dy conquest
by us by observing this law. Does it not look ridiculous that
established governments in this enlightened age sends thousands of
unfortunates to prison as punishment for murdering, for to steal and
rob, while these same nations are armed with all descriptable weapons
like so many bandits ever ready to jump at each other's throat. What
else is war but murder for to rob that which belongs to others. Since
men have learned to work they have no more right to war. The salvation
of the human family must be worked out by international Commercialism
the sooner all industrial establishments of the world unite like in the
days of the Hansa can the social questions be solved. International
Commercialism must have individual legislation and jurisdiction,
independent from national legislation, but must be acknowledged by all
states and the United States is the only power ruled by commercialism
without a mailed fiat and will be the first to recognize International
Commercialism for this alone will abolish and distribute wealth more
fair and just, and work to a higher state of civilization.

JOHN SCHRANK.

CHAPTER XXII.

UNUSUAL COURT PRECEDENT.

Judge August C. Backus' method of conducting the Schrank case has
established a precedent for such cases, and the action of the court in
establishing a new form of procedure has met with favorable comment on
the part of lawyers, alienists, court officials and editors all over
the world.

Instructing the commission of five alienists in its duties Judge Backus
said:

Gentlemen of the Commission:

"You have been appointed as an impartial commission to examine into the
present mental condition of the defendant John Schrank, who is charged
with the crime of assault with intent to kill and murder Theodore
Roosevelt, with a loaded revolver, on the 14th day of October, 1912, in
the city and county of Milwaukee and state of Wisconsin.

"The court in this proceeding will finally determine the issue. I have
decided to take this method of procedure instead of a jury trial,
because as a rule in trials by jury the case resolves itself into a
battle of medical experts, and in my experience I have never witnessed
a case where the testimony of the experts on one side was not directly
contradicted by the testimony of as many or more experts on the other
side. Where men especially trained in mental and nervous diseases
disagree, how can it be expected that a jury of twelve laymen