negroes, the paying of smaller salaries to
their teachers, and the crowding of nearly
twice as many children into each class.
These discriminations against the weaker
race, however, do not satisfy the Senate
Committee, which recommends the adop-
tion of the proposed amendment. At the
present time, we are informed by Profes-
sor Du Bois, the State school fund of
Georgia is made up as follows:
Poll taxes..

Levy of 2 1-10 mills on all taxable
property.
Indirect taxes from State railroad,
liquor, convicts, etc......

$230,000

800,000

368,000

The amendment offered assigns to negro schools only the sums paid by negroes under the first two items. As the negroes own hardly four per cent. of the property in the State, the division of the property tax levy gives to their schools barely $30,000 a year. It is almost as if the children of tenants in this city were restricted to schools supported by the direct taxes paid by their parents-in which case ninety-two per cent. of the children in the Borough of Manhattan could not attend public schools at all. Yet the memorial of the negroes does not especially complain of the inhumanity of denying to the poorer race any share of the school taxes paid by the richer. If the negro race were allotted the share it actually contributes of the indirect taxes, it would still receive as much as now; but, as the memorial puts it, "The pending bill is more unfair than this, for it proposes to give the negro no share at all of the income from the State railroad on which he rides, from State fees which he helps to pay, or from the income from liquor and convicts, to which he contributes too largely, and by which many of his white fellow-citizens profit." The injustice of such discriminations against the weak is so shameful that the white people of Georgia ought to repudiate the pending measure not only for the honor of their State but for the honor of their race. It has hitherto been the glory of the Southern States that they have provided liberally, according to their means, for the education of the negro. It will be the disgrace of Georgia if it allows itself to become a leader in a reactionary movement on behalf of popular ignorance and prejudice.

On Thursday and Friday of last Polygamy week it seemed as if the deathknell of polygamy were sounding. On Thursday a meeting was held in New York City in the interests of the proposed Anti-Polygamy Constitutional Amendment. Ex-Congressman James presided, and reminded those present that if the people earnestly desire the extermination of polygamy by a Constitutional amendment, Congress would heed their wishes by submitting such an amendment to the States. General Eaton, of Washington, said that, while the fathers prepared a Constitution to meet the needs of their time, they were not unmindful of the coming of new conditions which would make amendment necessary. He showed that Mormon polygamy furnishes a sufficient menace to our institutions as to call for a Constitutional amendment for its extermination. Dr. Sarah Elliott, a deaconess of the Protestant Episcopal Church, who has lived among the Mormon people for many years, gave an account of her experiences in Utah, concluding that polygamy is not only degrading to womanhood, but that it is producing a degenerate race in those intermountain regions which are already exerting a potent influence upon industrial, social, and political life. The Rev. Dr. Burrell, of New York City, referred to the suspicion that there was an understanding between Republican leaders and Mormon polygamists that the amendment should be shelved in case Utah were placed in the Republican column by the results of the late Presidential election. He appealed to Republicans to see that their party is purged of all such suspicion; which can easily be done by presenting a united vote for the amendment in both Houses of Congress. Dr. Josiah Strong, President of the League of Social Service, exposed the falsehood of the Mormon leaders in claiming that polygamy is a dead issue, and made it clear that this pretense was in accord with their perjury in the past. "If I were a Mormon," said Dr. Strong, "and were sincere in claiming to have permanently put aside the practice of polygamy, I would show my sincerity by doing my utmost to aid in the movement to secure an antipolygamy Constitutional amendment." In the evening a mass-meeting was held in Brooklyn, addressed by the above

mentioned speakers, and presided over by General Woodford, ex-Minister to Spain. The next day, at Washington, Representative Tayler, of Ohio, who was prominent in the movement to exclude Brigham H. Roberts, of Utah, from a seat in Congress, introduced a measure intended to bring about Federal prohibition of polygamy. It proposes a Constitutional amendment for uniform laws on marriage and divorce, about which we are exceedingly doubtful. Mr. Tayler says, however, that his aim goes considerably beyond a mere uniformity of such laws, and is expressly designed to reach polygamy and put an end to it.

The Westminster

Last week in Washington there was a meeting of Confession the Committee named by

the Presbyterian General Assembly to deal with proposed changes in the Creed. The members of the Committee are the Rev. Drs. Dickey, of Philadelphia, Johnson, of Chicago, Nicholls, of St. Louis, Fisher, of Hanover College (Indiana), McKibben, of Cincinnati, Stewart, of Auburn, N. Y., Dana, of Philadelphia, Sprecher, of Cleveland, Van Dyke, of Princeton; ex-President Harrison; Associate Justice Harlan, of the United States Supreme Court; Hons. D. R. Noyes, of St. Paul, E. W. C. Humphrey, of Louisville, W. R. Crabbe, of Des Moines, Ia., J. E. Parsons, of New York, and E. A. Fraser, of Detroit. The Rev. Dr. William H. Roberts is Secretary. The Committee analyzed the recommendations of over two hundred Presbyteries, and concluded in favor of revision. It will submit this conclusion to the General Assembly next May, a conclusion founded on the following facts: The returns indicate (1) that the Church desires some changes in its creedal statement; (2) that no change is desired in any way impairing the integrity of the system of doctrine contained in the Confession of Faith; (3) the desire of a large plurality that changes should be made by some new statement of present doctrines; (4) a desire upon the part of many Presbyteries for some revision of the present Confession. It was therefore unanimously agreed by the Committee to recommend to the General Assembly that some revision or change be made in the con

fessional statements. Substantial but not final agreement was reached as to the method of preparing changes embodying both revision and supplemental statement, but the determining of the whole matter was deferred to a subsequent meeting. The Outlook offers hearty congratulations to the plurality of Presbyterians who favor creed amendment or restatement. It hopes, however, that the result of "revision " may be a brief statement containing only those doctrines essential to Christian faith, leaving Presbyterianism to be, what it really is, distinctive in policy but not in doctrine. That the Presbyterian Church as a whole is not behind the times may be seen from the fact that less than a third of the presbyteries recommended dismissal of the subject, and in many cases, as in New York and Philadelphia, the vote recommending dismissal was a close one. Hence, before the meeting of the Committee, it was gratifyingly evident that it must needs recommend a creedal change.

Church Work Among Deaf-Mutes

The twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of All Angels' Deaf

Mute Mission has just been celebrated at Chicago. In his address of welcome, the venerable Dr. McLaren, Protestant Episcopal Bishop of Illinois, pointed out that we, hearing-children of a common Father, are able to speak with those who are condemned to a life of silence. "Words differ in divers tongues, but all men know the meaning of those universal signs, and we who enjoy the power of speech know well enough that we are frequently compelled to resort to the signs of the hand, with expressions of face and eye to express our real meaning. The deaf are no longer deaf to the call of religion. They are to-day able to hear the old, old story of Christ-even though they hear it with their eyes." The founder of this particular work is the Rev. Austin N. Mann, himself a deaf-mute. Mr. Mann has built up deaf-mute missions in the large cities of the Middle West, from Pittsburg to Kansas City, and has held occasional "silent services" in nearly all of the smaller cities. He is the first of his class to receive ordination west of the Alleghanies. His report was the principal feature of the occasion, and bore strongly on Christian

Dr. E. W. Gilman

The Rev. Dr. Edward Whiting Gilman, senior Secretary of the American Bible Society, who died at his home in Flushing last week after a brief illness, was a member of a well-known New England family which has produced more than one man of eminence. Dr. Gilman was born in Norwich, was graduated at Yale in 1843, studied theology at the Union Seminary in this city and later at the Yale Seminary, entered the Congregational ministry, held pastorates in Lockport, N. Y., Cambridge, Mass., Bangor, Me., and Stonington, Conn., and was called to the secretaryship of the Bible Society in 1871. Dr. Gilman was a man of great industry and entire devotion to his work. scholarship along the lines in which he was interested was accurate, his tastes were cultivated, and his literary skill was developed by constant practice, for he was a contributor to reviews and encyclopædias, and a writer of monographs on relig ious subjects. His work was fully sustained until his last illness; and his faith in the Bible as the text-book of civilization grew with his advancing years.

Sunday-School Training

His

One of the cheering signs of the times is the renewed interest taken in Sundayschool work. In Montclair, N. J., a Bible Teachers' College has just been established under the directorship of a successful worker, Dr. W. W. White. Among the instructors and lecturers are to be Drs. Marcus Dods, of Edinburgh, Patton, of Princeton, Barrows, of Oberlin, Price. of Chicago, Weston, of Crozer, and Jacobus, of Hartford. The first session

will be held January-May, 1901. The period of work for each week will be from Tuesday morning till Saturday noon. For the student taking the entire course there will be twelve hours of class-room work each week. The aim is to make a school for instruction preparatory to the profession of teacher of the English Bible.At Springfield, Mass., the Bible Normal College continues its work of the past fifteen years, including the study of psychology. The work in pedagogy teaches not only the best way to bring the truth to a Bible class, but how to obtain the largest practical results from the truths taught. Finally, the Bible is comprehensively studied under the leadership of specialists. specialists.We also note the progress made by the Sunday-School Commission of the Diocese of New York, appointed two years ago by Bishop Potter. We have already chronicled its establishment of lectureships, training classes, and reading courses of instruction in the metropolis. The Commission has now published a volume on "Principles of Religious Instruction." The subject is dealt with from the standpoint of wellknown masters in pedagogy. Information concerning the Commission's labors may be obtained by addressing its Secretary, the Rev. William Walter Smith, M.D., 25 West One Hundred and Fourteenth Street, New York City. Mr. Smith, who combines the experience of a clergyman with that of a physician, has had marked saccess in the field of Sunday-school organization.

Ministerial Supply

A very convenient institution in so populous a region as New York City is a competent and responsible office from which churches in a sudden and temporary vacancy of the pulpit may promptly obtain the supply of satisfactory service. The Metropolitan Ministerial Bureau" has lately been formed for this purpose, with its office at 30 Woodruff Avenue, Borough of Brooklyn. It undertakes to be a well-informed and trustworthy medium of exchange between church committees and ministers desired for occasional supply. Beyond this, it proposes also the important service of bringing together pastorless churches and churchless pastors. In Massachusetts the Congregational churches employ a

paid secretary, whose whole time is devoted to this service. In the Brooklyn Bureau a corresponding guarantee of the service is given by the personnel of the Advisory Board, constituted by the Rev. Drs. Gregg, Hallock, Wells, and Rhoades. The Secretary and Treasurer in charge of the Bureau is the Rev. Jay N. Taft, Ph.D., a Congregational minister of experience and approved character. The Bureau solicits correspondence from churches and ministers, under the seal of confidence. Scrupulous caution will be used for the entry upon its books of none but perfectly accredited names, with a careful record of all facts relating to pastors and churches with whom it may be concerned. How far an employment bureau can be made widely useful in securing pastors for churches and churches for pastors we cannot but regard as very doubtful in the nature of the case, the doubt can be solved only by an actual experiment.

vent the independence of the Southern States, and, winning, gave liberty to the slave. The Civil War was a war between independence and liberty.

Whether a nation is morally entitled to independence or not depends upon the use it makes of independence. In our judgment, the Transvaal is not entitled to independence, because it used its independence to deny the simplest civil and religious liberties to its people. But every man is entitled to civil and religious liberty; that is, to be protected in his right to worship God according to the dictates of his own reason and conscience, or not worship if he chooses not to do so, and to use his person and his property as he likes so long as he does not use them to injure his neighbor. He who believes that the overthrow of the Spanish fleet and the subsequent treaty with Spain made the United States heir to the responsibilities of the Spanish Government will not believe that the Philippines are entitled to independence until the Filipinos have proved themselves able to secure to their

America ought at once to promise the Filipinos liberty; it is not so clear that it ought at once to promise them independence. A great deal of current discussion assumes that the words are synonyms. They are not; sometimes they are absolutely inconsistent. Sometimes liberty can be secured only by the sacrifice of independence. Liberty is always a blessing; independence may easily be a curse. Spain in the sixteenth century was independent, but her people were not free. Canada in the nineteenth century is not independent and her people are free. The several States of the Union are not independent. They are dependent on each other and on the Federal Government. And they surrendered their independence and accepted this dependency the more effectually to secure and protect the liberty of their people. This is, indeed, distinctly affirmed in the preamble to the Constitution. Still more strikingly does the Civil War illus trate the contrast between independence and liberty. In that war the Southern States fought for independence, and if they had won would have established slavery for a large proportion of their population. The Northern States fought to pre

the expansionist and the anti-expansionist ought to be able to agree that the Filipinos are entitled at once to civil and religious liberty. There may be, in our judgment there are, very good reasons why the United States should not now make any promise of independence to be fulfilled in the future. But there is no reason why the United States Government should not now promise to the Filipinos civil and religious liberty to be secured to them as fast as the cessation of guerrilla warfare makes it possible to fulfill the promise. The President has, indeed, directed that the Filipinos be secured under military rule the civil and religious rights which Americans possess under our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We have once printed this direction, but it is at once so specific and so fundamental that we reprint it:

Until Congress shall take action, I directed that: "Upon every division and branch of the government of the Philippines must be imposed these inviolable rules: That no person without due process of law; that private prop shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property erty shall not be taken for public use without just compensation; that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the

nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have

compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense; that excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted; that no person shall be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense, or be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; that the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist, except as a punishment for crime; and no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed; that no law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances; that no law shall be made respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed."

This is explicit; it would be adequate if the powers of the President were adequate. But he expressly declares that this guarantee is good only "until Congress shall take action." And the more intelligent of the Filipinos know very well that this limitation is imposed on the President by the Constitution. He cannot make laws; he can only recommend and enforce them. He cannot commit the Nation; he can only say what he believes the Nation will do.

It is quite time that Congress did take action. It ought at once to guarantee to the Filipinos the civil and religious rights which the President has directed they shall enjoy until it acts. The Filipinos who are in arms against the United States have a right to know what will be done with them if they lay down their arms. The Filipinos who are hesitating whether to take up arms for or against the United States have a right to be told what will be the result to them and their people if the sovereignty of the United States is everywhere and by all accepted. And they are entitled to know this at once.

While the President has furnished this temporary guarantee-and it must be remembered that he could only make it temporary--the Schurman Commission have indicated the kind of government which in their judgment should be accorded to the Philippines so soon as the sovereignty of the United States is established. Their recommendation we quote:

From the very outset it will be safe and desirable, in the opinion of the Commission, to

extend to the Filipinos larger liberties of selfgovernment than Jefferson approved of for the inhabitants of Louisiana, assuming that in the Sulu Archipelago, and in such portions of Mindanao and Palawan as are still occupied by tribal Indians, the government will be conducted through the agency of their Sultans, datos, or chiefs. It is to the remainder of the Philippine Islands, more particularly to Luzon, the Visayas, and the coast of Mindanao, that the Territorial form of government is to be adapted. The people of these regions, under suitable property and educational qualifications, should be permitted to elect at least the members of the lower branch of the Territorial Legislature. The model Constitution, prepared for the Commission by those Filipinos who sought to adjust the claims of the insurgent leaders to the rights of American sovereignty, provides for a Legislature whose branches are designated respectively the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

The Constitution proposed by the Filipinos themselves provided that the House should be elective, but that of the twentytwo Senators one-half should be elected, and one-half appointed for life by the American Governor-General; the Schurman Commission recommend that these eleven Senators be appointed by the Presi dent, and for only a brief term of years.

It is not important that Congress should immediately adopt either of these plans, or, indeed, any specific plan; what is important is that Congress should declare officially and authoritatively to the Filipinos that they shall immediately have civil and religious liberty so far as we are able to secure these rights to them, and some form of civil government in which they shall have adequate representation as soon as civil government can be substituted for military government with safety to person and property. Congress has no more important and no more immediate duty than to formulate the directions of the President and the recommendations of the Commission in a joint resolution and adopt it, so that the Filipinos may have not the mere temporary promise from a President, nor the mere unindorsed recommendation of a Commission, but may have a pledge of the American people, enacted by their representatives who speak with authority.

The Outlook, then, would like to see some Republican leader, with the approval of his colleagues, introduce into the House or the Senate a joint resolution containing four distinct clauses. The first should pledge to the Filipinos those civil and