ATJ
THERE have been those who held to a distinction between the nation and the Government of the United States. They therefore have held that this might be a Christian nation without being a Christian Government. And when the United States Supreme Court declared that by “organic utterances,” and according to the meaning of the Constitution, “this is a Christian nation,” they said that that did not mean anything special as to the recognition of a national religion, because the court did not say that this is a Christian Government. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.1
This distinction is not sound; but for the sake of the case, let us admit that claim just once, and see what will come of it. The Government of the United States is composed of three departments—the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Executive. It is impossible to deny this. Neither of these alone is the Government. No two of them together are the Government. All three are essential parts, and any one is only a part, of the Government. The three together—this is the Government. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.2
Now in 1892 the judicial department of the Government definitely committed itself to the Christian religion as a governmental thing, by declaring that by “organic utterances” and the “meaning” of the Constitution, this is a Christian nation. And at every opportunity that has been offered since, this department of the Government has shown that it adheres to this doctrine. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.3
In 1892 likewise the legislative department of the Government committed itself not only to the Christian religion as a governmental thing, but to that particular phase of it that a represented in Sunday observance. In 1893 this branch of the Government, by direct action, confirmed itself in this thing; and nothing has been done since to the contrary, by this department of the Government. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.4
In 1892 also the executive department of the Government committed itself to the Christian religion as a governmental thing, by officially approving the action of the legislative department; and nothing has been done since to the contrary by this branch of the government. In addition to this, in 1896, the executive department of the Government, in a thanksgiving proclamation, did commit itself again specifically to the Christian religion as a governmental thing. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.5
Now as it is undeniable that these three departments are the Government of the United States; and as it is also undeniable that these three departments have by repeated action committed themselves to the Christian religion as a governmental thing; it is equally undeniable that in the bad sense in which such a term is always used, the Government of the United States has been made and continues to be a “Christian Government.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.6
What more could possibly be necessary to accomplish such a thing? Was it essential that all three branches of the Government should by definite action take such a step? All three have done it. Was it essential that all three branches of the Government should by repeated action take such step? All three have by repeated action done it. Then is it not undeniable that the thing has been done? AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.7
This is not to claim that all has been done that will be done. More, much more, will be done. This is to say, however, that the particular, the essential thing, of the recognition of a governmental national religion, has been done. And when more shall have been done, it matters not what it may be, in this direction, it is impossible for it to be essentially, or in principle, the doing of any new thing. All it can possibly be is the enlarging and deepening of the thing that has been already done. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.8
Nor is this to say that the opposition should be any the less earnest to all that may be attempted in addition to what has been done. The opposition must never be less, nor less active, than it has been, but more if possible, to anything and everything of the kind, both to what has been done and what may be attempted. It is a wicked thing; and opposition to it is both civilly and religiously right. Never let up; and never surrender. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.9
OF “trusts and monopolies,” President Cleveland, in his late message, said: “Another topic in which our people rightfully take a deep interest may be here briefly considered. I refer to the existence of trusts and other huge aggregations of capital, the object of which is to secure the monopoly of some particular branch of trade, industry or commerce, and to stifle wholesome competition. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.10
“Their tendency is to crush out individual independence and to hinder or prevent the free use of human faculties and the full development of human character. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.11
“Through them the farmer, the artisan, and the small trader is in danger of dislodgment from the proud position of being his own master, watchful of all that touches his country’s prosperity, in which he has an individual lot, and interested in all that affects the advantages of business of which he is a factor, to be relegated to the level of a mere appurtenance to a great machine, with little free will, with no duty but that of passive obedience, and with little hope or opportunity of rising in the scale of responsible and helpful citizenship. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.12
“To the instictive [sic.] belief that such is the inevitable trend of trusts and monopolies is due the widespread and deep-seated popular aversion in which they are held and the not unreasonable insistence that, whatever may be their incidental economic advantages, their general effected upon personal character, prospects, and usefulness, cannot be otherwise than injurious.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.13
That is all true. And though this was written with particular reference to the trusts and monopolies of capital, it is just as true of trusts and monopolies of labor, religion, or anything else, as it is of those of capital. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.14
In the dispatches of the same day that the President’s message was printed, there was the following:— AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.15
ST. LOUIS, MO., Dec. 7, 1896.—One of the greatest labor organizations that the world has ever seen has just had its inceptiomn in this city. It is a universal building trades union, and includes the labor of every artisan from the digging of the foundation to the last touches upon a building. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.16
There met here yesterday representatives of building trades from many cities at the call of the local building trades council. H. W. Stainbias, secretary of the St. Louis Building Trades Council, is authority for the statement that 2,500,000 persons are interested in the movement. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.17
It is not proposed to antagonize the employers of skilled labor, but to show them the benefits of cooperation with the laborers who create wealth. AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.18
This later organization comes within the President’s description of trusts, as certainly as does any organization of capital. For assuredly the object of this organization of building trades is nothing else than “to secure the monopoly of some particular branch of trade, industry, or commerce, and to stifle wholesome competiton.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 393.19
It is true that this building-trades trust suggests “benefits” that can come from their monopoly; and so does the coal trust, the sugar trust, and all the others. The President’s answer to the claim of “benefits” to others made by the capital trusts is also an answer to this suggestion of “benefits” to others made by this latest, or any other, labor trust. Admitting that such a thing may incidentally and occasionally appear, it is only incidental and occasional, and “such occasional results fall far short of compensating the palpable evil charged to the account of trusts and monopolies.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.1
And the greatest of these evils is that which the President points out, which we have before pointed out, and which only last week we dwelt upon—the destruction of individuality. As the President expresses it: “This tendency is to crush out individual independence and to hinder or prevent the free use of human faculties and the full development of human character;” the relegation of the individual “to the level of a mere appurtenance to a great machine, with little free will, with no duty but that of passive obedience, and with little hope or opportunity of rising in the scale of responsible and helpful citizenship.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.2
The President recommends legislation that shall check the operations of trusts and monopolies of capital. But how can a law be made that will have the desired effect upon the trusts and monopolies of labor as well? Any legislation proposed which should bear upon the labor trusts, however, would be instantly and vigorously resented as an attack upon labor and an invasion of the rights of labor; and certainly would not be suffered to become law. Yet any law bearing only upon trusts and monopolies of capital, would certainly be rejected by the courts as special or class legislation. Indeed, the President says that the legislation that has been enacted already, has failed, “simply because the laws themselves, as interpreted by the courts, do not reach the difficulty.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.3
There is danger then, indeed there is a probability, that in the attempts to remedy the evil by legislation, it will be done in such a way that a governmental trust and monopoly will be erected which will be more destructive to individuality than all the other trusts and monopolies of all sorts together. The danger is that laws may be enacted and enforced, even by decrees of the highest courts, overstepping the boundaries of strict impartiality and general justice, and the assent of all be exacted simply because it is the law; and when any one presumes to question the law as to whether it is right, or strictly impartial or generally just, and refuses his assent to it because it is not such a law, he will be denounced as an enemy of the government and a revolutionist. AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.4
There is too much of this doctrine spread abroad in the United States already, that every law must be accepted and obeyed simply “because it is the law.” Benjamin Harrison, while he was president, as he was “swingin’ round the circle,” made this his particular theme. In the late campaign he made a specialty of the same thing, and denounced as “revolutionists” all who should refuse assent to a decision of the United States Supreme Court on a constitutional question. The principles upon which the Government of the United States is founded, admit no such doctrine. Abraham Lincoln’s whole political contest was waged against it. AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.5
Yet this doctrine is the stronghold of the religious combination that proposes by Sunday laws and religious legislation generally, to dominate the country, and which is already dominating it to vastly too large an extent. They never ask, nor do they care, whether a thing is constitutional, or whether it is right. They only want to know whether it is the law, or whether by any means it can be made the law. Then whoever opposes it or refuses to obey it—no matter how flatly unconstitutional and wrong it may be—he is denounced as an “enemy of the government,” “revolutionists,” “anarchists,” “Adventist,” etc., etc. And having the governmental power in their hands, and public opinion on their side, they can, and they do, make it very uncomfortable for the man who chooses to think for himself and to maintain the constitutional provisions and fundamental principles upon which the nation rests. The effect of this religious trust and monopoly, precisely as is that of every other trust and monopoly, is to crush out individual independence and to hinder or prevent the free use of human faculties and the full development of human character;” to relegate the individual “to the level of a mere appurtenance to a great machine, with little free will, and with no duty but that of passive obedience.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.6
It was not by any means a small club to be used to this end that President Cleveland put into the hands of this religious monopoly, when in his last Thanksgiving proclamation he committed the national government specifically to the patronage of the Christian religion—or rather, to that form of the Christian religion which is dealt in by this religious “Trust.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.7
REALLY we did not suppose that anybody could be found who would defend President Cleveland’s action in dragging the Christian religion into his last Thanksgiving proclamation. Many we knew would be glad that he did so, and would gladly use it for all that could be made out of it; but that any would attempt to justify it or defend it, we did not believe. AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.8
The issuing of a religious proclamation at all, even in the most general and non-committal terms, by the President of the United States, is so clearly an act of usurpation, that we could not think that anybody would have the face to defend such an act when he went so far beyond this as to adopt distinctly the religion of one class of the people of the country. AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.9
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, ... are reserved.” No man can for a moment say that the power to appoint religious festivals, and prescribe religious exercises, has been delegated by the Constitution. Every person who ever read the Constitution, knows there is no delegation of any such power. For the President of the United States to do such a thing, is for him to act without authority, without the Constitution, without legal right. It is even more than this; for the makers of the Constitution and of the Government under it, particularly excluded religion, and specifically the Christian religion, from the cognizance of the national authority. Such an act of the President, therefore, is not only with the Constitution, but against the Constitution—against the spirit and express intent of the Constitution. AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.10
Yet for all this there are those who have the face actually to defend this latest thing of the kind. It will be of interest to the people to know who they are that do it, and how they do it. AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.11
The Independent was the first to do it. After quoting the particular sentence of the proclamation, it acknowledges that “this is a recognition of our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Christian religion in a proclamation addressed to all the people of the country, Christians and Jews alike.” But why mention only Christians and Jews? “All the people of the country” are not composed of Christians and Jews. There are thousands and thousands of “the people of the country” who are neither Christians now Jews, and yet who are entitled to just as much consideration from a President of the country as is any Christian in all the land. Was Mr. Cleveland chosen and elected to be the President of all the people of the country? or of only the Christians of the country? AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.12
But even though all the people of the country were composed of only Christians and Jews, then under a Constitution including both Christians and Jews the President of the country would have no kind of right in his official capacity to recognize exclusively Christian doctrines. To do so would be at once to give public notice that he did not consider himself the President of all the people; but of the Christians only. It would be to say that in his view the Constitution did not include Christians and Jews, but Christians only. And when as is the fact all the people of the country are composed promiscuously of Christians, Jews and non-religionists, living under a Constitution that was framed expressly to include all without any distinction whatever; when, in view of this the President, having taken an oath to maintain the Constitution, in his official capacity as President issues a document which is exclusively Christian, notice is thereby plainly given to all the country that he does not consider that the Constitution includes all the people, but Christians only; and that he considers himself under that Constitution as President, not of all the people, but only of the Christians of the country. This must be so, or else it will have to be admitted that a President who issued such a document was an exceedingly thoughtless personage. AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.13
As we did not suppose anybody would defend this thing, so also we would not have supposed that anybody would attempt to defend it in the way that the Independent does in the following words:— AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.14
Our President and governors are authorized by law to set apart certain days as seasons of thanksgiving and fasting. All that the law provides is the bare announcement of the time. AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.15
As it relates to the President of the United States, there is not a shadow of truth in this statement. As for the governors, it is true that there are States that provide that they shall appoint days of thanksgiving. But as regards the President, it is absolutely false. There is no law authorizing him to do any such thing; not even as to “the bare announcement of the time.” His doing of it is entirely without law, as well as without the Constitution. The Independent’s pretense that there is such a law, is a fraud. But that a fraudulent thing should be supported by fraudulent means is natural enough; and, by the by, it is becoming enough too. AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.16
The Independent further says:— AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.17
If the President or governor says anything further [than the law provides] it is not a legal act. AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.18
Very good. That is true enough. And as it is certainly true that there is absolutely no law which provides that the President shall say anything at all on the subject, it follows as also certainly true that what he does say on this subject “is not a legal act.” That is true. We only wish all the people would tell him so; and instruct him to quit committing acts that are “not legal.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 394.19
The Independent further says that when the President says anything further than the law provides, it is not a legal act, “but an expression of personal opinion or advice;” and that— AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.1
no Jew or pagan can rightly take exception to some recognition of Jesus Christ, as an expression of the President’s personal faith.... Although addressed to all the people his little sermon is no more official than his address at the Presbyterian Home Missionary meeting in Carnegie Hall last winter. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.2
Mr. Cleveland did not address that missionary meeting in his official capacity of President of the United States. He did not say to them, “I, Grover Cleveland, President of the United States, do hereby,” etc. He did not write it out and say, “Witness my hand and the seal of the United States, which I have caused to be hereunto affixed.” He did not close that address with “Done at the city of Washington, ... in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and ninety-six, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and twenty-first. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.3
“By the President, “GROVER CLEVELAND.
“RICHARD OLNEY, Secretary of State.”
Yet all this was done to his Thanksgiving proclamation. In fact it would be impossible for any document to have more of an official character. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.4
For any one to say, in view of all this, that what he said in the proclamation “is no more official” than was his address at the missionary meeting, is, if possible, more fraudulent than the statement that he is “authorized by law” to make such proclamations. Though of course it should only be expected that all the statements on the subject would be of the same piece. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.5
As the whole document, however, because of its being “not a legal act,” was in itself only an expression of opinion, it may in that sense be admitted that the particular sentence was also “but an expression of personal opinion,” “an expression of the President’s personal faith.” But even then, it is pertinent to inquire, What right has any man to attach the Great Seal of the United States to his personal opinions, and thus to pass them out to the country as official business of national importance? What right has any man thus to make his personal opinions the official opinions of the nation? What right has any man to put the national seal upon his personal faith and officially send it forth to the people of the country as a governmental thing to which they are expected to conform? What right has any man thus to make his personal faith the official faith of the nation? AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.6
But the climax of the Independent’s ghastly defense is reached in the following:— AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.7
Suppose the President had been a Roman Catholic and referred to the invocation of Mary as a mediatrix, he would have made a mistake, because the prevailing sentiment of the land would be against him. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.8
And is the Independent absolutely sure that there will never be so much of a prevailing sentiment in that direction that it will not be a mistake for a Roman Catholic in the presidential chair to refer to the invocation of Mary as a mediatrix, in a Thanksgiving proclamation? The Independent positively justifies such a thing whenever the prevailing sentiment may permit it. This is what the fathers saw when they made the National Government separate from religion, when they said: “Who does not see that the same authority that can set up the Christian religion in exclusion of all other religions, can with the same ease set up some particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?” Other presidents gave national recognition to religion in general. President Cleveland has given national recognition to the Christian religion in exclusion of all other religions. It is only a question of time when the next step will be taken, and a President will give nation recognition to some particular sect, and that the Catholic sect, in exclusion of all other sects. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.9
Rome sees this too. And therefore Cardinal Gibbons’s organ, the Catholic Mirror, also comes to the defense of this latest proclamation and this latest phase of the development of National religion. The Mirror of November 28, says:— AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.10
The Cleveland and Cincinnati rabbis and congregations who have made all this disturbance about a trifle are placing themselves in the same boat with those cranks and bigots who would “leave God out of the Constitution,” or indeed, refuse to recognize any overruling Providence whatever—who would practically make our government agnostic or infidel. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.11
And finally there comes the Reform Bureau of Washington, D. C., in the Ram’s Horn, of Dec. 5, 1896, declaring it to be “unusual if not unprecedented,” and that “Thus at last we have a proclamation in accord with the Supreme Court dictum, ‘This is a Christian nation.’” And in a communication to the Washington, D. C., Evening Star, of November 30, the same body says further: “The Thanksgiving proclamation is in this respect the first one that might not have been as appropriately issued in China or among the Choctaws, or wherever a Supreme Being is recognized. This is the first proclamation in accord with the long list of historic facts on the basis of which the Supreme Court said, on February 29, 1892, in a unanimous opinion (Trinity Church case): ‘This is a christian nation.’ This proclamation, with the burial of the spoils system and the arbitration treaty, will make this administration distinguished in history above any other since the war.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.12
ATJ
THAT our national holidays are fast taking on the character of “holy days,” is evident from facts which are too plain to be overlooked. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.1
The pious and sermonic tone of the President’s Thanksgiving proclamation, its distinctly “Christian” character, and the efforts made by the clergy to secure a public observance of the day by cessation of work and worldly sports, at least during the time of church services, are things to which we have already called attention. They show that this national “festival” day is undergoing a rapid metaphorphosis which will leave it a religious day altogether, to be observed only in a religious manner. The following paragraph from the Christian Statesman, of November 28, adds to the evidence upon this point:— AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.2
We regret to be obliged to record that the Presbyterian Ministers’ Association of Pittsburg, at its meeting last Monday, tabled a resolution introduced by one of its members protesting against the popular way of spending a large part of Thanksgiving Day in attendance upon football games. It is bad enough that so many college students and their friends, and members of athletic and even Young Men’s Christian Associations and their supporters, have so little regard for the spirit of the day and the official proclamations for its proper observance. But when ministers and college officers not only wink at the devoting of the day largely to rough sports, but even more or less publicly refuse to condemn and thus in an effective way justify this mode of spending a day specially set apart for the quiet enjoyment of the homes circle and the duties of charity and religion, what can be expected of our young men? AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.3
Thanksgiving day, however, is not the only national day upon which an effort is being made to put the stamp of religion. The evidence of this we find in the Christian Endeavorer, for December, 1896. That journal says:— AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.4
Many Christian Endeavor societies last year utilized Washington’s Birthday for Christian Citizenship day. They found this plan to be helpful to the cause of Christian Citizenship.... AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.5
As Washington was distinctly a Christian citizen and showed his loyalty to his divine Master on every occasion, there is every reason why the celebration of his birthday should have a religious tone to it. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.6
The Endeavorer further states that it was supposed that resolutions upon this point would be passed by the International Convention at Washington, but no resolutions were passed on any subject at that meeting. It adds, however, that in probably six hundred communities in this country the coming 22nd of February will be observed under Christian citizenship auspices. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.7
When the popular observance of national holidays takes on a “religious tone,” those who fail to observe them religiously will suffer social ostracism, to say the least. Already it is accounted nothing less than sinful to continue secular work or engage in “rude sports” during the hours of church service on Thanksgiving day. And a like result must follow the establishment of the religious observance of Washington’s birthday. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.8
It is worthy of notice that these national holidays will, under this change, stand upon exactly the same footing as the “holy days” of the Roman Catholic Church. Such days are marked by a religious observance, but not through their whole length. That church requires attendance at Mass or other religious services set apart for the day; and having complied with the church requirements in this respect, the Catholic communicant is at liberty to spend the remaining portion of the day as his own inclination may direct. He is not debarred from indulgence in the popular forms of amusement and recreation, provided these do not interfere with the religious observances which the church prescribes. And not only will these days stand upon the same level as the Catholic “holy days;” they will serve the same purpose. The Catholic “holy days” are for the purpose of exalting and glorifying the church. And when the Protestant Church acquires the prerogative of directing the observance of national holidays, she will thereby exalt herself, and become invested with new power and authority in the eyes of the people. But the whole principle of such procedure is papal, and not Christian; and only that which is in the likeness of the papacy can come out of it. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.9
The only days which can properly be observed religiously are those commanded to be observed by the Creator; for religion is a matter the direction of which is His prerogative alone. He has commanded us to keep holy his Sabbaths, which come on the seventh day of each week. But the leading church bodies have discarded these, and instituted “holy days” of their own. And this is nothing else than a parallel to the spirit and work of the papacy. AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.10
THERE is nothing which behaves more uncivilly than the “civil sabbath.” AMS December 17, 1896, page 395.11
ATJ
IN his efforts in behalf of temperance and also prohibition nobody can bid John G. Wooley more hearty God-speed than we do. But to his effort and hope to have the Church dominate and “run” the Government, nobody can be more opposed than are we. These views of religion are as political as those of the veriest National Reformer that has yet appeared. In Our Day, for November, 1896, he declares that— AMS December 17, 1896, page 400.1
This country will never be saved but by the enthronement of Jesus in the politics of the republic, and his coronation by the Christian voters as the “King of kings and Lord of lords,” and Platform of platforms. AMS December 17, 1896, page 400.2
Whether the country is ever saved or not, this thing will never be. There will never be any enthronement of Jesus in the politics of the republic; nor will he ever be crowned by the Christian voters as King of kings, nor as anything else. There were some folks once before who proposed “the enthronement of Jesus in the politics of the country,” but he departed from them. In that day he said, “I receive not honor form men.” And he says it yet. AMS December 17, 1896, page 400.3
THE apologists of the New England Puritans think they have a mighty weapon in defense of their heroes when they have demonstrated that there was no specific statute prohibiting kissing on Sunday. Upon this they declare that Sam. Peter’s account of the Blue Laws is all a made-up story, out of enmity to the innocent Puritans. The truth of the matter is that the Bible was the code, and the Bible forbids “finding thine own pleasure” on the Sabbath day. And though this applies to the seventh day and not to Sunday at all, the Puritans decided that Sunday is the Sabbath, and then made this Scripture apply to Sunday observance. Then, by this piece of hocus pocus, Sunday being the Sabbath, and the Bible being the code, as the code forbade people finding their own pleasure on the Sabbath, and as assuredly it is a pleasure for a man to kiss his wife, it followed plainly enough that it was unlawful for a man to kiss his wife on Sunday. And now the vast National Reform Christian Endeavor combination are determined to have the Bible the code of the whole nation with themselves as final interpreters, as in that other Blue Law system. AMS December 17, 1896, page 400.4
ON Thanksgiving day last month, at Lincoln, Neb., Presiding Elder D. W. C. Huntingdon preached a sermon which was hardly anything else than a long, blind, unreasoning defense of the Puritans and all their enormities. This, however, is neither new or unusual. It is probable that the same thing was done at other places in the United States the same day. We notice it here only to call attention to it as one of the things, among many others of to-day, that needs to be watched and thought about. For, as has been well remarked, “if we are to be profited by the past, it is essential that we should study our history honestly and impartially. We cannot be true to ourselves if we begin by being false to our predecessors. If we credit them with motives they did not feel and could not have understood; if we claim for them things which they never accomplished; if we defend their indefensible acts; if we seek to prove them in the right when they were in the wrong, in their behavior toward others—it will follow that we will deal likewise in our own case, and prove dishonest and tricky as a nation and in our personal transactions.” Any one who will defend or excuse to-day the barbarisms and enormities of the Puritans, will just as readily defend or excuse the like things if they should be committed under like circumstances to-day. AMS December 17, 1896, page 400.5