what she says to him. The capital for his colyum is the order of every waking minute of his day, as well as what he has dreamed the night before-if it was fit for print.

"Not content with his own personality, the colyumist sells his friends. He tells where he has seen them, so that his readers may go there and see them too. He comments on his colleagues in the same paper, he saves stamps by answering invitations and wishing people many happy returns of the day. The result is the popularity of his colyum. He has united several hundred thousand readers into one happy family. They all know what

the colyumist and his friends have been eating and reading and winning and losing and thinking and dreaming. He confides to them when his mind is empty, and they send him little verbal presents of their own. They reach across a few city blocks, or counties, or continental watersheds and argue about their alma mater. The colyumist is every one's best friend, for he has builded his colyum with a free masonry that every one can understand."

The "unashamed public confidence" of the exhibition, it is surmised, is what stamps the colyum as a national trait:

"The Englishman raises hedges or sinks moats or plants parks to insure his privacy. The Latin retires cozily to his inner court. In private life he whispers his indiscretions both before and after he has joined the ladies, but they are always whispered, and his success is measured by his ability to convince his listener that they are whispered for the first time. The German masks his private virtues as racial and Teutonic and his private vices as imported from across the Rhine. He cloaks his individuality

in a uniform.

"Why America should crave intimacy, even in the daily paper, is harder to say. A dozen reasons sound both plausible and possible. We are young in our national life, and naive and talkative. We lack geographical concentration, and therefore want to be

clubby. We are so democratic that we elect a Republican President after a Front Porch campaign. Reserve and dignity we are a bit afraid of as pertaining to European diplomacy and imperialistic intrigue. We want all our cards on the table, and if they happen to be visiting-cards-so much the better. Our very national life depends on the fusion of a hundred different races. We hunger for common understanding, and realizing how a touch of detail makes the whole world kin, rush forth t broadcast what our baby weighs and how many bananas we ca eat for lunch."

Easy as it is to say how the colyum is raised, there remains the question what the colyum is going to raise. "If it is to be the pillar of American literature, what will it eventually support?"

"At times it looks as if its greatest contribution, the bringing together of writer and public, were itself a menace. The enthusi astic reader goes through his colyum, finds himself in the holy of holies and is at once less critical of what he sees for himself. In other words, the colyum acts as an artificial stimulus to the literature and art of the day. The colyumist need rarely defend his tastes; it is enough for his readers for him to declare them. He leads a personally conducted tour, and after the tourist has paid his two or three cents admission he has no further control The colyumist causes those books to be bought that he happens to like and acts as free press agent for those plays which pleas him. If the obvious danger of such arbitrary advantage is that it is short-lived, if the colyumist recommends too many unpopular books and plays, and eventually loses his job, he has nevertheless acted for some time to interfere with the process of natural selection.

"It is almost impossible for him to be representative. The New York colyumists among themselves form a fairly close corporation. Their common stock is distributed throughout the country, but only a few dozen hold the preferred. There are playwrights and poets and novelists, and even actors and critics in the circle. Débutantes and dowagers hang in the offing all ready to lionize the victims. Chiefly are the colyumists popular for their charm, their wit, their brisk novelty. But a sinister hint of their power as advertising agents hangs about their at tractiveness. It is fun for the young writer to know them, but it is also good policy. Conversely, it is the very intimacy with the writer that adds color to the colyumist's copy. He talks of Jim, who has just turned out the great American novel, and what kind of cigaret he uses, and the readers flock to read."

WHO WILL BE THE ARTIST?-In a letter to the New York Tribune from Rear Admiral Wilfred Henderson at Ryecroft, Hants, England, are drawn two pictures that call for an artist's pencil:

"Sir: Out of the sadness of the shock which the civilized world has sustained at the death of the late President of the United States there arises a scene which, because of the beauty of its touching simplicity and homeliness, is one which should be immortalized by art, so that it fade not away from our memories and its deep-reaching lesson be not lost to humanity.

"I refer to the episode which took place in the rural depths of the United States, some twenty miles from the nearest railway station, when the news of the death of the President was announced to the Vice-President, who automatically fills the vacancy and who took the oath in the early hours of the morning, not in any circumstances of pomp or in surroundings of grandeur and stateliness, but in a little country sitting-room, before his old father and in the presence of his wife, whose tears were still flowing in sympathy with the grief of Mrs. Harding.

"Here in this old country we have a picture representing the Prime Minister announcing to Princess Victoria, then a child of seventeen, that her uncle, King William IV, was dead, and that she had succeeded to the throne of England. This episode took place also in the early morning, and the young girl, just awakened out of her sleep, is depicted standing in front of the Prime Minister, who is kneeling before her.

"Attractive as the portrayal of this incident undoubtedly is. it lacks the deep significance of that later and similar scene enacted so recently, when Mr. Coolidge, in simple and honest humility, responded to the call of the great responsibility so suddenly cast upon him-the call to pilot toward its high destiny one of the greatest and most stable republics the world has ever known.

"I hope that some great American artist will do justice to that sceně, so that reproductions of the picture may hang in many an American and British home and inculcate in the inmates the great principles of simplicity, humility, sincerity, duty and democracy."

1. P

rard

of a

E

WHAT THE BOYS ARE READING

ACH GENERATION HAS ITS FEARS and trepidation about what the boys are reading. Usually what the boy likes to read is what is not thought "good for him." Formerly boys were put under a stern command to et the "Dime Novel" series alone, and the stolen hours with hese now quite harmless pieces of literature were rendered all the sweeter. But the old fears in the mind of the anxious parent are not allayed. Some other means than coercion are considered to lead the boy's mind in the right path. A fund of $100,000 has been advanced by an anonymous donor "to promote the writing of better juvenile fiction"; and counsel has been taken both here and in England to devise means to win the boy away from the "Penny Dreadful." The exact reverse of the old method has been suggested. In England an educator proposes the banned books be put into the school curriculum, and the boys made to study them. The weaning process will then be accomplished "not by pointing out any grammatical errors, but by pointing out the stupidity of the story." The New York Times knows a better trick than that:

66

"Tim he Tireless' and its congeners should be studied exactly in the ancient way, as if they were masterpieces. No painful weariness of method, no detail of philology and syntax, no idiocy of grammarians and parsers should be spared those unfortunate youths. What will be the result? They will learn to love Shakespeare and Milton, any part of whose works they now abominate because it is part of the discipline of their youth. Make 'Hamlet' and 'Il Penseroso' compulsory, and your pupils will hate them and the 'guys' responsible for them as long as they live. Probably it would be an even better measure to forbid the works of the best authors; classify them as 'pernicious literature.' We see the fine results of that jumble of names and - dates which constitutes the average course of English literature' in some recent returns from Middle Form examinations. Thus, ""A Tale of Two Cities" deals with the towns of Troy about 180 B. C. ""Lavengro" was written by Milton about 1750.'"*

The new "preventive" fund will be administered by the magazine of the Boy Scouts, and already Mr. Zane Grey has been engaged to produce some of the prophylactic literature. This seems to give satisfaction to the New York Herald:

"Mr. Grey is valuable to juvenile literature. Not only does he know baseball, but he knows a West that ought to be even if it isn't. A generation ago boys were interested in all sorts of Western stuff because the frontier had not disappeared and there was always hope for the boy that some day he might run away from home, saddle a pony, pack a rifle, two revolvers and a bowie knife, and either exterminate the rapidly disappearing Indian, wring the secret of an Aztec treasure cave from its aged holder, or throw the weight of his marvelous marksmanship into some border conflict.

"That old West is gone, but the woods and the sea remain. There is the new empire of the air for the venturesome to conquer. And there is the field of sport, growing every year broader for the boy to read about as well as to act in. Forty years ago there were no baseball novels, and football was an exotic game indulged in only by the elect. Frank Nelson fished and hunted,

sailed and rode; but we can not remember that he ever put the ball over the fence in the ninth inning with two out and the score

tied.

"The Boy Scout executives ought to know what the boy of to-day wants to read. Naturally, it is something which reflects what he would like to be and do. The Scout movement has opened up a new world for boys. It directs their energy and their instinct for the open into activities that are useful as well as interesting. Suitable fiction will help. Black Bart no longer falls through Cut Throat Cañon, bounding from crag to crag; but Oswald the Forest Ranger saves the water supply of a whole

State."

Mr. Frank Jones, the English educator already mentioned, declares that a lot of nonsense is emitted about "pernicious literature." He absolves both "literature" and "the pictures" from blame in landing boys in the Children's Court. The same impulse is shared by Edmund Lester Pearson of the New York

to end' they would reach from William Street in New York, where the novels used to be published, to Cooperstown, where Erastus Beadle ended his days. And there would be enough over to lay a single track of them to Buffalo, where he first became a publisher. By the same token, if all the tears shed by distrest mothers and aunts, on discovering that their boys were 'reading dime novels,' should be added to the tears soon forthcoming from the boys themselves, after the traditional visit to the woodshed with father, the resulting body of salt water would be more than enough to float not only the ship of 'The Pirate Priest, or The Planter Gambler's Daughter,' by Colonel Prentiss Ingraham-one of Beadle's authors-but there would also be enough for the black bark of 'The Gambler Pirate, or Bessie, the Lady of the Lagoon'-another of Colonel Ingraham's novels. . . . "The dime novel, especially as it was published by its. originator, the firm of Beadle and Adams, formed an interesting by-path in the development of American literature, no less significant than the English chap-book of a century ago. It is intellectual snobbery to patronize one and to neglect the other. Second, the exhibition is an object lesson; a pathetic display of a defunct bogey. It is perpetually useful for each generation to see how much unnecessary anguish has been suffered in the past over things which were really harmless. Dime novels began as rather good historical novels; at their worst they were no more than exciting stories written sometimes, but not always, in careless English. They were never immoral; on the contrary they reeked of morality. Property rights were never confused; and when sexual ethics were involved, their standards make the modern two-dollar novel look as foul as Vulcan's stithy."

T

and quietly looked with an air of amusement on the tactics of the religious obscurantists of the day," we are told, tho “narrow dogmatists challenge the rational and scientific in religion and education" and "it is time to put the Fundamentalists on the defensive" by adopting "a militant Liberal program." Less bluntly phrased, this was Mr. Glenn Frank's contention in a Century article which THE LITERARY DIGEST reviewed in its issue for August 11, and it is now the contention of Harry Hibschman and a group of Liberals who applaud a recent suggestion of his. "I am not content to remain passive when my faith and my right to have my faith are attacked," says he, "for if it is worth having it is worth defending." Writing in a Unitarian organ, The Christian Register, published in Boston, he declares:

"Denying the right of any man, even one who acquired his scientific knowledge by self-communion on the windy plains of Nebraska, to put my reason or that of my neighbor in a straitjacket, I refuse to stand complacently aside and let the hosts of intolerance, ignorance and bigotry sweep the field unopposed.

And having learned long ago as a practising attorney that the best defense is a vigorous offensive, I submit that it is high time that liberals in thought and religion organize, arm, and carry the fight into the enemies' own country.

"It may be a fine thing to be too lofty or too dignified to fight. That is no doubt the way to remain exclusive and insignificant. But if in fact we stand for something that we believe vital to mankind, then we owe it to mankind to defend that something and to make it possible for men to know it and, unhindered, unafraid, and unintimidated, to accept it.

"Confident that many share these views, I propose the following definite program for consideration:

“First, That the Federation of Religious Liberals be adapted to, and used for, the purposes below outlined; or else that a new organization, separate from any church or denomination, be formed with some such name as Liberal Religious Association. "Second, That the purposes and objects be

"(a) To combat every narrow and reactionary and illiberal movement in the religious field and every effort to dictate on theological grounds what shall or shall not be taught in schools and colleges.

"(b) To wage a militant and persistent campaign in behalf of liberal and rational religion.

"Third, That the organization use a corps of speakers to visit different communities and hold series of meetings where shall be proclaimed to the common folk the gospel of a rational faith; and that these speakers be sent into the arena whenever Mr. Bryan or others like him undertake to impose their antiquated views on modern men through legislative action or otherwise.

"Fourth, That a weekly journal be established presenting the liberal view-point in the religious and religio-scientific controversies of the times, and that this journal be so edited and conducted that it can be sold on the news-stands.

"I suggest that The Register be made a clearing-house for the exchange of views on this subject, and that through it definite steps be taken to initiate some such program.

"Mr. Bryan contemptuously asserted recently that it was not necessary to impose a penalty on those who were forbidden to teach what he wished to place under the ban, as they were too cowardly to defy the legislatures and too selfish to risk the loss of their salaries.

"I propose that we stand up and be counted. Yea, more than that, I propose that we fight for the faith that is in us."

Immediate response, from Liberals of various denominations, has shown that Mr. Hibschman is touching something very much alive. A Congregationalist, Dr. Albert Parker Fitch, writes to The Christian Register:

"I agree very heartily with the principles and spirit of Mr.

TEETH

Hibschman's article. The old denominational lines represented divergences of conviction in religious interpretation, all of which rested back upon a general world view held by all the sects pretty much in common. That world view has disappeared. Present differences are therefore those of association, inheritance, temperament. The real cleavage to-day is between those who are whole-heartedly accepting that new interpretation of human life and history which the natural and the humane sciences have given us and those who would still maintain an old order by passionate if sincere assertion of it.

"I would like to see the free and liberal forces within all Protestant sects grouped together in a Liberal Protestantism, with a program of constructive assertion and a practical application of its tenets to the problems of our 'machine' society. It would present difficulties. Unanimity of opinion is most easily obtained among the unintelligent!”

Lee S. McCollester, a Universalist, calls the program "a beginning one step," and Jesse H. Holmes, a Quaker, indors "its spirit and purpose," while John H. Dietrich, a Unitarian,

says,

"I have never believed that liberalism is synonymous with indifference or even with tolerance. It stands for a set of ideas, a method of study and action, which are the exact opposite of the ideas of orthodoxy. And I believe that the hope of the world depends upon men's acceptance of those ideas. If I did not so believe, I would not be in the liberal ministry. Either we are right or we are wrong. If we are wrong, let us quit. If we are right, then let us carry on a war of extermination against everything false and wrong. By all means, let us have men with some fight in them, let them organize for an aggressive campaign, and then let us rid this country of intolerance, ignorance, and bigotry. Until we do, there is no hope."

A Methodist, L. O. Hartman, feels that

“It is, indeed, ‘high time that liberals in thought and religion organize, arm, and carry the fight into the enemies' own country.' The attempted dictation as to educational programs on the part of certain self-constituted authorities possessing no credentials results in nothing less than indecent intellectual exposure. Our religious world needs to learn that the validity of scientific findings is not to be settled by vociferation even from the mouth of the boy orator of the Platte.' The need of the hour is not a narrow dogmatism which leads to intolerance and even persecution, but an open-mindedness which will further the interest of human brotherhood and Christian unity. It is time to put the fundamentalists on the defensive and to call them back to Jesus."

M. H. Lichliter, a Congregationalist, remarks that "Liberalism needs no 'corps of speakers' as long as Mr. Bryan, Dr. Massee, and even Dr. John Roach Straton are willing to mount the rostrom," for, so Mr. Lichliter asserts, "every Fundamentalist address, every attack upon the method and spirit of science, will make militant Liberals." Nevertheless, this particular militant Liberal favors a "closer organization," and tells us:

"Federation is too impersonal and academic. Fellowship is the thing needed. It must begin in local communities and grow normally. Conferences after the order of the Modern Churchmen's Union of Great Britain would help. These should be held at conspicuous student centers all over the country. The thinking students of this land are as ready for revolt against traditional ideas as are the students of Europe. They are as eager for world vision and world service. They call for a con manding leadership and a daring program. Liberalism should offer both."

But not all Liberals favor militancy. President H. C. King advises a "discreet opportunism," and Stanley High remarks, "Liberal religion does not come by lecturing; it comes by

education."

THE BATTLE OF ROME

10 "OVERSHADOW ST. PETER'S" and contest the dominance of Catholicism in the Eternal City, Americans of the Methodist faith are "besieging the green slopes of Monte Mario," where, as readers of THE LITERARY DIGEST will recall, they plan to erect a great church and university. How extensive the Methodist project actually is may be seen by the architect's drawing here reproduced. Another illustration accompanying this article indicates more or less clearly the distance between Monte Mario and St. Peter's. However, it appears that neither size nor distance represents the point at issue. What the Catholics-and especially the Knights of Columbusobject to is the alleged endeavor to "drive the Pope out of the capital of the Catholic world," such being the phrase employed by the Osservatore Romano and quoted by a correspondent of the London Observer, who goes on to say,

"The diffusion of the 'heretical Bible' is also condemned as being among the vulgar proselytizing methods of Methodists, Baptists, Y. M. C. A., and Y. W. C. A., etc.,' while the pamphlets published in which Italy is apparently regarded as some barbarous country in need of civilization do not appeal to any Italian within or without Vatican circles. The American dollar is becoming a real menace, we are told. Even if the authorities prevent new buildings from being erected the fact remains that

non-Catholic schools already exist, and, as the others have been opened on the hillside, mothers may end by sending their children to them, especially as there are 'human comforts,' such as motor-cars and trips to the sea, thrown in with education." Accordingly,

"The Knights of Columbus have entered the lists armed with modern weapons and are meeting the enemy on their own ground. Four gymnasiums are being opened in the most populated quarters in Rome, with a theater, recreation halls and grounds, baths, and two chapels for boys and girls. Another gymnasium is to be opened at Ostia, or some other seaside resort. 'Only Nero enjoyed as much as the Knights of Columbus will put at the disposal of everybody worthy of Rome.""

Writing for English readers, the correspondent reviews the Italian paper's explanatory paragraphs regarding the Knights of Columbus, and we read:

The Osservatore Romano tells us that when about a hundred years ago Irish emigrants were forced to leave their country in order to escape the harsh treatment of Protestant England, they also had to suffer injustice at the hands of enemies of their religion in America. Out of twenty millions of Catholics in the States to-day there is not a single Catholic in the Federal Council. The Society of the Knights of Columbus was founded about thirty years ago in order to force public opinion to recognize the rights of Catholic citizens, and its members now number a million,

including such notable honorary members as the King of the Belgians, Cardinal Mercier and General Foch. Besides charitable work, especially among ex-soldiers, night schools, and the giving of traveling scholarships, it is surprizing to learn what a lot of energy has been expended upon drawing the name of Christopher Columbus out of 'unjust oblivion.' It is said that this great Italian, and ardent Catholic, whose name was not given to America, has never been looked upon with favor by the Protestant world. The Roman Society of The Holy Family have joined the American Knights as willing allies. Instead of Methodist strongholds, they hope that parks of remembrance may be planted on Monte Mario in memory of Roman soldiers who fell in the Great War, and a monument erected to Christopher Columbus to remind the forgetful that he brought the light of faith and civilization to a land which is now responsible for an uncalled-for outrage.'

"What at any rate seems certain is that the Roman children will have a good time whichever party wins."

T

THE BIBLE IN THE SCHOOLS

HE BIBLE IS BANNED, or at least not read, in the schools of twelve States, we are told, tho "23,000,000 people live in the twelve States and the officials whose opinions have excluded the Bible number not more than thirty," while in the history of this country, no legislature or constitutional convention has ever adopted a provision plainly excluding the Bible from the schools." After a study of the situation as it exists to-day, W. S. Fleming reports that "the highest courts of Maine, Massachusetts, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Texas, and Nevada have all said that the Bible has a right in the schoolrooms." Wisconsin "excludes the Bible as a whole," but "plainly asserts that parts of it might and should be used." Illinois pronounces the whole Bible "a sectarian book," and, as such, excludes it. It has recently been excluded from the schools in California. The Christian Statesman, Mr. Fleming tells us,

In

"It is reported that the Supreme Court of Louisiana has given a similar opinion, but no word to that effect comes to me from the State superintendent, who merely reports that the State board thinks best not to permit the use of the Bible in the schools. The courts of Ohio and Nebraska make the reading of the Bible optional with school boards. Thus there is uncertainty in my mind about the fact in one State; in three States the courts exclude the whole Bible; in one the court excludes part of it, and in eleven the courts admit the Book without question.

"By the opinion of the attorney-general or the State superintendent of public instruction, the Bible is not used in the schools of Minnesota, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, New York State (outside of New York City), and possibly LouisiThus, including Wisconsin, the Bible is banned—or at least not used in the schools of twelve and possibly thirteen-States." On the other hand,

ana.

The Bible is read by law every morning in every schoolroom in Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and probably Mississippi, tho there is a little doubt in my mind about the latter State having passed the law. Excepting Massachusetts, these States have all passed the mandatory law within the last ten years. In addition to the above seven States, the Bible is used every morning in all the schools of New York City, Washington, D. C., and Indianapolis, Indiana. In the cities and States where the Bible must be read every morning as above, there live just about 30,000,000 people, or 30 per cent. of our entire population.”

Thus

"With the Bible definitely excluded from the schools of twelve States and legally required to be read daily in the schools of seven States, there remain twenty-nine States, with just about half the national population, in which its daily use is permitted. In some States, as in Indiana and Iowa, there is a definite enactment that the Bible shall not be excluded from the schools: while in others there is no specific provision on the subject, but what is not denied is then allowed. The practise varies in these States from almost universal use to exclusion by custom. Omitting half a dozen States for lack of information, the others can be divided into four classes—

"1. Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida report that the use of the Bible in their schools is almost universal. "2. Delaware, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kansas, and Colorado use the Bible quite extensively.

"3. The Book is little used in the schools of Michigan, Nebraska, Missouri, Wyoming, and Texas, the reason for the slight use in the first three probably being the wide-spread belief in those States that its use is forbidden.

"4. The Bible is not used in the schools of Oregon."

As Mr. Fleming goes on to say,

"Fifteen months ago a company of business men in Kansas City, Missouri, at their own expense and with the consent of the school board, put a copy of the Bible on the desk of every school-teacher in the city-1,464 in all-and the act was highly commended by Bishop Lillis of the Roman Catholic Church of that diocese. Three years ago the W. C. T. U. of Michigan voted to offer a copy of the Bible to every public school in that State.

'As a result of a wide-spread and persistent popular request. in the State of Illinois an amendment, by a vote of 52 to 9, pu: a provision into the new proposed constitution of that State. specifically permitting the use of the Bible in the public schools: but the constitution was rejected by popular vote in December last, tho not because of the Bible provision. In the State oʻ Missouri, by a tie vote, a constitutional convention in session. at the time of this writing, fails to insert à permissive clause on the ground, as nearly all those voting against it declared, that the present constitution permits the Bible in the schools. In Washington there is now being waged an active campaign for an amendment to the State constitution, plainly giving the Holy Book an honored place in the educational system of the State. This year bills were before the legislatures of Iowa Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, Michigan, and probably some other States, for the mandatory reading of the Bible every day in every schoolroom, and The National Reform Association was, as always, a leading factor in the campaign for the passage of the bill"Taking their cue possibly from the decision of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, which said that parts of the Bible migh and should be used in the schools, there is a rising sentiment i some of the States from whose schools the Bible is excluded, iz favor of securing a list of Bible references chosen by an interdenominational commission and asking the teacher to read on of these daily from the version of the Bible she personally prefers It is hoped that this will overcome official objection and mee the situation, but it has not yet been tried except in a few smaller cities, notably Cadillac, Michigan."

PLUTOCRACY AND THE CHURCHES-Capital owns trichurches, too, complain some of the disgruntled. It's al nonsense, says Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick, an “outspoken" advocate of labor, who needs no further introduction. The church membership in the United States, he writes in The Lan motive Engineers' Journal (Cleveland), numbers about 47000,000, and you can hardly get a more comprehensive mem1»rship than that. Instead, then, of being dominated by a smal group of the wealthy, Dr. Fosdick says of them:

"The churches of America are pretty much what those fortyseven million are-as wise and as foolish, as broad and as narrow. as progressive and as reactionary. Moreover, these churches ar for the most part democratically governed, some by the direct democracy, like the Baptists and Congregationalists, where every individual congregation is absolutely self-determined, some by representative democracy as, for example, the Presbyterians The churches of America are what the people make them. A majority vote is conclusive in one way or another in nearly all of them. And while men with money doubtless have a disproportionate influence in the democratic church just as they do in a democratic State, this situation is no peculiarity of the churches. separating them from any other social groups whatever, nor does it mean that in the long run money can win out against folks. "A good many churches are really more democratic that many people suppose. In the two parishes where I have worked, I have always had both employers and employees. For years, in my first parish, you could not get into the church on Sunday morning without being greeted at the door by the business agen of the Carpenters' Union."