The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, January 4, 1896, Page 5

THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SATURDAY, JANUARY 4, 1896. H. W, BOWMAN FORMALLY ENTERS THE ARENA He Says That Romanism | Is Intolerant and | Bigoted. | | ON LIBERTY IN BRAZIL. | Quotes an Account of a Previous | Religious Controversy in | That Land. FATHER YORKE TO DR. BOVARD. ‘ | i The Catholic Champion Repudiates the Theory That His Faith Is Under | Suspicion. The following communication has been received by Tue CaLL: Editor rancisco Call—DEar Str: Will you please publish the inclosed article from the columns of the St. Louis Presby December 19, 18952 It is a complete { Priest Y e's assertior relie erty in Bra The very essenc R is int bigotry and fie Rome has anted the for other re- | lig s d on a par w T A missiol ary frc il informed e whs 0 If it | ers h 1 submit of Roman wenc past w s not been for n ny of v ved December 11 rv of foreign missions of h. It was written buco, Brazil, sionary of the s dated No- to say and scarcely <in. Linink it was abont the Dr. Butler and Mr. Potter of presbytery. Doctor feil sonie uneasiness ans he had lef mpany of friars of at time. | ssion’: they go | & up weak churches, led s Tvices Of missas 10r & Numb £ new church bulldings. tnis here in Garanhun: In done have cailed in the ignorant, missa. 100t from erca: dis d to the place ted. The men | , dagger-like ousands, city, an ex- work v 10 miles around crovd counid had cause to had left in Tash a to ting one of the e'ders to d me that rum resched the city Wednesday 1 tha. Dr. Butler bad held a puilic discussion with the priest of | Garanhuns: the people had risen against him, an 1 Dr. Butler was nearly k The e'der im- diately (vlegraphed to the doctor, had waied all | x ad com i b; t train) one of t 18 early Fri s to telegraph to us early r. irn Saturday o e morning 1 s Johnstone, and er. ted until midday | & to hear from our messenger. No | | en Mr. Johnstone went with Mr. and Mrs. McCail and 0 the GGovernor. The promise was | given by the officers that we should have | word from Dr. Butier and his family at the earliest hour possible; that special or ould be given for their protect at a proper guard would | be furnished ¢ «nd me promise ezram came. return Monday He was 10 retarn Satu They It was from lay if he was n -~ ¢ morning weleft the city at 8 o’clock, Teac Butler's house &t half-past 8§ tbat | 3 smissed the guard at_the door. Doc- v closing the evening serv.ce. We had | b sem.ed when the house was stoned, someof the siones being larger than my double 1 nuies soldiers appeared, saying | that the offense shoula not oceur again; orders had | beew recelvea from the Governor that we must be | prot cted. . days. Ihelr sives were publicly ;- As S00n as these friers renched th | « ubl.cly declured_they would breas up c re and drive us frow the city.. For five openly t nutle; ught these poor Ignorant was deceiving the people d s raight down to hell- that ihe o ey ISt zive him was two siones in e : thut our Bible wus faise; that doce tor was an impostor: they défied doctor to proy was true; finglly sending an invi- tation to prove that our Bible was true. word that he would gladly accept | with the understanding that: on mus: be public—in the house e judge’s office. must be ;rom_the leading citi- ne judge, the Sherift, the Mayor 1S be present, no others. contined to the Bible. word he would accept the con- ditions. The h marked tor 11 A. M., Tues- October 29. lLater word was sent that so y 0f the business men wanted to hear tne dis- on that 1o privat > would hold them; they must have it w trouble might 10 came to escort him as- © in £00d faith and_prom- Just here let me say we isea him full protect believe the officers of t id the best citizens of the city were innocer | Tuesday at 11 o'clo ler was escorted | 10 the church by some o leading men of | the ce. Every in man of the | town was in chureh wa for him. One of | the friars met him and askcd what he wanted, | tor sald he did not wan: o had | by invitation of the prie to discuss the | our Bible. The friar said, ‘Well, no, no | tatio hen,” replicd Dr. Butier, -1 will ave’ Oneof the citize 1p. saying, it is by nviiatio © them printed © in our pockets,’ and they showed them. 1 zanthe discussion. Itlnsred iwo hours. Ou'sidi hid g thered an iZnorant, excited mob of 810U 3,000 D 0p e, €VETs 08 Of LAt 3000 armed, | the v o i bags filled with stcnes, the me with great ciubs and 1ong knives. They were there because ¥ nighu the Friest had s through the oo the church Getobe mimister an church “Dr. Butler requested th n od Ca Protest- o invade udge to mark the time, 2 each 0 iour at first. and thon ten minutes to r pries: objected, but was compelled 10 con, Doctor always uses the priests’ Bible. He took that and one of our own The friar acknowledged that it was approved by the Archibishop of Brazil. 3 +) think Dr. Butler re his luse OPPOFUBILY 10 pr an audience; and be did it ed that it was probably | h the Gospel to surl ife combated the con. fesyion, the primacy of Peter. worsnip of images, elibacy 0f the priesthood, fast days | and the pirpetual virginity of Mary. ‘The doctor i stood with Bible of proos from the pri Was compar en before him. and took his version, while our Bible | ind to be the same. In the pr ly be stumbled around, and | finally proved that “the Bible is ot the only rule | ©f faith of the Catholic church” (his own words), but th aust obey the tradition of the fathers, 3ie did no: touch on points presented by Dr. Hutler till he came 1o the Virgin Mary. He then said the Bible tanght, “the woman should bruise the ser- | pent’s b peating a piece of | child’s po beinz a virzin be- | sore the birth and after the brth and forever, and he slapped his bands. 1. wus responded to by & voice within, crying, ‘Long live our holy religion; down with the Procestanis!’ In an instant the waiti 0b ont- side rushed in, their terribie cry of “Kill him 1 T.:1ng Joud and clear through the City. One of the sudivnce, a citizen, brother of the station agent, | mied a pisiol at Dr. Butler. It was siruck aside | nother true cit d, you or 1 die, Dr. Butler never! 10 oflicers of the city, the best citiz by 3 (not a Christian) who s im; Christian men. ciosed around Dr. Lut.er They g0t bim safely to the Sheriff's house and £ til the mob was quieted. Later on vening they brought him home and sta- 1 a guard of so diers here to protect him and hole clty 15 talking of the discussio Who were-indifferen: until now are studying 5 10 sew 1f these things are true. Al of s who heard the discussion declare thece only one side 1o ic: that the priest in no way snswered un argument of Dr. Butler's,and are chagrined that the priest could do nothing but blunder out, ‘the Bible is not the only rule of faitn of the Roman Ca holic church.’ ” ; Miss Keed’s siory concludes with &1 account of the public burning a few days after of all the Bibles nd | rot-stant books that could be found, by order ©Of the priest. Mjss Keed concludes: “It Was recessary Lo have the soldiersat our aoor some their Hit the citize again that night. During the service three men came toward us armed with long knives. They e prompily arrested. and the knives taken ater on in the evening fiity-five men for disoraerly conduct, enl each of them had 1o give up to the police a g eat knis “Excepting that Sunday night and the Monday folloxing, when the solliers wcre preseut as our guard, we were stoned every single nisht while [ was there—general,y in the carly evening, but sev- eral times, for good count, the stones came crash- ing ou usatter midnight; and twice in broad day light single stonss were hyrled agains: the winde The 1008 is tu.l o t holes, ietting the Lot sun beams I on us, or the rain to pour ini whichever it may be. )n Friday shing in, year-old Jight a great stone came cl fiv just missing the I of litt Humphrey Butier. [ am sorry to send you so | much of the dark side, vet 1 think it best that Christian workers shouid kpow something of our .v may the better know our need that of their p: Ed with your consent, we would riest Yorke the following ques- t—If does she ana hound and persecute Rome favors religious liberty, why hematize and excommunicate, all of her minions who dare think for themseives? Second—1f Rome believes in free specch, why do her most devoted adherents mob the speak ers who dare show up her treachery and de- Third—Ii Rome only maintains political principles that are in harmony with those of the country. why does she work in secret to promulgate them? Fourth—If Rome does not hold and teach the doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope when did she give up the belief? What Pope has denounced it? What conneil repudiated it? H. W. BOWMAN. FATHER YORKE REPLIES. He Continues His Analysis of Dr. Bovard's Arraignment. The following letter to THE CALL is self- explanatory: January 3, 1896, DEAR SIR: As I Bovard’s commu- To the Editor of the Call stated in st letter Dr. nication co sted of with cerain theological propositions and the other giving a dozen reasons “why Romar Catholicism is under suspicion in America.” first part is designed as an_answer o my refutation of his claim that tne Bible should be introduced as a standard of morals into the public s¢ "he arguments whici I ury against ell under two heads. 1 ren of Ay We have no right to jorce the Testiment on the children of Jews, or a him schools are open to the chil of the Bible on the children of atheists or nothingarians. 2. arian Bible read- ing is an im the first plac Protest 3 sectarian characte ot the interpreting it through crecds and by enforeing thisginterpretation on the members of the churehs. In the second place the Bible is not a text-book of morals, and if read withont note or comment would produc ideasof duty which might be more startling than edifying. In answer to my first argument Dr. Bovard claimea (1) that the American Government was Christian. How unfounded is this claim Ishowed in my letter of yesterday. In answer to my second argument he holds (2) that all the sects formed but one church. (3) That the Protestant creeds do not bind the conscience. (4) That trials for heresy do not ct the moral status of the individusl tried ) That under the Protestant banner ever man is his own priest. (6) That the Protestant idea of the Bible is that it contains all things ary to salvation. (7) That the morals of e patriarchs can have no influe Americans Yesterday I showed would mak 2) that the theor: ali the sects branches of which the one Kinge ruth contradicts the very notion | of tru nd (3) that ereeds in Protestant churches are statements of belief which limit the judgn us as much ns creeds in the Catholic church. To-day I intend to contin my examiuation of his other arguments, and, f space will permit, proceed to & consideration ¢ reasons he urges to justify suspicion of an Catholicism in America. (4) 1 adduced the fact that members of the Protestant churches are tried for heresy asa proof that in practice these churches intérfere with the right of private judgment just as effc tually asdoes the Catholic cliurch. "Mr. Bovard hen o Protestant desires to witharaw fre of the denominations he is st Hber.y (o do s bears wich him the good will of He think: he pieases both before and af The Protestant chimroh-stmuly sk (i canill if he is acting freely, if b of faith as biblical. ‘The priva y lutely supreme. ‘The Protestant church claims no POWT to change the mora] Status of any one. The trial and exclusion of & person from & Protestant \ one r. church has nothing to do with his personal relation | w0 30d. You wil 1 remark, Mr. Editor, that there was nothing in my argument which dealt either with the voluntary withdrawal of a member from one of the denominations or which con- sidered his standing before God. My argu ment was thet if private judgment is the rule of faith,no man, or no body of men, has the right 10 charge any one with heresy. means originally to “pick and choose mesns a choice of doetrines. for private judgment. vate judgment absolute pious to call any 1f God has left the pr ¥ supreme is it not im- aoetrine heretical or false? if, in_the exercite of his privaie judgment, a Mormon follows the example of the patriarchs or a Presbyterian believes that prelacy is un- scriptural, why try him for heresy? 1f a Metho- dist comes to the conclusion by private jude. ment that the Catholic church is the church of Christ Private juagment hes no limits but the lim of reason, and_every attempt to cramp it with | creeds contradicts the theor: As 10 the frame of mind with whi Protes- tants behold their members leave any com- munion of course I can give no opinion. Human neture is much thé same in all denom- nations and I do not suppose that the loss of embers is looked upon exactly asa blessing. he “‘morel status” may not ve changed, but 1 remark that the Metliodists appear to have 1 very small hopes of those who leave them. quote iTom # little book ca The Doetrin, and Discipliz st Episcopal Churcl New York In chapter 11, section 1, the rules to be observed by Methodists ure given. Among them we find a prohibition against “uncharitable or unprofitable conyer- sation, perticularly speaking evil of magis- trates or of minisiers”; “‘the putting on of gold or costly apparel”; “the singing those sougs or_reading those books which do uot tend to the knowledge or love of God.” We also read that the brethren are expected 1o ‘‘evidence their desire of salvation I doing good, especially to them that are of th household 'of faith, or groaning so to be, em- ploying them preferably to others, buying one of another, helping each other in business and so much the more because the world will love its own and them only.” Now if member does not observe these rules the di cipline goes on to say: “We will admon hin of the error of his ways. We will with him for a skason. not he hath no more place among us. We have delivered our own souis.”” Of course this may be s way of saying that the offender “‘bears with him the good will of all,” but it is a very queer style of expression, In cinpter X, section 2, we find this ques- tion: “What shell be done with those minis- ters or preachers who hold and disseminate, pnblicly or privately, doctrines which are con: trery 0 our articles of religion? Answer: “Let the same process be observed as in ease of gross immorality.” In rection 4 of the same chapter we read tie iollowing order: “If a member of our church shall be cleariy convicted of endeavoring to sow dissensions in any of our societies by in- veighing against eithier our doctrines or disci- plitie, such person so offending shall be first reproved by the senior minister or preacher of his circuit, &nd if he persist in such pernicious practice he shall be expelled from the church.” i have no doubt that Dr. Bovard wouid follow the erring brother with respect and not con sider his moral status lowered, but 1 think these aminble sentiments arise 'from the nat- ural mildness of the Alameda climate and not from the provisions of the Methodist discipline. Mr. Bovard continues: It does not anathematize, curse and condemn people 1o purgatory, because it finds no such non- sense in the Bible. I am very much surprised tofind that Dr. Bovard belicves that any church curses or cou- ple to purgatory. Surely he cannot f that obscene screed from Tris- trém Shandy. The Catholic Church excom- municates lier members just as the Methodist Church expels them. The effects are precisely the same in both cases. “As man by baptism ismade & member of the church in which there is & communication of all spiritual zoods, 50 by excommunication he is cast forth from the church and placed in the position of the heathen man and the publican, and is deprived aceord- ingly of sacraments, Sacrifices, sacred offices, benefices, dignities, siastical jurisdiction and power, ecclesiastical sepulture—in a word, of all the rights which he had acquired by bap: tism—until he makes amends and satisfies the chureh.” What astonishes me most of all is that Dr. Bovard should assert that cursing and anathe- matizing are not found in the Bible. 1 am afraid that he is neglecting that rule of the discipline which teils him to huve the Bible always open before him. If he will but turn to the 23th of Deuteroncmy he will find a ritual malediction, which for neight, depth, width, comprebensibility and copiousness oi cursing is unequaled in any literature. Iu the New Testament we_read the very expression anathema, and St. Paul does not mince words when he hands the Corinthian_bodily over to the devil. If Dr. Bovard considers this non- sense he will find plenty of it in the Bible. I do not think that Dr. Bovard's answer h bear But if then he repeat two' parts, one dealing | nce on young | It is the Greek | why cover him with reprobation? | meets my argument. Protestant churches ex- | rel menbers for heresy. Waen they had the | power they burneda them. Now to punisha person for heresy is high treason .against the right of private judgment. It is a proclama- | tion thut the interpretation of the Bible | adopted by the particular church is the true | and only true interpretation, and as such it is | under the Protestant theory an unjustified and umjustifiale interference” with the rights of | opinion. (5) Dr. Bovard continues: Under the Protestant banner every man is his owa prie This is another theory of Protestantism which is contradicted by eyeryday practice. Remember I am not arguing now whether these things are right or wrong. I am but showing that the theory on which the reform- | ers based their belief is quictly set aside in everyday life. This theory is non-sectarian, beautifully so, but it hasnot worked. From the fact that it has ot worked I am arguing that non-sectaman Bible reading is au irri- | descent dream. The Protestant theory says every man is his | own priest, but the Protestant churches are weighted down with Bishops, minsters, elders, deacons, preachers, exhorters, stewards, lead- s and all the other titles claimed b, camp-followers of the gospel. Whatis the use of them if every man is his own priest Why does the Methodist discipline give administration of Lord’s Supper only to elders | if any member is competent to celebrate it? | v Send ronnd “traveiing deacons” to bap- ¢ und perform the office of matrimony if the | | residents of the locality are fuily able to | solemnize these ordinances? 1 can understand the reason for setting aside men to act as preachers, but I defy any one to exvlain on the theory that “every man is his own priest’’ the practice of confining certain sacramental | or ritual functions to duly ordained members of a hierarchy. Here again in the Protes- tant, and especially in the Methodist church, practice contradicts theory. (6) Dr. Bovard write The Prolestant idea of the Bible is simple and ¥ to understand. It contains all things neces- for salvation.” Lam sure the statement seems easy and sim- ple enough, but the fifth article of religion irom which'it is quoted 15 self-contradictory. | I remarked in my first lotter that there are two | truths which are considered necessary to sal- | vation and which are not contained in the | Bible. The first is the truth that certain books | are Holy Scripture, and the second is that | Sunday is the Sabbath of the New Law. | Neither of these truths is contained in Holy | Seripture, yet a man who would reject, sy the four gospels or the observance of the Lord’s | day, would be considered as in the way of sal- vation. Again and in a most glaring wa; Protestant theory is contradicted by Protes ant practice. (7) To offset'my statement that it is very hard reconcile, the conduet of Patriarchs with our ideas of morals Mr. Bovard states: It does not claim t all the characters in the Bible were saints atall times. It does not justify Abraham, Isanc nor Davia in the sins th mitt Protestants even go so far as to denouznce a rather plain | | | r for his inclination to dodze | proposition. | Catholics do the same, but Mr. Bovard does | not_ answer my argument, 1 am not dealing | | now with those actions which the Bible repro- | butes or which God punis! I am dealing | with those questionable actions which God | scems to_bleds or to command. If the Bible is | to be read in a non-sectarian manner without | | note or comment, 1 wonder what young | America will thitk of that sharp trick by | swhich Jacob did his brother out of the blese ing. Even so greata genius as Augustine was iuvm;wliul to throw up his hands in_despair | | | | | | | | { and declare, “It was not mendacious but mys- | terious,” which | whole question. We will find the prophets doing some very peculiar things at the command of God, and Mr. Bovard surely does not forget the attack i Huxley made on the immioral nature of practically surrenders the f the Gadarene pigs. Asa matter Bible is full of things which are men of mature minds to recou ementary moral ideals, and we are throw this volume at the heads of the youngsters in the schools, at¥ expeet that in | some mysterious way it will become a tcxte book of morals Such, Mr. Editor, are the reasons I offer for | the statement that non-sectarian Bible reading All the Protestant churches the 1s impracticable, have in practice rejected their theory of pri- vate judgment and a free Bible. They have { all come over to the Catholic practice, and { only produce their theory for controversial | purposes and for state oceasions. Of course the reason for their action i simaple. They could not do anything else. | | The theory of private judgment is in religion | what anarchy is in politics. It means the de- | struction of all religious organization and the reduction of truth to mere opinion. The great | churchless multitudes_are the true professors | of the right of private judgment. The churche: have held together simply because they hay set private judgment sside in favor of | in and common-sense doctrine of the | Catholic ehureh. Mr. Bovard now plunges into the reasons | why the Catholic church is under suspicion. I have been so very diffuse in my answerto | theological questions that I must defer a con- | sideration of these reasons to another letter. | | { Tsuppose 1 should ask pardon for my pro- lixity. However, I cannot say that 1 havé used words unnceessarily. 1 wish to explain my ideas as clearly as possible andl I cannot do 1t in apophthe gms rere 15 one point, however, in_the second part of Mr. Bovard’s letter which is purely tneological and which 1 might as weil coti- | sider now and have it off my hands: The working forceof Protestantism is essentially different from holicism. Catholicism | Christi; from a semi-physical or standpoint. The progress of Chr tianity i8 u sort of materialistic' infusion and p longatic incarnation by means of transsub- | stantiau - sacrament. The whole force of Catsolicism s operated with the fmpersonal pre cision of a “drop-a-nickel-in-the-slot” machi You do as you are told and the result will follow. Protestantism holds that Christianity ch the relation of God's will to ma 1 is purely idua! has the ul for hi elf and settle his own case: that neitber the devils in the nether region nor all suints in the catalogue can hinder nor aect i in the least. | 1 1nust contess that I do not understand what Dr. Bovard mesns by his first paragraph. 1| will simply say that access to God is as per- sonai and "direct for the Catholic as for the Protestant. Between a man’s soul and his Maker nothing can stand in the wey. By the | “change in the relation of God’s will to man’s | will,” I presume Dr. Bovard means *‘justifica- | tion” and “sanctification.” Let me “explain | what Catholics mean by these terms, and I think Dr. Bovard will admit that not only are hi ca urs wbout “semi-physical” or “mechani- | devices unmerited, but that Catholic the- ology contemplates a closer and more personal relation to God than is provideded for in the Protestant hypothesis. in the first place, then. justification begins | with the grace of God, which touches & sin- ner's heart and ealls him to repentance. This grace flows solely from the love and mercy of | our Father and cannot be merited. course, is free to accept this grace or to reject it. If he accepts it he is disposed or prepared | and adapted for justification. He believes in | tne revelation and’ promises of God. His heart | is especially set on the truth that a sinner is | justified by God's grace through the redemp- tion which is in Christ Jesus. He begins to | fear the divine justice and to hope in the divine merey. He trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake, and he be- gins 10 love God s the fountain of all justice, and consequently to hate and detest his sins, This disposition or preparation is followed v justifieation itself, which justification con- sts not in the mere Temission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God’s grace and gifts by which a man becomes just instead of unjust, a triend instead of a foe, and so an heir according to the hope of eternal life, By the merit of the most holy passion through the holy spirit the charity oi God isshed abroad in the henrts of those who are justified. This is the description of justification as | given by the Couucil of Trent. Fut in ordi- nary terms it tells how a man who is_a sinner becomes a friend of God. The work beg with God. Unless he gives the grace the si ner cannot turn from his sin. No mechanical device can suve him. When God gives the grace man has to do his part. Two things he ‘remembers; God is just; God is merciful. He knows that of himself he can do nothing, that he has no hope of pardon ; but he knows, too, that Christ has died to save him, and he hopes that he mey share in the promises. Now, if in thinking over these things his mind is so inflamed with the love of God that because of that love he hates and de- tests hissins, then straightway withous the in- terposition of priest or sacrament he is justi- and made the friend of God. Every Catho- lic chiid is taught this doctrine—that an act of perfect contrition or sincere SoTrow for sin, ex- | cited by the purelove of God, restores us to his friendship. Of course such a disposition of soul means that we are ready 10 do everything that God has commanded. Tf he has cliosen to send us like the cleansed lepers to the priests we are bound to go—in fact we are only too willing to 0. If he has commanded that we should neel at the feet of his minister and disclose | the state of our souls, who are we that we should question his command? Does this make his dealings with us lees direct, less personal? | In faet, does it not bring us closer to him; that | we know we are falfilling his ordinance and trusting in his word, “Whose sins ye shall for- giye they are forgiven; whose sins ye shall re- tain tney are retained.” According to the common Catholie teach- ing sentification or sanctifying grace is the | indwelling of the Holy Ghost in our souls. He | takes up his abode with us. Our very bodies become his temples. This is the uncreated gift; thisis the very love of Ged inflaming our hearts. Icannot conceive of any relation of mun 10 God closer or more direct or more per- sonal than this. There is nothing in Protest- antism like it nor like that fuifiliment of the prophecy when we receive Jesus Christ under the sacramental veilsand he is become Em- manuel—God with us. Yours truly, P. C. YORKE. Man, of | | the Port John H. Wise. CHINESE AS CITIZENS, Judge Morrow Follows the Decision of Justice Field. THIS WAS A TEST CASE. It Had Been Brought Up at the Attorney-General’s Sug- gestion, NOTICE OF AN APPEAL GIVEN. The Far-Reaching Issue to Be Laid Before the United States Supreme Court. That Chinese born in this country of parents not in the Chinese diplomatic service are citizens of the United States, and may exercise the elective franchis and may go and come whenever and wherever they please, is the effect of United States District Judge Morrow’s de- cision of the test case of Wong Kim Ark. The case was decided yesterday with an elaborate opinion that makes interesting reading.” An appeal has already been taken to the United States Supreme Court by District Attorney Henry S. Foote. He gave notice yesterday, and, pending the final decision by the highest judicial tribunal in the land, the bond of Wong Kim Ark was fixed at $250. If the United States Supreme Court should sustain Judge Morrow it is be- | lieved the result will be to admit to the Wong Kim Ark, the Citizen. [Sketched by a “Call” artist.] polls every Mongolian as well as Cancasian who has been born in this country, whose parents have not been native born or naturalized, save that children of parents connected ' with the diplomatic service here of other nations are excluded from the privilege of citfzenship. The bringing up of this case as a test case came about in a peculiar manner. Attorney George D. Collins of this City had written several articles in the Ameri- can Law Review, and they eventually drew the attention of the Department of Justice at Washington to the question of the citizenship of native-born Chinese in particular and that of all native-born children of parents subject toforeign juris- diction 1 general. The opportunity pre- sented itself of making a test case for the United_States Supreme Court to finally determine. Justice Field had already delivered a Circuit Court opinion, with the concur- tence of the jurists sitting with him at the time, and in that opinion he held as Judge Morrow has held. The Field opinion has never been quite satisfactory, however, but as it had not been questioned Chinese have been generally considered to be American citizens if born here of parents of ordinary residence, and such have been langed without any further ado upon their return from a trip to China. Accordingly Attorney-General Judson Harmon sent instructions here to Mr. Foote to have a test case made of Wong Kim Ark, and Mr. Collins was appointed amicus curime. All the facts in Wong Kim Ark’s case were agreed to by the opposing counsel. He was born in this City in 1873 at 751 | Sacramento street, his parents being Wong Si Ping. a merchant and member of the firm of Quong Sing & Co. at that place, and a woman named Wee Lee. parents were admitted and domiciled under the provisions of the Burlingame treaty and were not engaged in any diplo- matic capacity. In 1890 Wong and his parents went to China and he returned the same year on the steamer Gaelic and was allowed to land on the ground of his birth. He went again to China in 1894 and last August he returned on the Contic. His papers were all straigit. On his first trip he carried a certificate signed by Chinese Consul F. A. Bee and_bearing the names. as witnesses, of Mar: R. Stevens of 7 Kearny street, £. W. Sanderson of 700 California street, William Fisher of 713 California street, and F. Berna of 615 ugh street. On the sccond trip he car- ried an identification over the signatures of William Fisher of 1308 Powell street, F. Berna of 615 Gough street and L. Selinger of 932 Powell stree To make a case it was necessary to first have him refused a Ianding by Colilector of e was accord- ingly detained on board one or another of the Occidental and Oriental Company’s steamers. Then habeas corpus proceed- ings began in October, Hoo Lung Suey, a friend, being the petitioner, and Naphtaly, Friedrich & Ackerman and Thomas Riordan acting as his attorneys. The writ was granted November 11, and Mr. Foote intervened for the Government on the same dnf’, and two days later the opposing counsel agreed to all "the facts so as to have the main question itself of citi- zenship decided. The position taken bv Wong’s counsel was that he was entitled to citizenship under the constitution of the United States. Onthe other hand Mr. Foote con- tended that the word *‘jurisdiction’’ in the sentence, *‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the nited States,” meant political and not merely legal jurisdiction; that the Federal Suvreme Court had already defined the meaning of the word; that the chiid as a -matter of course is subject to the same poiitical jurisdiction as his unnaturalized parents; that the commeon law doctrine of birth within the dominion of a king can- not apply io a rcFul_Jhc; that as Judge Storrey decided early in the history of the United States, citizenship is coverned by international law, and net the common law of any one country, and that as Con- gress had expressly legislated against the admission by the naturalization process of | Chinese to citizenship, native-born Chi- nese should come within the same exclu- sion. Judge Morrow in bis opinion of twenty- four type-written pages treats at length all the objections raised by the Government. He ioes right to the question at issue, which he puts in this wise: The question to be determined is whether a person born in the United States, whose father His | and mother were both persons of Chinese descent and subjects of the Emperor of China, but at the time of the birth were both domi- ciled residents of the United States, is a citizen within the meaning of that part of the four- teenth amendment of the constitution which rovides that “all persons born or naturalized n the United States and subject to the juris- diction thereof are citizensof the United States and of the States wherein they reside. Atonce he proceeds logically with the contentions made by Messrs. Foote and Collins_azainst Wong’s right to citizen- ship. Mr. Coilin’s position was that the doctrine of internationzl law as to citizen- ship exists in tie United States and not that of the common law, and that the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment is in consonance with the in- ternational Jaw and should be so inter- preted. To give a synopsis of the argument, as Judge Morrow viewed it, of tne Govern- ment’s counsel, the logic was thus: First, Wong Kim Ark was not subject to the po- litical jurisdiction of the United State: second, according to the rule of intern tional law the political statusof the child follows that of the parents; third, the mere fact of birth in thiscountry does not. ipse facto, confer any right of citizenship. So much for the postulate. In support of it Justice Story’s decision to the educt that ““Political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applica- ble to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations,”” was cited to argue that the jJprovision of the fourteenth amend- ment intended to follow and adopt the rule of international law. Further, it was contended that common law doctrine could not apply for the reason that there is no common law proper of the Umted States, and finally it was main- tained that the United States Supreme Court in the slaugnter- house cases adopted the rale of international law, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation in the case of Kik vs. Wilkins was also cited in support of this position ‘Then on tke other hang, as logically, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner was taken up, namely: that whatthe court said in the slaughter-house casesis but mere dictum; that the highest Federal tribunal has never directly passed upon the question at issue, but tuat the United States Circuit Court bad adjudicated the question in the Look Tin Sing and Gee Fook Sing cases, and _so far as this circuit is concerned the decisions 1n those cases should control Judge Morrow’s court. Weong's attorney’s had made use of the de- sion of Vice-Chancelior Lewis H. San- ford of New York in 1844 in the Lynch vs. Clark case. Speaking of the two decisions rendered by the Circuit Court here Judge Morrow say Whiie the two decisions rendered in this circuit would seem, upon the principle of are decisis, 10 be conelusive upon the que: tion raised here and controlling upon th court; yet, in view of the fact that it has been argued on the part of the Government, and very forcibly, that the Supreme Court laid down, in the slaughter-house cases, a doctrine at variance with that announced in these decisions, and as claimed in consonance with that of the law of nations, it will be necessary to examine these cases with care and at grest length. The question is an important one, not alone from an abstiact point of view, but because of ihe consequences a decision unfavorable to the petitioner would involye. For, if the con- tention of counsel for the Government be correct, it will inevitabiy result that thousands of personsof both sexés, who haye been co sidered as citizens of the United States, and have always been treated as such, will be, toall intents and purposes, denationalized and re- manded 10 A state of a'ienage. Included among these are thousands voters who are_exercising the right of suffrs as American citizens, and whose right us such is not and never has been questioned, because birth within the country seems to have bee recognized generally as’ conclusive upon the question of ¢itizenship. But the Supreme Court has never square! determined, either prior to or subsequent to the adoption of the fourteenth gmendment in 1866, the political status of children born here of foreign parents, In the case of Minor vs. Iappersett, 21 Wall., 165, the court express declined to p o that question. Noc was there any definition in the constitution or in acts ot Congress of what constituted citi- nship until the adoption of the fourteenth amendment. He next explains the commen law prin- ciple that “birth within the realm was deemed conclusive,’”’ and the rule of the law of nations that “birth follows the political status of the parents,” but ob- serves that the fourteenth amendment is controlling on the question presented irre- of | spective of either the common law or in- ternational law doctrines. He admits, though, that in view of the ambiguous and uncertain character of the qualifying phrase, “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” renders the question a debatable one as to which rule the provision was in- tended to declare. The decision of Justice Field in the Look Ting Sing case is gone over at length. Justice Field held that aithough the petitioner was born here of parents sub- ject to the Emperor of China, he was a citizen within the meaning of the Fonr- teenth Amendment. Look Ting Sing was born in Mendocino County in 1870. His father sent him to China when nine vears old, and he returned in September, 1854. The burden of Justice Field's decision in effect wa: Look Ting Sing was born lLere; his parents were not engaged in the dipiomatic service of any foreign Govern- ment; he wus not born on a vessel of a foreign nation while within the waters of the United States; he had not renounced his allegiance to this Government; therefore the words ‘‘subject to the jurisdiction taereof,” do not exclude him from ctizen- ship. The jurisdiction of the United States over him at the time of birth was exclusive of that of any foreign country. The citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment was to_overturn the doctrine enumerated 1n the Dred Scott case. And Justice Field continued: Independently of the constitutional pro- vision, it has always been the doctrine of this country, except as applied to Africans brought here and sold as slaves, and their descendants, that birth within the dominions and juri: dictions of the United States of itself creates citizenship. The Gee Fook Sing case was decided by the United States Circuit Courtof Appeals, Judge Hanford writing the opinion. It simply assumed Justice Fiela's interpre- tation of the citizenship clausc of the con- stitution and recognized the right of a person alleging himseli to be a citizen to hearing on habeas eorpus proceedings. As to the mere obiter dictum of the United States Supreme Court’s decision in the slaughter-house cases Juidge Morrow shows that the question of citizenship was purely incidental ai.. subordinated 10 the main question of whether the Stafe of Louisiuna’s concessions were police regu- lations for the beaith and comfort of tue people. The question of citizenship arose when it was apprehended that the privi- leges of citizens of the United States might be abridged, and on this hinged the further question as to who were citizens of the United States. The court’s decision simply amounted to a declaration that the fourteenth amendment protects from nostile legislation of the States the privi- leges and immunities of citizens of the United States as distinguished from those of citizens of the States. But the auestion directly involved in the Wong Kim Ark case did not arise. The paramount point made by the court in its treatment of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amendment was the distinction 1t made between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of any particular State. The court said: The first observation we have to make on this clause is that n‘{mzs 1o rest both the questions which are stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. 1t declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of & particular State, and it overturns the Drea Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose Was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of 10 doubt. The plirase “subject to ats jurisdiction” was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States, Judge Morrow admits that this Jast sen- tence is mere dictum, but he points out the strenzth of the second observation of the Supreme Court as follows: The next observation is more important, in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. Itis that the distinction between citi- zenship of the United States and citizenship of a State s clearly recognized and established. Not only may & man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an importaut element is necessary to convert | the former into the latter. n He must reside within the ate to make him a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should pe born or naturulized in the United States to be a citi- zen of the Union. . Nordid the interpretation of the phrase in the case of Elk vs. Wilkins determine its meaning, explains Judg: Morrow. In this case the question was whether an In- dian born in the United States, and who had severed his tribal relations, was a citi- zen within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment. Justic iray recognized in his opinion the two sources of citizenship, birth and naturalization, and held that it was necessary for the native-born child to be completely subject to the political juri diction of the country. In conclusion, Judge Morrow confesses that he has to follow the Field decision in the Look Tin Sing case, but he explains as to the propositions of the common law and | international law: The doctrine of the law of nations, that the child foilows the nationality of parents, and that citizenship does not depend upon mere accidental place ¢f birth, is uudoubtedly more reasonable aud satistactory, but this coni- sideration will not justify this ¢ourt in declar- | ing it to be the law against controlling judicial authority. It may be that the executive de- partments of the Government are at liberty to iollow this international rule in dealing with questions of citizenship which arise between this and other countries, but that fact dees not estabiish the law for the courts as dealing with persons within their own territory. In this ease the question to be determined is as to the political status and rights of Wong Kim Ark under the law in this country. No foreign power Las intervened or appears to be concerned in the matter. From the law as announced and the facts as stipulated, I am of opinion that Wong Kim Ak is a citizen of the United States within the meaning of the citizenship clause of the fourteenth amend- ment. There was great rejoicing in Chinatown last night over Judge Morrow’s decision. At the headquarters of the United Parlor, Nati Sons of the Golden e, it was learned that the Chinese estimate that there are at least 1000 native-born Chinese in this City, and a big vote might be polled among those of voting ag RATES T BE ADVANCED. Eastbound Freight via Panama to Pay a Higher Tariff. The New Schedule Expected to Be Ready in Ten Days—Two More Steamers Coming. Two important matters to shippers of freight to Central American ports and to New York via the Panama route can now be announced on the authority of R. P. Schwerin, the general manager of the Pacific Mail Steamship Company. These are that two more steamers are to be added to the San Fra fleet and that rates to New York are to be advanced about the middle of the present month. Word was received in this City vester- day from New York that the Pacitic Mail Steamship Company had decided to uti- lize the stcamers City of Para and the Colombia, gwhich had been withdrawn from the New York-Colon route, on thi side of the continent. Just when the will leave could not be learned, but it expected that they will make their a, pearance in this port within the nex ninety days. From New York they wil £0 to Newport News to take a supply o coal and will then start on the vc ¢ Panama around the Horn, which s h= et is ex: vected to take them about fifty days. At Panama they will get rid of their surplus coul cargo and take c ciseo and way ports, Their arrival will give the Pacific Mail argo for San Fran- 1sco-Panama | | Company five large and well equipped steamers for both passenger and freizht business between this purtand Panama, and is expected to place the company in & position where it will be able to handle all husiness promptly and in a:most satis- fictory manner. For some time past—in fact, ever since | the announcement of the new agreement between the Panama Railroad Company and the Pacific Mail Steamship Company— General Manager Schwerin has been busy working on the tariff sheets ot his com= pany with a view to putting advanced rates on easthound business, via Panama, into effect at the earliest day. Some idea of the work involved 1n a gen= eral change of rates may be eathered from the fact that this labor will not ve com- pleted until the middle of the current “month. When asked as to_how much the 1ates would be aavancec -Mr. Schwerin stated that he was not prepared to answer, and could no: give even an approxima te idea of what average per cent advance would | be made. | “We shall only make such an advance,” said Mr. Schwerin, “as will insure us & profit in the operation of our steamers, | and which we are certainly entitled to, con- sidering the well-regulated service we have always given the public. It has been no uncommou occurrence under the low rates which have prevailed for us to find the balance on the wrong side of the sheet | when the accounts of the steamers were made up. Of course such a state of things could not be permitted to continue. would simply drive us outof business, and I am sure that that is not what is desired by the public. “Regarding complaints made by ship- pers, they are generally with little or no foundation. We can and do handle all the freight that is offered as a rule. There is not a single steamship line, I don’t care how well regulated its business may be, that is not now and again compelled to re- fuse a few tons of freight, and that is all that has occurred so far as Central Ameri- can business is concerned.” Under the new agreement, previously re- ferred to, the Pacific Mail Steamship Com- peny has the right to make only the east- bound rates, while the Panama people preserve the prerogative of fixing those for the westbound business. When the at- tention of E. H. Hinton, the local agent of the Panama Railroad Company, was called to the proposed action of the Pacific Mail and he was asked whether his com- pany intended to advance westbound rates simultaneously with the Pacific Mail he replied as foliow “Tne eastbound rates are independent of the westbound rates. The conditions surrounding the westbound traflic are dif- ferent from those surrounding the east- bound traffic at thistime and 1 do mnot suppose it will be possible to make an ad- vance at the same time. An advance in eastbound rates has no immediate bearing on the westbound rate situation.” -———— Catered to Popular Taste. A well-known scientist was walking along a London street when he came across | an itinerant astronomer, who was inviting | the passers by to gaze through his tele- scope at the moon at a halipenny a time. The sciertist in London was speculative enough to veature a hali-penny, and on applying his eye to the inscrument vas astonished to see a beautiful picture of a full moon, although at the time the moon was only in her second quarter. Puzzled by the circumstance he exam- ined the instrument and found that it was not a telescope at all, but simply a tube | with a hole where the eyeviece should be and a transparent photograph of a full | moon, with a light behind it, at the other | end. 'On the scientist asking the exhibitor | how he could so cheat the public, the man simply remarked: ‘“It’s all right, sir. People like a lot for their money nowa- days. 1used to have a proper ’scope once, but I turned it up for this after an Irich- man pitched into me for showing him only ’aria moon. This way pays better and g¢ives more satisfaction.”’—Columbus | Journal, NEW TO-DAY. TAKING CLEARANGE SALE Those who secured bargains at our last sale know what we mean. For the few who didn’t, we mean the highest grade shoes at the smallest possible figure. WITNESS THESE QUOTATIONS. LADIES’ SHOES LAIRD, SCHOBER & 33.00 CO.’S French heel, cloth top, button, square toe and tip, hand turned - - 1600 pairs Ladies’ Hand 1,90 1,50 1.20 Turned and Hand Welt Button, assorted kinds. A fit for all - - - - - - - Hand Turned Fancy Slippers, assorted kinds, stylish goods « ~ = - = - MISSES’ Stout pebble button, splendid school shoe—11t0 2 = = = = = - - The same, Sizes 8 to 104 - = ~ The same, > Sizes 5 to 7% = = = Laird, Schober & Co.’s hand turned French kid button, pointed toe. Sold elsewhere at $5.00. French Dongola button, pointed or square toe; from $2.50 = = = = = 2 » o 1.70 80c MEN’S SHOES Calf Lace and Congress, latest style of last and finish - 82 | Men’s Calf Lace and | Congress, hand sewed - | Men’s Calf Congress, ! heavy double sole, wide | extension edge ~ - = - « 33 33 | | Winter_Tan Calf, lined, $4 hand sewed = = - = = - - Winter Tan Calf Lace, pointed toe, stylish and sensible 30 $3.26 Visit us before the sizes are | broken. Be an early bird. The | worm bargain will repay you, Best Patent Leathers in assorted varieties and lstyles = - = - == ===~ | Kast’ 738-740 Market Street.