NO MAN can yield his conscience to Cesar and to God at the same time. The domain of conscience does not admit of two sovereigns.AMS January 18, 1900, page 33.5

PEOPLE who venture to interfere with the conscience of others because of religious differences, would do well to remember that conscience is strictly a divine and not a human institution.AMS January 18, 1900, page 33.6

THE “national conscience” is the conscience of the majority, and the majority represent only a power and authority that are human. In religion, the majority have nearly always been in the wrong. God is the only authority in religion, and in religion he speaks to the majority through each individual, and not to each individual through the majority.AMS January 18, 1900, page 33.7

THE Sunday laws do violence to the rights of all people, no less than to those of the class are made to suffer by them. There are a restriction upon religious freedom.AMS January 18, 1900, page 33.8

SINCE the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, and cannot be, as the Scriptures declare, it is plainly unscriptural and wrong to attempt to enforce the law of God, or Christian morality, by the law of man. And no other kind of morality ought to be enforced by any law.AMS January 18, 1900, page 33.9

“The ‘Usual Exemption’ Analyzed” American Sentinel 15, 3, pp. 33-35.

ATJ

FROM the evidence which we have given from the record made by the N. W. C. T. U., it is certain that “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day,” from the requirements of Sunday laws, which the Union “favors,” does not exempt. That is to say, “the usual exemption” is so hedged about with restrictions that it is robbed of all the quality of an exemption.AMS January 18, 1900, page 33.1

In order for any person to have the benefit of this “usual exemption,” it is not enough to observe another day, but the person observing another day must “believe in” it.AMS January 18, 1900, page 33.2

Nor is it enough to “believe in” and “observe” another day; but the person observing another day must “conscientiously believe in” it.AMS January 18, 1900, page 33.3

And when a person does conscientiously believe in and observe another day than Sunday as the Sabbath, still the exemption does not count unless the person “religiously” observes the day that he conscientiously believes in and observes.AMS January 18, 1900, page 33.4

And when he “religiously” observes the day that he “conscientiously believes in and observes,” still the exemption does not count unless he “regularly” observes the day that he conscientiously believes in and religiously observes.AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.1

And then the exemption does not count unless the “religious” and “regular” observance of this day that he “conscientiously believes in” and “observes, “is performed” by abstaining from labor and business.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.2

And even THEN the exemption does not count unless the work that he does on Sunday is work of “religion,” or work of “real necessity and mercy,” or “such private work as will neither interfere with the general rest nor with public worship.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.3

That is to say that “the usual exemption” requires belief, and even conscientious belief; and religious action, and regular religious action, on whatever day a man may choose to observe as the Sabbath; and also requires religious conduct, both public and private, on Sunday, or else the exemption does not count.AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.4

And even with all this, the “usual exemption” does not exempt from the requirements of the law, but only from the penalty of the law.AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.5

This is certain, and we know it, from the fact that Mrs. Bateham, speaking for the N. W. C. T. U., said so at the great hearing on the national Sunday law, before the Senate Committee, in Washington, D. C., Dec. 13, 1888. Senator Blair had said to Mrs. Bateham these words:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.6

“Let me ask you a few questions, Mrs. Bateham, to see if the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union understood exactly the relation of what they propose to do to this legislation.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.7

He then stated that an exemption of the observers of another day would allow these observers of another day to do the work of the post-offices, and that of such other occupations as the Sunday law was intended to prohibit, and thus the law would fail of its purpose in prohibiting these occupations on Sunday; that is, it would so fail by means of the very thing which they themselves propose—the exempting of observers of another day in hope of checking their opposition to the law. His remarks are summed up in the following sentences:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.8

“Now, you go to our Seventh day Baptist or Adventists friends, for instance, and propose to introduce a principle by which they can carry on the Post-Office Department on the Sabbath just as completely as they see fit. In other words, you propose to exempt them from the operation of the law so far as it prohibits post-office work on the Sabbath. Suppose you have a Seventh-day Baptist man for postmaster. Suppose you fill up every post-office in the country on the Sabbath, with Seventh-day Baptist people. You have the Post-Office Department in operation by virtue of this exemption because they can do the work conscientiously on that day.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.9

To this Mrs. Bateham made the following reply:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.10

“If you remember the clause, we do not propose to provide that they shall be able to do this work; but that they shall be exempt from the penalty. They are not allowed to do the work; but they are to be exempted from the penalty. Therefore, unless they could prove that they had not done this work to the disturbance of others, it would be impossible for them to carry on post-office matters, for instance, or any other public employment, on Sunday.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.11

If any further evidence is needed on this it is presented by Dr. W. F. Crafts himself in his Sabbath Reform Documents, No. 28, in which he says that “The only States that have just and practicable exceptions on this point [of ‘the usual exemption’] are New Jersey and Arkansas.” And then that all may know exactly what the only just and practicable exemption is he presents as the example the following exemption found in the code of New Jersey:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.12

“Every inhabitant of this State who religiously observes the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, shall be exempt from answering to any process in ... or equity, either as defendant, witness, or juror, except in criminal cases; likewise from executing on the Sunday the duties of any post or office to which he may be appointed or commissioned, except when the interests of the State may absolutely require it, and shall also be exempt from working on the highways and doing any militia duty on that day except when in actual service. If any person, charged with having labored on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday, shall be brought before a justice of the peace to answer the information in charge thereof, and shall then and there PROVE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SAID JUSTICE if he or she uniformly keeps the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath, and habitually abstains from following his or her usual occupation or business, and from its recreation, and devotes the day to the exercises of religious worship, then such defendant shall be discharged PROVIDED ALWAYS, that the work of labor for which such person is informed against, was done and performed by his third dwelling-house or work-shop, or on his or her premises or plantation, and that such work or labor has not disturbed other persons in the observance of the first day of the week as the Sabbath; and provided also, that nothing in this section shall be construed to allow any such person to openly expose to sale any goods, wares, or merchandise, or other article or that whatsoever in the light of his or her business or occupation.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.13

That is say that by “the usual exemption of those who observe the Sabbath day,” every person who observes any other day than Sunday, is subject to surveillance, to rest, and prosecution; and is thus subject to be put to all the expense, inconvenience, and that of a course the prosecution, up to the point where it is discovered that all the manifold restrictions of the exemption have been complied with—then, and only then, the penalty of the Sunday law shall not be applied in his case.AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.14

In other words, no one can be exempt from the requirements of the law; no one shall be allowed to do any work, either public or private, on Sunday, without being subject prosecution. But when the prosecution has been put through its full course, then he may be exempt from the penalty, provided he has fulfilled all the requirements of “the usual exemption,” which are that he shall “believe in,” and “conscientiously believe in,” and “conscientiously believe in” and “regularly” observe, and “conscientiously believe in” and “religiously” observe, another day than Sunday; and provided the work which was done was a “work of religion,” or a work of “real necessity and mercy or such private work as does neither interfere with the general rest or with public worship.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 34.15

This is also certain, because it is already a settled rule of the courts: that the burden of proof lies on him who claims exemption; and also because Mrs. Bateham, speaking for the N. W. C. T. U., said that “unless they could prove that the work had not been to the disturbance of others, it would be impossible for them” to have the benefit of the exemption.AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.1

And such is “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.” By the official and representative statement of the N. W. C. T. U., we know that such is “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.2

And that such is its exact operation was stated by Mrs. Tomlinson, in the late national convention at Seattle, and can be confirmed by the actual experience of nearly a hundred cases in the courts of several States within the last few years.AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.3

What, then, is “the usual exemption for those who keep the Sabbath day” worth, which the N. W. C. T. U. has put itself on record as favoring?—It is not worth paper that it is written on. It is a delusion and a snare to all who favor it.AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.4

We do not say that the women of the W. C. T. U. understand that all this is in the usual exemption; but that is exactly what is in it, whether they understand it not. And we write this simply that they and all may understand what is in it.AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.5

A. T. J.

“‘Without the Constitution’” American Sentinel 15, 3, pp. 35-37.

ATJ

A YEAR ago Harper’s Weekly regarded with the greatest disfavor the suggestion that the United States would govern the island possessions without the Constitution. This, because such a suggestion was fraught with peril to all true constitutional government in this nation.AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.1

Within the year 1899, however, Harper’s Weekly was completely revolutionized. Accordingly, in next to the last number for that year the Weekly takes positive ground in favor of the United States governing all her island possessions without the Constitution. It is interesting to notice this position which is new ground for the nation in her governing.AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.2

Citing an admittedly questionable application of a Supreme Court decision, the Weekly says: “We have never been able to see why this decision does not necessarily sustain the contention that Congress, with the President’s consent, or over his veto, may establish in the government it pleases over a Territory, without regard to the limitation of the Constitution.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.3

This conclusion the Weekly then supports by a citation from another decision of the Supreme Court—the decision by which the property of the Mormon Church corporation was confiscated by the United States Government—which at the time it was rendered we showed in these columns was positively a monarchical decision: a decision which in principle made the United States Government a monarchy. See AMERICAN SENTINEL, Vol. 6, p. 147 (A.D. 1891).AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.4

From that monarchical, absolutist decision, Harper’s Weekly quotes thus:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.5

“Doubtless Congress, in legislating for the Territories, would be subject to those fundamental limitations in favor of personal rights which are formulated in the Constitution and its amendments; but these limitations would exist rather by inference and the general spirit of the Constitution, from which Congress derives all its powers, than by express and correct application of its provisions.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 35.6

And upon this quotation the Weekly proceeds thus:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.1

“In other words, the limitations as to personal rights are not binding in law, but are binding in morals. Therefore, whenever Congress deems that morality, including the essentials of good government, requires that these limitations shall not be observed, it is not only its right, but its duty to disregard them....AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.2

“Congress, we think, under Justice Bradley’s decision, would not feel itself obliged to consider at all the limitations [of the Constitution] in framing a law for the government of the Philippines. It would probably deny to the Tagal, for example, the right of assembling, the right to bear arms, the security against search and seizure, guaranteed by our own people.... Congress, in a word, would have a perfectly free hand in establishing a government for any of our new possessions, as free as the British Parliament possesses in legislating for the empire.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.3

And the Weekly says that this view of the question is already the one adopted by the present national Administration, inasmuch as “Secretary Root holds the view that the Constitution does not apply to the distant Territories;” and “he is now charged with the government of all the colonies except Hawaii and Alaska:” and that Senator Frye in a published interview “is reported also to have said that the Constitution does not apply.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.4

So much for the new position in regard to the abandonment of the Constitution by the Government, and the governing without the Constitution.AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.5

However, it is interesting to notice the curious reasoning, both of the Supreme Court and of Harper’s Weekly, by which this abandonment of the Constitution is accomplished and justified.AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.6

The Supreme Court says the Congress, so far as it is subject to the Constitution at all in legislating for the Territories, is subject only by inference from the general spirit of it, rather than because of any “direct application of its provisions,” and yet in the same breath says that it is the Constitution “from which Congress derives all its powers.” And that is simply to say that the instrument “from which Congress derives all its powers” may be disregarded by Congress in the exercise of certain of its powers! In other words, that the Constitution in bestowing upon Congress “all” the powers that Congress can have, has bestowed upon Congress the power to disregard the very instrument from which it derives all its powers!! A sheer absurdity.AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.7

The Weekly, in explaining this passage from the Supreme Court decision, and in deriving comfort from it, says that the limitations of the Constitution are “not binding” upon Congress “in law,” “but are binding in morals.” And then from this draws the remarkable conclusion that “Therefore, whenever Congress deems that morality requires that these limitations shall not be observed, it is not only its right, but its duty, to disregard them.” Which is simply to say that “morality” can require the disregard of that which is “binding in morals”! that “it would be duty to disregard” duty!! Another sheer absurdity.AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.8

By such reasoning as is displayed in these few examples, it is not in anywise surprising that men will perfectly satisfy themselves that the government in “the Colonies” can be conducted without the Constitution. And by the same sort of reasoning they can very easily satisfy themselves on occasion that government at home here in these United States can also be conducted without the Constitution.AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.9

In reviewing in these columns May 7, 1891, the Supreme Court decision quoted now by Harper’s Weekly, we said that it “at once creates [in these United States], a sovereign power [apart from the people] and clothing it with paternal authority. And if this doctrine should be maintained, so that it becomes a principal of American law, and shall become established as a principle of government here, then the revolution backwards is complete; government of the people is gone; and that of a sovereign parent of the people as put in its place. THEN the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence and of the Constitution is subverted and the doctrine of sovereignty, absolutism, and paternalism is established in its stead.” And this is now being fulfilled to the very letter, in very deed in the Government of the United States.AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.10

At the time of the delivery of that decision by the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, with Justices Field and Lamar concurring, in a dissenting opinion, uttering a warning to the same effect in the following words:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.11

“In my opinion Congress is restrained, not merely by the limitations expressed in the Constitution, but also by the absence of any grant of power expressed or implied in that instrument. And no such power as that involved in the act of Congress under consideration is conferred by the Constitution, nor is any clause pointed out as its legitimate source. I regard it of vital consequence, that absolute power should never be conceded as belonging under our system of government to any one of its departments. The legislative power of Congress is delegated and not inherent, and is therefore limited.... Nor is there hear any counterpart in Congressional power to the exercise of the ROYAL PREROGATIVE. [And such exercise is] in disregard of the fundamental principle that the legislative power of the United States is exercised by the agents of the people of the Republic is delegated and NOT inherent.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.12

These items suggest that which is susceptible of abundant proof, that this repudiation of the principles of the Declaration and the Constitution by this nation, is a thing of gradual growth and not of a sudden leap. It finds its life in the planting of principles years ago which by clear thinkers were observed and pointed out at the time. And not that the thing is done in open acts, it is also by these thinkers seen to be but the logical and inevitable result of the acceptance of the pernicious principles that were insinuated years ago.AMS January 18, 1900, page 36.13

A. T. J.

“America Called to ‘Rule the World’ and Set Up the ‘Empire of the Son of Man’” American Sentinel 15, 3, pp. 37-38.

ATJ

AT the last session of Congress, Senator Platt of Connecticut, speaking in reply to the idea that foreign conquest is forbidden to Americans by the Declaration of Independence, said that the true and just principle of government is that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of some of the governed.” And now, at the opening of the present Congress, Senator Beveridge of Indiana, speaking for and outlining the policy of the administration with reference to foreign conquests, states the same thing in another way, by the assertion that “The Declaration has no application to the present situation. It was written by self-governing men for self-governing men.” That is to say, “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the self-governed.” Not “all men are created equal,” but “all self-governing men are created equal.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 37.1

Let us suppose that this is what the Declaration of independence means, as this Indiana senator says it is. How would it have served the purpose of the American statesman of 1776?AMS January 18, 1900, page 37.2

The Declaration of Independence holds certain truths to be “self-evident,” which according to this new interpretation, are that “all self-governing men are created equal,” that this class of men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and that to preserve these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the self-governed.” Are the self-evident truths? If they are self-evident, they are evident to all nations on the earth; to all people who have enough intelligence to comprehend the meaning of the language used in stating them. And the people who are now being subjugated by the United States have abundantly proved that they fully comprehend the language of the Declaration of Independence. Is it then self-evident to them that they have not the same natural rights that other people have, and that government, as regards themselves, does not derive is just powers from their consent? To say that such “truths” are self-evident—that these are the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence—is manifest absurdity.AMS January 18, 1900, page 37.3

The doctrine that only self-governing people are created equal and have the same unalienable rights, is not only not a self-evident truth, but it is not true at all. It is clearly contrary to the Word of the Creator. For that Word makes no distinction between men, save as regards character. It plainly says the God is no respecter of persons. It makes the same requirements upon all. It says that the Son of God came to the earth and died for all—for the individual of black or brown skin and uncivilized manners, just as truly and as fully as for the individual of white skin and civilized ways. Deny that all men have equal rights by creation, and you destroy the equality upon which all men are placed by the law and the gospel of God. If all men have not equal rights by creation, then their Creator has shown Himself respecter persons, contrary to His Word.AMS January 18, 1900, page 37.4

And how, as before inquired, with this new interpretation of the Declaration of Independence have suited the circumstances of 1776? What effect would it have produced upon King George III. and the English parliament, to be told that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of some of the governed?” Could not King George have agreed to that without any change in his views? Could he not have replied to the rebellious colonists, “It is true enough that governments derive their just powers from the consent of some of the governed, but you have not shown that this ‘some’ must include yourselves. And as a matter of fact, it does not include you at all, but only House of Lords, the House of Commons, and the English nobility.” That is what King George could and would have replied to the Declaration of Independence if it had meant what members of Congress are now saying that it means. And what reply could the colonists have made? By the very admission that the consent of only “some” of the governed—of only the “self-governing” ones, the party in power—was necessary to just government, they would wholly have failed to prove the justice of their cause, and would have stood discredited before England and before the world.AMS January 18, 1900, page 37.5

Our forefathers of the Revolution put forth the Declaration of Independence in defense of a struggle for liberty. To-day, it is quoted in defense of a fight for conquest, and with this new situation there is evidently demanded a new and vastly different interpretation of its language.AMS January 18, 1900, page 37.6

Senator Beveridge has been to the Philippines, and reports that he has “cruised more than two thousand miles through the archipelago,” and “ridden hundreds of miles on the islands.” He went for the express purpose of making an investigation, upon which he could report before Congress, as he has not done. He therefore speaks as an authority on the subject, and is accepted as such by Congress and the Administration. The question of subjugating the islands is not to be decided by Congress, and this senator is come forward as the authoritative spokesman of the party upholding the policy of foreign conquest that has been begun. It is worth while therefore to note the attitude of this party as indicated by this speech.AMS January 18, 1900, page 37.7

The question before the American people is one of justice. The Declaration of Independence was an appeal to justice. The American Constitution was designed as the embodiment of the principles of justice in government. By these principles the nation has professed to have been hitherto guided. The question of the justice of foreign conquests, therefore, is the primary question involved, if it is to be even pretended that former American principles have not been completely abandoned.AMS January 18, 1900, page 37.8

Turning therefore to the speech of Senator Beveridge in justification of the Government’s present attitude in this matter, what do we find? Hardly have we begun its perusal before we come to these words:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.1

“Just beyond the Philippines are China’s illimitable markets.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.2

What is the nation going to do with China’s “illimitable markets?” We know what England did—she found China only a good market for opium and she was obliged to force the Chinese to buy that. The Chinese people are very poor. Will this nation force another Chinese market?AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.3

Continuing, we read such statements as the following:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.4

“Our largest trade henceforth must be with Asia. The Pacific is our ocean.” “Where shall we turn for consumers of our surplus?” “The Philippines give us a base at the door of all the East.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.5

And here is one that deserves special emphasis:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.6

“The power that rules the Pacific, therefore, is the power that rules the world. And with the Philippines, that power is and will forever be the American Republic!”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.7

The Republic started out not only to be a “world power,” but actually to rule the world!AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.8

We read further:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.9

“China’s trade is the mightiest commercial fact in our future. Her foreign commerce was $285,738,300 in 1897, of which we, her neighbor, had less than 15 per cent... We ought to have 50 per cent. and we will.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.10

That will leave Russia, France, England, Germany, and other nations to divide up the remaining 50 per cent., a scheme in which it is supposed they will readily acquiesce, to the great gain of the world’s peace!AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.11

But, aside from all this, we read, the nation ought to take and hold the Philippines, because they are very valuable in themselves. “The wood of the Philippines can supply the furniture of the world for a century to come. At Cebu, the Rev. Father Segrera told me that forty miles of Cebu’s mountain chain are practically mountains of coal.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.12

The most remarkable mountain chain in the world, this must be. But that is not all:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.13

“I have a nugget of pure gold picked up on the banks of a Philippine creek. I have gold dust washed out by crude processes of careless natives from the sands of a Philippine stream. Both indicate great deposits at the source from which they come.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.14

There is gold in the islands!AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.15

And the climate also is something wonderful, for it “is the best topic climate in the world.” We will not try to adjust this conclusion with what we have heard about the rainy seasons.AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.16

The speaker does not forget to state that the Filipinos are not capable of self-government. “It is barely possible that one thousand men in all the archipelago are capable of self-government in the Anglo-Saxon sense. My own belief is that there is not one hundred men among them who comprehend what Anglo-Saxon self-government even means.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.17

There is something mysterious about Anglo-Saxon self-government, as seen to-day, even to ordinary people in America.AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.18

The people of the Philippines “are not capable of self-government. How could they be? They are not of a self-governing race. “They are as a people, dull and stupid,” and “incurably indolent.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.19

We have heard of white people in America who were dull, stupid, and indolent, but we have never heard that for this reason they ought to be deprived of the right to vote.AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.20

In the following words there is forecast a long period of military rule, if not a permanent one, in the new territory:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.21

“The men we sent to administer civilized government in the Philippines must be themselves the highest examples of our civilization.” “They must be as incorruptible as honor, as stainless as purity, men whom no force can frighten, no influence coerce, no money buy.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.22

And if such men cannot be had for this distant territory, then “Better pure military occupation for years, than government by any other quality of administration.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.23

In conclusion, we quote from this speech some statements which contribute especially to its significance. Note this:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.24

“If this be imperialism, its final end will be the empire of the Son of Man.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.25

And that it is imperialism, and meant to be such, is plainly admitted:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.26

“Pray God the time may never come when mammon and the love of the ease shall so debase our blood that we will fear to shed it for the flag and its imperial destiny.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.27

And this imperialism is to end in setting up the “empire of the Son of Man!” That was the way Constantine’s imperialism was to end, and Charlemagne’s. And there are other statements to the same effect:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.28

“Quick upon the stroke of that great honor [the end of the century] presses upon us our world opportunity, world duty, and world glory,” and “Blind indeed is he who sees not the hand of God in events so vast, so harmonious, so benign.” “And so, senators, with reverent hearts, where dwells the fear of God, the American people move forward to the future of their hope in the doing of His will.” (Italics ours.)AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.29

The scheme of foreign conquest into which the nation has gone is now before us in full outline, showing its salient and characterizing features. The nation must taken hold the Philippines because they are valuable. They will give us wealth in Asiatic trade and territory, and they contain valuable wood, gold mines, and other treasures. In a word, we must have all this because it means riches to us. This is the consideration urged upon the American people; and in what way does it differ from the consideration which moves to any act of robbery, from seizing territory down to robbing a bank or plundering a house?AMS January 18, 1900, page 38.30

And the nation is thus to become a world power; and not only that, but it is actually to rule the world. And this is the will of God, and is to result in setting up the kingdom of the Son of Man!AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.1

It is a project which appeals to all classes of people, save those who hold the that all beings created in the image of God are endowed with sacred rights. The wealth to be gained appeals to the avaricious. The “world opportunity,” “world glory,” and world rule appeals to the ambitious; and the “call of God” to go forward and set up the “empire of the Son of man,” appeals to the religious. All these can unite in giving it enthusiastic support; and all present indications affirm that this will actually be done.AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.2

All who can now say that this Republic has not now reach the greatest crisis in its history?AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.3

“In the Light of History” American Sentinel 15, 3, pp. 39, 40.

ATJ

IT is never safe to view current events and determine the character of a movement they represent, without the light that can be thrown upon them from history. “History repeats itself,” and “the things written aforetime, were written for our instruction and admonition.” To ignore the lessons of history is to invite the companionship of error and disaster.AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.1

The following passages from the history of the American Revolution, by Sir George Trevelyan, an English writer, are suggestive of the way in which history is repeating itself to-day. They present a parallel between what was then the cause of patriotism, and what is now declared to be only dishonor and treason:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.2

“The drop scene of the impending American drama as presented to British eyes, was a picture of the New England character daubed in colors which resembled the originals as little as they matched each other. The men of Massachusetts were sly and turbulent, puritans and scoundrels; pugnacious ruffians and arrant cowards. This was the constant theme of the newspapers and the favorite topic with those officers of the army of occupation whose letters had gone the rounds of clubs and country houses. The archives of the Secretary of State were full of trite calumnies and foolish prophecies. Bostonians, so Lord Dartmouth was informed, were not only the worst of subjects but the most immoral of men.... If they could maintain the state of independence they would be at war among themselves. (Italics ours.)AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.3

And the following expresses the views of the Tory refugees after the evacuation of Boston:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.4

“In their view congressmen in committeemen were a set of rascals, who only sought to feather their own nest and not to serve their country. According to the theory in the circles Otis started the agitation, which started everything, because his father missed a judgeship. Joseph Warren was a broken man who sought to mend his fortunes by upsetting those of others. John Hancock, too rich to want a place, suffer from wounded vanity, because compelled to walk behind his betters in the order of precedence. Richard Henry Lee had been balked of an appointment as distributor of stamps under the Act which then, and only then, he came forward to denounce. John Adams turned rebel because he was refused a commission of the peace, and Washington never forgive the British war office for having treated him with the neglect which was the natural portion of provincial military officers.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.5

Then there was much in appearance at that time to justify these views. The United States was then far from being this strong, compact Government which the world beholds to-day. Events were constantly happening which were suggestive of anarchy and approaching political dissolution. Life and property were nowhere safe under the law. Congress moved about from place to place to avoid the invasions of British troops, and if there were enemies of the patriot cause who were pleased to scoff at the American “portable government,” they dad facts upon which to base their ridicule. Even after victory had crowned the American arms, Congress, though nominally a body of 91 members, was rarely attended by a third of that number. “It degenerated to a mere debating club; was menaced by mutinous, unpaid troops, and forced to wander from town to town to find an abiding place. It possessed no national weight would ever.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.6

Those who had confidently asserted that the colonies, independent, would be at war among themselves—just as confidently as the like assertion is made with reference to another people to-day—soon found much to justify their prediction. Another authority says:—AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.7

“The various States, as soon as peace was made with England, were involved at once in territorial disputes, the most serious of which occurred between Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Both claimed the valley of the Wyoming, but the majority of the settlers were from Connecticut. The award was finally made to Pennsylvania, and no further trouble was apprehended. During the winter of 1784 snow was deep and remained well into spring; went off rapidly and flooded the smiling, fertile valley of the Wyoming, burying the farms under a blanket of pebbles and sand. The people were starving. President Dickenson urged the legislature to send prompt relief; but, incredible as it may seem, it refused to help the accursed Yankees; they deserved all they got for settling on Pennsylvania territory. ‘The flood was the hand of God punishing trespassers!’ A scheme was launched to drive out the starving settlers and apportion their lands among a clique of speculators, so instead of food and raiment being given, a company of militia was sent ostensibly to preserve and restore order. That body stole what it could find, insulted women and beat defenseless men. When the settlers resented such action the cry went up: ‘The troops are being resisted!’ Then Patterson, the militia captain, said dispatches to Dickinson accusing the farmers of sedition, and forthwith attacked the settlement, turned about 500 men, tender women and delicate children out of doors and set fire to their homes! They were driven in the wilderness at the bayonet’s point and told to find their way back to Connecticut: Many died from hunger and exhaustion. Of course this was going further than the Pennsylvania government desired; all Connecticut sprang to arms, and civil war was only averted by a meeting of the Pennsylvania censors who made tardy reparation to the despoiled settlers.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 39.8

“Consider that this was nearly three years after the surrender of Yorktown, which virtually ended the Revolutionary war. It seemed to Europe when this affair, other boundary disputes not so serious, and the commercial war which New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts were waging against each other, came to its notice that anarchy must surely come. Public opinion in England thought that what English arms had failed to do would be accomplished by the internecine strife of the colonies, and they would return one by one to their old allegiance.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 40.1

And yet all this represented the sacred cause of liberty and justice to human rights. Out of all this spring order, peace, and the freest and best government on the face of the earth. The colonists were right and their detractors were wrong. The cause of self-government was just, and that of foreign rule unjust. And the cause of self-government is no less just to-day.AMS January 18, 1900, page 40.2

“Back Page” American Sentinel 15, 3, p. 48.

ATJ

THERE are three discoveries which are usually involved in the process of absorbing new territory into the domain of a powerful nation. First—always first—the discovery is made that the new territory is very valuable. Next it is discovered that the stronger power owes a duty to the weaker power to educate it in the ways of right living, in the meantime taking charge of its affairs and the custody of its possessions. And third, it is seen that the hand of God is in it pointing the way to destiny, and that the extension of sovereignty can be carried out as a really pious undertaking. And this third stage in the process appears to have been reached by the United States, for we hear the nation being called upon by its statesmen to go forward and take forcible possession of the riches of the Orient, “with reverent hearts” and “in the fear of God.” A happy combination indeed of “duty” and pleasure!AMS January 18, 1900, page 48.1

A MEMBER of the “United Christian Party” has sent us a copy of the “Declaration of Principles” of that organization, and informs us that “We do not seek to unite church and state, but we seek to unite professed Christian voters to work and vote for righteous principles.”AMS January 18, 1900, page 48.2

We do not doubt that this party is not working to secure his conception of a union of church and state, and therefore do not question his honesty in making this statement. His conception of church-and-state union is held by very many honest and good people, but it is a narrow one. He would have all “professed Christian voters,” unite to put in political office men who will enforce “righteous principles” in government. And it is certain that religious “righteous principles” are intended, because the call is to “Christian” voters.AMS January 18, 1900, page 48.3

This simply means, therefore, its enforcement of religious beliefs and institutions through politics, or the union of religion with the state. It can have no practical significance other than this. But this is just what is done under a union of church and state.AMS January 18, 1900, page 48.4

Of course, this would not mean that the state would side with one popular church against another popular church, as these people think would be necessary to constitute a union of church and state. They have in mind the well-known churches of the land, and a union of church and state means, to them, a union of the state with some one of these, to the exclusion of the others. But this, even if it could be done, would be but a mild form of church-and-state union, for the reason that the other popular churches would be too powerful to be treated with disrespect. They would be able to enforce their rights, and would of course do so. An illustration of this is seen in England to-day. The “Church of England” is the established church; it is joined with and supported by the state. But the Nonconformists are as large a body as the state church; and the result is they are treated with respect and no serious infringement of their rights is attempted.AMS January 18, 1900, page 48.5

It is where one church is powerful, and another weak and unpopular, that church-and-state union is seen in its malignant form. It is then that the dissenting body is despised and treated with contempt, and the rights of its members trampled upon and accorded no serious consideration. This is the way it has always been in history, and this world will never become so good that history will not repeat self in this respect. It should be remembered that the worst evils of church-and-state union were seen under the long reign of the papacy, when only one “Christian” church was known and recognized in the world. It was then that persecution raged most fiercely against a small, weak, and popular, despised bodies of true Christians.AMS January 18, 1900, page 48.6

January 11, 1900

January 25, 1900