31 ? 
 
 A Lucid Letter on the Issues of 
 
 the Campaign 
 
 -By 
 
 REV. EMANUEL SCHREIBER, 
 
 Rabbi Temple Emanuel. 
 
Chicago, III., August 16, 1900. 
 
 Mr. Leopold Moss, City. 
 
 My Dear Friend: Your letter of August 9, asking me to give you my 
 opinion on the issues of the campaign, came to hand. Considering the fact 
 that we are old friends from Los Angeles, I will comply with your wish. 
 
 I know there are those who would cling to the childish notion of their 
 grandparents, that ministers and rabbis have no opinions, or at least, 
 should not express their convictions on the living questions of the day. 
 But this ought not to be the view of progressive men and women. For if 
 it is true that the minister is the follower of the prophets of old, then 
 it is not only his right, but his sacred duty, not to be silent whenever 
 it is time to speak out. There was no question of government, great or 
 small, which was not a matter of deep concern to the Hebrew prophets 
 of old; they made political speeches on street corners, and from the roofs 
 of houses wherever and whenever the people assembled and the emer¬ 
 gencies of the time demanded it. There is nothing in the anti-imperialistic 
 and anti-trust literature of this country which could be compared to the 
 strong denunciations against imperialism and trusts made by the prophets. 
 Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Micah, and most particularly Amos. The 
 Hebrew prophets were the first, oldest, strongest and most outspoken 
 anti-imperialists. They saw with their mind’s eye the ideal government, 
 only then realized when “the • swords will be changed into sickles, and 
 spears into pruning-hooks, when nation will not lift up arms against 
 nation, and the art of war will be taught no more.” (Isaiah, Chap. 2; 
 Micah, Chap. 4.) To them religion was politics because they wanted 
 politics to be conducted from the high standard of ethics and religion. 
 What they considered wicked in the individual they regarded doubly 
 wrong and tvicked in the nation. Their principle was, “Justice and right¬ 
 eousness will exalt a nation, while wrong-doing will disgrace the people.” 
 This truism has been verified in the history of old modern nations, and 
 history repeats itself. The powerful republics of Greece and Rome per¬ 
 ished through imperialism. The great Napoleon Bonaparte and Spain, 
 in whose land at one time the sun nevei' set , -were ruined by imperialism. 
 Italy’s colonial policy with its exorbitant taxation of the people was the 
 cause of her bread riots. The great trouble, however, is that neither 
 individuals nor nations profit by the sad experiences of others. Only the 
 burnt child shuns the fire. The fact that another child was burnt exercises 
 little influence on its action So it is with grown children. 
 
 It is idle for me to express an opinion on all the issues of the present 
 campaign. One issue is enough. What would you think of husband and 
 wife getting excited over the size and color of the furniture and carpets 
 of their rooms while their whole house was afire? And even so it is 
 with regard to the present campaign. What are all the issues which 
 touch only financial and material interests in comparison with the all- 
 important. grand, sublime and overwhelming question, whether these great 
 
United States should change into an empire or remain a republic ? Did 
 it ever occur to you that Republicans, by the very fact of being Repub¬ 
 licans, ought not to support an imperialistic policy? The Republican 
 must be in favor of a republic, and not uphold a monarchical form of 
 government; must support a democracy and not an oligarchy. 1 
 mean, of course, “democracy” not in the partisan but in its original sense 
 which is “ government of the people in contradistinction to aristocracy ”— 
 government by the privileged class. Of course the Republicans indignantly 
 refute the very suggestion that they favor an empire; and yet, all the 
 argument they generally bring forth runs somewhat like this: “Well, 
 this country will not so soon become an empire; the danger is not yet at 
 hand.” Not yet! In Rome they used to say that it was the consul’s duty 
 to see that no harm befell the republic (ne quid detrimenti res publica 
 eaperet). They were forewarned. Ovid, the great Roman poet, said: 
 “Principiis obsta,” etc., at the outset you must resist the disease, too 
 late is the remedy prepared when the illness had once taken control of 
 the whole body.” “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Therefore, 
 even if it were true that the protectorate over the Philippines by this 
 country might involve us in war with European powers, even then the 
 imperialistic policy of the administration must still be most emphatically 
 condemned. Better a war with the' European powers for the American 
 principles of justice, righteousness, liberty and fair play than a war of 
 conquest and subjugation against a weak ally waged in the interest of 
 greed, injustice, servitude and oppression. For a righteous war in defense 
 of the Declaration of Independence and the American Constitution there 
 will always be more volunteers than necessary. But the men in the 
 Republican party who all of a sudden scare the people with their pos¬ 
 sible European war know better. A German saying is: “Bange machen 
 gilt nicht” (“We cannot be frightened so easy”). But on the other hand, 
 what would it mean if imperialism should prevail in the coming election? 
 It would mean the stepping backward into barbarism. It would mean 
 a death, blow to constitutional government all over the world. Imperial¬ 
 ism and militarism have made the French Government a byword and a: 
 laughing-stock, have made the Dreyfus case possible. 
 
 All the threats of an international war and of the 
 country in the event of Bryan’s election are unworthy 
 This country enjoys such a great prestige in the world that the words, 
 “Hands off from the Philippines,” coming from the United States, will 
 be fully respected in Europe; because the world knows that in a just and 
 righteous war our country is invincible. Had our war against the Philip¬ 
 pines not been one of “criminal aggression,” as President McKinley justly 
 called it, it would have been over long ago. It would have taken less 
 than a hundred days—the time it took for our victory over Spain—and 
 would have ended with glory for the United States. As it is, there is no 
 enthusiasm for it among the soldiers, because they know that they 
 
 ruination of our 
 of consideration. 
 
 are 
 
 not engaged in a good and noble cause They feel that they kill and are 
 killed for no other purpose than to satisfy the insatiable gfreed of unscru¬ 
 pulous trusts and franchise-grabbers, who in the end (and God alone 
 knows when this end may be) will be the only beneficiaries of this unholy 
 and wicked war of conquest. Tf the soldiers lack enthusiasm for this war 
 of “criminal aggression.” the people of the United States abhor it. Even 
 the most fanatical and bigoted Republicans do not dare approve it. For 
 how can they approve what President McKinley called “criminal aggres¬ 
 sion?” They therefore say: “We are in it and must make the best of it.” 
 And so we go on making not “the best”, but the worst of it. For the 
 killing of over two thousand American soldiers, the death by disease of at 
 least double that number, the crippling, disabling and wounding of thou¬ 
 sands of others is to be sure, not “the best” in the bargain. Neither is the 
 wasting of at least two hundred million dollars which the war has de¬ 
 voured so far, “the best.” Had this vast amount of money been spent 
 
oy the Government in irrigating the many millions of acres of land lying 
 idle between Chicago and San Francisco on the one, and Chicago and New 
 Orleans on the other hand, it would help support our millions of white 
 settlers and farmers, which is more than the whole population of the 
 Phillipines. Such a course would have been of greater benefit to the 
 people of the United States and to true civilization, than a forcible 
 conquest of the Philippines could ever possibly be; for the farmers, labor¬ 
 ing men and small merchants will never be benefited by this “criminal 
 aggression” and annexation. At present they have to pay for it with 
 the blood of their sons and with the burden of taxation ; but later on when 
 “crown colonies” will be ours, they will have to pay for them in the shape 
 of cheap imported oriental labor. Those who, as you and I, have seen the 
 workings in California by Chinese competition in every branch of 
 business, manufacture and labor, a fact which is the main cause why San 
 Francisco's population does not increase at the same rate as other American 
 cities—know what is in store for this country after the conquest of the 
 Philippines. 
 
 And is the innocent blood of the Filipinos which is being shed by 
 our boys, nothing? Are they not God’s children? Are they not engaged in 
 a noble, sublime and holy cause? Are they not fighting and struggling 
 for the same principles of liberty and freedom and independence for which 
 we yearly celebrate the Fourth of July? Is it their fault that our Presi¬ 
 dent repeated regarding them the role which King George III. played with 
 regard to the fathers of our Republic? George III. in his proclamation 
 of 1776 said: “It is my desire to restore to the American colonists the 
 blessing of law and order, which they have exchanged to their own harm, 
 with the terror of war and the arbitrary tyranny of their leaders.” In 
 his Minneapolis speech of Oct. 12, 1899, McKinley said: “I believe that 
 Congress will give to the Filipinos a government which will be a 
 blessing to them.” A wonderful agreement between George the Third’s and 
 the President of the Republic! 
 
 A government is not a thing which can be “given or bestowed.” Our 
 constitution plainly speaks for the- “ rights of government and of self- 
 government.” I, for one, prefer a bad government under a Republic to 
 the blessing of the best government under a king. Because in a Republic 
 had government can be changed by a vote of the people. And yet, unbiased 
 judgment will force every honest historian to admit that George III. 
 had a better case against the fathers of our Republic than has the 
 present administration against the Filipinos. The action of George 
 III. then was less eondemnable than is the action of our President now. 
 The Filipinos trusted in the fairness, honor, generosity and justice of this 
 great Republic, as a child trusts in its mother. They were our allies to 
 whom we were under obligations. The fathers of our Republic were at least 
 rebels and insurgents against England and made no secret of it. Are the 
 Filipinos indeed insurgents against the United States? No, and a thousand 
 times no! No matter what the administration press may say about it, they 
 never belonged to us, Spain had no right to sell what she did not possess. 
 They might have been rebels against Spain, but they were not rebels against 
 the United States. Human beings are not cattle that can be sold without 
 their consent. Lincoln, the true Republican, abolished slavery. Were Mr. 
 McKinley a Republican of the Lincoln calibre, he would never have dis¬ 
 graced his presidential term by staining our flag with a blot of slavery by 
 allowing the Stars and Stripes to float over the territory of the Sultan of 
 Sulu where slavery rules supreme. Again, George the Third was absolutely 
 under no obligations to George Washington or other rebels against Great 
 Britain: but’ our great Republic plays the part of the ingrate against those 
 who were her best allies and trusting friends. Old as history is, it furnishes 
 very few cases of such base ingratitude. That monarchies are ungrateful, 
 is an old story; but our action regarding Aguinaldo, is a chain of hypocrisy, 
 deceit, falsehood and ingratitude. In 1898 when the Republic was organized 
 
 4 
 
in the Philippines as in Cuba, when the administration was officially in¬ 
 formed that the Filipinos insisted on independence (see reports of Consul 
 Williams, General Whittier, Pratt, Wildman, Aguinaldo’s proclamation 
 and other documents) then it would have been the proper time for the 
 administration to undeceive their allies and friends. Such action, while it 
 might not have been noble, generous, grateful and worthy of the greatest 
 Republic on earth, would at least have been straightforward. But at that 
 time, those who controlled the President’s actions, did not yet deem the hour 
 ripe and the moment opportune, to stab the trusting friend in the back. At 
 that time President McKinley deemed it still necessary to deceive the Fili¬ 
 pinos and the Americans with the insincere phrase in his message: “I do 
 not speak of forcible annexation, for nobody thinks of it. According to our 
 moral code, this would be criminal aggression —April 11th, 1898. At that 
 time Commander Bradford was still permitted to tell the truth to Mr. Frye 
 about Aguinaldo. When in Paris, he declared: “We have become re¬ 
 sponsible for all he did, he is our ally and we must protect him/'—Oct. 14tli. 
 1898. Of course now Aguinaldo is slandered as a man who took bribes. That 
 Aguinaldo did not accept the bribe from Spain, is best proven by such 
 American authorities as Consul Wildman at Hong Kong, and Consul Wil¬ 
 liams at Manila. Would Aguinaldo be a man of such low character as he 
 now is made out to be by the administration, and press, some of the shrewd 
 trust lobbyists in Washington would long ago have succeeded in bribing 
 Aguinaldo as they have bought up many a great American politician not 
 belonging to those “wild savages incapable of self-government.” That ad¬ 
 ministration circles know of the injustice of this war of conquest, is best 
 proven by their stooping to that old, threadbare excuse of, “manifest 
 destiny and divine providence.” These cheap phrases have been since time 
 immemorial, the screens behind which tyrants, despots and kings tried to 
 hide their evil doings and wrongs. The very corner-stone of “royalty by 
 divine grace” is based upon this “manifest destiny business.” Every national 
 crime can be defended on this score. No sane man can believe that what 
 was “criminal aggression” according to President McKinley on April 11th, 
 
 1898, has become “manifest destiny and divine providence” on Feb. 16tli, 
 
 1899. (McKinley’s words in Boston and Minneapolis.) Another proof that 
 the Republicans know the administration to be wrong on this question, can 
 be seen in their frantic efforts to becloud the issues. They are afraid to call 
 a spade a spade. You will never find in the administration press and in the 
 speeches of Republican orators the term “imperialism;” they prefer to use 
 the harmless word “expansion.” By the claim that the great Domccrat, 
 Jefferson, was an expansionist, they hope to deceive the people. Jefferson 
 believed in expansion by means of freedom, but not in expansion by means 
 of brute force and conquest ’’without the consent of the governed.” Enlarg¬ 
 ing the Republic so that the Constitution followed the flag, is a consumma¬ 
 tion devoutly to be wished. This was Jefferson’s expansion theory; but with 
 the counterfeit of colonial possessions which is now the policy of the admin¬ 
 istration with forcible annexation of territory to be governed by arbitrary 
 power, with “taxation without representation,” men like Jefferson, Lincoln 
 and other patriots and lovers of freedom, had no patience. Jefferson de¬ 
 clared most emphatically: “If there is one principle more deeply rooted 
 than any other in the breast of every American, it is, that we should have 
 nothing to do icith conquest.” Again, he said: “Conquest is not in our 
 principles, it is inconsistent with our government.” 1 might change the 
 words of the psalmist alluding to idolators of gold, silver and stone, in a 
 way that it might apply to the idolatrous, “they have eyes, but do not want 
 to see; they have ears, but do not want to hear.” And why ? Because they 
 are idolators in the sense of party worship. The Republicans are well aware 
 of Lincoln’s and Jefferson’s views, but they bow down before the idol of 
 their party. 
 
 They cannot emancipate themselves from the slavery of party. In their 
 party fanaticism, many Republicans go so far as to style those noble men 
 
who, like Senator Wellington of Maryland, care more for the welfare of 
 their country than for the victory of their party—Traitor! Traitor to whom ? 
 To Mark Hanna? to the Standard Oil Company and other trusts hostile to 
 the people? Has it come so far that trusts are monopolizing and cornering 
 patriotism? Judged by the standard of Abraham Iincoln’s patriotism and 
 Republicanism, it is more than questionable whether Lincoln, if alive to¬ 
 day, would vote for the Republican ticket. Hence, he too, like Wellington, 
 on account of his support of the Declaration of Independence, might be 
 styled “traitor’ by the Republicans of the Mark Hanna stripe. Would to 
 God there were many such "traitors” as Carl Schurz, Olney, Wilson, and 
 Wellington. According to up-to-date Republicanism, the following borders 
 on treason: “When we were political slaves of George the Third and wanted 
 to be free, we called the maxim that all men are “created equal” a self-evi¬ 
 dent truth : but now that we have grown fat and have lost all fear of being 
 slaves ourselves, we have become so greedy to be masters that we call the 
 maxim “a self-evident lie” “The Fourth of July has not quite dwindled 
 away, it is still a great day for burning firecrackers.” Yet this declaration 
 was made Aug. 15, 1855, by Abraham Lincoln. Xo Mark Hanna Repub¬ 
 lican dare to-day indorse such “treasonable” doctrine. 
 
 But we often hear the maxim, “Our Country, right or wrong.” This is 
 false and pernicious doctrine. When our country is wrong, it is the duty 
 of our people to right it. This has been for over three years, and is still 
 the issue in France with regard to the Dreyfus case. True French patriots 
 like Zola, Picquart, Scheurer,—Kestner, Reinach and others, bitterly, 
 valiantly and to great extent successfully fought the wrong principle “our 
 country right or wrong.” How much more reprehensible then is the maxim 
 “our party right or wrong,” which alas! constitutes to-day the creed of more 
 than one-half of the Republican party. The country existed long before the 
 party was born, and will exist long after the Republican party will have died 
 of inanition and corruption. The argument of these party idolators is, “we 
 dislike and regret the Philippine business; but we are ‘in it,’ and must go 
 on to the bitter end.” Why go on ? The fact that the administration put us 
 into the business, is no reason at all why we must stay—“in it.” Much 
 better to put the country out of it, by putting those out of power who in true 
 imperialistic fashion, without the least authority from the people, without 
 even asking Congress, indulged in a war of conquest in defiance of the 
 American Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. That with the 
 re-election of McKinley the foundations of our government would be en¬ 
 dangered, can be best seen by the brazen impudence with which even, now the 
 Declaration of Independence is publicly assailed. 
 
 William Dudley Foulke of Indiana, has signalized his coming to the 
 support of the administration's imperial policy, by declaring in a public 
 speech that “the statement found in the Declaration of Independence, that 
 all men are created equal, is not true.” What will the supporters of the 
 administration do after election, in case it should again be placed in power? 
 It is nothing new to hear now-a-days the Declaration of Independence 
 ridiculed as an antiquated document, as “impracticable»sentimentality”, 
 like some lullaby from olden times when this country was still in its in¬ 
 fancy ; but out of time and rhyme with our age of billion-trusts and Stand- 
 ard Oil methods of crushing to death all those who dare to be independent 
 of this octopus. There are in this country, only too many sycophants and 
 tools of England’s who, in their servilism to British royalty, -are not 
 ashamed to say that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution, 
 those most costly gems in the diadem of human civilization, are mere “cra¬ 
 dle-fixings” and “swaddling clothes” which we have outgrown. They are 
 Esaus who would sell their birthright for a mess of pottage in the shape 
 of England’s approval. Such “anarchy” enthroned on high, must be con¬ 
 quered in the coming election, or the Republic will have ceased to be, perhaps 
 not in name, but certainly in fact. For a Republic cannot endure with a 
 population composed of free people and slaves. Such a state of affairs, must 
 in the long run. destroy the Republie. 
 
 6 
 
By sowing the seeds of contempt for our Constitution abroad, we shall 
 reap a whirlwind at home. Our children will in vain appeal for their 
 heaven-born rights against the encroachment of the trusts and other evil 
 powers now enthroned in high places. Careful students of history know 
 that from Hamilton’s time to the present day there have grown in power 
 an ever increasing class of people to whom the Jeffersonian spirit of our Re¬ 
 public is a thorn in the flesh; who look upon our form of government as a 
 kind of experiment to be tolerated no longer than is absolutely necessary. 
 This influential clique composed of the plutocracy and upstarts who would 
 sell the Republic for a smile from the Prince of Wales, see now their time 
 at hand. For they are the power behind the throne in the Republican 
 party. These Anglo-maniacs get their cue from England. The British press 
 teas the fir$t to urge our administration to take .and to keep the Philip¬ 
 pines. This coterie naturally prevented an expression of sympathy for 
 the Boers from this country. This band of army contractors, ship owners, 
 franchise-grabbers, carpet-baggers and adventurers would make a great deal 
 of money out of the Filipinos—they only and nobody else. These coward¬ 
 ly hunters after the European titles of nobility for their heiresses urged 
 upon the administration the imperialistic policy of forcible conquest. Why? 
 Not so much for the sake of distant colonies, but for the purpose of forcing 
 their government to have a large standing army. They need such an army 
 because they know that the concentration of the national wealth in a few 
 hands and trusts, is a dangerous undertaking in a Republic. Hence, they 
 want a large number of hired regular soldiers paid by the government who 
 could be relied upon to shoot harmless citizens and laboring men in case of 
 emergency. I know that the Republican party has great fascination for the 
 German American. Long before I came to this country, which was in 1881, 
 I was an intensely ardent Republican. My heart bled when I read in the 
 German papers of Garfield’s assassination. I devoted part of my sermon in 
 a German temple to the denunciation of that crime. Although at first living 
 in the South, I was an enthusiastic Republican and cast proudly my first 
 vote for James G. Blaine. And so nearly all educated German Americans, 
 as soon as they land on these shores are staunch Republicans. It is the name 
 which exercises such an inspiring influence. Coming from a land where mil¬ 
 itarism is in its fullest glory, where the most ignorant and arrogant—the two 
 generally go hand in hand—young lieutenant is more respected and honored 
 than the oldest and greatest professor, they naturally hate and despise this 
 accursed institution of militarism. Hence, they see in the Republic the very 
 climax of anti-militarism. Not well versed in the affairs of this country 
 they think as I thought, that the Republican party is the noblest and 
 strongest expression of anti-monarchism. “Well, ‘Fuimus Troes’—we have 
 been Trojans,” exclaimed Panthus at the sight of Troy in flames. At one 
 time the Republican party did appeal strongly to the German American, 
 but this has been before the party was controlled by Mark Hanna, the 
 trusts and all the evil powers of corruption. As I said in the beginning, 
 the house is afire and we have no time to waste our energies on side 
 issues. 
 
 The treatment of Porto Rico shows how a President who knew our 
 plain duty towards our most faithful friends, changed his opinion on 
 account of certain pernicious influences. The Filipinos, like the Porto 
 Ricans, would have done for this country in the way of commerce and 
 patronage much more than the imperialists hope to get from them after 
 their subjugation by brutal force. There is no need for me to say a 
 word on other issues. The trust issue, is the imperialist issue and vice 
 rersa. One would not exist without the other. 
 
 Let me close with the quotation of two noble passages; one from Mr. 
 McKinley when he was still true to his better self and the best aspirations 
 of True Republicanism. Mr. McKinley’s words uttered in 1890 at a New 
 England dinner in New York City, read as follows: 
 
 “Human rights and constitutional privileges must not be forgotten in 
 
 7 
 
4 
 
 the race for wealth and eomnierciai supremacy. The government by the 
 people must be by the people and not by a few of the people. It must 
 rest upon the free consent of the governed. Power, it must be remembered, 
 which is secured by oppression, or usurpation, or by any form of injus¬ 
 tice, is soon dethroned The other passage is the famous admonition of 
 Abraham Lincoln, uttered Nov. 19th, 1863, at the dedication of the ceme¬ 
 tery at Gettysburg. It reads as follows: 
 
 “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon thi> 
 continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the propo¬ 
 sition that all men are created equal. It is for us, the living, rather to 
 dedicate to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far 
 so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be dedicated to the great task- 
 remaining before us that we here highly resolve that these dead shall 
 not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, 
 and that government of the people by the people and for the people, shall 
 not perish from the earth.” 
 
 Needless to sav that so far as I am concerned I shall cast mv vote for 
 the noble standard-bearer —William Jennings Bryan. Your friend, 
 
 Emanuel Schreiber. 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 
 

 2 Z ^ 
 
 2. TJ 
 
 2 ° 5 
 
 0Q 3J 
 
 Cv- 
 
 a- ’—• 3 
 
 5T ►a’ 
 
 
 o g 5P 
 
 o S' 
 
 
 H-l O 
 
 5 s. - 
 
 v» CD . 
 
 r^: 
 
 ^ o 
 < 00 
 
 3 1 
 
 N 
 
 2“ o' 
 
 CTQ O 
 
 v* H i i 
 
 0 
 
 o 
 
 v. *- CD cn _ 
 
 oO'C^cr | -hH§ _ 
 
 o cr 2. rc -o 73 < 
 
 n ^ *+> 2 rB o ° o < 
 
 - - o p* ctq ” a. o 
 
 S Zl ** 
 
 tr* ^ 
 
 ° M ^ 
 
 -C? ?a 
 
 n 
 
 o o 
 
 3 3 
 
 — ^ 
 
 p 3 3 U g. ~ 
 
 £ 2, a- £ c ^ 
 
 8 r ° 2 cr 3 < o 
 
 L o^. !*< 5 = ^ 
 
 3h~ ft 3 O ^ j;- 3 
 
 8J O ~ orq C s. Ej .ft) 
 
 os E£ 2. ° cr B* <_ 
 
 a «<§. & o g. | 
 
 " O O oo 3 g 
 
 Jlas'Da S 5' 
 e. s- • = g § 2 to 
 
 3- 
 O 
 
 03 
 
 cr 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 03 
 
 3 
 
 Q- 
 
 
 3 
 
 s 
 
 H< 2 
 
 O 5 
 c < 
 
 03 
 
 ^ 3“ ?• tn ^ 
 
 e> 5 § ? S. oo 
 
 M OQ - y 
 o •' J o & 
 
 03 s* ^2 3 
 
 O r< CD 
 
 p, ° o 
 
 go 
 
 o 
 
 3 
 
 D- 
 
 o 
 
 i -t 
 
 X %> 
 
 M g- 
 
 r- o 
 ■_ H cr 
 o — G 
 
 8 >■ m 
 + Z3 
 ‘ G § 
 w g 
 
 CD 
 
 r 
 
 m 
 
 n 
 
 x 
 
 73 
 
 W 
 
 CO 
 
 M 
 
 PO 
 
 
 03 
 
 2 
 
 H 
 
 W 
 
 2 
 
 ^3 
 
 r 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 2 
 
 > 
 
 c 
 
 w 
 
 r 
 
 o 
 
 3^ 
 
 o’ 
 
 03 
 
 CTQ 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 G 
 73 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 G 
 
 C/5 
 
 G 
 
 > 
 
 G 
 
 G 
 
 s 
 
 > 
 
 r 
 
 G 
 
 n 
 
 o 
 
 r 
 
 g 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 G 
 
 G 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 S 
 
 g 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 oo 
 
 "a 
 
 X3 
 
 VJ 
 
 3j 
 
 a. 
 
 o 
 
 a. 
 
 CTQ 
 
 3“ 
 
 f““f- 
 
 CD 
 
 03 
 
 *-t 
 
 03 
 
 3 
 
 Cl 
 
 03 
 
 in 
 
 m 
 
 a 
 
 G 
 
 C/5 
 
 O 
 
 G 
 
 H 
 
 G 
 
 G 
 
 n 
 
 > 
 
 — 
 
 g 
 
 > 
 
 M 
 
 o 
 
 03 
 
 
 o 
 
 p 
 
 o 
 
 C5 
 
 CD 
 
 w 
 
 fo 
 
 D- 
 
 CD 
 
 73 
 
 Cl 
 
 =tt ^ 
 
 LO C/3 
 O C/3 
 
 bo o 
 
 2 
 
 5 * 
 
 LO 
 
 OO 
 
 i 
 
 'O 
 
 LO 
 
 CO 
 
 ► 
 
 9 
 
 *Q 
 
 C 
 
 P 
 
 P 
 
 9 
 
 w 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 7 ? 
 
 in 
 
 r 
 
 r 
 
 n 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 https://archive.org/details/ourhouseafirelucOOschr