distinction of this Conference from others with which it may be confused in the popular mind is in its apparent limitation to the practical interests in which men of all forms of religion can unite their efforts. Unlike the Parliament of Religions, which set forth the comparative merits of Christianity, Buddhism, etc., unlike the Federation of Churches with its orthodox constituency, unlike other conferences in which orthodox and liberal try to settle their differences, the State Conference of Religion exhibits Jew and Christian, Unitarian and Trinitarian, putting aside for the time their theological disagreements in an agreement to promote the solidify ing of their common religious interests in the purifying and elevating of our social life. The first stage of any such undertaking must, of course, be tentative. The result of the present Conference will appear in nothing immediate, but in whatever it may lead on to. The hall of the Charities Building, corner of Fourth Avenue and East Twenty-second Street, is the designated place for the morning and afternoon sessions of November 21 and 22. The three evening sessions beginning November 20 are to be held in these churches, in the order named: Church of the Holy Communion, West Twentieth Street and Sixth Avenue; All Souls' Church, East Twentieth Street and Fourth Avenue; the Brick Church, Fifth Avenue. The proceedings are to be published in full. Anglicans This year the city of Newcastle, England, has been the scene of religious conventions held by Methodists, Anglicans, and Congregationalists. The Convention of the last-named communion has just closed. We would call attention to the address of Mr. Carvell Williams, the President of the Congregational Union of England and Wales, as a review of the present situation in the English Church as it appears to Nonconformists. He happily characterized it as a revolt from religious serfdom. He acknowledged that the English Church was now awakened and thoroughly active, that the best and most independent men declared their position intolerable. There has even been a general admission on the part of Anglicans that the ancient relations of the English Church and the English State require to be altered, it being insist that the Church is not a State institutio but "a spiritual society for certain spiritu ends, endowed with the right of se government," and that its organizatio should be "something more true to i spiritual character as . . . you will fir it in the Gospels and the Acts, and in th earliest records of the Church." Admir ble as are such sentiments, those who utt them are generally unprepared to ado the only practicable mode of giving the effect. Many reformers want the bles ings of freedom and independence, an yet at the same time to enjoy some ( the advantages of Establishment. M Williams referred to the ritualists a those who "repudiate the Royal S premacy in matters ecclesiastical, cas contempt upon lay courts and judge declare the Acts of Uniformity to b obsolete, and deny the right of legislatio in any way to regulate the doctrines, th ritual, or the discipline of the Church. These would even set at naught episcopa authority, and, as the Bishops plead thei helplessness to enforce laws which th clergy have solemnly sworn to obey, w have, said Mr. Williams, an approach to the state of things existing in the days o the Judges of old, when every man di that which was right in his own eyes. Nonconformists A situation such as this would seem to be the op portunity for Protestant Nonconformists whose dislike of ritualism is far greater than that felt by non-ritualistic Anglicans. The latter have addressed themselves to the Nonconformists with the Macedonian cry, "Come over and help us." Mr. Williams declares that Congregationalists are anxious to help when they see a clerical insubordination which has for its avowed object to undo the work of the Reformation settlement and to assimilate the teaching, the worship, and the practices of the Church of England to those of the Church of Rome. But how shall Nonconformists help? Anglicans ask them to support legislative measures for putting down ritualism by law. To this Mr. Williams replies that Nonconformists do not believe in legislation as a means of repressing erroneous doctrines or objectionable religious practices. "The Protestantism which relies on law for its maintenance leans upon a reed." As the speaker acutely pointed out, legislation has failed to check sacerdotalism in the past; what hope, then, is there of its success in the future? If it has wasted much money and caused many scandals in the case of only a few clerical prosecutions, what may be expected when a large body of recalcitrant clerics have to be dealt with? "It would create martyrs, but would not either convert or crush ritualists." As might have been expected, Mr. Williams asserted, as does The Outlook, that nothing but disestablishment will restore the true Protestantism of the Church of England. Many Anglican reformers, granting this ultimate issue, beseech Nonconformists to assist in Protestantizing it first, even if it should be disestablished afterwards. How is that to be accomplished? asked the speaker. "Parliament will not do it; neither will it empower the Church to do it-so long, at least, as it remains a national institution. If the progress of the movement Romewards shall be checked at all, it will be by the laity of the Church when they are enfranchised by disestablishment." Godet and Gordon By the death of Frédéric Godet a venerable and notable figure in the Protestant world passes away. He dies full of years and honors. His death occurred at Neuchâtel, Switzerland, his birthplace and where his life-work was done. He was educated there and at Bonn and Berlin. For six years he was tutor to the Crown of Prussia, later Frederick III. of Germany. Later Godet came back to his beloved Switzerland. After a six years' pastorate in the Val de Ruz, he became Professor of Exegetical and Critical Theology at Neuchâtel. From that time to the present he has been not only the chief ornament of the theological faculty at Neuchâtel; he has been the first citizen of that town, and one of the first in all Switzerland. Distinguished honors were paid to him on his eightieth birthday, eight years ago. Godet's best work is his Commentary on John-best because thoroughly and impressively his own. His later commentaries on Luke, on Romans and Corinthians, were perhaps more scholarly but less original. Few commentaries have been more widely read. Their translations into English, German, Dutch, and Danish command a steady sale, as do his lectures translated into English under the titles "Defense of the Christian Faith," "Old Testament Studies," "New Testament Studies," and "Studies on the Epistles."The American missionary corps has suffered another severe loss in the death of one of its strongest members, the Rev. M. L. Gordon, M.D., of Kyoto, Japan. Dr. Gordon falls in the ripe vigor of a distinguished career as missionary and educator. A graduate of Waynesburg College, the New York College of Physicians and Surgeons, and Andover Theological Seminary, he became a resident of Osaka, Japan in 1872. He was the third missionary sent to Japan by the American Board (Congregational), though he always retained his membership in the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. When the Doshisha University at Kyoto was organized as a Christian college, he became Professor of Homiletics and Pastoral Theology in its theological department. Both by Japanese and by foreigners Dr. Gordon was regarded as one of the foremost scholars in the Japanese language. Interdenominational Philadelphia, Minneap olis, and, we hope, other cities, will this winter effectively contradict the impression that traditional prejudices and bitter antagonisms persist as much as ever among Protestant denominations. Dr. Tupper, the pastor of the First Baptist Church in Philadelphia, has instituted a series of interdenominational sermons to be delivered by representative clergymen on the first Sunday evening of each month, while on the third Sunday evening the pastor himself will lecture on the biography and life-work of some great leader in the denomination whose contributions to the cause of Christianity had been presented a fortnight before. The hymns sung on these special occasions will be by denominational authors respectively. The Baptists will be represented by Dr. Boardman. Spurgeon is the Baptist leader whose biography will be outlined on the third Sunday. The hymns on these occasions are by such Baptist hymnologists as Steele, Beddome, Judson, and Lowry. Dr. Richards will speak for the Congregationalists and of their contribution to Christian progress, and two weeks later the pastor's lecture will be on Jonathan Edwards. The hymns on these occasions are taken from the works of Watts, Doddridge, Palmer, Dwight, and Brown. In like manner, in successive months the following denominations are to be treated: Disciples, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Methodists, Moravians, Presbyterians, and Quakers. In Minneap olis the interdenominational sermons will be delivered this winter at the Church of the Redeemer (Universalist) by Disciples, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Unitarians, Congregationalists, Universalists, and Christian Scientists. The outline for these addresses proposed by Dr. Shutter, pastor of the church, is as follows: : (1) What were the circumstances in which your denomination took its rise? (2) What is your present theological position? (3) What are the distinctive features justifying your separate denominational existence? (4) What is your specific message to the world? (5) How far can you co-operate with others? except the once slave States and four the silver-producing States. It is easy explain this vote for the Bryan Democra that of the silver-producing States cause the election of Mr. Bryan wou have enhanced the value of their chi product; that of the Southern Statesb cause their predilection in favor of t party of expansion was not strong enoug to overcome the habit of voting again the party of emancipation. The meaning of the election is clea so clear that no one can misunderstand The New York "Journal," the most repr sentative organ of the Bryan Democra in the East, truly interprets the defe of that Democracy as due to what calls "the intrusion of the silver issue and "the policy of cutting loose entire from the Philippines." In other word the American people, after much consi eration and hot debate, have agreed, wit what is extraordinary unanimity when pa and party prejudices are reckoned with first, that they will adopt as theirs th standard of values which the commercia world has adopted; second, that they wil accept the results of the war which the have waged: having assumed the re The Meaning of the sponsibilities of government in an archi Election Four months of debate in press and on platform; a reserved and seemingly apathetic people; much perplexity respecting the "silent vote;" then eleven hours of quiet expression; a night given over to receiving returns, to bonfires, horn-blowing, cheers, wild exhilaration on one side, good-natured disappointment on the other; and then this great, heterogeneous, yet united people, having declared its purpose, settles quietly down to business as before, as though nothing had happened. That is a Presidential election. And its meaning is approval-unmistakable, determined, hearty-of the course of the Administration for the past four years. The apparent fact that the popular majorities both for Mr. Bryan and for Mr. McKinley in their respective States are generally less than four years ago probably indicates only less popular excitement now than then. But at this writing (Wednesday morning) it appears that the Republican party has carried nearly every State in the Union pelago on the other side of the globe, they will not shrink from fulfilling its burden some and costly obligations. For two years the Republican party will control the Executive and both House of Congress. What will it do with the power intrusted to it? What it ought to do is to us clear. I. It must push forward the construction of an Interoceanic canal owned, controlled, and protected by the Government. It must not allow it to be built by private capital and owned by private capitalists. If it does, it will be false to its promises. II. It must frame and enact such monetary legislation as will simplify our currency and make it at once stable and flexible. And for this purpose it must, by language perfectly explicit and unmistakable, take out of the hands of the executive the dangerous power to substitute silver for gold at his option in paying the obligations of the people. That power, if reserved to the Government at all, should be reserved by Congress for itself. III. It has condemned "all conspiracies and combinations intended to restrict business, to create monopolies, to limit production, or to control prices," and has pledged itself to "favor such legislation as will effectively restrain and prevent all such abuses, protect and promote competition, and secure the right of producers, laborers, and all who are engaged in industry and commerce." This is a comprehensive pledge; it must be faithfully and fearlessly carried out. The ablest statesmen of the Republican party can give themselves to no better task than to studying how to accomplish so difficult and so beneficial a result. The American people believe as little in capitalistic as in political or military despotism. The ablest speakers in the Republican party have proposed publicity of corporation accounts, laws against stock-watering, equal taxation of franchises. To these may well be added the Democratic remedy of the repeal of all tariff protection of great combinations. In these ways or in some way the Republican party must find a peaceful protection from and prevention of monopolies, or a party of the future will seek this result by methods that are revolutionary. IV. If the South could have been freed from traditional prejudices, there is no doubt that on expansion the Administration would have carried several, perhaps many, of the Southern States. If it had not been for the silver interests, it would probably have carried the four silver States. On this issue the vote of the American people would have been practically unanimous. But this does not indicate any sympathy in America with imperialism. There is no party in America in favor of imperialism; it would not be possible to carry a single State, no! not a single county, in favor of a war of subjugation of a foreign people. This vote on what the Democratic party truly defined as the "paramount issue" means that the people have taken the facts from President Schurman and Judge Taft, not from Carl Schurz and the "Springfield Republican," and their principles from President McKinley and Elihu Root, not from William Lloyd Garrison and Mr. Edward Atkinson. America had become, whether it would or no, a world power. This vote means that the American people accept, some with gladness and gratitude, some doubtless with reluctance if not hesitation, the responsibilities which that fact lays upon them, and mean to go on to the fulfillment of those obligations, without fear of disaster at home or dishonor abroad. Imperialism as a political war-cry fell on incredulous ears. Imperialism as an honest dread of future possibilities, due to the mistaken impression that history is ever repeating itself, did not prove contagious. It has been, indeed, difficult to take seriously the dread that Mr. McKinley would prove a second Cæsar or a little Napoleon, and that America, even if provided with an army of one soldier to every thousand of its inhabitants, could be transformed into a military empire. But it would be a great mistake if such elements of commercialism or militarism as may exist in the Republican party should accept this vote as a vote of confidence. The Spanish war was a war of emancipation, not of conquest. In the last four years we have set Cuba free, and, having pledged our honor, must go on and give her the opportunity to try her doubtful experiment of independence; we have set Porto Rico free, and, whatever her final form of government, whether colonial or territorial, we must give her all the advantages we claim for ourselves; we have set the Philippines free from Spanish despotism, and our present war is waged, not to subjugate a free people, but to save a harassed and distressed people from anarchy, and we must go on under an honest and capable Civil Service to establish among this undeveloped people a system of self-government, securing to them liberty founded on justice and protected by law now, and leaving the question of independence for the future; we have secured for Hawaii a stable government, and protected her by our flag from those rumors of wars which are almost as disastrous as war itself, and we must consummate this achievement by securing for her under our flag the benefits of a true, American, Christian civilization. It is because the American people want this done, not because they want to extend their territory, their world power, or their territorial domain, and because they be lieve that the Republican party has shown itself, despite some mistakes and some bad counselors, able and desirous to do this, that they have intrusted it with the powers of government for another term. A Republican Tammany trial; and we therefore submit for the cor The political condition of affairs in Philadelphia furnishes evidence of the truth, which American citizens are slow to accept, that public corruption and public dishonor are not peculiar to either of the two great political parties. New York is controlled by the Democratic party, Philadelphia by the Republican party, and it is difficult to say in which city the corruption is the worse and public officials are the more shameless. Our readers will remember that last May it was stated that the Director of Public Safety, who has the control of the police of the city of Philadelphia, sought an interview with John Wanamaker at his private office, told him that he had been under surveillance for eight months, and threatened him that unless he put an end to the criticisms published in the "North American" against the city and its officials, a personal attack against him through the press would be initiated. Mr. Wanamaker met this attempt at blackmail, as blackmailers ought always to be met, with defiance. He published the facts. The indignation of the city was aroused, and a public meeting was held at which resolutions were passed, one of which requested the Mayor of the city, Mr. Ashbridge, "to arrange for an open and public investigation of the charges (preferred by Mr. Wanamaker) by a committee of impartial citizens." This the Mayor refused to do. A committee appointed by the meeting then itself undertook the work of investigation. They invited statements from the Director of Public Safety and the Commissioner of Police, both of whom refused to respond. They secured the testimony of Mr. Wanamaker and his private secretary; they examined the files of the "North American," edited by Mr. Wanamaker's son, and found in them no personal attacks on the private lives of either the Mayor or the Director, but only criticism of their public and official actions; and they embodied their conclusion respecting both the Mayor and the Director of Public Safety in the following resolution: Your committee, therefore, is of the opinion that the testimony of Mr. Wanamaker and of Mr. Meyers makes out a case, under the provisions of the Act of Assembly before recited, against Director of Public Safety Abraham L. English, which would justify a conviction, unless the same be legally overcome at th sideration and determination of the Committe of Twenty the question whether or not suc proceedings under said Act shall be com menced against him for his trial and remova if convicted. The General Committee to which thi report has been made by the sub-commit tee have decided not to undertake an proceedings for the impeachment of Di rector English, on the ground that an such attempt would be useless, becaus "the case would have to be tried in Selec Council, where the same methods of black mail as have already been practiced would be continued. Mayor Ashbridge's abso lute power over Select Council, assisted by bribing methods, would make a con viction impossible." At the same time they declared their conviction that "from the Mayor's refusal to order an investigation of the conduct of Mr. English on the request of a town meeting of representative citizens, the committee is justified in regarding him as aiding and abetting Mr. English in the corrupt act committed, and that the Mayor is therefore to be equally censured by the community." We are not inclined to criticise the judgment of such a committee, who know the local conditions far better than such a paper as The Outlook can know them. At the same time, we are inclined to the opinion that the Cromwellian spirit would have forced the issue by bringing im peachment proceedings, and thus subjecting the Select Council, if it refused to entertain them, to the same judgment to which the Director of Public Safety and the Mayor have been subjected. The secret of their shameless defiance of public sentiment is indicated by an address which has been issued by a Committee of One Hundred, signed by Philip C. Garrett and Robert R. Corson for the Committee. In this address it is stated that "misgovernment under the present administration of our city affairs surpasses all previous experience;" and this general indictment is accompanied with the following specifications: Enemies of good government oppress us. They make public contracts a means of private gain; franchises of great value are delivered to personal friends without public compensation, with reputable names put forward to pacify and deceive the public; the will of the people is subverted to private and political |