The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, March 5, 1896, Page 5

THE SAN FRANCISCO CALL, THURSDAY, MARCH 5, 1896." 5 SUTRO 15 ANGRY AT THE SEIZURE, Thinks He Should Have Been Notified by the Postoffice. VALUABLE TIME IS LOST. Future Communications to Con- gress Will Be Sent by Express. HIS OPINION OF CHANDLER. Claims That His Statements Were Not Only Not Libelous, but En- tirely True. 1Mayor Sutro was furious yesterday after | | ‘and if they insist that I shall send no more such letters through the mails I shall bow to their decision. But that will not stop the bombardment of members of Congress whom we believe to be capable of giving way to railroad influence. *‘It we cannot use the mails we shall re- sort to the express company. We can send thousands of circulars through that channel and our friends in Washington can distribute them just as easily and expe- ditiously as the letter-carriers. “These objections from certain mem- bers of Congress convince me more than ever that we have Huntington on a down- grade. He naturally objects to being shown up as a robber and is resorting to all sorts of tricks to keep us from reaching the ears of the Congressmen and Senators. “Icould have made millions by com- bining sath Huntington in his iniquitous schemes, but I would not do it, and now he is resorting to all sorts of trickery and lies to break down the influence I have brought to bear against him. That man is the biggest liar in America to-day, and the majority of the people in this country know it. *1 cannot understand why I was not notified that these letters were stopped. 1t seems to me that I have as much right to be informed of such a matter as tne vostal anthorities had to seize the letters, and I shall find- out why no notice was sent me. I have always considered Mr. McCoppin a fair kind of a man, and it ap- pears strange that he should have treated me so. «As far as Senator Chandler and the oth- ers who cried for protection are concerned, we know what is the matter with them. Senator Chandler has been in Congress for thirty years, and he has always been understood to be a friend of the corpora- tions. I knew his reputation in this re- gard when I wasin Washington, and I am not surprised that he should kick at being named, that the eyes of the country are having had time to think over the seizure | on him. by the Postotfice authorities of his com- | “These very indications show me that SUPREMEJUSTICESCORED | Zach Montgomery in a Petition Assails Stephen J. Field. SENATOR WHITE ATTACKED. The Former Said to Have Been Placed on the Bench to Protect Unlaw. ful Land Grabbers. Zach Montgomery, ex-Assistant United | States Attorney-General, has just pub- | hished a smail pamphlet bearing the ra- | ther sensational title *‘A petition to the | President and Congress of the United States asking for legislation for the honor of the Government and the protection of | home-seeking settlers, invoking the res- | toration to the public domain of $250,000,- | 000 worth of California lands now in the | grasp of the wrongful holders.” ‘I The pamphlet is what in newspaper par- | lance is called “hot stuff.” It asks for the | immeaiate repeal of so much of an act of Congress of March 3, 1891, as limits to five years from that date the time in which the | Government may bring suits to annul ents heretofore issued. Says the petition: | The undersigned petitioner, Z. Montgomery, | a citizen of the United States and of the State Huntington Never Stole a Red Hot Stove, [Reproduced from San Francisco ** Call,” Saturday morning, February I5th, 155.] Collis P. —Somebody stole your Anti-Funding Resolution, hey? That's funny. munications to the Congressmen and Sen- ators at Washington, warning them of the schemes of Huntington to compass the passage of the funding bill. His anger was occasioned not so much by the stoppage of the letters as from the | fact that he bad not been notified by the Postmaster of the seizure. He considered that the holding of the letters had caused the loss of valuable time in the fight against the funding bill, and that he should have been told that the depart- ment considered the envelopes objection- able, so that he might have devised other means of placing them in the hands of the members of Congress. The inscription on theenvelope to which the postal authorities object is, in the opinion of the Mayor, nothing but the ex- we are making a winning fight against the funding bill.” The contents of the letters that were seized consisted of copies of a cartoon published in Tne CaLL of February 15| ast. It depicted President Huntington addressing Columbia and the members of Congress while holding the concurrent resolution against the Reilly refunding bill passed by the last California Legisla- ture behind his back and telling them | that it was funny that the document should have disappeared. A PICTURE EXHIBIT. Denis O’Sullivan’s Works at the Art Students’ League. A number of recent portraits and sketches by Mrs. Denis O’Sullivan will be Mrs. of California, respectfully represents to the President and Congress that owing to various | causes hereinafter n?eclfied vast bodies of the most valuable public lands in California, the rightful property of the United States, have been, from the esrliest settlement of this State by Americans, and are now wrongfully held in large tracts by corporations and individuals, | to the utter exclusion of American citizens who are entitled to and desire them for settlement. A great number of instances are cited, more or less familiar, of the Mexican land grant swindles. For instance, he says: According o a carefully prepared report now in the hands of your petitioner; notwith- standing the law making void all grants of more than eleven leagues of land to any one rsom, it is a fact that, by means of the com- ined usurpations of said rd of Land Com- missioners and the United States Surveyor and the illegal co-operation of other Government officials, there stands patented to one claim- ant, namely, one Jose de la Guerra y Noriega, Huntington wouldn't Steal a Red Hot Stove. B e et i STAMP. House of Representatives, WASHINGTON, D. C. The Inscription on Mayor Sutro’s Letters That Was Objected to by the Postoffice Department. ression of truth, and therefore not in the east libeloug or scurrilous. He believes the statement that ‘“Huntington would not steal a red-hot stove,” with the inference that he might be capable of stealing something far more valuable and easily handled, to be strictly in accordance with veracity, in the light of past evout:i and wonders that the Postoffice shoul seize upon such an expression to stop the imissives to the men he wishes to reach, “T have not the least desire to break the jaws and regulations of the Postoffice De- partment,’’ said the Mayor yesterdsy exhibited at the Art Students’ League next Saturday. The works consist of pastels and oil paintinge, a number of which were executed during the artist’s visit to Hol- land last summer. Some of the most effective pictures con- sist of quaint Dutch interiors. There are also a number of portraits and some charm- ing sketches of children, particularly an oil peinting of young Gurtis O’'Sullivan, the painter’s infant son. ————————— Every German regiment has & chiropo- dust in-its ranks, some fifty-three square leagues of land, aggre- ating 2&5.52& acres, being forty-two leagues fn excess of what the law owed! _The case of the rancho ‘‘Lomas de San- tiago”” presents these remarkable features. He says: The petition to the Mexican Governor ask- ing for the gnm was dated October 10, 1846, upward of three months after the country had ssed under the dominion of the United | States, and the grant is dated in May, 1846, about five months before it was petitioned for. Who will deny that this grant was made after l the conquest and dated back? But, worse siill, this {alse grant was con- firmed for four lea seemingly surveyed for four leagues and afterward patented for eleven leagues. But where its boundaries now are is & matter that principally depends upon the will of its present proprietor, one Irvine, ‘who seems to keep the whole country there- abouts in a whirlpool of litigation. Having told the story of fraud the peti- tioner becomes persoaal and proceeds to score no less a person than Justice Field of the United States Supreme Court and Sena- tor Stephen M. White in connection with them. He says: Mr. Justice Field, sitting as Circuit Jnd{: in deciding the case of the United States vs. Flint and others, seemed to consider the rights of the Government in these lands of which it had been defrauded too “stale’” to entitle them to the consideration of & court of equity. (See 4 Bawyer, 42-87.) But your petitioner begs leave to suggest that until the passage of the limitation act of March 3, 1891, there was no statute of limita- tions as against tne United States. And with all due defercnce to the distinguished author of that decsion, it seems but proper to say that those Government officials, whether legis- lative, executive or judicial, whose ofticial action has most largely contributed to upheld, as against the Government and people, these 1niquitous Mexican claims, ought not now to virtually plead their own laches as an excuse for making this grest Wrong perpetusl. ‘Without undertaking to assail or discuss the motives of Mr. Justice Field’s actions, the fact is undeniable that for more than forty-five years past the whole weight of his great tal- ents and learning, first asa lawyerand then as a Judge, has been_wielded in the support of sEul’lous land claims as against the rights of the Government and the just demands of the settlers. Your petitioner well remembers as far back as the early fifties. when General John A. Sut- ter and his ‘fumeen claimed thirty-tnree leagues of land under two alleged grants, one genuine for eleven lelFuel and the other spu- rious for twenty-two leagues. At that time Hon. Stephen J. Field was the leading counsel for a large and wealthy clientage who sought 10 eject from their homes settlers oecupying lands claimed under the grants referred to. These grants purported to be within a ter- ritory known as the New Helvetia, covering about forty square leagues. At the time men- tioned there had been no patentand nosurvey, either of the genuine grant or the spurious one. So that even if both grants had been valid no one could have told whether & given quarter-section was & part of the thirty-three leagues claimed under Sutter,or whether it ‘was a partof the other eleven leagues conceded to belong to the United States, Under these conditions even Mr. Field, with all his forensic powers, aided by a willing court, was not able to persuade an honest jury of his country to guess these settlers obt of house and home and turn over both land and improvements to those voracious speculators. But the great lan t claimants of Cali- fornia knew full well tnat Mr., Field, as a Su- preme Court Judge, could serve them far more emelenfl; than as a lawyer. Theretore in the year 1857 he was_elected to that exalted posi- tion and his old clients soon found that neither their labor nor their money used in placing him on the bench had been spent in vain. Shortly after Justice Field’s election to the Cali- fornia Supreme Judgship he rendered his cele- brated decision in the case of Ferris vs. Coover, in which he broadly laid down the law _to be that wherever there was a Spanish or Mexi- can grant of & given quantity of land within definite boundaries embracing a larger tract than was granted until the grant was located “the right of the grantee remained good to the possession of the entire tract within the desig- nated boundaries.” TN He turns to Senator White in this fashion: But, as time rolls on, and as_their ill-gotten lands grow more valual nd as the rotten- ness of the foundations on which rest their pretended titles become more and more ap- guent to the whole world, the unlawful olders of these 1mmense properties cannot trust to mere lobbyists and spies to do their work, Hence they stand represented to-day upon the floor of the United States Senate chamber by one of the most able and dis- tinguished lawyers of this State. While,asa member of this august bodg. he is charged with the grave and responsible duty of pro- tecting the public domain of the United States against all sorts of wrongful claimants, he is at the same time the hi: and lesding coun- sel in the courts for a wealthy California cor- poration, ading it in its efforts to maintain its rasp upon 60,000 acres of the San Fernando ission lands, which, upon inve ation—as your petitioner verily believes— be found %0 be the property of the United States. A circumstance that anmly aggravates the enormity of this claim is the fact that the iand now claimed by it is almost equal to the amount of land originally confirmed to the claimant, but is only about half the land em- braced in the so-called patent survey, which survey, it will be remembered, was made by Hancock, the claimant’s own counsel. | How it is possible—or whether or not it is possible—even for so able & man as California’s senior Senator to properly represent the an- tagonistic interests of so great a Government and so large a corporation at one and the same time, remains to be seen. But if the United States District Attorney, Ord, and the United States Law Agent, Hartman, and the United States Surveyor, Hancock, could do 8o on & small scale, it may be possible for United States Senator Stephen M. wfm todo so on a still largerone. THE THILORS ORGANIZING Successful Meeting at Which Several Foremen Enter the Union. All Assistants, Male and Female, Will Be Asked to Join for Mutual Benefit. The San Francisco Tailors’ Union held a very successful meeting Tuesday night in Academy Hall, on Mission street, near Fifth, and made another bold and united effort to form a powerful trade organiza- tion, which shall include every member of their craft in town. There was no secrecy about the meeting, as the tailors were quite willing to have it known what they were doing. Samuel Schwartz was chairman and Herman Stark secretary. Quite a large number of prominent tailors were admitted to mem- bership, and there was special reason for enthusiasm over the event, since nearly all of them are foremen of large shops. The reception, therefore, was a pleasant event in the history of this youngest of trade unions in 8an Francisco. The ad- ditions Tuesday night increased the mem- bership to 225. The question of further organization was discussed by the members at great length, and it was finally determined to begin at once to actively organize the help in all shops, female as well as male, to strengthen the union. The chairman announced that a charter would be received at the next meetin, from the United Garment-workers o America, the beud%nnrters of which are in New York City, and that the local union will become a part of the great united body of tailors of America. The significance of this coalition was unofficially statea to be that the working tailors have come to a realization of the fact that they have been 80 ground down by competition that barely living can be gotout of the trade now- ays, even thou, h the tailors work day and night; and they are consequently or- ganizing for self-protection. Each individual member of the union was appointed a committee of one tosecure new members, and was requested by.the chair to introduce each an applicant for n;ell?benhip at the next meeting, Tuesday night. i motion that the tailors hold a mass- meeting within a month was carefully con- sidered and unanimously carried. T. F. Burns of the Cigar-makers’ Union, by request, addressed the m”“.:fi' Be said that the activity and success ieved by the tailors in organizing had far sur- assed the expectations of the prominent abor union men who had wai them closely. With proper orfiminu\m, he re- marked, the tailors could get such con- cessions from employers as the strength of their organization would justify. ~ The trades unions of the United States were about to enjoy a new era of prosperity:- greater in fact than ever before-—and this enthusi of the tailors was only a case in point illustrative of the spiritanimating Iabor. % The Cigar-Makers. The Cigar-makers’ Union met Tuesday night and adopted the platform and declaration of principles of the labor con- vention held two weeks ago. ——————————— The teaplant is said to be a variety of the camellia, QUOTATIONS FROM CARDINAL MANNINC. Father Yorke Ooufinues to Deal With Them. MR. ROSS’ MANIPULATION His Extracts Unfit to Prove the Civil Domination of the Church. RIGHTS OF MAN CONSIDERED. The A.P. A. Leader Is Accused of Repeatedly Mutilating Man- ning’s Words. [Copyright by Peter C. Yorke, 1896.] Father Yorke continues hisreply to Rev. Donald Ross as follows: To the Editor of the Call—DEAR SIR: Yester- d'i{‘ was dealing with D. Ross’ manipulation of Manning. I will continue the subject in this letter. Ifind that D. Ross guotes and re- quotes the same sentences in each lecture; in truth, the quotations he produces are just as fit to prove the heliocentric theory as the civil domination of the church. It wilt therefore conduce to clearness if I examine all Man- ning’s sayings together. As a matter of fact, the most of them are taken from the one essay and explain one another. THE RIGHTS OF MAN, In the beginning let me deal with a quota- tion concerning the rights of a starving man. I deal with it first because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the questions at issue and I wish to put it out of the way at once. In his lecture on the second proposition, “The Pope and the priests ought to have do- minion over temporal affairs,” D. Ross brou.ght forward as proof the assertion that the church claims to regulate stealing. Dominion means sovereign and supreme authority, and how such authority is proved by assertions about stealing passes my humble comprehension. When a Sunday-school teacher inculcates the lesson, thou shalt not_steal, are we to suppose that she claims to be Empress of the Americas. Bul to D. Ross’ argument. Let me copy it out in all its vulgarity and incoherency: “Do you think, ladies and gentlemen, that stealing is a temporal affair? Well, here are the Catholie_church’s teachings as protrayed by Cardinal Manning: “*A strong man commits no theft if he saves hislife by eating of his neighbor's bread so much as is necessary for the support of his ex- istence. The civil law yields before the i r urisdiction of the divine as the positive divine w vields before the natural law of God. “What a pienic for tramps. ([Applause.) What a picnic for those young feliows, who, for instance, have to be educated by the charity of the diocess and made priests of. They could nmw g0 out until they got old enough to earn their living. Remember now, that Iam dealing with this simply as a ques- tion in the case of a law of the country, the aw of the land. That law telis what is and what is not stealing. I do not know that if we ‘were on a jury we would send a starving man to jail if he stole a loaf of bread. But that is not the question. It is simply this in this case—this is the guestion: Does the Catholic_church seek to put its hand down upon and control temporal affairs? And when the Catholic church begins to reguinte about stealing, when the Catholic church begins to regulate what a man may take of another 's and what he may not take, I declare then and there the Catholic church has put its hand down and is exercising its do- minfon in the temporal affairs of this coun- tr{‘;" [Applause. this quotation from Mauning let me say that the scrupulously honest D. Ross has clfln’ed a ing’ man” into a “strong man.” Why, I do not know; however, wheth- er the change has any significance or not does not matter. Here Manning is not speaking of the church or of church law. He is apeufing of that lIaw of self-preservation which existed before the church, and whichb would exist if the church should cease to be. Hesimply enunciates a truth which is law for the pagan, the Mohammedan, the Jew and the Christian, namely, that when a man is in extreme dan- ger he has a right to preserve his life by tak- of his neighbor’s substance. If a man is dying of starvation he is perfectly justified in taking us much bread as will sustain his life, and there is not 8 jury in Christendom which ‘would hold him 1It¥. Only the insanity of bigotry would hold that in making this statement, which is not a law of the church but a law of nature, 1 sm mak- ing claim to dominion over temporal affairs. INDEPENDENCE OF THE CHURCH. In his first lecture on the proposition, “In case of conflict between ecclesiastical and civil wers the ecclesiastical ought to prevail,” Dr. 08t ve the following quotation and zrgu- ment: The Catholic church is the hichest and final judge of what 1s the faith and what 18 the law of ‘God, and when science and politics come into con- tact’ with the faith and that law it admits of no appeal from its own declsion to any tribuna! out of itselt, to any. judge of appeal in the past or ia the future. “When politics and the church come into conflict it is the duty of the church to remaia firm and to heed nof the State laws that coune in conflict with it.” Dr. Ross is very fond of this quotation. He quotes it three times, and with his admirable and absolute honesty takes carc to mutilate it. Thus, in the comment on it given atove he renders ‘‘come into contact with the faith” by “come into conflict,” and in his last iecture L ‘Wendteizes the quotation to suit his purpose and to catch applause: “When science and litics come into conflict with that faith.” owever, this is only & small matter. Even three months were not sufficient to familiaiize him with his tools. I find him in one place ascribing & quotation to Brownson uid utan- other place giving the same quotaiicn us tie words of “Priest Jouin.” But, then, Ross had infinite confidence in his judge. MANNING’S MEANING. Ross made use of this quotation to impress n the minds of his hearers the 1dea tnat the Catholic Church was_interfering in poiities, and that when she said such a course was the right course, the politicians had nothing 10 do but obey. Yet, as a matter of fact, Manning expressly guards against that idea in the very quotation manipulated by Ross. If Ross had even the faintest elementsof decency in his composition, he would retire deep into bis native Canaaian woods and meditate on the commandment, Thou shalt not bear false witness againsi thy neighbor. The quotation is taken from an address de- livered b{ Manning at Manchester in 1876, He is dealing with the relations between re- ligion and science, and incidentally he touches on the relations between religion and litics. “We are told also,” he says, ‘‘thatre- fioglon has nothing to do witi politi " Then he goes on with the same argument given by Brownson on the extract 1 noticed yesterday, and with the same reasoning employed every day by the Christian Endeavorers: “I would ng. vl’hut are politics but the collective morals of men living together in society ? The moral laws which govern mean as an individual goy- ern him if he be the member of a community, be it the community ol a household or the community of a state.” Manning simply means that men in public life are bouud by the luws of right and wrong just as much as'in private life. Moreover, he takes care to explain that he is not speaking of politics in the sense in which the word is used Wmnonll!" but in a higher end more exalted sense. He says: “I am not speaking of pol- {itics in that minute sense, but of the great con- -muw,}-wn by which hunian society is held ther. wfin’ dealing with the moral law, and with the great principles which underiie society, Manning says that “the Catholic Church has an all important office in these matters.” What is that office? “The church having a divine liberty a8 the witness which God has constituted ’(n the world to deliver his revela- tion, and being the sole fountain of that knowledge, has within its sphere asovereiguty and that sovereignty is onc which is exempt from all control of human suthority."” v This means that the church 1s the teacher of truth, a spiritual power and that as a spiritual power is abselutely independent of the state. Thi and true American doe- trine, and Menning makes his expression of it douhiy accurate by lhe words ‘“within its sphere.” The spheré of the church is the itual, the sphere of 1he state is the tem- poral. The state is supréme in the temporal church is supreme in thespiritual sphere. The church “has within its sphere a sovereignty, snd that sovereignty 1sone which isexempt from all control of human author- ity. Nosuthority on esrth can intervene to dictate to the church what it has to teach, or within what limits it shall teach. There is no authority to determine whether the church shall teach or not thisor that doctrine.” There is not asect in the United States which does not claim this right. Our constitution rel to claim any authority over the teach- ing of religion. There is no power in the United States which pretends to limit the teachings of any church as long as these teachings do not ‘offend public morality. Yet because Manning claims this right for the church, D. Ross declares that the Pope and the priests ‘claim temporal dominion. Moreover, this absolutely honest gentleman, who has not stopped in the midst of a sentence or done aught to misrepresent his authorities, takes good care to leave out words which mightshow even t his audience and to his judge that he was acting in bad faith. He knew that Manning was speaking about doctrinal teachings, not about laws or politics, and therefore he calmly suppressed Manning's words, “There is no authority to aetermine whether the church shall teach or not this doctrine.” But he adds, It is therefore not only exempt but supreme, and being supreme, there can be no appeal from it.” He wishes to insinuate that the church is here given & civil exemption and a civil supremacy, while Man- ning merely claims, what every American claims, that'in matters of religion, the church is supreme and exempt from all civil authority. Then comes the quotation with which I began: “Itis the highest and final judge of what is the faith and what is the law oi God, and when science Indfollflcl come into contact with that faith and that law it admits of no appeal,” etc. “Politics” here we must re- member are the great constructive laws by which human society is held together, namely, the great moral laws of justice, right and char- ity. Of these laws the church is the teacher. Every Protestant admits the same, except that for church he substitutes the Bible. From the church or the Bible in these mat- ters there is no appeal either in the past or in the future. Where is the American who will find fault with this assertion? To groduce it as Ross does as & proof that the ecclesiastical powers ought to prevail or that the Ynem ought to run politics is the very delirium of dunderheadedness. THE LIBERTY OF THE CHURCH. The American doctrine of the relations be- tween church and state is that each has its own sphere and each is independent. Now Ross’ propositions said in substance that Catholics claimed for the church the right to invade the sphere of the state and to exercise its authority without any limits. To uphold this travesty of our Goctrines he quoted Cardi- nal Manning: ; “I will draw out the proof that Ultra- montanism and Catholicism are identical.” Just previously to that he said this: “This is ultramontanism, the essence of which is that the church being divine and by divine as- sistance infallible, is_within its own sphere in- dependent of all eivil power, snd as the guardian and interpreter of the divine law it is the proper judge of man and nations, and of all things touching that law or faith or morals.” Again, Manning is careful to be accurate. He inserts the words “in_their proper sphere,” thereby limiting the authority of the church to things spiritual. Yet Ross would persuade the judicial:Barkis, Major Sherman (so styled), that Manuing claimed that there were no lim- its to the authority of the church. It was an- other case of ““Barkis is willing.” 1f Ross had only wished to show what Man- ning really taught he might have turned to the next page and read: ‘“/Civil allegiance to sovereigns is, therefore, a part of Christianity, and treason is both a crime against a lawful authority and a sin against God, who has or- dained that authority. Ultramontanism teaches that witnin the sphere of its compe- tence the civil power is to be obeyed, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake.’ ‘Rome is sovereign because it is independent; it is independent becsuse it has no master on earth. The vicar of Jesus Christ is the source of its liberty, the guardian of its loverel‘gnly. Call it temporal power if you will, the thing is the same—the freedom, the independence, the sovereignty of the kingdom of God on earth in all the world and over all mankind, resting upon its center in the patrimony of the church, within which the shadow of no other sovereignty ean intrude without a violation of the sapernatural order of grace.” 1 give Ross’ argument in its maudlin incon- sequence: *‘Now, if the shadow of an officer of the law must not fall ufon the church I think the church is pretty independent. If the shadow of no sovereignty can intrude without violat- ing a moral law within the sphere where the church 1s, and no shadow of authority can en- ter without doing wrong, I must declare that the church has a right to exercise itsauthority within that limit.”" (Applause.) + Now Manning does not say that the shadow of an_officer of the law cannot fall on the church. He claims for the church spiritual supremacy. To guarantee this spiritusl su- promuc{ ihe Catholic world had created an ec- clesiastical District of Columbis in Rome. The temporal sovereignty of that district the Cath- olic states had given to the Pofe and Mannin, is merely proving that the independence of Rome arose from the recognition of the spirit- ual power of the Pope. Yet D. Ross draws the sapientconclusion that because the Pope was King of the city of Rome therefore there is no end to the church’s authority. No wonder he chose acandidate for Stockton as judge. LIMIT OF THE CHURCH’S POWER. Aidn in order to prove that the church ought to _exercise her power without any limits D. Ross quotes Manning: “In any question s to the eomguncy of the two_powers either there must be some judge to decide what does and what does not fall within their respective srl\ere!. or they are delivered over to perpetual doubt agd to per- petual conflict. It is clear that the civil powers cannot define how far the circum- jerence of faith and morals extends. But if the church .be certain with a divine cer- tainty as to_the limits of its jurisdiction its voice in such matters is final. But an author- ity that can alone define the limits of its own office is absolute, because it depends on none, and infallible because 1t knows with a divine certainty the faith which it hds received in cn'"%{"" If Ross had "any glimmerings of common- sense he would have seen at once that this very quotation gives his proposition the lie. If the church claims to define the limits of its jurisdietion it is plain that she recognizes that ber authority is limited. Manning’s arguments are so simple that T will merely quote what he has to say in full. After speaking of the obedience due the civil authorities he says: “No Christian of sound mind will deny that these two distinct and separate powers have distinet and separate uz)htre: and that within these spheres respectively they hold their power from God. Where the limits of these spheres are to be traced it 15 easy enough to decide in all matters purely civil or in all matters purely spiritual. “‘The conflict arises over the mixed questions. And yet here there ought to be no real | difficulty. Nobody can decide what questions are pure or what questions are mixed except & judge who can define the limits of these two elements respectively, and therefore of the re- spective jurisdictions. Inany question as to the competence of the two powers, either there must be some 1ud¥o to decide what does and what does mot™ fall within their respective spheres, or they are delivered over to perpetual doubt and to perpetual confiict. “But who can define what is or is not within the jurisdiction of the church in faith and morals, except & judge who knows what the sphere of faith and morals contains and how faritextends? And surely it is not enough that such a judge should guess or opine, or pronounce upon aoubtful evidence, or with an uncertain knowledge. Such a sentence would be not an end of contention, but a beginning and a renewal of strife. “It is clear that the civil power cannot define how far the circumference of faith and morals extends. If it could it would be invested with one of the supernatural endowments of the church. To do this it must know the whole deposit of explicit and implicit faith, or, in other words, it must be the guardian of the Christian revelation. Now no Christian nor any man of sound mind claims this for the civil power and if not, then, either there is no judge 1o end strife, or that judge must be the chureh, to which alone the revelation of Christianity in faith and morals was divinely intrusted. “And if thisbeso still, unless the church be divinely certain of the limits of its commission and of its message, no doubt or controversy be- tween the two powers can ever be brought to an end. But if the church be certain with a divine certainty as to_the limits of its juris- diction its voice in such matters is final. but an authority that can alone define the limits of 1ts own office is absolute because it depends on none, and infallible because it knows with a divine certainty the faith which it has re- ceived in charge. “If then the eivil );lower be not competent to decide the limits of the spiritual power, and if the spiritual power can define with a divine certainty itsown limits it is evidently supreme. “Or 1in other words, the spiritual power knows with divine certainty the hmits of its own ‘xllflsdlc'lon, and it knows, therefore, the mits and the competence of the civil power. “It is thereby in matters of religion and con- science supreme, I do not see how this can be denied withont denying Christianity. And if this be so this is the same doctrine of the bull unam sanctam, and of the syllabus and of the Vatican Council. It is,in fact, ultramontan- 1sm, for this term means neither less nor more. The church, therefore, is separate and su- preme. ‘‘Let us, then, ascertain somewhat further what is the meaning of supreme. ANy power which is independent and can alone fix the limits of its own jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the limits of all other jurisdictions, is i] facto supreme. But the Church of Jesus Christ, within the sphere of revelation, of faith and morals, is all this or is nothing or worse than nothing, an impostor and an usurpation—that is, 1t is Christ or anti-Christ. If it be anti-Christ every Cwmsar from Nero to the present day is justified. If it be Christ it is the supreme Power among men; that is to say: “(1) It holds its commission and authority from God alone. (2) Itholds in custody the faith and the law of Jesus Christ. *(3) It is thesole interpreter ot that faith and the sole expositor of thatlaw. Ithas within the sphere of that commission & power to legis- late with authority; to bind the conscience of all men Dborn again in the baptism of Jesus Christ. It alone can fix the limits of the faith and law intrusted to it, and therefore the sphere of its own jurisdiction; it alone can deeide in ques- tions where its power is in contact with the civil power—that is in mixed questions, for it alone can determine how far its own divine office or its own divine trust enters into and is implicated in such questions, and it is pre- cisely that element in any mixed question of disputed jurisdiction which belongs to a higher order and to & higher tribunal.” anning’s reasoning is unanswerable and was recognized by those who framed our laws and constitution. These laws and constitu- tions seer clear of all mixed matters, and where they are compelled to touch them, they do so by g;nnling privileges instead of making commands. Thus in the case of marriage the state is compelled to deal with it, but it does 50 in such a manner as to leave the rights of the churches untouched. One may believe in divorce with the Uni- tarians or reject divorce with the high church- men and the state does not _compel us to take sides. It provides divorce for those who do believe in it, but it refrains from forcing divorce on those whose consciences cannot accept it. Here was the wisdom of the fathers shown. Hence it is that in this country we have no conflicts between church and state. Whers the church’s spiritual rights are violated sh» is quick enough to protest, The fact thatsho loyally accepts the American constitution is 10 any honest man a proof that her rights are safe-guarded, but then no one imagines that D. Ross is honest. Yours truly, i P. C. YORKE. Oharged With Grand Larceny. Frank Coleman, a cook, was arrested by Des tectives Anthony and Crockett last night on the charge of grandlarceny. Four weeks ago W.J. Carroll, a bartender, was robbed of his: gold watch and chain in a saloon at 105 Grang; avenue while asleep in a chair. The articles were found in & saloon at 647 Sacramento, street, where Coleman had sold them for $12, Coleman has been twice convicted of petty, larceny. { Artificial ivory is made from condenudi skim milk. i i A p, MR. FRANCISCO GARCIA. VENTURA, Cal., March L. 1 send you the portrait of Mr. Francisco Garcia. It was taken during the past week, By it you will observe the pink of good health in the coloring of the cheeks, the brightness of the eyes and robust- ness of the individual. True, you can- not see, as I have seen, one of the best specimens of manhood. Mr. Garcia is one of the finest looking men within a day’s walk of Ventura. He is able to hold his own with all the young men of this place. When I was introduced to him I remarked his strength and he told me that it was only a while ago when he was out of sorts, all run down, no appetite and troubled with sleepless- ness. He was advised to and did use Joy’s Vegetable Sarsaparilla. He told me exactly what hundreds have before said. He soon began to sleep at night, his bowels became regular, his appetite returned, and he was enabled to do a good day’s work, cat a fair share of food and sleep his allotted hours. Now he weighs 180 pounds, and in all his move- ments shows the perfectly healthy man. Speaking of Joy’s Vegetable Sarsaparilla, he said: “I did not use the remedy un- til I had been advised to do so, and then I did not put much faith in it, but now I can safely say that Joy’s Vegetable Sar- saparilla is a great remedy, and that it clarifies the blood, leaving no bad effects on the entire body. I never had asingle pimple or blemish on my face; I never had the least disagreeable ieeling while I used Joy’s Vegetable Sarsaparilla. Of course, I was not a sick man, yet I felt out of sorts and was beginning to lose flesh. Yes, I do recommend Joy’s Vege- table Sarsaparilla.” 1 may as well tell you that Ventura is all praise for Joy's Vegetable Sarsa- parilla, and that the druggists are not palming off something just as good for the native remedy. When people ask for Joy’'s Vegetable Sarsaparilla they get Joy’s, and that is just what the druggists of San Francisco ought to. do. They ought to hand out the native remedy when people ask for it. Cer- tainly what every one says is good must be good. HENRY TILLMAN.