THE Government cannot support both the Catholic Church in Cuba and the principles of republican government in the United States at the same time.AMS December 1, 1898, page 741.3

GOD would rather an individual should do wrong, than be forced to do right.AMS December 1, 1898, page 741.4

THE size of an act makes no difference in the size of the principle which it involves.AMS December 1, 1898, page 741.5

THE principles of despotism are wont to masquerade the garb of philanthropy or of piety.AMS December 1, 1898, page 741.6

[Inset.] THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN CUBA, TO MAINTAIN WHICH THE U. S. GOVERNMENT MAKES A “TEMPORARY” LOAN. THE United States Government proposes to see that the Catholic churches in Cuba are kept open as they have been under the rule of Spain, and to this end will appropriate whatever funds may be necessary for the maintenance of priests and other essentials of Roman Catholic worship. This will be a “temporary loan” for such a time as may be necessary before the church in Cuba shall be able to support herself,—so say the Catholic prelates which the Government has consulted in the matter. It is a support which may be kept up indefinitely, without any compensation in return, besides being in flagrant violation of the fundamental principles of free government. What do the American people think, and what will they do, about it? See articles on next page.AMS December 1, 1898, page 741.7

“The Government Supporting the Church in Cuba” American Sentinel 13, 47, p. 742.

ATJ

IT is proposed by the United States Government—after due consultation with several distinguished Catholic prelates—to make a “temporary loan” of the people’s money for the maintenance of the Catholic Church in Cuba. It would be too bad for this church to be obliged to suspend operations in the island, or to be seriously crippled in her work, even temporarily, for lack of funds. So, as this Government has undertaken to supervise affairs in Cuba, and there is no appearance of funds forthcoming from any other source, they will be supplied from the United States treasury. Such is evidently the conception upon which this remarkable proposal rests.AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.1

This proceeding is of course a gross violation of the truth reposed in the officials responsible therefore, as the representatives and servants of the people, sworn to uphold the Constitutions and the fundamental principles of republican government. But aside from this, the query naturally arises, What is the Catholic Church in Cuba, that it should be essential to maintain her even at the sacrifice of American principles? What great benefits for the Cuban people depend upon the continuance of her rule? What dire calamities would follow from the lessening, even temporarily, of her efficiency?AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.2

Happily the moment is opportune for finding a satisfactory answer. The evidences in the case are plain to every Protestant mind, but we do not need to apply to any Protestant source of information. A notable and trustworthy Catholic authority has spoken on the point,—even no less a person than the Spanish general, Weyler. Elsewhere in this issue we print some references to a letter written by General Weyler to the Queen Regent of Spain on the subject of what the Catholic Church has done for Spain. In this letter he states that she has done nothing at all, but on the contrary has stood in the way of all reform and progress, and has been the robber of both the government and the people. The letter is, in short, “the most frightful arraignment ever made of a religious denomination.” And coming from General Weyler, it must be accepted as a reliable statement on the subject of which it speaks. That leading citizen of Spain has had abundant opportunity to know whereof he speaks, both with reference to the Spanish government and country, and the Roman Catholic Church.AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.3

This is a statement of what the Catholic Church has done for Spain. And what is true of Spain in this respect, is true of Cuba to an equal and even greater degree. For in Cuba the Catholic Church has had full sway, without serious opposition from any source, for centuries.AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.4

And now, when General Weyler, himself an eminent Spaniard and a Catholic, denounces the Catholic Church in almost unmeasured terms as the robber of the people and an incubus upon the country,—behold! professed Protestants who stand at the head of this American Government propose to give money from the public treasury to the Catholic Church in Cuba, in violation of fundamental American law, because it is so essential that this church in Cuba shall continue on in her career unchecked!AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.5

To a true Protestant, it should be evident that the very reason why Spanish dominion in the island has been broken, is that, the bars of intolerance being let down, the people, so long robbed in purse and bound in superstition and ignorance, may have a favorable opportunity to free themselves from the yoke of a religious despotism.AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.6

And what business has the Government to make a “temporary loan” of the people’s money to any church, or for any purpose not authorized by the Constitution? That is setting a very bad example, to say the least. The principle of that proceeding has been sufficiently tested in numerous cases of “temporary loans” made to themselves by trusted employees of banks and other institutions. It is a principle which the courts and all experience have pronounced to be bad in the extreme.AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.7

“What Will the People Say?” American Sentinel 13, 47, pp. 742-744.

ATJ

THE remaining portion of that remarkable letter of the Washington correspondent of the Baltimore Daily American—October 15, 1898, is as follows:—AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.1

“The administration fully realizes the objections that will arise in this country, from certain sources, against even a temporary sustenance of the Catholic Church in Cuba. But it has been given ample assurance by the Catholic authorities that the church shall be placed on a self-supporting basis as soon as it is possible to establish the new order that has been brought about by the Spanish evacuation.AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.2

“Archbishop Chappelle will be entrusted with liberal powers to institute such of the reforms as demand immediate introduction. It is likely that the responsibility of supporting the church in Cuba will eventually be assumed by the Catholics in this country.AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.3

“In determining to support the Catholic priests in Cuba until their church can take care of them, President McKinley has acted wisely from other points of view than mere humanity. The Cuban priests, as in all countries whose population is densely ignorant, exercise complete control over their parishioners. Apart from the cruelty of withdrawing all aid from these priests, it is easy to believe that the new American government in Cuba would have at its very inception built up a dangerous set of enemies if the priesthood of Cuba were given reason to regret the present of the American flag on the island. The Spanish government at Madrid could easily give the American government some dearly-bought information as to the malign influence that is in the power of a hostile clergy to exercise. Ever since the first Carlist uprising in 1833, every movement directed against the government of Spain has found its principal support in the clergy of Spain, who almost to a man are Carlists.”AMS December 1, 1898, page 742.4

Is it true that objection will arise only “from certain sources” against governmental “sustenance of the Catholic Church” and “the vast number of priests and high church dignitaries” in Cuba? Is it true that the whole people of the United States have so far forgotten the fundamental principles of the nation, or else have so far fallen under the influence of the Catholic Church, that against the Government undertaking “the entire responsibility” for the support of the Catholic Church in Cuba, objection will arise only “from certain sources”? Why will not objection arise from the whole people everywhere?AMS December 1, 1898, page 743.1

All money given by the United States Government for keeping open the Catholic churches, and providing for public worship in those churches in Cuba; all money paid by the United States Government to “the vast number of Catholic priests and high church dignitaries” in Cuba; must be obtained by taxation, must be raised in revenue, laid upon all the people. Of the money now being paid by all the people for revenue—stamps on drafts, deeds, mortgages, and what not, a portion must go to the “support of the Catholic Church,” and “the vast number of priests and high church dignitaries” in Cuba. For is it not published by this Washington correspondent that “it is the determination of President McKinley,” coached by Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland, that “sufficient money shall be advanced by this Government to support the Catholic Church” in Cuba? Will all the people of the United States allow this thing to be carried on at their expense without protest? Our fathers who made this nation, said that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.” They therefore abolished the practice and repudiated the principle. Will the people now sanction the revival of the practice and the reëstablishment of the principle?AMS December 1, 1898, page 743.2

The second time in this letter we are told that assurance is given “by the Catholic authorities that the church shall be placed on a self-supporting basis as soon as it is possible to establish the new order.” And again we inquire, What confidence can be placed in any such assurance in presence of the fact that this governmental support is of the same identical priests and high church dignitaries, and the same identical system, that, though having had “complete control over their parishioners” for four hundred years, yet, have never taught them to support their church and clergy, but have kept them “densely ignorant” as this correspondent declares them to be to-day? When this is the record for four hundred years of governmental support, what is the value of “ample assurance by the Catholic authorities that the church shall be placed on a self-supporting basis” while governmental support is continued? In view of such a record, no assurance, by the Catholic authorities nor by anybody else, can be ample, that the church shall be placed on a self-supporting basis, while governmental support is continued.AMS December 1, 1898, page 743.3

Another, and the final consideration, which shows that no such thing as the self-support of the Catholic Church in Cuba can ever be expected, is, that while it is promised by the Catholic authorities that “when law and order are fully re-established on the distracted island the Catholic Church will be expected to support itself,” yet, at the same time, there is presented the abominable fact, which amounts in effect to a threat, that “the Cuban priests exercise complete control over their parishioners,” who are “densely ignorant,” and would prove “a dangerous set of enemies if the priesthood of Cuba were given reason to regret the presence of the American flag on the island”!!AMS December 1, 1898, page 743.4

That is to say: The government of Spain has always supported the Catholic clergy and the Catholic churches in Cuba. And now, the United States having supplanted the government of Spain in Cuba, if this Government does not “Undertake the entire responsibility for their support” “the priesthood of Cuba” will be “given reason to regret the presence of the American flag on the island.” Then, having such “reason to regret the presence of the American flag on the island;” and having “complete control” of their “densely ignorant” parishioners, “the new American Government in Cuba would have at its very inception built up a dangerous set of enemies.” Therefore, to placate this “dangerous set of enemies” the Government of the United States must “undertake the entire responsibility for their support.” And accordingly “President McKinley has acted wisely” in determining that “sufficient money” shall “be advanced by this Government to support the Catholic Church!” And if anybody does not believe that it is wise thus to placate these “dangerous enemies” then “the Spanish government at Madrid could easily give” him pointers in “some dearly-bought information as the malign influence that is in the power of a hostile clergy to exercise”!!!AMS December 1, 1898, page 743.5

Then with “the vast number of priests and high church dignitaries” composing a clergy of such a “dangerous” and “malign” disposition as that, having “complete control” of their “densely ignorant” parishioners, and, upon such considerations as this, demanding governmental support until “law and order are fully re-established,” what prospect can there be that governmental support would ever cease? because what prospect can there be that law and order would ever be fully re-established while the cessation of the governmental support of such a priesthood must be the sure consequence of the full re-establishment of law and order, and the prevention of the full re-establishment of law and order rests completely with the “dangerous” and “malign” priesthood who receive the governmental support which is to continue only until law and order are fully re-established?AMS December 1, 1898, page 743.6

Again we must remark that this argument in behalf of governmental support of the Catholic priesthood of Cuba, based upon the “dangerous” and “malign” disposition of that same priesthood, is, for cool and essential iniquity, surely entitled to the palm.AMS December 1, 1898, page 744.1

But are the people of the United States ready for all this? Will they all bear it all without protest?AMS December 1, 1898, page 744.2

A. T. J.

“Imperialism Against the Declaration of Independence” American Sentinel 13, 47, pp. 744, 745.

ATJ

NOW THAT the United States Government has started in on a policy of imperialism, the upholders of this policy are conscious of the necessity of justifying it in the face of the fundamental principles of republican government to which such a policy is squarely opposed. And this, accordingly, they are attempting by various means to do. And naturally, the arguments which they put forward for the purpose are both novel and startling. Here, for example, is one by the Hon. Hosea Knowlton, Attorney-General of Massachusetts, which is quoted approvingly by the New York Sun. The Sun boldly declares that there is no natural right of suffrage; that the idea that government without the consent of the governed is un-American, is wholly erroneous; and then quotes this statement by the Hon. Mr. Knowlton of Massachusetts as very “neatly” showing this fact:—AMS December 1, 1898, page 744.1

“The Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with political rights. It has always been true that a majority of our people have not had anything to say about the Government. The people of the territories have no right to vote. Until recently no colored man was allowed to vote in the South. You may say this last fact was settled by the war, but that was not what the war settled.AMS December 1, 1898, page 744.2

“The war decided that the negro should be free, and nothing more. No descendant of the Chinese nation can vote. No Indian can vote. And the largest and best-behaved portion of our population has never had the right to suffrage in any considerable part of the country.AMS December 1, 1898, page 744.3

“In other words, the great principle on which this Government was founded did not concede the natural right of suffrage. The Declaration of Independence declares for ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’ which, being freely translated, means the right to acquire property.AMS December 1, 1898, page 744.4

“When any one, therefore, says that there is danger that the whole body of the inhabitants of Hawaii will be precipitated upon us as voters, or that the Malays of Luzon will soon be running Congress, he does not know what he is talking about. Forty-five States manage the Government of this country, and no one else can exercise the right of suffrage until they give him permission.”AMS December 1, 1898, page 744.5

We confess that we never knew before that our patriotic forefathers of Washington’s time wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence and fought through the Revolutionary war to vindicate their “right to acquire property”! No American history that we have yet seen intimates that they were not at the time freely acquiring property in proportion to their business ability to do so, or that Great Britain ever attempted to interfere with them in this pursuit. What history does affirm in this matter is that Great Britain proposed to tax the American colonies without allowing them political representation in parliament; which meant that she proposed to govern her American colonies without their consent. The colonies stood for the principle of government by the consent of the governed; and to affirm this principle before the world they put forth the Declaration of Independence, declaring in it, as self-evident truths, that all men are created equal, endowed by creation with certain inalienable rights, and that to preserve these rights is the only legitimate purpose of civil government. To say that all this, and the long struggle which followed, were for the purpose of vindicating their “right to acquire property,” is not only to set aside plain historical facts, but to cast contempt upon the Declaration of Independence and its signers, and to rob that document of all the meaning which has made it glorious in American history, and marvelous in the estimation of the world.AMS December 1, 1898, page 744.6

If the Declaration of Independence does not affirm the consent of the governed to be a primary requisite of just government, it does not affirm anything, and might as well be cast as a hypocritical play upon words.AMS December 1, 1898, page 745.1

This bulwark of American rights and liberties is now boldly attacked by the champions of imperialism for the sake of new possessions abroad; and in doing this, they of necessity sweep away the safeguards of liberty and justice at home.AMS December 1, 1898, page 745.2

“Back Page” American Sentinel 13, 47, p. 756.

ATJ

THE world’s need of Christianity was never more strikingly demonstrated in every place than it is to-day, at the close of the nineteenth century. Civilization and the triumphs of science have not sufficed to bring prosperity and happiness to the people; they have not solved the problems which confront and perplex statesmen in every civilized land. Christianity alone can solve those problems to the satisfaction of all parties. Christianity breaks down every barrier between a man and his fellowmen; its working is unhindered by differences of race, color, or social or financial conditions. It teaches every person self-government and self-support, eliminates covetousness and substitutes in its place brotherly love, and puts the desire to serve in the place of the natural disposition to rule. When men will exemplify these principles in their lives, every problem of good government will be effectually solved.AMS December 1, 1898, page 756.1

THE only disarmament which will ever bring universal peace to the world is the disarming of the mind that is filled with the carnal elements of hatred, envy, and strife. And this must be an individual work, performed through the agency of divine grace.AMS December 1, 1898, page 756.2

THE worst people in the world—the farthest removed from God in character—are those in whom selfishness is most fully developed, whether in rags or silks.AMS December 1, 1898, page 756.3

A PERSON who does not care about his neighbor’s rights, is in a fair way to be defrauded of his own.AMS December 1, 1898, page 756.4

November 24, 1898

December 8, 1898