f
PRICE, 10 CTS. MISSIONARY RATES ON LARGE QUANTITIES.
F- 22
PATERNAL LEGISLATION
A STUDY OF LIBERTY
BY
THEODORE SCHROEDE
(68 East 59th St., N. Y. City) º
OF THE NEW YORK BAR
*
“Surely the State, which has conspicuously
failed in every single department of moralf-
zation by force, may be wisely asked in
future to mind its own business.”—
Wordsworth DonisTHorpE.
REPUBLISHED FOR THE AUTHOR
From MOTHER EARTH, June, 1906

U.S. tº E Bo $ JT'to ºv.
#legenetiXational £aitk 2059 venue-"ºn---
pf $gſt £ake (litp. H S wn. casulgº. EDGAR sº.
*-ūr-e e-º-
Capital $ 500,000,
Surplus $ 250,000. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH,
July 30, 1904.
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERY:
We take pleasuſ: regarçºngºg the Far-
mer's Utah Lo an ...: who are , desirous
of investing in securities based upon improved farms,
It was for the purpose of negotiating first mont-
gage loans on such security that the Association was
incorporated.
For over twenty years we have known and
done business with the officers who direct its pols
icy, and we have found them capable, conservative
men, Their characters are irreproachable. We be-
lieve that any loans made or offered for sale by
them would be safe invest Reſnts G2X
<2%23.
A WORD TO THE WISE I
. The First Mortgages above referred to are as safe as
Government Bonds. The security is three times the value of
the sum loaned. They will net you 6 per cent. Interest col-
lected by me without charge.
These First Mortgages, in
sums from $250 upwards, are for sale by me. Investigation
and correspondence solicited.
THEO. SCHROEDER,
63 East 59th St., New York City.



PATERNAL LEGISLATION.
ISTORY serves no purpose to those who cannot, or
do not avail themselves of it as a means of learn-
ing helpful lessons, for present use. From a few
sources not readily accessible to the masses, I have copied
a partial summary of paternalistic legislation which even
the most devout devotees to mass or ruling class wisdom
would now decline to defend.
It is helpful, perhaps, to look back to the persistent
fallacious assumption that men can be made frugal and
useful members of society by laws and edicts. Every
thoughtful student feels sure that future generations will
look upon our present efforts to regulate the self-regard-
ing activities of humans with the same cynical leer as
that which now flits over our faces as we read the
following:—
The earliest sumptuary law was passed 215 B. C.,
enacted that no woman should own more than half an
ounce of gold or wear a dress of different colors, or ride
in a carriage in the city or in any town or within a mile
of it, unless on occasion of public sacrifices. This law
was repealed in twenty years. In 181 B. C. a law was
passed limiting the number of guests at entertainments.
In 161 B. C. it was provided that at certain festivals
named the expense of entertainments should not exceed
Ioo asses, and on ten other days of each month should
not exceed Io asses. Later on it was allowed that 200
asses, valued at about $300, be spent upon marriage days.
A statute under Julian extended the privileges of ex-
travagance on certain occasions to the equivalent of $10,
and $50 upon marriage feasts. Under Tiberius, $100 was
made the limit of expense for entertainments. Julius
Caesar proposed another law by which actual magistrates,
or magistrates elect, should not dine abroad except at
certain prescribed places.
Sumptuary laws, that is to say, laws which profess to
regulate minutely what people shall eat and drink, what
guests they shall entertain, what clothes they shall wear,
I
what armor they shall possess, what limit shall be put to
their property, what expense they shall incur at their
funerals, were considered by the Early and Middle Ages
as absolutely necessary for the proper government of
mankind.
Tiberius issued an edict against people kissing each
other when they met and against tavern keepers selling
pastry. Lycurgus even prohibited finely decorated ceil-
ings and doors. In England the statutes of laborers, re-
citing the pestilence and scarcity of servants, made it
compulsory on every person who had no merchandise,
craft or land on which to live, to serve at fixed wages,
otherwise to be committed to gaol till he found sureties.
At a latter day, all men between twelve and sixty not
employed were compelled to hire themselves as servants
in husbandry; and unmarried women between twelve and
forty were also liable to be hired, otherwise to be im-
prisoned. All this, of course, was to compel people of
modest wealth to remain among the laboring class purely
for their own good. (?) But they were quite impartial
in enforcing benefits, since the Star Chamber also as-
sumed to fine persons for not accepting knighthood.
Compulsion was also used at the time of the Reforma-
tion, to uphold the Protestant faith and keep people in
the right way. Refusing to confess or receive the sacra-
ment was first made subject to fine or imprisonment, and
a second offense was a felony punishable by death, and
involved forfeiture of land and goods. Those who, hav-
ing no lawful excuse, failed to attend the parish church,
in the time of Elizabeth, were fined twelve pence—at that
time a considerable sum. This penalty was afterwards
altered to twenty pounds a month, but those were ex-
empted who did not obstinately refuse. The penalty on
all above sixteen who neglected to go for a month was
abjuration of the realm; and to return to the realm there-
after was felony. And two-thirds of the rent of the
offender's lands might also be seized till he conformed.
An ordinance of Edward III., in 1336, prohibited any
man having more than two courses at any meal. Each
mess was to have only two sorts of victuals, and it was
prescribed how far one could mix sauce with his pottage,
except on feast days, when three courses, at most, were
allowable.

2
The Licinian law limited the quantity of meat to be
used. The Orcian law limited the expense of a private
entertainment and the number of guests. And for like
reasons, the censors degraded a senator because ten
pounds weight of silver plate was found in his house.
Julius Caesar was almost as good a reformer as our mod-
ern Puritans. He restrained certain classes from using
litters, embroidered robes and jewels; limited the extent
of feasts; enabled bailiffs to break into the houses of rich
citizens and snatch the forbidden meats from off the
tables. And we are told that the markets swarmed with
informers, who profited by proving the guilt of all who
bought and sold there. So in Carthage a law was passed
to restrain the exorbitant expenses of marriage feasts, it
having been found that the great Hanno took occasion of
his daughter's marriage to feast and corrupt the Senate
and the populace, and gained them over to his designs.
The Whennic Court established by Charlemagne in
Westphalia put every Saxon to death who broke his fast
during Lent. James II. of Arragon, in I234, ordained
that his subjects should not have more than two dishes,
and each dressed in one way only, unless it was game of
his own killing.
The Statute of Diet of 1363 enjoined that servants of
lords should have once a day flesh or fish, and remnants
of milk, butter and cheese; and above all, ploughmen
were to eat moderately. And the proclamations of Ed-
ward IV. and Henry VIII: used to restrain excess in
eating and drinking. All previous statutes as to abstain-
ing from meat and fasting were repealed in the time of
Edward VI. by new enactments, and in order that fisher-
men might live, all persons were bound under penalty
to eat fish on Fridays or Saturdays, or in Lent, the old
and the sick excepted. The penalty in Queen Elizabeth's
time was no less than three pounds or three months' im-
prisonment, but at the same time added that whoever
preached or taught that eating of fish was necessary for
the saving of the soul of man, or was the service of God,
was to be punished as a spreader of false news. And
care was taken to announce that the eating of fish was
£nforced not out of superstition, but solely out of respect
to the increase of fishermen and mariners. The exemp-
tion of the sick from these penalties was abolished by
3
James I., and justices were authorized to enter victualing
houses and search and forfeit the meat found there. All
these preposterous enactments were swept away in the
reign of Victoria.
Of all the petty subjects threatening the cognizance of
the law, none seems to have given more trouble to the
ancient and mediaeval legislatures than that of dress.
Yet views of morality, of repressing luxury and vice,
of benefiting manufacturers, of keeping all degrees
of mankind in their proper places, have induced the legis-
lature to interfere, where interference, in order to be thor-
ough, would require to be as endless as it would be object-
less.
Solon prohibited women from going out of the town
with more than three dresses. Zaleucus is said to have
invented an ingenious method of circuitously putting
down what he thought bad habits, namly, by prohibiting
things with an exception, so that the exception should,
in the guise of an exemption, really carry out the sting
and operate as a deterrent. Thus he forbade a woman
to have more than one maid, unless she was drunk; he
forbade her to wear jewels or embroidered robes, or go
abroad at night, except she was a prostitute; he forbade
all but panders to wear gold rings or fine cloth. And
it was said that he succeeded admirably in his legislation.
The Spartans had such a contempt for cowards that those
who fled in battle were compelled to wear a low dress.
of patches and shape, and, moreover, to wear a long beard
half shaved, so that any one meeting them might give
them a stroke. The Oppian law of Rome restricted
women in their dress and extravagance, and the Roman
knights had the privilege of wearing a gold ring. The
ancient Babylonians held it to be indecent to wear a walk-
ing stick without an apple, a rose, or an eagle engraved
on the top of it. The first Inca of Peru is said to have
made himself popular by allowing his people to wear ear-
rings—a distinction formerly confined to the royal family.
By the code of China, the dress of the people was subject
to minute regulation, and any transgression was punished
by fifty blows of the bamboo. And he who omitted to go
into mourning on the death of a relation, or laid it aside
too soon, was similarly-punished. Don Edward of Por-
tugal, in I434, passed a law to suppress luxury in dress
4.
and diet, and with his nobles set an example. In Florence
a like law was passed -in I471. And in Venice, laws
regulating nearly all the expenses of families, in table,
clothes, gaming and traveling. A law of the Muscovites
obliged the people to crop their beards and shorten their
clothes. In Zurich a law prohibited all except strangers
to use carriages, and in Basle no citizen or inhabitant was
allowed to have a servant behind his carriage. About
I292, Philip the Fair, of France, by edict, ordered how
many suits of clothes, and at what price, and how many
dishes at table should be allowed, and that no woman
should keep a cur.
The Irish laws regulated the dress, and even
its colors, according to the rank and station of
the wearer. And the Brehon laws forbade men
to wear brooches so long as to project and be dangerous
to those passing near. In Scotland, a statute enacted that
women should not come to Kirk or market with their
faces covered, and that they should dress according to
their estate. In the City of London, in the thirteenth
century, women were not allowed to wear, in the highway
or the market, a hood furred with other than lamb-skin
or rabbit-skin. In the Middle Ages, it was not infrequent
to compel prostitutes to wear a particular dress, so that
they might not be mistaken for other women. And this
was the law in the City of London, as appears from
records of I351 and 1382.
The views and objects of English legislators as to the
general subject of dress, however preposterous in our
eyes, were grave and serious enough. They were so
confident of their ground that it was recited that “wear-
ing inordinate and excessive apparel was a displeasure to
God, was an impoverishing of the realm and enriching
other strange realms and countries, to the final destruction
of the husbandry of the realm, and leading to robberies.”
The Statute of Diet and Apparel in 1363, and the later
statutes, minutely fixed the proper dress for all classes
according to their estate, and the price they were to pay;
handicraftsmen were not to wear clothes above forty
shillings, and their families were not to wear silk or vel-
vet. And so with gentlemen and esquires, merchants,
knights and clergy, according to graduations. Plough-
men were to wear a blanket and a linen girdle. No female
5
belonging to the family of a servant in husbandry was
to wear a girdle garnished with silver. Every person
beneath a lord was to wear a jacket reaching to his knees,
and none but a lord was to wear pikes to his shoes exceed-
ing two inches. (1463.) Nobody but a member of the
royal family was to wear cloth of gold or purple silk, and
none under a knight to wear velvet, damask or satin, or
foreign wool, or fur of sable. It is true, notwithstanding
all these restrictions, that a license of the king enabled the
licensee to wear anything. For one whose income was un-
der twenty pounds, to wear silk in his night-cap was to
incur three months' imprisonment or a fine of ten pounds a
day. And all above the age of six, except ladies and
gentlemen, were bound to wear on the Sabbath day a cap
of knitted wool. These statutes of apparel were not re-
pealed till the reign of James I.
Sometimes, though rarely, a legislature has gone the
length of suddenly compelling an entire change of dress
among a people, for reasons at the time thought urgent.
In China a law was passed to compel the Tartars to
wear Chinese clothes, and to compel the Chinese to cut
their hair, with a view to unite the two races. And it was
said there were many who preferred martyrdom to obe-
dience.
So late as 1746, a statute was passed to punish with
six months’ imprisonment, and on a second offense with
seven years’ transportation, the Scottish Highlanders,
men or boys, who wore their national costume or a tartan
plaid, it being conceived to be closely associated with a
rebellious disposition. After thirty-six years the statute
was repealed. While the act was in force it was evaded
by people carrying their clothes in a bag over their
shoulders. The prohibition was hateful to all, as imped-
ing their agility in scaling the craggy steeps of their
native fastnesses. In 1748 the punishment assigned by
the act of I746 was changed into compulsory service in
the army.
Plato says it is one of the unwritten laws of nature
that a man shall not go naked into the market-place or
wear woman's clothes. The Mosaic law forbade men to
wear women's clothes, which was thought to be a mode
of discountenancing the Assyrian rites of Venus. The
6
early Christians, following a passage of St. Paul (I Cor.
xi.), treated the practice of men and women wearing each
other's clothes as confounding the order of nature, and
as liable to the heavy censure of anathema.
There was formerly rigorous punishment of persons
poaching game with blackened faces. Those who hunted
in forests with faces disguised were declared to be felons.
And as disguises led to crime, and mummers often were
pretenders, all who assumed disguise or visors as mum-
mers, and attempted to enter houses or committed assaults
in highways, were liable to be arrested and committed to
prison for three months, without bail.
The Mosaic law prohibited the practice of using al-
henna, or putting an indelible color on the skin, as was
done on occasions of mourning, or in resemblance of the
dead, or in honor of some idol. And two fashions of
wearing the beard and hair were prohibited, as has been
supposed, on account of idolatrous association. Even
Bacon said he wondered there was no penal law against
painting the face.
Here is paternal solicitude with a vengeance in a law I
requote from Wordsworth Donisthorpe:
“They shall have bows and arrows, and use the
same of Sundays and holidays; and leave all playing at
tennis or foot-ball and other games called quoits, dice,
casting of stone, kailes, and other such importune games.
Forasmuch as labourers and grooms keep greyhounds
and other dogs, and on the holidays when good Chris-
tians be at church hearing divine service, they go hunt-
ing in parks, warrens, and connigries, it is ordained that
no manner of layman which hath not lands to the value
of forty shillings a year, shall from henceforth keep any
greyhound or other dog to hunt, nor shall he use ferrets,
nets, heys, harepipes nor cords, nor any engines for to
take or destroy deer, hares, nor conies, nor other gentle-
men's game, under pain of twelve months imprisonment.
“For the great dearth that is in many places of the
realm of poultry, it is ordained that the price of a young
capon shall not pass threepence, and of an old fourpence,
of a hen twopence, of a pullet a penny, of a goose four-
pence.
“Esquires and gentlemen under the estate of a knight

7
shall not wear cloth of a higher price than four and a
half marks, they shall wear no cloth of gold nor silk nor
silver, nor no manner of clothing embroidered, ring but-
ton nor brooch of gold nor of silver, nor nothing of
stone nor no manner of fur; and their wives and daugh-
ters shall be of the same condition as to their vesture and
apparel, without any turning-up or purſle or apparel of
gold, silver nor of stone.
“Because that servants and labourers will not nor by
long season would, serve and labour without outrageous
and excessive hire, and much more than hath been given
to such servants and labourers in any time past, so that
for scarcity of the said servants and labourers the hus-
bands and land-tenants may not pay their rent nor live
upon their lands, to the great damage and loss as well of
the Lords as of the Commons, it is accorded and assented
that the bailiff for husbandry shall take by the year 13s.
3d. and his clothing once by the year at most; the master
hind Ios., the carter Ios., the shepherd Ios., the oxherd
6s. 8d., the swineherd 6s., a woman labourer 6s., a dey
6s., a driver of the plough 7s. at the most, and every
other labourer and servant according to his degree; and
less in the country where less was wont to be given, with-
out clothing, courtesy, or other reward by covenant. If
any give or take by covenant more than is above specified,
at the first that they shall be thereof attained, as well the
givers as the takers, shall pay the value of the excess so
taken, and at the second time of their attainer the double
value of such excess, and at the third time the treble value
of such excess, and if the taker so attained have nothing
whereof to pay the said excess, he shall have forty days
imprisonment.”
Our puritan fathers had the same paternal solicitude
as all other tyrants. They made it a crime to disregard
the Sabbath, or to deny Scripture, or the truth of Chris-
tianity or of the Trinity. In the records of the colony for
September 1639 it is written: “For as much as it is
evident unto this court that the common custom of drink-
ing one to another, is a mere useless ceremony, and
draweth on that abominable practice of drinking healths,
and is also an occasion of much waste of the good crea-
tures, and of many other sin,” etc. Then it declares
8
that such is a reproach to a Christian commonwealth,
“wherein the least evils are not to be tolerated.”
In the instructions of the Massachusetts Company to
Endicott and his Council, the trade in tobacco is only
allowed to the “old planters,” “if they conceive that they
cannot otherwise provide for their livelihood.” It is left
to the discretion of Endicott and his Council “to give way
for the present to their planting of it, in such manner and
with such restrictions” as they may think fitting. “But,”
it is added, “we absolutely forbid the sale of it or the use
of it by any of our own particular (private) men's ser-
vants, unless upon urgent occasion, for the benefit of
health, and taken privately.” In the Records of the Col-
ony of Massachusetts for September 3, 1634, “it is
ordered that victuallers or keepers of an ordinary shall
not suffer any tobacco to be taken into their houses, under
penalty of 5s. for every offence to be paid by the victual-
ler, and I2d. by the party that takes it.” “Further it is
ordered that no person shall take tobacco publicly under
the penalty of 2s. 6d., nor privately in his own house or
in the house of another before strangers, and that two or
more shall not take it together anywhere, under the afore-
said penalty for every offence.”
The laws which our Colonial fathers enacted against
“excess and bravery in apparel” are fitted to excite a
smile. But there is something more than ludicrous in
the aspect of grave lawmakers passing judgment on all
the minutiae of dress, and finding matter of offence in an
extra “slash,” or a needless garniture of “lace.” Against
this last-named article the zeal of our Puritan fathers
seems to have been especially stirred up. In 1634 it was
ordered “that no person, either man or woman, shall
hereafter make or buy any apparel, either woolen, silk,
or linen with any lace on it, silver, gold, silk, or thread,
under the penalty of forfeiture of such clothes.” In 1636
it was enacted “that no person, after one month, shall
make or sell any bone-lace or other lace, to be worn upon
any garment or linen, upon pain of 5s. the yard for every
yard of such lace so made, or sold, or set on; neither shall
any tailor set any lace upon any garment, upon pain of
Ios. for every offence,—provided that binding or small
edging laces may be used upon garments or linen.”
9
Again, three years later, a new edict was launched at
this obnoxious material, because “there is much complaint
of the excessive wearing of lace and other superfluities,
tending to little use or benefit, but to the nourishing of
pride and the exhausting of men's estates, and also of evil
example to others.” The law of 1634 was indeed repealed
in 1644; but in 1651 the Court, to their great grief, are
compelled to try their hand at the work again, though
frankly confessing the impotence of all previous legisla-
tion, and evidently awakening to a sense of the inherent
difficulties of the subject. “We acknowledge it,” say they,
“to be a matter of much difficulty, in regard of the blind-
ness of men's minds and the stubbornness of their wills,
to set down exact rules to confine all sorts of persons”;
and so, leaving the wealthier class to their own conscience
of fancy, they undertake to prescribe for “people of mean
condition.” It was therefore ordered (in 1651) that no
one whose estate is not of the value of £200 “shall wear
any gold or silver lace, or gold or silver buttons, or any
bone-lace above 2s. per yard or silk hoods or scarfs”;
and moreover, the selectmen of the town are required to
fine anybody whom “they shall judge to exceed their
rank and ability in the costliness or fashion of their ap-
parel, in any respect”! And finally, a law passed in 1662
forbids “children and servants” to wear any apparel “ex-
ceeding the quality and condition of their persons or
estate,” “the grand jury and country court of the shire”
being judges of the offence.
One provision of the law of 1634 against “new and
immodest fashions” is too remarkable to be omitted. It
reads as follows: “Moreover, it is agreed, if any man
shall judge the wearing of any the forenamed particu-
lars, new fashions, or long hair, or anything of the like
nature, to be uncomely or prejudicial to the common
good, and the party offending reform not the same, upon
notice given him, that then the next Assistant, being in-
formed thereof, shall have power to bind the party so
offending to answer it at the next Court, if the case so
requires; provided, and it is the meaning of the Court,
that men and women shall have liberty to wear out such
apparel as they are now provided of (except the im-
moderate great sleeves, slashed apparel, immoderate great
veils, long wings, etc.).” What intolerable tyranny of
IO
private surveillance is indicated in the phrase, “what any
man shall judge to be uncomely” 1
In the second letter of instructions (dated June, 1629)
to Endicott and his Council, they are exhorted to prevent
the sale of “strong waters” to the Ihdians, and to punish
any of their own people who shall become drunk in the
use of them. In the preamble to a law enacted in 1646,
one is lead to expect an enforcement of the modern prin-
ciples of abstinence and prohibition; since, after declar-
ing that “drunkenness is a vice to be abhorred of all
nations, especially of those which hold out and profess
the Gospel of Christ Jesus,” it goes on to assert that “any
strict laws against the sin will not prevail unles the cause
be taken away.” But it would seem that “the cause,” in
the eyes of our Puritan lawmakers, was an indiscrim-
inate sale of spirituous drinks; for the law chiefly enacts
that none but “vintners” shall have permission to retail
wine and “strong water.” It is also permitted to consta-
bles to search any tavern, or even any private house,
“suspected to sell wine contrary to this order.” More-
over, no person is “to diink or tipple at unseasonable
times in houses of entertainment,”—the “unseasonable”
time being declared to be after nine in the evening.
But these laws were of small avail, for, in 1648, the
Court is grieved to confess: “It is found by experience
that a great quantity of wine is spent, and much thereof
abused to excess of drinking and unto drunkenness itself,
notwithstanding all the wholesome laws provided and
published for the preventing thereof.” It therefore or-
ders, that those who are authorized to sell wine and beer
shall not harbor a drunkard in their houses, but shall
forthwith give him up to be dealt with by the proper
officer, under penalty of five pounds for disobedience.
In 1636 one “Peter Bussaker was censured for drunk-
enness to be whipped and to have twenty stripes sharply
inflicted, and fined £5 for slighting the magistrates,” etc.
In March, 1634, it was ordered, “that Robert Coles, for
drunkenness by him committed at Roxbury, shall be dis-
franchised, wear about his neck and so to hang upon his
outward garment a D made of red cloth and set upon
white; to continue this for a year, and not to leave it
off at any time when he comes amongst company, under
penalty of 40s. for the first offence and £5 for the second.”
MI
What was the efficacy of the whipping or the “scarlet let-
ter,” we are not informed.
Of course, people capable of such legislation must
frame fantastic definitions of Liberty. Here is an old one
whose sentiments have been often parroted by unthinking
humans of modern times. It reads: “True Liberty con-
sists in a freedom of doing and receiving good under the
protection of a government solicitous for the people's
good.” Such has always been the tyrant's conception of
freedom, and, strange to say, it finds many endorsers
cven to this day.
It has recently been solemnly announced from the judi-
cial bench that the only liberty an American has is the
liberty to do the right thing, of course according to other
people's conception of right. That is precisely the kind
of tyranny or liberty that was enjoyed by the victims of
the paternalistic laws above described.
Persons afflicted with newspaper intelligence express
their conception that the individual has no rights that
government may not invade, by that hollow phrase, “Lib-
erty under the Law.” Liberty under the law is what the
government-ridden peasants of Russia enjoy. Liberty
under the law was the pleasure of those who expired with
indescribable agony on the rack and amid the flames.
Liberty under the law was meted out to the millions of
victims of the witchcraft delusion. Liberty under the
law was also the liberty of our Southern chattel slaves
before as well as after the war. Liberty under the law is
the same old idea of liberty which every tyrant has ever
advanced. As for myself, I shouldn't object to a little
liberty in spite of the law, when that does not conform to
the rule of liberty as laid down by Herbert Spencer in
these words: “Every man has freedom to do all that he
wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any
other man.” *
THEoDoRE SCHROEDER,
63 East 59th St., New York City.
I2
u.4ctoreassroºve , - .
The First National Bank,
“O Gtº EN, UTA -t.
4 capital ºceae. Fºofits prºoooo.
favih acciºs, P Trºiolºas go. Lºftº.
John PixGäst, cashier. Jas. F. Sun?on, Anºt cada.
Ogden, Utah 8/15-1904.
To Whom It May Concern: -
The Farmers Utah Lö an Association, which was
recently organized at Logan, Utah, for the purpose of making and selling
first mortgage loans on farm property, is officered by men with whom we
have had intimate business relations. We have found them honest; con-
scientious, conservative méri. Their extended experience has made them
familar with the economic conditions prevailing here, and that they are
capable of grasping the situation is evidenced by the success they have
won. We have no hesitancy in recommending them to the consideration of
those who wish safe and profitable investments. We believe they would
not méke any loans, nor offer to sell any mo tgages that are not entirely
safe investments.
A WORD TO THE WISE!
The First Mortgages above referred to are as safe as
Government Bonds. The security is three times the value of
the sum loaned. They will net you 6 per cent. Interest col-
lected by me without charge. These First Mortgages, in
sums from $250 upwards, are for sale by me. Investigation
and correspondence solicited.
THEO. SCHROEDER,
63 East 59th St., New York City.

Joe rººtcºtt Parett- Jost-H scowcroFTwice Parºr Jar-Es Mack-vºctristºf.
J-wattºo"Twict Pºczt 7296 JaMEs Phort-ca--Itz,
Dr RECTop sº
Joe rºwcºtt u-w aeecrºr
-ºcº-prº sco-cºort Jam-e-e Macrº
---------> a----------r Cap Ta L
--------- --era scowcroft
char-L------tº uos e P-ray # 175. ooo
----> Pºnant-
to Whom It May Concern:-
The Farmers Utah Lo an Association of Logan, Utah, was incor-
porated in 1903, and has given attention to making and selling loans
art farms.
|
We have been acquainted for over twenty years with its officers,
who are well known for their honor and business ability.,
They have been closely identified/with the material-advanceme
of the State, and so are familar with Éthe conditions existing.
They are men of unquestionable busingfis
respects a safe investment.
Yours truly,
A WORD TO THE WISE |
The First Mortgages above referred to are as safe as -
Government Bonds. The security is three times the value of
the sum loaned. They will net you 6 per cent. Interest col-
lected by me without charge. These First Mortgages, in
sums from $250 upwards, are for sale by me. Investigation
and correspondence solicited.
THEO. SCHROEDER,
63 East 59th St., New York City.