The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-26


cupying your columns there are several prop
ositions which should be carefully differen-
tiated and accurately enunciated at this time
And your readers, in order TO maintain an ade-
Quate apprehension OF the true status of the
controversy should keep these continually in
mind
Those interested in the discussion should
note the distinction between the Yorke-Ross
controversy properly so-calied and the religious
warfare OF the past month. The Yorke-Ross
controversy neither had nor hes anything TO
do with religion. II relates solely TO matters
political and of this the proof is plain.
The newspaper discussion originated with
Peter c. YoTke's challenge and my reply. The
subject-matter in dispute related TO four prop
ositions which Mr.. Yorke maintained could
not be found in the teachings OF the Roman
Catholic Church, viz:
1.-The Roman Church has the right to exercise
its authority without any limit set to it by the
civil powers.
"The Pope and the priests ought to have
dominion over temporal affairs.
1.-The Roman Church and her ecclesiastics
have right to immunity from civil law.
''In case OF conflict between ecclesiastical and
civil powers the ecclesiastical ought to pre-
vail"
These, as may be seen at a glance relate not
at all to religious matters and have TO do only
with questions OF politics and temporal SOW
ereignty.
The public correspondence between Mr.
Yorke and myself on these topics gave rise to
the term, "Yorke-ROss controversy" Ny last
letter appeared in THE CALL OF December Ia
the newspapers has been in the hands of nu-
meTOus cOnTroverS1aliStS who have entered the
arena against Mr.. GoTke. And these gentle
men have suffered the discussion to be cleverly
withdrawn from the important field of polit-
ical debate and carried into the barren wastes
OF acrimonious religious controversy.
But, Mr.. Editor, have noted that frequently
the lucubratlons OF these religious contro-
versialists have been introduced in the press
with the remark that Soandso contributes the
following paper 10 the famous 4orke-Ross
controversy thus Though doubtless uninten-
tionallyl befogging the public mind IS to the
real points ct issue.
ment that the public should discriminate be-
tween the YoTke-Ross political controversy
and the religious strife OF others.
Then those who are interested in these cues
tons should note n distinction between the
Yorke-Ross controversy and the matters at
issue between the Roman Catholic church and
the American Protective Association.
The objects OF the A. P. a. set forth in its
published declaration OF principles and though
the Romanists have quarrel with that organi-
cation that fact has nothing to do with me in
the present instance. The discussion between
Mr.. Yorke and myself relates only TO four dis
t1nctlve and definite propositions and l shall
decidedly object to having eXtraneous matters
dragged in even by implication.
And even as TO those four propositions do
not officially represent the A. 2. A. l do not
know whether or not heretofore I have made
myself sufficiently plain on this point, but if
not, l shall do so now.
Early in the discussion it was by Implication
asserted that l represented the a. P. A. | was
then willing to assume that position provided
that Mr.. Yorke officially represented the Cath
Ole church. You viii recollect, Mr.. Editor,
that formally inquired of him If he was such
official champion. He replied that he spoke
for Peter c. Yorke and for Peter c. Yorke only
And from that moment it was determined that
l would speak for Donald NJ. Ross and for
Donald NJ. Ross alone.
Therefore the public should discriminate be-
the Yorke-Ro controversy aud the general
campaign OF the American Protective Associa-
ton.
Further, those who are interested in these
questions should discriminate between the
members of the American Protective Associa-
ton and the religious controversialists, who
have been contributing 10 your columns for
some weeks past.
The objects of the A. P. A, as have re-
marked in the foregoing, are set forth in tina
organization's published declaration of princi-
pies. This declaration Is too long to be repro
duced here, but ne who knows them not may
learn them by procuring copy of the Amerf-
can Patriot, of the San Francisco American
or OF the Daily News, Tor in the columns OF
ell of these the declaration is standing mat
ter" In these principles those who take the
trouble to read them viii find that not q word
Is said TO- or against the Catholic or any other
religion.
The controversialists, on the other hand, op-
pose that church with theological arguments,
with discussions as TO the comparative good
accomplished by it and rival sects, and even
with statements as TO the morality of the M en-
bers OF It's communion compared 10 that OF
mem bers OF other religious organizations.
Many, too, Mr.. Editor, of those who have
been engaged IN the religious controversy are
not members of the A. 2. A., SO that it is mani
testify i'm possible to hold that organizations in
any case, responsible for their utterances Dr.
Case and his cousin may continue TO disturb
all South America, DR.. Bovard may preach
against Catholicism, DR.. Wendte may grind
out theological, textual and philosophical ar
guments till the end of time, and Dr. Goodwin
affirm the superior excellence OF his particular
creed
Till the stars grow old
And the sun grows cold
And the leaves OF the lud gment book unfold.
But these viii not affect the American Pro.
tective Association, since they are not among
its mem berS
Wherefore in the public mind distinction
should be made between the members of the
A. P. A. and those who indulge in religious
controversy.
Finally those who are interested in these
matters should discriminate between the state
ments which are given the official seal of ap-
proVal OF the American Protective Association
ana statements put forth by individual mem
bers OF the order on their own responsibility
IN your columns during the last few months
there have appeared articles from the pens OF
many members of the A. p. A. Mr. Brewer
Mr.. Bowman. MI Hubbeu and myself are de-
clared members OF the a. P. a, but so far as /
can learn, not one of us has any authority 70
onlclally represent the order in this newspaper
controversy. Some of us may be officially au-
luoIlZed 10 represent the A. z. A. in other cana
cities, but no one, so far as this controversy in
the press is concerned, has received any official
Endorsement. And for that reason, if for that
reason only, whatever we have written stands
as our own individual views and not as an Off
clal expression OF the position of the A. P A.
Now men join the American Protective AS
ISOLATION Tor various reasons, and / Will not
conceal the fact that the knowledge that the
Catholic church disapproves OF the A. p A. is q
cause which brings many members into the
organization Those who join the A. p A. be-
n a fh0l ole n ,txt
less subscribe to and approve of its avowed
pr nciples. They have, however, additional
personal reasons for becoming members, and
when occasion seems TO warrant these reasons
are made public. But maniiestly the organi-
cation as an organization cannot be held &C
counteble for even the expressed opinions of
its individual members. AS well might the A.
p. A. hold Mr.. Yorkc responsible for the words
of the Irishman who said he would like 10
''shoot the domd Protestants'' for fear they
would all turn A. p. AS
For which reasons it is obvious that dis
tinction should be made between the state
ments OF the A. p. A. and the statements made