IN view of the expressed purpose of the United States Government, to support the Catholic Church in Cuba, by a “temporary loan” from the public treasury, it is in order for American citizens to ask the following questions:—AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.1

1. Have the Cubans themselves expressed any desire for the support of the Catholic Church? or is this to be done only in deference to the wish of Catholic prelates in the United States?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.2

2. What evidence is there that the Catholic Church in Cuba is not rich enough to support herself?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.3

3. If the Catholic Church in Cuba cannot support herself, does not the burden of her maintenance properly fall upon the Catholic Church outside of Cuba?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.4

4. If the Government ought to support the Catholic Church in Cuba, because she is poor, ought it not to support poor Catholic churches in the United States?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.5

5. Why should the Government support only the Catholic Church in Cuba, and not the Methodist, the Baptist, Episcopal, and all other churches in the same land?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.6

6. To what benefits can the Government point as certain to result from its support of the Catholic Church?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.7

7. Since no government maintains any other than the established church, is not the Roman Catholic Church virtually made by this support the established church of the United States.AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.8

8. If “this is a Christian nation,” is it not a Catholic Christian nation when it supports the Catholic Church and no other?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.9

9. By what clause of the Constitution is the Government authorized to give or loan money to the Catholic Church?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.10

10. Has the Government any right to tax the people for the maintenance of any church?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.11

11. Is it still an approved principle of American government that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.12

12. If the government can compel people to pay taxes for the support of the Catholic Church in Cuba, can it not by the same authority and right compel them to perform any other religious acts?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.13

These are pertinent questions. They apply to a real situation which now confronts the American people. The germ of despotism which is being nourished in this proposition to support the Catholic Church, will surely grow to full development if the people allow it. To nip despotism in the bud is far easier and better than to cut it down after it has become a giant tree.AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.14

“The Necessity of ‘Imperialism’” American Sentinel 13, 49, pp. 774, 775.

ATJ

OF the zeal for the spread of slavery, in his day, Abraham Lincoln said:—AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.1

“I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world; ... and especially because it forces so many really good men among ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty, criticising the Declaration of Independence.”AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.2

This exactly describes the new American policy of imperialism. This also is causing many to “criticise the Declaration of Independence.” Leading men and leading papers, of the country, who would naturally be thought ready to keep silent when the Declaration speaks, actually criticise it, and in fact repudiate it.AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.3

The statement that is now so glibly and suerpciliously made that the people of the newly-acquired territory “are not fit for self government” and must therefore be held in subjection and governed by force “until they shall become qualified for self-government,” plainly cannot stand a moment in the presence of the great principles of the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” And simply because such views cannot stand in the presence of the Declaration, the Declaration is criticised and set aside.AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.4

But who is it that decides for the people of the new island possessions, that they “are not fit for self-government”?—Not themselves; for they have been fighting and struggling for years against that very claim put forth by Spain and others. Has the statement any more truth when put forth by Americans, contrary to their own Declaration and fundamental principles? What right have Americans, any more than Spaniards or Russians, to decide for other people that they are not fit for self-government? Wherein is America different from Russia or Spain when she decides for these people that they are not fit for self-government, and then counts them rebels, and fights them and oppresses them, when they do not accept the decision?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.5

Plainly enough this whole thing, being in open disregard of the Declaration of Independence, is an “open war with the fundamental principles of civil liberty,” and positively “deprives republican example of its just influence in the world.” And as that which did all this in Lincoln’s day was hated by that great lover of liberty, why should not this which does the same things n our day be hated by every lover of liberty now?AMS December 15, 1898, page 774.6

In his day Lincoln said that the Declaration of Independence was “assailed and sneered at, and construed and hawked at, and torn, till if its framers could rise from their graves they could not at all recognize it.” That thing is being done again. At that time it was done in the interests of the spread of slavery; now it is done, and has to be done, in the interests of imperialism. At that time Lincoln said, “If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book, in which we find it, and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out!” And when, at such a suggestion, his audience cried out, “No, no!” Lincoln answered, “Let us stick to it then; let us stand firmly by it then.” And so it is time to say again.AMS December 15, 1898, page 775.1

For ten years it has been written that the United States would yet “repudiate every principle of a republican government.” If we are not just now in the time when this thing is being done, how much further will things have to be carried in this direction before we shall be in the time of the doing of that thing?AMS December 15, 1898, page 775.2

A. T. J.

“Back Page” American Sentinel 13, 49, p. 788.

ATJ

THE Mormon Church is in politics again, or rather, never went out of politics, and the issue of polygamy is again to the front in Utah. If the Mormon Church had gone out of politics, the sovereign State of Utah would not now be under Mormon control; but the Mormon Church did not go out of politics. Having the example of the popular churches in the United States before her, and remembering the arguments made to the effect that Christians above all others ought to take an active part in politics, she felt that it was her duty to remain in politics; not however, that the church as such assumed any part in politics—not at all; but each member of the church as a professed believer in the Christian religion and therefore in duty bound to participate in conducting the affairs of state, made himself active in politics; and somehow, the politics of the State took on an essentially Mormon aspect!AMS December 15, 1898, page 788.1

If this appears to any one like the Mormon Church being in politics, let him remember that it is the duty of Christians, as such—a duty especially impressed upon Catholic Christians by the pope, and upon Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopal, Baptist, and other Christians by clergymen of their respective denominations, to see that the state is modeled upon Christian principles; and it was with this plain duty before them that the Mormon Christians of Utah went to the polls to cast their votes. That persons were elected to office (the Mormons being largely in the majority) who believed in and practiced the doctrines of the Mormon religion, and even that a congressman should have been chosen whose existing household includes three wives, is only what was naturally to be expected. Will not a Catholic naturally vote for a Catholic, a Methodist for a Methodist, or other Christian voter for one of his own denomination, as being the candidate who will administer his office most nearly in harmony with the principles of the true religion? How then can it be expected that Mormon voters will do anything else?AMS December 15, 1898, page 788.2

The Mormon Church has the same right to go into politics that any other church has; and she is justified in doing so by the same logic.AMS December 15, 1898, page 788.3

But by the principle that Christians should keep out of politics, as being citizens keep out of politics, as being citizens of a government which is not of force but of love, the Mormon Church would be debarred from politics in Utah, and a Mormon State would not to-day be a thron in the side of the American Federal Union. And every other church professing to be Christian would be debarred from politics in every other state; and the dark cloud of impending calamity in the form of church and state despotism, would not to-day be hanging over the American people.AMS December 15, 1898, page 788.4

That principle, and that alone, stands to-day between this nation and people, and the worst form of despotism that has ever cursed mankind.AMS December 15, 1898, page 788.5

December 8, 1898