fering and the ailing, by simply calling into exercise upon such the forms of prayer and the often vagrant power of thought and will. Still less dare the law be tolerant, or even merciful, where, as is often the case, there is wilful fraud and imposition, and a pretence of healing, for the sake of gain and what can be wheedled out of the patient. In such instances, it is no defence, legal or moral, to say that the patient is a willing victim, or is himself under "delusion," which is more likely to spell "undue influence" or "intimidation."

That we are not writing heedlessly or from prejudice, in dealing with this matter, let us endeavor, if we can, to find out what "Christian Science" is or professes to be. Fortunately we have at hand an examination, from a dispassionate source, of the text-book or gospel of Christian Science, compiled by its founder, the Rev. Mary Baker G. Eddy. The work is entitled "Science and Health, with Key to the Scriptures," a bulky volume of over 650 pages. In it, according to our critic, who writes in the "London Review" of November 12 last, Christian Science is explained by its author to be "the adaptation of truth to the treatment of disease as well as sin." Now, observes the critic, what is Truth? According to Mrs. Eddy, Truth is the principle that Mind is everything, and matter is nothing.

Since matter is, according to Mrs. Eddy, nothing more nor less than an illusion of the senses, it follows that every accident of matter, such as disease, is an illusion of the senses; and the way to treat disease is to cast out the illusion from the patient's mind. The patient is to be assured that the only real part of his nature is his spirit or soul. If only he can be brought to realize this truth, sickness and disease will no longer have any significance for him—will, in fact, cease to exist.

The fallacy inherent in such a proposition is plain. There is "pain in truth," and conversely, there is unfortunately a great deal of "truth in pain." But to a person who can set out with the principle that there is no reality in pain and disease, the treatment of them presents no difficulties whatever. He has only to assure the patient that he has been nourishing a delusion, and, presto! the thing vanishes.

The infectiousness of disease, says the

writer from whom we quote, is dismissed in a similar spirit of easy assurance.

When a Christian Scientist takes a disease in hand, and, notwithstanding his efforts to cure it, death supervenes, this might be regarded by commonplace minds as a proof that Christian Science had failed. But the interesting feature about the Gospel, according to Mrs. Eddy, is that it will never admit failure. Death is as much an illusion of the mortal mind as disease itself. It is our imagination which is playing tricks with us when we fancy we see people dying. A very comfortable theory, to say the least.

Of course, Mrs. Eddy finds it necessary to the promulgation of her creed to discredit medical science. She is unmercifully hard on physiology, doctors, drugs, et hoc genus omne. The only trace of treatment in the work is the passive one of reasoning with the patient. What this did for Harold Frederic;- who suffered from heart disease and rheumatic fever, and was allowed by the women who attended him and prayed with him to take violent exercise, smoke and use stimulants! we know.

But we are wasting words. Aristotle says somewhere that certain people cut themselves off from all argument. The Christian Scientists belong to this order. There is really no arguing with them, because they refuse to admit the fundamental principles of common sense. The only refutation that they can be made to understand would consist in taking them at their word. Long before Christian Science was discovered, a French dramatist parodied the character of a quack, who tries to impose upon his patient that pain is imaginary. The patient turns the tables upon his doctor by administering to him a sound thrashing. When he cries out with pain, he is laughingly admonished that his sufferings are imaginary. Some such argumentum ad hominem seems to be the only answer that one can return to the pretensions of Christian Science.

The Recent

Elections

Interest in the recent elec

tions has for us been increased by the apparent fact, that in many hopeful quarters the struggle has been one between Independence and the Machine. The would-be reformers of our politics, who more and more manifest independence of party when the issue is between a good man and a bad one, have, it is true, not accomplished much as yet on which to congratulate themselves. But the leaven is working, and not only Bossism is menaced, but the too fond devotion to party, which has wrought untold mischief in the administrations of our cities and towns, as well as in the State. If, broadly speaking, these reformers have achieved comparatively little in the late elections, their aspirations for the public good deserve our warmest sympathy. The time, manifestly, was favorable to independence, when Republicans in national issues had to choose between allegiance to their party, whose triumph, it was claimed, would be an endorsement of the government's conduct of the war, and acceptance of imperialism and national expansion, which they naturally view with alarm. To the Democrats, on the other hand, the issues presented were, besides those we have named, also twofold, namely between a sound and a spurious currency, as well as between the character and qualifications of rival candidates. Unfortunately, where electors could not make up their minds, or had not the courage to turn their backs upon their party, independent views. were cheated of their hopes and denied exercise by the weak compromise of "the stay-athome voter." But progress in moral effort and in higher directions is necessarily slow, and we cannot hope just yet to see Reform entering all at once into its kingdom. In time, no doubt, caution and subterfuge will give place to strength and conviction, and we shall find independence courageously asserting itself and party trammels being discarded as the fetters of an evil bondage.

Generally speaking, the elections have satisfied neither party, though the issues, so far as Republicans are concerned, are comforting, since they might well have been much worse than they are. In the Senate, the Republican party has made substantial gains, and though it has lost heavily in the House, it is assured of a working majority, but by no means of such strength as to lead it to put a strain on its following. So doubtful is likely to be Republican control when Congress meets, that the equilibrium may any day be upset, should currency matters be before the House, either by the silver Republicans of the West or by the gold Democrats of the East. In the Senate, as we have said, however, the party, from present indications, has met with a striking success. The Republican majority in the Chamber is likely to be fully twenty, a gratifying gain over the present balance of parties, and one that must be welcome to the Administration. The most pleasing feature of the elections is that, however, which has saved the Republican party in the House, namely, the gains in the West. This is the result, partly, of that region's favoring territorial expansion, and, partly, but more emphatically, of the overthrow of the Populist and Silver candidates. While the one cause of success is to be rejoiced in, the other bespeaks a doubtful wisdom. On the one hand, it is well to be assured that the financial credit will be safe in the hands of the adherents of a sound currency, and that the follies of Populism have been rebuked; on the other, it is disturbing to know that the imperialistic policy of the government has been endorsed, and that the West stands by the Administration not for its war record, which it cannot seriously praise, but for its ill-omened but acquiesced in designs in regard to territorial expansion.

Turning to the State elections, the most notable triumph which Reform, no less than the Republican party, has had, is in the return of Colonel Roosevelt. His

plurality in the State, it is true, is small somewhat less than 18,000- but that he won at all, having to contend with such an organization as Tammany has in New York City, is remarkable. It is the more remarkable considering the acknowledged ability and excellent character of his opponent, and the fact that Colonel Roosevelt won on his merits as a man, rather than as an officer and a hero of the war. The issue in the present case emphasizes what we have said of the decided tendency towards independence on the part

needed lesson. The anti-Quay men, had they coalesced and settled, as did New York, on the best and most independent man as a candidate, they would have wrested the honors from the nominee of the State Boss, and thus contributed to honest and decent government. If the machine and its arch-wire pullers are to be suffered, in a State so intelligent as Pennsylvania, to manipulate elections, and the people are to continue indifferent to their dominance, there is before us a dark hour for the nation. We hardly need continue

of electors, and of their purpose to vote for the man of their choice, aside from the party lash and the dictation of the Boss. Elsewhere we see the results of the same commendable tendency, and the desire of the electorate, in giving effect to their votes, to obey the behests of conscience and place the interests of the State or the nation above party. This is seen even in abstention from the polls, where the struggle in the breasts of electors has dictated that course, though it is a surrender to weakness, both of heart and judgment.

If, in New York, Black and Crokerism have been admonished, in Pennsylvania Quayism has missed receiving a like

while yet to wrangle over the terms. Meanwhile, the fighting and bloodshed are happily over, and over, in large measure also, we are thankful to say, is the sickness among our troops which the war entailed. Patriotism does well, therefore, to rejoice. Omaha, on the occasion of President McKinley's visit to the Exposition, bravely led off in the series of civic demonstrations, and was closely followed by Chicago, and, perhaps most elaborately of all, by Philadelphia. The latter historic city, being within easy reach of the

structions to the shrine and cradle of liberty. Hence the occasion was one that incited the city of brotherly love to great doings, and to unusual effort in decking herself in gala attire. Almost the whole of the last week in October was devoted to the celebration, and for the period, with the exception of one day when the elements were unfavorable, the city was magnificently en fête and her people gave themselves unreservedly up to holidaying.

The Jubilee began with the naval re

capital, and possessing in the Delaware a spacious entrance from the sea, which made it possible for the national warships to take part in the display, was able to excel all other civic celebrations, and to attract within her gates, besides the President and the prominent members of his Cabinet, many of the popular heroes of the war. But Philadelphia had an additional reason for being jubilant, and for welcoming distinguished personages to grace her peace celebration. There was the sacred memento of continental days to be re-dedicated, owing to additions made to Independence Hall and other recon

view on the Delaware, under the auspices of Secretary Long and the naval commanders of the warships on the river. Among the vessels of the visiting fleet that took part in the pageant were the "Texas" (flagship), "Marblehead," "New Orleans," "Columbia," "Gloucester," and the little "Winslow." The display was a magnificent one, and hearts thrilled at the sight of the great machines of war that typified the sea power of America. Not less interesting were the spectacles that followed the marine parade, on two successive days later - the military and the civic demonstrations.

At the former

some 20,000 troops marched past the President's reviewing stand, in the vicinity of the extemporized court of honor. Among these, led by General Miles, were regiments or portions of regiments representing many of the states of the Union, in addition to the Pennsylvania organizations, contingents of the regular army and the marines, and a portion of the crew of the "Merrimac," with Hobson, the idol of American women. Most of the troops had seen active service in the war and were consequently greeted with great acclaim. Especially hearty was the reception accorded to the prominent army leaders, including the General Commanding, Generals Wheeler, Shafter, Lawton, Sumner, Sckles, Graham, and Chaffee, as well as to the representatives present of the navy, among whom were Commodore Philip and Captains Sigsbee and Evans. In the reviewing stand, besides the President and Vice-President were Secretaries Alger and Long, supported by the Govenor of the State and the mayor of the city. On the previous evening the distinguished visitors were the guests of the Union League Club, which also opened its doors to some 4,000 of the élite of Philadelphia, who were received by President McKinley and the members of his cabinet, flanked by the notables, military and naval, of the war. The day following was given up to the civic parade and to other attractive features of a memorable and historic occasion.

Spain and the The Peace Commission at Philippines Paris has so dragged out its sessions that weariness at its doings, together with a certain impatience, has been the natural result. But dispatch and sweet reasonableness are perhaps hardly to be looked for in negotiations such as those with which the Commission has had to deal, especially where Spain's interests, disastrously affected by the issues of the war, lay in making a good fight at the conference board. Nor can it be said that the delay is intolerable when the conditions of peace-so hard for the vanquished-had to be contended for and agreed upon by the commissioners of the two interested nations and assented to by their respective governments. Much on both sides was involved, and time was necessarily consumed when complications arose, first, over the Cuban debt, which the United States commissioners, it is un

derstood, refused to assume; and, secondly, over the serious question as to the disposition of the Philippines and the amount of money which this country was willing to pay for their acquisition. As we write, the negotiations have so far progressed that the issue appears to have been narrowed to one consideration, namely, the acceptance or rejection by the government at Madrid of the sum of twenty million dollars in gold for the cession of the whole Philippine archipelago. If Spain accepts this offer, which it is understood is the amplest and the final one to be made by this country, the United States agrees, both for herself and her citizens, to abandon all claims against her for indemnity subsequent to the outbreak of the last Cuban insurrection. She also agrees to grant Spain, for a period of twelve years, trading rights in the ceded islands equal to those she expects to enjoy for herself. It is, moreover, proposed to acquire by purchase from Spain one of the Caroline Islands as a coaling station in the Pacific for the shipping of the United States.

Some difficulty, it is stated, was made by the Spanish members of the Commission in construing the third article of the protocol, and especially as to what meaning was intended to be conveyed by the words "control, disposition, and government of the Philippines." Failing to accept the explanation offered by Judge Day, the Spaniards proposed to refer the special article in the protocol to arbitration, a proceeding which, apart from the delay which it would entail, was wholly objectionable to the United States and consequently was promptly rejected. We mention the incident to show the ruse the Spanish element of the Commission resorted to, so as to baulk or delay the work with which it is charged, and possibly with the view of protracting the proceedings until the November elections in this country had taken place, which Spanish politicians hoped might be adverse to our Administration. If the story is true, the action is unworthy of Spanish diplomacy.

That the settlement of matters between Spain and this country, on the conditions offered, may be accepted by the Madrid government, cannot fail to be the anxious desire of our administration and people. The terms for Spain may seem hard,— the vanquished are apt always to think soyet she has much to lose and little if anything to gain by refusing them, especially