ONE day in the late Convention of the National Educational Association, Professor Morgan, of Rhode Island, in replying to criticisms upon the public school, said that the opposition to the public schools comes from Roman Catholicism. The next day the following “open letter to the heads of the departments of the National Educational Association,” appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle. The writer is chancellor of the archdiocese of San Francisco:—AMS October 1888, page 74.1

GENTLEMEN: When the National Educational Convention, now in session in this city, and over which you preside, began its work, we were told that the great object of the convention was in the assembled wisdom of numbers to compare methods, to interchange ideas, and unify the best methods of promoting the object of the public schools.AMS October 1888, page 74.2

We were naturally led to suppress that one other object would be carefully kept in view, namely, to maintain inviolate the boasted characteristic of the public-system of this country, namely, its non-sectarian character.AMS October 1888, page 74.3

Now, gentlemen, while these expectations were most reasonable, I beg to express what I believe to be the feeling of the great Catholic body of this community, including, I feel assured, every Catholic teacher in that convention, whether living here or coming hither from elsewhere, namely, our utter amazement at seeing your sessions regularly opened with prayer by Protestant ministers, representing the various Protestant denominations of this city.AMS October 1888, page 74.4

This we might have tolerated to gratify those who delight to pray in public places, but we certainly cannot permit to go, without a respectful protest, such remarks as the following. I quote from this evening’s Bulletin. The report given of the gentlemen’s words is substantially the same in the Post and the Report. Prof. Thomas J. Morgan, of Rhode Island, said:—AMS October 1888, page 74.5

“This rising opposition to the public schools comes from Roman Catholicism, and this opposition means nothing but their destruction—with them a destruction of our civilization, of our liberties, a return to the horrors of the Middle Ages.”AMS October 1888, page 74.6

It is stated that these words were received with cheers and with hisses, but it is not said that these sentiments were repudiated by your presiding officer. Perhaps it was not his duty to do so. But if not, it is due the public to say that these sentiments are an insult to, and an outrage upon, the feelings of half the community in which this convention is sitting; an outrage upon the feelings of a large number of teachers composing that convention; an insult to the largest body of Christians in this great and free country, where, until now, it was supposed that no law, not even a school law, should operate or permit such insult. Since the Catholic body of this country pays more taxes than any other body of Christians to support these schools, shall we then be insulted and outraged and have no means of redress? I ask the fair-minded of every shade of opinion if this is not true.AMS October 1888, page 74.7

It is not true that “this rising opposition to the public-school system comes from Roman Catholicism” alone. Some of the best and purest men and the ablest and profoundest thinkers outside of Roman Catholicism are as much opposed to it as Catholicism is.AMS October 1888, page 75.1

Gentlemen, is it fair, is it honest, to oblige teachers to attend that convention under pain of incurring the displeasure of the School Board, and thus insult them in this way? I ask the heads of this convention to answer.AMS October 1888, page 75.2

Very respectfully,AMS October 1888, page 75.3

GEORGE MONTGOMERY.AMS October 1888, page 75.4

San Francisco, July 19, 1888.AMS October 1888, page 75.5

The following is Professor Morgan’s reply:—AMS October 1888, page 75.6

To the Editor of the Chronicle—SIR: Will you kindly allow me space for a very brief reply to Rev. Father Montgomery’s “protest” against my remarks yesterday, which you publish to-day?AMS October 1888, page 75.7

I assume all responsibility for my utterances and do not wish “the heads of departments” to be censured for what I have said.AMS October 1888, page 75.8

I wish, however, to disclaim any intention of “insulting” my Roman Catholic fellow-citizens. Some of the best friends I have in the world are Roman Catholics. If in the hurry of a three-minute utterance on a great theme I used any words that could be regarded as insulting, I greatly regret it.AMS October 1888, page 75.9

The point I wanted to make was this: I was asked, What answer can we give to the criticism made upon the public schools that they fail to cultivate the religious sentiment or to teach morality? My reply was that a part of this criticism from the Roman Catholics, and I asserted that the Catholics who make it would be satisfied with nothing less than the destruction of the public schools and the substitution therefor of parochial schools. In other words, the charge that the public schools are “godless” means that they are not Roman Catholic, and should be destroyed.AMS October 1888, page 75.10

Not to multiply authorities, let me cite the words of Rev. F. T. McCarthy, S. J., used in a sermon reported in the Boston Journal, December 23, 1887. He says the public-school system “is a national fraud.” “It must cease to exist, and the day will come when it will cease to exist.” “There are some 8,000,000 Catholics in the United States, and they protest against this institution.” “It is subversive of the rights of the individual, subversive of the rights of the family, subversive of the rights of religion, and subversive of the divine rights of God himself.” The States “have no right to educate.” “God never gave a commission to the State to educate.” He asserts that if Catholics patronize the “godless” public schools, when they have other schools to send to, “they are guilty of mortal sin.”AMS October 1888, page 75.11

The priest, whose words I am quoting, declares that he is not “giving his opinion,” but laying down “the teachings of the church.”AMS October 1888, page 75.12

I respectfully submit that if Rev. Mr. McCarthy correctly represents the Catholics then they are in favor of the absolute overthrow of the American public-school system, and the criticism on the schools that they are godless is not made with a view of improving them, but is intended to undermine and destroy them.AMS October 1888, page 75.13

As a teacher, a member and an officer of the National Educational Association; as a friend of the public-school system; as one who believes that our free Government rests upon the virtue and intelligence of our people—I felt at liberty when called upon to answer the grave criticism made upon our schools, to point out the animus of the criticism, so that we may know for what we are contending.AMS October 1888, page 75.14

If Father Montgomery and the Catholics of the Pacific Coast agree with Father McCarthy, of Boston, I do not see that they have anything to complain of in what I have said. If, however, they do not accept his teachings, if they are the friends of the public schools, no one will rejoice over that fact more sincerely than I will.AMS October 1888, page 75.15

THOMAMS J. MORGAN.AMS October 1888, page 75.16

San Francisco, July 19, 1888.AMS October 1888, page 75.17

We shall not attempt to add anything to Professor Morgan’s reply, as to the merits of the case; but there are two expressions used by the priest to which we would call attention for a moment.AMS October 1888, page 75.18

The first of these is that in which he speaks repeatedly of Professor Morgan’s words being an “insult and an outrage.” Priest Montgomery knows that the Professor states the fact. Priest Montgomery, and everybody else, knows that Roman Catholicism, everywhere and always, is opposed to our public-school system. Everybody knows that Professor Morgan stated the fact. And it is neither an insult nor an outrage publicly to state what is publicly known. The priest says there are some outside of Roman Catholicism who “are as much opposed to it [the public school] as Catholicism is.” Whoever outside of Roman Catholicism opposes the public-school system is but a Roman Catholic in disguise, for the principle of his opposition is essentially Roman Catholic. More than this, nine-tenths of those who oppose the public-school system, outside of the Catholic Church, do so expressly to please the Catholics and so secure their co-operation in carrying into operation certain religio-political schemes which both have in view, and which will end in that which Roman Catholicism has long desired—the destruction of the American public-school system.AMS October 1888, page 75.19

The other expression is that in which the priest says that “to gratify those who love to pray in public places,” the Roman Catholics “might have tolerated” the opening of the sessions of the convention “with prayer by Protestant ministers, representing the various Protestant denominations.” Mr. Montgomery should be told that the American people know no such word as “tolerate.” “What other nations call religious toleration we call religious rights.” That Educational Convention had the right to have its sessions opened with prayer by anybody whom it should choose, or opened without prayer at all, just as it should choose. And when Mr. Montgomery talks of “tolerating” it, he casts a slur upon every man who has any respect for himself. In 1827 Lord Stanhope said: “The time was when toleration was craved by dissenters as a boon; it is now demanded as a right; but a time will come when it will be spurned as an insult.” That time has now come. And every man who is acquainted with the true principle of liberty will consider it an insult when anybody, be he so-called Protestant or straight-out Catholic, proposes any such thing as religious “toleration.” The vocabulary of American ideas knows no such word as “toleration;” it asserts RIGHTS.AMS October 1888, page 75.20

A. T. J.

“The Savor of Tyranny” American Sentinel 3, 10, pp. 75, 76.

ATJ

SENATOR BLAIR’S National Sunday Bill declares that no person shall “engage in any play, game, or amusement, or recreation, to the disturbance of others on the first day of the week, commonly called the Lord’s day, or during any part thereof.” Some of the States already have the same sort of Sunday laws as this. California has no Sunday law, much less one of this kind. But not long ago the city of San Francisco had, on another subject, an ordinance of the same nature as this passage in the National Sunday Bill. San Francisco has no such ordinance now, however; the merit of the ordinance came up before the Supreme Court, and the whole thing was treated with the contempt which all such statutes only deserve.AMS October 1888, page 75.1

The ordinance read as follows:—AMS October 1888, page 75.2

“No person shall in any place indulge in conduct having a tendency to annoy persons passing or being upon the public highway or upon adjacent premises.”AMS October 1888, page 75.3

A man by the name of Ferdinand Pape was distributing some circulars on the street, which had “a tendency to annoy” somebody; he was arrested. He applied to the Superior Court for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming that the offense charged against him did not constitute a crime, and that the ordinance making such action an offense was invalid and void, because it was unreasonable and uncertain. The report of the case says:—AMS October 1888, page 75.4

“The writ was made returnable before Judge Sullivan, and argued by Henry Hutton in behalf of the imprisoned offender. Disposing of the question, the Judge gave quite a lengthy written opinion, in which he passed a somewhat severe criticism upon the absurdity of the contested ordinance, and discharged Pape from custody. Said the Judge:—AMS October 1888, page 75.5

“‘If the order be law, enforceable by fine and imprisonment, it is a crime to indulge in any conduct, however innocent and harmless in it-self, and however unconsciously done, which has a tendency to annoy other persons. The rival tradesman who passes one’s store with an observant eye as to the volume of business is guilty of a crime, because the very thought of rivalry and reduction of business has a tendency to annoy. The passing of the most lenient creditor has a tendency to annoy, because it is a reminder of obligations unfulfilled. The passing of a well-clad, industrious citizen, bearing about him the evidence of thrift, has a tendency to annoy the vagabond, whose laziness reduces him to a condition of poverty and discontent. The importunities of the newsboy who endeavors with such persistent energy to dispose of his stock, has a tendency to annoy the prominent citizen who has already read the papers, or who expects to find them at his door as he reaches home. He who has been foiled in an attempted wrong upon the person or property of another, finds a tendency to annoy in the very passing presence of the person whose honesty or ingenuity has circumvented him. And so instances might be multiplied indefinitely in which the most harmless and inoffensive conduct has a tendency to annoy others. If the language of the ordinance defines a criminal offense, it sets a very severe penalty of liberty and property upon conduct lacking in the essential element of criminality.AMS October 1888, page 75.6

“‘But it may be said that courts and juries will not use the instrumentality of this language to set the seal of condemnation on unoffending citizens, and to unjustly deprive them of their liberty and brand them as criminals. The law countenances no such dangerous doctrine, countenances no principle so subversive of liberty as that the life or liberty of a subject should be made to depend upon the whim or caprice of judge or jury, by exercising a discretion in determining that certain conduct does or does not come within the inhibition of a criminal action. The law should be engraved so plainly and distinctly on the legislative tables that it can be discerned alike by all subjects of the commonwealth, whether judge upon the bench, juror in the box, or prisoner at the bar. Any condition of the law which allows the test of criminality to depend on the whim or caprice of judge or juror savors of tyranny. The language employed is broad enough to cover conduct which is clearly within the constitutional rights of the citizen. It designates no border-line which divides the criminal from the non-criminal conduct. Its terms are too vague and uncertain to lay down a rule of conduct. In my judgment the portion of the ordinance here involved is uncertain and unreasonable.’”AMS October 1888, page 75.7

This decision applies with full force to Senator-Blair’s proposed National Sunday law. Under that law all that would be necessary to subject any person to a criminal prosecution, would be for him to engage in any sort of play, or game, or amusement, or recreation, on Sunday, because there are many of those rigid National Reformers who would be very much “disturbed” by any such amusement or recreation, however innocent it might be in itself. And it is left entirely to the whim or the caprice of the “disturbed” one, or of the judge or jury, to say whether the action has really disturbed him or not.AMS October 1888, page 75.8

The California decision is, that such a statute “sets a very severe penalty of liberty and property upon conduct lacking in the essential element of criminality.” California courts “countenance no such dangerous doctrine, countenance no principle so subversive of liberty,” or which so “savors of tyranny.” It is very likely that should Senator Blair’s bill be enacted into a law, the United States courts would decide in the same way as did the Superior Court of California. But it is an exceedingly ominous sign, and one most startling in the danger which it displays, when a bill which so “savors of tyranny,” and which embodies a “principle so subversive of liberty,” can be introduced into the National Legislature, can be received and reported favorably, can pass two readings, can be spread broadcast throughout the land, and only one single voice—that of the AMERICAN SENTINEL—be raised against it.AMS October 1888, page 75.9

The American people have so long enjoyed the liberty which has been justly their boast, that they seem, from appearances, to think that now they can lie down safely and hibernate undisturbed for all time to come. We wonder what can ever awaken them. “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty;” but “corrupted freemen are the worst of slaves.”AMS October 1888, page 76.1

“The Sentinel and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union” American Sentinel 3, 10, pp. 78, 79.

ATJ

THE following letter is from a thorough-going National Reformer. We willingly give it space.AMS October 1888, page 78.1

EDITORS AMERICAN SENTINEL: Your last month’s article, under the head of “The AMERICAN SENTINEL and the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union,” and signed “A. T. J.,” will bear criticism; and I hope you will permit a friend of the Woman’s Union to write a word in their defense.AMS October 1888, page 78.2

1. Your assertion that the W. C. T. U. is in favor of using the civil power to compel people to favor or to practice Christian temperance, or to compel people to conform to the principles of temperance, is unfair because it is untrue. No temperance society known to the writer is “in favor of using the civil power to compel anybody either to favor or to practice” temperance. Yet all agree that no license should be granted to sell liquor to common drinkers. But there is a vast difference between “compelling people to favor or practice temperance” and compelling men to desist from selling poison to people who wish to poison themselves.AMS October 1888, page 78.3

3. You err when you say that “Christian principle knows no power but the power of God as manifested in the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.” This is a grave error. There is a divine power in law as well as in the gospel. God is the Author of both. “The powers that be are ordained of God.” That means civil powers. “There is no power but of God.” This, too, includes civil power. “He beareth not the sword in vain.” This means the civil men; and he who “resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God.” If civil government has not the power to pass civil law to prohibit the liquor traffic, then it bears the sword in vain. “The law was made for man-stealers.” This means civil law. And there is power as well as majesty in law, because all righteous law is from God, the source of all power. And “rulers,” civil rulers, legislators, governments, “are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.” The SENTINEL knows very well what kind of works, whether good or evil, are perpetrated by saloonists. The women are worthy of commendation, not of censure, for endeavoring to bring the power of civil law to bear against saloons. Your charge against the W. C. T. U. is unjust. All temperance prohibitionists wish the power of law to be brought to bear against the ruinous traffic.AMS October 1888, page 78.4

And why should not Christian women, as well as Christian men, desire civil prohibition? Why are you so “decidedly opposed” to such “political aspirations of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union”?AMS October 1888, page 78.5

That I may not occupy too much of your space, what I wish to say further in defense of the women must be deferred until your next number.AMS October 1888, page 78.6

N. R. JOHNSTON.

Mr. Johnston’s denial on behalf of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union Convention of 1887 declared “Christ and his law to be the supreme authority in National as in individual life,” and in other places it is added, “to whose laws all human laws should conform.” Human laws are made to be enforced; if not enforced they are a nullity. If therefore the law of Christ is of supreme authority in National life, and human laws are to conform to it, then the enforcement of such laws can be nothing else than to compel men to practice Christian duties, whether of temperance or any other. Our assertion is only the logic of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union premises. It is therefore neither unfair nor untrue.AMS October 1888, page 79.1

We know full well that “the powers that be are ordained of God;” we also know that though they are ordained of God, they are not ordained to exercise any authority in things which pertain to God. The civil powers are ordained only to the exercise of power in civil things, and not at all in moral or religious things.AMS October 1888, page 79.2

“Christian women as well as Christian men” should “desire civil prohibition;” but it is essentially religious prohibition that is desired by both the W. C. T. U. and the Prohibition party, and not the religious prohibition of the liquor traffic alone, but the religious prohibition of things that are not irreligious nor even uncivil. And that is why we are “so ‘decidedly opposed’” to the political aspirations of the W. C. T. U., and the religious aspirations of the Prohibition party.AMS October 1888, page 79.3

A. T. J.

September 1888

November 1888