a Benge of' responsibility to Him. At least, that is the TENDENCY, and since the so-called theistic evolutionists borrow all their facts from atheistic evolution sts and d’ffer from them only in the origin of life, theistic evolution may be described as an anesthetic administered to young Christians to deaden the pajn.-wh‘le the r re ligion is being removed by the materialists. When the Christians of the .nation under stand the demoralizing influence of .this godless doctrine they will refuse to allow? jit. tot be taught at public expense. Christianity is npt afraid of truth 'because truth comes from r God, mo matter by, whom it is discovered or ^proclaimed, - but there is no reason why Christians should tax themselves to pay teachers to exploit guesses and hypotheses as if they were true. The only thing that Christ ans need to do now is to bring the enemies of the Bible into the open and compel them to me/jt the issue as it is. As soon as the methods of these atheists, agnostics, and Darwinists were exposed thej raised a cry that freedom of conscience was be ing attacked. That is false,, there is no inter ference with freedom of conscience in this coun try and should be none. Christians will be just as prompt as atheists to oppose tany attempt to interfere with absolute freedom of conscience^ The atheist has just as much right to deny God as the Christian has to believe', m God; the agnostic has just as much right to ,profess ignor ance in regard to God’s existence as jthe Chris tian has to profess his faith in the existence of God. . The right of conscience is not menaced in th s country, it is inviolable.; ; ' Neither do Christians object;to the teaching of atheism and agnosticism by those who be lieve in these doctrines. Atheists ’have just as much right to teach atheism as Christians have to teach Christianity; agnost cs have just as much right to teach agnosticism as Christians have to teach their religion. Let it be under stood that there is no attack either upon free dom of conscience or upon anyone’s right to teach religion or irrel'gion. The real issue is whether atheists, agnostics, Darwinists and evolutionists shall enjoy SPECIAL PRIVI LEGES in this country and have rights higher than the rights of Christains, They dare not CLAIM higher .rights though they, nqw ENJOY higher r'ghts and are contending for higher rights. When Christians want to teach Christianity, they build their own schools and colleges and em ploy their own teachers—Catholics build Catho lic schools, Protestants bu'ld Protestant schools. Every Protestant branch of the Christian church builds its own schools for. the propogaf.on of its own doctrine. This is the rule and there is no protest against it. i i ■ v WHY SHOULD NOT ATHEISTS BUILD THEIR OWN COLLEGES AND EMPLOY THEIR OWN TEACHERS IF THEY WANT TO TEACH ATHEISM? WHY SHOULD NOT AGNOSTICS BUILD THEIR OWN COLLEGES AND EM PLOY THEIR OWN TEACHERS IF THEY WANT TO TEACH AGNOSTICISM? Only a small percentage of the American people believe that man is a descendent of the ape, monkey, or of any other form of animal life below man; why should not those who worship brute ances tors build their own colleges, and employ tneir own teachers for the tra ning of their own chil dren in their brute doctrine? There are no atheistic schools and there are no agnostic schools—why should there be if atheists and agnostics can save the expense of . building their~ own schools and the expense of employing their own teachers by using the public schools for the prorogation of the r doctrine? They even make their living by teaching to the children of Chris tians a doctrine that the parents reject and which they do not want their children to accept. As long as the atheists and agnostics have the same rights as the Christians, what complaint can they make of injustice? Why do they ask special favors? If those who teach Darwinism and evolution, as applied to man, insist that they are neither agnostics nor atheists but are merely interpret ing the B ble differently from orthodox Chris tians, what right have they to ask that their interpretation be taught at public expense? It is safe to say that not one professing Christian in ten has any sympathy with Darwinism or w th any evolutionary hypothesis that takes from man the breath of the Almighty and substitutes the blood of the brute. Why should a small fraction of the Christian Church—if they call themselves Christians—insist upon propogating their views of Chr'stianity and their interpre tation of the Bible at public expense? If any portion of the people could claim the right to teach their views at public expense, that right would certainly belong to a large majority rather than to a small minority. But the majority are not asking that their views be taught at the ex pense of the taxpayers; the majority is simply protesting against the use of the public schools by a MINORITY to spread their views, whether they be called atheists, or agnostic?, or are merely teaching their interpretation of the Bible. .Christians do not ask that tbe<-teachers in the public schools, colleges and universities become exponents of orthodox Christianity, they are not asking them -tq teach the Bihde -conception^ of God, to affirm the Bible’s cla!,m^ to £nfallib lity»j or to proclaim the x|qity qf Christ,;, hut ;fjhi‘istians have a right, to protest a ga i n sttteaching that weakens fa^th in Godr undern)i$V®s tb® B ble and reduces Christ to the stature of a man. The teacher who tells a student that miracles are impossible because contrary to evolution is attacking the Bible; what right has he to do so? Our schools are intended to train the minds of students, but baqk of the.mind fs the .heart, out of which “are‘the isSjies of life.” Religion dqals, with the Science qf How $o %.ive, wbfc^.is more important th^n any science tgughi.in thq schools. The school teacher cannot qham enough, educa tion into the riv ad to offset tjib harm, done to the , student if his l'fe is robbed qX faith. and.hjs ideals are brought down to the basis.of materialism. It is high time for the people, pylto, belieye in re ligion to majee tlreir protest against t)ie teach-, ing of irreltfrlbn ip the public school?,under the guise of science and philosophy, r A resolution without penalties will be sjuf ficient—a. resolution passed by ti\e legislature de claring it unlawful for any teacher, principal,, super ntendent,^ trustee, director, member of a school board, or any other perpon exercising au thor ty in or over a public school, college, or university, whether holding office by election or appointment, to teach or pdrinit to be taught in any institution of learning, supported by public taxation, atheism, agnostifcisiri, Darwinism, or any other hypothes's that links man in blood relationship to any other form of lifer We are not dealing with criminals, for \Vhom fine or imprisonment is necessary, but with'edu cated people who have substituted a- scientific guess for the B ble and who are, in the opinion of orthodox Christians, attempting to use public schools for vthe propogation of doctrines antag onistic to the Bible ori to ttie interpretation of the Bible commonly accepted : by 1 professing Christians throughout the United States and the world. Fines and penalties are not only unnec essary but would, if included in legislative meas ures, turn attention ironi the ’ real issue which is THE PROTECTION OF. THE RIGHTS OF ALL IN MATTERS OF CONSCIENCE AND RE LIGIOUS BELIEF.. • ;.* 1 ■< The right of the taxpayers to decide what shall be taught can hardly be disputed. Someone must decide. The hand that writes the pay check rules the school; if not, to whom shall the right to decide such important matters be entrusted? 5 ; J W. J. BRYAN. DEMOCRATIC HARMONY IN NEBRASKA The Democratic party in Nebraska is more thoroughly united and more completely harmoni ous than it has been before in iriany a year. It is one-hundr&d percent for law enforcement and one-hundred per cent progressive. Local in fluence marred the completidri of its triumph at the polls but there is1 no doubt, that a large ma jority of the people of Nebraska stand back of the things to which the Democratic party is pledged. Governor Bryan thj> enthusiastic support of the entire party5 in the cafryirig out of the program announced by him in the campaign, endorsed at the election and reiterated in his in augural address. Nebraska ought to be a DOfnocratic state because it is the champion of the things that the people of Nebraska need. It is Qie champion of the in terests of the masses whether they live upon the farm, work in the factory or bring the pro ducer and consumer together through the vari ous lines of merchandise. The criminal element in Nebraska constitutes a very infinitesimal portion of the population, and the number of those who profit by special privilege and governmental favoritism is almost as small. The average man is the real man in Nebraska—the common people are the con trolling people. The Democratic party speaks for them and w ll defend their rights and inter ests. It is entitled to their support. W. J. BRYAN. x Henry Ford says that the best cure for unrest in this country or any other country is a job that requires six days’ attention every week If he will couple with it the statement that it car ries with it a living wage he will not find any general disagreement over his proposition The Treaty Plan Growing . a T r; :■ . -••• t '* ‘ \ > • A recent bulletin, issued by, the Hague Tri bunal, reports unaninaous agreement upon a plan for the conciliation of international disputes. f £J'! i 1 ' ■ “ ’ The report begins; “On behalf of the First Committed, which is unaninaous, I have the hon our to submit to the Assembly the draft* resolu tion concerning the procedure of conciliation in international disputes. “The First Committee was not able, in the course of its numerotfs meetings, to give satis faction to all the hopes and opinions expressed during its discussions. “Since then several treaties® which are known as the ‘Bryan Treaties,' have been concluded. The first of these was a treaty between Great Britain and Brazil, signed, I may add, by the distinguished M- da Gama, to whom I have the honour and pleasure to' pay a tribute herel Next came the treaty between Sweden and Chilei In addition, I may remind you that Switzerland and Germany also have just concluded a convention dealing with conciliation in international - dis putes:’’ etc. : “ ' * > ; , • ;j - 'Cv • : s* It is interesting to know that the * plan em bodied in the Thirty Treaties negotiated by the United States with nations representing three fourths of the world in 1913 to 1915 is spread ing,,. Great Britain has followed the plan in a treaty with Brazil and Sweden ini a treaty with Chile. Switzerland and Germany have recently concluded a similar convent on. _ Investigation differs from arbitration in that the conclusion is not legally binding but has a persuasive force resting upon the merits of the recommendations, r This is as far as it is possible to go at present. There.are vital questions that cannot be submitted to a binding arbitration but all questions can be submitted for investigation before a resort to war. W. J. BRYAN. WHY NOT? On another page will be found a press report of a speeeh made by Congressman Upshaw, of the Atlantic district, Georgia, in which he ap peals to the president and. cabinet to sign a total abstinence pledge for the benefit of the example it will set to tlie nation. It is a-good idea. If the president and cabinet will join in a total abstinence pledge, the news will be carried around the world and do more to answer the wilful misrepresentation of the wet papers than anything else could do. King George announced that he would not drink intoxicating liquor dur ing the war. That was a good start and had a good influence, although it would have been more effective if his total abstinence resolution had covered h's entire life. , But Mr. Upshaw’s suggestion should be car ried farther. Why would it not be well for each cabinet officer to have a pledge book and ask ah the employees of his department to join him in a total abstinence pledge? And why should the vice-president n