The American Sentinel 15
February 8, 1900
“Front Page” American Sentinel 15, 6, p. 81.
NOTHING that is spiritual in its nature can be preserved by a carnal ordinance or commandment. AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.1
WHEN men lose sight of principles in a controversy, it is lowered to the level of personal strife; but the contest for liberty and justice can never be settled by such means. AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.2
GOD offers the Sabbath rest to all; and the person who will not take the Sabbath when it is offered to him by the Lord, will not really take it when it is accorded him by the “Christian public.” If he will not accept it from the law of God, he cannot accept it from the law of man. The acceptance or refusal of the Sabbath, by any individual, must be to God and not to man. AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.3
IF the Sabbath could be lost through failure of the law to enforce its observance, or by the general disregard of the people, would not the seventh-day Sabbath have been lost long ago? Yet it has not been lost; and the fact that it has survived without the support of either law or popular custom, is evidence that the Sabbath is not so perishable in its nature as some men loudly assert. AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.4
IF the first-day Sabbath is as good as the seventh-day Sabbath, it, like the latter, will survive without the aid of Sabbath laws and in spite of the disregard of world-loving people. And if it is not as good as the seventh-day institution, then plainly the latter ought to be adopted in its stead. AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.5
ONE man has the same right to “protection” in the observance of the Sabbath that another man has; the observer of the seventh day has a right to the same protection that is accorded the observer of the first day. And the first-day observer has no right to more “protection” in the observance of the Sabbath than can be justly claimed by the seventh-day observer. AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.6
THE Christian Church is in the world not to save institutions, but to save men. Christian institutions do not need saving; and if the church will devote her energies to the salvation of sinful men and women, the institutions will take care of themselves. Christian institutions do not benefit unsaved people; for only those who are Christians can appreciate them and make that use of them which their Author designed. AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.7
“Those Consecrated Fallacies” American Sentinel 15, 6, pp. 81, 82.
IN the North American Review of December, 1899, there was published an article, entitled, “Some Consecrated Fallacies.” It is exceedingly interesting to note what are these particular “Consecrated Fallacies.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.1
However, in order to a clear understanding of the subject, it will be well to set down first, just what is a fallacy. The Century Dictionary defines it thus:— AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.2
“FALLACY: Deceptiveness; deception; deceit; deceitfulness; that which is erroneous, false, or deceptive; that which misleads; mistake.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.3
What then are these “deceptive,” “deceitful,” “erroneous,” “false,” “misleading,” and “mistaken” things that have been “consecrated;” and that so need to be exploded as to demand the publication of an article in the leading Review of the Western continent? Read:— AMS February 8, 1900, page 81.4
“The framers of the Declaration of Independence were inspired by an ardent patriotism and by lofty motives, and their statements embodied in sufficient justification of the cause to which they sought to devote their countrymen; but there was no revelation of universal and eternal truth in the ‘glittering generalities’ with which they prefaced these statements. On the contrary, they consecrated to perpetuity some of the most obvious fallacies that were ever promulgated to mislead men.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.1
These “consecrated fallacies” then are to be found in the preface to the statements in which the framers of the Declaration embodied the justification of their cause. This confines the “consecrated fallacies” then to that part of the Declaration in which the framers set forth what they designated as “truths,” and which they declared to be “self-evident.” And that is just where this reviewer finds them; and here he goes:— AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.2
“They proclaimed it to be a self-evident truth ‘that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’” AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.3
And he proceeds to explode these “consecrated fallacies” one by one in the following sort:— AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.4
“Whatever interpretation and exegesis may do for this declaration, in the sense in which it is commonly accepted and used in the place of argument it is neither self-evident nor truth.... Nor can any power at the command of mankind make them equal in this world or in the processes of time, whatever may be their destiny in eternity.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.5
“It is useless to argue around this immutable fact, or try to interpret into the Declaration a meaning which it does not contain. All men are simply not created equal in any possible sense of the word.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.6
So much for the “consecrated fallacies”—the deceitful, erroneous, misleading statement—that all men are created equal. And, of course, since that statement is not true “in any possible sense of the word,” it follows naturally enough that nobody has any rights at all. And so he writes:— AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.7
“Nor, in any strict sense of the word, can all men, or any men, be said to be endowed by their Creator with any rights whatever.... They [rights] are not the natural endowment, though they may be the far-off heritage, of all men.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.8
And all this being so, it would be simply impossible that governments should derive anything from the consent of the governed; and so, logically enough, this is another of those deceitful, erroneous, misleading statements—another of those “Consecrated Fallacies.” Accordingly of this he writes:— AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.9
“Do they arrive their just powers from the consent of the governed? Let us not be blinded by the glitter of a generality, the meaning of which is not clearly defined.... AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.10
“In the situation of the country as it then was, when the alternative of oppression or independence continuing them, believing the people of the colonies to be the equals of those of the mother country, and equally entitled to a voice in the government to which they were subject, they prefaced their Declaration with that ... ing and glowing utterance, which had a broad application as truth to their case; but which becomes a deceptive bundle of fallacies when promiscuously applied to the universal state of man, and which has taken the Declaration of 1776 as giving it an ‘equal date with ... and with Ararat.’” AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.11
As might very naturally be expected, all this representation of fundamental republican, and even Christian and therefore divine, principle, is so laboriously worked out solely to justify this nation in the course which has been taken with the people in Cuba, and the new island possessions. But at what an enormous cost and justification is found, when it can be only by ... means! AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.12
We have spoken of it as the repudiation of Christian and therefore divine, principle, as well as repudiation of fundamental republican principle; and this is the truth. For is it not the statement of divine truth that “there is no respect of persons with God?” Is it not written, “If I did despise the cause of my manservant, or my maidservant, when they contended with me, what then shall I do when God riseth up? and when he visited, what shall I answer him? Did not he that made me in the womb, make him?” Is it not written from God, “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve?” AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.13
Yet this writer in the North American Review, will consistently disregard all these divine statements and considerations; because he does not believe that any have been created at all: they have been evolved. Here are his words:— AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.14
“All men are simply not created equal in any possible sense of the word.... The creation of men has been a gradual process of evolution, and they have been coming into being in different parts of the earth, through long generations, with differences and inequalities which development has varied and widened and not obliterated.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.15
And thus by National Reformism on the one hand, and evolutionism on the other, Satan has so thoroughly paved the way for the oppression of mankind, that nothing else is now thought of, no other principle is now recognized by those in places of worldly power and influence. AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.16
It is high time to say to all people everywhere, “Behold your God.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 82.17
A. T. J.
“The Philippine Question in the Light of Mexican History” American Sentinel 15, 6, pp. 83, 84.
MEXICO and the Philippine Islands, more especially Luzon, were once both Spanish provinces, and were ruled—as all Spanish provinces were—by the Catholic Church. Out of this similarity in point of government arose conditions from which an interesting and instructive parallel may be drawn; and such a parallel has been drawn by a writer in The Ram’s Horn, of January 27. And that writer if John Sobieski, the Crown Prince, by birth, of the kingdom of Poland. Of his credibility as an authority upon the subject with which he deals, The Ram’s Horn says:— AMS February 8, 1900, page 83.1
“After an honorable career as a young soldier, he went to Mexico chiefly to investigate the popular uprising which culminated first in the conquest of that country by the army of Maximilian, and later in the overthrow of that usurper. Although Sobieski was, at that time, as he had always been, a devout Catholic, he found his mother church to be the parent of every conceivable outrage against the liberty of Mexico, and he gladly took up the fight in behalf of that oppressed people. This experience qualifies him to speak with authority on the subject which he discusses; and the parallel he draws between the course of events in Mexico in the 60’s and those in the Philippines in the 90’s, will be found no less mournful than striking.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 83.2
“At the close of our [the American] Civil War,” Mr. Sobieski begins, “I had determined to go to Mexico to fight in behalf of the republic against the so-called Emperor Maximilian. There was a great deal of sympathy at that time for Mexico, as it will be remembered our Government had never acknowledged the empire, nor received its minister, but had retained Romero, the last minister appointed by the republic. AMS February 8, 1900, page 83.3
“Not knowing Romero personally, I went to General Hancock, then the commander of the District of Columbia, to seek, through him, an interview with the Mexican minister. I was very well acquainted with General Hancock, having served with him on the plains before the war. So I went to him and told him my desire, and asked him for a letter of introduction, which he gladly granted, writing a high commendation. I easily secured an interview with the minister, who seemed to be great pleased at my enthusiasm, and our interview was quite lengthy. From him I received the whole history which led up to the invasion of Mexico by the combined forces of France and Spain. And the story I now give was afterwards repeated by President Juarez in an interview which he had with some American, English, and German officers who had served the cause of Mexico in the overthrow of Maximilian.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 83.4
We give a condensed statement, following, of the facts narrated by Mr. Sobieski regarding conditions in Mexico and their causes during the period of which he writes. AMS February 8, 1900, page 83.5
“The Liberal Party in Mexico had come into power upon the issue of confiscating the church property.” The church had come into possession of two thirds of all Mexican real estate. The church was monarchical in her principles and was continually conspiring against the Mexican republic, causing thereby numerous revolutions. AMS February 8, 1900, page 83.6
Upon the triumph of the Liberal Party at the ballot box, the church party appealed to arms, but were as badly beaten as they had been at the polls. Their leading generals, Marion and Majir, fled from Mexico and took refuge in Europe. The Liberal Party then confixcated the entire church property in Mexico, permitting the church, however, the use of church buildings for worship. AMS February 8, 1900, page 83.7
Generals Marion and Majir proceeded to Rome and had an interview with the pope, Pius IX., and it was determined to make an appeal to the Catholic powers of Europe, to re-establish the church in Mexico. Spain was willing, but was weak. Napoleon III., emperor of France, was able, but at first not willing. But he was ambitious. So the Mexican church generals arranged an interview with the pope’s representative at Paris and the empress Eugenie, and at this council it was decided to urge upon the Emperor Napoleon, as a grand idea, that he establish in Mexico an empire which should serve as a breakwater against republican ideas which were constantly flowing out from the great Republic of the Western World. Archduke Maximilian, of Austria, was to be made emperor, and the two great Catholic empires of Europe were by this lofty project to be united against the rising Protestant powers of Europe, England, and Germany. AMS February 8, 1900, page 83.8
The scheme pleased Napoleon III., who was to have the honor of founding the new Latin empire, and he heartily joined in the undertaking. The support of Spain was secured by the promise of restoration of the confiscated church property. AMS February 8, 1900, page 83.9
Next a pretext was found for making war upon Mexico. That country was heavily in debt to French, Spanish, and English subjects, and being unable upon demand to satisfy these creditors, France declared war, and sent an army and fleet to Vera Cruz. This city was bombarded and captured. The French army marched upon the capital, and after a campaign of several months, the republic was apparently conquered. The church party assembled a congress and declared their desire that Maximilian should be emperor of Mexico. The latter replied that he “believed he had been called of God for the post,” and with his wife set out for his new seat of authority. Proceeding to Rome they received instructions from the pope, and the papal blessing; thence they went to Vera Cruz, where the church party and the French soldiers received them with great demonstrations of honor. The new emperor soon found that the republic was not extinguished, as he had supposed. AMS February 8, 1900, page 83.10
A few months later, the United States, having suppressed the southern confederacy, demanded of France the withdrawal of her troops from Mexico, and France was forced to comply. Maximilian’s power at once began to decline. His troops were defeated in the field and in May, 1867, he was taken prisoner and shortly afterwards put to death. AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.1
Since that time several efforts have been made by the church party to recover from this overthrow, but all have miserably failed; and Mexico meanwhile has been advancing steadily in the pathway of national progress and prosperity. AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.2
THE PARALLEL
The parallel between the conditions which gave rise to the struggle for freedom in Mexico, and the conditions from which the Filipinos have been long struggling to be free—but have finally failed—we give in Mr. Sobieski’s own words:— AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.3
“The condition in Mexico in 1858, has its parallel of condition of things in the Philippine Islands, especially in the island of Luzon. The Catholic Church, or more properly speaking, the priesthood and friars, have acquired from two-thirds to three-fourths of all the valuable real estate of the island. It is well remembered as it has been stated by every writer and by General Merritt, of the United States Army, that the rebellion in the Philippine islands against Spain was more a rebellion against the monks and clergy than against the sovereignty of Spain. Indeed, the people of that island did not know much about the government of Spain. The church ruled it; they levied their taxes upon the people of that island and collected them, and it formed more than 80 per cent. of the taxes which that people had to pay. Then, in addition to this, being simply renters, they merely eked out an existence, and that was all, and could not have done that had it not been that it was a tropical climate where so little was required on which to subsist. AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.4
“The great aim of their uprising was to accomplish what had been accomplished in Mexico; to confiscate the real estate and turn it over to the government that would pass it out to the people. That property had not been acquired by the monks by purchase, but by confiscation. Whenever a man had a desirable plantation, they would trump up some charge against him, have him arrested, and, without investigation, shot; and the property was turned over to the monks. It was in this way, principally, that they had acquired their possessions. AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.5
“When the commissioners met at Paris, to make peace between this country and Spain, it will be remembered that the Philippine government, of which Aguinaldo was the head, appointed a commissioner to appear before that body and state their grievances, but the commissioners refused to listen to them, or in any way receive him. AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.6
“About this time, Archbishop Ireland, as the daily press informs us, had an interview with President McKinley, and it was there agreed that the property rights of the church or monks, should not be interfered with. Accordingly, a clause was put into the treaty that all the property rights that existed under Spain would be accordingly respected by the American Government. So the people of the Philippine Islands found that practically everything they had fought for against Spain would be lost if the America Government’s supremacy was maintained. So to them it was only a question of slavery or death, and they preferred the latter. AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.7
“So this Government, by the treaty at Paris, put themselves in the same position that the Catholic Church party of Mexico occupied in 1858, and for which the Catholic powers invaded Mexico in 1861.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.8
“A Question of ‘Simple Justice’” American Sentinel 15, 6, pp. 84, 85.
The Independent, which has all along supported the present national policy of foreign conquest, now—in view of certain developments in Congress—raises the significant inquiry, “Shall simple justice be done to Porto Rico?” “Congress,” it says, “is asked, by papers and persons of influence, to say to the Porto Ricans, in effect:— AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.1
‘The blessings which we enjoy as a nation are not for you; they are peculiar to us. United States laws and liberties and privileges are solely for the people of the United States, and when we say ‘United States’ we mean continental United States. We dare not extend the Constitution and laws of this definitely founded Continental area over any neighboring territory which is not contiguous and geographically a part of the solid earth of States and Territories. We must not cross a sea, however narrow, with our sacred Constitution and laws. They will not bear transportation. We may not carry them to Alaska or Hawaii. We dread the effect of the intervening sea upon them. We are tied to the mainland. If Manitoba were offered now, we would even be afraid to the great lakes. We must be careful, very careful, because what we do in Porto Rico will be a precedent for Hawaii, and worse still for the Philippines.’” AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.2
“What,” The Independent proceeds to inquired, “is the specter which these fearful souls see and shudder over as they look across the West India ferry, and the Alaskan and Hawaiian? Statehood, they say. When they come down to the ocean and see the islands marshaling as Territories for the peaceful honors of Statehood, they are choked with spasms of a sort of hydrophobia. The sight of the water is too much for them, and they turn to Congress and say: ‘This is a terrible thing. Don’t make a dangerous precedent! Don’t let in little Porto Rico, except in chains! The nation may go mad. Don’t say ‘Territory’ to the Porto Ricans. They may call back, ‘State.’ Don’t give them our Constitution and laws, as such, but say, ‘These laws are for you, especially, as a province or dependency, or colony. They are not given to you as United States laws, but as Porto Rican laws. Take them and be happy, if you can; but don’t expect anything like equality, for that can never be.’” AMS February 8, 1900, page 84.3
This is certainly a strange manifestation to come at this date from The Independent, or from any source from which the foreign-conquest policy has derived support. The Independent looked over and approved the tree, and now holds up its hands almost in horror at the fruit it is beginning to bear. There was plenty of opportunity to discover at the first, from an inspection of the tree, just what would be its fruit. AMS February 8, 1900, page 85.1
Right at the outset of the application of the “expansion” policy to the government of the new territory, it becomes necessary for a leading advocate of that policy to raise the question whether “simple justice” shall be done to the people of a part of that territory. This, from the standpoint it has occupied, is a very damaging admission. AMS February 8, 1900, page 85.2
What is the prospective injustice which The Independent fears? For one thing, the answer is, Porto Rico is not to be allowed free trade with the United States. Some of the trusts in the United States are against it, and these representatives of the money power are instructing Congress how it must act in the matter. For example, “There are senators and representatives whose constituents raise tobacco and sugar, and they argue that if more tobacco and sugar are raised within the bounds of the United States, the crops will be less remunerative to them.” It is now beginning to be discovered by the advocates of foreign conquest, that expansion across the sea is a different thing from the expansion of Jefferson’s day, which they have persistently sought to use as a precedent. AMS February 8, 1900, page 85.3
“If Porto Rico is covered by the Constitution,” says The Independent, “our ports and its ports will be as open to each other as the slips on either side of the Hudson River are to the ferryboats that connect New York with Jersey City.” But it is proposed that a tariff barrier shall be erected between the ports of Porto Rico and those of the United States, contrary to the Constitution. So many holes have now been made in the Constitution that it has ceased to be a very efficient cover for anything. And so “simple justice” to this people under the Constitution is denied. AMS February 8, 1900, page 85.4
The Independent proceeds to say that “If the United States cannot restore to Porto Ricans what it took from them, or give them an equivalent, it were better to turn them over to the tenderer mercies of some other nation. It is a monstrous thought that we, so boastful of our free and generous spirit, should even contemplate such a tariff as Senator Platt proposes. It would be a cruelty such as Spain, selfish and oppressive as she is, never committed. We are in a fair way, if Senator Platt and some of his colleagues (we trust there are not many of them) have their will, to crush aspirations which Spain did not wholly discourage.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 85.5
Then The Independent proceeds to notice the President’s plan for the government of the island, as being “by no means a liberal one,” and declares that it contrast unfavorably with the old plan of Spain. And in all this The Independent is not alone, but voices the sentiments of other journals which have been and are yet ardent advocates of the new expansion doctrine of government by consent of some of the governed. AMS February 8, 1900, page 85.6
The situation is worth contemplating. Porto Rico is the very nearest of the captured islands which the Government has announced its intention of holding. And it was acquired with the least trouble. The people instantly submitted to American rule; they have been friendly and have caused no trouble. They are fairly intelligent. There was therefore every reason to expect that the United States would do the best by Porto Rico that it would do for any of its new island possessions. And yet, at the very outset of the practical application of its “benevolent” designs, it is so apparent that the Porto Ricans will not get even “simple justice,” that journals which have all along supported the nation’s policy are now forced to cry out against what they see taking place under it, and denounce the proposed rule as being worse than that of Spain. AMS February 8, 1900, page 85.7
Such are the firstfruits of American imperialism, as seen under the most favoring conditions. What, then, must be its final fruits? AMS February 8, 1900, page 85.8
And now that The Independent and other prominent journals see that the budding fruit of the tree is evil, will they be convinced that the tree itself is evil? or will they think that somehow a good tree can bear evil fruit? Will they go to the root of the matter, and renounce the evil principles from which such practises are beginning to result? AMS February 8, 1900, page 85.9
The Independent’s query can be answered: No; Porto Rico will not get “simple justice” under the Constitution, and that for the simple reason that “simple justice” under the Constitution was denied to its people when their territory was forcibly annexed to the United States. The initial step in the matter was contrary to “simple justice,” and succeeding steps that are taken can only be expected to be of the same kind. AMS February 8, 1900, page 85.10
“Back Page” American Sentinel 15, 6, p. 96.
IF the minority of people who observe the seventh day do not need to be protected in their Sabbath observance, why is it necessary to protect the majority who observe the first day? AMS February 8, 1900, page 96.1
THE Sabbath is declared in Scripture to be a “sign” between God and his chosen people, given that they may know that it is the Lord God who sanctifies them. Ezekiel 20:12, 20. This being so, what business has a State legislature, or other body of men, to attempt to place this sign upon unsanctified people, by enacting and enforcing Sabbath laws? AMS February 8, 1900, page 96.2
THE law of Christ cannot be applied to civil governments, because the law of Christ is not force; that is, it is not and cannot be turned into, civil force. The law of Christ is the law of love; and a civil government knows nothing about love. Civil government stands for justice, and justice neither loves nor hates. The law of Christ was made—so far as this world is concerned—for human beings only. AMS February 8, 1900, page 96.3
WHAT can be more natural than for a “Christian nation” to believe itself commissioned by the Author of Christianity to do missionary work? since all Christians are naturally missionaries. And as a nation must make its authority respected wherever it goes, and to do this must employ an army and navy, it follows very naturally that the army and navy come into use as missionary agencies, and bullets and shells are deemed essential in fulfilling a commission from the Lord. The “Christian nation” idea is the starting point, and the slaughter of human beings created in the image of God, is the termination. And it is all logical enough, if that idea is correct. But is it correct? AMS February 8, 1900, page 96.4
IN Washington’s and Jefferson’s day, it was asserted that “all men are created equal,” and “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;” and these statements were put forth as self-evident truths. But now such journals as the North American Review come forward and declare that these same statements are among the “most obvious fallacies.” How times have changed! AMS February 8, 1900, page 96.5
LET men behave themselves as individuals, and the government will behave itself, without any attempt to make it conform to a moral law. But let men misbehave as individuals, and the government which they administer will misbehave itself, in spite of any and all moral laws to which it may profess to conform. The righteousness of a nation is not a governmental, but an individual, matter. AMS February 8, 1900, page 96.6
IT is a curious idea which some people have, who want to see society reformed by law, that a law of the State, or of the United States, can make unchristian people “respect Christians and the day set apart for their observance.” As anybody must know, people who are not Christians do not see any use in Christian doctrines and institutions; and many of this class are outspoken opposers of Christianity, believing its doctrines and practises to be founded upon error and productive of harm to mankind. They have no respect for them whatever. And yet the professors of Christianity propose to compel these people by law to observe a (professedly) Christian institution—Sunday—in order to secure their respect for it and for Christian people! What can the result be but to intensify their disrespect and dislike, and to strengthen the barrier between them and Christianity? People can come to God only by being drawn, but laws do not draw people; they confine them. The Lord draws people to himself by “cords of love;” but some modern reformers intend to drive people to him by the lash of legal force and penalties. The more they drive the people, the further will both they and the people get from the Lord. AMS February 8, 1900, page 96.7
NOTICE how, as brought out in the article “Those Consecrated Fallacies,” on another page, the idea that men have come upon the earth by evolution goes hand in hand with the idea that men were never endowed with any rights, and therefore that it is nonsense to say that the purpose of civil governments among men is to preserve their “unalienable rights.” The doctrine of the Declaration of Independence was enunciated from the standpoint of Christianity, and from that standpoint it still holds good. The doctrines of atheism well serve the purposes of despotism. AMS February 8, 1900, page 96.8
“DO WE need more holidays?” inquires a writer in the Philadelphia Saturday Evening Post, in view of the fact that a bill is before Congress for making two new holidays, one in February and one in April. Then he proceeds to note that there are already twenty-nine holidays in the year, besides fifty-two Sundays and the Saturday half-holidays; and his conclusion is that while he would like to “crowd the calendar with them,” it would “be well not to rush toward the conditions that exist in Russia and some other countries, where there are so many holidays that people who want to work have scarcely time or opportunity to get up in the world.” AMS February 8, 1900, page 96.9
We should say so! Let a country crowd its calendar full of holidays, and it will speedily approximate to the condition of lands that have long been dominated by the papacy. People in this age of the world need plenty of time to work, both to enable them to prosper in business and to keep them out of mischief. The country has too many holidays already. AMS February 8, 1900, page 96.10