the Father's kingdom: they would not enjoy the fruits of the earth until they could enjoy as sharers with all human life, redeemed to the holy society. As the Father sent Jesus, so sends He each of them, to bear away the sins of the world, and become disastrous worldly failures, that the social order of His kingdom may appear amidst the passing away of the society of civilized selfishness.

At best, our measures of failure and success are the denial of Christ's philosophy of life. His blessing is not upon the successful, but upon the faithful in the sacrifice of service; not upon the religiously and materially comfortable, but upon those who have visited Him in human life imprisoned, sick, sinning, oppressed, morally and physically loathsome, and shut out from the regard and grace of the existing order.

The prophets the Scriptures glorify were mainly disgraceful figures in the eyes of their times. Jesus and the disciples were outlawed. John the Baptist, who prepared their way, was beheaded in the interests of official peace. Paul, the most daring adventurer that ever put out upon a voyage of moral discovery, was loosened from prison to be led to his execution. Savonarola was both hung and burned, after fearful agonies of torture. The Protestant reformers were the hunted and hated heretics of their day. Wesley, Edwards, and Finney were driven from their churches. Mazzini and his friends were vagabonds on the face of the earth. Not long ago, Garrison was dragged through the streets of Boston by a commercially inspired mob, and Lovejoy met his death at the hands of political retainers. Which of the prophets of progress, whose faith we glorify with our words, but whose truth we make the refuge of our social cowardice and religious lies, was not outlawed, mobbed, or slain?

To eulogize these is easy, requiring no adventure of faith or risk of reputation; to defend them is always safe. But to the prophets gone we are never so untrue as when defending them against the larger truth calling for our own faith and sacrifice. We honor in truth the reformers of religion and civilization, and best defend their name and faith, by being as ready in our day as they were in theirs, for failure and disgrace. Have we their faith to put the righteous judg ments of God over against the false judgments of organized covetousness? Can we bear the shame of no reputation in the eyes of the successful, of being accounted commercial or ecclesiastical failures, that we may face the religious and political lies now darkening the social mind, cursing our

methods and institutions, and bring them to judgment before the truth of Jesus? Our ability to divinely fail for right's sake is the real measure of our faith.

This gain of human values through failure is not in harmony with our modern notions of success, which prostitute every sacred human power to the gross and hideous lust of money, and make a religion of covetousness. It accords not with the spirit of Anglo-Saxon enterprise, which exalts rights above service, and rates commercial success above all that makes up the real life. It is not agreeable to present patriotism, which consists chiefly in loyalty to one's property, subordinating the welfare of society to material gains, and to the anarchical liberty of the individual. There is no welcome for it in the world of business, the greatest corrupter of nations and enemy of man. The respect of the political economist it has not, nor is it in keeping with the greedy maxims of Benjamin Franklin. It is disgusting to the theologian, and frightful to the ecclesiastic. It will not mix with the moral nostrums prescribed by pulpit and press as "The Secret of Success," or "The Way to Succeed in Life," and like wretched stuff poured into this suffering world by those who are called its teachers. It comports not with the vicious motives for excellence upheld by the ethical imbecility of our educational systems. But Jesus' doctrine of life is either the delusion of history, the divine tantalism of hopeless human suffering, or our ruling standards of success are worse than pagan; they are devilish, and the destroyers of human life. The efforts of the church to reconcile the commercial morals of modern industrialism with the revelation of human law and life in Christ, is treason to the kingdom of God, and the worst apostasy of the church; yea, it is the chopping down of the cross, and the setting up of the throne of mammon in its place.

If we believe Jesus' doctrine of life to be true, then in the name of our belief we must take square issue with those who teach that man's first and fundamental duty is to get a living. They would build human life on a lie. True, we must gain our bread by our work; but bread is not the end of work, and man does not live by bread alone. The end of work is distributive justice, social character, the divine personality of the sons of man; and these are the word of God in human life. Our first and fundamental duty is to seek in what manner and by what work we can best fulfil the righteousness of Christ in our life, and in the life of the world. Not the preservation of life, but the increase of right, is the first law of man's nature; and he that preserveth his life wastes it, while he that wasteth his life in the pur

suit of righteousness finds it eternally. Our life has but one duty, in fact, and that is the faithful witnessing, with the individual and collective doing, of the righteousness of Christ, believing that this universe is so principled and organized that only right can in the end bring food to the producer, and abundance to the working children of men. Our duty to God, nation, family, is to illustrate in our life the sacrifice of the Christ, who is the righteousness of God made manifest for the practice of man.

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT CONTROL THE

TELEGRAPH?

I.

WHY THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD OWN THE TELEGRAPH. BY PROF. RICHARD T. ELY, OF THE UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN. The very clearness of the case in favor of the public ownership and management of the telegraph constitutes the difficulty in the preparation of an article on the subject. One who has examined understandingly arguments. for and against public ownership finds it hard to put himself in the position of a sincere and intelligent opponent. The telegraph is in this respect quite different from the railways. The arguments in favor of the nationalization of the railways seem to the present writer to be conclusive, and yet it must be admitted by everyone that there is strength in the arguments of those who favor private railways. We have immense difficulties to overcome whether we have public or private ownership of railways. No argument, however, in favor of private ownership of the telegraph seems to be able to stand the test of any careful analysis or searching criticism.

First of all, we may make the claim that public ownership and management of the telegraph would be in harmony with the best thought of the founders of this republic. The telegraph is a natural monopoly. There were few businesses of the nature of the telegraph when this republic was estab lished, but there was one conspicuous example of a natural monopoly. That was the postoffice, and that was made a public function, and has been regarded as such ever since, to the great benefit of the people of the United States. Even if the telegraph were not an essential part of the postoffice it would be in harmony with the principles of the fathers of the country to make it a public service; but it is an essential part of the postoffice business, and to connect it with the postoffice would be simply a logical development. The nature of the present service of the private telegraph companies is the strongest kind of an argument in favor of public ownership; especially when this is brought into contrast with our postoffice service, and when it is remembered that this postoffice service itself would be still further improved if it received its logical completion in public telegraph service.

Questions of public policy are not to be argued merely from the standpoint of cost and price, but high charges for any service which is of such general importance as the telegraph are a serious consideration. The charges of the private telegraph service in this country are exorbitant. All arguments which aim to show the contrary are deceptive. They may be plausible but they are not ingenuous. The most familiar form of this argument is the comparison of the cost of sending a telegram a long distance in this country and a long distance in Europe. It is, however, an elementary fact that distance has very little to do with the cost of sending a telegram, and consequently should not have any great force in the determination of a fair price for the service, provided the telegram is a domestic one. The truth is, that in nearly all countries distance is entirely neg lected and one uniform price is charged, just as our postoffice charges one uniform price for sending a letter, regardless of distance. The reason why a comparatively high price is charged for a telegram, say, from London to St. Petersburg, is because such a telegram is an international one and the receipts have to be divided among several countries. In the case under consideration, we should also remember that we have a cable service to be taken into account. The usual price for sending a telegram from any part of one country to any other part of the same country is about ten cents. In some cases it is a little less, in some it is a little more. The charge in Germany and England is twelve cents.

We have next to note the poor quality of the telegraph service in the United States. It has been stated by a well known writer that it is the poorest telegraph service in the civilized world. Certainly the contrast between the service in this country and the service in Germany is most painful to one who has lived in both countries. The service in this country is so defective and so irregular that frequently the telegraph is not used when it would be a great convenience. It is impossible to send a telegram and to be sure that a prompt reply will be received. The writer of this article has sent a telegram a distance of some four hundred miles, and has given the telegram a start of twenty-four hours, then taken a train and arrived at the destination of the telegram on the same day on which the telegram was delivered. This is by no means an isolated experience.

So far as the writer's experience goes, it is seldom that a telegram is received in the United States which in spelling and in every other particular is absolutely correct,