part of the
benefit they have conferred on the community.

Take away the opportunity for winning either money or
distinction by rendering such services, and few men, as
human nature is constituted, would render them.

It is right that competition between men should be brought
within constantly narrower and narrower rules of justice.
This is possible without taking away the initiative which
makes men do things, and seems to me the direction in which,
in spite of obstacles, humanity is tending.

Closely related to these arguments is the opinion of the New York _Evening
Post_:

We do not believe that there is so formidable a jealousy and
hatred of wealth, in itself, as is frequently alleged to
exist, and to be growing. The sting lies in wealth unjustly
acquired. It is ill-gotten gain, flaunting itself, that is
the great breeder of socialism.

FOR THE REFORM OF ENGLISH SPELLING.

Many Representative Men Associated
With the New Movement to
Simplify Orthography.

Andrew Carnegie's latest activity is to champion a movement for the reform
of English spelling. He has promised to finance a campaign by the
Simplified Spelling Board. The greater part of the actual campaign work
will be done by the following executive committee of the board: Professor
Brander Matthews, chairman; Dr. Charles P.G. Scott, secretary; Dr. William
Hayes Ward, Henry Holt, Dr. I.K. Funk, and Colonel H.B. Sprague. With Mr.
Carnegie's backing, far-reaching results are likely to be gained.

Movements for reformed spelling are no new thing, but this is the first
one that has been adequately financed.

Word comes from England that the poet Swinburne denounces the Carnegie
plan as "a monstrous, barbarous absurdity." But the American press, on the
whole, seems favorable. For example, the New York _Times_ says:

The number of people who are vehemently in love with the
difficulties, absurdities, inconsistencies--and crystallized
ignorances--of our present spelling is very small, and
neither their denunciation nor their ridicule will weigh at
all heavily upon the great majority, who look upon spelling
as a means to an end, and to an end quite different from the
preservation of etymological history in the most clumsy,
expensive, and deceptive of forms.

One might imagine, from the way in which the enemies of this
reform run on, that any changes made