WE have formerly called attention to monarchical ideas that have become somewhat prevalent in this Republic of the United States.AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.1

As a faithful sentinel we are obliged to do this again, for the thing continues to crop out.AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.2

Not long ago an association of women, sending a communication to President Mckinley, addressed him as “honored ruler.” And this is not the first instance, by a long way, in which this term has been used with reference to the President of the United States.AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.3

But the principle of the Government of the United States is a “Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The national charter of government begins, “We, the people ... do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Thus the people are the only rightful rulers in the United States.AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.4

According to this principle the President of the United States is the presiding officer of the people in the organization which they have formed by which they make themselves secure in the rights which they possess and according to which they govern themselves. He administers the will of the people in their rulership. He gives his oath to the people that he will faithfully perform their formally expressed will. So that the people are his rulers, and not he their ruler, according to the vital principles of the national government as established. Therefore the President of the United States is not in any right sense a ruler.AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.5

Now we are not saying that President McKinley holds the view that he is the ruler of the people of the United States. We are not saying that he accepted this phrase that those women used in addressing him. We are perfectly satisfied that President McKinley understands himself, and the people, and the Government of the United States, better than that. We are satisfied that he understands these things well enough to be disgusted rather than pleased with such suggestive effusiveness. We fully exonerate President McKinley from entertaining any such suggestion of monarchism. But it is impossible to exonerate from monarchical suggestion those who thus addressed him; and this more especially as it is only one of a number of like offenses from such source.AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.6

Yet this is only one phase of the thing. The Washington correspondent of the Chicago Times-Herald is filled with it. His account of the late inauguration ceremonies was interlarded with monarchical terms. He actually went so far as to refer to the presidential seat as “the throne.” With him the Secretary of State is “Premier.” The other Secretaries are “Ministers.” The House of Representatives if “the Commons.”AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.7

If the presidential seat is “the throne,” what is the rank of him who occupies the seat? It is only kings who occupy thrones. Thrones are associated only with monarchs.AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.8

As for the mere naked word “Premier,” it means, of course, only “first in rank or position.” But politically it conveys more meaning than that. Of course it is “English, you know;” and it is evident that that is one of the reasons why it is used in the United States. But England is a monarchy; and when these English political terms are used by a writer in the United States, it reveals the taint of monarchism.AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.9

Politically, the Premier is “the responsible head of the cabinet.” But in the government of the United States the Secretary of State is not “the responsible head of the cabinet.” The President of the United States is the head of the cabinet, and he is the only “responsible head of the cabinet.”AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.10

Again, the Premier is “Prime Minister;” and if the Secretary of State of the United States is “Prime Minister,” then, of course, all the other Secretaries become Ministers.AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.11

And, again, the Premier is “the representative of the country or of a party;” but in the government of the United States the Secretary of State is not in any sense the representative of the country, nor of the party even to which he belongs.AMS April 15, 1897, page 225.12

As “the representative of the country or of a party,” the Premier has “a representative will.” But the Secretary of State of the United States has no representative will.AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.1

These ideas comport only with the political methods of a constitutional monarchy as in England. And when used by anyone in speaking of English politics, all these terms are strictly proper, for they mean something. But when an attempt is made to use these terms with reference to American politics, with reference to the governmental system of the United States, such terms are absolutely meaningless; unless he who uses them entertains the monarchical idea to such an extent that he would have this Government transformed to the extent that the terms should mean here just what their proper political meaning is.AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.2

And, in the late administration, wasn’t the country given a taste of this view of American premiership? Didn’t the Secretary of State of the late administration entertain just this idea of his position? Didn’t he consider himself “the representative of the country,” having “a representative will” of his own; and didn’t he, in behalf of his “monarch,” serve notice upon the legislative branch of the Government of the United States that their will, even if expressed in law, would be disregarded unless it conformed to his will? And if this idea could have been carried out to its logical extent, and there had come a crisis between the legislative will and this “Premier” will, what could have been done but to “dissolve the Parliament” and appeal to the country for a decision as to whether this “Premier” was really “the representative of the country” of not.AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.3

But every one will say, No such thing as that could ever be. True enough; and therefore it is perfectly plain that in American institutions there is no place for a Premier, and in the bright lexicon of American ideas there is no such word as “Premier.”AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.4

If the House of Representatives in Congress is “the Commons,” then what is the Senate? This correspondent has not yet expressed that in words, as also he has not yet expressed in words the rank of him who occupies “the throne.” But if the House of Representatives is “the Commons,” there is no escaping the implication that the Senate is “the Lords;” for where there are Commons, in the nature of things there must be Lords; just as in the nature of things where there is a throne there must be a monarch, and where there is a Prime Minister there must be other Ministers, and where there is a Premier he is “the representative of the country.”AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.5

It will no doubt be said by many that this correspondent did not mean all this in the terms that he used. Well, if he does not mean what the terms mean which he uses, why, then, does he use the terms? Will any say that terms which are freighted with meaning, are used by an intelligent writer in a way that is meaningless? If, with this writer, those terms have not the meaning that belongs to them, then why does he use the terms at all. In expressing himself with reference to American institutions, why does he use terms that are absolutely meaningless, upon any other hypothesis than that they reveal the presence of the monarchical ideas which the terms convey?AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.6

It is perfectly safe to say that both the present President and Secretary of State are men of too much sense and understand American principles too well, to be pleased with the application to themselves of any of these terms. But this is no surety at all that all the men which may ever be called to occupy those positions will be much of such good sense. Let these terms, used too frequently already, become a little more frequent, and it will not be long until men occupying those positions will respond to the ideas thus expressed. Indeed, as already stated, the country has had an inkling of this, and only very lately. Men cannot make themselves monarchs unless there are persons who want a monarch. There never would have been a Pope if there had not been people who wanted a Pope.AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.7

Let the people of the United States, who alone are the government, and the rulers, of the United States, see to it that all monarchical terms and ideas shall be resented and kept absolutely under the ban. This the people of the United States owe to themselves, and to all mankind, in order that as long as possible “government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.8

“A Right of the People, Too” American Sentinel 12, 15, pp. 226, 227.

ATJ

THE Supreme Court of the United States, by a majority of one, lately rendered a decision which destroys the pooling of issues amongst railroads “in restraint of trade.” The case that was thus decided came up from the West. At the same time there was on the docket of the Supreme Court a case from the East, in which the same principle is involved. Now it is determined to push this second case with the “hope that some one of the justices may change his view when the Joint Traffic case is heard.”AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.1

So then the lawyers employed upon this Eastern case are to enter upon a course of argument and persuasion to get some one of the five justices, who made the other decision, to change his mind; and thus kill that decision and carry the Court the other way. We have not yet seen any statement from any source that this procedure is in any wise revolutionary or anarchistic.AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.2

About two years ago, the Supreme Court, by a majority of one, rendered a decision on the question of an income tax. One of the political parties in the campaign last year proposed to have one or more of the justices of the court change his mind upon that; and proposed to present arguments and persuasions that would in some way bring this about. By leading men in the other party this was denounced as revolutionary and anarchistic.AMS April 15, 1897, page 226.3

But how can it be any more revolutionary or anarchistic for the people generally to present arguments and persuasions to induce a Supreme Court Justice to change his mind than it is for some lawyers to do it? Is it absolutely conservative and legal for a number of lawyers to do it, while revolutionary and anarchistic for the people to do it?AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.1

And if these lawyers shall succeed in getting one of the justices to change his mind, and so reverse the other decision and commit the United States Government to a directly opposite course from that to which the decision already rendered commits it; and if such a thing is to be accepted by the country as strictly proper, legal, governmental, and conservative;—wherein, then, was there anything else involved in the course of those who last year proposed to have a decision of the Supreme Court reversed and the Government committed to an opposite course with respect to the question of an income tax?AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.2

We call attention to this matter now solely to emphasize the point that as a matter of fact, in the practical workings of things, the position which the SENTINEL holds, and has always held, is recognized: that is, that a decision of the Supreme Court is always subject to reversal; and that there is nothing revolutionary or anarchistic in endeavoring to secure a reversal of a Supreme Court decision.AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.3

And our contention is, further, that the people of the United States have just as much right to discuss any of these questions and to secure a reversal of a Supreme Court decision as any set of lawyers have. It is no more just to charge as revolutionary and anarchistic any of the people who try to do this, than it would be to charge the lawyers now employed in this railroad case with revolution and anarchy in their “hope that some one of the justices may change his view.”AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.4

The people of the United States, on their own part, in their own behalf, are just as much concerned in the principles of the Government of the United States as the lawyers are; and they have all the rights that the lawyers have; for who are the lawyers but some of the people? And cannot a lawyer, as one of the people, in a political campaign endeavor to get the Supreme Court to change its mind and reverse a decision, with just as much right as he can as a lawyer in the Chamber of the Supreme Court endeavor to get the Court to change its mind and reverse its decision?AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.5

The sum of the whole matter is, that the American principle—the principle held by Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln, the principle always advocated by the AMERICAN SENTINEL—that the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States are subject to review and discussion and reversal if possible, by the people of the United States, is absolutely sound, and is vital to government of the people, by the people, and for the people.AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.6

“A Doleful ‘Gospel’” American Sentinel 12, 15, pp. 227, 228.

ATJ

IN the endeavor to establish “civic righteousness,” upon which the religious effort of this day seems to be centering, the Church has addressed herself to a doleful task. It is a doleful “gospel” which she is obliged to preach as its accompaniment.AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.1

For example, there appears in the Christian Statesman each week a column on “Christian Endeavor in Christian Citizenship,” conducted by Rev. Chas. Roads, of Philadelphia. This column is filled with accounts of the corruption that exists in certain classes of society and in the sphere of municipal government, and which must be remedied by “Christian Citizenship” methods. In the Statesman of April 3, Mr. Roads dwells upon the evidence of this corruption which was afforded at the granting of licences for saloons by the license court. The plane morality upon which the judges of the court stood was sadly low. They were “familiar with the slang of the bar-room,” and used it for the amusement of the audience. They granted licenses to saloon proprietors in the face of “most damaging evidence” of their bad character, given by himself and the secretary of the Law and Order League. They condoned flagrant violations of the license law because they were committed on “election night,” or “football night,” etc.AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.2

Previous articles by the same writer have described the flagrant criminality which could be seen on the streets after dark in the neighborhood of saloons and elsewhere, and which the police knew all about, but seemingly made no effort to suppress.AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.3

This is the familiar story which one reads to-day in “Christian Citizenship” literature, or hears from the pulpit of the would-be reformer, in our large cities. There is corruption everywhere, and plenty of evidence of the same which forces itself upon the attention of even the casual observer. Our great cities are “run” by corrupt “rings” or political organizations or political “bosses.” New York City, for example, is largely subject to the unrighteous sway of “Tammany Hall;” and both city and State are, in matters of general government, under the Philistinic dominance of “boss Platt.” In other cities and States the situation is much the same. And all this must be remedied before “civic righteousness” can be established.AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.4

Many efforts in this direction have been made, and are being made, but with unsatisfactory results. A few years ago, the Rev. Dr. Parkhurst, with others, undertook the overthrow of “Tammany” and the suppression of municipal corruption in New York City. They stirred the people of the city and engineered an election which “turned the rascals out” in many cases, so that it seemed for a time that the effort was really successful. But the “rascals” who were turned out drifted back, or those who filled their places became like them, and to-day municipal righteousness is as far away as ever.AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.5

The Church, however, is preaching that this “righteousness” must come; and the “Christian Citizenship” and kindred movements are the agencies by which it is to be brought in. The “gospel” of civic and political “righteousness” looks forward to the time when all the political offices will be filled by Christians, and righteousness be enforced by faithful men in all departments of the Government. It looks forward to an enthronement of Christ “on Capitol hill,” the seat of national authority. It predicts that these things will be realized soon. But meanwhile it is forced to dwell upon the doleful realities which fill the field of vision in the place of its cherished dream.AMS April 15, 1897, page 227.6

And these realities must continue, and become more and more doleful, as long as this “gospel” continues to be preached. For not only is there no power in it to make the world one whit better than it is, but as the Church descends into the arena of politics to work out this plan for regenerating society, she must open the door to that corruption which dwells in politics, and thus part with her own moral power to elevate mankind. Politics is the congenial sphere of the hypocrite and the unscrupulous server of self; and when the Church incorporates politics into her own sphere of operation, she must take in the elements which are characteristic of political life. By espousing political methods, she offers an inducement to ambitious self-servers to join themselves to her in hypocritical union. She opens her doors to a flood of worldliness, and puts herself in the condition of a foundering ship at sea. While the Church herself is thus becoming, as the prophetic word has it, “the hold of every foul spirit, and the cage of every unclean and hateful bird” (Revelation 18:2), it cannot but be that in the world itself, “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.” 2 Timothy 3:13.AMS April 15, 1897, page 228.1

The gospel of “civic righteousness” operates by means of the ballot. If the ballot fails, the “righteousness” is lost. And what is more uncertain than the ballot? If at times something is accomplished by its agency in the direction of civic reform, the gain is certain to be but temporary. The powers of evil rally their forces, and the next election restores their lost supremacy. The people can be aroused at times to a spasmodic effort to “turn the rascals out” when corruption becomes too rampant in public affairs, but “the people” are mainly occupied with their individual interests, and constitute but sleepy sentinels around the camp of the public weal. As political reformations do not reach the heart, they can at best but remove the symptoms of the malady from which the body politic suffers. But as the disease itself remains, seated in the carnal heart, the symptoms must quickly reappear, and the situation become as bad as before.AMS April 15, 1897, page 228.2

The Church has a better gospel than all this to proclaim to the multitudes around her. She has that gospel which is “the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,“—a gospel that contemplates not merely a clean administration of public affairs, but a clean heart in the individual; not the establishment of a man-made legal righteousness, but of the righteousness of Christ which is by faith; not “the enthronement of Christ on Capitol hill,” and in the various seats of State and municipal government, but the reign of Christ on the throne of David in the glorious Capital of the earth made new; a gospel which operates not by the power of civil decrees, but by the power of love; which depends not upon the weak and uncertain agency of the ballot, but upon the word of Omnipotence; which comforts men not with an uncertain prospect of temporal good to come, but with that “love, joy, peace,” which are the “fruits of the Spirit” now and here, in the life of every believer, and with the gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ.AMS April 15, 1897, page 228.3

Why, oh why, will the Church turn from this glorious gospel, for which all the world is dying, to preach the weak and doleful gospel of “civic righteousness”?AMS April 15, 1897, page 228.4

“Note” American Sentinel 12, 15, p. 228.

ATJ

WOULD it not be well for the preachers, as they are about entering on the year’s campaign against Sunday baseball, to hunt up the Scripture which states that Jesus Christ opposed Sunday games; or, if they think this proposition unfair, let them find the text which mentions that Christ invoked the aid of the civil authorities to compel men to observe the Sabbath. Do they not claim that Jesus Christ is their example?AMS April 15, 1897, page 228.1

April 8, 1897

April 22, 1897