IN the Senate of the United States, July 24, there was the most important debate that has been conducted in Congress, not only during this particular Congress, but for years. And yet we fear that very few people in the United States will know of it or will see in it particular import. The debate arose on the Indian Appropriation Bill, which had passed the House, and was now to be considered in the Senate, and the particular point in debate was the consideration of the two following items. We quote from the record:—AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.1

The Presiding Officer. The reading of the bill will proceed.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.2

The reading of the bill was resumed. The next amendment of the Committee on Appropriations, was, on page 60, to strike out the clause from line 19 to line 21, inclusive, as follows:—AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.3

For support and education of sixty Indian pupils at St. Joseph’s Normal School at Rensselaer, Indiana, $8,330.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.4

Mr. Dawes. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment and the next one may be considered together, for the same reasons.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.5

The Presiding Officer. The next amendment will be stated.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.6

The next amendment was to strike out the clause from line 25, on page 60, to line 2, on page 61, inclusive, as follows:—AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.7

For the education and support of one hundred Indian children at the Holy Family Indian School, at Blackfeet Agency, Montana, $12,500.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.8

Mr. Dawes. Mr. President, the Committee recommend the striking out of those two appropriations, and I desire as briefly as possible, to state the reasons which have actuated the Committee in this recommendation. They both stand on the same ground, if one should be stricken out both should, and if either remains both should remain.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.9

These are schools under the management of the Catholics. They are new appropriations by the Government for the maintenance of two new Catholic schools, and the one between them, the St. Boniface’s Industrial School, is also one of the same kind. That the Committee did not strike out, for the special reasons which I will state in a moment.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.10

What influenced the Committee to strike out these schools was simply this consideration: They desired not to go any further than the present condition of affairs in appropriating the Government’s money for the maintenance of schools of particular religious denominations. The present and existing state of things in that particular, if these schools are not added, will be precisely what it was last year.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.11

Thus it seems that the Government of the United States has already been appropriating public money for the support of schools of religious denominations, and that this question would not have been raised, had not the Catholics made a request for support of these additional schools of their own. The way the matter has stood, up to the present time, not including the appropriations contemplated in this bill, is thus set forth by Senator Dawes, the Chairman of the Committee:—AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.12

The appropriations in this regard have run from the year 1886, as follows: For Catholic schools in 1886, $118,343, as against $109,916 for all others; in 1887, $194,635 as against $168,579 for all others; in 1888, $221,169 for Catholic schools, and $155,095 for all others; in 1889, $347,672 for Catholic schools, as against $183,000 for all others; in 1889-90, as I have said, $356,967 for Catholic schools, as against, for all other denominations and all other schools, $204,993.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.13

That is the condition of things which the present administration found when it entered upon office. Hundreds of thousands of dollars given outright to religious denominations for the purpose of teaching their denominational views, virtually a union of Church and State! The present administration desired to put a stop to this, keeping the Church and the State separate, and letting the churches support their own schools, and teach their own schools, and teach their own doctrines, at their own expense, but says Mr. Dawes:—AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.14

The present management was in favor of divorcing the Government absolutely from them all, but it found it impossible to do that.AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.1

And has it come to this, that, through the Indian Department, the different religious denominations of the country have already got such a hold upon the United States Government that they cannot be shaken off? Is it possible that already there is such a union between the State and these churches, that it is impossible to divorce the Government from them? That this is so, is proven not only the statement of Mr. Dawes, but by the result of this discussion in the Senate. Although the effort was to strike out two items of appropriation to Roman Catholic schools, the result was that not only was neither of these stricken out, but both with two more were adopted. Strong opposition to the measure was made, by Senator Reagan, of Texas, and Senator George, of Mississippi, whose speeches we shall print in THE SENTINEL; but their noble effort availed nothing. The tide was too strong; the political power of the churches, and especially of the Catholic Church, is too great.AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.2

The history of the thing is worth relating. It began in 1885, the first year of President Cleveland’s administration, when the Commissioner of Indian affairs made this statement:—AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.3

The Government should be liberal in making contracts with religious denominations to teach Indian children in schools established by those de-nominations. It should throw open the door and say to all denominations, “There should be no monopoly in good works. Enter all of you, and do whatever your hands find of good work to do, and in your efforts the Government will give you encouragement out of its liberal purse.” In other words, the Government without partiality, should encourage all the churches to work in this broad field of philanthropic endeavor.AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.4

And according to the list given by Mr. Dawes, the first appropriation of public money that was given for this purpose was $118,343 to Roman Catholics, with $109,916 for all other denominations put together, and that it steadily increased until, by the appropriation for the fiscal year of 1889-90, the Roman Catholics were given $356,967; and $204,993 to all other denominations. That is, within four years the Roman Catholic Church received $1,238,786 while all the other denominations together received $761,583. In other words, within four years the Roman Catholics were enabled to increase their appropriations $238,424 above the amount with which they began, while all other denominations were enabled to increase theirs but $95,087.AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.5

Is it difficult, for any reader to see a direct connection between these facts and figures, and the frequent visits of Cardinal Gibbons to the White House during the presidential administration from March 4, 1885 to March 4, 1889? There is not room for reasonable doubt that the suggestion in the report of the Commissioner of Indian affairs for 1885, was secured by the Roman Catholic Church. This probability is made stronger by the fact that in the year 1885, the very year when this thing began, there was established in the city of Washington, a Catholic Bureau of Missions, of which Mr. Dawes says:—AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.6

They have been on the ground here for the last five years, pushing Catholic schools upon the Government as earnestly as was in their power, and largely to that influence is attributed this great increase, which has come to be three-fifths of all the appropriations. They are active still.AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.7

No man can fail to see the direct connection, we repeat, between these facts and the above figures. It is true that because of their being accessories after the fact, and upon the principle that “the partaker is as bad as the thief;” the Episcopalians, Methodists, and Presbyterians are inexcusably guilty of participating in tries iniquity. But, from the facts, it seems certain that the scheme was originally a Roman Catholic one.AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.8

Further particulars are also necessary. The present administration desired to stop the flow of this evil tide, and to break the grasp of this devil-fish upon the national Government. But finding it impossible to do so at once, it thought at least to put a check upon it, and, therefore, absolutely refused to recommend any increase of appropriation to any church; and did recommend that the Government conduct its own schools and teach the Indians itself. The Catholic Bureau of Missions applied to the present administration for aid in establishing three new schools. There were also applications on the part of the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, and the Methodists; but all such applications were refused. With the refusal the Protestant denominations contented them-selves; but the Catholic Bureau, says Senator Dawes, “having failed to get a contract for these three schools from the Government in addition, and aggravating the inequality that had already aroused public sentiment, they went to the House of Representatives, without any estimate or recommendation from the Department, and obtained the insertion into the bill, of these three schools.”AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.9

When the bill reached the Senate, an amendment was there added to it voting an appropriation to yet another school, making four in all that the Catholics had secured. As soon as the other denominations heard of this, they hurried up to Congress with a protest against the proposed appropriation; but there was no suggestion of any protest from them against having the appropriation of former years continued both to the Catholics and to themselves. It seems, therefore, that the protest came only because the Catholics had succeeded in obtaining additional money, when they themselves could secure nothing additional. Their protest, therefore, simply amounts to nothing. It has no force whatever; and their protest never will have any force as long as they continue to receive money from the Government in support of their own church schools. Let these protesting denominations absolutely refuse to take any more money from the Government; let them return to the Government the money which they have already, and unconstitutionally, taken, and then let them protest against the appropriation to Roman Catholic schools. This will live some force to their protest. This, however, is hardly to be expected; because, having been sharers with the Roman Catholics in the iniquity of the thing these five years, and now raising a protest only because the Catholics get more than they can get, it is so far contrary to the nature of church encroachments on governmental power, as to be beyond all expectation that these denominations could by any possible means, be led to take such a proper and honest course.AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.10

It is just to state, that the Baptist Missionary Association is among those who have protested against these appropriations; and their protest is consistent, because they have never been partakers in the evil. The Baptists have pursued a consistent course, and have refused to avail themselves of the generous invitations of the administration of 1885-89, and have maintained their own right, as well as their own ability to teach the religion which they believe, at their own expense, without selling their honor as well as their rights, to the national Government.AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.11

The condition of things exposed in this debate on the appropriation bill, is one of the most startling revelations that has ever been made on the subject of the union of Church and State in this Government. The fact that there is already formed such an alliance between the national Government and the Church power that it is considered impossible to break it, ought so to arouse every man who loves religion or the Government that the supposed impossibility of breaking the alliance shall be annihilated, and the whole question be put upon its genuine constitutional basis, and the Government have nothing at all to do with religion in the teaching of it, or in any other way.AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.12

The reasons for the supposed impossibility of breaking this union of Church and State are, in themselves, of such importance as to require more space than we can give in this article. We therefore defer that point until next week.AMS August 14, 1890, page 250.13

A. T. J.

“How Came It So?” The American Sentinel 5, 32, pp. 249, 250.

ATJ

IN Our Day, for July, Rev. W. F. Crafts publishes an article entitled, “Trans-continental Notes on Sabbath Desecration,” in which he vents his wrath against the Seventh-day Adventists. Mr. Crafts is either making rapid progress in knowledge, or else those Seventh-day Adventists, of whom he makes so much, are a wonderful people. When he first started in his American Sabbath Union work, so far as the record of any of his efforts would show, there were no Seventh-day Adventists in the United States, or else he did not know of any. Immediately afterward, however, they sprang into existence all over the land, or else he learned something in a little while that he did not know before; for in his Sunday-law tour across the continent and back, last summer, and in his campaign last winter, the Seventh-day Adventists in about an equal ratio with Seventh-day Baptists—these two together—were denounced everywhere as the strongest opponents of Sunday legislation,—stronger, indeed, than all other forms of opposition put together. This season, another bound has been made either by the Seventh-day Adventists or else by Mr. Crafts’s intellect,—it may be, indeed, by both. For now the Seventh-day Adventists, alone, are declared to be out-doing all other forms of opposition to Sunday laws, put together. He says:—AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.1

Everywhere are seen the footprints of the little but lively denomination of Seventh-day Adventists, who are outdoing not only the Seventh-day Baptists, but even Hebrews, infidels, and liquor dealers in battling against Sunday law, as if it were the worst of vices. They put beautiful tract-holders into depots, filled with their literature, which they also distribute from door to door with a generosity and industry that shame by contrast the meagre gifts and efforts of the friends of the American Sabbath.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.2

Now the query with us is, How does all this happen? Were there no Seventh-day Adventists in the United States in December, 1888? Or did they immediately afterward spring, like Jonah’s gourd, from the ground, or come like spirits “from the vasty deep?” Were they all there before? and did Mr. Crafts not know it? Or did he know it, and ignore it? Or yet again, were they already “everywhere” quietly attending to their own Christian calling as Christian people should? and did Mr. Crafts’s, conjuring with his Sunday law wand, like that individual whom Macaulay mentions who conjured with his magic wand, call all these into an aggravated prominence with no power to bid them retire again? Mr. Crafts would do well to take a lesson from this, for the confessed peaceful methods employed by this people in their opposition which so disturbs him, are nothing at all, in comparison with the demons of destruction that will be called from the wicked world, professedly in his favor, by the mischievous relationship that will be created between the Church and the State, should he and his party succeed in securing their desired Sunday laws.AMS August 14, 1890, page 249.3

In his article, however, he managed to leave his denunciation and discussion of Seventh-day Adventists, long enough to make an attempt to prove that “Sunday-work causes physical injury” and this is the proof:—AMS August 14, 1890, page 253.1

Here is an engineer who does fifty-four days’ work a month, making his regular salary swell to $180, almost every month. A part of the extra work he does because he does not wish to displease his superior when asked to do two days’ work in one, and a part because of his blind ambition to make money, at any cost. He is slightly wounded in an accident, from which he would have quickly recovered but that he has no reserve of strength, no recuperative powers, and so he dies at the close of seven years service, for lack of a nine-hour law, and a six-day law.AMS August 14, 1890, page 253.2

Is it so, then, that every engineer who swells to $180 his regular salary of $100 per month dies at the close of seven years’ service? Are they wounded only once in seven years, so that the wound and the loss of his reserve strength, and the seven year period, all co-operate symmetrically to demonstrate, so completely, the fact that Sunday work causes physical injury? If so, then every such engineer has a safe and effectual remedy. Each year, according to Mr. Crafts’s figures, he clears $80 per month by his extra work, this amounts to $960 a year, and would amount to $5,760 in six years. Now, there are not many of these engineers who cannot live on the regular salary of $100 per month. For six years, therefore, each might well have a clear $5,760 laid by, then let him skip that seventh year, and with it escape being wounded, and having to suffer death; in short, escape all the consequences of his dreadful dissipation in working on Sunday.AMS August 14, 1890, page 253.3

This idea of an engineer’s “making” his salary of $100 per month swell to $180 almost every month, by Sunday work, is as complete a demonstration as need be of the hypocritical fallacy of the plea that the Sunday-law workers make upon the strength of the “slavery” and “Egyptian bondage of Sunday toil.”AMS August 14, 1890, page 253.4

Mr. Crafts closes his article with these words:—AMS August 14, 1890, page 253.5

Both for the individual and the State, the Sabbath is closely related to success as well as salvation.AMS August 14, 1890, page 253.6

And this idea of salvation for the State, as well as for the individual, in the matter of Sunday keeping, shows how much of the civil, and how little of the religious, there is involved, and is intentionally involved, in Sunday laws.AMS August 14, 1890, page 253.7

A. T. J.

August 7, 1890

August 21, 1890