The poisonous and corrupting influence of Pharisaism is noticeable in
every strata of society, as vicious and odious to-day as when the
great Galilean, with the supreme contempt of a pure and genuine soul,
denounced in such withering terms those who pretended to be what they
were not. Evil and repulsive as hypocrisy must ever appear, it assumes
colossal proportions as a moral crime, when it masquerades in the
robes of official authority, for nothing so surely undermines all
respect for law in the mind of the masses as exhibitions of
insincerity, inconsistency, and Pharisaism by those invested with
power. The people are not so slow witted as the few who take pride in
their superior brilliancy imagine. They quickly detect insincerity or
hypocrisy; but unfortunately, they frequently do not discriminate
between the offender and the office in the nation or the communion
which he disgraces. Pharisaism within the Church, far more than
assaults from without, has destroyed the old-time influence of
theology over the popular mind; while the same results are clearly
manifest in our political fabric. In the latter sphere, hypocrisy is
doubly odious, in that while undermining the confidence of the people
in law, justice, and government, it places far greater power in the
hands of pretentious individuals than would be tolerated were it not
for their profession of superior virtue, and thus enables persons who
are of small moral stature, or who through defective training and
unfortunate environment are thoroughly narrow and bigoted, to wield
despotic power, often bringing swift and severe punishment on those
far less guilty in the eye of the moral law than themselves. Believing
as I do that Pharisaism is to-day one of the greatest evils which
menace the stability of our government and the continued advance of
civilization along the highway of enlightened progress, I feel it an
urgent duty to frankly and freely discuss some notable recent
illustrations which to unprejudiced minds take on the cast of
Pharisaism, and are symptomatic of a condition which presages the
moral decline of a nation. For if history teaches one lesson more
impressively than another, it is that in which she emphasizes the fact
that when Pharisaism becomes enthroned in power, when hypocrisy
mantles insincerity and depravity, the soul of a people goes out; and
though the form or shadow of former greatness may remain for a time,
like the oak which remains standing after the tap-root has been eaten
out, vitality, growth, and life have vanished.
The first case which calls for attention is that of Joseph A. Britton,
and it impressively illustrates the evils which will sooner or later
come to any people who permit the Pharisaical element to arrogate
authority, or who legalize the infringement of liberty by authorizing
the establishment of a censorship of morals, especially when power is
lodged in the hands of persons who have a penchant for delving in
moral sewers, and are not hedged about with restrictions which make
them legally responsible for wrong doing. Mr. Britton, it will be
remembered, was long Mr. Comstock's closest counselor and most
efficient aid. In the course of time, however, he withdrew from his
former commander in order to establish an association somewhat similar
to that presided over by Mr. Comstock. Such societies will naturally
ever prove very alluring to men of a certain class, owing to the
unwarranted power given to individuals, by which they are enabled to
persecute those in no way guilty of crime, and who, after innocence is
established, have no redress for the great expense and wrongs
inflicted by the irresponsible censorship. The new organization was
styled "The Society for the Enforcement of Criminal Law," and Mr.
Britton has been from its inception its leading spirit. About a year
ago, exercising a power, which, if permitted at all, should always be
confined to a responsible judiciary, he caused the arrest of the
president of the American News Company, for selling some of the works
of Count Tolstoi and Balzac.[2]
[2] Commenting on this outrage, the New York _Herald_ said
editorially:--
"We have had too much of this meddling business--rummaging
the mails for the books of a conscientious writer like
Tolstoi, suppressing the poems of one of the gentlest and
noblest of writers, Whitman, and now taking a gentleman to
the Tombs for having on his shelves a copy of Balzac.
_American readers are not children, idiots, or slaves._ They
can govern their reading without the advice of Mr. Comstock,
Mr. Wanamaker, or this new supervisor of morals named
Britton--a kind of spawn from Comstock, we are informed, and
who begins his campaign for notoriety by an outrage upon Mr.
Farrelly."
The courts promptly dismissed the case, but Mr. Farrelly had no
redress for the expense, the harassment, and lost time incident to
this unjust arrest. Since then Mr. Britton has had much trouble with
the courts and officers of law, who thoroughly distrust the man.[3]
He, however, has been posing as a virtuous martyr, declaring that the
police and judiciary are all subsidized: that it is impossible for him
to suppress the crimes of gamblers, saloon keepers, and the
proprietors of disorderly houses on account of the officers being in
collusion with the offenders. It is proper to state also that
counter-charges have been freely made in the daily press, and this
gentleman who assumes the role of one peculiarly fitted to unearth and
punish sinners, has been charged with using his office for
blackmailing purposes. Of the truth or falsity of the charges I know
nothing, but the latest revelation relating to Mr. Britton's career
certainly gives color to some of the charges which have been made
against him. It seems that while sincere and innocent persons who
mistakenly support these mischievous organizations by freely giving
hard earned dollars to such persons as the gentleman in question,
vainly hoping that their contribution will aid in exterminating
gambling, Mr. Britton has been recklessly _indulging in gambling
himself_. For a time fortune favored him. He won, and drew the money,
but later, luck deserted him and our pseudo-reformer lost quite
heavily. [4]Being pressed for the amount of his gambling debts,
aggregating $1,085, he gave a check which his creditor, Mr. Robt. G.
Irving, alleges was returned as worthless. He then gave notes, the
first two of which have come due but have not been paid; consequently
his creditor now seeks redress in the courts. Mr. Britton, probably
feeling that his usefulness as a censor of morals will be seriously
impaired by this unfeeling revelation, displays considerable
indignation while admitting his guilt. He says in the column of one of
the New York dailies:--
"_I have one weakness. Even the very strongest minded men will
bet on horses. I do it. I admit it._ But why do they pick on me?
Nobody notices the corruption of officials, but when the Agent
for the Enforcement of Criminal Law bets on horse races and
defaults on his debts, everybody sets up a howl."
[3] In the New York _Morning Advertiser_ of September 10,
Mr. Britton thus denounces the judiciary of the empire
city:--
"The police are down on me, but I am not afraid of 'em. I
can prove that the police force is subsidized to wink at
crime. Nine tenths of the crime in New York is under police
protection. I can prove it, and I could begin with the
inspectors and captains. Oh, I'd strike high. I don't go
into the courts and prove it, because every judge in this
city, and I don't make a single exception, is subsidized."
[4] The _Morning Advertiser_ of Sept. 10, 1891, thus records
Mr. Britton's embarrassing position:--
Joseph A. Britton is agent of the New York Society for the
Enforcement of the Criminal Law. Agent Britton has become so
absorbed in the enforcement of the criminal law that he has,
it is said, forgotten that there is a civil law, and
defaulted on the payment of _betting debts_. His creditor,
in the sum of $1,085, is Robert G. Irving, a bookmaker, who
has tried to collect the debt since last fall, and failing
has resorted to the courts.
According to Irving, Agent Britton, upholder and advocate of
the majesty of the law, placed some bets with him, won, and
drew his winnings. Then Britton continued to bet, on credit,
and lost; but, _instead of settling in hard cash, gave a
check, which the bank stamped N. G. when presented. Finally,
Britton exchanged three notes for the worthless check_, but
the first two notes have fallen due, and have proved as
worthless as the check. So the case is on the court docket.
Agent Britton admits the debt, and its nature.
And this is a specimen of the men which a Christian people are
supporting and encouraging, owing to their loud and pharisaical
protestations of superior virtue. The words spoken by the great
Nazarene teacher, and which ring down the corridor of the ages, apply
to-day as aptly as when in old Judea he said, "Woe unto you, scribes
and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres,
which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead
men's bones and of all uncleanness. Even so ye outwardly appear
righteous, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity."
Another instance of the evil of clothing Pharisaism with power was
forcibly illustrated in the recent prosecution of the Rev. J. B.
Caldwell, editor of _Christian Life_. This noteworthy case illustrates
most painfully the fact that an innocent and noble-minded man, who has
committed no crime, is liable to be arrested as a common felon and
placed at great expense, though perfectly innocent, as was the case in
this instance. Yet in spite of this great crime the wronged man has no
redress, while the real criminals, they who caused the persecution of
the innocent, are in no way amenable to the law. This case also
emphasizes the danger flowing from Pharisaism, in its liability to
persecute those who criticise it. The possibilities of evil from this
source cannot be over-estimated, for it looks toward the suppression
of free thought and an untrammeled press and the establishing of a
moral, political, and religious despotism. Briefly stated, the facts
in the case of the Chicago editor are as follows: In November of 1889,
Mr. Caldwell published an earnest plea for Marital Purity, by Rev. C.
E. Walker, a Congregational minister of good standing. The paper was
not coarse or repulsive, but an earnest plea for one of the most vital
and noble reforms imaginable. No notice was taken of this publication
by either Mr. Comstock's agent in Chicago, by Mr. Comstock, or the
postal authorities. Month after month passed, yet no notice was taken;
at last more than six months after the publication of Rev. C. E.
Walker's paper, the editor of _Christian Life_ criticised the action
of the anti-vice society and the postal department in the case of Mr.
Harman. After this, however, the publication of Mr. Walker's paper
seemed to assume in the eyes of our censors of public morals criminal
proportions, and Mr. Caldwell was arrested, one of the chief charges
being the circulation of the paper on "_Marital Purity_," _published
in November, 1889. He was arrested in October, 1890, almost a year
after the publication of the paper objected to by the censors._ Now
there are two points emphasized in this case which are worthy the
serious consideration of thoughtful people. If the post-office
inspector at Chicago, or Mr. Comstock, or if the postal department at
Washington regarded this paper published in November, 1889, as obscene
and believed it came within the limits of the law, why did these three
argus-eyed censors of public morals wink at the offence for _eleven
months_ and take no step against the editor, _until after he had
condemned the post-office department and the anti-vice society_? If
they were right in taking action, _almost a year after the offence_,
were they not guilty of _culpable neglect_ in paying no attention to
it for ten months, or until _after_ they had been criticised by Mr.
Caldwell? From the _Christian Life_ I clip a few lines which are
important as bearing upon this point:--
(1.) The Attorney-General at Washington advised, _after_ reading
the Harman criticism, to place the case in the hands of the
District Attorney. (2.) The case was known to the
Postmaster-General and to Mr. Comstock, and these men were
appealed to in vain to stop the prosecution. (3.) Mr. Comstock,
in a letter to the _Woman's Journal_, characterized the mailing
of _Christian Life_ as violation of the law, _and this before the
trial occurred_.
If Mr. Comstock, as his letter to the Woman's Journal indicates,
regarded the mailing of _Christian Life_ a violation of the postal
laws, why was no notice taken of it by him or his Chicago agent for
almost a year? _Why this culpable dereliction of duty_ until _after_
the anti-vice society and the postal department had been criticised by
Mr. Caldwell? It matters not, for the point I wish to emphasize,
whether the persecution of Mr. Caldwell, was, as appearances would
lead one to infer, a retaliatory stroke in punishment for presuming to
criticise the postal department and anti-vice society, or whether the
censorship was asleep for the space of ten months and only chanced to
wake up after the editor pointed out the iniquity of their proceedings
in a case where they had shown _uncalled-for vigilance_. The fact as
shown forth indicates the power and possibilities for evil inherent in
an enactment which _permits_ any censorship to wield such power
without _attaching severe penalties in the event of its being unjustly
wielded_, for sooner or later, unless these safeguards are present,
evils of the gravest character will follow.
The other serious evil which this case most signally emphasizes,
cannot be too frequently or strongly stated, and that is, the cruel
wrong, the great injustice which a citizen of this republic may
suffer, when perfectly innocent, while those who have persecuted him
and are guilty of a serious offence before the moral law, escape
unscathed. Thus, we find in this case, after many months of weary
suspense, months of harassment and anxious thought, and after being
put to an expense which to one in Mr. Caldwell's circumstances was
very large, when his case came up for trial before one of the ablest
judges in the city, it was promptly dismissed, the judge ruling that
the defendant had not violated the law, as had been charged. He was
allowed to go forth a free man, but he had no redress against those
who had unjustly persecuted him. He was in no way recompensed for the
_money which he had had to expend to establish his innocence_, or paid
for the _great anxiety and harassment of soul he suffered_. The
spectacle of an innocent man robbed by the process of law of his money
and peace of mind, yet left with no redress, is humiliating to every
person who loves justice. A nation may sometimes err on the side of
mercy with safety, but no government _can afford to be guilty of a
palpable injustice even to one of her humblest citizens_.
Still another illustration of Pharisaism comes to my mind, a case
peculiarly deplorable, because the individual stands so high in the
councils of our nation, as well as occupies so prominent a seat in the
Christian synagogue. I refer to the case touched upon by Mr. Fawcett
in his admirable essay on a "Gambler's Paradise." Probably thousands
of persons who had applauded the Postmaster-General's persistent
efforts to crush out lotteries, were amazed beyond measure on seeing
in the metropolitan press, day after day, statements to the effect
that the Postmaster-General had speculated heavily in Reading stock,
and was losing vast sums. The press even went so far as to intimate
that his credit was no longer good, and so general was the impression
that telegrams from different portions of the country were received,
inquiring if this high official had failed. To those who had fondly
believed that the Postmaster-General was actuated _solely_ by a
sincere desire to destroy gambling in his active crusade against the
lotteries, these uncontradicted statements from Wall Street came as a
rude awakening,--a most painful revelation; for evil as lotteries
are, in common with everything that fosters a love for chance and the
mania for gambling, it could not be truthfully urged that the lottery
was nearly so pernicious in its influence, as that great maelstrom of
moral death, that realm of professional gamblers,--Wall Street. The
lottery took from one to ten dollars from thousands of pockets
monthly, and was a positive evil, in that, while taking these small
sums, it fostered the appetite for gambling. But Wall Street is ever
sweeping away numbers of fortunes, incidentally driving many of its
victims to the suicide's grave, some to State's prison, and in a
hundred other ways is it poisoning life, and interfering with the
happiness of thousands; more, its baleful influence touches most
intimately tens of thousands, who in no way are responsible for its
existence.
As has been justly observed by a recent thoughtful writer: "The
lottery is legalized in only one State in the Union, but gambling in
grain is legalized in every State. The lottery is a small evil indeed
compared with the speculation shark, who gambles on the price of the
very bread our wives and children eat, and puts our daily bread in
pawn to squeeze an added cent out of the palm of poverty. No one has
to buy a lottery ticket, and it is a man's own act if he takes the
chances of that game, but bread for his little ones he has to buy and
in doing so is at the mercy of the gambler."
Another phase of Wall Street speculation which makes it vicious above
other methods of gambling, is seen in the fact that the kings of the
street when they engage in a well matured deal, play with "loaded
dice." There is no chance so far as they are concerned. When these
highly respectable gamblers who are worth many millions quietly
arrange a movement which will greatly increase their holdings they
deliberately set to work to mislead the public. Coolly and with the
deliberation of master minds they deceive the "street;" and as a
result, ruin to many attends success to the few, while with every such
movement lives go out in darkness, reputations are ruined, and
families are reduced from affluence to penury. Even at the very time
when we were informed by the daily press that the Postmaster-General,
through the manipulation of the "little wizard," was losing enormous
sums of money, more than one man was driven to suicide by the sudden
turn in affairs and one or more banks were forced to the wall. How
many happy homes were wrecked, and men of moderate fortunes were
reduced to penury by this well-directed stroke of Mr. Gould, will of
course never be known, and if the Postmaster-General had chanced to be
on the side of the wizard in this gambling deal, would he not have
been morally responsible for a share of the wreck and ruin wrought?
Nay, more, was he not, as an active participant in this great game of
chance, morally responsible to a certain degree? Is there any
essential difference between gambling by spending ten dollars for a
lottery ticket or ten thousand dollars in railroad stock, which you
have been led to believe will be bulled to a fictitious value and
which you hope to be able to unload on some one else at an enormous
advance? In each instance it is purely a game of chance for all save
those who are within the Wall Street ring, who control sufficient
money and stocks to dictate the course of the game and to whom there
is no risk. The Louisiana lottery is a positive evil, a cancerous sore
on the body politic. But Wall Street is a far greater evil; it is a
cancer whose roots have already fastened upon the vitals of our
political, educational, and religious institutions; an evil which
nothing can remedy, save a political revolution of the great earnest
masses of our people. The pulpit is abashed in its presence because so
many leading lights and pillars in each wealthy congregation are
connected with the "street," which is the polite way of designating
"gamblers" who delve in stock speculation. The press, with honorable
and noble exceptions, wink at this great plague spot, while loudly
crying for laws to correct comparatively harmless evils. The political
parties depend too much upon the kings of the "Street" for the sinews
of war in great campaigns, to lift a voice against it. The "Saloon"
and the "Street," two colossal curses, cast their swart and portentous
shadow over the palaces and hovels of a great nation, yet by virtue of
their power, the Church and State, the clergy and the politicians,
remain silent or temporize in their presence. The Republic needs
to-day, as never before, true men in every official station,--men who
are clean, conscientious, frank, and upright; men who, while strictly
honorable and pure in life and action, are also broad-minded,
tolerant, and large-brained; men unswayed by partisanship or bigotry;
statesmen rather than politicians; and, above all, men that are in no
wise tainted with Pharisaism.