the kings of the Canaanites, which were by the sea, heard how that the Lord had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more, because of the children of Israel." Josh. ix. 1, 2: "And it came to pass, when all the kings which were beyond Jordan, in the hill country, and in the lowland, and all the shore of the great sea in front of Lebanon, the Hittite, and the Amorite, the Canaanite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite, heard thereof; that they gathered themselves together, to fight with Joshua and with Israel, with one accord." Josh. xii. 7: And these are the kings of the land whom Joshua and the children of Israel smote beyond Jordan westward, from Baal-gad in the valley of Lebanon even unto Mount Halak, that goeth up to Seir; and Joshua gave it unto the tribes of Israel for a possession according to their divisions." Josh. xxii. 7: "Now to the one-half tribe of Manasseh Moses had given inheritance in Bashan; but unto the other half gave Joshua among their brethren beyond Jordan westward." 1 Sam. xxxi. 7: "And when the men of Israel that were on the other side of the valley, and they that were beyond Jordan, saw that the men of Israel fled, and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook the cities, and fled; and the Philistines came and dwelt in them." 1 Chron. xxvi. 30: "Of the Hebronites, Hashabiah and his brethren, men of valor, a thousand and seven hundred, had the oversight of Israel beyond Jordon westward; for all the business of the Lord and for the service of the king.”

Here, again, it should be remarked, that the difficulty is not new, but one that has been thoroughly canvassed for hundreds of years, and Dr. Driver's discussions have added nothing to the old argument. Dr. Driver's error in the premises only illustrates, as did a similar monumental error in the reasoning of Professor Robertson Smith concern

ing the Hebrew word for "south," that extensive scholararship and sound exegetical judgment are not always combined in the same individual. Robertson Smith, for ex

ample, in a most contemptuous manner declared that the word Negeb (which primarily means "parched land," and, because that was the character of the southern portion of Palestine, became the general Hebrew word for "south") could not have meant south when used by a writer while on the other side of the region at Mount Sinai. "Moses," he says, "could no more [Ex. xxvii.] call the south side the Negeb side of the tabernacle than a Glasgow man could say that the sun set over Edinburgh." Any other view than this he asserts "is nonsense. When a man says 'towards

the sea' he means it."

That so learned a man as Professor Robertson Smith could lay such emphasis on so absurd a statement as this gives the ordinary reader just grounds for losing confidence in the correctness of many of Professor Smith's other equally oracular statements, and those of others who blindly follow him; for it is one of the most familiar facts in the study of language, that the meaning of a word in common use has little relation to its etymology. "Transalpine" Gaul means the Gaul which is north of the Alps wherever the speaker may be who now uses the phrase. "Ultramarine" when used as descriptive of a color no longer has any reference to the region "beyond the sea" from which the color was originally obtained. Now, we suppose, ultramarine colors are chiefly made from coal oil. "The Orient" was, to the classic nations, the region over which the sun rose, the word being derived from the Latin word orior, "to rise." But here in America the great Canadian Pacific Railroad is flooding the country with illustrated pamphlets headed "A New Route to the Orient." The magnificently equipped trains which, on that road, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, p. 323.

carry you to the Orient, are, however, moving westward toward the sun-setting. What, therefore, are we to think of the judgment of a man who could make such confident statements as Professor Robertson Smith did in disregard of this principle? The case may not be quite so clear in connection with the phrase "over Jordan." One thing, however, is certain: that its usage was not so well established as Professor Driver's confident assertions assume it to have been. The loose usage of the term manifested in the passages we have quoted clearly removes the phrase from the list of those which have any important bearing upon the date at which the Pentateuch was written.

But space compels us to pause here. In a future communication we will take up the other passages referred to by Dr. Driver in support of his theory, and consider them one by one. What we have already done, however, is sufficient "to give us pause," and compel us to ask, How is it possible for a learned man who is essaying to lead the thought of the Christian public, to put forth such an array of weak arguments in support of his revolutionary positions? If there are stronger arguments to come, why does he not rely upon them? If his theory is in need of such supports as are derived from these passages, it must rest upon a flimsy foundation. If he has anything better we shall see.

VOL. LV. No. 219. 9

ARTICLE VIII.

TAXATION OF CHICAGO BANKS.

BY Z. SWIFT HOLBROOK.

THE Act of Congress creating national banks is explicit as to how such banks shall be taxed in their respective states. This is its language: "The Legislature of each state may determine and direct the manner and place of taxing all the shares of national banking associations located within the state, subject only to two restrictions, that the taxation shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individuals citizens of such state, and that the shares of any national banking association owned by non-residents of any state shall be taxed in the city or town where the bank is located, and not elsewhere. Nothing herein shall be construed to exempt the real property of associations from either state, county, or municipal taxes, to the same extent, according to its value, as other real property is taxed.”1

The statutes of the state of Illinois echo the federal statute, for they expressly provide: "The taxation of such shares [of bank stock] shall not be at a greater rate than is assessed upon any other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of the state, in the county, town, district, village, or city where such bank is located."2 Chicago's largest banks are in what is known as the South

1 National Banks, Sec. 5219. Of Act of June 3, 1864, as amended Feb. 10, 1868.

2 Starr and Curtiss' Annotated Statutes Revenue, ch. 120, p. 35.

Town, and the assessor elected for this town in 1897 was one who, before he was elected assessor, had been twice under indictment for alleged offenses,—once for illegal voting, and once for running a bucket shop.

No sooner had he been elected, than a large number of middlemen, or go-betweens so-called, began soliciting merchants, banks, and business men to have their taxes reduced by paying bribes. Many large and reputable firms and corporations acted in accordance with their usual practice, and bought justice with injustice, thinking such an exchange no robbery. Many bribed their assessments down to a point far below justice, some not being found on the tax list at all, while thousands yielded for the first time to temptation, being afraid of the assessor and his almost unlimited power to destroy. Some refused to bend the knee to this uncrowned king, and suffered for their temerity. Among these were some of the largest and most honorable banks in Chicago. was as follows:

The assessment of the banks