The American Sentinel 14


January 12, 1899

“Front Page” American Sentinel 14, 2, p. 17.


THERE are no safe deposit vaults for individual rights. AMS January 12, 1899, page 17.1

THE true foundation of a government is not its laws, but the character of its people. AMS January 12, 1899, page 17.2

THE hardest and most hopeless task ever undertaken by man is that of effecting a moral compromise with God. AMS January 12, 1899, page 17.3

GOOD law is the result, not the cause, of right public sentiment. It can never be the starting-point in true reform. AMS January 12, 1899, page 17.4

A LEGISLATURE can pass laws, but it cannot turn out character. Only God can do that, and even he must have the coöperation of the individual. AMS January 12, 1899, page 17.5

THE only safe way to avoid the last step in religious intolerance is to refrain from taking the first. AMS January 12, 1899, page 17.6

THE world needs not to be more firmly bound by the fetters of law, but to be loosed from the fetters of sin. It is condemned enough by law already. AMS January 12, 1899, page 17.7

LAWS which are designed to coddle men are the worst of all laws, because while they seem to be good, they tend always to weaken character in the individual. AMS January 12, 1899, page 17.8

AT the fall of Adam, not the power of legislation, but the power of love, stood between mankind and moral ruin. And the situation is not different to-day. AMS January 12, 1899, page 17.9

[Inset.] PREPARING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAW OF GOD. THE law of God declares, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work.” But mortal, fallible men have dared to make an amendment to that law, by declaring that the first day is the Sabbath, and that the seventh day is no longer to be observed. And they have even gone further than this, and are petitioning the legislatures to force this amendment upon all persons, by law! Shall each work have the support of lovers of justice and truth? AMS January 12, 1899, page 17.10

“Papal Advice to the United States” American Sentinel 14, 2, pp. 18, 19.


IN previous issues the SENTINEL has referred to the papal advice—which was in fact a thinly-veiled threat—to the Government, against interfering with the Catholic program in Cuba. The Government was advised that it would do well not to antagonize the priests in Cuba, since the restoration of order and tranquility in the island depended almost entirely upon their will, through the great influence they exercise over the Cuban people. It appears now that the same threat has been made with reference to the Philippine Islands, and that by Archbishop Ireland, the close friend and adviser of the President. A recent interview had with the archbishop in this city, quotes him as saying:— AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.1

“Who in America knows anything about the Philippines? The church in the Philippines will, I have no doubt, accustom itself to the conditions under the new regime, as id did under the old. The church will accept the conditions that are to be just as she accepts them in this country. All the civilization that people of the Philippines have, has been received from the priests. They are the representatives of social and civil order in the islands. The people were taught by the priests, and they were taught too much. The priests will uphold this Government as they upheld the government of Spain. That is, as the representatives of order, they will uphold the existing Government. This Government will have to depend upon the priests to a large extent for their moral influence in the interests of law and order. AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.2

“This Government will do well not to antagonize the priests. And I will say I know it is not the policy of the Government to antagonize them, nor is there any disposition to do so in any quarter.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.3

In reply to the question whether his visit to Washington (from which city he had just come) was for the purpose of interviewing the President on this subject, the archbishop said further:— AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.4

“I saw the President, but I cannot say what the subject of conversation was. There is no truth in the published report that the Archbishop of Manila has issued a circular of an unfavorable character against the United States. Aguinaldo is jealous of the power of the priests and wants to rule absolutely himself. AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.5

“The conduct of the priests will depend entirely upon the policy of the United States in the Philippines and that I have no doubt will be the same as in this country.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.6

“This Government will do well not to antagonize the priests,” because it “will have to depend upon” them “for their moral influence in the interests of law and order.” In other words, if the Government does not accede to the will of the priests, the priests will prevent the restoration of peace and order; and in this way they will make so much trouble for the Government that it will be forced, in the interests of peace, to let affairs be managed in the islands as Rome wants them managed. And if the Government interferes with Rome’s program there, the cry of religious persecution will be raised, and the millions of Catholics in the United States will have it in their power to seriously embarrass the Government at home. AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.7

And what must the Government do to avoid antagonizing the priests? How much can it do in the direction of establishing civil and religious freedom in the islands without antagonizing the priests? How much of the papal program is in harmony with such liberty? How much of it has been taught the Philippines during the four hundred years that Rome has ruled in the islands as she pleased? AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.8

These questions answer themselves to every person who knows anything about papal history and the papal system. That system and the system of civil and religious freedom set up in America by the men who signed the Declaration of Independence and created the American Constitution, have about as much in common as have day and night. To establish the latter system in the islands would be to interfere directly with the system Rome has cherished for centuries; and who can suppose that this can be done without antagonizing the priests? And the papacy has warned the Government not to antagonize the priests. AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.9

Archbishop Ireland asserts that the Government has no intention of doing such a thing; and being in the confidence of the President, he is no doubt well informed upon that point. But how much will the United States be able to do toward relieving the Filipinos from the civil and religious despotism under which they have so long been held, without doing anything to arouse the antagonism of the priests? AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.10

The Filipinos know what papal rule is; their bitter and determined antagonism to the priests and the various religious orders in the islands speaks volumes upon this point. They are fighting for their freedom, and they know that this can never be enjoyed under the yoke of Rome. AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.11

Spain was the nominal ruler in Cuba and the Philippines, but the real dominion was that of Rome; the essence of the despotism which has oppressed them was the papacy’s. Spain has been driven out, but Rome remains; and she is determined to abate no part of her sovereignty. She has warned the United States not to interfere with that; and now boldly asserts that the United States will heed the warning. AMS January 12, 1899, page 18.12

WITH such tempting plums as Porto Rico, Hawaii, and the Philippines, hanging before the eyes of American politicians, there will be found many who will be anxious to “shake the plum tree” by any means at their command. AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.1

“‘Solely for Humanity’” American Sentinel 14, 2, p. 19.


THE Tribune reports Admiral Sampson, when asked the question, “Will the people of Cuba generally prove amenable to the sovereignty of this Government?” as answering, “emphatically“:— AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.1

“It does not make any difference whether the people of Cuba prove amenable to our rule or not. We are there; we intend to rule; and I guess that is all there is about it.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.2

And that is American liberty and the love of it! That is the “expansion” of the great American principle that “governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed”—of “government of the people, by the people, for the people!” That is how the great, liberty-loving, liberty-exemplifying, American people, deliver people from oppression and from despotic rule. That illustrates how “the people of Cuba are and of right ought to be free and independent,” as declared by the American Congress, April, 1898. AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.3

Hurrah for free Cuba! Cuba libre forever. AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.4

THE same day Dr. Depew, speaking in Buffalo, said:— AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.5

“We make war against a foreign power, and for the first time in the history of the world solely for humanity. The world cannot understand, and the world stands by to sneer and scoff. To maintain order in Cuba until her people shall be able to maintain a stable government of liberty and law, is humanity. To incorporate Porto Rico in our domain, relieve its citizens from oppression, and give them good government, is humanity.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.6

It is not true that this is the first time in the history of the world when a nation made war against a foreign power “solely for humanity.” Rome made war against Philip V. of Macedon in behalf of the States of Greece, “solely for humanity”—precisely such humanity as is here extolled. Rome was a republic. Rome was a government of the people. Rome was free. Rome was the great exemplar of liberty in the world. Rome being such a lover of liberty, could not endure to see peoples oppressed. Therefore “solely for humanity” Rome sent her fleets and armies into foreign countries to make war against a foreign power. And when at much sacrifice “solely for humanity” Rome had conquered the oppressor, and had assured the freedom of the oppressed peoples she made the following proclamation “solely for humanity“:— AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.7

“The Senate and the people of Rome, and Titus Quintius the general, having conquered Philip and the Macedonians, do set at liberty from all garrisons, imposts, and taxes, the Corinthians, the Locrians, the Phocians, the Phthiot-Achecans, the Messenians, the Thessalians, and the Perrhebians, declare them free; and ordain that they shall be governed by their respective laws and usages.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.8

This is more than the Republic of the United States, with all her boasting, has yet done “solely for humanity,” or for any other cause, in Cuba, Porto Rico, and the Philippines. Back there, in Rome’s work “solely for humanity,” the world thought she understood it; and so did not stand by to sneer and scoff. The world thought she understood such wonderful, and such disinterested, efforts “solely for humanity,” and was charmed with it. The world congratulated herself upon the dawn of this new and blessed era of national sacrifice “solely for humanity,” and kings and nations hastened to form alliances with this wonderful, new, liberty-loving, nation; and so assure to themselves the unspeakable boon of liberty which was being so widely extended “solely for humanity.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.9

But very soon, and to her everlasting sorrow, the world discovered that she had not understood. Soon the world bitterly lamented, and for cause, that she had not stood by to sneer and scoff at Rome’s pretentious efforts “solely for humanity.” The world soon found that Rome’s little finger was thicker than the loins of all that had gone before her: that where others used whips, Rome used only scorpions. But it was too late. The world had not understood. “He destroyed wonderfully and practiced and prospered; and through this his policy he caused craft to prosper in his hand; and even by peace destroyed many.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.10

And Dr. Depew seems really to think that the world has forgotten all this, and that she can be persuaded now to think that she does not understand. Perhaps she can. Nevertheless there will be at least some who will still stand by to sneer and scoff at these pretentious claims of national sacrifice “solely for humanity.” For though “you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, you can not fool all the people all the time.” A. T. J. AMS January 12, 1899, page 19.11

“We Did Just Right” American Sentinel 14, 2, pp. 20, 21.


IT is being denied from Washington that there has been any arrangement or understanding between President McKinley, Cardinal Gibbons, and Archbishop Ireland as to the governmental support of the Catholic Church in Cuba. And some of the readers of the SENTINEL are ready to suggest that in the discussion of that matter we raised a false alarm. AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.1

We raised no false alarm. We had thoroughly good authority for all we said and printed in the SENTINEL, and in our first notice of the matter we distinctly gave the Baltimore American of Oct. 15, 1898, as our authority; and all that we presented was quoted bodily from that paper. AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.2

Now everybody knows that the Baltimore American is a reliable paper; and this that we quoted and followed from that paper was not simple a flying report, nor what some irresponsible correspondent might have said. It was an official communication from the Washington Bureau of the Baltimore American, and was printed under that head; and we have yet to learn that the Washington Bureau of the Baltimore American is given to sending out fake dispatches. AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.3

More than this, the communication bears on the face of it distinct evidences that it was written by a Catholic who understands things; and that this was not written as a piece of gossip, but as information. AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.4

All this fully justified us in taking it up, and calling the attention of the American people to it, that if possible they might awake to prevent it. AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.5

Yet there is much more than this to justify the SENTINEL in believing this communication, and discussing it, and making it public as possible. AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.6

1. It is well known that Archbishop Ireland dictated terms to the St. Louis convention; and this upon a direct issue of governmental favor to the church. A resolution had been framed, and was to be presented, opposing appropriations of public money for religious or sectarian uses, or anything tending toward a union of church and State. On receipt of a dispatch from Archbishop Ireland that resolution was killed in committee. AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.7

2. Last April the Congress and the people of the United States were for days hung up by the gills, awaiting the delayed message of the President. And a United States senator, from his place in the senate chamber, plainly stated that the cause of this delay was “the fact that Archbishop Ireland had cabled to the Vatican,” and “the President was waiting upon the pope to secure that which American diplomacy had failed to obtain. This statement of a United States senator was never denied by anybody we have yet heard of. In all that time Archbishop Ireland was the official representative of the pope to the United States Government; and it was publicly stated in his behalf that on account of “the close and cordial friendship McKinley, and his whole cabinet, ... made him a fit instrument through which negotiations could be conducted“: and by this “close and cordial friendship” Archbishop Ireland enjoyed such unusual facilities for understanding the situation of things in the innermost circles of the administration, that he could send to the pope “hourly bulletins, if necessary, of the attitude of the administration.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.8

3. The fact that Archbishop Ireland is “a close personal friend of President McKinley” has been publicly stated more than once, and has been made much of several times in different connections. AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.9

4. Only three or four weeks ago Archbishop Chapelle also, through a published interview, announced himself as “a close personal friend of President McKinley.” A little later the pope himself said to William T. Stead, of London, that the United States “is marching with rapid strides into the bosom of the Catholic Church.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.10

Taking all these things together we were entirely justified in accepting as the truth the report sent out from the Washington Bureau of the Baltimore American, and in as widely as possible announcing and exposing the essential mischief of it. That report in the Baltimore American is in perfect accord with the attitude and work of Archbishop Ireland ever since the St. Louis convention, and especially since April, 1898. The SENTINEL has nothing to take back—nothing to apologize for. We did exactly the right thing. We will do it over again whenever such an occasion offers. AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.11

That the report is denied from Washington is not conclusive that it was never true. The original report did not say that the money had actually been paid, nor even actually appropriated. The report stated that as the result of “numerous conferences with Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Ireland on the subject,” it was the “determination of President McKinley that the Catholic churches shall be kept open, and that public worship shall be amply provided for,” and that “to this end sufficient money will be advanced by this Government to support the Catholic Church.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.12

It was with the hope of so awakening the people on the question, that this determination should be frustrated, that no money should ever be appropriated for such a purpose—it was for this cause chiefly that the AMERICAN SENTINEL sounded the alarm, as is proper for every sentinel to do. If what the SENTINEL has said has been in any way instrumental in awakening such an interest, we have our reward. AMS January 12, 1899, page 20.13

Further, the denial so far made is no more authentic, nor of any more authority, than is the original report published in the Baltimore American. All the people have more reason to-day for believing the truth of the report originally made in the American, and fully discussed in SENTINEL, than they have for believing the denial that has been made. The original report in the Baltimore American tells what had occurred between Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop Ireland and President McKinley. It tells this in such a circumstantial way as to bear in itself the evidence of truth. The denial so far published gives the word of other parties entirely, not one of whom was mentioned in the original report. Archbishop Ireland has not denied it; Cardinal Gibbons has not denied it; and the President has not denied it. When these three or any one of them shall publish a specific denial, it will be ample time for explanations. And even when the times comes for explanations, it will not be the AMERICAN SENTINEL that will have to explain; it will be the Washington Bureau of the Baltimore American. And we say plainly that we do not expect that there will ever be made room for any such explanation. AMS January 12, 1899, page 21.1

With Congress to day there is lodged a long petition composed and signed by Cardinal Gibbons asking for governmental appropriations of money to the Catholic Church in the United States—asking indeed for a reopening of the whole question of governmental support of churches in Indian education. And when Cardinal Gibbons will do this in the face of the whole people of the United States, in behalf of the Catholic Church in the United States; there is nothing at all extravagant in the report that a like arrangement had been considered and agreed upon in behalf of the Catholic Church in Cuba, where it can be done by the local machinery without any action of Congress. We shall not print in the SENTINEL the Cardinal’s petition, as we did the report of the Baltimore American; but for the benefit of the skeptics we will state that the Cardinal’s petition is printed in full in the Catholic Mirror (also printed in Baltimore), of December 17, 1898. AMS January 12, 1899, page 21.2

The AMERICAN SENTINEL is not an alarmist in these things. We know that there is an immense combination of the religious elements in the United States to get control of governmental power and patronage. We know that there is an intense rivalry between the Protestant and Catholic elements of this combination, for the lead. It is our duty as lovers of the principles upon which this nation was founded, and as well wishers for the best interests both civil and religious of our fellowmen, to call attention to everything that occurs which is suggestive of governmental favor to churches, whether Protestant or Catholic, or both in combination, under the delusive phrase of “broad general Christianity.” AMS January 12, 1899, page 21.3

All this is why we did what we did in the matter; and in doing what we did, we did just right. And we are waiting for the next thing to occur to give us another chance. AMS January 12, 1899, page 21.4

A. T. J.

“Back Page” American Sentinel 14, 2, p. 32.


THE proper petition for Christians begins, “Our Father, which art in heaven;” not, Our legislature, which art on earth. AMS January 12, 1899, page 32.1

THE States are quite rapidly falling into line in the matter of passing upon the validity of Sunday legislation. AMS January 12, 1899, page 32.2

THE true religion is intolerant of evil; false religions are intolerant of men. AMS January 12, 1899, page 32.3