ESTABLISHED 1S44.
GREENSEORO, N. 0., WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1907.
VOLUME LIX. NUMBER 37.
All communications, whether for publica
tion or pertaining to matters c« •» isiness,
should be sent to the Editor, J. O. Atkinson,
Elon College, N. C.
EDITORIAL COMMENT.
Tragedy and Mystery.—All tragedy is mys
tery, because unnatural, and per contra, all
mystery, as a rule, is tragedy for the same
reason. Mystery dr tragedy is perplexing and
deplorable enought, but darken mystery with
tragedy, or deepen tragedy with mystery and
you have a most unholy combination. Such
a combination is the Beaseley-Harrison epi
sode in Currituck. Co., N. C., in which episode
seven year old Kenneth Beasely disappeared
as suddenly and as completely as if the
ground had swallowed him and closed its
jaws forever; and the last act of the episode
ended last Wednesday when Joshua Harri
son, accused and convicted of kidnapping
Kenneth, hlew out his brains with a pistol in
a Norfolk, Va., hotel. In 1905 Kenneth’s
father was a member of the Legislature at*
Raleigh. One day when the lad was return
ing from school he disappeared, and all
searching found no clue ^to the missing boy.
In due season rumor went out that a neigh
bor, Joshua Harrison, had .kidnapped and
made way with the boy. A trial followed
in which it was shown that Harrison had
threatened the Beasely boy’s father and had
been seen with young Kenneth after the
mysterious disappearance. There was produced
much damaging circumstantial evidence which
a jury decided was sufficient to convict. The
court’s decree was twenty years in the pen
itentiary. The case was appealed to the Su
preme Court, and on appeal there being
heard, a new trial was refused and the de
cision of the lower court unanimously and
vigorously affirmed by the higher court.
When Harrjson learned the final decision and
that he was not to“be granted a new trial
and that his sentence of twenty years must
begin he ended his life with a bullet while the
officer was in the hotel seeking his arrest.
A note was found on the dead man’s person
declaring his innocence.
But even suicide has not changed public
opinion. The verdict of the public, from
evidence that seems beyond dispute or doubt,
is that Joshua Harrison was responsible for
the disappearance of young Kenneth Bease
ly. The mystery of it all is now most likely
locked in the'grave; but in this world of
wonders it happens that the truth, though
buried . in the ground, usually rises. W e
doubt if this tragic mystery, this awful and
deplorable tragedy which has wrecked two
homes and blasted the hopes and plans of
many lives, will remain shrouded and uncov
ered forever. But this episode is a lesson
in tragedy, sorrow and gloom that one, does
not like to think of long or dwell upon. In
•any event, .write this down to remember, to
wit : that in this dark deed and behind it
all, and causing it all, is black and awful
and hideous Sin. For Sin originates the suf
fering and all the trying tragedy o£ this
earth.
Prosperity and Gamblers.—One good re
sult of the present prevailing prosperity is
that the country does not have to stand in
daily dread of the gamblers and stock goug
ers on Wail Street. A few days ago things
went- all to smash in the Street and the oc
eupants of the Street stood with open-eyed
awe to witness what calamity would then
befall the balance of the great American peo
ple. Lo, and behold, nothing whatever hap
pened. The country went onJthe even tenor
of its way, paying not the least attention
whatever to ^Tall Street doings.
It were worth a decade of endurance and
hardship to teach Wall Street and its gamb
lers that this country is not dependent for
its prosperity, or for its adversity, on them.
Fact is, it never has been if only honest
men had had confidence iij themselves and
in others like themselves. That a great -na
tion should be, or feel itself to he, j depen
dent for the tranquility of its financial af
fairs upon a few score of thieves and rob
beis is a bubble of nonsense and idiocy which
it has taken this wave of general prosperity
to puncture. Even prosperity has its bless
ings.
Drinking In Public.—Had you taken time
to observe that there is shame, if not scorn
and disdain, for the fellow—who dares to
take a drink in a public place these days?
Time was, and not long ago, when at a hotel,
or in a railway car, one did not hesitate to
pass around the bottle and fill the air with
the unhallowed perfumes of strong drink.
You do not see that in our times much. We
have come to tetter things.
This writer was at a lunch counter in a
railroad hotel recently when a very courteous
and courtly sort of well dressed fellow drew
his bottle and requested a glass with ice and
Wafer. “Will you kindly go to the ante-room
to drink, please?” the clerk graciously re
quested. “No, I am not ashamed of this
place to drink in, ’ ’ retorted the bacchanalian.
“But, my dear sir,- we of the place are
q shamed of you is the trouble” replied the
clerk. And that was a center shot. The
fellow took his drink, bowed himself out of
the place amid the shame and scorn of the
spectators, while the clerk was commended
for his courtly and courageous deed and man
ner. “We are ashamed of you,” is the ho
tel clerk's and the public’s verdict against
the man who flaunts the fact that he loves
the bottle and is not ashamed of it. This
is well. If a man will drink, is fully de
termined upon that sort of thing, let him
not flaunt that fact to the public these times.
It, is not good for him. It is no longer con
sidered the “big” and manly thing to do.
The biggest and the manliest men are letting
the fool stuff alone.
V *A DESTRUCTIVE CRITIC OF 2907.
(To the Reader of 1907. „
Dear Brother: Although interested in the
able writings of the higher critics of 1907,
especially in their assumption of having dis
,-overed something valuable, as if the “his
orical method” were new in studying the
3ible, I confess I became somewhat drowsy
under their monotonous efforts to make th(
;acred writings seem to abound'in misstate
ments. But I gradually absorbed theii
renius and spirit, and seemed to become :
estructive critic, though calling myself s
igher critic. •
While in this state of mind, sleepy thougl
I was, I seemed to live rapidly through tin
enturies, century after century, until 1
jjnnd myself moving among scholars wh<
lated their letters with the numerals, 2, 9, 0
t.
On seeming to be roused from a semi-con
iciousness, and supposing that a thousam
ears had passed from the time I fell aslee
nder the dreary chanting about the mistake
£ the Bible, I seemed to be walking amoiY
he fancied alcoves of my library, now in
reased by the additions of a thousand years
ind coming across the following correspond
>nce I give you the letters, believing that 1
nay be interesting to, the reader to ohserv
bow the reasoning of the future destrnciiv*
■ritic (writing in 2907 of our times in th<
spirit in which the destructive critic of 1901
writes of Bible times) will make the condi
tions of our generation to appear.
•If we of the year 1907 know something ol
he conclusions of the learned gentleman ol
1907 to be false, whose letters I now reveal
r if his modes of reasoning are absurd, or if
he lays stress on insufficient data in his logic
>r, especially, if he is ludicrously given t<
lenying the statements of eye-witnesses t<
he facts which we of our time know to b(
true, these faults must not be attributed tc
me: for I copy the letters and publish their
exactly as T found them a thousand year?
before they were written.
J. J. Summerbell.)
Dayton, Ohio.
•Copyrighted by The Christian Sun. All
rights reserved.
NINTH LETTER.
Kinkade, New Zealand, 15, 11, 2907.
My Dear Grandson,
You may remember that in my last letter I
wrote you about the corruption of the courts
in America in, 1907, giving you extracts from
the press of Europe, whose editors stated that
important, deeisions were announced from the
bench, but the real work was “done behind
closed doors.” This, of course, is an insinua
tion of bribery, or corruption of some other
form. The editors of Europe considered “the
judicial procedure of America a menace to
society.” The editors represented the courts
as “subservient” to “predatory wealth.”
and the lawyer as the ‘ ‘ hanger on of corpora
tions. ”,
I again call your attention to these con
servative and unprejudiced opinions of Euro
pean editois, in order for you to grasp more
readily the stupendous misrepresentation of
court affairs in America.
The case which I shall use to prove this to
you is that of the great Standard Oil Trust.
In our age we could never have arrived at
the truth on this subject, had not our higher
critics become experts in the use of the his
torical method in investigating the facts of
past ages.
Tie direct falsehood that the American
public deluded itself with was that the Stan
dard Oil Trust had been tried in court for
many violations of some law, had been, found
guilty by a jury, and had been fined $29,
140,000 by the presiding justice, Judge Lan
dis. It is astonishing how widely the opin
ion prevailed at the time, that this statemen
could be fact. Even the higher critics of
1907 seem to have believed it. It is wonder
ful how people will believe impossible things.
But a fine of $29,240,000, imposed in 1907
oil a law breaking corporation in America,
would have been an absolute impossibility:
1. Because of the testimony of the Euro
pean editors I quoted above, to the effect that
in America the corporations ruled the courts.
Their unprejudiced testimony must in such
a case be accepted as conclusive:
2. The magnitude of the fine itself is proof
enough. Such a fine was never in all the
history of the world imposed in a civil court
for a violation of law. The statement con
tradict^ the experience of mankind of all
ages’Tuid* lands'.^ The aileged^ftae- was so
great that it might have been inflicted by" a
victorious nation after a bloody war on a
conquered state. It might be the ransom of
r city. But to believe that such a fine was
imposed by a civil judge after a jury trial
s unthinkable. Our critics are unanimous
>n this point; that is, our higher* critics.
We went to work to discover the origin
f the story, and most of us attribute it to
he awkward arithmetical or numerical sys
em of 1907; especially its notation. The
Americans used the decimal system in money
latters. The separation mark between dol
irs and cents was only a point, a period
iark (.). Now suppose that Judge Landis
ad written the fine thus: $292400.09; and
hat the decimal point separating the two
ight hand digits (09), for the cents, had been
bscured or erased in some way. Judges and
xwyers sometimes did not write plainly. If
hat decimal point had been obscured, the
. lerk, or reporters, might have reset the fine
hus, $29240000, instead of "$292400, the 1 ea'
ne, according to most of our critics.
Even this sum, which I myself think toe
arge, would “tax credulity:” for the Oi
’rust 'was guided by one of the saintlies
ten of 1907, who would not have permittee'
ny violation of law in the corporation he
ad created, and which was intimately asse
iated with his name, John D. Rockefeller.
Ie was a large and frequent giver to the re
igious enterprises of the following denom
nations: Congregationalists, Disciples and
baptists. He was religious in his tastes and
abits. He certainly would never have ai
med his corporation to commit crimes jus
fying a fine of $29,240,000.
Besides, his son was the celebrated leader
f a Bible class in New York, before which
ie clearly explained how the poor should be
ontent with their lot, after the example of
fesus. Thus the whole family influence was
on the side of right.
And again, another of the great Oil Trust
officers, H. H. Rogers, was a man so far re
moved from anything selfish, sordid, or crim
ihal, that at A city, Fairhaven, Massachu
setts, at his own 'expense he erected in hon
or of hie mother one of the most beautiful
churches on the western continent. It must
haye been exceedingly artistic and expensive,
to attract attention in that country, wiere
from the time of the Mound Builders and
Pilgrim Fathers on down to 1957 the peo
ple were great builders. His filial piety
strongly negatives the belief that he could
have engaged in anything criminal; much
more the idea that he could have done any
thing justifying such an enormous fine as
$29,240,000.
Thus the majority of higher critics con
sider the sum of $292,400 all that could have
een imposed by Judge Landis. Even that
was so tremendous that the saintly Rocke
feller said that Judge Landis would be dead
sefore the government would get the money.
[ presume he said it under inspiration.
Besides, the dividends annually distribut
ed by the Oil Trust among its stockholders,
lbout fifty million dollars, show that it must
lave been a law-abiding business house.
This opinion is powerfully confirmed by a
fragment which we have found of a procla
mation issued by the directors of the Oil
trust soon after the trial, reading as fol
lows : .
“The directors of the Standard Oil Com
pany, in printing this pamphlet, desire to em
)h?size for the .half million people directly
Interested in its welfare, the assurance of
he company’s absolute innocence of wrong
doing on any of the prosecutions lately insti
tuted against it in the federal courts.”
Now,, my dear grandson, you must remem
ber that this proclamation was issued by the
board of which the pious Rockefeller was
head, and therefore must be accepted. You
see it is a direct statement of innocence.
Then it follows as reasonable, that if the cor
poration was fined at all, the judge (being
under corporation influence, and also recog
nizing uncertainty as to the guilt of the
Trust) imposed as small a penalty as possible.
In fact, I am of the opinion that the decimal
point should have been placed just after
the/figure 9, making the fine $29.24; and that
the zeros after the figure 4 were all added by
some shrewd forger, to make the fine appear
enormous, and to make the judge seem inde
pendent of corporation? influence. The fine,
thus, was $29.24, which harmonizes with hu
man experience, and with the evidence of the
European editors.
My dear grandson, I hope you will bring
the same resourcefulness and analytic spirit,
which we critics have exercised about the
?29,000,000 fine myth, to the study of the
Scriptures. Few things are more unfortun
ate than to believe things that are not so.
We ought to seek the truth.
Now there is the deluge of Noah, for in
stance. I do not believe that story; for it
contradicts my own experience, and. that of
ill men I ever saw. In fact there were only
fight, witnesses, anyhow; none of the rest of
nankind testified to it, not one.
Of course, I believe in the glacial epoch in
he earth’s evolution, of which the geologists
vrite; that ice once covered much of the
:oi them hemisphere, mountains deep, carry
ng in its icy mass, or pushing before its
.rout precipice, great boulders, which, when
nelting, it diopped all the way from Massa
Ursetts to Kentucky; and the water result
ing from the melting of this mass of ice,
eaching from the north pole to Kentucky,
leep enough to flow over rugged country,
ind heavy enough to gouge out such deep
.akcs as the Seneca, in the pro'inee of New
¥oik, would be enough to flood all the-civi
lized world even in our time, 2907. I can
relieve that: for geologists reason from their
appropriate proofs that if must have been so.
But that water could cover the inhabited
world, in an early age, at the command of
God, that I cannot believe: for it—well, if
I believed that, I would have to believe some
other remarkable things stated in the Bible.
I can believe that ice covered much of the
globe in the glacial period, for the Bible does
not say anything about that; does nob even
mention it.
In my next I will try to show you more of
the dreadful corruption of the year 1907,
against which the higher critics in vain hurl
ed all their proof that John did not write
the fourth gospel.
Tour affectionate grandfather,
Higher Critic.
;