their innocent victims are in hell. The church
has taught so long that he who acts virtuously carries a cross,
and that only sinners enjoy themselves, that it may be that for a
little while after men leave the church they may go to extremes
until they demonstrate for themselves that the path of vice is the
path of thorns, and that only along the wayside of virtue grow the
flowers of joy. The church has depicted virtue as a sour, wrinkled
termagant; an old woman with nothing but skin and bones, and a
temper beyond description; and at the same time vice has been
painted in all the voluptuous outlines of a Greek statue. The
truth is exactly the other way. A thing is right because it pays;
a thing is wrong because it does not; and when I use the word
"pays," I mean in the highest and noblest sense.

--_The Daily News_, Denver, Colorado, January 17, 1884.

FREE TRADE AND CHRISTIANITY.

_Question_. Who will be the Republican nominee for President?

_Answer_. The correct answer to this question would make so many
men unhappy that I have concluded not to give it.

_Question_. Has not the Democracy injured itself irretrievably by
permitting the free trade element to rule it?

_Answer_. I do not think that the Democratic party weakened itself
by electing Carlisle, Speaker. I think him an excellent man, an
exceedingly candid man, and one who will do what he believes ought
to be done. I have a very high opinion of Mr. Carlisle. I do not
suppose any party in this country is really for free trade. I find
that all writers upon the subject, no matter which side they are
on, are on that side with certain exceptions. Adam Smith was in
favor of free trade, with a few exceptions, and those exceptions
were in matters where he thought it was for England's interest not
to have free trade. The same may be said of all writers. So far
as I can see, the free traders have all the arguments and the
protectionists all the facts. The free trade theories are splendid,
but they will not work; the results are disastrous. We find by
actual experiment that it is better to protect home industries.
It was once said that protection created nothing but monopoly; the
argument was that way, but the facts are not. Take, for instance,
steel rails; when we bought them of England we paid one hundred
and twenty-five dollars a ton. I believe there was a tariff of
twenty-eight or twenty-nine dollars a ton, and yet in spite of all
the argu