a great army in order to build forts near every great city to overawe the workingmen. We cannot characterize this diabolical charge in any better terms than those used by the Vicksburg Herald, which says: "This wanton suggestion of such use