Dr. McGlynn's Very Simple Case.

IF Dr. McGlynn desires to remain in the Roman church and to resume the active performance of his pastoral functions, his more impetuous friends are proceeding in a way to hinder rather than to help him in composing his difficulties.

His case is very simple. He has been called to Rome to make explanation of his course as rector of St. Stephen's, and to defend opinions relating to social and political subjects which have given offence to his immediate ecclesiastical superiors and to many other Roman Catholics. People who are not Catholics, Henry George and the German socialists for instance, may say that a man has a right to entertain and express any opinions he chooses, and that therefore Dr. McGlynn should refuse to obey the summons from Rome; as for them, they would pay no more heed to it than if it came from Tammany Hall or the Czar of Russia. George even goes so far as to lecture the church upon the proper limits of an authority which he himself holds in contempt, and the Central Labor Union makes itself a violent partisan. of the priest, as if it were a Catholic organization holding its charter from Rome.

And yet George is now working hard to get up a labor party, every member of which must pledge himself to accept a declaration of principles constructed for him. If a man refused to agree to the platform he would not be let in. If after he came in he went about preaching a contrary doctrine, he would be treated as a deserter. The trades unions and the Knights of Labor prescribe rules for admission to which members must render obedience, under the penalty of dismissal and the active enmity of all their associates. Any disposition toward independence of action is met with a prompt rebuke. The screw is put on at once, and the refractory member's life is made a burden to him. If he hesitates about obeying orders, even where they involve loss of a place or of wages with which he himself is satisfied, he is whipped into line in short order, and the lash is kept over him.

In no other organization of men, secular or ecclesiastical, is the discipline stricter or more remorselessly enforced. When a man goes into a trade union or becomes a Knight of Labor he sacrifices his individual will and independence of action to the will of the association, and puts himself under the authority of its officers. He can no longer think and act as he chooses, but must be submissive in his opinions and his conduct. Otherwise he is a "scab," a traitor, and a renegade, and both inside and outside the ranks of organized labor he is looked on with contempt as a man who has gone back on his word and his fellows. If a knight or a union man refused to obey a rule of discipline, and paid no attention to the orders of his superiors, what would his fate be? The Pole Jablonowski even wanted to go so far as to deprive the members of the Central Labor Union of the liberty of selecting their own newspapers.

Yet when the Roman Catholic church summons one of its priests to render account of his opinions and conduct, so that it may be determined whether they are consistent with its principles and compatible with its rules, Henry George and the Central Labor Union rise up to denounce the summons as an unwarrantable and tyrannical interference with private rights. Dr. McGlynn is solemnly pledged before God and man to render obedience to the authority of the church of Rome, and yet men who are submissive under Powderly and Jablonowski cry out that his liberties as an American citizen are invaded when that authority is exercised over him. He is not judged, but is simply called to trial, and yet his ecclesiastical superiors are proclaimed as tyrants and the central authority of the church as a despotism against which his manhood should compel him to make scornful rebellion.

Now, Dr. McGlynn's liberty of opinion is only restricted of his own. free will. He can obtain entire independence of thought and of act whenever he chooses, and nobody will interfere with him. He can leave the priesthood of the church of Rome, throw up his allegiance to its authority at any time, and pursue whatever course of life is agreeable to him, and he will be left unmolested. But so long as he remains in the church he must submit himself to its discipline as he vowed to do when he entered its priesthood. For many years he has preached submissiveness to the flock by whom he is so well beloved, and proclaimed to them the divine authority of the church, and now he must himself bow in humble obedience or he will contradict his words by his conduct. As Catholics, both he and they can entertain no thought of rebellion.

New York Sun.

The Sun of a more recent date says:

His physician reports that Dr. McGlynn is not yet able to prepare his answer to the statement of the archbishop. Meantime there are evidences that the parish of St. Stephen is becoming more reconciled to the removal of the pastor whom it held in such great affection.

If there had been no other reason for his at least temporary relief from his pastoral duties and priestly functions, the condition of his health would seem to have required that Dr. McGlynn should be compelled to seek repose after the continuous strain of the last six months. From the time when he began his active work for Mr. George last autumn, he has been kept in a state of nervous excitement, and it has been impossible for him to give proper consideration to the consequences of so extraordinary a variation from priestly routine.

When he made his speech at Chickering Hall, soon after the nomination of the labor candidate, it was evident that his impulsive temperament was agitated to the utmost, though his audience did not know that he appeared on the platform in defiance of the injunctions of the archbishop, and spoke, as Mr. George now says, under the shadow of what to a Roman Catholic priest is worse than death. His tone was that of a desperate man, and instead of guarding his utterances he seemed to take pains to aggravate his offence against ecclesiastical

authority by associating George with the saints and heroes whom the Christian church holds in deepest reverence.

Dr. McGlynn did not again appear as a platform speaker during the canvass, but in frequent interviews he showed that excitement continued to unbalance his judgment, and that he was under the influence of men who took advantage of his abnormal state in order to serve their own ends. His anxiety as to the success of Mr. George was finally worked up to such a pitch that he even so far forgot the proprieties of his sacred office as to drive about with him to the polls on election day for the purpose of influencing the voters. His correspondence with the archbishop subsequent to the election, and his conduct with reference to the order from Rome, also indicate very clearly a condition of mind unfitting him to deal with the momentous questions involved.

It seems to us, therefore, that his friends and parishioners will render Dr. McGlynn the best service in their power by desisting from all agitation on his account, and thus encouraging in him the calmness of feeling and balance of judgment which he so imperatively needs at this crisis in his career.

Instead of pursuing him in a vindictive spirit, both Archbishop Corrigan and Cardinal Simeoni seemed to have treated Dr. McGlynn throughout with great and even tender consideration, only taking disciplinary measures when his refractory tone and attitude compelled such a resort. It is obvious that from the first their anxiety has been to avoid a conflict between the authority of the church and the will of the priest, which would cause public agitation and disturb the serenity of the Catholic household. But Dr. McGlynn, on his part, has so proceeded as to afford pretty convincing evidence that he was desirous of precipitating just such a conflict.

The career of Dr. McGlynn as a Roman Catholic priest is probably now ended, and it is ended of his own free will.

Napoleon at Waterloo.

REV. FATHER NEYRON being asked "Were you with Ney's army when he turned it over to Napoleon?" replied: "I was, and I well remember the day that Ney's act of treachery took place. Ney's and the straggling army of Napoleon met at Oloe Bridge, better known at the time as the bridge of the Holy Ghost. Napoleon's army was encamped a few miles from the bridge, opposite our lines. The morning after the encampment we saw some flags of truce in advance of Napoleon's army, and it was then that the men began to suspect Ney's plans, but the suspicions were not even whispered. Soon the flags disappeared, and Ney gave orders to prepare for an attack and marched on the bridge. When we reached the opposite side of the bridge we noticed about a dozen men on horseback bearing flags of truce. Our army, which all

told did not exceed 20,000 men, came to a halt. The men on horseback advanced and the centre one of the group proved to be Napoleon himself. At sight of him Ney and staff dismounted. Napoleon also dismounted and was warmly embraced by Ney and his officers. Of course a shout for honor of Napoleon went up from our ranks. Well, history has recorded the rest. We were forced to combine with Napoleon's army of boys between the ages of ten and twenty years, and go on to Waterloo and defeat."

The Dead Journalist, James A. McMaster.

TAKING up a country town triweekly of December 30, and wearily scanning the telegraphic items, a shock of earthquake could not well have troubled me more than the paragraph announcing the death of our McMaster. Like the unselfish soldier he was he had not permitted an allusion in his Freeman to the accident which resulted fatally. Now his silent death is trumpeted through the land and Christendom; and 10,000 penny-posts, knowing naught of or ignoring him, join his friends in praise. Who will be able, for a year or more, to realize that the bell notes of a clarion voice of orthodox defence and political unsubserviency shall ring no more its staccatoed alarm from the watch towers of Zion? If this man was not a "leader in Israel," then have we had none, nor are likely to have. He was pre-eminently the lay churchman of this half of the world in his weekly and daily influence on the faithful and their opponents. His successor-to whom God grant length of useful days, for he is worthy-has fitly said his late chief's genius was not shared with other great Catholic laymen of his day. It was sui generis.

Our clergy, who have increased in the forty years of Mr. McMaster's newspaper career from a few hundreds to seventy-five hundred, owe him scores of clerical debts which it would take a diligent and accurate historian to recount. These debts will now probably be more generally acknowledged, as is happening in the case of the deceased journalist's compeer in a different field-Dr. Brownson-whom to name is to conjure up the shade of a Colossus whose proportions are growing more conspicuous as the mighty figure looms up in more startling outline beyond his recent tomb, and in the shadow of the monument he has himself raised, not proudly, but not unconsciously, to his name.

It was away back in the sixties, when the noise made by the resisted imprisonment of the fearless champion of State's rights made him known to the youth even of twelve and fourteen, in the westernmost seminary of the ante-war times. We got this impression more distinctly fixed on our memories by the frequent repetitions of the offence, which caused Seward to imprison McMaster, and was the occasion taken by the facile and sinewy editor to scourge the unfortunate secretary down the aisles of time. The "young cobs" of the junior courses got their news from the "big" boys, who smuggled in political news. But it was only in the summer of '67 that the writer became acquainted more