the Jewish
people or the wild vaporings of such a crank as infests practically
every conference and convention. We do not know who translated the
alleged protocols, nor in what language they were written. Moreover,
not one word of assurance does Professor Nilus give on his own account
that he knows any of these things. He does not appear to have made any
investigation of any kind. In view of the rest of his work we may be
quite sure that had he done so he would have told us. He does not even
tell us, in this edition of 1905, that the person from whom he
acquired the "translation" was known to him as a reliable and
trustworthy person. He does not profess to know anything more than I
have already quoted from him. No one knows Nilus himself. So much for
the explanation of 1905.

Before I pass on to consider a later and different explanation made by
the mysterious Nilus, a few brief observations upon the story now
before us may not be out of place, especially since the _Dearborn
Independent_ has accepted it and made it the basis of its propaganda.
How is it possible for any person possessing anything approaching a
trained mind, and especially for one accustomed to historical study,
to accept as authentic, and without adequate corroboration, documents
whose origin and history are so clouded with secrecy, mystery, and
ignorance? And how can men and women who are to all appearances
rational and high-minded bring themselves to indict and condemn a
whole race, invoking thereby the perils of world-wide racial conflict,
upon the basis of such flimsy, clouded, and tainted testimony? No
decent and self-respecting judge or jury anywhere in the United States
would, I dare believe, convict the humblest individual of even petty
crime upon the basis of such testimony. Serious charges made by a
complainant who does not appear in court and is not known to the
court, an alleged translation of an alleged original, not produced in
court, alleged to have been stolen by an anonymous thief not produced
in court, from an alleged conspirator not named nor produced in court,
and not a scintilla of corroborative evidence, direct or
circumstantial--was ever a chain of evidence so flimsy? By comparison,
the discovery of the _Book of Mormon_ is a well-attested event.

Now let us consider another very different story told by Nilus. In
January, 1917--the date is important--another edition of the book, so
greatly enlarged and rewritten as to be almost