RELIGION


    The city that welcomed Nathan Cole's Los Angeles Times on Dec. 4, 1881 

was, as the editor proclaimed in an article that day, a "City of Churches."  It 

was also a city well on its way toward becoming a Protestant stronghold, which 

was the brand of religion editor Cole had in mind.  Along Fort Street {now 

Broadway} several Protestant denominations were preparing to construct new 

houses of worship, leading the editor to proclaim that Los Angeles was 

"Developing into a Mighty Moral Town."   Yet the nearly 5000 Catholics 

comprised about half of those who attended religious services in 1881 and the 

largest Protestant denomination would not reach a membership of 1000 until 

mid-decade.  By 1890, however, not only had Protestant church membership easily 

surpassed that of the city's Catholic churches, but political and economic 

power were also concentrated in the mainstream Protestant denominations.  

Whether the city had yet reached the status of "a Mighty Moral Town" was, 

however, open to debate.

    This rapid growth in Protestant strength and influence in the 1880s 

contrasted sharply with the snail-like pace by which Methodists, Baptists, 

Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Congregationalists established themselves in 

the 1850s and early 1860s.  Ministers from those denominations came and went in 

the first decades after American acquisition, and when Sheriff Jim Barton was 

killed in 1857 no Protestant minister was currently in town to officiate at his 

funeral.  During the 'fifties Protestant churches fared better in the 

surrounding farm settlements, such as the Baptists in El Monte, where groups of 

immigrants already affiliated with one of the denominations took up residence.

    As Protestants moved into Southern California, a Catholic decline took 

place.  It was more than a matter of relative numbers.  The policies of 

Thaddeus Amat, who presided as Bishop over Southern California for two decades 

until his death in 1878, alienated many Hispanic families who were offended by 

his hostility toward local Catholic customs.  Furthermore, Amat's overly 

restrictive insistence that Catholics avoid any Protestant contact that might 

threaten the faith of Catholics tended to divide Protestants and Catholics in 

Los Angeles.  His repeated warnings against Catholic participation in the 

public schools was especially irritating to Protestants from older states where 

public school systems were looked upon as essential to the republic's growth .  

Editor Cole, in his "City of Churches" article, wrote that "Schools and 

churches are the pride and heart of the intelligence and morals of every 

community."

    The anti-Catholic view occasionally expressed in the Times letters column 

is easily understood in light of the antagonism that had built up during Amat's 

leadership and in light of the growing tension between Catholics and 

Protestants in the Northern states from which most of the post-Civil War 

immigration came.   Specifically, the role of the Catholic church in combating 

alcohol drew forth a series of letters from John Cooney, whose criticism of the 

Catholic clergy is somewhat surprising since city directories list John Cooney 

as a teacher at St. Vincent's College, "H. R.," "Protestant" and "Veritas." The 

letter by "Veritas" that ran on Dec. 1 is unavailable since no copy of that 

date's paper exists on microfilm.  Bishop Francis Mora was Amat's successor.

                         {Times, Nov. 28, 1887, p. 3}

                     The Catholic Church and Prohibition.

              Los Angeles, Nov. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         May I ask through the columns of your worthy paper why Bishop 

         Mora or any of his priests do not openly come out in favor of 

         total prohibition?  They would add to the strength of the 

         cause, and most assuredly Catholics need such a good measure.  

         Bishops and priests have fallen by the wayside, and have not 

         been impervious to the hellish broth.

                                         JOHN COONEY.



                         {Times, Nov. 29, 1887, p. 3}

                           The Temperance Movement.

              Los Angeles, Nov. 28.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         Like your correspondent John Cooney, I often wonder at the 

         conspicuous absence of the Catholic clergy from temperance 

         meetings, although it is a well-known fact that the Catholic 

         Church urges temperance on its own people at all times.  But 

         it is this religious exclusiveness which leaves the cause 

         without that backbone which would cement all the people on 

         one common platform for the universal good, without respect 

         to race, creed or color.  I therefore say all temperance 

         meetings should be strictly secular, as even prayers or hymns 

         drive Catholics and non-church-goers away.

              The various societies now operate as rivals, contending 

         for the leading position in the cause.  This is all from want 

         of federation under one banner.  Another thing, I would urge 

         speakers to carefully avoid the use of bitter, intemperate 

         language about saloon men, and on the contrary direct all 

         their energy to the consumers of liquor rather than the 

         retailers.  Speakers and writers might just as well abuse the 

         landlords, brewers and distillers, who enjoy the profits, the 

         saloon men simply acting as collectors.  Yours respectfully,

                                                    H. R.



                          {Times, Dec. 2. 1887, p. 6}

                        Catholic Church and Temperance.

              Los Angeles, Dec. 1.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  A 

         correspondent of The Times who signs his effusion, remarkable 

         only for its lack of discrimination and reckless 

         misstatements of facts, "Veritas," alleges that "Catholics in 

         Los Angeles are more united against prohibition than they are 

         in support of each other, either socially, civilly or 

         materially," and asks if Catholics have ever unitedly 

         supported any measure for public or private weal.  The gross 

         absurdity of "Veritas'" statement quoted is too apparent to 

         call for comment.  Your correspondent desires to refute the 

         imputation, alike unjust to the Catholic Church and to the 

         cause of temperance, that the Catholic Church is indifferent 

         to the importance of this question.  One of the foremost 

         temperance organizations in this country is the Father 

         Matthew Total Abstinence Society, whose membership is 

         exclusively Catholic, whose champions come from the priestly 

         ranks, and whose records will show as effective work as those 

         of any other denominational organization in the temperance 

         field.  In the grand galaxy of orators whose eloquence has 

         won converts to the cause of temperance, the Catholic Church 

         is represented by His Eminence Archbishop Feehan of Chicago, 

         and most prominently by Bishop Ireland of St. Paul, whose 

         eloquent pleas and personal influence have perhaps been as 

         fruitful as the efforts of any Protestant advocate of 

         temperance.  Another little less noted total-abstinance 

         worker is Father Cotter.  Various dignitaries of the church 

         might be named as indorsing the work, besides a full 

         proportion of lay workers in the church.  "Veritas" injures 

         the cause he champions when he seeks to belittle the work of 

         the Catholic Church by a flagrant disregard of the simple 

         facts, and an exhibition of narrow bigotry.

                                       PROTESTANT.



                         {Times, Dec. 11, 1887, p. 5}

                   "Protestant's" Sham Defense of Catholics.

              Los Angeles, Dec. 2.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  It 

         is evident that your would-be "Protestant" correspondent has, 

         wilfully or otherwise, arrived at a "grossly absurd" 

         interpretation of my very plain and comprehensive inquiry, in 

         reference to the censurable indifference of "Catholics, as 

         such, collectively" toward questions or issues of national or 

         even Catholic importance in this country.  Any child of 

         reason understands, when any party or denomination is alluded 

         to, that such allusion does not merely and exclusively 

         include their principles in the abstract, nor their leaders 

         solely; but to all their adherents "collectively," who are 

         the living, responsible embodiment of said principle, in 

         which case the great majority, and not a few exceptional 

         persons, have to be proven either in favor or against an 

         issue before the whole body can be held responsible.  Would-

         be "Protestant" finds it much easier to dodge my whole 

         question and assertion, and charge, in an altogether new and 

         uncalled-for issue, namely, the teachings of the Catholic 

         Church and the eloquent appeals of a few of her reverend 

         clergy, all of which make the shameful indifference of the 

         great majority of Catholics more censurable.  Of what avail 

         are the greatest moral truths and eminent instructors, if 

         those truths and instructions, like the seed mentioned in the 

         gospel, fall on barren soil.  Would-be "Protestant" makes a 

         decidedly false statement when he asserts that a full 

         proportion of the Catholic laity are zealous, active workers 

         in the cause of temperance, much less prohibition, which, by 

         the way, he again dodges, and substitutes temperance in his 

         gigantic effort to make a very, very few exceptions answer 

         for millions of Catholics who make it necessary for the Pope 

         to frequently call upon, to awake, to arise, to engage in 

         politics as active, model citizens, zealous for the public 

         good.  When would-be "Protestant" feels disposed to 

         politically champion Catholics "as such collectively," in 

         their unenviable position as being the most flatulent, most 

         inane, portion of the body politic of this glorious republic, 

         or as reliable workers in the cause of church or state, then 

         we will be only too willing to meet him with or without 

         gloves.

                                                  VERITAS.



    Other writers criticized the papacy.  "A. G. J.," responding to an attack 

on the Methodists by "Catholic," may well have been a Republican, as indicated 

by his intimation that Grover Cleveland's gift to the Pope was politically 

inspired.  "Observer" also raised the specter of church interference in 

politics, whether it be in Ireland or the United States.  "Tara's" reply to 

"Observer" is important because it comes from a Republican Irish-American 

workingman.  

    In the spring of 1888 the Times carried frequent telegraphic dispatches 

from London regarding relations between Britain and Ireland.  The National 

League, an Irish tenants' organization, supported Charles Parnell's struggle 

for home rule and represented tenants in their demand for fair rents.  

According to the wire service and various British newspapers, Pope Leo XIII had 

declared that the League's methods were contrary to Catholic principles and 

anyone declining to renounce membership in it would be refused absolution.  At 

the same time the papacy was in conflict with the Italian government and King 

Humbert over the authority of the church within Italy.

                         {Times, Jan. 28, 1888, p. 6}

                          A Small Religious Skirmish.

              Los Angeles, Jan. 25.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  I 

         noticed in The Times of the 25th inst. that the Methodists 

         have officially condemned President Cleveland for presenting 

         Pope Leo with a copy of the Constitution of the United 

         States.

              In so doing they, at least, show that they are 

         consistent with the spirit of their society.  For if history 

         is correct, and their own writers to be believed, they 

         condemned Washington and Jefferson for giving a constitution 

         to the United States.

              One wing of their sect condemned Lincoln for liberating 

         the colored people, and called it robbery to deprive their 

         bishop (Andrews) of his hundred slaves.

              When the followers of Wesley were doing their utmost to 

         prevent the United States from ever having a constitution, 

         the Catholics of Maryland were found in the front, fighting 

         for liberty.  Look at Bishop Carroll and Charles Carroll of 

         Carrollton, Lynch, Barry, Sullivan of Maine, and hosts of 

         Catholics who gave their lives and fortunes to give us our 

         Constitution.  Were it not for aid received from countries in 

         which the Catholic faith was professed, we would find it very 

         difficult to wrest our freedom from the tyranny of Protestant 

         England.

              When the Catholics were in possession of power or 

         influence in Maryland, they proclaimed the broadest 

         toleration, the fullest liberty to every Christian sect.  In 

         Catholic Maryland there had been no ear-cropping, no boring 

         of tongues with hot pokers; such exhibitions of brotherly 

         love and mercy were reserved for the Puritans of Plymouth.

              It is to be hoped that President Cleveland may send a 

         copy of the Constitution and a history of our country to our 

         disgruntled protesting brethren of the Methodist camp.

                                                CATHOLIC.



                         {Times, Jan. 29, 1888, p. 6}

                               "They're at It."

              Los Angeles, Jan. 28.--[To the Editor of the Times.]   

         Under the heading of "A Small Religious Skirmish," in The 

         Times, "Catholic" ventures to criticise the Methodist 

         Conference, which officially condemns the action of President 

         Cleveland in sending a copy of the Constitution to Pope Leo.

              The Methodists had a right to pass such a resolution if 

         they saw fit to do so, and it concerns no Catholic or 

         Protestant either.  It is certainly an open question whether 

         President Cleveland could or can consistently send a present 

         to the Pope, who is doing his utmost to cause the Government 

         of Italy trouble and annoyance, while our relations with that 

         country are of the best.

              But anyone having the least conception of President 

         Cleveland, knows he cares as little for the Pope as he does 

         for a Chinese god, and his sending a present to him looks 

         quite as absurd as it is ridiculous.  On the surface it 

         appears a gracious act, but what man of average intelligence 

         takes it for such?  When "Catholic" cuts his eyeteeth in 

         politics, he may realize why the present was sent at all. 

         "Catholic" has a tendency to make a man weary when he talks 

         of his church favoring or fostering constitutional 

         governments, particularly republics.  He must either be very 

         young, or his stock of knowledge limited in the matter of 

         history.

              I do not care to enter into history, but if I did I 

         think the Inquisition would put into shade any tortures he 

         may rake up.  He must remember The Times is read by people 

         who know something about history of an earlier date than the 

         settlement of Maryland.                    

                                          A. G. J.



                          {Times, May 3, 1888, p. 3}

                            The Pope and Politics.

              Los Angeles, May 1.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  I 

         see by the European telegraphic news published in your 

         journal for the last few days, several items concerning the 

         attitude lately assumed, or rather resumed, by the Pope 

         concerning political questions, which have caused much 

         controversy of late years in not England and Ireland 

         alone--which countries are most directly interested--but also 

         in the United States.

              In fact, the whole civilized world are interested 

         spectators of this constitutional agitation of the Irish to 

         restore to their country that independence which they were by 

         bribery and fraud deprived of in 1800.

              In England today the most gigantic intellects are 

         striving to solve this Irish question in such a manner as 

         shall be conducive to the happiness of both countries.

              Mr. Gladstone is of the opinion that to give the Irish 

         people the right to make their own laws of a local nature 

         would make England a more powerful nation both in peace and 

         war than she now is, with a disaffected people like the 

         Irish, obstructing her legislation in the House of Commons, 

         and ready to at least exult when any danger threatens her.

              Mr. Gladstone believes that the Irish people have a 

         right to legally combine and meet and express their 

         disapprobation of the means used to coerce them.

              But now His Holiness Leo XIII solemnly informs them that 

         he understands better what means to acquire their local 

         independence is legal or not, better than Mr. Gladstone, Mr. 

         John Morley and a host of honest, manly Englishmen who have 

         struggled and are now struggling to help Irishmen to receive 

         a tardy recognition of their rights in and out of Parliament.

              It is humiliating to an intelligent Irishmen to thus see 

         their English friends placed in such a position by the 

         attitude of the Pope.

              Any Irish Catholic claiming intelligence will, of 

         course, treat with merited contempt this latest effort of the 

         Pope to interfere in the politics of their country.

              Of course, if they wish to submit to his ruling on 

         matters of politics in Ireland, that is their business, and 

         they can wear the yoke, and nobody will particularly care.  

         But civilized mankind, outside of Ireland, cannot be blamed 

         for treating a race with contempt who will allow the Pope to 

         do with them what his own countrymen have rebelled against, 

         and who relegated him to the privacy of the Quirinal, there 

         to meditate on how to properly save souls, and leave 

         political questions to those whose interest it is to look 

         after them.

              It is evident that English intrigue has at last 

         triumphed in Rome.  The diamonds--I suppose bought chiefly by 

         the Peter's pence sent by the poor Irish, although starving 

         at the same time--to Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, on the 

         occasion of her golden jubilee, have produced the desired 

         result, in a fulmination against the National League.

              Will the Irish submit?  That is a question they must by 

         their course soon answer.  The people of America demand an 

         answer.  Irish Catholics in America must speak out in no 

         uncertain tones.  Irish-American Catholics must place 

         themselves on record.  The Catholics of this city must place 

         themselves squarely on the record and say whether it is true 

         or not that their first political allegiance is due the Pope.  

         It is due to themselves that they place themselves right 

         before their fellow-citizens on this most important subject.  

         For if they acknowledge the right of the Pope to interfere in 

         matters purely of a political nature in Ireland, they must 

         acknowledge his right to interfere in matters political in 

         America.  This charge has often been made.  Now is the time 

         to prove whether it is true or false.  It will not do to 

         remain silent.  The question is of vast importance to every 

         American citizen and should be answered.  If Catholics 

         concede the right of the Pope to interfere in politics in 

         Ireland, can they consistently refuse to be guided 

         politically by him in American political affairs.  "There's 

         the rub."  If the Catholic priests of Ireland are instructed 

         to deny absolution to a certain class of their countrymen, 

         holding certain ideas on matters political, why not the same 

         authority issue instructions to the Bishop of Los Angeles 

         instructing him to refrain from absolving a certain class who 

         have their views of political matters which they believe to 

         be correct, and which they desire to see carried into effect 

         in a perfectly legal manner?

              The American people are awaiting the answer to this 

         latest political ukase from the Vatican.

              The Catholics of Los Angeles should be heard from, and 

         their verdict given as to the right of the Pope to dictate to 

         them politically.                         

                                               OBSERVER.



                          {Times, May 4, 1888, p. 3}

                              Pope and Politics.

              Los Angeles, May 3.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         "Observer" in today's issue challenges an answer from the 

         Irish Catholics of Los Angeles.  I am one and will give him 

         my individual opinion on the subject, although I think he is 

         premature in asking for an expression on a decree which is 

         not officially before us instead of waiting, as the Catholic 

         Irish are doing (with a calmness for which they do not 

         usually get credit), until from the altars and from the 

         mouths of their pastors the words of Pope Leo (if he has 

         uttered any) are distinctly heard.  So far all telegrams are 

         ominously dated London, and vouched for by the papers which 

         are the authors of "Parnellism and Crime," and which exulted 

         over the result of Errington's mission, until it was proved 

         without a doubt that he had come home with his "tail between 

         his legs."  I hate polemics, and refuse to discuss them but I 

         claim for the Catholic Church a right to exclude from its 

         commission whom it chooses, and have no kick coming when 

         another excludes liquor dealers, and a third refuses its 

         colored brethren the right of way on its special tramway to 

         heaven.

              Priests--and by that term I mean all ministers of 

         religion--have exactly the same right as I have in politics, 

         no more, no less.  Any extra influence they may exert should 

         be in proportion to their honesty, their abilities and their 

         unselfishness as exemplified in their lives.  That influence 

         is legitimate.

              But to the main point.  The Pope, no more than Bismarck, 

         has any right to dictate politics to us.  The only way, 

         therefore, in which the question of the plan of campaign 

         could be touched on by him would be as to its moral effect.

              The opponents of the plan call it a robbery, a refusal 

         to keep contracts, therefore dishonest.  (If the church 

         asserts that robbery and breach of contract are wrong, it 

         declares what no one disputes.)

              The supporters of the plan traverse that statement, 

         bringing forward three pleas:

              First--That no title rests with the landlords except 

         that founded on confiscation.

              Second--That a state of war exists, and that the refusal 

         to pay rents is in the form of a reprisal consequent on the 

         refusal of the landlords to accept a land-purchase bill 

         giving them 22 years' purchase.

              That it bears the same relation to this contest as the 

         emancipation and confiscation of the slaves did to the 

         American rebellion, except that instead of absolute 

         forfeiture, the rent is merely put in escrow until the 

         landlords accept reasonable terms.

              Third--That the contracts are not legal; being obtained 

         and enforced by violence and duress, as fully as if the 

         pistol of a highwayman were pointed at their heads, instead 

         of a writ of ejectment, which is as deadly a weapon, and is 

         backed by the rifles and bayonets of the police and the army.  

         That there is no hope of legal redress.  The courts are a 

         farce.  That all conditions, except fair chance of success, 

         are sufficient to justify the last resort--armed rebellion.

              I scarcely believe that the Pope will pass a sweeping 

         condemnation on exparte evidence on the National League or 

         its acts.  Each individual case presents different aspects; 

         and cannot be decided in bulk, so I believe that each man 

         will settle with his conscience and his confessor on the 

         morality of his action.

              If, however, His Holiness should declare that de facto 

         means also de jure, the league may reply:  "Your Holiness 

         will please set us the example by dropping your title of King 

         and swearing allegiance to King Humbert in temporal matters."  

         But I do not believe that the Pope will stultify himself in 

         this manner.  The Irish have, through all the centuries, and 

         with a discrimination surprising in a people of such 

         mercurial temperament, kept the line carefully distinct 

         between their unswerving devotion to the religion of their 

         fathers and its representative, the Vicar of Christ, and the 

         temporal Prince who ruled at Rome.

              We defied Breakspear and Cardinal Cullen; rather, we 

         calmly ignored their pretensions; and king, kaiser or pope 

         will fail to draw us away from our allegiance to our 

         motherland, or to the land of our adoption.

              Before I close I want to state one fact not exactly 

         relevant to the subject.  I got a paper the other day from 

         Dublin, and found reported that in the courts of three 

         different counties the Judge had been presented with white 

         gloves.  (No criminal case on the docket.)  That in a country 

         where crime is rampant!  Where it has become necessary for 

         the English Tory and the Irish Orangeman to go to Babylon to 

         court the Scarlet Woman; to ask aid from anti-Christ--and 

         all, to pull down the league which Balfour declares, in 

         Parliament, is dead.

              In the meantime, if I know my countrymen, they will not 

         begin to fight the Church till it begins to strike them.  

         They will remember that the enemies of Ireland and of 

         Catholicity would enjoy nothing so much as to see them at 

         loggerheads--while they laid back and laughed; and, like the 

         spectator of the fight between the rattlesnake and skunk, 

         "Didn't give a d--- which licked."  Yours truly,

                                       TARA.




    The Catholic church was not the only religious institution to be scolded 

by Times contributors.  Throughout the 'eighties Protestant churches raised 

funds through various social activities to purchase lots, build sanctuaries and 

carry out their religious mission.  K. F. Junor roundly condemned this 

practice.  His concluding paragraph, using the repeal of the Sunday Law as an 

indication of the church's declining influence, was seized upon by "A Friend of 

Jesus" as a vehicle for a much more damning condemnation of the state of 

Christianity in California.  For a fuller discussion of the Sunday Law, see the 

chapter on prohibition.

                         {Times, April 17, 1883, p.3}

                       More Questions for the Churches.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  A Church in which 

         souls are not being saved has abdicated its functions and 

         there the spirit of Christ dwells not.  The Church is not of 

         the world, but, according to the command of Christ, must come 

         out from the world, and be separate.  The ends of the Church 

         are spiritual ends, and its members must be consecrated to 

         these ends.

              Our spirit and our methods of work must be according to 

         His word, or we can expect no blessing of God.  We seem to be 

         drifting into the godless condition when the blessing of God 

         is out of our minds altogether.  The blessing of God is the 

         pouring out of His holy spirit.     

              It is not a matter of doubt as to whether we have that 

         blessing here or not.  We have not.   We have fine churches, 

         some of them free from debt, but we are without the blessing, 

         and, therefore, the sanction of God.

              Doubtless one of the main reasons for this is the 

         methods we have allowed to come into the Church.  Like the 

         Jews in Christ's time, we have made God's house a house of 

         merchandise, and even worse; whereas His house is a house of 

         prayer.  It is not essential that these things should take 

         place in the church building.  If the people of Christ pursue 

         wrong methods, in the name of the church, the crime is all 

         the same.

              Where is the difference between a raffle and a lottery?  

         Where is the difference between tableaux and the theater?  

         There is just as much sacrilege for the people of Christ to 

         do these things in a hall as in the church.  It is for the 

         church and might just as well be done in and from the pulpit;  

         being for the Church and by the Church.

              To my mind there is perfect justification for employing 

         the coming circus of educated horses for raising money to buy 

         Bibles for our churches, as to employ the methods that are 

         being employed to raise money for any purpose for the church.  

         God and the Bible cannot sanction them, and therefore God's 

         blessing cannot be upon the people or the preached word.  It 

         will and must kill out any spirituality that there is in the 

         church.

              An index of the spiritual condition of the Church may be 

         found in the fact that the Christian Sabbath has been 

         abolished by the Legislature of this State.  Now we have no 

         Sabbath, and yet the Church of Christ has uttered no protest.  

         God has said that one day is to be given to him of the seven, 

         but the legislature of California says on the statute book we 

         abolish such a regulation so far as the people of the State 

         are concerned.  But even that is not so significant as that 

         the Church of Christ should quietly acquiesce.

                                          K. F. JUNOR.



                         {Times, April 24, 1883. p. 3}

                          No More Christian Sabbath.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  In regard to the 

         allusion made by Brother Junor in last Tuesday's Times, that 

         the Christians have no more Sabbath, which has been abolished 

         by the Legislature, it is a fact which stuns every good, true 

         Christian and law-abiding citizen.  It is true now, what I 

         have heard in former years, that California is an uncivilized 

         State.  Correct.  The cannibals have no Sabbath, and do not 

         need any.  Where does the Christian Sabbath originate?  From 

         the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, who rose on the 

         first day of the week, and He is called, and is, the Sun of 

         Righteousness to every Christian, which now shines over them, 

         and in them, and never sets.  Hence the name Sun-day.  On 

         that day the disciples of Christ came together to break the 

         bread, to read the word of God, to sing His praises, to pray 

         for spiritual power, to exhort and edify each other, to 

         accumulate a spiritual treasure within their hearts, to 

         subsist on during the week.  And all true Christians do so 

         now, for they feel the need of a God and Savior, to assist 

         them in every day life, to do the will of their father, God.  

         And the United States Constitution has accepted and upheld 

         the Christian Sabbath as a Christian nation.  And all other 

         later States have done the same.  But California, as regards 

         the Sunday law, stands by itself without the Union.  Then, 

         according to the United States Constitution, the repealing of 

         the Sunday law of California would be unconstitutional, null 

         and void; so it seems to me--let the lawyers decide the 

         question.  Now, then, that shows plain that all who voted for 

         the repealing of the Sunday law were no Christians; if they 

         were they would have done as other States did, and there 

         would be unity, but now there is none.  Christ came to 

         destroy the works of the devil, that is, all that is wrong in 

         the sight of God and injurious to man.  But our lawmakers 

         gave the devil full power to do on Sunday whatever he 

         pleases.  Christ has bound Satan with the chain, which is 

         God's law and gospel; but our wise (?) men had to pledge 

         themselves to their constituents to cut that chain, this 

         Sunday law, and let him loose, and what faithful servants he 

         had.  The Bible reads, "To whom ye yield yourselves servants 

         to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin 

         unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness."  Have they 

         done the will of God?  No.  But the will of the devil.  The 

         Bible reads further, "He that committeth sin is of the 

         devil."  They cannot pray the Lord's prayer, "Thy will be 

         done."  If they had done the will of God they would never 

         have repealed the Sunday law.  When our lawmakers do such 

         things, which are considered the best (?) picked men, what 

         can we expect from their constituents?  Now on every Sabbath 

         day--for the true Christians have one yet--we can see the 

         devil's followers in the low dens and other places without 

         restriction, for their faces and defying looks make all good 

         Christians blush, on their way going to church.  Who is to 

         blame?  No one else but our legislators who voted for the 

         repealing of the Sunday law.  Now we shall have plenty of 

         crime; and we shall need more policemen and jurors and jails.  

         Now ye taxpayers, prepare yourselves for all the expenses.  

         Do they, who voted for the repealing of the Sunday law, think 

         that God's blessing will rest upon them and their labor?  No.  

         Christ says, "But whoso shall offend one of these little 

         ones, which believe in me, it were better for him that a 

         millstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in 

         the depth of the sea.  Woe unto the world, because of 

         offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to 

         that man by whom the offense cometh."

                                     A FRIEND OF JESUS.



    While Junor and "A Friend of Jesus" attacked a broad spectrum of churches, 

"Orthodoxy" criticized the "Liberal Christianity" of local Unitarians and Eli 

Fay, their pastor from 1883-1891.  On the day "Orthodoxy's" letter ran in the 

Times Fay repeated his popular lecture on "Liberal Christianity" in Armory Hall 

at the request of several of the city's leading citizens.  Unitarians, despite 

their relatively small numbers, had great influence in Los Angeles, counting 

among their members woman's club founder Caroline Severance and prominent 

journalist William Spalding.  While Fay was a leader among the city's clergy, 

one historian referred to his congregation as a "motley crowd" of free thinkers 

and iconoclasts, a theater audience rather than church members.

                         {Times, Jan. 27, 1889, p. 6}

                             Liberal Christianity.

              Los Angeles, Jan. 26.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  I 

         learn from this morning's Times that Rev. Dr. Fay is to 

         repeat his sermon on "Liberal Christianity."  Now, I would 

         like to ask what kind of Christianity that is which has no 

         Christ in it?  It seems to me a bold assumption for a 

         denomination to talk about its Christianity, and its broad 

         and liberal nature, when it denies the divinity of 

         Christianity's founder and refuses to worship him.

              "And the disciples were first called Christians in 

         Antioch."  Christians, then, are, properly, the disciples and 

         followers of Christ, and Christianity, as I take it, embraces 

         only such.  "Liberal Christianity" sounds well, and is very 

         pleasing to the ear of the natural man, but in the light of 

         the origin of Christianity it is an empty and meaningless 

         term, a senseless paradox.

                                      ORTHODOXY.



                         {Times, Jan. 28, 1889, p. 5}

                            "Liberal Christianity."

                             FROM THE OTHER SIDE.

              Los Angeles, Jan. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         "Orthodoxy" in this morning's Times expresses the opinion 

         that "liberal Christianity" "is an empty and meaningless 

         term--a senseless paradox."  Possibly that would be true if 

         the great creeds of Christendom had not declared to be 

         essentially Christian.  Much, very much, that was and is, so 

         narrow, so irrational, so intrinsically irreligious, so 

         illiberal, that it became necessary for those who resolved to 

         abjure the creeds and to take their theology directly from 

         Christ to give it a name in accord with His gospel and 

         spirit.  "Orthodoxy" thus assumes that "liberal Christianity" 

         has no Christ in it.  This charge is stale, and has been 

         repeatedly and explicitly denied.  What are the facts?

              First--In glad recognition of the character and work of 

         Christ, the Unitarians observe Christmas as generally and as 

         religiously as do other denominations.

              Second--Throughout the East in their older churches the 

         same is true of the Lord's supper.

              Third--A very large number of the sweetest hymns to 

         Christ in the English language were written by Unitarians.

              Fourth-the exhortations and prayers in our 

         denominational service book are replete with hearty 

         recognition of the doctrine, the example, the spirit of Jesus 

         Christ.  True, we do not look upon him as "Orthodoxy" does.  

         Nor does "Orthodoxy" look upon baptism or the eucharist as do 

         the Catholics and the High Church Episcopalians.  But what 

         would "Orthodoxy" think if it were charged that his church 

         repudiates baptism and the Lord's supper?  Unitarians do not 

         believe the doctrine of the Trinity; let it be known far and 

         wide.  In conclusion, let me ask if "Orthodoxy" believes that 

         the Omnipresent Spirit, the creator of this material 

         universe, He who resides in and is as necessary to the sun, 

         moon and stars as He resides in and is necessary to this 

         speck of earth, in person, came here 1800 years ago, that He 

         might be born of a woman as His only hope of regaining what 

         he had inadvertently lost?  Does he believe that the Virgin 

         Mary carried in her arms and nursed at her breast as a 

         hungry, crying child the illimitable and immortal God?  If 

         so, he is in little danger of being lost, if faith in 

         absurdity that puts heathen mythology to shame has any saving 

         power.  "Orthodoxy" holds that to deny the divinity, the 

         Godhead of Christ, is to deny Christ.  Is the Christ of 

         "Orthodoxy" a pure myth?  Do Unitarians deny the actual 

         Christ of the New Testament?       

                                          ELI FAY.



    According to religious historian Sandra Frankiel, editor Otis was a "self-

appointed crusader against all cults and a strong supporter of the city's 

Anglo-Protestant culture...."   His editorials and his news columns reflected 

that position throughout the 1880s, but particularly in the boom of the mid and 

late 'eighties when the city's large population of newcomers with loose cash in 

their pockets attracted an increasing number of visiting faith healers and 

revivalists.  "Justice," perhaps somewhat naively, wrote a defense of the 

Salvation Army and sent it to the Times, which earlier in the month had 

reported in prurient detail the conviction of an Army woman on charges of child 

neglect.  Otis converted the letter into an opportunity to denounce the Army, 

as he did frequently, in a tone almost as sneering as that which he would later 

use to attack the faith healers.  Years later Harry Chandler, his son-in-law 

and successor at the Times, made the Salvation Army his favorite charity.  

                         {Times, Sept. 29, 1887, p. 4}

                              The Salvationists.

              Los Angeles, Sept. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         The people seem to be all fighting against the Salvation 

         Army, who walk around on the street with drums, horns, etc., 

         singing religious songs.  Of these people I would like to ask 

         a question.  Which is the more degenerating and harmful to 

         mankind, the noise of the Salvation Army on Sunday night or 

         the loud voice of the mule who brays away on Spring street, 

         between Second and Third streets, calling upon people to just 

         step inside and see the only two living alligators ever on 

         exhibition, and the only American mummy ever exhumed?  Why, 

         the Salvation Army are Princes by the side of this howling 

         disgrace, against whom no one ever thinks of crying out.  If 

         the people would only remember the principle of American 

         liberty, and allow those who are trying to do good in the 

         world to do their good unpersecuted, while they bend all 

         their strength to suppress such nuisances as the sideshow, 

         the saloon and other like institutions of vice, this city of 

         Los Angeles would be far worthier of the name it bears.  

         Again, which does the more harm and makes the more noise, the 

         Salvation Army or the street-hawkers who congregate in front 

         of the Temple block nightly and draw people into buying their 

         worthless patent medicines, etc.?  Has it got to give full 

         possession of the streets?  Let us have law and order on our 

         streets, but let this law and order be established in an 

         unprejudiced manner.  Let justice be dealt out to all.

                                                  JUSTICE.

              There seems to be an effort on the part of some of the 

         "unco gude" to place the Salvation Army in the attitude of 

         martyrs.  But they are not martyrs; they are allowed to 

         parade the streets by day and night with their uniforms, 

         their hideous horns and bass drums, their tambourines and all 

         the ridiculous paraphernalia that they can devise.  Nobody 

         says them nay; nobody interferes with them in the least, 

         unless it be an occasional gang of hoodlums, whom their 

         outlandish demonstrations attract and invite to prankish 

         demonstrations.  It is probably because the authorities 

         refuse to make martyrs of them that the so-called 

         Salvationists are eating their nails with chagrin.

              People of serious religious convictions would do well to 

         let this riff-raff who are trailing the sacred banner of 

         religion in the gutter severely alone.  They cannot do the 

         cause any good with their ill-advised and clownish methods, 

         while they must surely do a good deal of harm in shocking the 

         sensibilities of those who have real veneration in their 

         hearts.

              Enough has already transpired in the public courts to 

         show of what material these people are composed.  One of the 

         women was recently arrested for cruelly neglecting her 

         children.  She left them in squalor and hunger to take care 

         of themselves, while she remained out with the army, or one 

         of its elect, until the small hours of the morning.  If this 

         is the way they exemplify the religion of Jesus Christ, they 

         are not worthy representatives.  It is a matter of note that 

         some of the big loafers who parade the streets at night 

         bubbling over with religious ardor, do it as a mere "lark," 

         or as a makeshift to obtain an easy living.  One of the 

         number who had been drawing regular pay at $7 a week recently 

         struck and betook himself to type-setting because he could 

         make more money at it.

              No, these people are not worthy to be made martyrs of, 

         and the severest punishment that can be meted out to them is 

         to ignore them.



    When faith healer A. P. Truesdell came to Southern California in the mid-

1880s the Times labeled him a "false prophet" and facetiously referred to him 

as a "devil-evicter."  Mrs. T. M. Adams disagreed.  Although her communique to 

the paper may not have been in the form of a letter to the editor, it is 

treated here as though it were.  While in most letters the editor seems to have 

corrected misspelled words and other grammatical problems, he occasionally let 

such errors stand when he was particularly displeased with the correspondent's 

point of view.  That may have been the case with Mrs. Adams' letter.  "G. H. 

W.'s" reply was as cynical as any editorial written by Otis.  

    Little is known about Truesdell, who had moved to Los Angeles by 1890 

after three or four years in Pasadena, other than his two publications, both 

printed in San Francisco.  The OCLC catalog lists one work, The Secret Volume 

of Life, a thousand page opus dated 1880, under the subject heading "Popular 

Medicine."   Otis' condemnation of the faith healer {the city directories 

listed him as "physician"} may not have been entirely due to Truesdell's 

linkage of religion and medicine, for Truesdell had dedicated The People's 

Champion, his 1878 pamphlet on land monopoly, the Chinese question and related 

topics, to Denis Kearny's Workingmen's Party of California. 

                          {Times, Aug. 8, 1886, p. 5}

                                     ROT.

                   Yes, Rot of the Rottenest Sort--Read It!

              Here is a sample of the unspeakably disgusting stuff 

         that has been coming into the Times office for, lo! these 

         many weeks, by the procurement of the colossal fraud, always 

         with the request to "publish as a matter of news."  Well, 

         here goes, "news" and advertisement all rolled into one:

                                 THESE SIGNS.

              "These signs shall follow them that believe.  In my name 

         they shall cast out devils.  They shall lay hands on the 

         sick, and they shall recover."

              While many professing Christians have doubted these 

         words of the Son of God spoken just before his assension, I 

         have excepted them, as light has entered my mind through the 

         example and teachings of Dr. Truesdell.  As has already been 

         stated in the Times, I have been healed of either a tumor or 

         floating kidney which gave me years of suffering.  This is 

         gone and so is my desire for any kind of opiates, and I feel 

         that I would be even meaner than the nine leapers if I did 

         not give God the glory, and the public the benefit of my 

         experience.  And to those who are afflicted I would say 

         before visiting Dr. Truesdell for treatment leave big I big 

         self and {illegible} in the form of what some one may say at 

         home then go believing in God as your Father Creator, and 

         Christ as your ever present Savior, and my word, and the Word 

         of God for it, you will "be made every whit whole."

                                         MRS. T. M. ADAMS.



                         {Times, Aug. 13, 1886, p. 2}

                             The Holiness Humbug.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  No sooner do we get 

         rid of one humbug than close upon her heels follows, as we 

         believe, one of the greatest impostors of modern times--the 

         self-styled Dr. Truesdell, who sets himself up as the Soul-

         Healer, the Mind-Healer and the Body-Healer--all three 

         combined in one.  Let us notice his mode of operations:  He 

         comes to town, advertises himself as the great Soul-Healer, 

         and announces that the lame walk, the deaf hear, the blind 

         see, etc., and that he will give free lectures every Sunday 

         and Tuesday.  At these so-called lectures (which are nothing 

         more or less than a further means of advertisement) he 

         announces that he will give private lectures, which will each 

         cost only the small sum of $5, or six lectures for $30.  As 

         an inducement for the public to attend, he tells them that 

         after attending six of these lectures they too can become 

         qualified to heal the sick and do all the wonderful things 

         which he claims to do.  How cheap the road to health, wealth 

         and prosperity now seems!  He also has an office where you 

         may consult him or pay him $3 for rubbing the back of your 

         neck.  After a sojourn of some ten weeks in our city this 

         great Soul Healer finds himself in quite a prosperous 

         condition, financially, with about twenty disciples (and 

         still hankering for more) the majority of whom are women, to 

         whom he gives what he calls a "Diploma."  Let us notice this 

         as we pass, and his form of giving the same.  "All those who 

         are entitled to a diploma come to the front"--toe the mark.  

         Then he holds in his hand the so-called diploma and reads: 

         "Christian Science Union" (naming date and place) this is to 

         certify that Miss or Mrs. So-and-So has attended a full 

         course of the lectures given by A. P. Truesdell.  Signed by 

         the president and secretary of the board)  How ridiculous!  

         He does not endow them with any of the "power," nor does he 

         ever acknowledge the thirty dollars.  How sharp!  When 

         gamblers beat you out of your money you might recover it or  

         lock them up or make them leave town; but this seems to be a 

         hopeless case.  I attended his tirade on the Times editor 

         last Sunday (I will not call it a lecture) and heard him tell 

         the story of the ring-worm which is so absurd and so silly 

         that I will not repeat it, and which I believe to be a lie.

              Our Saviour said:  "Whether is it easier to say to the 

         sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee? or to say, 

         Arise and take up thy bed and walk?"  Now, if A. P. Truesdell 

         can forgive sins, he can cure the soul; for sin is the 

         disease of the soul.  Let us notice for a moment the manner 

         in which our Saviour called His disciples.  The word was, 

         Leave all and follow me.  But this self-styled "man of God" 

         would say:, "Just wait a moment before you make up your mind 

         to follow me.  How much are your assets?  How much will your 

         fishing-tackle, boats and what sea-crabs you have on hand 

         sell for--can you make out thirty dollars?"

              Mr. Editor, I have already encroached upon your valuable 

         space, but hope you will bear with me; and, if this man who 

         raids all the different denominations of religion and all the 

         scholars of medicine, wants to hear more from me, I will give 

         it in another dose.

              Yours very respectfully,

                                              G. H. W.



    Early in 1889 itinerant Methodist revivalist Samuel P. Jones held forth 

before great crowds, reaching 5000 in one instance, at Hazard's Pavilion.  He 

had been invited to Los Angeles by local clergymen, several of whom sat on the 

platform during his sermons.  Accompanied by a choir of 200 voices from local 

churches and a 12 piece band, with his own traveling music director, Jones 

treated his audience to what the Times called "religious buffoonery."  Jones 

peppered his sermons with slang and tantalized his audience with "incipient 

blasphemy" - a sort of shock religion that to the Times smacked of "profanity, 

vulgarity and indecency."   

    Although the Times gave Jones front page publicity and ran numerous 

articles including a verbatim stenographic report of one sermon, the paper 

criticized local ministers for inviting him to preach in the city.  

Representing the Southern wing of the still divided Methodists, the Reverend 

George Baugh of the Mateo Street church defended both the invitation and Jones' 

message.  Other correspondents, however, joined the Times in questioning the 

support given Jones by some of the local clergy.

                         {Times, Jan. 20, 1889, p. 2}

                           A Defender of the Faith.

              Los Angeles, Jan. 19.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         Sir:  While unnecessary for me to attempt a defense of either 

         "Sam Jones" or the "ministers" you criticise, I respectfully 

         ask to say a word as one of them.  You say, in your last 

         Saturday's issue, that it is "most remarkable that ministers 

         of the gospel" by their presence sanction the meetings of the 

         Rev. Sam P. Jones.  But would it not be much more remarkable 

         for them to be absent, since he is here on their express 

         invitation?

              Unquestionably, his methods, style and vocabulary are 

         his own, and he is as free to use them as an editor is to use 

         his pen; nor is he less a man, or a gospel minister, because 

         he is no co-priest.  The wonderful success that has attended 

         his labors everywhere is proof positive that God approves 

         such labors, and in this he and his friends have reason to be 

         satisfied.

              In all fairness you will admit that morality, law and 

         order in Los Angeles are far from being dominant among many.  

         Drunkenness, gambling, debauchery, with their attendant 

         evils, have too long run riot, and lovers of purity and right 

         have felt that the city was being made a hotbed of anarchism 

         and every abomination, until it was high time that even "Sam 

         Jones" should be called to try and help in the lessening of 

         the evil, if not in its total overthrow, and I for one thank 

         God that he is here.  May full success crown his labors here 

         also.

              You condemn his use of strong words in his denunciation 

         of folly and sin, but are any--can any of his words be 

         stronger (more "vulgar," if you will) than those used by the 

         wisest and best of preachers, Christ, when calling some of 

         His hearers "slow of heart," "fools," "generation of vipers" 

         and "hypocrites?"  Nay, verily, and "wisdom is justified of 

         her children" still.  Permit me to assure you that "Sam 

         Jones" seeks only the highest and most durable good of every 

         one of the community--this and nothing else.  May I ask, sir, 

         if you have heard him yourself, or if you write about him on 

         hearsay?  If the latter, permit me, respectfully, to invite 

         you to hear him in person, several times, and I shall be 

         surprised if (doing so) you do not change your criticisms.

              I remain yours truly.

                                              GEORGE BAUGH.

                                          M. E. Church, South.



                         {Times, Jan. 20, 1889, p. 2}

                               A Lutheran View.

              Los Angeles, Jan. 19.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         Has any one of the Lutheran ministers of this city been 

         present on the platform at Sam Jones's meetings?  If so, he 

         did not practice Lutheranism. "Thou art of another spirit."

                                             A LUTHERAN.



                         {Times, Jan. 24, 1889, p. 5}

                              Concerning Samuel.

              Los Angeles, Jan. 23.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         Why is it that the leading divines of the city, Dr. Hutchins, 

         Dr. Chichester, Dr. Pendleton and Dr. Fay, do not materialize 

         on the platform at Rev. Sam Jones's meetings?  Is it because 

         they cannot stand as much smut and slang as a Methodist 

         minister, or because they take no stock in the holy variety 

         show at the Pavilion?                   

                                          CITIZEN.



                         {Times, Jan. 28, 1889, p. 5}

                             Concerning Mr. Jones.

              Los Angeles, Jan. 27.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         The Express of Saturday evening contained some interviews 

         with "several" city pastors, promising in the headline, 

         "Striking Evidences of the Good Work at the Pavilion."  The 

         Rev. Mr. Reed has the nerve to say that he does not approve 

         of Mr. Jones's methods; for which he has the thanks of those 

         Christians to whom it is gall and wormwood to have the 

         sacredness of their religion dragged in the gutter; or, as 

         the Herald has it, hawked about for the personal benefit of 

         Sam Jones.  Dr. Fay is reported as sharply criticising the 

         clerical mountebank.  But most affecting are the remarks of 

         Dr. Cantine.  Truly, evil communication corrupt good manners!  

         Recognizing the efficacy of the Jones style, Dr. Cantine 

         tells us that "for 17 years he had had religion in his head, 

         his heart, his hands and his feet."  He also says that he is 

         "glad the emissaries of the devil are mad."  Now, could not 

         he emulate his friend still more and speak out--tell us to 

         whom he refers as the "emissaries of the devil?"  Also, will 

         he please tell just how many times he has gone down into the 

         congregation asking men if they were Christians, and got the 

         reply "none of your business?"  If he were only at "liberty 

         to do so" he could tell us wonderful tales.  Truly 'tis a 

         pity the converted-gamblers, saloon-keepers, and others of 

         that ilk, should be so ashamed of their reformation!  He 

         speaks of these gentry in the plural; now, if he will point 

         out a few saloons that have been closed by the consciences of 

         the proprietors it will be much more to the point.  If he 

         will give the address of some of those lachrymose gamblers we 

         would like to interview them.  Perhaps they have concluded, 

         like another reformed gambler, that preaching will pay 

         better, and we shall have competition in the revivalist 

         field.

                                             M. D.



    M. M. Winfield spent a Sunday listening to both Sam Jones and Eli Fay.  

Otis' snide title over Winfield's letter clearly indicated the editor gave 

little support to Winfield's analysis, which not only found both the revivalist 

and the Unitarian wanting but also challenged a practice basic to all Christian 

denominations.  No M. M. Winfield is listed in city directories of the 1880s,

although an M. J. Winfield appears in the 1881 issue.

                         {Times, Jan. 30, 1889, p. 3}

                    Rather Impious and Somewhat Incoherent

              Los Angeles, Jan. 29.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         Last Sunday at 11 o'clock I listened to Dr. Fay while he 

         promulgated his ideas about practical Christianity.  In the 

         evening I heard Sam Jones.  I wish briefly to discuss the 

         positions of the two.  Dr. Fay's address was clean and 

         unusually free from the technicalities of the schools.  He 

         advanced no new idea.  His discourse was based upon 

         principles advanced centuries ago.  However, a virtue loses 

         nothing by being covered with the dust of antiquity.  A 

         diamond in the deep of Golconda is just as precious as when 

         it glitters in the diadem of royalty.  His polemic launched 

         at a vicarious atonement and the trinity of a Godhead was a 

         masterpiece of logic.  Whether it was uncontrollable 

         celebration or not, I cannot say, but he mingled agnosticism 

         and pantheism to such an extent that I am unable to determine 

         whether he is agnostic, pantheist, or neither.

              His declaration that a kind and loving God would never 

         create a vicious, malignant devil to divide his empire and 

         wreck with woe and misery the human family--to say the least 

         is an assumption somewhat comforting.

              He also believes in the efficacy of prayer.  Referring 

         again to Jones, I will simply state that in the way of 

         preaching he did the best he knew.  He, too, believes in the 

         efficacy of prayer.  Upon this question I wish to say a few 

         words.  What is prayer?  In a religious sense it is a 

         petition or invocation addressed to a supposed Deity or power 

         superior to ourselves, asking immunity from evil and the 

         granting of good.  Self-interest lies at the foundation of 

         every prayer.  I have heard invocators detail to God what 

         they wanted and what they did not want, and finally close 

         their petition with the words: "Not as we have asked, O Lord, 

         but as Thou dost see we need."

              Is not this a confession that God knows what the 

         petitioners need better than themselves?  Hence, is not the 

         effort useless and nugatory?  I ask, in all seriousness, is 

         there efficacy in prayer?  For years I prayed honestly and 

         sincerely, but the heavens were dumb as stone.  I received no 

         responsive Nepenthe which brought sweet surcease of sorrow to 

         my lacerated heart.  No thundering prophecy told me of a 

         coming benediction.  I heard not the rustle of angel wings.  

         No music greeted my hungry ear.  No cherishing drops fell 

         upon the scorched and arid waste of my soul.  My invocations 

         came back to me as idle, solemn vocalization.  No answer even 

         came.  I challenge Dr. Fay or Sam Jones to produce tangible 

         proof that any of their prayers have been answered.

              For 6000 years the world has been on its knees, trying 

         to placate an angry God.

              The earth has been drenched with the blood of fanaticism 

         and the tears of woe.  The screams of agony have filled the 

         universe, and space is stuffed with prayers, and still the 

         tide is rising.  When will the answer come?  Is it not time 

         that the harvest sown with blood and tears shall be reaped?  

         Is it not time that the piteous wail of earth and hell should 

         be heard?

              I have thought if all the woes, pains, sorrows, signs, 

         tears and prayers of earth could be siphoned into hell it 

         would burst from plethora, and the great mysticism would be 

         no more.  Or concrete them, and Titan-like, pile Pelion on 

         Ossa at the feet of "I Am," would he not abandon his throne 

         and with horror flee, and, like Faust in the profound fable, 

         exclaim: "I have evoked from the mighty deep spirits 

         uncontrollable."

                                   M. M. WINFIELD.



    As the Jones revival ended - with the Pavilion still crowded to standing 

room only - "S. G." continued the attack on Jones in terms very similar to 

those Otis had used in his editorials.  Eli Fay, however, thought the time had 

come to move on to other matters.

                         {Times, Jan. 30, 1889, p. 3}

                               Mr. Jones Again.

              San Gabriel, Jan. 28.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         "Mountebank Sam" still continues his antics.  It is no wonder 

         that outsiders are prejudiced against Christianity when they 

         see the preaching of the gospel degraded into a money-making 

         scheme.  As a clown he may be, and probably is, a success, 

         but as a follower of the meek and lowly Savior he is 

         certainly not so.  Who ever heard of Christ or His apostles, 

         while preaching the gospel, indulging in slang, or trying to 

         raise a laugh among the auditors?  Out upon you, Sam Jones, 

         you rather remind one of the money-changers in the temple.

                                              S. G.



                          {Times, Feb. 1, 1889, p. 5}

                        Will Talk of Something Better.

              Los Angeles, Jan. 31.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         Please allow me to say through your paper that the subject of 

         my sermon next Sunday morning will be "Salvation," not Sam 

         Jones.  Very respectfully,

                                            ELI FAY.



    The words of "G.H.W." regarding Dr. Truesdell - "No sooner do we get rid 

of one humbug ..." - may have been recalled by Angelenos as Australian faith 

healer John Dowie followed Sam Jones into the city in May, 1889.  Dowie had 

been in California for several months when he reached Los Angeles, having held 

forth in Northern California earlier.   His "Divine Healing" went on for the 

better part of a year as he made a well-publicized tour of the state.  The 

reaction of Times readers was to be expected.

                          {Times, May 29, 1889, p. 3}

                     "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness."

              Los Angeles, May 28.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  On 

         Monday night Mr. Dowie made the following statement in the 

         Pavilion, "Enough lies have been told by the ministers of 

         this town to sink half the churches."

              If this statement is true Los Angeles morality or 

         religion must be in a most deplorable condition.

              But is this statement true?  And if it is not true Mr. 

         Dowie stands before the public as a falsifier of his 

         brethren.  And the question then arises, what effect will the 

         knowledge of this fact have on those who accept his teaching 

         and believe in his miraculous healings?

              Is it at all likely, in view of the New Testament record 

         of the doom of Ananias and Sapphira, that God would now use a 

         public falsifier as His agent in working miracles?  Or, to 

         look at the subject from the lower ground of Christian 

         courtesy, could a man of refined and gentlemanly instincts 

         make any such baseless assertion?  A number of our city 

         pastors last Sunday, while not approving of Mr. Dowie's 

         teaching and methods, had enough kind consideration for him 

         to announce from their pulpits, as they were requested, these 

         closing meetings in the Pavilion.  And yet, after not only 

         asking their people to attend these meetings {illegible} they 

         were thus {illegible} insulted by being stigmatized as 

         "liars;" for, until Mr. Dowie gives the names of the 

         falsifying pastors and the specific instances of such 

         falsifying, the entire ministry of Los Angeles rests under 

         this sweeping charge.

                                              CHURCHMAN.



                          {Times, June 1, 1889, p. 5}

                      An Australian Faith-Healer Exposed.

              Colton, May 20.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  Some few 

         years ago, I think about five or six, the writer was living 

         in Fitzroy, one of the suburbs of Melbourne, Australia, when 

         a certain minister named James Alexander Dowie, who had 

         achieved some little local notoriety as a sensational 

         preacher, was called upon to take the place of a minister 

         named Cherburg in a little chapel in Collingwood, an 

         adjoining suburb, during the absence of that gentleman in 

         Europe.  Through some financial juggling on the part of the 

         "Rev." Dowie Mrs. Cherburg was left in rather embarrassing 

         financial circumstances, such as to necessitate her husband's 

         immediate return from Europe and the subsequent removal from 

         the church of the "Rev. Jem," who subsequently developed into 

         a full-fledged faith-healer, where, for some time afterward 

         in Melbourne, he made "Rome howl" with his so-called faith 

         cures.  He then built a large tabernacle in Johnston street, 

         Fitzroy, which was afterward attached by Messrs. Oldfield and 

         Lindley for an unpaid lumber account, and Dowie then 

         gracefully adorned the interior of the Melbourne goal 

         {gaol? - Ed.} by posing therein as a (compulsory) modern 

         Christian martyr for a week or two.  The writer has a vivid 

         remembrance of seeing him one Sunday evening, escorted by a 

         lot of police and his own friends from his tabernacle, to an 

         adjacent house, through a hostile mob that had assembled in 

         proportions sufficiently large to temporarily stop the street 

         traffic.  The memory of his so-called faith cures soon passed 

         away, and with it Jemmy himself to "fresh fields and pastures 

         new."

              Can it be possible that he has gravitated to Los 

         Angeles?  If I am wrong I beg the pardon of the gentleman now 

         there; if it is the same individual, I do not.  If the Rev. 

         Jas. Alexander Dowie wishes to authenticate his powers beyond 

         all possibility of dispute, why does he not take, say 10 or 

         15 patients from one of our large hospitals whose cases are 

         known to have an actual existence by the specialists 

         attending them, and after his treating them, let a diagonosis 

         be made of his so-called cures.  In the meantime, although, 

         no doubt, he can and does possess a certain amount of 

         magnetic influence over his patients for the time being, no 

         authenticated case of lasting benefit has yet been produced.  

         A man who is reported in the Los Angeles Evening Express of 

         May 28th to have removed cancerous tumors from under the arm 

         of Mrs. Faulkner to an empty sack by simply laying on of his 

         hands is either a man invested with the divine power of 

         performing miracles, and whose powers should be recognized, 

         or else his victims are acting under a temporary magnetic 

         delusion that they are cured, and he should be driven from 

         our midst as a rank impostor.  Let actual science prove which 

         he is.  Yours obediently,

                                         WILLIAM AMBROSE.

              P. S.--I have a dim recollection that at one time he 

         used to breathe through a piece of red flannel upon his 

         patients in performing the operation.  W. A.



                         {Times, June 21, 1889, p. 5}

                    A Nut for the Rev. Mr. Dowie to Crack.

              University, June 20.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  

         Will  you allow me the use of your columns to suggest a sure 

         and easy method of deciding once for all the genuineness of 

         the claims of the Rev. John Alex Dowie?  About ten months ago 

         I listened to a lecture or sermon by Mr. Dowie in the leading 

         Methodist church in San Jose.  After hearing his extravagant 

         pretension regarding the healing of all diseases by faith, I 

         was astonished to notice that the gentleman's head was 

         bald--very bald.  I am told it has remained so ever since.

              Now Mr. Dowie must have enough knowledge of medical 

         science to know that the state of his head is diseased.  It 

         seems a wonder, therefore, that this physician has not 

         already healed himself.  Possibly, however, he has never 

         thought of the matter, and therefore has never exercised 

         faith regarding it.  If so, he has a splendid chance to put 

         doubt forever at rest in the mind of at least one doubter.  

         His answer to his "adversaries" tomorrow evening will be 

         complete provided he appears before his audience with a 

         healthy head of hair.  Otherwise rational people must brand 

         Mr. Dowie as a fraud, either conscious or unconscious.

              Yours truly,                            

                                            REASON.



    Not all letters regarding religion dealt with such serious matters.  

"Stranger," whose two letters appeared six years apart, probably would have 

enjoyed the fellowship that came from the singing at a Sam Jones meeting.  "M," 

on the other hand, must have been a bored parishioner who spent a Sunday 

morning calculating the size of the church.  Interestingly, the area measured 

roughly corresponded to that of the newly constructed Christian Church on 

Temple St., one of the structures applauded by Cole in his "City of Churches" 

piece.  Follow-up letters suggested "M" was misinformed.  His math also left 

something to be desired.  The postscript at the end of his letter was probably 

added by Otis.

                         {Times, Aug. 23, 1883, p. 2}

                          For Congregational Singing.

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  The progress of the 

         country is largely indebted to the newspapers.  Reforms are 

         whipped into use by this driver.  Even matters pertaining to 

         the spiritual can be handled to their betterment by the force 

         of a secular newspaper.  I trust you will push a little on 

         this wheel.

              To a stranger visiting your city there is no want so 

         noticeable as that of congregational singing.  Your ministers 

         are men of ability far above the average; peers of any; the 

         music is generally good, in some cases excellent; in fact one 

         cannot fail being favorably impressed and edified by the 

         services.  I am not fault-finding; the intention is to 

         suggest another good thing.  Let the ministers and officers 

         make it known that the evening service will be one of song as 

         well as of the word, and the aisles and galleries will be 

         full.  Is it not gratifying to see and hear your neighbor try 

         to sing "Hold the Fort."  How he swells and gets red in the 

         face.  As he leans back to let the words out, his dignity 

         impresses you.  He is a better man for it, and you feel glad 

         to have heard his discord.

              Ministers, try it!  Have your people bring books to 

         church and sing.  A good result will be consequent.

                                              STRANGER.



                         {Times, July 16, 1889, p. 6}

                          "Let All the People Sing."

              Los Angeles, July 14.--[To the Editor of The Times.]  It 

         has come to be considered that the singing of hymns, and the 

         general devotional exercises, are as much features of public 

         worship as the sermon.  In a leading church of this city this 

         morning the pastor made use of these words: "Let all the 

         people sing."  In the possession of more than 80 people 

         immediately surrounding the writer there was but one 

         hymnbook, from which "all the people" were to gather the 

         words and music.  Fort-street M. E. Church, North, can you 

         not do a little better than this for the ever-present

                                       STRANGER.



                         {Times, Mar. 17, 1883, p. 1}

                              What is the Result?

              To the Editor of the Times--Sir:  The Normal School 

         pupils tell me that thirty-three cubic feet of air pass 

         through the lungs of each person every minute, and thereby 

         becomes unfit to breathe again, having become poisonous.

              Now in a church 40x60 feet, with a ceiling 16 feet high, 

         there are 38,400 cubic feet.  Two hundred and fifty persons 

         in that church consume 7250 cubic feet of air every minute, 

         or all the air within six minutes.

              If all the doors and windows are closed for half an hour 

         or more, as they sometimes are, during service, what is the 

         result?                                                

                                                M.

              The probable result would be that some of the 

         congregation would arrive in the promised land prematurely 

         and suffering from a headache.