munion with God must be universal. The truth of God, the truth of Christ, the truth of the higher life, must come home to each individual soul with direct, clear and absolute certainty. In other words, religion must be a matter of personal conviction, a personal possession. It is the right of each man, the duty and privilege of each man, to search for truth, to satisfy himself, his mind, reason and his whole being, of the truth of Christ's religion. In the words of the Master, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Skepticism implies that inward satisfaction as its highest good.

Again, skepticism lends earnestness to life, gives seriousness to life. Life, it seems to say, is full of meaning because it is full of conflict. Religion and the religious life are earnest, and he who would enjoy them or make them his own must himself be in earnest. Skepticism of the nobler sort brings a message to Christian thought because it insists on going down deep in its search for truth. It scorns the superficial aspect of religion, the mere crust and surface character of so much of our piety and devotion. It pleads for depth, depth in Christian thought, in Christian theology, and depth, too, in our Christian life.

The skeptic is one who stops bewildered at what we may call a split in truth, and that split, that gulf, comes in the divorce which we too often make between religion and morality. When When religion narrows itself and hardens itself into a dogmatic system, and holds itself aloof from morality, as something essentially different from that, then it is that the unity of truth is lost sight of and the mind becomes perplexed at the parting of the ways. It longs for religious peace and comfort, but is not willing to obtain these at the sacrifice of its own moral ideals. It gives up religion as a system in order that it may hold fast to morality as a life, and in that very act it gains for itself consistency and strength. It makes the effort to ground truth itself, all truth, and

certainly religious truth, on an ethical and moral basis. Those great and primary and cardinal intuitions of humanity itself which we call the moral law, these furnish a solid foundation upon which to build. The ethical impulse of skepticism, therefore, its moral quality, is its redeeming force, the very power by which the skeptic himself returns to religion.

Skepticism has a message for Christian, thought and theology in the fact that it leads in the direction of simplicity in matters of faith. It obliges theology itself to be careful and discriminating, to distinguish between what is essential and what is non-essential in Christianity. It means the rediscovery and the reassertion of those larger truths and those larger aspects of our divine religion, the Fatherhood of God, the Brotherhood of man, the Personalness of Christ, the awfulness of sin.

Skepticism is a plea for the largeness of truth, the richness and fullness of truth, the mystery and wondrousness of truth. It is a constant protest against all partial and petty statements of Christianity, all bigotry and intolerance. It is a plea for large-mindedness and for a more general spirit of Christian charity.

Behind the skeptical spirit there lies the deep conviction that religious truth must meet and satisfy the whole man, the total manhood, his entire being. It implies tacitly though not directly that man is made in the Divine image, that there is a kinship between man and God, and that God's truth must be capable of meeting and satisfying man's reason. If there is a God in the universe He must be our Father and we must be His children. We must know Him before we can really love Him. The knowledge of God, the revelation of God, the manifestation which God has made and continues to make of Himself to man-this, which constitutes the message of Christianity, describes at the same time the very need of skepticism. It seeks to know God, it is eager to know

the Christ, it is anxious to understand the Bible and the wonderful gospel of redemption; and it is the duty of the Christian thinker, the privilege of Christian theology, to make these things clear. Here is the power of the Christian pulpit, the inherent worth and dignity of the Christian ministry, that ministry of reconciliation. It is given to those who are ministers of the Gospel to guide, to lead and to direct the earnest skeptic in his search for truth. It is a tremendous responsibility, a tremendous task. There is such a thing as the teaching power of the parish, and the earnest Christian minister may learn something helpful even from the skeptics in his parish. The only way to reach them is by trying honestly to enter into their difficulties, appreciate their struggles and recognize the positive elements in skepticism itself. The permanent power of the pulpit, as the late Phillips Brooks has so beautifully pointed out, lies in its two-fold relationship. "It is truth passing through personality"; the truth of God, of Christ, passing through the ever-changing medium of human personality. It is therefore by the richness and fulness of the minister's inward experience, by the deeper sympathy and larger appreciation of those difficulties which others feel, and

by the recognition of those simple and essential elements in Christianity which distinguish it from everything else and which have given to it such wonderful uniqueness among the religions of the world, making it the great and splendid power for good which it is—these are the messages which we find in skepticism. The everlasting need of the human soul for Christ, which is the one great positive element in skepticism, is met by that other great positive aspect in Christianity, the perpetual presence of Christ Himself, who is forever manifesting Himself and giving Himself to the heart and mind and soul of man.

The great need of skepticism finds its supply and fulfilment in the great gift of the Christ. That which is most positive, most fundamental and most personal in Christianity, the Person of Christ, comes in as the completion of skepticism. Christ is at once the ideal, the consummation and the redemption of the skeptical spirit. He reveals its inner significance. He satisfies its noblest aspirations. He redeems its antagonisms, discords and bitter pain, making even skepticism a new witness to His own divine supremacy.

WLLIAM MITCHELL.
Jacksonville, Illinois.

IT

T IS NOW within the public knowledge that, whereas, once, we had a marine of our own, the best on the ocean, engaged in carrying our foreign trade, now we are nearly destitute of suitable shipping. Once, our commerce was conducted by our own people; our commercial independence was undisputed; our

country was fast becoming the richest and most prosperous in the world; whereas now, foregin nations not only command. our commerce and its carriage, but nearly monopolize both, to the exclusion of our merchants and our ships. Commercial and shipping dependency has become established; we are under spoliation, and

monetary panics may be expected with regularity. Every thoughtful American deplores the situation; many feel that it is disgraceful-perhaps a sign of our incapacity for self-government. Few would impute to a lack of ability or patriotism the neglect and indifference of the ruling party and its grave delinquency in duty plainly apparent, but the time has long passed by when it should have caused the recovery of our carrying trade and commercial independence, together with the prosperity consequent upon doing our own work on the ocean and in the marts abroad. Out of these circumstances arises the question whether or not the Republican party should now step down and out of power at Washington. True, it pretends that it will yet redeem its former good name, but, really, will it ever? Will it ever enact the constitutional and necessary law for shipping restoration? Does it promise this remedy in its platform?

as

What does a platform promise amount to? Thirty-six years ago the Republican party declared it was the duty of Congress to legislate for shipping restoration, then, now, only to be accomplished by returning to the policy of the fathersthe encouragement of navigation through the regulation of commerce-a policy proved very successful in bringing forth and maintaining the best marine in the world, at no cost to the people. Under this policy, in 1825-6, our vessels carried, of our own trade, 95.2 per cent. of imports and 89.6 per cent. of exports, besides serving other countries.

HOW AND WHEN OUR SHIPPING SITUATION ORIGINATED.

On account of peculiar relations with Great Britain, Congress was induced, in 1828, to pass an act for "maritime reciprocity" with any country desiring it, thereby to bring about a settlement of the "West India question." Accordingly, from time to time, as nations wanted to make "conventions" for the enjoyment of

the privilege and advantage of carrying our trade in their vessels on the footing of our own-no preference to exist-our government assented, and the hands of Congress were tied for a term of years, either party free to terminate the agreement after a notice of one year from the time fixed. The idea was, to permit the merchants of any country to bring goods to our ports, in their own vessels, from other countries than their own. The only ship protection of the different nations then was trade regulations. "Aid" by bounties and subsidies, or discriminating insurance, was not in vogue. Nobody supposed gift policies would ever obtain. it was imagined, on our part, that the conventions would be honestly and honorably observed in spirit and in letter, but we misplaced our faith. Our rivals long ago resorted to different means of protection and now have all they need. Our government has been imposed upon by foreign nations; it has sacrificed our marine, and, the ruling party has had forty years in which Congress might have terminated by a single joint resolution every one of our impolitic conventions for a fraudulent "maritime reciprocity."

OUR EARLY SHIP ENCOURAGEMENT.

When, from time to time, we made conventions, our ship protection to be cast off consisted not only of discriminating tonnage and tariff duties, but loaded vessels of the nation entering into the agreement had been obliged to come "direct" from their own countries. After the War of 1812, this was our marine's best defense. To illustrate: A British or French ship could not land a cargo from China or Brazil-only from places under the flag of the ship. A foreign merchant about to ship a cargo from China or Brazil to the United States had to employ an American ship, there being no Chinese or Brazilian. Now, our law being "suspended," more than half of all the goods imported in British ships come from ports not under their flag; while from 50 to 60 per cent.

of our total imports come in the same way-in ships not of the country of production. This carriage belongs by right to our own vessels, and thus our government gives away the transport of five to six hundred millions of import business to our rivals and possible enemies every year, but it will not, if it can avoid it, charter a single American collier to attend upon the

navy.

In 1827, before the present policy was adopted, our carriage in our own foreign trade was, for imports, 94.3 per cent.; for exports, 87.5 per cent. In 1861, on the opening of the Civil War, our carriage of imports was 60 per cent.; of exports, 72.1 per cent.-an average loss of 24 per cent.-due to our conventions. We came out of the war with a carriage of 24.6 per cent. for imports; and 26.1 for exports an average loss of 30.6 per cent. due to the war, mainly from British-Confederate privateers. For a few years gains were made, and in 1870 the figures reached, for imports, 33.1 per cent.; for exports, 37.7 per cent. For 1907, they were respectively, 13.17 and 8.52-a loss of 24.8 per cent., for which the Republican party cannot escape responsibility.

THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.

Consider for a moment the inconsistency of this great party. In its industrial policy, it professes to defend against the world all the industries needing encouragement, yet we have the disgusting spectacle of the most important maritime interest sacrificed to the cupidity of foreign nations-that they may call us good fellows" and laugh at our greenness in government. Our policy of 1828 was a serious mistake, which the Republican party has refused to rectify. This may easily be done, as was agreed upon, whenever either chose so to do. Νο nation can expect us to quit the sea for its advantage, and. simply because economic conditions prevent our success. None can justly complain if we take measures

to overcome these conditions, by returning to the policy under which our marine originally flourished. Then, our footing was equalized by regulations, and adverse conditions counted for nothing, just as they do to-day in our domestic shipping trade.

But, no, the Republican party continues conventions for the unprotection of our marine in the foreign trade-conventions that have ruined it-and that are disregarded by our rivals.

AN EXAMPLE OF PARTY IMPROBITY.

In 1896, the Republican platform promised a return to "discriminating duties," and its Presidential candidate highly approved this course, saying it should have been taken years before. Friends of American shipping of different parties gave Mr. McKinley many votes on account of his promise that his administration would return to the constitutional policy of the first five Presidents. Did he honor his engagement? To the shame of many of his supporters he did not. Mr. Hanna had the matter in hand, and the "Hanna-Payne" "ship-subsidy bill" was put forth. After hours of vain endeavor to stiffen McKinley's backbone, a disgusted Senator gave it up and declared that the Presidential vertebra was as limp as a dish-rag." Hanna had one of iron. (Poor man! he may have had hard "interests" to serve!) His bill was unconstitutional, besides being unfit for its work. All the same, in one form or another, it has held the boards with Republican leaders for the past ten or eleven years. Once in a while, Congress, in House or Senate, takes a nip out of it, as out of a green apple that is tested for acidity, but it does not become law and only serves to keep the shipping people pacified.

66

Judge Taft has said he "does not think that ship subsidy is unconstitutional," but he has been careful not to endorse it in his letter of acceptance. The convention, too, was cautious, and placed the shipping

plank on the top rail of the fence. It avoids a declaration for a gift policy in so many words, but promises to do something when the tide favors. A positive course is not taken.

Judge Taft has been urged to interpret his platform pledge to shipping. Here is the best he can do.

JUDGE TAFT ON THE SHIPPING QUESTION.

"The only respect in which nothing has been done is in the development of our foreign marine (1). As long as we uphold the system of protection for our home industries, we must recognize that it (2) is inapplicable to assist those of our citizens engaged in the foreign shipping business, because there is no feasible means of excluding foreign competition (3), and that the only other method of building up such a business is by direct aid in the form of a mail subsidy (4). I am in favor of the bill considered in the last Congress as a tentative step (5). The establishment of direct steamship lines between our Atlantic ports and South America would certainly do much to develop a trade that might be made far greater (6). On the Pacific, the whole shipping trade threatens to pass into the control of Japan (7). Something ought to be done, and the bill which failed was a step in the right direction "(8).

were provisions for the protection of our "foreign marine"-consisting of nearly double duties on China and India goods imported by foreign vessels, or from ports in Europe. This protection "developed " the Oriental commerce and carrying which our people enjoyed for a century. Other regulations subsequently made in connection with tonnage and tariff bills produced the best marine of the time. Under the power to regulate our foreign trade, embargo laws have been passed, and our ports have been closed to vessels from certain ports. Also, we have confined foreign ships to "direct" trade, and forbidden them to bring cargoes from countries not their own-all these things regardless of protection or unprotection to landed industries.

(3-4) "Mail subsidy" is constitutional payable under Clause 7 of Section 8 of Article I. of the Constitution. The government may own or charter the vesselsdo anything on the sea as on the land in regard to mails. But an ample marine would consist of vessels of all sorts to the extent of seven to eight million tons. Only 8 to 10 per cent. need be mailcarriers. The British marine has a less proportion. How will Mr. Taft procure the nine-tenths of the marine wanted? He favors having as much marine as can be subsidized, but that appears to be all. There is a method that he may not have thought of, and may not favor, but which possibly he may regard with complacency-that is by annexation to Great Britain. Mr. Taft was chief authority in the government of the Philippines. He was in position to favor the extension of our coast-wise law to the business between them and the United States. This was a benefit that might have been realized from our relations to them, and would have largely helped our vessels to employment and our merchants to trade. Only Spain was entitled for ten years to carry in this commerce, but Mr. Taft saw to it that a British shipping combination continued in it. In 1904, Congress passed an act enforceable in 1906, that American vessels