The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1894-07-27

|
then have received pamphlet from
some unknown person., which was
written by an anonymous writer, who
opposed the organization. l am not
aware that / have conversed with a
single person, who is member of it
that is, since he joined it; in fact l
know but one or two persons who are
members, and / have not seen them
since they become members. Conse-
quently / can hardly be accused of re-
ceiving any impressions or thoughts
from those prejudiced in favor OF it.
Still have done some of my own
thinking, based on such facts as have
come to my knowledge.
To my mind the whole subject re-
solves itself into three divisions. Is
sucn an organization unconstitutional?
If not, is it trying to crush church,
by means of politics in an unwarrant-
able degree? Is 1t wise?
l Is it unconstitutio nal? The con-
stitution of the United States says:
"No religious test shall ever be re-
quired as qualification to any Office
or public trust in the United States
The constitution OF the State OF
Washington says "No religious qualifi-
cation shall be required for any public
Office" Some seem to think that if a
body of men decide not to vote for a
man because he is a Catholic, he breaks
that article of the constitution, but ]
do not so understand it. If a Catholic
finds two men as candidates for the
same Office, who in most respects are
about equal, one however being a
Catholic, and the other a Protestant
and he shall say, II love my church
and prefer to see its members in office
and believe it will help the church to
have them elected, and also will in
the end help the cause of right" and
thus he shall vote for the Catholic, !
cannot see how he would break the
Constitution of the State. If two
Catholics or five should consult to-
gether, and decide on the same plan
they certainly have the same right as
one, and if fifty of them secretly decide
tc do the same, they have the same
right constitutionally. Denying them
this right would be denying them the
right to vote for whom they please
which would be very unconstitutional.
And if one or more Methodist OF
Baptists or lnfdels decide on the same
plan, they certainly have the same
right. 1 many be wrong, for.I am not
constitutional lawyer, but l have
understood that clause in the constitu-
ton simply to mean that if Catholic
or Methodist, or Protestant or Skeptic
! is elected to an Office, he shall not be
debarred from taking that office, be-
cause of his religious opinions. If
am right then the A. P. A. is not I'M
constitutional for they do not claim the
right to prevent Catholic from
taking his Office, even if the candidat,
of the A. P. A. is defeated.
2. Ia the A. P. A. trying to crush 9
church by means of politics, in an un.
warrantable degree. Is it combining
church and state too much, at first
sight this seems to be true, and would
be so if the Catholic church is merely
church, with no political aims in
view. If on the other hand it is both
a church, trying to teach religion, an
at the same time political party try
ing to elect its candidates to office
then any other party has a right tt
oppose that part of it which is political
while allowing it at the same time a
perfect right to teach religion, and tc
ENJOY what we all claim freedom tc
worship God, according to the dictates
OF each persons conscience. Whether
or not is it a political party is the
question. The Catholics in the main
deny this. Many Professionals will not
believe that it is not, others believe il
to be so. 1t is not openly. The question
is. Is it one secretly?
That it has claimed the right O
temporal power, can hardly be denied
because in the Middle Ages, the Pope
was temporal as well as spiritual
ruler; who made and unmade kings in
Europe, and continued as sovereign of
Italy until this right was taken from
him by Victor Emmanuel in 1870
While he then surrendered his tempor.
al authority because he had to do 50
he did it under protest, and has eve,
since claimed the right to be temper.
al ruler. In 1854 he issued Syllabus
in which he declared without Disguise
that the church has the right TO coerce
dissenters, and to employ and control
the civil powers in executing its de.
crees; and denounced as damnable the
assertion that the Popes have ever been
guilty of usurpation in assuming an
thority over princes and governments