The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, February 2, 1896, Page 8

\ ‘President Hudelson Opens THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1896. ——-——-———-'-—---————----—-—'—————--———.___..__.__.._____———-—-—-———-——————-——_.1 O PAINCPLES OOFTHE AR the Official Dis- cussion. OPPONENTS QUESTIONED Rabbi Voorsanger Contributes a Letter on “Church and State.” REV.DR. WENDTE'S PERORATION Oakland’s Unitarian Divine Considers His Argument Closed and Sub- mits His Case. The following communication from the pen of the A. P. A. State president has been received by Tr B To the Editor of the Cal’—DEAR StR: In order that your readers may the more readily follow me in my discussion of A. P. Aism und may finally obiain a clear and adequate conception of all that is included in the words American Protective Association, I have deemed it proper in view of the magnitude of my subject to subdivide it into departments and to discuss each department by itself. These subdivisions of my subject, which, with your kind permis- sion, I proposé to discuss are: First—The principies or objects A of the | Becond—The A. P. A. interpretation of A. P. A_ principles. Third—The eorrectness of the A. P. A. inter- pretation. Fourth—Some reasons for the existence of the A. P. A. and kindred organizations. In my discussion I shall endeavor to avoid pedantic _expressions and high sounding phrases. I shall where -possible use ordinary words and use them in their ordinary | 1shall endeavor to use open, straightforward, easily understandable argument, avoiding both sophistry and hair-splitting quibbles; my sentences may be taken for what they say upon the face of them, and he who looks for or expects to find some hidden meanisg therein will surely be disappointed. As, Mr. Editor, the principles of any indi- vidual largely if not wholly determine his character, 5o the real character of the Ameri- can Protective Association may be most easily | and most rapidly divined by a careful exami ation ef the objects for which it was organized, | and for that reason Iquote herewith 4 state: ment of those objects. The statement quoted | is that formulated by the Supreme Council of | ihe American Protective Association and is therefore authentic. OBJECTS OF THE A. P. A. First—The American Protective Association is organized for the purpose of puriiying poli- tics; is a non-sectarian_and non-partisan or | ganization composed only of true American | citizens without regard to nationality. Second—While we unite to protect our coun- try and its free institutions we attack no man’s religion so long as he does not attemps to make it an element in political power. Third—Our aim is to preserve and maintain the Government of the United States and the Declaration of Independence as set forth by ihe founders against the encroachment of all foreign infiuence. rth—We regard all religio-political or- | ations as the enemies of civil and relig- Fifth—It is in our ovinion unsafe and un- wise 10 appoint or elect to civil or military of- | fices in_this country men who owe supreme allegiance to any foreign king, potentate or ecclesiastical power or Who are sworn to obey | such power. | th—We are infavor of mainteining one | general unsectarian iree school system and will oppose all attempts to supplant it by any sectarian institution. We are opposed ‘to the use of public funds for any secterian purpose. Seventh—We are in fayor of changing our immigration laws in such a manner that they will protect our citizen laborers from the in- | fluences of pauper and criminal labor which though the insirumentality of European propa- gendist societies is rapidly supplanting our free and educated American citizens in every line of industry; but we do not oppose honest and educated immigrants who come for the purpose of becoming American citizens and who will forswear allegiance to all for- | eign potentates and powers. 5 Eignth—We are 1n favorof putting into office honest and true patriots who are qualified and who owe allegiance only to the stars and stripes. A FEW QUESTIONS, Now, Mr. Editor, inasmuch as no discussion can reach any logical conclusion or be otherwise profitable unless both partiés 10 such discus- sion start from a common premise, going back far enough to reach such common premise, I will, with your permission, ask our opponents & few questions, referring by number to each section of the foregoing statement of the ob- jects of the A. P. A. and referring only to the Principles embodicd therein. Mr. Yorke opposes the A. . First—The American Protective Association is organized for the purpose of purifying poli- | tics.” Does Mr. Yorke deny that our politics need purifying or does he object to their puri- fication ? [The second clause of this section merely makes & statement as to the nvembership of the A. P. A. and has nothing to dowith the principle set forth in the beginning.] Second—Does Mr: Yorke object {o our “at- tacking no man’s religion S0 long as he does Dot attempt to make it an element in political power,” or would he ubject 10 our attacking any religious organization which-attempted to become a factor in politics ? Third—Is Mr. Yorke Lostile to our aim to preserve and maintain the Government against a1l foreign influence ? Fourth—Does Mr. Yorke regard religio-potiti- cal organizations as friends to civil agd re- ligious iberty? fifth—Is it, in Mr. Yorke's opinion, safe and wise 10 put in office men who owe supreme al- legiance to & foreign power? Sixth—Is Mr. Yorke an enemy of the free public school system and does he favor sup- Planting it with a sectarian institution? Seventh—Does Mr. Yorke oppose protectin; our citizen laborers from European pauper an criminal labor and is he hostile to honest and educated immigrants who purpose becoming American cifizens and who will forswear alle- giance to every foreign power? Sighth—Does Mr. Yorke oppose putting into office honest and true inen, patriots who are qualified and who owe allegiance solely to the stars and stripes? I have also two questions to put, not only to P. C. Yorke, but also to every one of your readers. They are: Question A—Are not the foregoing principles those to which as principles every truly patri. otic American should be able willingly and proudiy to subsctibe? Question. B—Are not you willing to subscribe to these as your principles? ° Mr. Editor: Not wishing to impose upon your courtesy or to encroach further upon your valuable space at this time 1 will reserve for another letter the demands of the A. P, A., as sét forth in its platiorm. Respectiully, . . F. HUDELSON, State President of the California A. P, A. e HIS LAST LETTER. Rev. Dr. Wendte Reviews the Con- troversy With the Rev, Father Yorke, Rev. Charles W. Wenate, replying tothe Rev. P. C. Yorke, writes as follow: OARLAND, Jan. 30, 1896, To the Editor of the San Francisco Coll—DEAR Bir: This long-continued discussion should come to an end. It is becoming too voluminous 10 be any longer interesting. 1 have succeeded in my purpose to get certain information be- fore the people and show what -an intelligent and fair-minded Protestant has to say on ‘the points at issue. Ihope I have-alsoshown that & man may differ vitally from others on re- ligious .questions and yet prove himseli a gentleman and a Chnstiun in their discussion. Besides, I am tired of being belabored with accusations of dishonesty and fraud and epi- thets neither just nor polite by my angry opponent. Something may be forgiven a man ‘who is still smarting under the rough handling he has received from previous encounters. But 1 fear Father Yorke's rude manners toward me ere characteristic of fhe scurvy usstment ! to | the day is not far distant when it will be over- which Catholie polemists, with fewsx&-,eptlm'u(i mete out to their opponents. There woul seem 1o be something in the habitual attitude of one who believes himself the representative of & sacred caste and infallible church on earth which promotes in him an arrogant and unlovely temper, and uniits him for the catm, judicial treatment of & disputed question. To ibis must be added the deep-rooted aversion whith my adversary displays toward members ofmon-Catholic communions. 1call attention to the fact that while in this discussion I have sdid many appreciative and kind things concerning the Catholic church and my Catholic neighbors, Father Yorke, with a singular lack of generosity, has not uttered a word of symguhy‘or goodwill for Protestants, to whose broad tolerance and iriendliness the very existence of his church is owing to-day. : If Father Yorke is simply writing his letters produce an effect on his Catholic con- stituency their belligerent tone_is less difficult to understand. Butl thought he had under- taken to conduct this discussion on a higher lane to arrive at the truth and show us Erolestants the superior reason of his side of the question. If this was his purpose he hag prevented its attainment by his mistaken metbods, THE ISSUE RESTATED, In this series of papers'I have discussed chiefly the guestion of St. Peter's primacy at Rome and the American Protestant, as con- trasted with the Roman Catholic, theory of the relation which church and state ought to bear toward each-other in this Republic. On the first of these topics I maintained: First—Peter was never invested by Jesus Christ with any extraordinary authotity or spiritual supremacy above the other disciples. Second—Even if he’had been so invested there is nothing to show that this euthority was or could be transferred to succeeding generations of disciples. This transfer is purely an as- sumption on the part of the Roman’ Catholic church and without foundation in fact or rea- son. Third—Peter was never Bishop in Rome. Fourth—Peter never abode in Rome for any such term as is claimed for him in the official declarations of the Roman Catholic church. This would have been a physical and chrono- logical impossibility. Fifth—Peter was, in all robability, never in Rome at all. He may iave visited it for a brief stay. after Paul’s death, but there is no real evidence for it ex- cept the general tradition a hundred years later; w lllfi“ as we have seen, there is consid- erable testimony of a mnegative character against the supposition. My opponent has sought to weaken or over- throw these assertions. An impartial readin of this discussion and of the authorities cite will, I believe, show that his interpretations | of Scripture are forced and egainst the plain sense of the Gospel and that the arguments he bnses upon them are misleading. Let an in- igent public judge for.itself. My opponent dently lays more stress on ancient legend and tradition than modern historical crificism and an unbiased conscience will allow. He seems, indeed, to have an inkling of the weak- ness of his claim to Scriptural and historical attestation, for he tells us that he himself finds a stronger warrant for the divine right of his church in the fact that the Papacy still exists y in all its splendors and powers. God, he concludes, has thus given witness to its supreme and eternal right to rule over men’s souls. - But thisisa very fallacious argument. By ity of reasoning, the absolute personal rule >zar of Russia might be held to be instituted, and to be perpetual, be- | cause it exists in the plenitude of its powers to-day. But the Nihilists have blown ‘some large hotes in that claim. Every sane politi- cal thinker feels assured that the overthrow of the autocracy and introduction of constitu- | tional guarantees in Russia is not far away Sven s the Pepacy has been deprived of two- thirds of its former prestige and power, and thrown or trausformed, and the Catholic citi zens of this country will refuse to be vassals, | even in a spiritual sense, to & Roman or any foreign potentate whatever. History has already judged the Papacy, and shown it to be & human and fallible, not & divine and. infal- lible, institution. CHURCH AND STATE. As regards the second topic of discussion, I claimed that the Roman Catholic theory .oi church and state was that of theocracy, or the supremgey of the church and the subordina- tion of the state. I songht to prove this by citing the testimony of popes, councils, scholars and prelates, and the general courses of action pursued by the church of Rome through the centuries down fo this very day. Father Yorke has denied the validity of cer- tain of these witnesses, especially those drawn from Hittell. He has succeeded in impairingor destroying the relevancy of a few of them, but none that are essential 10 my argument. The great historie proofs furnished by Popes Gregory V1I, Innocent III, Boniface VIII and PlusIX, and the utterances of eminent Cath- olic theologians and teachers remain, monu- mental testimonies to the truth of my asser- tions. But, as “actions speak louder than words,” so the doings of the Roman Catholic clergy, their constant interference in the poli- tics of nations, their attitude of hostility to civil governments, to-day as well as in olden time (as witness France, Italy, Belgium, Aus- tria, Prussia, Bayaria, Mexico and the South American States), all irrefutably prove the cor- rectness of my definition. Even Switzerland, the freest country under the sun, and the best governed, has had to expel the Jesuits for their political intrigues. In the United States the hopeless minority of the Roman Catholic elements among us prevents any large inter- ference of the clergy ot that communion in our political life. But the massing of Roman Catholics in large cities and their clannish political courses are constant sources of dis- cord. The Roman Catholic church is an infiu- ence of importance which politicians have to reckon in every city election. 1f the Roman Catholic church were more powerful in this country, it wonld unquestionably seek to con- trol and'largely to destroy our existing insti- tutions. A striking instance of the truth of this assertion Is furnished by the Concordat which Rome made, comparatively recently (in 1863), with the republic of Eeuador. 1 will cite and summarize a few of the articles of this now famous compact through which Ecuador has remained a vassal of Rome, and Protes- tants are forbidden to worship in public in that country. (2 Article I The Catholic religion is the relig- ion of the State. Neo other worship is to be per- mitted in the republi \ rohibited by a bishop Art 1L, Every book p is to be confiscated by the republic. Art. VL. The Government is to lend the Bishop a strong hand in the suppression of &ny who may try to lead astray the true be- liever (i e. Protestants, C. w.W.). Art. VIIL Ay ecclesiasuc can only be held responsible before an ecclesiastical tribunal, even in cases of misdemeauor which fall under the common law. _Art. IX. The Holy Father permits ecclesias- tics to pay taxes, but in case |he§ do not the. can only be persuaded to it by the churc authorities. Art. X. Every church and every convyent | shall be empuwered to offer asylum, and no criminal shall be siezed therein without the €xpress cousent of the ecclesiastical authori- ies, These citations show convincingly what is the ideal conception and true doctrine of the Roman Cathclic church on this subject. They render preposterous the claim of Father Yorke that his church is most favorable to republics, while Protestautism is most in harmony with monarchies. Montesquieu in his epoch-mak- ing book, ‘“The Spirit of the Laws,” did not think so, for chapter V of book XX1V isheaded: “That the Catholic religion is most agreeablo to s monarchy, and the Protestant toa repub- Iic.” The whole organization of the Roman Catholic church, with its ranks and dignities and supreme power lodged. in the Pope, is dis- tinctly monarchical in form. The F-otestant churches are with few exceptions as distinctly democraticin principle and constitution. It is 8 matter of common history that the New England commonwealths which inspired the later republic were modeled aiter the Congre- gational system of church goverament, which has been copied from the free, simple forms of the earliest Christian churcines, which in turn Das been derived from the Jewish synagogue. CATHOLIC ASCENDENCY. Will the Catholic church ever gain the as- cendency i this country ? I do not believe it, elthough they themselves do. A polished and cultivated gentleman, at one time an influen- tial Catholic, writes me: “Be sure, the last hope of that 'tremendous but, thank God, van- ishing pover, is in this great country of the fu- ture. The dominion over it would somewhat Teconcile them to the loss of the Old World. To attain that supreme object of their ambi. tion they are ready to use every possible means, Iaw/ful of Wnlawful, open or secret.” So speaks one who knows it well from the inside, 1t at | least behooves Americans to be watchful and prepared, to learn our weakness and increase our strength. *‘Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” . CATHOLIC TOLERATION. In this same way the claim that the Cath- olics who settled’ Murihnd ‘were actuated by exceptional or genuinely tolerant motives has loug been completely exploded. The most eminent writer on American history now liv- ing—Professor John Fiske of Harvard—said, in & lecture I heard him aeliver last October, that this liberal policy of Lord Baltimore was rnltlhex, irom " necessity than choice. Fiske tells us: “The Catholic proprietors of Maryland wished to make their province a desirable home for Catholics who were inclined to leave England; and the only possible way of sccomplishing this without interference from the British Government was to pursue a policy broad enough to include Catholics along with all other kinds of Christians in its benefits. A similar nenesntg confronted Charles II and James IL. In order to secure &s much protec- tion as possible for Catholics without interfer- ence from Parliament it was necessary to Eut- sue a policy broad enough to include Quakers ong with Catholics. For such reasons James refrained from disturbing the liberal Dutch poliey in New York. For such reasons both these Stusrt Kings supported the schemes of Willlam Penn, in_ whose proprietary colonies of Penn:{lvsnl- nd Delaware the principles of toleration were carzied out on whole more completely than anywhere else in English-speaking America.” MR. WENDIE'S ATTITUDE, That Thave not replied to Father Yorke's question, “What I would do if own my church came in conflict with the State,” was solely due to the fact that the query seemed to me ex- cessively absurd. I thoughtitonly a joke on his part. But as he really seems serious in asking it, T will gratify him. I would obey the State as the supreme power in the land, the highest possible expression of the.popular will. Having done this, 1 should yet not be cut off from the exerciseof my religion. I should follow Jesus’ teaching and retire into my own closet and pray to my Father which seeth and heareth in secret. That is good Christian and Protestant doctrine. It is only the Romish church which persistsin thrustin; the priest and the altar between the individ- ual soul and its Maker. Of course, social wor- ship is helpful and delightful, and I would seek by every lawful means to recover this Tight of public worship for myself and my fellow believers. In & republic like ours that would mnot be difficult. In- deed, a true republic would never take away thie right unless it could be shown that this worship was directly hostile to the safety and perpetulty of the State, in which case it ought to be suppressed. So the American state suppressed certain features in the Mor- mou Church. Some day it may intervene, as European and Catholic Governmeuts have done again and again, in certain of the tem- poralities of the Roman Catholic church in this country, should these ever become & menace to popular liberties. The state would do this just as calmly and legitimately as she would curb and restrain any other great.cor- poration which jeopardized ‘her welfare. But, 1f all my endeavors to secure freedom of public worship were unavailing I should emigrate, following the example of the Pilgrim fathers. THE AMERICAN DOCTRINE. To the theories of the Roman church I op- posed the true American doctrine of church and state, viz.: ‘“In spiritual concerns, the ab- solute independence of the church; in tem- poral affairs, the subordination of the church 10 the state.” Moreover, I aflirmed that the power of deciding what were properly to be considered temporal affairs was vested, not ' in the church, but in the civil tribunals of the state. This last point is especially important, because the Roman Catholic authorities, even. in this couutry, teach to the contrary. I cited in support of this the Jesuit Father Jouin’s work, which is used in the parochial schools and_colleges of California. Father Yorke, i deed, accuses me of leaving out a final conclu- sion of Jouin’s, which he quotes. But,in so doing, he himself contrives to leave out 'the opening and important pas- sages of Jouin, on, which my argu- ment was chiefly built. I shall not go into hysterics about the matter and fiercely denounce my oppouent for so doing, but will assume that it was an inaavertence, and sup- ply the deficiency. Let us look atthe whole extract as now given by both. Says Jouin, p. 864: “The church has to legislate on all m: ters belonging to faith and morals; she does not frame laws relating to purely secular con- cerns: she proclaims only the rules of right and justice revealed by God, in accordance with ‘which the Stste’s legisiation must be. The State, taking for its guidance this revealed law, may enact its own laws and adopt what measures it deems fittest to attain the end of lized society; and as long as it remains ithin itsown sphere it neither will nor canbe interfered with in the least by the authority of the Church.” That is to say the church lays down the re- vealed laws, which mustcontrol the legislation of the State. Now, there is but one true and infallible chureh, nccordlllfi to Jouin’s pre- ous reasoning, trat of Ro The State must take this revealed law from her for its guidance, and remain within its own sphere, in which case the “authority of the church” will not interfere with it. Does not this cgn- firm my statement of Catholic doetrine? But let us go on with Jouin. ““‘When, in doubtful cases, & collision might arise, it is evident that, to preserve the union between both powers, the state must yield to the church, since she is the higher power, and she wlone is competent to determine the limits of her own jurisdietion.” This is the main point, which Father Yorke omits in his requotation. “The church is the higher power.” “The state must yield to her.” Could there be a more complete vindication from current Catholic and Jesuit opinion of my theses—the Roman Catholic theory ranks the church as a higher power than the state? But Father Jouin.explains: “No fears need be entertained that the church ever will en- croach upon the rights of the state and curtail its authority, because, not being & human in- stitution, she'is guided by the Holy Ghost.” Considering whet mischief and ‘wickedness, on this theory, the Holy Ghost has led the church inte during its long existence, this as- surance will not be very comforting to the American people. But, finally, Father Yorke asks us to observe that Jouin offers a further proviso of safety: “If any of the local authorities of the church presume to interfere unduly with the rights of the state, the Pope will ever be ready to re- strain their ambition.” That is to say. the Holz Father, in case in- ius ice is done our nation by the Roman Catho- ich church and Holy Ghost, will intervene 1n our behalf. How grateful we ought to be! Picture the American people waiting submis- sively for the Pope at Rome to decide whether they or his Holy Ghost and Roman Church are in the right ebout thesetemporal questions! Truly, if 1did not transcribe this last sentence of Jouin it was because itseemed too pitiful to guote. In calling attention to 1t Father Yorke has greatly weakened his defense. But Jouin adds: *“Moreover, the church wields & sKirimnl power only; she has not, as the stete has, material power at her disposal. Hence, as history amply testifies (sicl), the encroschmentsof the civil pover are the only dangers threatening the harmony between church and state.” And, to prove this Jouin 1n succeeding pages denounees the civil marriage and the “godiess education” nOw prevalent among us, two in- stitutions which are the cornerstones of the Re‘};ublic. and. which were in full vogue long before there was & Catholic church within the limits of our young nation. Is not thisen- tagonizing thestate? Whatsophistry all thisis! But lec Americans reflect that thisis the phi- losophy of the relations that ought to exist be- ‘tween church and state in this conntry, which is taught to hundreds of thousands of Catholic youth. Surely, while such doctrines are being nstilled into the minds of the children in their charge, have we not & right to doubt the entire loyaity of the clergy of that church to ur American political institutions? Must we not regard Fathers Yorke, McGlynn and the Test as the exceptions and not the rule? The very fact that my opponent’s frank and man- ful assertion of Americenism should haye created such general surprise in the commun- ity spenks more eloquently than words the prevailing and, as it would seem, not un. justifinble doubt of the entire loyalty of the ecclesiastics of his church. THE A.P. A, Ihave a certain right to say this, for I was one of the first to protest publicly in the news- pavers against the formation of the A. P. A, and its methods. There is perhaps a score of ex-Catholics in hy own society, some having joined it since this discussion began. I represent in this discussion no party and no sect, but simply the interests of historical h, Protestant principles and the American . 1am conscious of doing it very inade- quately. Iama very busy man; within ten days I have made thirteen public sddresse: Even this article has been written almost e; tirely in the cars traveling through the San Joaquin Valley, and I have had no one to hielp me with counsel or service. Entirely without prejudice or passion, I love my Catholic breth- ren. I would gladly see them adopt views that seem to me more rational and truly help- ful. But it must be only through the force of inner convictions. I would readily give my life, if it need be, to secure them ever that 1ib- erty of worship which they now enjoy. I be- lieye them to be loyal and patriotic citizens of the Republic, despite the ofttime misleading counsels of their spiritual guides on this sub- Ject. Unless their children’s minds are tam- pered with at school (as vide Jouin) their de- scendants will be equally so. May God grant it! JESUIT CASUISTRY. I had hoped that this discussion might be carri on without any reference to the well-worn and hateful themes of tne Catholic Inguisition, the Jesuits and - “Bloody Mary.” But my opponent has insisted upon dragging in these and other issues quite aside from the main question and only tending to obscure it. However, as he has made charges against both myself end the Protestant cause, I must in conclusion anweer them. First, then, my opponent charges me with unacquaintance with the casuist Catholic literature of two and three hundred years agv. Iam glad to say I am not an adept in it, for I cannot imnsins & more useless knowledgfi to 8 man imbued with the modern spirit and seek- ing to gain the information that is of value to-day. When I desire information- on this or any other subject outside of my immediate line of study, I simply consult the specialists who have made it their life work. In vain does FatherYorke seek to diseredit this Germas French and English scholarship. It has stood the tast of a century or more of examination and ecriticism; its- results are perfectly well known to all competent and impartial students, and are not to be belittled by a parish priestor two in 8an Francisco. The manner in which my opponent .seeks to break the force of my citations and summaries of Ro- man Catholic and esgecu!ly Jesuit doctrine is very characteristic of the polemical methods ofhis church. First, he indulges in various sneers about m& latinity, schol rshi‘v. ete. I will only reply that I have enough of both to serve the purpose of this discussion, and cause Father Yorke much cvident uneasiness and trepidation. Second, he quibblesabontchapter and page, omitting to note that in all proba- bility he is using a different edition from that to which I referred him. Next, he finds a pas- sage which hassome likeness to thé one quoted and prints this side by side with my own cita. tious, as if it were the one. intended, and then, cries’ “falsification}” “forgery!” Or he pur- posely presents my summary of the viewsof a writer as if it {w'mn intended s an exact quotation of him; or he drags in other passages that have little or no relevancy, or wanders off into discursive explanations that explain nothing and only serve to con- hlll!? sr)x;f obsonre the real ponu.y And back of Aall is the ssibility of his being misled him- 5elf by the garbied and imperfect editions Wwhich’the Catholic church sometimes employs. In my third article I cited the case of a per- sonal friend who bad been led out of the priest- 00d and communion of the Church of Rome by discovering, through the aid of the British useum Library, that his Catholic authorities Wwere untrustworthy. 1 have just received a letter from that gentieman in which he writes: “What you say of my experience in London is 81l true, except that I had had s Jesuit train ing of twenty years. 1 made my full novitiate, but did not feél called upon to take their vows. I remained in friendly relations with them un- il my doubts arose, or forten years.” He asks me to withhold his name, as he does not wish to expose himself to malicious persecution, a request which, after my Trecent experiende, I can appreciate. My asser- tion that the Jesuits have justified the perse- cution and even murder of heretics is correct. Itis equally a matter of record that- they -argued in favor of reé,'lddm Says Lecky, after summing up the evidence, “There can be little doubt that the Jesuits looked with & very in- dulgent eye on all attempts at assassination that were directed against a deposed -overelfln ‘who was in o ocllgon to the church.” My testimonics showed that they indirectly en- ?mi:nged and abetted and afterward gloried n it 3 . Having said this much in vindication of my own honesty and the truth of history, I frankly sjate that this point is a matter of indifference tome and in no way affects the imporiant issues between myself and Father Yorke. In closing, & word on toleration. I am much gratified to find my opponent cluing “Lecky’s History of Rationalism in Turope” as o witness. 1t shows that he con- siders him asa competent scholar and trust- WOrthy authority. Ite is Fignt in this opinfon. ‘Toread Lecky’s book is itselfa liberal education, especially his chapters on persecution and the secularization of politics. But Father Yorke stopped t00 soon in his quotations. Let me con- tinue them. Says Lecky (vol. II, p.4): “Nothing can pe more egregiously absurd than to represent the inquisition as something unconnected with the church. It was created Dy & Pope end introduced into the chief coun- Europe by the sovereigns who were most devoted to the church, and composed of ecclesiastics and directed to the punishment of ecclesiastical offenses and long re- garded as the chief bulwark of Catholicity. Although all the atrocities it perpetrated do undoubtedly fall upon the blood-stained church that Created it, it | Novertheless true that one or two Popes endeavored to moderate its severities,” :5“" he says ““that the church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other in- stitution that has ever existed among man- kind will be questioned by no Protestant who has & competent knowledge of history. * * * Llorente, who had free access to the archivesof the Spanish Inquisition, assures us that by that tribunal alone more than 31,000 persons were burned and more than 290,000 condemned to punishments less severe than death.” *“The number of those who were put to death for their religion in_the Netherlands alone in the reign of Charles V has been estimated by a very high authority at 50,000, and at least half s many more perished under his son. Upon the 15th of " February, 1568, & sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants ° of the Netherlands to death as heretics, only a few persons Sxpecially named® were excepted * % < “‘Three millions of people,” says Motiey, “men, women and children, sentenced to death in three lines!” “These atrocities were * * * intlicted by & triumphant church with every circumstance of solemnity and deliberation. Lecky goes on, page after page, to_chronicle the terrible annals of their persecution. “The massacre of the Albigenses, which a Pope had instigated, and the massacre of St. Barthole- mew, for which a Pope returned solemn thanks to heaven.” * # ® «Itcan surely benoex- aggeration to say that tne church of Rome has inflicted a greater amount of unmerited suffering than any other religion that has ever existed among men.” PROTESTANT PERSECUTORS. Lecky then shows his impartial reading of history by treating in the same {rank and con- demnatory spirit of Profestant persecutions. As Father Yorke has made a frightful cata- logue of this Protestant intolerance and cruelty, T will not repeat it here, excet to quote Lecky's comment: “The Protestant per- secutions were never so sanguinary as those of the Catholics (owing, he says, to the compara- tive weakness.of clerical influence in Protest- ant countries), but the principle was effirmed quite as strongly, was acted on quite as con- stantly, and was defended quite &s pertina- ciously by the clergy.” The only two excep- " tions to this among the latter, he'tells us, were Zwinglius, the Swiss reformer, and especially Socinius, the founder of my own or Unitarian branch of the Christian church. His plea for toleration was so earnest that, as Lecky says, it was long reckoned the distinctive tenet of hissect. Itremains so to-day. Catholics no- where receive kindlier, more appreciative treatment than at the hands of Unitarians. No wonder that when our greut leader, Dr. Channiug, died, the bells of the Roman Catho- lic cathedral in Boston were tolled in honor of his memory by the Bishop. PROTESTANT INTOLERANCE. But this may be said in E""“ palliation of this intolerance displayed by Protestants—that they did not originate the persecuting spirit, but received it as a direct legaey from the mother church. It is not so surprising that men whose hearts were still anguished with the horrors of the Inquisition, the night of St. Bartholomew or the ravages of the Thirty Years’ War should thirst for vengeance and re- taliation. The Catholic church cannot excuse her outrages in the same way. At the time her persecutions were at their highest she was comparatively the mistress of the world and had nothing fo fear from her bapless vietims. Secondly, while the central privciple of the Ro! church--namely, her infallible author- ity—if tully developed leads inevitably to per- secution, the central principle of Protestant- ism—namely, the rignt and duty of private judgmeni—the more it is developed leads to tolerance, charity and mutuel forbearance. “A pation cannot’ be strongly Catholic and at the same time tolerant, but that a nation may be strongly Protestant and exercise the widest tolerance is shown by both England and America to-day. “To the Reformation,” says Lecky, “is chiefly due the appearance of that rationalistic spirit which at last deslru‘yed persecution. While the Protestant world for a long time after the Reformation pursued the same path of spiritual tyranny and oppression which had been taught her by Rome, the growth of Protestant princi- ples is finally putting an end to all intoler- ance and oppression. The Reformation, the most glorious event in modern history, taught men to think and to think for themselves on religious subjects; it set free the individual consclence, it broke the shackles of ecclesiasti- cal despotism, it gave new opportunities for growth, inteliectusl, moral, social, political— to oppressed and priest-ridden nations, it made modern science possible, and enlarged the number and score ot humen interests.” THE NEW AGE. The age and country in which we dwell isa beautiful exemplification of this growth of a rationalistic, liberal, humaneand truly Christ- like spirit. The reign of fire and sword in Teliglon is over for us, The era of reason, con- science and good will has begun. No person is in any serious danger of persecution because of his religious views. It any church among us should sttempt to abridge his personal Tights our secular state, the supreme authority in the land, would speedily intervene to pro- tecthim. Under this broad charter Catholics and Protestants, Jew and freethinker, live to- gether in comparative harmony and pesce. The only -disturbing_elements are the clergy, both Cathotic and Protestant, especially the former, ana certain forms of native American- ism more ardent than wise. For political discussion in_a republic inevitably assumes 2 heated and partisan form. The creeds of the churches are practically the same as they were under the old uhgenuunn of hate and fear. The pretensions of the clergy are but slightly modified. Ft is the spirit of the age which has chaneed. A feeling of brother- hood has been developed, men have come to learn that goodness is of no sect; that charac- ter is above creed, life more important than thought. The necessities of social life have compelled men of diverse religious opiniens to iive side by side with each other. If they fol- lowed the teachings of their respective creeds or churches there would be continual strife be- tween them. But now they follow their rea- son, their consciences, their hearts, and rise above theirsect into & serener, sweeter atmos- phere of mutual confidence and goud will, The reformation which has benefited the Catholic aswellas Protestant branch of Christendom, the rise of republican institutions, and finally the glorious advent of modern science, have been the forerunners, the Messiahs of the better era that is now surely dawning upon mankind. All this does not bar out intelligent, fair- minded and courteous exchange ot ‘opinions on religious or any other topics. Nay, it im- Pplies freeand candid discussion as a means of arriving at truth. Butin all it Dresupposes charity, that spirit of good will and kindliness which the apostie ranks highest among the Christian virtues, and which I have been most concerned to preserve in this series of articles. In conclusion I may say let Catholics and Protestants alike, while true to their inmost convictions, maintain this spirit toward each other's worship and there need be no fear that the peace of our Republic will be broken by any theological or awgannnulwduco ds ds. Minister %:Wl‘l:’ Church, Pl ey CHURCH AND STATE. Dr. Voorsanger Explains His Posi- tlon In Regard to the Great 3 Controversy. Dr. Voorsanger sends the following com- munication to Tre CALL: SAN FrANCIsco, February 1, 1896. To the Editor of The Cuii—Sia: 1 Geem my- | and obeying a foreign spiritual self unfortundte that your reporter, listening to my words of last night, should have gone away with a wrong impression. The language he attributes to me in his report of my lecture, curiously headed “Treason in_the Pulpit,” represents neither the letter nor the spirit of my words. Insofaras he attributes to me an at- tack on the Roman Catholic Church I would flatly contgadict him, and 1 will be supported by every member of the numerous audience, Jew and Christian, that did me the honor to listen to me. I refuse to be drawn into a controversy, which, to my mind, can_determine nothing, and in view of the work I hope to do durin the ensuing four weeks, I deprecate the suspi- cion thus cast upon my attitude in the matter of “church and state” by the dangerous lan- fi‘.}“e your reporter puts in my mouth. The st I cgn do, at present, to convince your readers of my attitude, is’to quote from my manuscript, and I will gimply add that this shanuscript, line upon line, without alteration or correction, will be presented next Friday morning in my paper, Emanu-El. -But first let me quote your reporter: There is amongus a body of believers, claiming to be true and patrietic citizens, while recognizing wer. What can we think of such a system? Only this: the tribute of loyalty and submission which this. body is Yowed to pay to its distant sovereign must detract from their fealty. to the conatitution of our country and'make them less perfect citizens. Nothing that has been said in the recent controversy between Father Yorke and a num-~ ber of other citizens spproaches the above lan- guage in viciousness. 1 am simpli incapable of such utterance. It is out of harmony with my well-known attitude toward all re- ligion, ‘and it contradicts the sentiments to which time and again I have given publicity. Had your reporter followed my suggestion he " wouid have gone home with -~ me to make an abstract from my manuseript. But he preferred to rely on his *‘notes,” and the result is that I am placed before the Catholic community in the attitude of questioning their patriotism. Let us see whether my manuscript bears out that charge. 1 began as follows: ““The present agitation in our country, grow- ing out of the organizatian of a society that seeks 10 impose & religious test upon voters or office-holders, is calculated to destroy the faith of hundreds of thousands of citizans in the integrity of the constitution of the United States, The founders of that society appear to bese their agitation upon the supposcd aggres- siveness of hierarchical institution that is accused of holding the spiritual power from which it derives its existence superior to the civil compact under which the nation pro- ceeds, and of gradually absorbing the ele- ments of power, wnich would enablo & strong majority to oppress a weak minority. It is not necessary for the purposes to which we shll devote the ensuing evenings to investigate that extravagant claim, nor ean it be profit- able to arraign this new organization for the stirring up of hatred and for resuscitating the worst elements of controversy that divide a nation and drag it to the brink of ciyil war. Denunciation at this time would -add fuel toa fire already burning too fiercely.” In speaking of perse cution I used the follow- ing language: “In one particular direction the influence of the church in the state created & factor which, from our point of view, though we consider this matter in a broad, liberal spirit, with fair- ness and without bias, cannot be comstrued as anything butdeleterious. That factor 18 per- secution—an expression of clerical attemot to control conscieunce, or an expression of clerical wrath because of its inability to dominate & dissenting minority. * * * It would bejsheer nonsense to_attribute that unfortunate capa- city for persecuting minorities 10 the Roman church alone. England’s nistory tells of Cath- olic martyrs; the story of the New England sects tells of nonconformist bigotry and intol- erance, * * * Jdoubt whether a Jewish uni- versal church would be more merciful than any other. It seems to be an inherent fault. Let us thank God its strength 1s exhausted. The following, is verbaum et literatim, the conclusion of my “Treason in the Pulpit”: “The naiure of the union entered into by the colonies was of a purely civil, political and commercial charaeter. Religion, as a determi- native policy, did not enter into this alliance. .| The princes of the church or the ministers of the gospel seem to have thoroughly understood this great principle, thst the theory of seli- government for once and ell reduces the church to a moral and educational function, subject to all the laws created and enacted by the consent of the people. This principle was fully understood by the Roman Catholiz abbes, who sat on the benches of the constituent as- sembly of France after the dethronement of Louis XVI, and it was likewise understood by the American churchmen who helped to for- mulate the principles on which the constitution = rests. jnder the provisions of that instrument, notably its first amendment, tho civil Compact of the people can never be disturbed by any church. Under the benign operations of that compact no church can assert its superiority over any other, except in so far as it teaches its own doctrine within the precinets of its schools and meeting-houses, where the rights of free speech, renders it competent to formulate and promulgate its received doctrines and 1ts plan of salyation. Ido not believe that any intelli- gent citizen of our country holds his church or its authorities superior to the great instrument that controls 70,000,000 of people. 1 do not believe that any church seeks to aggrandize itselfat the expense of the great civil com- act. Ty high time we understood that loyalty in our country has a new and more powerful meaning. The Roman church may retain its aristocratic forms, yet its spirit in every coun- try conforms to the popular institutions 1t finds there. It is, in our country, like all other churches, a' moral agency, subject to every provision of the moral and civil com- pact entered into by the States. It possesses the rignt of every moral agency that conforms 10 the laws of thé commonywealth. Its right to educate its children is constitutional. Its right to assemble peacefully and promulgate its traditions, its doctrines and its theology is constitutional. Itsrightof conscience is con- stitutional. To arraign it now for the former intolerant attitude of the church in other countries, an attitude result- ing from its alliance with temporal power, is the expression of a fear that the copstitution of the United States, of .the various States, and the good sense of the princes of the church are worth nothing in de- termining the mutual relations of the units that compose this great Nation. Such non- sense 1s hardly worth considering were it not unfortunately the fact that mary people can be befooled by the rantings of political conspir- ators. That is the bane and the curse of the period.-* * * 1f the Roman church has spoken truly, of which there can be no doubt, it conforms to the opinion of the relations of church and state I have here briefly expressed; let other sects beware lest they generate the suspicion that they, not their presumed foes, design to overthrow the peace of the country.’ How do these words harmonize with your reporter’s “Treason in the Palpit”’? Obediently yours, JACOB VOORSANGER. THE CHINESE WIN. Test Case of Kam Joy, the Atlanta Fair Actre Goes Against the Fed- eral Authorities. According to a brief dispatch received by Leong Lam, tke local manager of the company of Atlanta Fair Chinese actors which began an engagement at the Wash- ington-street theater last night, Kam Joy, the $2200 18-year-old girl arrested by In- spector J. D. Putriam to make a test case of the status of the actors and actresses, has been discharged by Unuited States Commissioner Van Dyke, Leong Lam’s informant was his friend, ‘Wong Wing, who sent the telegram. The Chinese interested are elated over the out- come of the case, and Fong Ching; the general agent of the Atlantic Fair exhibit- ors, feels confident that the Federal author- ities will not soon try to make out another case. Evidently Attorney Riordan’s logic has proved- effective with Commissioner Van Dyke. The Washington-street theater “was packed until long after midnight. It was the first night of the engagement of a troupe of thirtv-four actors and actresses brought from Los Angeles by Leong Lam. Tong Ching, who is best known as *‘Little Pete,’”’ ordered the doors to be thrown open at 11:30 P. M., and a tremendous throng of Chinese surged up the entrance. The performance last night was a sort of historical play, as most of Chinese pieces are. It exemplified the warring of the six independent kingdoms of Chung, Choy, Chew, I\;gai, Yinand Ji 1000 years ago and the diplomatic success of Shew Chung who managed to consolidate them all into one federation. The costumes were, of course, gorgeous and the stage setting full of high coloring. The costumes are said by Leong Lam to be worth a total of $6000. To-night the life and adventures of Loy Kong, a hero of Western China of 800 years ago, will be presented. Loy started in a poor boy and finally becams Viceroy, ac- cording to the play. ‘Wanted in Stockton. Rudolph Gatz was arrested last night by Detective Graham on a warrant from Stockton, charging him with obtaining money by false pretenses. He opened a saloon in{.odi, and after he sold out he went to Nathan & Kohlberg, liquor-dealers, Stockton, and got $5 on his representition that he still owned the saloon. The more serious charge of !oriiry will be preferred against him when be is taken to Stockton, MAYER SUTRO CRITICIZED Members of the South Side Im- provement Clubs® Are Indignant. THEY IMPUGN HIS MOTIVES, They Claim That He Is Actuated by Self.Interest in Neglecting Their Districts. Mayor Satro is severely criticized. by the South Side Imprdvement Clubs for vetoing the Folsom-street appropriation. After the resolution appropriating $35,000 toward bituminizing this much neglected thor- oughfare had passed the Board of Super- visors unanimously, the members of the improvement clubs, who had been assidu- ously working for nine months for the re- paving of this street, considered their fight won. They were only concerning them- selves with such petty details as having water and gas companies agree to lay their Ppipes before the improvement in order not to have to reopen the streéts, when Mayor Sutro's pen cast a shadow over their hopes. “It is a grievous injustice,” said Dr. A. T. Rottanzi, president of the South Side Improvement Clubs. ‘““Had the proposed improvement been such as value of property in the vicinity of the Cliff House the resolution would not have Leen vetoed.” C. T. Spader expressed his views as fol- lows: ‘‘Confidence in South Side property would return if the property-owners could only convince our City officials that the South Side is part of the City of San Fran- cisco. The Street Committee recom- mended and the board passed a resolution setting aside $35,000 from the street fund to repair Folsom street. Our Mayor, to whom San Francisco is bounded by the horizon as viewed from the Cliff House, has seen fit to veto this resolution, on the grounds that the street fund should be used on the public streets of the City, and that Folsom street is a county road in San Mateo County. *The South Side property-owners ap- peared before the Street Committee and convinced them that $2500, previously set apart for bituminizing Oak street along the gflnhandle of the Park, should be ap- plied on Folsom street, where the traffic is great, instead of expending itona street along the park, when all the travel is in- inside the park. It may be of interest to note that there is no veto on record against the appropriation for Oak street, Is it because Oak street at this point lies within the limits of the City, as viewed from the Mayor's standpoint ? “The facts” in regard to Folsom street are: First, it is 1n a horribie condition and has been so for a number of years, the result of the careléssness and indifference of our City officials; second, the railroad has to be reconstructed on Folsom street, which necessitates the raising of the street to the official grade. “Third, there is a public necessity for a good thoroughfare leading out of the City, and Folsom street is the best suited as to location and grade for such outlet. Overa third of this street is already bituminized. After a continuous fight of months on the part of the property-owners, supported by the entire press of the City, the Board of Supervisors has become convinced that it is better, as a matter of economy as well 2s necessity for the business and traffic of the City, that the street should be repaved throughout. % , "It 13 to be hoped that the Board of Su- pervisors will not sustain the Mayors, as such action would be a damper on real estate values and the spirit of improve- ment in the South Side district.” Late in the afternoon A. B. Magnire, F. W. McEwen, I Schwartz, G. L. Center and Dr. T. A. Rottanzi, constituting a majority of the executive committee of the Improvement Clubs, met in Dr. Rottanzi’s office, to discuss the situation. The fol- lowing communication was given for pub- licatio: Strange how the smallnéss of human nature crops out even in High places. Our Mayor, for instance, shows his shallow and small nature in spite of his desire to chine as a-philan. thropist and a great man before the people. While he presents to the public a whole column declaring the injustice of placing the Pest- house on the Almshouse Tract, because of the injury it would do the oceupants of the Alms- house and the people of the Mission and South San’ Francisco districts, still he is in favor of leaving the Pesthouse where it is dnd let the people of the Mission and South San Francisco suffer for the mext twenty-five years, as they have in the pasc. His first r(:vbie(:fion is that the Almshouse Tract is about the geographical center of the City. If the Pesthouse is placed there it will scatter disease over the thickly populated por- tions of the Mission and South San Francisco— showing as it were & great solicitude for these sections. The value of the taxable property on the South Side out as far as Twenty-sixth street, ac- cording to the Assessor’s books, is $96,000,000. The location of the Pesthouss on the Alms- house Tract will depreciate property values in this district at least 5 per cent, which would be a loss to the City of § His fifth point is thatambulances earrying patients to the Pesthouse must pass for several miles through some of the best parts of the City and along Golden Gate Park and the chil- drens playgrounds. He takes the pains to write & whole column of matter denouncing the Pesthouse being placed on the ,Almshouse Tract; and still is de- sirous to expend $500 on the old fumble-down rookery that has been rotting for. a quarter of & century and is unfit for hogs. He svmpa- thizes with the unfortunate inmates of the Almshouse, but is satisfied to .leave the old rookery for the: unfortunates. He has no re- #vect or sympathy for the taxpayers on $9¢ 000,000 who reside in the South Side or Mis- sion districts._Ivis all wrong for the property todepreciate 5 per_cent if the Pesthouse goes on the Almshouse Tract, but it does not trouble him if it depreciates 20 per cent with the Hos- pital and Pesthouse where they have been for the last twenty-five vears, with the ambu- lances of hothinstitutions passing the very doors of that district for a distance of two and a half or three miles, where we have about 40,000 children passing to and fro at all hours of the day. Such sympathy, such philanthropy deserves contempt, especially when it is_taken into consideration that his Hulllwr‘}healnyar'rowu‘s roperty surrounding the Almshouse Tract. S Rows sympathy for the South Side sion districts by vetoing the only ap- priation made for their benefit. He thinks ,000 too much to be spent in bituminizing Folsom street, but he is in favor of spending $30,000 in surveying the sand dunes shere there are not more than a dozen houses in the whole district. He did not object to spending $52,000 in bituminizing Ouk and Fell streets, adjoining the panhandle. Thereis little travel on’ these streets, the traffic being nearly all within the park. He talks about the $96,000,000 assessed val- unation of the Soutn Side and Mission districts, which yielded in taxes over $2,000,000. What have they gotoutof this? Ourgood City Fathers allowed us $6500 for a sewer on Fifteenth street, built to carry the overflow from the park district; also £1500 for the improvemant ©of South Park, making $8000 in all. Nine months ago the property-owners real- ized that Folsom street must be repaired from Nineteenth to the wharf, on account of the setiling of the roadbed and the changing of the horsecar line to a_trolley system. Hence clubs were organized and committees ap- pointed to wait on the Board of Supervisors 1o induce them to provide for the repaving cf Folsom street in the tax levy. Part of this strect has been paved with cobblestones for forty years and a portion with basalt blocks for twenty-five years. No portion of it has been repaired to any extent during that period. No appropriation for this work was made. Efforts were then made to have part of the $500,000 set aside for the mainienance of streets appropriated to Folsom street. The Supervisors unanimously agreed to spend $35,- 000 in bituminizing the street, and if it had Dot been for the action of our philanthropic Mayor, the wark wonld have been started within'twenty days. We now appeal to the Honorable Board of Supervisors to stand by the South Side and Mission districts, and override the unwise ac- tion of the Mayo Another meeting of the executive com- mittee will be held Tuesday evening. . ————— Frightened by a Bloyelist. Patrick Donlan, a plasterer living at Eigh- teenth and Clarence streets, and a friend were driving in a cart last night, amd_at Nineteenth and Guerrero streets the horse took fright at a sing bieyclist and bolted. Donlan and his riend were thrown out and badly ¢ut abou tnehead. They were taken 1o the /City s County Hospital. GOULD HARDLY CATCH HIS BREATH A Tracey Family Enjoyed the Benefits of Treatment That is Priceless and Exceedingly Cheap. Rheumatism, Catarrh, Blood Diseases, Chronic Afflictions, Dyspep- sia, Constipation and Diseases Peculiar to Females, Cured for a Dollar. How and Why ? Tracey, California, is a bustling, bright, energetic little place, and its people are law-abiding and God-fearing. There are many romances and dark tragedies in con- nection with Tracey, but it is the Tracey of long ago—not the Tracey oi the hour. Among its representative citizens is he who is so nicely shown with his family. They are happy, joyous people, for they have good health and they know how to keep i 5 It was not always thus. It was but a short time ago when Mr. Sprott Deane languished and sickened. Try as he did po relief came to him. He wasin despair. He was never sick enough to give in, but just well enough to be around, although he kept up hero- ically. Just when his troubles becare most irksome he commenced using the blood laxative, Joy’s Vegetable Sarsaparilla. Day in and day out, before breakfast, dinner and supper, Mr. Sprott Deane went according to bottle directions and took Joy’s Vegetable Sarsaparilla. § He improved steadity. He became stronger and stronger, until now he is so de- lighted with the effects of Joy’s Vegeiavle Sarsapariila that his sensitive nature gives way and he joyously tells the people of California that Joy’s a good liver and kidney regulator; fine for the bowels, unpleasant taste or feelings, substitute. Don’t you do it. Vegetable Sarsaparilla is and that it never leaves any There are those who would be for getting you to take a Don’t let any druggist talk yon away from good health, and that is really the embodiment of California’s favorite family remedy, Joy’s Vege- table Sarsaparilla. It is really a very cheap treatment—$1 per bottle, directions, Go by the bottle “oy 4