I think that The Mutualist is much the best of any of those suggested in the July number as a new name for the Egoist. I want to tell you again how much I like the paper, and how much I hope you will get sufficient encouragement to make it possible to continue.

With best wishes,

—C. L. Swartz

[The paper is given good encouragement and support; probably better support than papers of its inclination have received in the past. It is difficult to built up a paper or to gain a large list of subscribers without a large fund for advertising purposes. —Editor.]

As a choice for a new title for your excellent magazine I suggest Equal Freedom if a change must be made. A few weeks ago I had some talk with Judge Totten on the subject. He, too, preferred that to others offered. For my part, I would rather see the present title (The Egoist) retained. —H. J. Stuart, Montrose, Alabama.

[Egoist, Equal Freedom, Mutualist, was my vote, also, but—I was coerced! Others thought Egoist good for a paper advocating egoism exclusively, but not for a paper advocating something else, even though agreeable to egoistic doctrine. Equal Freedom they thought poached on a name now in use—Freedom of London—while Mutualist has in some way been employed by us for many years.—Editor.]

I am delighted at the adoption of The Mutualist as the name of the paper. Now it will be possible for us to do permanent propaganda work. In the past there was no direct way to combine all efforts, so that when our ideas reached some that did not know of them before, there was no means for him to follow them up. We can do this now by connecting everything: (1) Mutual Banking, the book; (2) the petition for the mutual bank; (3) the Mutual Credit League, whenever it is thought advisable to incorporate it, for effective propaganda work, and to demonstrate the modus operandi of the proposed mutual banks; (4) and The Mutualist as an organ of publicity for all. —H. C.

The Individualist, Equal Freedom, The Mutualist.—Vote of Mr. Bolton Hall, New York.

Why waste time and space quibbling over a name? The Egoist is very appropriate, so tell the hair splitters to forget it and get busy securing subscribers for the only publication that seems to fill the space left vacant by Tucker's Liberty. —Geo. B. Wheeler

I write to record my vote for THE MUTUALIST. Although you ask for second and third choices, I find that after a pretty thoro examination of the list that there is no other name in it that is comparable to the Mutualist for our purposes. To be quite sure of what it might signify to all comers I did quite a little checking back to find what it meant and how it had been used. The primary Latin root seems to be mutuus (muto, mutare, to change), or mutuum, which meant equitable exchange. Spencer used the term mutualist in his Data of Ethics as one who recognized the prime value of the social inter-relation of free individuals. —R. J. Baker.

Having just received the July number of your paper, and reading the article Change of Name Requested, will say, I think the present name (Egoist) very suitable and comprehensive, since egoism and individualism certainly mean the same. Sorry to hear of the editor's indisposition and send absent treatment for speedy recovery. —Myra P. Weller.

Dr. H. J. Schirmer suggested The Individualist as a name, with An Exponent of Liberty and the Science of Society as a subtitle. Both very good.

But al but 8 in 83 votes had The Mutualist as one choice, and first choice in most cases. No use to take up space printing all the names and votes.

Bubbling Waters, Wixom P. O., Mich.

Say old top, what's the matter, are you on the bumpers? You weren't well the last time you wrote, and I suspect you ain't better, much, hey? Just drop a card telling me All's well. That'll make me feel gooder. I'm all right and full of pep, if you know what that means. I am working like the darkey after the woodchuck, when he's out'n meat. Buck up! JO.

[All's well! They wuzzunt nuthin' to be a-skeered of. I'm skyuten around again, Jo. —E.]

A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. —Thomas Paine.

We should not forget that government is, abstractedly taken, an evil, a usurpation upon the private judgment and individual conscience of mankind. A fundamental distinction exists between society and government. Men associated at first for the sake of mutual assistance. Society and government are different in themselves, and have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness. Society is in every state a blessing. Government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst, an intolerable one. —W. Goodwin.