Arizona daily citizen., 1901-10-05
BISHOP pOTTER'S FALLACY,

who is attending the Episcopal
convention at San Francisco, has
been interviewed by the San Fran
cisco Post. Bishop Potter is not
only distinguished theologian, an
ornament to the church with which
he is associated, but he is also
practical man of affairs, who keeps
in touch with political develop
ments. Probably it was rs the
publicist rather than as the thco-
logian that he gave utterance to
this sentiment in his interview
published in the San Francisco
Post;
There is something wrong in our
hereditary American doctrines
Certain elements in the Constitu-
tion are wrong There were among
those who made it men who drew
their inspiration from the French
Revolutionists. To them the mo-
dern anarchist might be eNtravag-
ant. The principles of modern
anarchy would not be extrayagant
Free speech would not be extra
VACANT to them, There is no such
thing. 1t is RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Thisisa most significant decIara-
ton. 1t is not the utteranco of n
demagogue, but of n sober minded,
clear headed man, whose deliver
ances both from the pulpit and the
platform command respect. 1t
would be interesting to know to
what extent Bishop Potter voices
the sentiment of thoughtful Amer
leans. How many OF them agree
with him in the belief that there
is something wrong in our heredi-
tary American doctrine. " William
f. Gladstone, one of the greatest
of British statesmen, declared the
Constitution of the United States
to be one of the most perfect in
struments devised by the intellect
of man. Is it possible that 80 keen
an intellect as his was unable to
detect weak points in this charter
of American rightsY Certain ele-
ments in the Constitution are
wrong, says Bishop Potter. There
were among those who made it men
who drew their inspiration from
the French Revolutionists: Free
speech would not be extravagant.
1t is licentiousness. Real free
speech is an impossibility in de
cent society.
If Bishop Potter will reflect more
seriously upon the subject ho will
probably find that there is nothing
wrong about "our hereditary Amer
lean doctrines. The doctrines
are as sound and irrefutable now
as they were whom proclaimed by
our forefathers. No man has ever
lived who understood more
thoroughly what the rights of the
pc ople are than Thomas Jefferson
and the other patriotic and big
minded men who laid the founda
tion Of our present system of gov
ernment, They were not building
for day, but for all time. There
is nothing in the Declaration of
Independence, or in the Constitu-
ton, which was adopted after in
dependence had been wrested from
Great Britain, which would lessen
the citizens respect for law and
authority. The proof of that is
found in the history of this Re-
public from it's first President to
it's last. The greatest war of the
nineteenth century was largely
the result of conflicting theories
about the meaning of the Consti-
tution-t the reserved rights of the
States. But that war would havs
occurred. we are told, under the
most perfect Constitution the in
tellect of man could have devised
There was an "irreconcilabIo con-
fiict" between two civilizations.
However great may have been the
differences Of opinion in respect
to the reserved rights of tho States
there was practical unanimity of
opinion as to the duties and obli-
cations OF the citizen. He had no
right to do anything forbidden by
the law--no right to assassinate
those who did not agree with him;
no right to do anything which
ieopardized the lives, liberty and
rights OF other citizens.
II IL not necessary. In deviainu