service on the washstand.

His wearing apparel was little more than rags, and financially he was
evidently not in a flourishing condition. He was in no sense a skilled
workman, and his room showed, in fact, that he was nothing more than a
laborer.

The "philosopher in the garret" was a dirty wretch, and his room, his
bedding and his clothing were nasty and filthy beyond belief. His object
in life seemed to have been the discomfiture of the white race, and to
this purpose he devoted himself with zeal. He declared himself to be a
"patriot," and wished to be the Moses of his race.

Under the title of "The Making of a Monster," the reporter attempts to
give "something of the personality of the archfiend, Charles." Giving his
imagination full vent the writer says:

It is only natural that the deepest interest should attach to the
personality of Robert Charles. What manner of man was this fiend
incarnate? What conditions developed him? Who were his preceptors? From
what ancestral strain, if any, did he derive his ferocious hatred of the
whites, his cunning, his brute courage, the apostolic zeal which he
displayed in spreading the propaganda of African equality? These are
questions involving one of the most remarkable psychological problems of
modern times.

In answer to the questions which he propounds, the reporter proceeds to
admit that he did not learn anything of a very desperate nature connected
with Charles. He says: