passions-over temptation and sin—this is living, and doing, if all be done for Christ's sake.

The sentimental story paper, the dime novel, the boys and girls' papers, the sensual weekly journals, are each in their way warring against our youth, leading them to become vapid, sentimental, lustful, and criminal. The Infidel press is breeding blasphemers, and seeking by all in its power to turn men from God and holy things, against laws, against all that makes men wiser and better; and these all exist openly. Surely then, there ought no argument be necessary, to defend or advocate the enforcement of laws, designed for the protection of the morals of the young, and which are opposed to the crimes referred to in this book. Before censuring, ridiculing, or condemning, will not the public read the facts in this book, and then let their sympathies go with their judgment, toward the prompt and effectual enforcement of these laws?

CHAPTER XXXI.

INSINUATIONS VERSUS REPUTATION.

A LIE LOSES NOTHING ON ITS TRAVELS.

I feel constrained to insert this chapter, although it was not contemplated at the outset. I had purposed to deal only with the frauds, by which persons were deceived and defrauded of their money and valuables. But as there is nothing so dear to a man as his reputation, I feel justified in adding this chapter, in order to open the eyes of those who are disposed to believe every thing they see in print. As this book is made up from personal experience, I may be pardoned, if I present in this chapter, incidents that are personal and have occurred while this book has been in preparation. I cannot better illustrate and expose a growing evil. Because I have suffered in my good name is no reason why I should not save others, and help others bear the attacks of the slanderer. The meanest kind of a man is the person who, ignorant of any facts against a man's reputation, makes statements that insinuate and imply something wrong, and in that way takes an unfair advantage of the victim of his libels. An open charge one can meet. An insinuation always implies more than he who speaks it dares utter, and cannot be met without adding an unmerited dignity to the falsehood by noticing it.

There are different grades of slanderers, and some, from their position in society, require an answer, while others are not to be meddled with; just as about the farm there are certain animals which commit depredations, devour poultry, suck eggs, destroy growing crops, etc. Of these, the fox, the weasel, the mink, the farmer shoots on sight; but there is another kind he gives a wide berth. To meddle with it, is to make the air offensive, while, if let alone, it may destroy a brood of chickens or do some slight injury, and then quietly walk off without serious results.

The slanderer delights in misrepresentations, and in anything that detracts from the good name and reputation of his victim.

The following simple statement of facts, precisely as they have recently occurred before the public, are carefully reproduced here in concise form, and will illustrate the following: I. A lie never loses anything on its travels.

II. It is easy to have matter detrimental to a man's good name, published in respectable papers.

III. These false statements are read, and create injust prejudices against a person, in the minds of respectable people, and thus hinder the prosperity of a good cause.

In the New York Tribune of March 1st, 1880, there appeared the following card:

ANTHONY COMSTOCK'S WORK.

A BAPTIST DOCTOR OF DIVINITY PROTESTS AGAINST IT IN STRONG TERMS.

To the Editor of the Tribune:

Sir-As a citizen, a taxpayer and a clergyman, having a numerous parish, I wish to protest against the work of Anthony Comstock and his associates. I protest against his lottery raids, because they are heartless and persecuting. Clerks and buyers are locked up under oppressive laws, enacted because of a popular prejudice. I hold that the best cure for lottery gambling is to let buyers sicken of the business just as outsiders do of stock buying, by reaping a crop of disappointment. At any rate do not tell us that the United States mails are to be invaded by spies. There is neither morality nor honesty in seizing money in lottery offices. To give it to the poor savors of the methods of old-time English footpads who robbed from the rich and gained safety by subsidizing the poor.

I protest against the whole system of spies and the lying thereby enacted. It is a disgrace to try to commit the Church to these methods. If it be a crime to appeal to the cupidity of the wicked and cheat them under promise of gain in investing in lotteries, etc., is it not equally a crime to appeal to the cupidity of the wicked by pretending to be a bona fide buyer of a ticket only to lead the seller to ruin?

I protest against the pretentions and futile raids on disreputable houses which only disturb public morality by lifting the curtain and dropping it after the innocent have seen. Well might a fallen woman say, "They raid us or they tell us to leave our business. If we promise to reform, Christians pray over us, sing to us; out of meetings, shun us. We get only hymns, slights and hunger. Our associates in sin and death are our only true friends. To leave our present life is drudgery or hunger. There is no way for a fallen woman to get up and back."

Why is not some method devised to stop the fall beforehand, and to recover the weak girl by offering her a home and work such as she could do, such as she did before the fall? She tries to reform, and nine cases out of ten she is asked to go to heavy domestic service to compete with the brawny Irish emigrant.

I protest against the law and the proceedings under them of Anthony Comstock, wherein he attempts to regulate and prohibit the sale of certain things hitherto commended by prudent physicians as harmless and yet invaluable to sickly and overburdened mothers. I am aware of the fact that some of those who have favored these prohibitions, buy and use what they denounce. Common sense is a jewel, and there ought to be laws, if we are going to invade the privacy of homes, to discourage the bringing into existence of weaklings; also to guard the mothers from burdens that prevent them from caring for the children they have.

Finally, I protest against the obscene, so-called, "exhibitions" given by the said Comstock. Hundreds of clergymen, deacons and other men have been invited to see the tools, pictures and such things that this man has forcibly taken from the owners. Not only have these degrading things been frequently shown to large gatherings of men, but scores have been invited to private views. These shows have been given frequently for years. "The elect" behold them! The pretence is that this will awaken public opinion against them. Very well. Let us hold to the line. If gathering men to look at them will make them hate them let us have them on sale for men everywhere. I deem the whole thing impertinent folly; as a remedy, shabby; in the light of justice, dishonesty and fraud; in the line of government, the setting up of a dangerous precedent and the establishing of principles that undermine our liberty and put us back toward despotism.

New York, February 12, 1880.

A NEW YORK PASTOR.

This was a cowardly onslaught on another man's reputation, and all the more infamous because, as will be seen in its author's own published apology, he intended to attack me not as a man open and frank, but he says: "It was intended to make the nom de plume 'so general and indefinite' as to point to no particular person, and yet indicate the profession of the writer."

Is that the calling of a "Pastor," or the right use of the posi tion we all respect, of a Minister? It is because of this gentleman's position that his case is noticed; and further, and over all other reasons, because he is unjust and uncharitable, and persists in not knowing facts, that it has become necessary for the writer to so present them.

I am unwilling to do this gentleman an injustice, and, therefore, as I am the one injured and misrepresented, I am also conscious of being right, and hence, I can afford to be liberal. I have no doubt that the "New York Pastor" thought at that time he was doing a right thing. He had been deceived, for if he had known the facts, and not the convict's side of the story, he would never have "protested against the work of Anthony Comstock and his Association." If he had responded to the following invitation, he could have learned the facts. I did two things to afford him an opportunity to inform himself.

First, I called upon Mr. Whitelaw Reid, of the Tribune, and asked for the Pastor's name. He politely informed me that to give it was against the rules of the office, and asked what I wanted it for. I replied that this gentleman was misinformed and some one had deceived him, and that I would be glad to furnish him an opportunity to investigate fully for himself.

Mr. Reid wrote the Pastor for permission to give me his name, and received the following reply.

I want under the general rule of your office to continue unknown. There is an effort to make this personal, that does not argue the question. I do not know Mr. Comstock. I don't want to meet him. There is a wide-spread feeling among good people that the zeal of his organization is working on towards persecution. I think a dignified protest in order. I have tried to make it. I don't want to pursue the matter further. If you allow him to reply I hope you will keep him in the strict line of fairness and propriety.

If such a "wide-spread feeling" exists it is because of falsehoods, base insinuations and misrepresentations that the slanderer has uttered, and not from actual facts or deeds done to our discredit.

Secondly, failing to secure the name of the author of the above libel, I addressed each of the Baptist clergymen of the city, a letter, copy of which I present in full.

REV.

NEW YORK, March 5th, 1880.

Dear Sir-I have the honor to ask if you will please inform me if you are the author of a letter published in the New York Tribune of the 1st inst., signed a "New York Pastor?" If so, will you kindly select three gentlemen