Omaha Daily Bee Newspaper, April 14, 1889, Page 15

e MR, HUXLEY AND ACNOSTICISM Tho Principal of King's Collss Taken to Task. IGNORANCE AND CREDULITY. Colonel Ingersoll Insists That the Two Go Hand in Hand — The Doo- trine of Living for This Worid, Religlons Rnow-Nothingism. Robert J. Ingersoll contributes the following to the current number of the North American Review: In the February number of the Nine- teenth Century is an article by Profes- sor Huxley, entitled “Agnosticism.” It seems that a church congress was held at Manchester in October; 1888, and that the principal of King’s college brought the topic of Agnosticism before the assembly and made the following statement: “But if this be so, for & man to urge as an escape from this article of belief that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of an un- scen world, or of the future, 18 irrolevant. His difference from the christian lies, not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he does not believe the au- thority on which they are stated. He may prefer to call himself an Agnostic, but his real name is an older one—he is_an infidel; that is vo say, an unbeliever. The word in- fidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant signifi- cance, Perhaps 1t is right that it should. It is, and 1t ought to be, for a man to have to say plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Christ.” Let us examine this statement, put- ting it in language that is easily under- stood; and for that purpose we will divide it into several paragraphs. 1. “For a mun to urge that he has no means of a scientific knowledge of the unseen world, or of the future, isirreie- vant.” Is there any other knowledge than a scientific knowledge? Arethere soveral kinds of knowing? Is there such a thing as scientific ignorance? If a man suys, I know nothing of the unseen world because I have no knowledge upon that subject,” is the fact that he has no knowledge absolutely irrelevant? ‘Will the principal of King’s college that having no knowledge is the reason he knows? When asked to give your opinion upon any subject, can it be said that your ignorance of that subject is irrolevant. If this be true, then your knowledge of the subject is also irrelevant. Is it possible to put in ordinary Eng- lish a more perfect absurdity? How can a man obtain any knowledge of the * unseen world? He certainly cannot ob- tain it through the medium of the BONS is not a world that he can nnot stand upon its shores, view them from the occan of The principal of King's 3, however. insists that these im- ssibilities are irrelevant. No person has come back from the un- seen world. No authentic message hus been delivered. Through all the cen- turies, not one whisper has broken the silence that lies beyond the grave. Countless millions have sought for some evidence, have listened in vain for some word. 1t is most cheerfully admitted that all this does not prove ‘the non-existence of another world—all this does not dem- onstrate that death endsall. But it is the justification of the Agnostic, who candidly says, “I do not know.” 2. The pwincipal of King’s college states that the difference between an Agnostic and a christian “lies, not in the fact that he has no knowledge of these things, but that he does not be- lieve the authority on which they are stated.” Is this p difference in knowledge or a difference in belief—that is to say,a @ifference in credulity? The christian believes the Mosaic ac- count, He reverently hears and admits the truth of that ho tinds within the ures. Is this knowledge? How is it possible to know whether the reputed authors of the books of the Old Tes ment were the real ones? The wit- nessos are dead. The lips that could tostify are dust. Between these shores roll the waves of many centuries. Who knows whether such a man as Moses ox- isted or not? Who knows the author of Kings and Chronicles? By what tes- timouny can we substantiate the authen- ticity of the prophets, or of the prophe- cies, or of the fulfilments? TIs there any difference botweon the knowledgo of the Christian and of the Agnostic? Does the principal of King’s college know any more as to the truth of the Old Testament than the man who mod- estly calls for evidence? Has not a mistake been made? Is not the differ- ence one ot belief 1nstead of knowledge? And is not this difference founded on the difference in credulity? Would uvot an infinitely wise and good being—where belief {s a condition to salvation—supply the evidence? Certainly the Creator of man—if such exist—knows the exact nature of the human mind—knows the evidence nec- essury to convince; and, consequently, such a boing would act in accordance with such conditions. There is a relation between evidence and helief. The mind is so constituted that cortain things,being in accordance with its nature, are regarded as reason- able, as probabie. ‘There is also this fact which mustnot be overlooked: that is, that just in pro- portion us the brain is aoveloped it re- quires more evidence, and becomes Yess and less credulous. Ignorance and credulity go hand in hand, ntelli- euce understands something of the aw of average, has an idea of probab- flity. Ttis not swayed by projudice, meither is it driven to extremes by sus- picion, Tt takes into consideration per- sonal motives, It examines the charac- ter of the witnesses,makes allowance for the ignorance of the time—for en- thusiasm, for fear—and comes to its cunc!lusiun without fear and without sion, What knowledge has the christian of another world? The senses of the chris- tian are the same as those of the Agnos- tic. He hears, sees, and feels substan- tially the same. His vision is limited. Me sees uo other shore and heavs noth- ing from another world, Knowledge is something that can be fmparted. 1t has a lonnsutlun in fact. Iv comes within the domain of the senses. It can be told, desoribed, ana- lyzed, and in addition to all this, it can De clussitied. Whenever a fact becomes the property of one mind, it can become tho property of the intellectual world. There are words in which the knowl- edge can be conveyed. The christiun is not a supernatural rson, filled with supernatural truths 1e Is & natural person and all that he knows of value xfim be naturally im- parted, It is within his power o give .llrl‘:\u ha' h-‘n l{z lh'e nngtl«z i nol of ng’s college 18 mistakeh when ho says that the diflor- el between the ngnostic and the christian does not lie in the fact that She agnostic has no knowledge, ‘‘but He c nor can he imagination. colle all that he does not believe the authority on whioh these things are stated,” The “roal difference 1s this: The christian says that he has the knowl- odge; the agnostic_admjts that he has none; an yot he christian accuses the ‘agnostic of arro- gance, and asks him how ho has the impudence to admit the lim- itations of his mind. To the agnostic every fact is a torch, and by this light, and this light only, he walks. It is also true that the agnostic does not believe the authority relied on by the christian, What is the authority of the christian? Thousands of years ago it is supposed that certain men, or, rather, uncertain men, wrote certain things. It is alleged by the christian that these men were divinely inspired, and that the words of these men are to be taken as absolutely true, no matter whether or not they are verified by modern discovery and demonstration. How can we know that any human being was divinely inspired? There has been no personul revelation to us to the effect that certain people were in- § 1—it i only claimed that the to them. For this we only r word, and about that there ie this difficulty: we know noth- ing of them, and, consequently, cannot, it we desire, rely upon their character for truth, This evidence is not simply ~it is far woaker than that. ¢ been told that they said these thin o not kn ow whether the persons claiming to bo inspired wrote these things or not: neither are we certain that such persons ever ex- isted. We know now that the greatest men with whom we are acquainted are often mistaken about the simplest matters. We also know that men say- ing something like the same things, in other countries in ancient days, must have been impostors. The christinn has no confidence in the words of Mo- hammed; the Mohammedan cares noth- ing about the declarations of Buddha: and the agnostic gives to the words of the christian the value only of the truth thatis in them. He kuows that the sayings themselves get their entire value from the truth they express. So that the real difference between the christian and the agnostic does not lie in their knowledge—for neithe has any knowledge on this subje the difference does lie in the cre and in nothing else. The agnostic does not rely on the authortty of Moses and the prophets. Ile findsthat they wore mistaken in most matters capable of demonstration. He finds that thoir mistakes multiply in the proportion that human knowledge inercases. He is satisfied that the religion of the ancient Jews is, in most things, as ignorant and cruel as other veligions of the ancient world. He con- concludes that the effor n all ages, to answer the questions of origin and destiny,. and to acconnt for the phe- nomena of life, have all been substan- tinlsfailures. Inthe presence of demonstration there is no opportunity for the exercise of faith. "Truth does not appeal to cred- ulity—it appeals to evidence, to estab- lish facts, to the constitution of the mind, It endenvors to harmonize the new fact with all that we know, and to bring it within the circumforence of human expericnce. The ehurch _has never cultivated 1n- vestigation. It has never s Let him who has a mind to think, think; but its cry from the first until now hus been: Let him who has ears to hear, hear. The .pulrlc does_not appeal to the reason of the pew; it speaks by author- ity and it commands the pew to believo, and it net only commands, but it threatens. The ngnostic knows that the testi- Mony of man is not suflicient to estab- ligh “what is known as the miraculous. We would not believe to-day the testi- mony of millions to the effect thav the dead had been raised. The church it- self would be the lirst to attack such tos- timony. If we cannot believe those whom' we know, why should we bolie witnesses who have been dead tho sands of years, and about whom we know nothing 3. The principal of King’s college. growing somewhatsevere, declares that he may prefer to call himself an Aguos- tie, but his veal name is an older on he is an infidel, that is to say, an unbe- liever. This is spokenin a kind of holy scorn. According o this gentleman, an unba- liever is, to a certain extent, a dis- veputable person. In this sense, what is an unbeliever? He is one whose mind is so constitute that what the christian calls evi is not satisfactory to him, Is a person accountable for the constitution of his mind, for the formation of his brain? Is any human belug respovsible for the weight that evidence has upon him? Cau he believe without evidence? Is the weight of evidence a question of choice?” Is there such a thing as hon- estly weighing testimony? s the ro- sultof such weighing uecessary? Does it involve moral” responsibility? If the Mosaic aceount does not convinee a mun that it is true, is he a wretch because he is candid enough to tell the truth? | Can he preserve his manhood only by making a false statement? The Mohammedan would call the principle of King’s college an unbe- liever,—s0 would the tribes of Central Africa,—and he would return the com- pliment, and all would be equully justi- fied. Has the principle of King college any knowledge that he keeps from th restof the world? Hashe the confidence ol the Infinite? Is therc anything praiseworthy in believing where the evidence is insufficient? Is man to be blamed for not agreeing with his fellow- citizens? Were the unbelievers in th pagan world better or worse than the neighbor? It is probably true that some of the greatest Greeks believed in the gods of that nation, and it is equally true that some of the greatest denied their existence. If credulity is @ virtue now; it must have been in tho days of Atheus. If to believe without evidence entitles one to eternal re- ward 1 this century, certainly the same must have been true in the days of the Pharaohs. An inflael is one who does not believe in the praevailing religion. We now admit that the infidels of Greeco and Rome were right. The gods that they refused to believed in are dead. Their thrones are empty, &nd long ago the sceptres dropped from their nerveless hands. To-day the world honors the men who denied and derided these gods. 4. The principal of King’s college ventures to suggest thar *‘the word in- fidel, perhaps, carries an unpleasant significance; perhaps it is right that it should,” A few years ago the word infidel did carry ‘‘an unpleasant significance.” A few years ago itssignificance was so un- pleasant that the man to whom the word was applied found himself in prison or at the stake, In particularly kind com- munities he was put in the stocks, polted with offal, derided by hypocrites, scorned by ignorance, jeered w cow- ardice, and all the priests passed by on the other side. ‘There was a time when Episcopulians were regarded as infidels; when a true Catholic looked upon a follower of Heuory VIIL as an infidel, as an unbe- liever; when a true Catholic held in de- testation the man who preferrved a mur- derer and adulterer—a man who swapped religions for the sake olu-‘fl\a wonders of all countries and changing wives—-to the pope, the head of the universal church, It is easy enough to conceive of an honest man denying the claims of a church based on t*m caprice of an English k‘“?‘ The word infidel “oarrles Bn unpleasant significance” only where the chiistigns are exceed- ingly ignorant, intolerant, bigoted, cruel, and unmannerly. The roal gentieman gives to others the rights tgm. he claims for himself. The civilized man rises far above the bigotry of one who has been ‘‘born again.” Good breeding is far gentler than “universal love.” It is natural for the church to hate an unbeliever—natural for the pulpit to despise one who refuses to subscribe, who refuses to give. It 1s a question of revenue instead of religion. The Epis- copal church has the instinct of self- preservation. It uses its power, its in- fluence to compel contribution. It for- gives the giver. 5. The principal of King’s college in- sists that “it is, and ought to be, an u pleasant thing for a man to have to s plainly that he does not believe in Jesus Chri Should it be an unpleasant thing for a man to say plainly what he holicves? Can this be unpleasant except in an un- civilized community—a community in which an uncivilized church hasauthor- i ty? Why should not a man be as free to say that he does not believe as to sy that he does believe? Perhaps the real question is whether all meu have an equal right to express their opin- ions. Is it the duty of the minority to keep silent? Ave majorities alw right? [f the minority had never spoken, what to-day would have been the condition of this world? Arve the majority the pioneers of progress, or does the pioneer, as a rule, walk alone? Is it his duty to close his lips? Must the inventor allow his inveutions to die in his brain? Must the discoverer of new traths make of his mind a tomb? Is man under any obligation to his fel- 2 Was the Iipiscopal religion s 10 the major Was it at any u the history he world an un- pleasant thing to be called a Protestant? Did the word Protestant *‘curr pleasaut significance?” Was it “per- haps right that i ould?” Was Lu- ther a misfortune to the human race? If & community \ 19 ized, why should it bs an unpl 1t thing for a man to express his beliof in respectful language? 1f the argument is him, might be unple but, s i sim- ple numbers bo the foundation of unpleasantne the facts—if t) why should th the minority the man he It 15 claime: that Christ further claimed that ment is an inspired account of wh 1 his did and y obligation being to baliev hin the power of m mue the influence that testimony shail haye upon his mind? 1f one deni does he, for If the majority have have the argument— v the mistakes of s any theologian hate v Hos of devils, » 1o be- possible eat an 1 tend ine that o g ving in Palesting nearly twent turies ago was misunderstood? Is it not within th »ossible that b reporicd? Is it not within the range of the proba- ble that legend and rusmor and ignor- ance and | have deformed his life and belittle 3 Shrist lived and taught and suffered, if he was, in reality. gront and noble, who is hia friend—thoe ¢ who attributes to him feats of jurg! or be who maintains that thes wero inveuted b belioved by enthu If ho claimed to have wrought rceepts the 1, and roje to h The agnost the truth b which put y in cording to his ide i win the approbation of God by sont investigation and sion of honest agines that the Infini with credulity dence. faith without question. Man has but little son, b bost; but this little should be used. ter how s . how the ray of 1 darkness, warded for extinguishing the ligh has. We know now. if we know ar in this, the nineteenth con- wury. cupable of judging s to the happening of any event than he g W inow thi b gher to-d that the intellectual light is grea we kuow that the human mind equipped to deal with all questions of Luinan interest than at any other timo within the known history of the human race. It will not do to say that “our Lord anll his apostles must at least be re- garded as honest men.” Let this be nd- mitted, and what does it prove? Hon- esty is not encugh. Tantelligence and honesty must go hand in hand, We may admit now that “our Lord und his apostles™ were perfectly hounest men: yet it does not follow that wo have a truthful account of what they said and of what they did. It is not pretended that *‘our Lord" wrote anything, and it is not known that one of the apostles ever wrote a word. (:mm-quoutf,v. the most that we can say is that somebody has written something about **our Lord and his apostles.” Whether that some- body knew or did not know is unknown to us. As to whether what is written is true or false, we must judge by that which is written, Fiset of all, is it probable? is it with- in the experience of mankind? We should judge of the gospels as we judge of other histories, of other biographies. ‘We know that many biographies writ- ten by perfectly houest men are not correct. We know, if we know uany- thing,that honest men cun be mistaken, and it is not necess to believe any- thing that a man writes because we be- lieve he is honest. Dishonest men may write the truth, At last the standard of criticism is for each wan to judge according to what he believes to be human experi- ence, We are satisfied that nothing more wonderful has happened thah is now happening. We believe that the resent is as wonderful as the pust, and T o P g T Oy are to believe in the tfith of the Old Testament, the word evidence loses its meaning; there ceases to be any stand- ard of probability, and the mind simply accepts or denies without reason. We are told that certain miracles were performed for the purpose of at- testing the mission sud character of Christ. How can these miracles be verified? The miracles of the middle agoes rest upon substantially the same evidence. The same may be said of of all ages. How fs it & virtue to leny the miracles of Mohammod and to beliove thoso attributed to Christ? You mdyhy of St. Augustine thay what he said was true or false. We know thnywch of it was false; and yet we are not justified In saying that he was dishonest. Thousands of errors fiave beem mropagated by honest men. As a rule, {minmkus got thoir wings from hongst people. The testimony of a witnes: “the happening of the 1m- possible gt no weight from the hon- esty of the witness. The fact that false- hoods are in _the New Testament does not tend to prove that the writers were knowingly untruthful. No man can bo honest enough to substantiate, to_the satisfaction of reasonable men, the hap- pening of a miracle. For this reason it makes not the slightest diiference whether the writers of the New Testament were honest or not. Their character is not involved. Whenever a man rises above his eon- temporaries, whenever he excites the wonder of his fellows, his biographers always endeavor to bridge over the chasm between the people and this man, and for that purpose attribute to him the qualities which in the eyes of the multitude are desirable. Miracles are demanded by savages, and, consequently, the savage biogra- pher attributes miracles to his hero. “hat would we think now of a man es? What would we say of ot Humboldt who should t the great German could cast out devils? We woula feel that Darwin and Humboldt had been belittled; that the i were tten for children and by men who had not out- grown the nursery If the reputation of ‘“‘our Lord" is to be preserved—if ho is to stand with the 1d splendid earth—if he is to fon in the ingel- 1 im to the mira- (4 y E atural must be e _can over-estimate the evils at have beon ondured by the human se by reason of a departure from the 1of the natur The world has been jugglory, by sleight ot cles, wonde tricks ha wded ns of groater i 1 the steady,the govorned | Mi hand. o been hortane; th sublime and unbroken march of cause and effect. The improb: has been lished by the impo: le. alse- has furnished the foundation for with, Is the human body residence of have evil imps of tho world New 'l darkness Where ont es- these from If the W is the existonce and that these Ay took poss 1d, 1s tnis tru hing be more absurd? Does stanl man who has ex onh. b ve t jo it the bolie they oreupy spie kind of foo. Conld: t shape are fied by «n Dot} e float, or fly? o o of theso sup- iis to bo an intidel, how e, ¢ an unpl posed bei the word i t Of coun itis tho pals of miost bishops, éndinal business of princi- as well s of clergymen to' ins of evii spiritsi employed o dountaract th these sapposed demons. Why should th broad out of their own mouths? Isitto be expocted that they will unfrock th The church tion, hus the instingt of seli-p vaton. I wiil - defend it will - fight long as has the no change a hand into a No has left all apol When essor Hu our mind “h vith the mind of o has been and not you feel that this mind is y 50, b not” only willing, but auxious, to kv hest uses of philosopby the mind of fear, and, i { that can Lo mee—tha 18 of the con- throuzh a k of well-heing. We are satistiod that the absolute is boyond our vision, beneath our touch, above our ronch. We are now convineced an deal only with relation i 1ces, Wi , that ¢ , by the ¢ We are the re ble road is roud,” the only *sacred way.” Of course there is faith in the world— faith in this world—and always will unless superstition succeeds in every land. But thoe faith of the wise man is His faith reasou- awn from the known, with' in tho prog of the u the friumph of intelligence, in the coming sbvereignty of science. e witl’ in’ the development of the brain, in thalgradual enlightenment of the mindJ ‘Aud yo works for the accom- plishment of great ends, having faith n the final vietory of the race. He has honesty enough to say that he does not kugw. He pevceives and ad- mits that the mind bhas limitations. He doubts thé sgtealled wisdom of the past. He looks far bvidence, and he endeavors to keep his mind free from prejudice. be re of our He believes in the man rtue judicial spirit, and in his obligation to tell his honekt thoughts. 1t is useless to talk about a destruction of consolations. That which is sus- pected to be untrue looses its power to console, A man should be brave enough to bear the truth, Professor Huxley has stated with great clearness the attitude of the Agnostic, It seems that he is some- what severe on the positive philosophy While it is hard to see the propriety of worshipping humanity as a being, it is easy to understand the splendid dream of Auguste Comte. Is tho human race worthy to be worshipped by itself—that is to siy, should the individual worship himself? Certainly the religion of hu- manity is belter than the religion of the inhuman. The positive philosophy is better far than Catholicism. It does not fill the heavens with monsters, nor the future with pain. It may be said that Luther and Comte THE OMAHA DAILY BEE: SUNDAY APRIL 14, 1880,~SIXTEEN PAGES. ondeavored to reform the Catholle church, Both were mistaken because the only reformation of which thatchurch is capable is destruction, It is & mass of superstition. : The mission of positiviem is, in the language of its founder, ‘‘to goneralize saience and to systematize sociality.” It seoms to me that Comte stated with great force and with absolute truth the three phases of intellectual evolution or progress. 1. “In the supernatural phase the mind secks—aspires to know the essence of things, and the how and why of their operation. In this phase, ali facts are regarded as the productions of super- natural agents, and unusual phenomena are interpreted as the sign of the pleas- ure or displeasure of some god.” Here atthis point is the orthodox world of to-day. The church still im- agines that phenomena should be inter- preted as the signs of pleasure or dis- pleasure of God. Nearly every history is deformed with this childish and bar- baric view. 2. The next phase or madifieation, according to Comte, is_the motaphysi cal. “The supernatural agents aro ¢ pensed with, and in their places we find abstract forces or entities supposed to inhere in substances and capable of engendering phenomena,’ In this phase people talk as though laws and principles wore forces capablo of producing phenomena. 3. “The Inst stage is tho positive. The mind, convinced of the futility of all inquiry into causes and essences, cts itself to the observation and classification of phenomena, and to the discovery of the invariable rolations of succession and similitude—in a word, to of the relations of phe- Why is not the positive stage the point reached by the agnostic? He has ceased to inquire into the ori- givn of things. He {ms perceived the limitations of the mind. He is thor- oughly convinced of the uselessnes: and furility and absurdity of theologi cal methods, and rvestricts himself to » examination of phenomena, to their relations, to their effects, and endeavors to find in the complexity of things the true conditions of Luman happiness. Although [ am not a believer in the theory of Auguste Comte, [ cannot shut my eyes to the value of his thought; neither is it po hle for me not to ap- plaud his candor, his intelligence, and the courage it required cven to attempt to the foundation of the positive philosophy. Prof. Huxl aro splendi progress. signal suce idities of superstition. Both have aled w that which is highest and est in man. Both bave been the y i prejudice. Both have id both have won great 1 the field of intellectual hey cannot afford to waste ng each other. agnostic and tho posi- uwme end in view—hoth 7 for this world. s, finding themselves unable to snswer the arguments that h buen urged. rosort to th subterfuge—to the old cry thal cism takes something of yalue fr life of man. Does the agnosti any consolation from the world blot out, or dim, one star in heaven of hope? Can there be anything more consoling than tofeel,to know,that Jeho is not God—that the message of the Old Tustument is not from the Infinite? Is it not enough to fill the brain with a hapoi unspeakable to lknow that the words, **Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,” will “never be toone of the children of men? a small thing to lift from the shoulders of industry the burdens of and Frederic soldiers in the oy have attacked 3 with s ihe sacred and solomn conflict, time in at Afte 1, tivist have the believe in hiv The theolog lion? Is it a little thing to ve the monster of feur from the arts of men? s ovsht o b liier & ding 3 i 1o Baild or otherwlse ¥ian practical work and Popular work ever winigs. A 86 book In ¢ et e popaier tetern ) CEALILan b din WEVERFAILS MARVELOUS! SPEEDY! PERMANENT! SYPHILINE S iy stage and is guar. anteed to do 50, Con-ultation and Coriespondence, FREE! Gther D'ood aid genito wrinary iscases, s-ientifically treated, Cull 0.2 01 address, THE NATIONAL REMEDY Co Ou.aha, Neb, . C. WEST'S NERVE AND BRAIN TREAT Kuaranteed ) for Hysteria, Dizzi- ness, ' Convulsions, “Fits, Nervois N, Headuche, Nervous Projtration ca Age, Harren: Loss of Power in either sex, Involuntary Losses and spnnnu’- orhea caused biy tlvvnrv xértion 0!': l!‘:; brain,selt- ul d the fl'l‘ll‘ld the money 1f Lue treatment does not efect Db Go's Drukgisth Sote. Agents, 110 Farsam 'y ole strest, Oraalia Kol 100BOOK8 Bl purchaser our written guarantee to Bl TR TR W S PEATRER rssit (6 e e 0 Omaha, on aco ount of t other hose belng r stand the preagure. For sale by all dealors, or cxtrome high p sturned in large guantit Sanitary Plumbing! Steam and Hot Water Heating! Gas and Electric Chandeliers! Art Motal Work, Stable Fittings, Fountalns, Vases, Ete. SHOWROOMS WEST OF CHICAGO €3"We make a specialty of repair work on Plumbing, Gas or Heatin, Skillful mechanics. Personal supervision, and charge: always reasonable as first-class work will allow.. & Twenty-flve years' pxml- 3 Visitors to our showrooms always welcome. s THE HUSSEY & DAY COMPAN FINES LARGEST STOCK, atus. Prompt attention. oal experience. 409-411 South Amongst our specialties are: Bailey's Tron and Wood Planes, Standard Iron and Wood Planes, Stratton's Levels, RULES, BQUARES, ETC., ETC. 4 CALL AND SEE US AT OUR NEW STORE, 4 151l DoDaE STRERD Telephone 437. The ONLY Lawn or Garden Hose MADE which will stand 250 POUNDS PRESSURE. 'BUY the BEST, It will LAST the LONGES A hoso which will do tmnd work In most citics, will not give satisfaction ho prassir o8 hocatise it {3 not strong enough to ot One Foot of the “FISH BRAND' has ever failed. OMAHA RUBBER CoO., 08 Farnam-st,, Omaha, Neb. e Jlesale or Retail. NOTICE !--CARPENTERS! We carry an immense line of Tools suitable for all kinds of work. HIMEBAUGH & TAYLOR, Hardware and Cutlery, Mechanics’ 1ools, Fine Bronss Buildors® Goods and Buffalo Soales. 1405 Douglas St., Omaha. While dealers complain of COMPANY Appars 15th Street. ) Disstou's Saws, Wood and Iron Plows, o Fancy Planes of all kinds, Jas. Morton & Sqn.—;i OMAHA STOYE REPAIR WORKS. 808-810 N. ROBERT UHLIG, Prop., C. M. EATON, Manager. Telephone 960, Brilliant Gasoline Stoves. Stoves taken in exchange & Gasoline tsurners made to order and thoroughly repaired, Telephone to us or send card and we will call and estimate work of any kind. Repairs for all Stoves and Ranges made. part payment. 16th St. A mnognificent display of everything useful and ornemental in the furnb ture maker’s art at reasonable prices. DEWEY & STONE OMAHA & MEDICAL .= SURGICAL INSTITUTE l N, W. Cor. 13th & Dodge Sts. FOR THE TREATMENT O¥ ALL Clronic and Surmical Dissases. BRACES, Blpp\llnm for Deformities and Trusses, ratus und remodios for sucooss Tu nge! Elue\ndly. e, kar, Sk Disea of Women a Spec! BOOK ON DISEASES OF WOMEN FREE. ONLY BELIABLE MEDICAL INSTITUTE MAKING A BPECIALTY OF tal Powe d &b home b contidential. K TO MEN, FREE! Private. Specisl or Norvous Diseases, Impo- SJpbilis, Gleet wnd Varicocele, with qnestion ross Omaha Medical and Surgical Institute, or DR. McMENAMY, Oor. 1048 and Dodge Sts., - - OMAHA, NEB, WHEN YOU BUY A CIGAR! $ & SEE THAT THE ¢ ¢ “REDLABEL" WHEN purchasing ‘a fifie lect that which is pleasing "to the eye in style and finish; the material must be of the finest texture, and when on the foot the shoe must combine beauty and comfort. The Ludlow Shoe Possesses this Feature, IF.YOU TRY ONE PAIR Bold by over 100 dealers | trad, See That They Ave Stam DR. OWEN'S / ELEGTRIC BELT PATENTED Avo. 18, 1887. ImMPRovED Fs, 1, 18889, KIDNE sules, Bev 81,50 por ura Mfy Co.' 112 White 8t.'N. Y. actions, ooyl w uforing (s 3 EAK ME N i Toninining Ll ‘partieulars for ‘boise oy harze’ "Kad . PROF. F. G, FOWLER, Moodus, Gonne Shoe it is natural to'se- and the) - e LUDLOW, Y e throughout the Unit ;. g £t inale gr Iemaler ki s R e i fi i ISoLes T RU ELECTRIC BELT iné.f. North Brosdway, ‘and all urlnary troubles ok Iy marely v by Do At Do )i drueains oo by mail Mot Fugiais, oF iz White ¥ il dir