Sunday Rest for Railway Employees
AN Eastern paper has the following:—
“A former railway commissioner of Iowa, Mr. L. S. Coffin, has put forth a plea in behalf of railroad employees which ought to secure attention. Mr. Coffin especially dwells upon the necessity of securing automatic brakes, and of reserving Sunday as a rest-day for employees.
“As to Sabbath rest, the demand for it among railway and other employees is increasing, so that it would seem impossible but that the railroad companies should yield to the feeling that the Sabbath was made for railway employees as well as for other men. We hope practical results will follow Mr. Coffin’s praiseworthy efforts.” Certainly every man who wants to rest upon Sunday, or upon any other day, should have the privilege of doing so; and why do they not rest? If it was a matter of wages, or of the employment of an obnoxious man, or some other matter of that kind, the railway employees would find some means of bringing the companies to terms, but as it is we suppose the State will be asked to interfere and secure rest for those who want it—and for everybody else as well. Those who are willing to relinquish their Sunday wages can rest now if they really want to do so. The Real Object of the Edmunds Amendment.
By Alonzo T. Jones
JOSEPH COOK, of the Boston Monday lectureship, is the leading advocate of the Edmunds amendment to the United States Constitution. The topic of the Boston Monday lectures for 1889 is papal domination in American schools. This discussion is professedly in the interests of the public schools, but it is in fact only in the interests of Protestantism instead of Catholicism in the public schools. It is professedly against a union of Church and State, but it is in fact only against a union of Roman Catholicism and the State, while it just as certainly favors a union of Protestantism and the State. It is professedly in favor of American institutions, as against the domination of the Catholic Church; but it is in fact against American institutions and in favor of Protestant domination in civil affairs. This will more fully appear as we proceed. Of the amendment he says:— “It covered almost precisely the ground now occupied by Senator Blair’s proposed amendment, but as its language was perhaps somewhat more cautious, and as it came so near passing, I quote Senator Edmunds’ proposal as a summary of the highest educational demand of the hour.” He says it contains four great points:— 1. “It prohibits the establishment of a State church in any State of the Union.” This is true, but, as we have shown, it leads inevitably to the establishment of a State religion by the nation. 2. “It forbids the sectarian use of public-school funds by any State or municipality.” But it does not forbid a religious use of public funds by any State or municipality. 3. “It prevents the formation of sectarian public schools.” But it does not prevent the formation of religious public schools. 4. “Nevertheless, it guards against the exclusion of the Bible from public schools, and so does not establish instruction on a purely secular basis.” But it does establish instruction upon a purely religious basis. And all this is the very thing that no government has a right to do. The State that undertakes to teach religion in order to inculcate principles of good citizenship, will fail to secure either religion or good citizenship. Of the prospects of the Edmunds resolution, he says:— “If the Boston election of last December had occurred a few weeks before this vote in Congress, the necessary two-thirds, as I believe, would have been obtained, and the Edmunds amendment might now have been a part of the law of the land. We must launch this reform when the waves are running high. There are many sand-bags, but I believe that to-day in Congress there would be a chance for the passage of the Edmunds proposal. Senator Blair’s bill covers substantially the same ground and a little more. I should not be sorry to see it passed, but I think it would be more difficult to pass it than it would have been to pass the Edmunds bill.” If this prospect is correctly outlined, and if it be so nearly a practical scheme, which, as a matter of fact, we believe it is, then it is high time that the people of this nation were awakening to the fact, and, as far as possible, making it an impracticable scheme. It is probable that the Blair Amendment would be more difficult to pass, because its true intent is more plainly revealed. Mr. Cook indorses the Edmunds resolution because, he says, “It prevents a sectarian division of the school funds.” But we should like to know why it would be any more unjust to divide the school funds amongst the sects than it would be to devote the whole of the school fund bodily to the benefit of those sects which, united, call themselves the majority, and proclaim themselves to be the “evangelicals,” even though they include the Mormons in their evangelicalism. For this is just what Mr. Cook’s scheme amounts to, and to us it would seem to be just as proper to divide the money amongst the different sects, as it would to devote the whole of it to one. Not that we believe for a moment that it should be so divided, nor that it should be so devoted, because the State must have nothing at all to do with the question of religion, whether in the schools or out of the schools, but if public money is to be used for teaching religion, then the only fair way to do is to divide the public money amongst the different denominations according to their respective populations. Mr. Cook calls attention to the dangers that already threaten the public-school system from political influence. He says:— “Scores of teachers within recent years have been dropped from their position by political school boards because their opinions on temperance were a little too strong to suit the school committees. Not a few who have studied the worst cases of this kind have fallen into a sort of moral nausea over the management of schools in certain cities by corrupt committees, mere ward politicians, many of them monstrously vile men, patrons of the saloons, and of the gambling dens, and of the brothels. There are cities in this country where little local committees, not fit to manage the investment of ten dollars, have the choice of school-teachers and the power to dismiss teachers almost322without reason, and who do all these things from purely political motives, and appoint their own relatives very often, practicing nepotism in its most glaring aspects. The political abuses of the common-school system are becoming a great public terror in mismanaged cities. What is the remedy for all these mischiefs?” But how does he propose to remedy the mischiefs? Why, by simply adding a religious element to the already mischievous political strifes in connection with the public-school system. He exclaims:— “So help me, Heaven, I see no way out of the alarming evils arising from the partisan management of common schools except by the success of the Edmunds amendment.” (Applause.) Does any sober-minded man really believe that the success of the Edmunds amendment, or any other, can stop these mischiefs? If that or the Blair amendment were adopted, then a strife upon the question of what Bible it is that shall be used, or what is sectarian instruction, and many other questions, would be added to the already deplorable political mischiefs, and the evils would be increased a thousand-fold. This result would follow just as certainly as day follows night. This is further proved by Mr. Cook’s own statement that “the chief power of the Roman Catholic Church to do mischief in this country is political.” Then how can it be expected to weaken that power, or to lessen the mischief, by making religious questions the essential element in politics? It is surprising to think that any thinking man can think so. Then he exhorts thus:— “Stand up, then, for Senator Edmunds’ proposed constitutional amendment while yet you can pass it. Let us invoke the national power. Let us invoke it speedily, for if we do not carry an amendment like Senator Edmunds’ within the next twenty years, it is possible we shall never be able to carry it. The hour is critical. Remember that this amendment was once within two votes of passing in the Senate. Mr. Blaine’s proposed amendment upon the same topic had the overwhelming support of the House. And now Senator Blair is advocating substantially the same proposition. The Edmunds amendment is practicable; it is a vital public necessity; but it must be passed soon or never. Therefore let us make Senator Edmunds’ program our own concerning the school question. Let us join ranks. Let Protestants stand up, and all stand up, and stand together.” Then in another place he says:— “Professor Hodge went so far as to say that our conflict on the school question with the Romanist on the one side and the secularist on the other, is of more importance to this nation than the issues connected with slavery and intemperance.” These extracts show, as plainly as need be, that this proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States upon the subject of religion in the public schools, is nothing else than a scheme to establish by constitutional amendment Protestantism as the State religion. This was shown also in the arguments made last winter before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, in behalf of the Blair amendment. Every argument there made was for Protestantism instead of Catholicism in the public schools. If the American people want to be kept free from the despotism of a national religion, they need to be awake to the efforts that are being made to secure these amendments that have been offered and that are now advocated. Let the Constitution of the United States remain as it is upon the subject of religion. Keep religion out of the public schools; let the public schools be for the public. As surely as any such amendment shall ever be adopted as has been proposed, so surely will there be the establishment of a national religion, and the establishment of a national religion is the establishment of a national despotism. The quotations in this article are taken from Mr. Cook’s lectures, as printed in Our Day for March, April, and May. UNDER the heading of “The Puritan Sabbath,” M. A. G. intimates that Sunday match-making is unlawful, and gives as a reason for the increase of divorces, “Perhaps too many of these contracts are made on the Sabbath.” When therefore our National Reform friends have made this a “Christian” (?) nation, we may reasonably expect that Sunday match-making will become a criminal offense, punishable by fine and imprisonment.—W., in Prohibition Journal. Catholic Immigration and Colonization
THE most important action taken at the convention of the Central Roman Catholic Society in Cleveland, was a decision to encourage the immigration of Catholic foreigners to the United States. It is proposed to pay especial attention to farmers, who will be sent to join the Catholic parishes in the West, or they will be banded together to form new parishes. The work of colonizing the United States for the purpose of the Roman Catholic Church, goes bravely on.—America. The Peril to Religious Liberty
THE Christian Witness remarks that— “There is no peril to religious and political liberty in this country so great as that which popery, by the aid of Jesuits, if not averted, is sure to bring upon us. We may sneer at the possibility of such a result, but the history of the ages supports the supposition, and should arouse the Christian people of the nation to the approaching peril.”
A living image to a bad thing is as bad as the thing itself. And when degenerate Protestantism advocates measures of the same nature as those upon which “popery” rose and made itself hideous for centuries, why is it not as great a “peril to religious and political liberty in this country” as popery itself? Peril is a principle, and not merely a name. Like causes, no matter how designated, produce like effects. Is the Constitution Infidel?
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
THE Christian Statesman, of August 29, says that the statement that the American government was established on the secular principle, is untrue. It says that to represent the National Reform movement as revolutionary is to forget, or intentionally ignore, the plainest facts of history. It says that the government is Christian, but overturns this in the same short article by saying: “We admit that infidelity stole a march on the American people in the framing of the Constitution of the United States, and we admit that, largely through the unsettling influences of that instrument, the relation of government to religion has become an open question, now in process of settlement, in this country. But the claim that the secular theory is the established American theory is false and unfair, and, like all unfair attempts in controversy, will yet bring confusion to those who make it.” To the covert threat in this last clause we have nothing to say. But we would like to ask the Statesman what it is that determines the character of the government, if it is not the Constitution. If, as it admits, the Constitution of the United States is a secular document, then the American theory of government must be the secular theory of government. And therefore the unfairness is wholly on its own part, in claiming that the American theory of government is to combine religion with the government, when, according to its own admission, such a claim is a false one. Whatever confusion results, must necessarily come to those who make such false claims. But mark, that while we say the American theory of government is the secular theory, we do not at all admit the Statesman’s charge that it is an infidel theory. Infidelity did not steal a march on the American people in the framing of the Constitution of the United States, and that document is not an infidel document, it does not teach infidelity. It has no tendency whatever towards infidelity. To show the falsity of the statement that infidelity stole a march on the American people in the framing of the Constitution of the United States, it is only necessary to say that there were religious men in the Constitutional Convention, and serious consideration was given to the matter of recognizing God and religion in the Constitution; and the omission of such recognition was the result of careful, deliberate, conscientious consideration. This is more clearly apparent from the fact that within two years after the Constitution was adopted, ten amendments were added, the first of which is the following: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” If the omission of the name of God, or the recognition of religion, was an oversight, the first amendment, instead of declaring against an establishment of religion, would have provided for it. Nay; the original Constitution itself declared that no religious test should ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. But the fact that God’s name is not mentioned does not make the Constitution an infidel Constitution, any more than the fact that a merchant’s sign or his advertisement in the newspaper does not contain the name of God proves that he is an infidel. The Postmaster-General, John Wanamaker, is the pride of the National Reform party, although perhaps not a member of that organization. He is pointed to with pride as the Christian merchant. We have no disposition to question his Christianity; but we would simply call attention to the fact that in all his extensive advertisements the name of God does not occur once. Are we to judge from that that he is an infidel? His clerks transact his business and sell goods over the counter without making any mention of the name of God. Does that show that his business is an infidel business? Nobody thinks so. On the contrary, if he should flaunt the name of God in his advertisements, and if he should instruct his clerks to make some mention of Deity with every yard of cotton or silk that they tore off, the people would justly question the genuineness of his profession. In his book, “Church and State in the United States,” Dr. Schaff speaks as follows concerning the proposed amendment recognizing God in the Constitution:— “Our chief objection to such an amendment, besides its impracticability, is that it rests upon a false assumption, and casts an unjust reflection upon the original document, as if it were hostile to religion. But it is neither hostile nor friendly to any religion; it is simply silent on the subject, as lying beyond the jurisdiction of the general government. The absence of the names of God and Christ, in a purely political and legal document, no more proves denial or irreverence than the absence of those names in a mathematical treatise, or the statutes of a bank or railroad corporation. The title ‘holiness’ does not make the Pope of Rome any holier than he is, and it makes the contradiction only more glaring in such characters as Alexander VI. The book of Esther and the Song of Solomon are undoubtedly productions of devout worshipers of Jehovah; and yet the name of God does not occur once in them.”
According to the National Reform view, the book of Esther and the Song of Solomon would be called infidel documents. But of all people who talk about infidelity, the National Reformers show the least knowledge of what infidelity is; and this for the reason that they have the least knowledge of what constitutes Christianity. Where the Line Should Be Drawn.
THE Examiner (Baptist) says:— “The constitutional convention of the Territory of Idaho has adopted a bill of rights containing a section providing that ‘no person shall be denied any civil or political right or privilege on account of religious opinions.’ But the provision was qualified by the further statement that ‘the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to justify polygamous practices, nor to permit any person, organization, or association to directly or indirectly aid or abet, counsel, or advise any person to commit the crime of bigamy or polygamy.’ Under the territorial law hitherto prevailing, as interpreted by the highest court of the Territory, all Mormon residents of Idaho have been disfranchised, even monogamous Mormons not being permitted to vote. “The disfranchisement of a Mormon, simply for being a Mormon, is an interference with the rights of conscience that are guaranteed to every citizen by the constitution of the United States, and if the law in question had been interpreted by the Supreme Court, it would no doubt have been pronounced unconstitutional. The Federal Constitution does not, however, prevent a State from abridging the religious liberty of its citizens, but public opinion is strongly adverse to such abridgment under any circumstances.323The proposed constitution of Idaho will, therefore, more nearly represent public opinion than the territorial law that has hitherto prevailed. The people of this country demand the suppression of polygamy, but against Mormonism as a religious system they are no more disposed to proceed than against Romanism, or Mohammedanism, or Judaism.” We have no fault to find with this sentiment. Polygamy ought to be prohibited, not because it is immoral, but because in its very nature it is uncivil; it cannot be practiced without encroaching upon the civil rights of others than the ones engaging in it; it bitterly wrongs innocent children and well-nigh helpless women; it concerns the relations of man to his fellows and is therefore a proper subject of civil law. But when the Examiner intimates, as it does in the paragraphs quoted, and as it has more recently said that,— “The principle of religious liberty requires only one thing: That all religious beliefs should be placed on an equality before the law, so that no one should be either favored or punished because of his opinions, whether privately held or publicly expressed, so that in their public expression breaches of the peace are not provoked.” It simply draws the line in the wrong place. The principle of religious liberty requires that the civil law shall leave all perfectly free so far as their duties to God are concerned. The civil law may, according to the words of our Saviour in Matt. 22: 21, require all to render to Cæsar (civil government) the things which are Cæsar’s, but it should also leave all free to render unto God the things that are God’s. Romanizing the Public Schools.
REV. J. R. KENDRICK, D. D., has a very strong article in the Forum, strenuously opposing any concession whatever toward dividing the public-school money and allowing Roman Catholics, or any other sects, any share to be used for sectarian purposes. He cites the case of Poughkeepsie, N. Y., where an arrangement was made, several years since, whereby, in certain school-houses, the Roman Catholics are allowed to give religious instruction out of regular school hours; and then follow these comments:— There is one obvious test by which to try the Poughkeepsie plan. Is it suitable for general adoption? Is it a good working and workable theory for the country at large? Suppose the Jews, or the Methodists, or the Episcopalians of any community, were to erect and equip school buildings, and say to educational boards, “We offer you these on the simple condition that when you do not want them for your own special purposes we may use them as we please, reserving in particular the right in other than school hours to instruct all comers in our peculiar tenets,” what would be the result? Clearly, sectarian schools supported by the State; or, if not exactly these, ecclesiastical establishments engaged in sectarian propagandism maintained from the public treasury. Suppose a society of Comtists should do the same thing, only stipulating for the privilege of making their edifice a temple for the religion of humanity, would not the State, in accepting the offer, contribute direct aid and comfort to this class of philosophers? The tendency of the Poughkeepsie policy, if not its sure effect, would be to gather children in schools according to denominational affinities, and thus virtually establish the sectarian lines of division, which it is important to efface. On the whole, it seems to me that this innocent-looking Poughkeepsie plan is a veritable Trojan horse. By its provisions, or almost necessary implications, Roman Catholics adroitly obtain what they clamor for—State support for sectarian education. This concession, however disguised and by whatever specious advantages recommended, would in the end prove fatal to our American public-school system.—Congregationalist. THOSE well-meaning but narrow-minded people who are always troubling themselves by an undue interference with the business of their neighbors, are particularly active in the city at the present time. The point on which they are now expending their surplus energies is a Sunday law. It was very plainly demonstrated in 1882 that California does not want a Sunday law. The Democracy at that time swept the State on an anti-Sunday law platform, and rolled up a majority of tremendous proportions for General Stoneman. In a series of resolutions passed last night, it is said that the lack of such a law is a shame to this State, and it is remarked that France is the only other State in the civilized world where no such law is in force. The position of California in this respect may be unique in this Federation of States; but if so then we are uniquely American. No principle is more broadly and solidly laid down by the founders of this government than the one which sought forever to decree an absolute divorce between Church and State. The principle carried out to its fairly logical results would forbid the passage of any law in regard to Sunday, beyond such provisions as will guarantee to all men the right to worship as they see fit; and that guarantee includes the right not to worship at all. This is the whole of the American principle in relation to religion. A dozen volumes of comment will add nothing to that simple statement, and no amount of argument will do away with one iota of the force of this germinal idea. The work of Christianity by all the teachings of its founder, and by all the explications of its apostles, is a purely moral one. The church's work is upon the inside of a man, and must be done in his heart. The appeal to civil powers to aid in this has always proved to be the most fatal weakness of the churches. It is the appeal to the sword, which, Christ said, must prove fatal to him that makes it. It makes the kingdom to be of this world. As to France, any American State may well be proud of being found in line with that progressive nation. France has always been the fecund mother of broad, of advanced, of humane principles. She is the only prominent State in Europe which has yet thrown off all sorts of Old World notions, of ties that fetter the human mind, heart, and conscience, and that, like our own great republic, proclaims the sovereignty of manhood as the sole basis of right to rule in human affairs. The divine rights of kings, the guarded privileges of birth, and other un-American ideas that are supreme in all European States, are dead and buried in France. Shall we go back to these? shall we undo the noble deeds of the fathers? shall we roll the centuries backward and align our laws with those of Russia and Austria because it is a shame to be in line with France? Well, hardly! In the interest of religion, as the best thing for the churches, as the surest stay for the existence of the Christian Sunday, we say in all kindness and sincerity to these well-meaning but erring enthusiasts, Mind your own business. Attend duly to your own religious duties. Enjoy in peace your Sunday rest and other privileges. Trust to the good example of your lives, to the logic of your cause, to the power of the omnipotent God, to draw erring men to your side. Avoid all semblance of coercion or worldly influence to do this work. Let the people you think to be wrong spend their Sundays as they think best, if you wish to be unmolested in your rights. It is too late in the day to carry out your plans, and America has not the soil where your ideas will germinate and grow. Be content to be secure in your own rights, and give others the same rights as you enjoy.—Los Angeles Herald. The Christian Statesman in Favor of Church and State Union.
By Ellet Joseph Waggoner
In the Christian Statesman of August 29 the AMERICAN SENTINEL is described as chronically unfair, in that it charges the National Reform Association with working for a union of Church and State. There are two noticeable things in connection with this controversy. The first is that the Statesman has never yet attempted to prove that it is not in favor of Church and State; it simply denies the charges. This would be all that is required, if our charges consisted simply of assertions; but when we cite facts, and make arguments, and draw conclusions, to show that it is in favor of Church and State union, they have never yet attempted to show the fallacy of one of the arguments, or to disprove one of the conclusions. And the other noticeable thing is that the Statesman scarcely ever makes a denial of its desire for Church and State union without in that same denial furnishing proof that it is desirous of such a union. In this very article it says:— “We hold as strenuously as do our opponents to the absolute separation and independence of Church and State, but we also hold, with Professor Leiber, that the theory of American institutions requires the total separation of the State from the Church—not from religion.”
As Dr. Edwards said in the New York convention, they believe in a union of religion and State, but not in Church and State. Now if that were true, it would seem to be proof that they do not believe in religion in the church; and surely that admission must be worse than the other; for a church without religion is a deplorable thing. We are, however, convinced that the National Reformers do not believe in religion in the church, from the very fact that they believe in religion and the State, that is, in making the State the Church; for when this is done there will be no religion in it—only an empty shell. But on the first page of the same paper, the Statesman shows in an editorial that it is the champion of the union of Church and State. It notes the call for the annual congress of the American Secular Union for 1889, and publishes a statement of the object of that union, which object is to secure the total separation of Church and State. After quoting this declaration of principles, the Statesman says:— “We cheerfully and zealously assist in giving publicity to this call. Nothing could give the American people a clearer view of the pending situation than these frank, logical, and comprehensive demands of the American Secular Union.”
The Statesman recognizes itself as the direct antagonist of the object of the American Secular Union; we do not say the antagonist of the infidel324views of its members, but the antagonist of the work of the association. Therefore, it declares itself to be the champion of a union of Church and State. This is still further shown by the fact that the Statesman is one of the most virulent opposers of the petition which has been circulated asking Congress to pass no laws which would look toward a union of Church and State. It is no use for the Statesman to try to conceal its motives. It would be much more honorable for it to boldly avow its advocacy of Church and State union. As it says, nothing can be gained by persistent misrepresentation. It might as well declare the real object of the National Reform Association; for it cannot make a denial of that object without in that very denial revealing it. E. J. W. Americans Disqualified as Jurors.
By Editor
JUDGE McCONNELL has committed himself to the astounding doctrine that a member of the American League is disqualified from sitting as a juror in the Cronin murder case. This ruling was arrived at after the examination of William P. Turner, of Evanston, had reached the point where he said that he was a member of the Grand Army of the Republic and of the American League. Mr. Turner had been previously cross-examined by the counsel for the defense, who found no reason in his answers for a challenge for cause. He said that he had read the newspapers in regard to the Cronin murder, but had formed no opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. He had formed no opinion as to whether or not Burke was a tenant of the Carlson cottage. So far as the record shows, Mr. Turner appeared to be the “ideal juror” whom the court and counsel professed a longing to secure to try this great case. When asked as to the character of the society known as the American League, Mr. Turner replied that it was a quasi-political society; that further than that he had no very distinct ideas as to its objects, and that he did not think it was affected by religion, nationality, or anything of that kind. He did not know it as the Independent Order of Deputies. He swore that the provisions of the American League had reference to the prevention of members of the Catholic Church from controlling political offices; but he declared that he would give the testimony of a member of the Catholic Church the same credence as if the witness were not a member of that church. Finally, he was asked: “If this society to which you belong has reference to the exclusion of Catholics from political offices, and from controlling political offices, would you not, if accepted as a juror in this case, be prejudiced against defendants if it should appear in testimony that they were members of the Catholic Church?” To this he replied: “No, sir; I think not. I don’t think their guilt is affected by their religion.” Upon this he was challenged for cause by the counsel for the defense “by reason of the views he entertained and the society to which he belongs.” The challenge was objected to by the State, but was sustained by Judge McConnell. To discuss this decision of Judge McConnell’s intelligently, it is necessary to understand exactly what the American League is, and what it proposes. Here is its object, taken from the preamble to its constitution:—“Believing that there is an organized effort being made to eradicate from the minds of the people of the this American Union reverence and loyalty for the Constitution and flag of our nation; that the motives that animated the founders of this Republican government are rapidly being forgotten; that the principles they sought to make perpetual are in danger; that the ballot is defrauded of its potency; that our public-school system is subject to attack, and efforts being made to destroy its efficiency as an educator of American citizens, by perverting and falsifying history; that loyalty to flag and country is subject to snares and derisions; that taxes are unequal; that rights are infringed to grant privileges; that the United States and State Constitutions are violated, and that the civil and religious liberty we have inherited from our fathers is threatened; and believing that these dangers result from persistent and organized efforts being made to introduce principles that antagonize our American system, we form this order to warn our fellow-citizens, and to concert measures to strengthen and extend the civil and religious liberty established by our fathers, and to preserve this American Union.” It is evident from this declaration that the American League is nothing more or less than an organization for political purposes, and that its professed objects commend it to the good-will and support of all loyal American citizens. Except as the Roman Catholic Church, or any other church, party, or organization, impinges upon the institutions of American non-sectarian schools, free ballot, and religious liberty, they are in no sense antagonized by the American League. If any church or party inculcates a spirit hostile to free institutions, and teaches doctrines in regard to secular affairs at variance with the faithful allegiance of citizens, that church or party antagonizes the principles of the American League in so far, and not at all in matters relating purely to religious doctrines or things theological. And yet, this being so, Judge McConnell sustained a challenge against Mr. Turner, and thereby stigmatized every man in the community holding similar views, as unfit to perform the duty of a citizen in a case between the State and five alleged murderers. It was not pretended before Judge McConnell that the American League was intrinsically antagonistic to the Clan-na-Gael, or that its members were prejudiced in any way to the Clan-na-Gael, or Camp No. 20 of the Clan-na-Gael, or any other conspiracy in the Clan-na-Gael, or against the individual prisoners, or, in fact, against any member, society, or church not at variance with the loyal, patriotic, and unmistakably legal duties of citizenship. Against murder, we take it, the members of the American League are prejudiced. So is every other American citizen. Against every conspiracy to murder, whether the plans are laid in the secret councils of the Clan-na-Gael, at the hidden meetings of Anarchists, or by private parties of any faith—Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or Mormon—we suppose members of the American League are prejudiced by their allegiance as American citizens; and so, we take it, is every other loyal American citizen. Upon what ground, then, did Judge McConnell base his dismissal of Mr. Turner?—Solely upon the assumption that because the American League objects to the Catholic Church controlling political offices, its members would have a prejudice against any person tried for murder, because that person happened to be a Roman Catholic. Either this, which is an assumption so illogical and startling as to be past belief, or at the outset of this trial Judge McConnell takes it for granted that not only Messrs. Burke, Coughlin, Beggs, O’Sullivan, and Kunze, the whole of Camp No. 20, and the Clan-na-Gael, are on trial for the murder of Dr. Cronin; but that looming up behind them, and spreading its portentous wings over the whole desperate plot, hovers the great Church of Rome. . . . Carried to its legitimate conclusion, the decision of Judge McConnell precludes the possibility of the selection of any political jury. If Mr. Turner was rightly excused because of his antagonism to the Roman Church, it follows that the Catholic Church, in the mind of Judge McConnell, is in some way a party to the case, and, in consequence, is interested on behalf of the defense. If this judicial assumption be correct, it renders every Roman Catholic in the community subject to challenge because of prejudices, in favor of the defense, and if every Catholic is to be excluded from the jury because of his prejudices, the defendants have good ground for challenging every Protestant talesman. It is needless to say that Judge McConnell’s ruling, and every inference and consequence deducible therefrom, is an insult to the Roman Catholic Church, an unjust impeachment to American loyalty, and a most unfortunate and uncalled-for blow at trial by jury. It is scarcely possible that in the few moments after the challenge was made—when we are told that “Judge McConnell leaned his head on his hand for two minutes, thinking what he ought to do”—he fully appreciated the wide scope of his decision. If everybody who antagonizes or believes in opposing the control of political offices by the Catholic Church is to be precluded from serving as a juror in a case where a Roman Catholic is on trial for conspiracy to murder, the selection of a jury for the Cronin case is impossible. The late Judge McAllister, in all his efforts to secure a jury favorable to Alexander Sullivan, never ventured to render such a sweeping decision as this.—America.