gislation against the "Great
American Fraud."

There are a thousand religious papers in America, weekly and monthly;
and what is their attitude on this question? Mr. Adams tells us:

Whether because church-going people are more trusting, and
therefore more easily befooled than others, or from some
more obscure reason, many of the religious papers fairly
reek with patent medicine fakes.

He gives us many pages of specific instances:

Dr. Smith belongs to the brood of cancer vampires. He is a
patron and prop of religious journalism. It is his theory
that the easiest prey is to be found among readers of church
papers. Moreover he has learned from his father-in-law (who
built a small church out of blood-money) to capitalize his
own sectarian associations, and when confronted recently
with a formal accusation he replied, with an air of injured
innocence, that he was a regular attendant at church, and
could produce an endorsement from his minister.

And here is the "Church Advocate", of Harrisburg, Pa., which publishes
quack advertisements disguised as editorials. One of them Mr. Adams
paraphrases:

As Dr. Smith is, on the face of his own statements, a
self-branded swindler and rascal, you run no risk in
assuming that the Rev. C.H. Forney, D.D., L.L.D., in acting
as his journalistic supporter for pay, is just such another
as himself!

And again:

Will the editor of the "Baptist Watchman" of Boston explain
by what phenomenon of logic or elasticity of ethics he
accepts the lucubrations of Dr. Bye, of Oren Oneal, of
Liquozone, of Actina, that marvelous two-ended mechanical
appliance which "cures" deafness at one terminus and
blindness at the other, and all with a little oil of
mustard?

And again:

The "Christian Observer" of Louisville replied to a
protesting subscriber, suggesting that the "Collier"
articles were written in a spirit of revenge, because
"Collier's" could not get patent medicine advertising. When
I asked the Rev. F. Bartlett Converse for his foundation for
the charge, he said that one of the typewriters must have
written the letter! Doubtless also the same highly
responsible typewriter imitated the signature with startling
fidelity to Dr. Converse's handwriting!

And here is--would you think it possible?--our "Church of Good
S