REVOLVERS, ROPES AND RELIGION.

I have just been enjoying the first holiday I have had in fifteen

years. Owing to circumstances entirely beyond my control, I

devoted the major part of the past month to digesting a couple of

installments of Saving Grace presented by my Baptist brethren,

and carefully rubbed in with revolvers and ropes, loaded canes

and miscellaneous cudgels--with almost any old thing calculated

to make a sinner reflect upon the status of his soul. That

explains the short-comings of the present issue of the

ICONOCLAST. One cannot write philosophic essays while dallying

with the Baptist faith. It were too much like mixing Websterian

dignity with a cataleptoid convulsion, or sitting on a red ant

hill and trying to look unconcerned. Here in Waco our religious

zeal registers 600 in the shade, and when we hold a love-feast

you can hear the unctuous echoes of our hosannahs from Tadmor in

the Wilderness to the Pillars of Hercules. We believe with St.

Paul that faith without works is dead; hence we gird up our loins

with the sweet cestus of love, grab our guns and go whooping

forth to "capture the world for Christ." When we find a

contumacious sinner we waste no time in theological controversy

or moral suasion, but promptly round him up with a rope and bump

his head, and we bump it hard. Why consume our energies

"agonizing with an emissary of Satan," explaining his error and

striving by honeyed phrases to lead him into the light, when it

is so much easier to seize him by the pompadour and pantelettes

and drag him bodily from the abyss? Some may complain that our

Christian charity carries a razor edge, that we skim the cream

off our milk of human kindness then put the can under an alkali

pump before serving it to our customers as a prime article; but

bless God! they can scarce expect to

". . . be carried to the skies

On flowery beds of ease,

Whilst others fight to win the prize

And sail through bloody seas."

My Baptist brethren desired to send me as a missionary to

foreign lands, and their invitation was so urgent, their

expressions of regard so fervent that I am now wearing my head in

a sling and trying to write with my left hand. Although they

declared that I had an imperative "call" to go, and would tempt

Providence by loitering longer than one short day, I concluded to

remain in Waco and preach them a few more of my popular sermons

from that favorite text, "If ye forgive not men their trespasses,

neither will your Father forgive your trespasses." It is quite

possible that a few heathen will go to hell whom I might enable

to find the river route to heaven, but I believe in doing the

duty that lies next my hand--in first saving the heathen right

here at home.

But enough of persiflage; now for cold facts. In all candor, I

would cheerfully ignore the recent disgraceful occurrences in

this city could I do so in justice to the South in general and to

Texas in particular. I have no revenge to gratify, no more

feeling in the matter than though the assaults had been made upon

an utter stranger. It is quite true that for a time I was eager

to call my assailants out one by one and settle the affair after

the manner of our fathers; but being creditably informed that

instead of honoring a cartel, they would make it the basis of a

legal complaint and send me to the penitentiary, and having no

desire to enact the role of the street assassin, I became once

more a law-abiding citizen. Truth to tell, there's not one of the

whole cowardly tribe who's worth a charge of buckshot, who

deserves so much honor as being sent to hell by a white man's

hand. If Socrates was poisoned and Christ was crucified for

telling unpalatable truths to the splenetic-hearted hypocrites of

their time, it would ill become me to complain of a milder

martyrdom for a like offense. It may be urged that having been

twice accused of the heinous crime of slandering young ladies,

and twice beset on that pretext by armed thugs, I owe it to

myself to make some explanation satisfactory to the public. Not

at all; from my youth up noble womanhood has been the very god of

my idolatry; and now that I have reached the noon of life, if the

reputation which I have honestly earned as a faithful defender of

the vestal fires can be blown adown the wind by the rank breath

of lying rascals, I would not put forth a hand to check its

flight. If old scars received while defending woman's name and

fame in paths of peril which my traducers dare not tread, fail to

speak for me, then to hell with the world, and let its harlot

tongue wag howsoever it will. Never but once did I stoop to

refute a cowardly falsehood circulated about myself. I was

younger then--had not learned that public opinion is a notorious

bawd, that "nailing a lie" but accentuates its circulation.

Unfortunately, the recent assaults upon me are not altogether my

private concern. They were armed protests against a fundamental

principle of this Republic--freedom of the press. They are being

citied by ill advised or malicious persons as evidence of

"Southern Savagery." They are calculated, if suffered to go

unexplained, to cast reproach upon revealed religion. They were

futile but brutal attempts in the last decade of the Nineteenth

century to suppress truth by terror, to conceal the iniquities of

a sectarian college by beating to death the only journalist who

dared to raise his voice in protest. They were appeals to Judge

Lynch to strangle exposure, hence it is imperative that the blame

be placed where it properly belongs; not upon the South, which

unqualifiedly condemns it; not upon the Baptist church, which

indignantly repudiates it; but upon a little coterie of

white-livered black-hearted hypocrites, any of whom could look

thro' a keyhole with both eyes at once, a majority of whom are

either avowed sympathizers with or active members of that

unamerican organization known to infamy as the A.P.A. The same

old God-forsaken gang of moral perverts and intellectual misfits

who more than two years ago brought a Canadian courtesan and an

unfrocked priest to Waco to lecture on A.P.A'ism, and who

threatened at one of these buzzard-feasts to mob me for calling

the latter a cowardly liar, were responsible for my being dragged

with a rope by several hundreds hoodlums up and down a Baptist

college campus in this city Oct. 2, and for the brutal assault

upon me five days later by a pack of would-be assassins who had

waited until my back was unsuspectingly turned before they had

the nerve to get out their guns. I can overlook the assault made

by the college students, although most of them were grown men,

because they were encouraged thereto by their elders. I have

positively refused to prosecute them; but the last assault was

led by a shyster lawyer of middle-age, a so-called "judge," a

member of the board of managers of Baylor. I am seeking no

trouble with any of them--they are perfectly safe in so far as I

am concerned; still if the latter gang are not satisfied with

their cowardly crime, if they regret that they were beaten off

ere they quite succeeded in sending me to Kingdom Come, they have

only to notify me where and when they can be found alone, and

I'll give the whole accursed mob a show for their money. I'm too

slight for a slugger--cannot lick a herd of steers with one pair

o' hands; but I can make a shot-gun sing Come to Christ. I am

credibly informed that "at least half a dozen" of my meek and

lowly Baptist brethren are but awaiting an opportunity to

assassinate me, and that if successful they will plead in

extenuation that I "have slandered Southern women." I walk the

streets of Waco day by day, and I walk them alone. Let these

cur-ristians shoot me in the back if they dare, then plead that

damning lie as excuse for their craven cowardice. If the decent

people of this community fail to chase them to their holes and

feed their viscera to the dogs, then 'd rather be dead and in

hades forever than alive in Waco a single day.

The claim set up by my assailants that I had slandered the female

students of Baylor University is a malicious calumny, that was

but made a lying pretext for the attacks. That my article in the

October ICONOCLAST did NOT impeach the character of the Baylor

girls is amply evidenced by the fact that my offer to leave the

matter to the decision of a committee of reputable business men,

to abjectly apologize and donate $500 to any charity these

gentlemen might name in case the decision was against me, was

flatly refused. "The honor of young ladies is not a proper

subject for arbitration," I was told. Quite true; but the proper

construction of an article which is made a pretext for mob

violence, IS a proper matter for cool-headed and disinterested

parties to pass upon. The Baylorians insisted upon being judge,

jury and executioner--proof positive that they well knew the

article would not stand the arbitrary construction they had

placed upon it. After the first outbreak the Baylor bullies of

the lost manhood stripe and their milk-sick apologists held a

windy powwow in a Baptist church, and there bipedal brutes with

beards, creatures who have thus far succeeded in dodging the

insane asylum, whom an inscrutable Providence has kept out of the

penitentiary to ornament the amen-corner--many of whom do not

pretend to pay their bills--some of whom owe me for the very meat

upon the bones of their scorbutic brats--branded me as a

falsifier while solemnly protesting that they had never read a

line of my paper. They proclaimed in stentor tones and

pigeon-English that would have broken the heart of Lindley

Murray, that I was a defamer of womanhood--while confessing that

they didn't know whether I had ever mentioned a female. They

howled that they "were willing to sign Brann's death-

warrant"--on mere hearsay. These intellectual eunuchs, who

couldn't father an idea if cast bodily into the womb of the

goddess of wisdom, declared positively that I would be permitted

to print nothing more about their beloved Baylor--and that

without knowing whether I had advertised it over two continents

as an oasis in a moral Sahara or a snakehole in the Dismal Swamp.

It was a beautiful, a refreshing sight, this practical approval

of mob violence by unfledged ministers on the campus of a Baptist

college, this raucous tommyrot about death-warrants and ropes,

this sawing of the air and chewing of the rag by people so d----d

ignorant that they couldn't find either end of themselves in the

dark, this chortling over the fact that one desk-emaciated

welter-weight had been caught unawares and trampled upon by a

sanctified mob--a refreshing sight, I say, in a temple

consecrated to that Christ who forgave even his enemies from the

cross. But every man at that meeting who said he never read the

ICONOCLAST deliberately lied. The Baptists all read it. Some

subscribe and pay for it like gentlemen, some buy it, some borrow

it, and the rest steal it from the newsstands. The greatest

trouble I have is to prevent, Baptist preachers spoiling my local

sale by telling everybody in town what the ICONOCLAST contains

before the revised proof-sheets are read. It is but fair to say,

however, that the Baptists were not alone to blame. Much of the

noise was made by a lot of tickey-tailed little politicians who

have no more religion than a rabbit, but who were trying to open

a popular jack-pot with a jimmy. Some of the brawlers were

self-seeking business men, willing to coin blood into boodle,

ready to slander Deity for a plugged dime, anxious to avert a

Baptist boycott by emitting a deal of stinking breath. These

bloated financial ducks in a provincial mud-puddle have had

entirely too much to say. When the present lecture season is

over; when I get the Baptist mob thoroughly cowed; when I can

walk the streets without expecting every moment to get shot from

a stairway or double-banked by the meek and lowly followers of

the Messiah; when I have time to amuse myself with trifles, I'll

sue this brace of Smart Alecs for $20,000 each for deliberate

defamation of character, and if I recover the money I'll use it

to make a partial payment on the grocery bills of the rest of the

gang. Intellectual pigmies who accumulate much cash by trading in

cash or tripe in a country town are quite apt to become too big

for their britches and require to be taken down a peg or two, to

be taught their place. They sometimes have the nickel-plated

nerve to play Rhadamanthus to the purveyors of brains--swell up

like unclean toads and conceive themselves to be in "select

society." Some of them actually imagine themselves of more

importance to this community than Judge Gerald and Waller Baker;

yet you could scrape enough intellect from under Gerald's

toe-nails to build the crew, while Baker forgets more every

fifteen minutes than they have learned since they were born. The

meeting held at the Baptist church to ratify the outrage was

composed of a lot of self-seekers and whining hypocrites, half of

whom would sell their souls for a copper cent and throw in their

risen Lord as lagniappe. It was a mob that writhed and wriggled

in its own putridity like so many maggots, while the local press

cowered before its impotent wrath like young skye-terriers

before a skunk. If I couldn't beget better men with the help of a

digger Indian harem I'd take to the woods and never again look

upon the face of woman. It was a glorious sight to see these

"pore mizzuble wurrums of the dust" spraining their yarn galluses

trying to hurl the writhen bolts of Olympian Jove--and now

bellyaching because hit in the umbilicus with their own

boomerang. The second assault, more brutal and cowardly than the

first, followed as the logical sequence of that powwow of

pietists, peddlers and politicians. The utterances of that

congregation of unclean adders, the resolutions adopted by that

sanctified body of dead-beats in the sanctum sanctorum of the

Baptists, was a bid for blood-injected the idea into the warty

heads of a trio of thugs that by way-laying and beating me to

death they would pass into history as heroes. Then the real

manhood of Waco rose en masse and laid down the law in no

uncertain language to the hungry hypocrites and their Baylorian

hoodlums. They declared that religious intolerance would no

longer be permitted to terrorize this town. Fearing just

retribution at the hands of the citizens, Baylor called out its

three military companies and mounted guard with rifles furnished

by the government, while the very girls in whose name they had

dragged me around the college campus with a rope, laughed them to

scorn and sent me flowers--and the password of the bold sojer

boys. One young lady writes: "The password for the night is

'Napoleon.' Our bold soldiers halted a milk wagon at daylight

this morning. Probably they thought Brann was concealed in one of

the cans with his bowie-knife." Half a dozen men armed with

cannon-crackers could have chased the brave mellish into the

Brazos and danced with the Baylor girls till daybreak--and I

suspect that the latter would have enjoyed the lark. For a third

of a century the bigotry of a lot of water moccasins had been the

supreme law of this land. To obtain an office the politician had

to crawl to it on his marrow bones and slavishly obey its

behests. To obtain trade the merchant had to sneeze whenever it

took snuff. To obtain patronage the local publisher had to make

it the absolute dictator of his policy. Like Jehushran, it "waxed

fat and kicked"--until it got its legs tide in a double bow knot

about its OWN neck. Its tyranny became insupportable, murderous,

there was a new declaration of American independence, and now

this J. Caesar that erstwhile did bestride Central Texas like a

colossus, is more humble than Uriah Heep. And what were the

A.P.Apes of Waco doing while honest men were raising the standard

of revolt and chasing the Baptist hierarchy into its hole? Were

they in the front rank shouting their war-cry of "no union of

church and state"--the "little red school-house" rampant on their

orange-colored rag? Not exactly. They had sneaked off to some bat

cave to plot against the whites, to protest against the

proceedings of their fellow citizens. Had a Baptist editor been

mobbed on the campus of a Catholic college they would have howled

a lung out about Popish tyrannys stood on their heads and fanned

themselves with their own shirt-tails.

The faculty of Baylor protest that they did all in their power to

prevent the brutal outbreak. They confess, however, that it had

been brewing all day, yet they neglected to notify either myself

or the sheriff. Before me is a Lake Charles, La. paper, in which

a letter from one of the scabs who participated in the first

attack is published. He says: "The faculty did not say do it, or

not do it." And that's about the size of it. That the students

were encouraged by one or more members of the board of trustees

can be demonstrated beyond the peradventure of a doubt. All the

stale bath water in all the Baptist tanks this side Perdition

cannot wash the conviction from the public mind that the Baylor

management was behind that howling mob. The second assault was

led by a trustee, a member of the board of managers; and this

after I had stated positively in the local press that I meant no

disparagement of the young ladies--that it was the administration

of the University I was after. In the October ICONOCLAST I

expressed the fervent hope that no more young ladies would be

debauched at Baylor. That constituted the ostensible casus

belli.. Do the trustees of Baylor dare deny that such things HAVE

occurred at that "storm center of misinformation" and ministerial

manufactory? If so, they are a precious long time putting me to

the proof in the courts of this country. Texas has an iron-clad

criminal libel law, and I suspect that I could pay a judgment for

damages in any reasonable sum without spraining my credit or

bankrupting the ICONOCLAST. If they have not the chilled-steel

hardihood to deny that girls have been debauched at Baylor--if by

their resounding silence anent this matter they mean to give

assent--what then? Do they hope that more girls WILL be ruined

there? They may take either horn of the dilemma they like, but I

beg to state that the issue here raised cannot be obscured by

dragging me around with a rope. When Jonah was caught in a scheme

of vindictive rascality he thought he "did well to be angry." The

best thing the Baylorites can do is to 'fess up and reform--it's

too late in the century to suppress truth with six-shooters. I

have heard of no "deplorable accidents" at Add-Ran, the Christian

college, consequently it has no complaints to file against the

ICONOCLAST. The Convent of the Sacred Heart gets along somehow

without "mishaps," and even Paul Quinn, the colored college, is

graduating no "missionaries" for Hungry Hill. Because some girls

go wrong at an institution for the promotion of ignorance, it by

no means follows that all, or any considerable number thereof are

deficient in morality. I doubt not that a vast number of the

female students of Baylor, past and present, are pure as the

flowers that bloom above the green glacier; but some have fallen,

and the conclusion is inevitable that they were not properly

protected from the wiles of the world. I care not how

noble-minded, how pure of heart a girl may be, if she is

committed when young and inexperienced to a college where both

sexes are received, it becomes the imperative duty of the

management to render one false step impossible. When the

president of a pretentious sectarian institute must plead with

the public that he had "wept and prayed over" a 14-year old girl,

but was powerless to prevent her rushing headlong to ruin; when

at a grand rally of the faithful to condemn a well-meant

criticism and encourage mob violence, an old he-goat who couldn't

get trusted at the corner grocery for a pound of soap, confesses

to more than the ICONOCLAST had charged, by saying that some

ACCIDENTS had occurred at the college, it were well for mothers

to look carefully to its management and note its discipline

before entrusting it with their young daughters. "Accidents,"

indeed! Criminal negligence would be a more appropriate name. A

university consecrated to the Baptist Christ, whose trustees lead

cowardly assaults upon law-abiding citizens and beat them with

bludgeons after they are insensible; whose faculty know that mob

violence is contemplated yet fail to report it to the police;

whose students enter the home of a man for the purpose of

dragging him by force and with drawn pistols from the presence of

his family (the Baylor thugs had the impudence to invade my home

in search of me before finding me in the city)--such an

institution, I say, is not a proper guardian for any youth whose

father doesn't desire to see him land in the Baptist pulpit or

the penitenitary. I have been publicly warned on pain of death,

and heaven alone knows what hereafter, not to speak

"disrespectful" of Baylor; but I feel in duty bound to caution

parents against committing their children to such a pestiferous

plague-spot, such a running sore upon the body social.

. . .

Not only has Baylor demonstrated its unworthiness to be the

custodian of young people of either sex, but such unworthiness

has been proclaimed in the public prints by Dr. Rufus C.

Burleson, who served as its president for almost half a century.

I insisted that the salaries paid the faculty at Baylor were

insufficient to command the services of first class educators,

and that those entrusted with the duty of selecting teachers were

incapable of correctly estimating the educational qualifications

of others Dr. Burleson goes far beyond that, expressly declaring

in the Dallas News that a majority of the present board of

managers are not college educated, that for them to properly

administer discipline and make wise selection of teachers "is

simply impossible." What, in God's name, can be expected of an

institution containing several hundred young people of both

sexes, if it be deficient in dissipline? Of what earthly use is a

University if it be not provided with a wisely selected faculty?

It now remains to be seen whether the Baptist brethren will mob

Dr. Burleson--or sneak up behind him with an assortment of clubs

and six-shooters! But that is not the worst that Dr. Burleson

says. In a published letter of his now before me he denounces Dr.

B. H. Carroll, chairman of the board of trustees and present high

muck-a-muck of Baylor, as an ingrate, a self-seeker, a mischief

maker and an irremediable liar! Now if Burleson is telling the

truth--and I am not prepared to dispute his statements--what can

we expect of a University managed by such a man? I am frank to

confess that I did not suspect Bro. Carroll to be quite so bad. I

knew that he was an intellectual dugout spreading the canvas of a

seventy-four, that there was precious little to him but gab and

gall; but I did not suppose that he was an habitual falsifier and

guilty of base ingratitude. I really hope that Dr. Burleson may

be mistaken--that the new boss of Baylor has not contracted such

a habit of lying that it is utterly impossible for him to tell

the truth. I should dislike to believe all that is said about

each other by the two factions of my Baptist brethren now

struggling for the control of Baylor. According to Carroll, Dr.

Burleson, president emeritus, ought to be in the penitentiary;

according to Burleson, Carroll is not a fit associate for a

brindle cow. "Speak disrespectfully of Baylor and die!" Good

Lord! were I to repeat one-half the Baylor factions are saying

about each other I'd wreck the state. Time was when the faculty

of Baylor was the pride of the South. Those were the days when

many of the noblest men and women of Texas were educated within

its walls. They love their alma mater, not for what she is, but

for what she was. The old professors are gone, have been

supplanted in great part by a lot of priorient little preachers,

selected by a board of trustees, half of whom couldn't tell a

Greek root from a rutabaga, pons asinorum from Balaam's ass. Dr.

Burleson seems to be of the opinion that a majority of the

Baylorian managers were educated in a mule-pen and dismissed

without a diploma--couldn't tell whether a man were construing

Catullus into Sanskrit or pronouncing in Piute a panegeric on a

baked pup. Were I not persona non grata I would like to witness

the classroom performances of these young professors--chosen with

owlish gravity by men who cannot write deer sur without the

expenditure of enough nervo-muscular energy to raise a cotton

crop, chewing off the tips of their tongues and blotting the

paper with their proboscides. Yet for offering to open a night

school for the benefit of the Baylorian faculty I was mobbed; for

intimating that the hoard of managers had not socked with old

Socrates and ripped with old Euripides I was assaulted by one of

their number and his brave body guard and beaten with

six-shooters and bludgeons until I was insensible.

. . .

It is not my present purpose to drag forth all the grisly

skeletons of Baylor and make them dance for the amusement of the

multitude. I have yielded to the urgent appeals of my friends to

let the institution down easy, to cast a little kerosene on the

troubled waters, to hold out the olive branch to Baylor. Besides,

I already have more holes in my head than nature intended, and am

not particularly anxious to increase the assortment. Let what is

hidden from public ken so remain until that great incubator of

Christian charity, that ganglion of brotherly love, attempts to

redeem its long-standing promise to land me in the penitentiary

for criminal libel. It could serve no good purpose at present to

trace out here the history of those "accidents" so feelingly

referred to at the ratification of the Brann round-up--would but

cause cheeks to flame and hearts to break. I would not destroy

Baylor; I would make it better. I would deprive the ignorant and

vicious of control. I would expel all the hoodlums whose

brutality and cowardice have disgraced it. I would place at its

head a thorough educator and strict disciplinarian, a man of

broad views and who sets a good example by paying his bills. I

would make its diplomas badges of honor as in the old days,

instead of certificates of illiteracy at which public school

children laugh. No, I do not want the presidency--there are

enough perspiring Christians for revenue only quarreling and

lying about each other because of that beggarly plum already. For

months past it has given every Baptist journal in the state a

hot-box, has filled every little preacher's head with all the

petty intrigues of peanut politics. If one-half that the leaders

of the factions, now warring over this $5 per diem bone, say

about each other be true--and I have no evidence to the

contrary--they would disgrace a boozing ken on Boiler avenue. I

do not mean to say that all Texas Baptists are bad; at least 50

per cent. of them are broad-gauge, tolerant, intelligent; the

remainder are small-bore bigots upon whom nature put heads, as

Dean Swift would say, "Solely for the sake of conformity."

. . .

Baylor and the Baptists complain that the ICONOCLAST has

"persecuted them until it has become unbearable." Bless God! who

began this thing? Before the ICONOCLAST was three days old it was

boycotted by the hydrocephalous sect. As it grew fat on that kind

of fodder, ex-Priest Slattery and his ex-nun wife were brought

hither to lecture on A.P.Aism, and incidentally make the town too

caloric for my comfort. The Baptists took their wives and

daughters to listen to Slattery's foul lies about the convents

and the confessional, the Pope and "his Waco Apostle," and his

most infamous utterances were applauded to the echo. They sent

their wives and daughters to hear the Slattery female defame

women who had given up the pleasures of the world and were

devoting their lives to the reclamation of such unclean creatures

as herself. Slattery's last harangue was delivered to men only

and the house was packed with Baptists and Baylorites at

half-a-dollar a head. The so-called lecture was the foulest thing

that ever fell from the lips of mortal man, yet his audience

gloated over it and rolled his putrid falsehoods as sweet morsels

under its tongue.[1] Unable to restrain my indignation, I arose

and denounced his every utterance as a malicious lie. Immediately

the audience yelled, "Throw him out! Down with him! Smash him!" I

chanced to have my back near the side-wall, and that's why I

wasn't mobbed--the cowardly crew couldn't get BEHIND me. They

suspected that I'd make an angel of the first sanctified galoot

who attempted to place his paws upon me, and none cared to draw

on his celestial bank account. That's the identical gang which

has the immaculate gall to accuse me of defaming virtuous

women--the same gang which applauded Slattery for calling

convents priestly harems wants me killed for expressing the hope

that no more young girls will be debauched at Baylor.

[1] Brann's reply to Slattery appears in Vol. XII.

. . .

Scarce had Baylor's applause of Slattery and his woman died

away, scarce had it ceased to gloat over the "iniquities" of

convent schools and priestly harems, scarce had it ceased

chuckling over the crimes of "the Scarlet Woman," ere the police

discovered that the duly ordained "ward of the Baptist church,"

who was being educated at Baylor University for missionary work

among the heathen Catholics of Brazil, was in a dreadfully

"delicate condition." She was brought from Brazil at the tender

age of 11 years by a returning missionary, she was formally

adopted by the Baptist church, she was consecrated to the

salvation of souls and placed at Baylor to be educated. She was

under the special supervision of the president and was a member

of his household--yet at 14 years of age she became enciente. Did

Baylor pity and protect her? Did it strive to secure the

punishment of her seducer? Not exactly. It fired her out and made

no complaint to the police. When the latter discovered her and

she was required by the court to account for her condition, she

stated that she had been forcibly despoiled by a young man about

town on the premises of Baylor's president. It chanced that this

young man was brother to the president's son-in-law, and the

whole influence of Baylor was brought to bear to clear the

accused! The son-in-law, who is a Baptist preacher and editor (as

well as other things not necessary to mention) strove to make her

confess that her guilty paramour was a pickaninny--wanted the

world to believe that orphan girls committed to the care of that

great Baptist college might become enciente by coons! Yet the

Baylor students didn't mob him--none of its trustees laid in wait

for him and slammed him over the head with a six-shooter. The

girl soon put a white babe in evidence--a pretty little 2-pound

Baylorian diploma. The doctors declared that she had been raped

and the case looked ugly for the accused. The child died. The

ignorant little mother wanted money to go to Memphis--and first

thing we knew she had signed a "retraction" and had a ticket to

Mike Conolly's town. Who bought it--and why! Damfino. The

defendant was acquitted of the charge of rape--the age of consent

in Texas being 12 years at that time; but whether she was raped

or seduced, the infamy occurred at Baylor University. That's ONE

of the "deplorable accidents"; but it is not the only one you

will please not forget to remember. Reads like a fairy story,

doesn't it? But the law doesn't permit Texas editors to tell

fairy tales of that type. No doubt the man who has the audacity

to breathe a hope that no more girls will be debauched at Baylor

deserves to die. Dr. Burleson, in the fullness of his Baptist

charity, branded the unfortunate girl as a natural bawd. I don't

know about that; but I do know that after she got beyond

Baylorian influences she married and began leading a respectable

life.

. . .

Defamer of womanhood? Get the sawlogs out of your own eyes,

brethren, before howling over the micrococci in the optics of

others. For three years past Baptist preachers all over the land

of Christ have been telling their congregations that the

ICONOCLAST is read only by depraved people,--chiefly criminals

and courtesans--and that despite the fact that the names of

thousands of the noblest men and women of America are on its

subscription books. During the past three years the ICONOCLAST

has had upon its books the names of more than a thousand

ministers, representing every denomination. Are these men

criminals and their wives courtesans? Has any busy little Baptist

parson been rounded up with a rope for proclaiming them as such

from the pulpit? When a deserted babe was found in the street and

carried by the Sisters into the convent, was Jehovah Boanerges

Cranfill--organ-grinder for the Baylor bosses--mobbed by the

Catholics for saying that it probably came OUT of the convent?

Now, you people keep down the narrative of your nether garment

and apply a hot mush poultice to your impudence. The ICONOCLAST

is only tickling you with snipe-shot now; but don't forget for

one moment that it has buck a-plenty in its belt.

. . .

A word to the lady students of Baylor: Young ladies, this

controversy does not in the least concern you. The ICONOCLAST has

never questioned your good character. You are young, however, and

mischievous people have led some of you to believe that it has

done so. If you so believe, I am as much in duty bound to

apologize as though I had really and intentionally wronged you. A

gentleman should ever hasten to apologize to ladies who feel

aggrieved; hence I sincerely crave your pardon for having printed

the article which gave you offense. Upon learning that you read

into it a meaning which I did not intend, I stopped the presses

and curtailed the circulation of the October number as much as

possible, proving my sincerity by a pecuniary sacrifice. I would

not for the wealth of this world either do you a wilful

injustice, or have you believe me capable of such a crime. May

you prosper in your studies, graduate with honor and bestow your

hands upon men worthy of noble women.

. . .

P.S. In looking over the foregoing since it was put in type, I

suspect that I have been a trifle too hard on some of those who

met to ratify the action of the first mob and publicly brand me

as a defamer of women. I would not do my deadliest enemy an

injustice. Two wrongs do not make a right; hence I concede that

perhaps half of those present pay their debts and make a

reasonable effort to be decent. If God neglected to bless them

with brains that is their misfortune instead of their fault. Let

it go at that. They have had their say, I've had mine, and right

here I drop the subject until another attempt is made to run me

out of town. I make this concession, not that Baylor deserves it,

but at the earnest request of the law-abiding element of this

city.

* * *

SPEAKING OF SPIRITUALISM.

A correspondent seizes his typewriter (the machine, not the maid)

with both hands, and peremptorily demands to be informed why I

"don't jump on that fake called Spiritualism." O I don't know,

unless it's because more corporeal things than spooks continue to

jump on me. It seems a waste of energy to criticize disembodied

spirits who do no worse than "revisit the pale glimpses of the

moon." I have never heard of a ghost robbing other than its own

grave. They are not addicted to despoiling widows and orphans,

then putting up long-winded prayers. They do not sing "Jesus

lover of my soul" on Sunday, then sell that same soul to the

devil for six-bits on Monday. No ghost, so far as I know, was

ever accused of lying about his neighbor, fracturing the Seventh

Commandment or beating his butcher-bills. They appear to be quite

harmless creatures, therefore not legitimate game for the

ICONOCLAST. Furthermore, I am not fully convinced that

Spiritualism is a "fake." There appears to be as good biblical

and natural reasons for belief in Spiritualism as for belief in

the Immaculate Conception or the efficacy of baptism. Doubtless

some of the professors are frauds, but as much can be said for

the professors of all other faiths. I confess that I haven't much

confidence in "mejums," who find employment for the shades of G.

Washington, J. Caesar, and others of that ilk, at table-tipping,

slate-writing and such unproductive enterprises; nor in the class

of spooks who "materialize" in dark rooms, come prancing out of

"cabinets" and other uncanny corporeal incubators for no other

apparent purpose than to enable their mundane manipulators to

realize two dollars in the coin of the realm. I opine that a

ghost who must retire to a "cabinet" to pull himself together is

no honest ghost; that those who consent to tip tables and indulge

in crude telegraphy for the entertainment of a lot of long-haired

hemales and credulous females must find time hang very heavy on

their hands in the great henceforth, and heartily wish themselves

back here wrestling with Republican prosperity, doctor bills and

other blessings. It seems to me that were I a ghost I would float

about on cloud banks and bathe in the splendors of the morning,

instead of hiding in bat-caves all day and snooping about all

night seeking an unsalaried situation at some dark-lantern

seance. When America's greatest lexicographer writes me an

ungrammatical message on a double-barreled slate, signs it "noeh

webstur," and instructs his terrestial to deliver it to me on

payment of one cart-wheel dollar, I suspect that there's

something sphacelated in the psychological Denmark. Of course

they may have the phonetic system of orthography in Elysium, but

in dealing with mortals I scarce think the old man would

discredit his own dictionary. A spook manipulator once solemnly

assured me that the spirit of Tecumseh was my guardian angel,

that the old Shawnee chief was ever at my elbow. I don't believe

it; had he been there on recent occasions he would have hit

sundry and various Baptists on the head with his tomahawk. If old

Tecum is trailing me around I want to give him a pointer right

here that as a guardian angel he's utterly no good in a clime

"Where the rage of the vulture, the love of the turtle,

Now melt into sorrow, now madden to crime,"

and he had best cast his aegis over some Boston editor. It by no

means follows, however, that because many professional fakirs and

intellectual fuzziewuzzies have "gone in for Spiritualism," it is

all a fraud. If the morad floating in a sunbeam be

indestructible, existing in some shape from everlasting to

everlasting, it is inconceivable that mind, the lord of matter,

should perish utterly--should fade like an echo into the great

inane. That were a reversal of the law of the survival of the

fittest--casting away a priceless jewel while preserving its

tawdry setting. That the lesser should survive the greater; that

the case of Anaxarchus should continue and Anaxarchus' proud self

become nonexistent, were to leave matter without law and wreck

the universe, for law itself presupposes prescience. "Natural

law," so called, must either be an act of intelligence compelling

order, or a freak of nescience entailing chaos; hence if order be

eternal mind must necessarily be immortal, for it is an axiom of

science that "Nature wastes nothing." What becomes of the mighty

life-force of a Milton? If it be utterly extinguished; if it

becomes a forceless shade on Acheron's shore, or an "angel"

withdrawn from active influence in the universe, it is certainly

wasted, in so far as what we call nature is concerned. In his

lecture on "Evolution," Henry Ward Beecher said: "I believe there

is a universal and imminent constant influence flowing directly

from the bosom of God, and that is the inspiration of the human

race." Is God continually giving out this "influence," this

life-force, this vis vitalis, to the people of this planet, and

with each death withdrawing a portion thereof and either casting

it into the waste-basket of Perdition or cording it up, like

back- number newspapers, in the New Jerusalem, never to be again

employed? If it "flows directly from the bosom of God" is it not

God? And if Nature waste nothing can Nature's Prince be such a

prodigal? Is he not rather the great psychological heart of the

universe through which the same life-current, the same intellect

flows back and forth forever? But here! We are drifting into

metempsychosis--are in a fair way to get ourselves

excommunicated. Furthermore, we are actually predicating a

probability that the editor of the Chicago Inter-Ocean is a

reincarnation of Balaam's ass. I am not prepared to assert that

Spiritualism is all brazen charlantry or foolish self-deception.

It may be that the "inspiration" of which Beecher speaks as an

emanation from God himself, is but a higher wisdom taught the

longing heart by those it has loved and lost. The souls of the

dead scratch no messages on greasy slates for stupid eyes, shout

none across the Styx that can be heard by vulgar ears; but there

be men who can hear in the silent watches of the night the music

of lips long mute. There be those for whom the veil that

separates the two eternities is no black inpenetrable pall, but

an Arachne's web, a sacred shadow through which comes sweeping,

not the roar of myriad voiced hosannahs and the rustle of

countless wings of dazzling white beating the everlasting blue;

but the soft incense of love, bringing healing to broken hearts,

calm to rebellious souls. These seek no thaumaturgic incantations

to secure messages from the other shore, for they are coming

continually. They do but listen, and interpret as best they may

to their dull-eared brethren, the celestial wisdom. The latter

protest that they "inspired," and the trumpet Fame casts upon

them her purple robe. It is not the peripatetic "mediums," but

the poets and prophets who "call up the spirits" and bid them

speak to us; those who find all the dead Past living in the

Present; who are themselves so spirituelle that they can

understand Nature's finer tones--who realize that

"Life is but a dome of many-colored glass

That stains the white radiance of eternity."

All truly great men are spiritualists--even mystics. A

materialist may be a logician, a mathematician, in a limited way;

but never an orator nor a poet. He is of the earth earthly; an

intellectual Antaeus--the moment his feet leave the sodden clay

he is strangled by the gods. For him there is no Fount of Castaly

whose sweet waters make men mad. Parnassus is but an Egyptian

pyramid to be scaled with ladders, and by the aid of guides who

serve for salary. Fancy has no wings to waft him among the stars.

He sees in the Bible only its errors, never its wild beauty. For

him Villon was only a sot and Anacreon a libertine. In his cosmos

there's neither Garden of the God, nor Groves of Daphne. He can

understand neither the platonic love of Petrarch nor the

psychological ferocity of Rousseau.

"The Apostle of affliction, he who threw

Enchantment over passion, and from

Woe wrung overwhelming eloquence."

For him all, all is clay--even the laughter of childhood is a

cunning mechanism, and the Uranian Venus but a lump of animated

earth. The flowers bring him messages only from the muck in which

their roots are buried, the "concord of sweet sounds" is but a

disturbance of the atmosphere. Such men do not live; they merely

exist. They do not enjoy life; they do not even suffer its pangs.

They know naught of that sweetness "for which Love is indebted to

Sorrow." God pity them.

* * *

The gang of mutton-heads whose duty it was to select twelve poets

whose names should be commemorated in the new congressional

library, excluded that of Tom Moore on the plea that he wasn't

much of a poet, and now the Irish-Americans are fairly seething

with indignation. Take it easy; Tom Moore doesn't need a memorial

tablet. He will be read and honored centuries after the library

building with its poet's corner has perished of old age. He is

the poet of the people, and has more readers than any ten of

those honored by the committee.

* * *

SOME GOLD-BUG GUFF.

If it is gold that has appreciated, as the silverites claim,

aren't the farmers now getting two dollars a bushel for their

wheat?--Montgomery (Ala.) Advertiser.

The foregoing is irrefutable evidence that the fool-killer is

enacting the role of cunctator. Only a gold-bug editor could

insult the people of Alabama with such an exhibition of idiocy. I

am heartily tired of this whole currency question; but the

Advertiser has been fairly stinking for attention a long

time--its Smart Alecism has become simply insupportable.

Politically considered, the Advertiser has been all things to all

men and "nothing to nobody." It is a journalistic George Clark,

mistaking political treachery for diplomacy and impudence for

intellect. As Clark cannot interview himself to the extent of

half a column for the Morning Bazoo without getting his goozle

entangled in the skein of his own intorted argument, so the

Advertiser cannot grind out an editorial of equal length without

getting hoist with its own logical sequence, split from vermiform

appendix to occipitofrontalis by the recoil of its own

syllogisms. The Advertiser is unreliable as Proteus; the base

vulpine instinct serves it in lieu of brains; the clink of cash

in the counting room is the keeper of its conscience. At least

such is the pen-portrait drawn of it by the best men in Alabama.

Its allusion to $2 wheat is a trick that would disgrace the

sophists who practice in our municipal courts with drunks and

courtesans for clients. Such a horse-play for the benefit of the

political gallery gods would be contemptuously ignored by the

ICONOCLAST were not the Advertiser's betters indulging in the

same unmitigated bosh. Our Alabama contemporary is but an anile

echo of the New York Tribune, a faint adumbration of the Chicago

Inter-Ocean. The bigwigs cut out the work for the journalistic

wiggletails. They pitch the tune and all the intellectual eunuchs

come in on the chorus. The editorials of all such sheets as the

Advertiser are but a stale re-hash of Eastern utterances. They

pick up these things and "work 'em over," just as the Herald of

Astoria, Ore., revamps articles from the ICONOCLAST and runs them

as original. The farmer IS now receiving $2 a bushel for his

wheat. That is to say, the dollar with which he is paid has

double the purchasing power of the dollar two decades ago. He is

exactly as well off as though he received two old-time

dollars--if he chances to be out of debt. If he is not out of

debt, if he must discharge old scores with these 200-cent

dollars, he is being deprived of his adventitious good fortune

resulting from foreign crop failures. It makes no earthly

difference what the measure of value may be if it is immutable.

The purchasing power of the dollar might be safely increased or

decreased 90 per cent. were the whole business of this country on

a cash basis. Under such conditions we might contract our volume

of money to a million dollars or expand it to five billions, and

harm nobody; but it seems to me that any fool on earth--even the

editor of the Advertiser could comprehend the following

unequivocal facts: (1) that a majority of the American people owe

money; (2) that an enhancement of the purchasing power of the

dollar must work grievous injury to the debtor; (3) that unless

the volume of money keeps pace with the increase in the money

work to be done the unit of value must inevitably appreciate. Let

us state the case in kindergarten language for the benefit of

intellectual infants; while the demand for money is increasing in

a ratio of geometrical progression we have eliminated one great

source of supply--have cast upon gold alone the money work which

from time immemorial had been done by two metals. The gold

product has not kept pace with the growth of the world's

business; the law of supply and demand is irrevocable; ergo, gold

HAS appreciated and the debtor HAS been despoiled. The temporary

rise in price of one or two or a score of American products in

obedience to the laws of trade cannot obscure these

incontrovertible facts. WHILE THE PRICE OF WHEAT HAS ADVANCED THE

PRICE OF LABOR HAS DECLINED. The wage-worker now receives LESS

than formerly, while it costs him MORE to feed his family. And

this is what the Republican press and its mugwump echo call

prosperity! The wheat-growers, numerically unimportant, are

prospering despite the gold standard, just as the placer-miner

who washes out ten dollars each day and gives up five of it

nightly to cut-throat gamblers; but in this prosperity the great

body of the American people have neither lot nor part. Texas is

selling middling cotton at 5 1/2 and paying $3 for flour. Adult

male operatives are working in Massachusetts cotton mills for 50

cents a day, and their families doing without flour. Pennsylvania

miners are braving subterranean dangers for 90 cents a day and

living on potatoes and point. Although this is the busiest season

of the year--the time when the Republican tidal wave of

prosperity is supposed to buss the very clouds--there is scarce a

town or city in the United States where able-bodied men are not

begging for employment. If you don't think so put a 3-line "ad"

in your morning paper that you want to employ a man for any

purpose, and offer ONE-HALF the salary that such service would

have commanded before the demonetization of silver, and see how

quickly your office will be jammed! Texas has probably suffered

less than any other American state from hard times, Waco less

than any other Texas city, for here we can subsist on climate and

sanctification. Waco is a city of but 30,000 souls--conceding

that the Baptists are supplied with that immortal annex; yet when

it was reported the other day that the ICONOCLAST needed another

book- keeper applications were filed before night by a score of

men competent in the craft. Men apply a month ahead for

employment on mailing day, because at that time a dozen or so

extras can each earn a dollar. I have in hand an article by one

of the brightest journalists of Chicago, who states that

reporters are paid $10 to $25, editorial writers $25 to $35 per

week, and that a man who offends the newspaper trust can get no

further employment in the town. Twenty years ago a scribe who

could turn a bright editorial paragraph or manufacture an

interesting falsehood was worth $50 to $75 a week in Chicago, and

if lost one situation he'd find two more before he got half-

sober--but that was before Markhanna and his peon took charge of

this country's prosperity. Will the Advertiser or any other

mugwump organ, kindly explain why it is, if the gold standard is

making this country to flourish like a green-bay horse, the idle

money of Europe and New England continues to pour across the

state of Texas, ignoring its matchless resources, to find

employment in free-silver Mexico! Why wages are slowly but

steadily rising in that country and are steadily declining in

this? Why is it that when a man cannot obtain employment here he

turns his face to "the Land of God and Liberty" if he has the

price of passage, feeling assured that there he has but to ask

for a job to obtain it? Why is that above all this cackle about

prosperity can be heard the stentor tones of Markhanna's organ

advising American workmen that they must come squarely down to

the European wage level before they can hope for permanent

employment? Perhaps I could find answers to these questions

myself had not my Baptist brethren lately pounded my head to a

pulp. As it is, I humbly ask for information, beseech the

Advertiser to uncork its omniscience. Will the millions of

Americans who can barely make a living of it during the busy

season, thank God and the gold-buggers for manifold mercies when

the fall trade is over and the crops are all in?

* * *

"THE TYPICAL AMERICAN TOWN."

The Complete Works of Brann, the Iconoclast — Volume 10 · 第 6 / 24 题