The author of the book “The Pope Chief of White Slavers High Priest of Intrigue,” Jeremiah J. Crowley, was a Roman Catholic priest for 21 years. Some people call him the Martin Luther of America! I think Charles Chiniquy who preceded him was another type of Martin Luther in the USA. Chiniquy was also a Roman Catholic priest who at first tried to reform injustices of the Roman clergy but who later left the Roman Catholic church when he realized it would never change. God used these men to wake up and inform the Bible-believing followers of Christ of their day of the evil intentions of Rome toward America and the world. Both of them have been largely forgotten. Most Christians in America have never heard of either Charles Chiniquy or Jeremiah J. Crowley! Why? The books they wrote have been suppressed. The Devil doesn’t want you to learn the insights these men had, for if you do, you will learn the truth of political reality and who and what is at the top of the pile of evils of this world!

Jeremiah J. Crowley also wrote “Romanism A Menace to the Nation” which is also posted on this site.

Jeremiah J. Crowley

Some good quotes from this book:

There never was a period in our history when the American public more needed to be instructed in regard to the machinations of Romanism than now. Many generous-minded, kind-hearted people believe that in Roman Catholicism we have simply to do with one of the Christian denominations, but history demonstrates that Romanism is first and last political. Many also believe that the Romish Church in America is totally different from what it is in Italy, Spain, or South America, and that the evils so evident there can never come to our own dear land. Rome, however, boasts that she is ever and everywhere the same.

The great whore of Babylon, by all sane interpreters of Holy Writ held to be the Papacy, is ever active in securing new fields for the exploitation of victims and the garnering of harvests of infamy-won gold, characteristic of whorishness, never to be satisfied!

The Catholic Church is a thoroughly organized and well-managed business and political institution, probably the greatest on earth. It wields its influence to promote and advance the interests of its members in business and political affairs. Its members recognize this powerful influence, and, being ever ready to safeguard their selfish interests, they are obedient and servile. This obedience and servility increase the power of the Church and, through the united efforts of all of its members, the material benefits derived are manifold.

Political machines many has this world seen from the days of Nebuchadnezzar to Nero; from Nero to Pope Borgia (Alexander VI); and from Pope Borgia to Pope Sarto (Pius X); but no political machine ever devised by the wicked ingenuity of man has equaled, in the deadliness of its execution, the extortionate exactions of its rapacity, the mercilessness of its unceasing demands, the papal machine doing business at Rome.

The head of the papal machine is the pope of Rome but its controlling, dominant power is the Curia, or College of Cardinals. Principal agents and beneficiaries of the System, in outside countries, are archbishops and bishops. They may, like Turkish tax collectors, gather in all they can from the superstitious hopes and fears of the servile or ignorant multitude, keeping for themselves a most abundant share, provided they yield to Italian grafter at the Vatican his stipulated “pound of flesh.”

(Jeremiah Crowley in his letter to Pope Pius X:) I feel free to address myself directly to you, not indeed because I acknowledge subjection in smallest measure to your authority, either in spirituals or temporals, but because I charge you — CHIEF OF WHITE SLAVERS, HIGH PRIEST OF INTRIGUE—with being the fountain-head of evils world-wide, the arch-disturber of humanity’s peace, religious and social; the relentless foe of the three basic principles of American National life and liberty—freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the press.

To be plain, Judge, there is no morality among them, not a particle. They gamble in their convents; they send for members of their congregation to gamble with them. There is no morality. — Senate Document No. 190, 56th Congress, 2d Session, p. 177.

Preface

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits—Matt, vii, 15-16.

All history tells us that wherever the Romish priesthood has gained a predominance, there the utmost amount of intolerance is invariably the practice. In countries where they are in the minority they instantly demand, not only toleration, but equality; but in countries where they predominate they allow neither toleration nor equality.— Lord Palmerston.

Make peace if you will with popery; receive it into your senate; shrine it in your churches; plant it in your hearts; but be ye certain, as certain as that there is a heaven above you, and a God over you, that the popery thus honored and embraced is the very popery that was loathed and degraded by the holiest of your fathers; the same in haughtiness, the same in intolerance which lorded it over kings, assumed the prerogative of Deity, crushed human liberty, and slew the saints of God. —Canon Melvill.

Pope Pius X, the Pope who reigned from 4 August 1903 to 20 August 1914, the time Jeremiah J. Crowley tried to reform the Roman Catholic clergy.

The “Vicar of Christ,” “Our Lord God the Pope,” “King of Heaven, Earth, and Hell,” etc., claiming to represent the lowly and humble Nazarene, wears a triple crown of priceless value, and robes resplendent with jewels! Christ had not whereon to lay His head: The pope dwells in a Palace of four thousand rooms! What a mockery! What a delusion! What a snare is Popery! (See “Romanism—a Menace to the Nation,” p. 205.)

ENDORSEMENTS BY PROMINENT MEN.

Jamaica, N. Y.,
August 22, 1911.
It has been my privilege to know J. J. Crowley for a number of years. I knew him when he was a priest in the Catholic Church and was known as Father Crowley. I have heard him speak with great passion concerning his desire to help the Church of which he was for years a member. I have in a number of instances proved his statements to be true. I have therefore the strongest reasons for accepting all the statements he makes concerning the condition of the Church and those who ought to influence her for better and higher things.

Some one ought to speak; no one is better qualified than my friend; some message telling the true state of affairs should be given to the world, and J. J. Crowley is fitted by temperament and by education to send this message forth.

I commend it to the people and hope that it may have a wide circulation in order that thereby wrongs may be righted, and the sad condition of affairs so plainly stated in the book be overcome by those who would like to see the Church stand for righteousness and for God in all things. J# Wilbur Chapman, D. D.,

The Evangelistic Leader of the Presbyterian Church.

New York City,
November 25, 1910.
There never was a period in our history when the American public more needed to be instructed in regard to the machinations of Romanism than now. Many generous-minded, kind-hearted people believe that in Roman Catholicism we have simply to do with one of the Christian denominations, but history demonstrates that Romanism is first and last political. Many also believe that the Romish Church in America is totally different from what it is in Italy, Spain, or South America, and that the evils so evident there can never come to our own dear land. Rome, however, boasts that she is ever and everywhere the same.

The man with the message for the hour is the Rev. J. J. Crowley, author of the book, “The Parochial School, A Curse to the Church, A Menace to the Nation. ” I trust that Christian people of every name will rally to his moral and material support in order that he may get his message before all the people East, West, North, and South. He has knowledge, experience, and courage, and all he wants is our loyal support. Let us all give it generously ! William Burt,
One of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Philadelphia, Pa.,
November 15, 1910.
Dear Brother Crowley: Much thinking on the facts you gave me has deepened my conviction that you should get them before the American public. When the people awake their wrath against the Romish hierarchy will shake this land. You are called to be the defender of our institutions against mercenary and ungodly foes of this Republic. You have the exact inside knowledge and none can gainsay you. Strike and spare not. The time needs another Luther, a later Savonarola. Uncover the plotters. Unmask the enemies of our nation. May God speed you!
Robert McInttee> One of the Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Funchal, Maderia Islands,
December 8, 1906.
If ever the well-known immoralities and administrative corruptions, which now prevail among a very large proportion of the Roman Catholic clergy, from Pope in Rome to country parish priest the world over, are exposed fully and eradicated, it will be under the leadership of good and brave,,Roman Catholic priests and laymen.

Incidentally the work of such leaders will open the eyes of the Protestant world to the Jesuitical, political intrigues going on in every capital of the world, especially just now in London and Washington. It will also convince Protestant leaders that religious and civil liberty is stifled or threatened, and the sanctity of the home endangered, in proportion as the Church of Rome, as at present organized and administered, has sway.

One of the ablest and bravest, and thus far most successful, of such leaders in our day, is the Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley, of Chicago. He speaks from personal knowledge, gives names and dates and circumstances, and demands investigation, in book and pamphlet, and by word of mouth, from platform and in private conversation. He is an accredited priest and not a few fellowpriests endorse him and his crusade. His method is world-wide publicity. He has the confidence and unqualified endorsement of many leaders among Protestant clergymen and laymen.

I gladly add my word of cheer and commendation to this modern crusader against sin and corruption, in the heart of the great church to which he belongs and seeks to help purify. J. C. Hartzell,
Bishop, Methodist Episcopal Church for Africa.

FOREWORD.

Presenting to civilized men all over the world the work entitled, “The Pope—Chief of White Slavers, High Priest of Intrigue,” I do so with a deep sense of duty done to country and to humanity. The institution which, claiming to be Christian and to have for head the very “Vicar of Christ” Himself, resting on a record so darksome and forbidding as does Roman Catholicism, is certainly foeman (the foe or enemy) tireless of the personal liberty of men and women, and of free institutions everywhere.

That the papacy is making gigantic effort to throttle America, the subjoined excerpt from its organ, The Catholic Telegraph, Cincinnati, March 27, 1913, clearly establishes:

OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DIRECTORY.

There are Twenty-three and One-third Millions of Catholics Under Stars and Stripes.

According to the 1913 edition of “The Official Catholic Directory,” published by P. J. Kennedy & Sons, of Barclay Street, New York, there are 15,154,158 Catholics in the United States. This figure includes only the Catholics of the United States proper, and does not embrace the people of our faith in the foreign possessions of this country.

Adding the 7,131,989 Catholics in the Philippines, the million or more in Porto Eico, the 11,510 in Alaska, the 42,108 in the Hawaiian Islands, and the 900 on the Canal Zone, it will be found that there are 23,329,047 Catholics under the Stars and Stripes.

The Directory is now in the hands of the binders, and Messrs. Kennedy expect to commence delivery in a few days.

The Directory is full of interesting figures, and according to the 1913 issue a new Catholic church is built every day in the year. There were 373 new churches established during 1912, some of them, of course, being only mission churches. To be exact, there are 244 new churches with resident pastors, and 129 new mission churches, that is, served by a neighboring pastor. All told, there are 14,312 churches in the United States, 9,501 having resident pastors.

There are 17,945 Catholic clergymen in the dioceses of the United States, 13,273 being secular clergy and 4,672 being members of religious orders. In addition to the 17,945 priests there are also hundreds of Fathers in distant lands, in fact there is hardly a civilized or uncivilized land where United States clergy are not to be found. Only a few days ago a United States priest sailed from New York for the Island of Timor, an island away out in the Indian ocean, inhabited by semibarbarous Malays and Papuas.

In addition to the 17,945 clergymen engaged in the United States there are 6,169 men and youths studying in 85 seminaries, located in various parts of the country.

There are 230 colleges and academies for boys and 684 academies for girls, where the higher education of our Catholic youth is given serious attention. The number of academies for girls is, of course, larger than the number of colleges for men and boys, but the number of men and boy students is much larger than girl students.

One of the features of the Directory which will give food for thought is the table giving the statistics of the parochial schools. According to the figures which have been supplied by the diocesan chancery officials there are 5,256 parishes which have parochial schools connected with the churches. In these 5,256 schools 1,360,761 boys and girls are receiving their elementary education. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind that in many rural districts where parochial schools can not be organized due provision is made for the religious instruction of youth. With this in mind, the fact that 1,360,761 children are attending the parochial schools will stand out more sharply.

It must also be remembered that there are 47,415 orphans in our orphan asylums, and adding together the number of pupils in parochial schools, in orphan asylums, detention schools, institutes, academies, high schools, and colleges, it will be found that there are 1,593,316 young people under Catholic care in the United States.

The most important item in connection with the table of statistics is, of course, the population item, and Joseph H. Meier, the editor of Kennedy’s ” Official Catholic Directory’ ‘ has prepared for the Catholic press the following table showing the twenty-five States having the largest number of Catholics. During the year 1912 Michigan has forged ahead of Wisconsin, and Kansas has advanced over New Hampshire, Maine, and Nebraska. The table follows:

1. New York 2,790,629
2. Pennsylvania 1,633,353
3. Illinois 1,460,987
4. Massachusetts 1,383,435
5. Ohio 743,065
6. Louisiana 584,000
7. Michigan 568,505
8. Wisconsin 558,476
9. New Jersey 506,000
10. Missouri 470,000
11. Minnesota 454,797
12. Connecticut 423,000
13. California 403,500
14. Texas 306,400
15. Iowa 266,735
16. Maryland 260,000
17. Ehode Island 260,000
18. Indiana 232,764
19. Kentucky 163,228
20. New Mexico 140,573
21. Kansas 131,000
22. New Hampshire 126,034
23. Maine 123,600
24. Nebraska 118,270
25. Colorado 105,000

Not only in America, but in other civilized non-Catholic countries, is Romanism active and expansive, particularly so in the British Isles and the great overseas British Dominions—Canada, Australia, and South Africa.

The progress of mankind has no other bases — all thoughtful, honest men admit—than freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Of all three the Roman Catholic organization is, as is clearly shown in the following pages, the inveterate foe.

What popery calls for is not a free but a servile press. Witness the reigning ” Vicar of Christ,’ ‘ Pope Pius X, of whom The Catholic Telegraph, Cincinnati, March 27, 1913, says:

POPE PIUS AND THE PRESS.

Why Catholic Papers are Necessary.

Speaking on the power of the Press recently to a French ecclesiastic, the pope remarked that

“Neither the clergy nor the laity make as great an effort as they ought in this matter. The old people say that it is a new work and souls were saved in the past without the aid of newspapers. Those admirers of the past do not bear in mind that the poison of an evil press was not so common then as in our days, and that, consequently, the antidote of our journals was not so necessary. Today there is question, not of the past, but of the present, and every day the people are deceived, poisoned, ruined, by evil publications.”

“Evil publications” include the Bible and all other works, periodicals, newspapers, etc., not enjoying the personal and official approval of pope or bishop!

The following pages further show Romanism to be the demoralizer of youth of both sexes, the wrecker of homes, the destroyer of pure womanhood— in a word, a gigantic system of intrigue and White Slavery, the most widespread, stupendous, and appalling mankind has ever known.

History—Ancient, Modern, and Contemporaneous— is Romanism’s Accuser; High Heaven her Judge ; Humanity shall be her Executioner.
Jeremiah J. Crowley.
Cincinnati, Ohio, August, 1913.

INTRODUCTORY.

Justice to myself and justice in manner more emphatic to American citizenship, always concerned when the rights, even of the humblest, are by any one menaced or assailed, justifies publication in full of the following correspondence. Not only Americans, but all citizens and subjects of free governments are concerned in the outrage upon me inflicted while in the exercise of individual rights and privileges everywhere recognized and protected.

I appeal, therefore, not only to Americans, but to free men everywhere, against wrong done me because of attitude taken, inspired by conscience, commanded by duty, against papal greed, intrigue, aggressiveness, despotism, and debauchery.

To the judgment of freemen, untrammeled by Romanistic superstition and repressiveness, confidently appealing, I submit this correspondence.
Jebemiah J. Cbowley.

Challenge to Rome

I retired voluntarily, gladly, from the priesthood of Rome, after a vain attempt, in combination with other priests, to secure a reform of Romanistic abuses from within (see “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation”). This failing, no other course was open but to quit the accursed System forever.

I will give Ten Thousand Dollars to any person who can prove that I was Excommunicated and that the Statements and Charges against priests, prelates, and popes, in my books, “THE POPE-CHIEF OF WHITE SLAVERS, HIGH PRIEST OF INTRIGUE;’ and “ROMANISM—A MENACE TO THE NATION,” are untrue; and, furthermore, I will agree to hand over the plates of these books and stop their publication forever.

Will Rome accept this Challenge?
If not, Why not?

The obstinate refusal of Rome, for several years, to accept my challenge, is proof, positive and irrefutable, that its cowardly, wine-soaked, Venus-worshipping, and grafting prelates, priests and editors have no other reply for adversary, but vituperation and assassination.

August 17, 1912.
Mr. E. R. Monfort, Postmaster,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dear Sir:
I respectfully request your immediate attention to the enclosed affidavit setting forth a statement of the insult which I received from Myron L. Hurney, a clerk in the mailing division, which instance occurred at window No. 9, August 15th, at 9.10 P. M., as set forth in this statement.

While I was asked to accept an apology for this atrocious conduct, and while I patiently waited to see if the apology would he really forthcoming, I had, however, decided that I could not consider accepting an apology under the circumstances, and thus condone the insult and become a party to this wanton assault upon the part of a public servant.

While there is no malice in the course which I am taking, at the same time this decision is unalterable. Should this man remain in the postal service, and should you see fit to ignore this letter, please remember that in so doing you are committing yourself to a policy that will protect postal employees in almost any insulting conduct which it may occur to them to inflict upon the public.

Thanking you for an early reply, and desiring action upon this matter at once, I am, Very sincerely yours,
Jeeemiah J. Crowley.

Jeremiah J. Crowley, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is a resident and a citizen of the city of Cincinnati, in the State of Ohio, and that he is a patron of the Postoffice in Government Square in this city.

And further, that on the 15th day of August, 1912, at or near the hour of nine o’clock in the evening, he went to the said Postoffice for the purpose of stamping and sealing certain special letters, which he also there had weighed; that during this transaction, after purchasing the stamps, he went across the hall to window No. 9 ; that there, while sealing certain envelopes with mucilage there provided, a certain clerk, then unknown to the said Jeremiah J. Crowley, came to this window and said, “You ‘d better hurry up if you want to catch the Detroit mail.”

That then the said Jeremiah J. Crowley replied, ” Thank you, some of my mail is for the West.”

And further, that just at this time an unknown man stepped up to the window and asked this clerk when the next mail went to New York. The clerk replied, giving him the information, and that then the same man asked when this mail would reach New York, and also asked about the sailing dates of certain mail steamers for Great Britain.

And further, that this certain mail clerk answered the questions, and the man, after thanking him, went out, and that immediately this clerk began singing or humming these words : ” Great Britain and Ireland, Scotland and Wales—I’m an Irishman, my name is Hurney, and I ‘m from the parish of ______, County Galway, Ireland.”

And further, that just at this time, while receiving parcels of letters from the hands of the said Jeremiah J. Crowley, and placing them on the receiving desk behind the window, this clerk asked, “Are you an Irishman?” After a pause he repeated this question, thus: “Did you come from Ireland?”

And further, that this said deponent replied to this question, “Yes, I was born in that country.” And further, that this said mail clerk, with illy concealed anger, asked the question, “Are you a Catholic?” And further, that to this question the said deponent replied, “I am, in the broad and real sense of the word.”

That this said clerk further asked, “Do you go to church ?” to which the said Jeremiah J. Crowley said, “Which church?” And that to this question this certain mail clerk, whose name the deponent has since learned to be Myron L. Hurney, replied, “The Catholic Church.” And that to this the said deponent replied, “No, I do not.”

Said deponent further states that then the said Myron L. Hurney did viciously and angrily and insultingly say, “I do not give a ______about you, and I refuse to talk to you!”

That then and there the said Jeremiah J. Crowley in substance uttered this rebuke: “Young man, I did not ask you to talk to me. I came here to mail my letters, and while doing so you asked me questions. I answered you politely, and you have no right to use such language to me or any one else. You are a public servant and should discharge your duties without insulting any patrons of this Post office.”

And further, said deponent states that the said Myron L. Hurney repeated the above foul, filthy, obscene, and unmentionable word, adding to it others still more foul, when the said Jeremiah J. Crowley spoke of reporting this conduct to Mr. Monfort, the Postmaster, and that this said clerk, Myron L. Hurney, then said, “I don’t give a ______or a_______ for you or Monfort or anybody else who doesn’t go to the Catholic Church!”

And the deponent further states that it is his belief that this said wanton assault was made in order to provoke a personal attack from him.

And the deponent further states that he then turned away and left the said window and reported this matter in full to Mr. Raine, the Assistant Superintendent, who was then in charge of the postoffice building, in his private office.

And further, that the said Mr. Raine agreed with .the said Jeremiah J. Crowley that this assault was of so vile and filthy a nature that the Postoffice Department could not countenance such employee in the service.

And further, that the said Mr. Raine offered to bring the said Myron L. Hurney before this deponent and cause him to apologize for this language: that the said deponent did then and there patiently wait while Mr. Raine went ostensibly to bring the said Myron L. Hurney into his office for the purpose of apologizing, and that after waiting a sufficient time said deponent left the Postoffice without seeing either Mr. Raine or Myron L. Hurney again.

And now, finally, the said Jeremiah J. Crowley does here state and set forth the fact that the words which were used by this mail clerk, Hurney, and represented in the above by blanks, are so vile and unspeakably vulgar that he refrains from inserting them herein at this time, but that he is prepared to repeat the same upon oath at any time or place before any Notary Public or Judge of a Court of Record.

And further, that the said Jeremiah J. Crowley, as an American citizen and a patron of the Cincinnati Post office, does hereby demand the dismissal of the said Myron L. Hurney from the postal service of the United States, in the name of decency and for the protection of the public.

And further deponent sayeth not.

(Signed) Jeremiah J. Crowley.

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of August, nineteen hundred and twelve, in witness whereof I append my seal and signature:

(Signed) Earle R. Passel,
Notary Public in and for
Hamilton County, Ohio.
[Seal.]

My commission expires 17th of March, 1913.

EXECUTIVE DIVISION
United States Post Office
CINCINNATI, OHIO

August 17, 1912.
Jeremiah J. Crowley, Esq.,
619 Johnston Building, City.
Dear Sir: Receipt is acknowledged of your letter of August 17, 1912, relative to conduct of one ” Myron L. Hurney,’ ‘a postoffice clerk, and the matter will receive my personal attention.

Very respectfully,
E. E. Monfort,
Postmaster.

United States Post Office
Cincinnati, Ohio
August 24, 1912.
Mr. Jeremiah J. Crowley,
Johnston Building, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sir: I enclose you herewith copy of the reply of Mr. Myron L. Hurney, for your information and for any further action you desire to take. Viery respectfully,
Elias R. Monfort,
Postmaster.

Mr. Myron L. Hurney,
Stamper, Mailing Section, Postoffice, City.
Sir: Charges have been filed against you for improper and discourteous treatment and profanity in your intercourse with Jeremiah J. Crowley, who had business at window No. 9 of the Postoffice on the evening of August 15, 1912.

You are hereby directed to reply to these charges in writing within ten days from this date, a copy of such charges submitted herewith.

Respectfully,
(Signed) Elias R. Monfokt,
Postmaster.
Enclosures.
AED.—

Cincinnati, 0., Aug. 23, 1912.
Elias R. Monfort,
Postmaster.

Replying to charges filed against me by Jeremiah J. Crowley ; beg to state that they are absolutely and entirely false.

I was working at window No. 9, on the evening of the 15th insl, and was humming to myself; but not the rot which the man1 says he heard. That sounds to me like the ravings of an unsound mind.

This Mr. Crowley came to the window and, without a word from me other than to ask if he had any mail for Detroit—as it was then closing time for that mail—this Mr. Crowley said, “You seem to be very happy.” I answered, “I am always happy.” “How is that?” he asked. I answered, “They say an Irishman and a Negro are always happy.” “Then you are Irish,” he said. I answered, “My father was born in Ireland.” “What part?” he asked. I answered, “The County Gralway.” “That is where all the Catholics come from,” he said. I answered, “Yes, I am a Catholic.”

Then I noticed the name “Jeremiah J. Crowley” on the package he had mailed, and I said, “Crowley is an Irish Catholic name, isn’t it?” He then became angry and said, “I am here on business, and not to be questioned by such as you.” I then said, “I have answered your personal questions without—” he did not give me a chance to finish the sentence. He said, “You are a public servant and are here to answer questions.” “Not such questions as you asked,” I answered. He then said, “I shall report you to Postmaster Monfort.” I said, “You can do as you like.”

That is all the conversation I had with Jeremiah J. Crowley.

He afterwards called on Mr. Raine. I do not know what was said ; but Mr. Raine came over to me—I was then canceling mail at the “Cummins Pick-up Table.’ Mr. Raine said, “This man said you insulted him, and demands an apology.” I told Mr. Raine that I had not insulted this man, but that if he thought an apology was necessary, I would offer one.

I then went into the office with Mr. Raine, but Mr. Crowley had left. Barely two minutes had elapsed during the time Mr. Raine spoke to me and the time I went into his office.

I wish to state that never in my life have I used foul or vulgar language; I have had very strict home training in that respect, not only from my parents, but also from my older brothers and sisters.

I have been in the service three years: two years and one month as a substitute, and about eleven months as a regular, and there is not a man in this office who can truthfully say he ever heard me use such language as this Jeremiah J. Crowley says I used. There is not a man in this office who can say I have ever had an argument with him about religion or any other subject.

Then, does it seem possible that I would risk my position, especially after subbing so long, by arguing with a total stranger, whose position or influence I knew nothing about?

I can not afford to take such a chance, not only because I respect the position I hold, but also because I have a family to support and am also paying on my own home.

I have always tried to do the best I know how in my work while in the service, which I believe all my superiors and brother clerks will corroborate.

I am willing and ready to swear that what I have written is the absolute truth.

Respectfully,
(Signed) Mykon L. Hubney,
Cleric, Mailing Division,

United States Post Office
CINCINNATI, OHIO
September 18, 1912.
Mr. Jeremiah J. Crowley,
Johnston Building, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dear Sir:

On August 24th I mailed you copy of the reply of clerk M. L. Hurney to the charges you made against him, for your information and for any further statement you desired to make. The matter is not yet closed, and I would be glad to hear from you on the subject before making a report in the matter.

Very respectfully,
Elias R. Monfort,
Postmaster.

D.—
EXECUTIVE DIVISION
United States Post Office
CINCINNATI. OHIO
October 24, 1912. ,
Mr. Jeremiah J. Crowley,
Johnston Building, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Sir: Again referring to the charges against clerk Myron L. Hurney, I must dispose of this case. I would be glad to have you come to my office at 3 o’clock to-morrow to meet the postoffice inspector and Clerk Hurney for an examination of the questions at issue between you and Clerk Hurney.

Kindly advise me by telephone whether you can come at that time, or, if not, what time would suit you, and I will arrange to have all the parties together. This case must be disposed of. Very respectfully,
Elias R. Monfort,
Postmaster.

October 24, 1912.
Mr. Elias R. Monfort, Postmaster
Cincinnati, 0.
Dear Sir:
I have received your various reminders regarding the Hurney case.

Mr. Hurney ‘s letter, which you forwarded to me through the United States mails, added to his previous profanity and vulgarity the further insulting statement that my specific charges against him were not only absolutely and entirely false, but likened them to “the ravings of an unsound mind.”

Compare this denial with his offer to apologize! In the absence of any apology from him, and with further insults added to the original, as above quoted, the matter is in your hands. When you are through with the case you can advise me of the results if you choose.

I do not feel that at present I have anything further to do with the case. Any further action on my part must depend on your own attitude. I am, Very sincerely yours,
Jeremiah J. Crowley.

EXECUTIVE DIVISION
United States Post Office
CINCINNATI, OHIO
October 25, 1912.
Jekemiah J. Crowley, Esq.,
619 Johnston Building, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Sir:
Qn August 17th you filed a sworn statement of charges against clerk Myron L. Hurney, an employee of the postoffice. This statement was referred to the clerk for a reply. He replied, and a copy of his reply was, on August 24th, mailed to you for your information and any further action you desired to take. No reply was received. On September 18th I again wrote you and said that I would be glad to hear from you before making a report.

On October 24th I wrote you, fixing the time at my office for the examination at 3 P. M., October 25th. You, on October 24th, acknowledged receipt of this letter, and said you had received various reminders of the Hurney case and stated as follows:

Mr. Hurney’s letter, which you forwarded to me through the United States mails, added to his previous profanity and vulgarity the further insulting statement that my specific charges against him were not only absolutely and entirely false, but likened them to “the ravings of an unsound mind.” Compare this denial with his offer to apologize. In the absence of any apology from him, and with further insults added to the original as above quoted, the matter is in your hands. When you are through with the case you can advise me with the results if you choose. I do not feel that at present I have anything further to do with the case. Any further action on my part must depend on your attitude.

The rules of the Department require a careful and impartial examination of such cases before any condemnation or penalties shall be fixed. In this case the complaint and the reply are in direct conflict. To make an impartial ruling, further evidence is necessary at least to settle the question of the credibility of the witnesses. A man charged with so serious an offense has the right to face his accusers in the presence of the officers who are to pass judgment upon the case, and such officers after examining the parties in most cases are able to settle the question of the credibility of the testimony. Where there is no such opportunity, a determination of the facts can not be safely made without the danger of doing injustice either to the complainant or the person charged with the offense.

I hope you will see the equity of this statement and be willing to come and submit to an examination, as Mr. Hurney will be required to do. He has been ordered to appear at 3 o’clock. I hope you will reconsider your refusal to take any further action, and deal justly with this office in enabling the officers to make a proper statement of the case to the Department.

Hoping to see you at the office at 3 o’clock, I am, Very respectfully,
Elias R. Monfort,
Postmaster.

October 25, 1912.
Mr. Elias R. Monfort, Postmaster,
Cincinnati, 0.
Dear Sir:
You have my sworn statement, dated August 17, 1912, of the occurrence in the Postoffice. I have nothing to add to, or take from this statement. With such a statement made under oath, Mr. Hurney should have been forthwith suspended, pending an investigation. As you have done nothing of the kind, your invitation to come to your office at 3 o’clock evidently means a wrangle with a man beneath my notice. I am,
Very sincerely yours,
Jeremiah J. Crowley.

Three months after the foregoing letter, dated October 25, 1912, The Menace published January 25, 1913, the following article:

CROWLEY AND THE POSTOFFICE!

Author of “Romanism, a Menace to the Nation/’ is Grossly Insulted by Postoffice Employee at Cincinnati—His Action Evidently Upheld by the Postmaster.

Jeremiah J. Crowley, for Twenty Years a Roman Catholic Priest, Allowed No Redress for Unspeakable Abuse by Myron L. Hurney, an Employee of the Cincinnati Postoffice, by Postmaster E. R. Monfort, Who Poses as a Protestant.

By H. George Buss, Staff Correspondent.

When confronted with the damning proofs of their intrigues and unspeakable depravity, Romish priests find refuge in the “howly” mother Church’s “conspiracy of silence,” but renegade Protestants and non-Romanists who are sufficiently Rome-soared when confronted with an official duty that might incur the anger of the dupes, resort to a conspiracy of concealment! No more efficient or cowardly conspiracy is possible to Rome’s nominal Protestant allies than that of concealment and clever evasion. As a striking example of this latter traitorous policy, The Menace calls the attention of every free-born American to the following startling proof of Catholicism’s stupendous power as evidenced by the following authentic proofs, which are copied from the original documents in a very recent case, showing the defiant and triumphant prostitution of the freedom of American public institutions in thie interests of Rome’s implacable spirit of vengefulness toward one who for twenty years was gathering from the very inside the material for the most terrible arraignment of the Romish political hierarchy that has appeared in the twentieth centnry!

Briefly told, the story is this: On the 15th day of August, 1912, at about nine o’clock in the evening, Mr. Crowley, well known to our readers as the author of “Romanism, a Menace to the Nation,” was insulted by an employee of the Cincinnati postoffice, by name Myron L. Hurney, at window No. 9, while preparing a number of letters for mailing in the postoffice building in Cincinnati.

So vile, so unspeakably vulgar and obscene was the language in which these insults were couched by this particular Catholic dupe, that Mr. Crowley for decency’s sake refrains from quoting it in his complaint, and The Menace can not reproduce it in print.

The letter is omitted. The following, however, is a verbatim copy of the sworn affidavit of Mr. Crowley, which accompanied his letter of complaint to Mr. E. R. Monfort, Cincinnati’s postmaster. We would especially call every Menace reader’s attention to this sworn affidavit, remembering that if there is a single false statement in it, Mr. Crowley is subject to prosecution.

After you have read carefully this simple statement of the treatment accorded an American citizen at the hands of an employee of the Governmental service, in pursuance of a deeplaid plot to inveigle Mr. Crowley into a personal brawl wherein, if goaded to the pitch of resentment the Romish masters calculated, he might strike this cowardly tool and thus give him apparent opportunity to safely assassinate this uns daunted foe of Romanism, we would particularly invite your closest scrutiny to the dilatory and protective tactics which Mr. Monfort, the recreant Cincinnati postmaster, saw fit to resort to in the unblushing protection which he has accorded to this Catholic cur!

[Here follows my affidavit. See pp. 18-22.]

Postmaster Monfort acknowledged the receipt of Mr. Crowley’s affidavit and charges, and promised that the matter would receive his “personal attention.’ ‘ Seven days later Mr. Crowley received a letter from the postmaster, together with a letter from Clerk Hurney denying the charges, but making admissions which showed that he was evading the truth, and that Crowley’s charges were true and correct. He even states that he had previously agreed to apologize to Mr. Crowley, notwithstanding the fact that he protested his innocence.

In his own statement (which bears evident earmarks of dictation from either a priest or a Jesuit) this Catholic Hurney makes a fatal blunder when he says,

“I told Mr. Raine that I had not insulted this man, BUT THAT IF HE THOUGHT AN APOLOGY WAS NECESSARY I WOULD OFFER ONE!”

Why be so ready and willing to volunteer an apology, if you had not insulted Mr. Crowley?

And what valid reason does this Catholic Hurney produce to avoid the dismissal from the postal service that his guilty conscience^ tells him is so richly merited? Does he prove innocence of the charge? Far from it—his denial is not even in the form of an affidavit, but he whines in closing,

“I am willing to swear that what I have written is the absolute truth!”

But at the same time he was extremely and curiously careful not to do so! No, his real plea is confined to the fact that he “can not afford” to be dismissed, because, forsooth, he has a “family to support’ ‘ and is also paying on his own home!

Why not have taken time by the forelock and have thought twice about these things before you followed your master’s voice in inflicting this wanton assault upon Mr. Crowley to afford you an opportunity for a murderous assault wherein you might claim Government protection?

Postmaster Monfort managed to keep the case alive to near the first of November last by correspondence with Mr. Crowley, even writing him seeking to make appointments for meetings in the postoffice when himself, Crowley, Hurney, and a postoffice inspector might all be present. Mr. Crowley refused to be trapped by what he considered a scheme to bring himself and this Romish tool of the postoffice into personal encounter, and on October 25th, last, wrote the postmaster the following letter:

[For my letter of October 25, 1912, see p. 31.]

The next move made by Postmaster Monfort was to send P. 0. Inspector Fletcher to visit Mr. Crowley personally, which he did within a few days after this last letter was mailed. After some little conversation, Mr. Crowley astounded the inspector on the point of his “credibility’ by furnishing him a copy of a fervent and glowing recommendation of the book, “Romanism, a Menace to the Nation,” and of its author (Mr. Crowley), written by Postmaster Monfort ‘s own brother and published in his paper, The Herald and Presbytery of Cincinnati, O., of which the following are the closing words:

“This book is in the interest of civil and religious liberty, of sound doctrine and purity of life, all of which are too often sadly lacking in the personal leaders of the organization against which the flaming indictment and warning is issued BY ONE OF THE CLEANEST, MOST CHRISTIAN-HEARTED, MOST NOBLE- SPIRITED, AND MOST COURAGEOUS OF MEN.”

The inspector vanished, carrying to Postmaster Monfort his own brother’s estimate of Mr. Crowley’s ” credibility.” And Postmaster Monfort is a nominal member of the Presbyterian Church—and Mr. Crowley is a member of the Presbyterian Church!

Since this visit by Inspector Fletcher, Postmaster Monfort has become absolutely mum — “mum’s the word”—and any real redress or further investigation of this unspeakably cowardly insulting of a peaceable American citizen by a Government employee in a Federal building seems very remote, indeed, if not impossible.

If this wanton and despicable assault is to go unpunished, if Government employees are to vent their venomed Romish ire in unprintable verbal filth and find protection behind the soiled skirts of Catholic-scared, un-American public service officials, then where is the vaunted liberty of this greatest democracy of the world’s history? And what shall the end be?

DID MONFORT, CINCINNATI’S POSTMASTER, HEAR “HIS MASTER’S VOICE?”

United States Post Office
EXECUTIVE DIVISION
CINCINNATI. OHIO
January 24, 1913.
Me. Jekemiah J. Crowley,
Johnston Building, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Dear Sir:
I have just read the bitter and unjust attack made upon me from your pen in The Menace of January 25, 1913, and I assume that when you learn that your article was written under a wrong misunderstanding of the facts, you will be glad to correct the error. You filed in this office with the postmaster, charges against Myron L. Hurney, clerk in the mailing section of the postoffice, for misconduct at window No. 9. Under the rules of the Department, I sent a copy of your charges to the clerk with a request for a written reply. Mr. Hurney made his reply, and a copy of it was sent to you for any further action you desired to take. It was in direct conflict with your statement. No reply was received from you. On September 18th, I wrote you again calling attention to former letter, and no reply was received. On October 24th I wrote you, fixing the time for a hearing at my office October 25th, at 3 P. M. You replied the same day, saying that the answer of Clerk Hurney was a new insult, and refused to take any further action, and added, “Any further action on my part would depend upon your attitude.’ ‘ On October 25th I wrote you at some length, giving reasons for an examination and emphasizing the importance of determining the credibility of the evidence in so far as it was in conflict and saying to you “That the rules of the Department require a careful and impartial examination of such cases before any condemnation or penalty shall be fixed. In this case the complaint and the reply were in direct conflict. To make an impartial ruling, further evidence is necessary at least to settle the question of the credibility of the witnesses. A man charged with so serious an offense has a right to face his accusers in the presence of the officers who are passing judgment upon the case, and such officers, after examining the parties, in most cases, are able to settle the question of the credibility of the testimony. Where there is no such opportunity, ‘a determination of the facts can not be safely made without danger of doing injustice either to the complainant or to the person charged with the offense. I hope you will see the equity of this statement and be willing to come and submit to an examination, as Mr. Hurney will be required to do. He has been ordered to appear at 3 o’clock. I hope you will reconsider your refusal to take any further action, and deal justly with this office in order to enable the officers to make a proper statement of the case to the Department.”

You replied on October 25th, asserting that I ought to have suspended Clerk Hurney and saying, “As you have done nothing of the kind, your invitation to come to your office at 3 o’clock evidently means a wrangle with a man beneath my notice.”

The rules of the Civil Service are very rigid as to the manner of examining a charge against a delinquent, and this office has no power to suspend an employee without the approval of the Department, which is not granted in cases of this character. I requested the Chief of the Postoffice Inspection Department to permit an inspector to be present during this examination for the purpose of preventing any unnecessary wrangle and also to reach the correct conclusion as to the merits of the case. I never express an opinion until after this is done, no matter whether I have formed an opinion or not. You made the charges and failed to prosecute. I, therefore, on October 29th, sent the case with all the papers on both sides and an abstract to the Department at Washington, and from that time it has been entirely out of my hands, and the Department ordered the postoffice inspectors, over whom I have no control, and who are a distinct departmental branch of the service, to take up and determine this case. They have had it in their hands since that time, and so there is no ground for the charge that I was dilatory. I understand an inspector did call upon you, and also examine Mr. Hurney, but as to the course of action or what was done I have no knowledge, so that your statement that the Cincinnati postmaster heard his master’s voice is groundless. I have no master except my Chief in Washington, and in all cases involving religion and politics I have strictly and impartially followed the rules of the Department, and did not treat this case as a religious case, but as a case in which a patron of the office complained of improper treatment by an employee of this office, and if you had appeared at the examination in October the matter would have been settled and the controversy ended. Your statement that Inspector Fletcher reported to me an estimate of my brother as to your credibility is without foundation as the inspector does not report to me, but reports through the Inspection Department at Washington, and I have not seen his report or anything connected with it. If you have any doubt about any of these statements, I will be glad to have you call at my office and I will show you the evidence, as I have carbon copies of the entire transaction. I have a right to presume that, when acquainted with the facts, as an honorable man you will make restitution.
Respectfully,
Elias R. Monfort,
Postmaster.

Making no reply to Postmaster Monfort’s letter of January 24, 1913, inspired evidently by fear of The Menace’s criticism, I was, on January 29, 1913, made recipient of the following:

United States Post Office
EXECUTIVE DIVISION
CINCINNATI, OHIO
January 29, 1913.
Mk. Jeremiah J. Crowley,
Johnston Building, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dear Sir:

I have not received reply to my letter of January 24th, nor have you called at my office for an interview. Unless I hear favorably from you, I shall write to The Menace and demand that my letter to you should be published as my defense, as I can not reach a half-million people in any other way. If they refuse, then you are forcing me to publish a pamphlet containing the correspondence and send it to 20,000 Protestant preachers and societies in order to set myself right before the public. This is the first time in forty years of public life that I have been publicly charged with unfair treatment of any one. You can set the matter right, and as a fair-minded man you can correct the mistake that you have made. Sincerely,
Elias R. Monfort,
Postmaster.

EXECUTIVE DIVISION
United States Post Office
CINCINNATI. OHIO
January 24, 1913.
PUBLISHERS,
The Menace, Aurora, Mo,
Gentlemen :
In your paper of January 25th you have an article in which you hold me up to contempt and which is in itself libelous, and I believe when your ‘attention is called to it, you will make such corrections as will set the matter right. I have written to Mr. Crowley, and enclose ai copy of the letter sent to him. By this letter you will see that this office made a very strong effort to have Mr. Crowley appear at the examination of Mr. Hurney and which he refused to do, which of course delayed the case. After he had refused, the matter was reported to the Department at Washington and put into the hands of the postoffice inspectors for examination, which took the matter entirely out of my hands on October 29th, since which time I have had nothing whatever to do with the case, nor have I heard from the Department what had been done. Trusting that you will siee that, by want of information, I have been placed in a false position, and that you will correct the same, I am,
Sincerely,
(Signed) Elias E. Monfort,
Inclosure.
Postmaster.

January 29, 1912.
Mr. Elias R. Monfort,
Postmaster, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Dear Sir:
Your letter of the 24th instant, with enclosures, was received in due course and the same have been forwarded to our Washington, D. C, office, in charge of Mr. H. George Buss, who handles all staff matters east of the Mississippi River. We are sure that he will give it the attention it deserves.
Yours very truly,
The Menace Pub. Co., (Inc.)
Aurora, Mo., U. S. A.

EXECUTIVE DIVISION
United States Post Office
CINCINNATI. OHIO
January 31, 1913.
Mr. H. George Buss,
Staff Correspondent, The Menace,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir:
I received this morning a letter from The Menace, Aurora, Mo., saying that the matter of the unjust and injurious attack upon me in The Menace of January 25th had been sent to you as the one who handles all staff matter east of the Mississippi River and saying, “We are sure that he will give it the attention it deserves.’

I want this matter corrected in The Menace as fully as the attack was made, and I will be satisfied if you will print my letter to Mr. Crowley exactly as it is written. You will understand that my reputation is wider than this city. If it had been local, I would have given the matter no attention, as I am known here. I have been a Ruling Elder of the Presbyterian Church for thirty years. I have been a Trustee of Lane Theological Seminary for twenty-five years. I have been a Trustee of a Protestant College for thirty years. I was appointed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church as a Member of the Committee on Christian Unity, and said Committee had a representative from all Protestant Churches, among them Bishop Cox, of New York. I was also appointed by the General Assembly a Member of the Committee on Union with the Southern Presbyterian Church. I have had many other appointments of this kind, unsought by me. I was a Delegate to the Evangelical Alliance that met in London ten years ago. I have recently received an appointment by the Presbyterian General Assembly as a Delegate to the Evangelical Alliance of all Churches in the World holding the Reform Faith, to meet in Aberdeen, Scotland, June, 1913.

The Menace has a half-million subscribers among Protestants, so that such a charge is very serious. While your name appears as writer of the article, I have written to Mr. Crowley as the author because the scientific tests of authorship as applied to the article give at least evidence that he wrote all or the most of it. I have no documents of the same kind from your pen to make such tests, but I have from him on the same subject. You will understand that these tests involve rhetoric style, the applications of the rules of logic, and the counting of five hundred or more words or letters and space, etc., etc. I have never found two men with the same literary style, closely inspected, where the tests would show close similarity in authorship, so that these tests are prima facia proof of authorship. As your name appears as the author, you are, of course, responsible, but I assume that your sense of fairness, when you understand the situation, will lead you to make such correction as will set me right before the world.
Very respectfully,
(Signed) Elias R. Monfort.

Cincinnati, Ohio, February 13, 1913.
Mr. Elias R. Monfort,
U.S. Postoffice, Cincinnati, 0.
Dear Sir:
I am very sorry that I have been too busy to acknowledge before this the receipt of your letter and enclosure of January 31st.

I desire to say that you are mistaken as to Mr. Crowley’s having been the author of the article in question, as I wrote every word of it myself. With all due respect to you, I do not believe there is anything that I care to add to that article at this time.
Very respectfully,
(Signed) H. George Buss.

CABLE ADDRESS

CROWLEY.CINCINNATI, JEREMIAH J. CROWLEY
Author, Lecturer, and Publicist
619 JOHNSTON BUILDING
CINCINNATI, OHIO, U. S. A.

February 22, 1913.
The Honorable William H. Taft,
President of the United States,
Washington, D. C.

Your Excellency:

I have the honor to call attention to two letters, under dates January 24th and January 29th respectively, of this current year, addressed to me by Postmaster Monfort, of Cincinnati.

These letters, copies of which I enclose, have reference to my complaint against one Myron L. Hurney, a clerk, till recently, in the mailing section of the Cincinnati Postoffice, whom I charge, under oath, with gross and scandalous misconduct towards me, on August 15, 1912; conduct which, if unwhipt of justice, were an intolerable menace and a most flagrant outrage upon the American public, especially American women and children, obliged to receive at the hands of such a foul-mouthed postoffice official the attention called for by the Constitution and Laws of the United States.

Mr. Monfort informs me, in his letter of January 24, 1913, that the matter of my complaint against Hurney had passed entirely out of his hands and was now under charge exclusively of the Postoffice Department at Washington.

Here, sir, are Postmaster Monfort’s own words from his letter aforesaid of January 24, 1913:

I, therefore, on October 29th sent the case with all the papers on both sides and an abstract to the Department at Washington, and from that time it has been entirely out of my hands.

Yet, Mr. Postmaster Monfort, in his letter of January 24, 1913—this case being then, for nearly three months, “entirely out of my [Monfort’s] hands’ ‘—adds: “I will be glad to have you call at my office and I will show you the evidence.” Why, sir, should I call at the local postoffice to look over evidence in a case now “entirely” out of Postmaster Monfort’s jurisdiction?

Let me state, right here, that I rejoice that this matter has been transferred for final determination to Washington. There is involved in it a National issue of greatest concern to all our people and to their most cherished rights.

In Chapter VIII of my work, “Romanism — A Menace to the Nation,” I say, under the heading “Papal Despotism:”

Nothing more startling has ever been put before the public than Rome’s recent resolutions of boycott of the Encyclopedia Britannica, Watson’s Magazine, The Protestant Magazine, The Menace, etc., and her attitude as Censor of the United States Mails. At the annual convention of the American Federation of Catholic Societies, held at New Orleans, November 13-16, 1910, resolutions were passed calling for the passage of Federal laws to prevent the transmission, by the United States mails, of matter offensive to the Roman Catholic Church. In these resolutions postoffice employees were boldly called upon to destroy, without any warrant of law, any such mail in transit. The leading ecclesiastic at this convention was Archbishop Falconio, Papal Delegate to the Roman Catholic Church in America.

Is the Roman Church mistress of the Postoffice Department of the United States? If so, under what article of the original, or of the amended, Constitution of the United States is control of the Postoffice Department of this free Republic vested in the Pope and his agents? How anxious Rome is to have Protestant Federal officials ready and desirous to promote her interests, an extract from The Commercial Tribune, Cincinnati, February 6, 1913, will explain:

Postmaster E. R. Monfort delivered an interesting^ address on “The Postal Savings Bank” last night, before the department of commerce, accounts, and finance of St. Xavier’s College.

“The postal savings bank” [he said] “is a new department of the greatest business on earth—the banking business. Few people realize the magnitude of the Postal Department. In Cincinnati alone last year over $17,000,000 changed hands in handling the mails. There are 2,650 mailcarriers in the city, and the salaries of the deliverers and the railway mail clerks with headquarters in Cincinnati amounted to over $1,000,000.

“The postal savings bank’, although a new department of the Mail Service, has grown so rapidly that it is at present one of the largest. The people put more trust in the postal bank than they do in the ordinary banks. It is designed merely to protect and take care of the earnings of the working class. Under this system the money that is placed in the care of the Government can be withdrawn at any time. At times, it is said, more than half the money of the world is out of circulation and in the pockets of the people. At such time the circulating money is not sufficient to carry on the business of the world, and a panic follows. The great financiers of the world have been unable to account for these conditions, but many think that this system, by placing cash at the disposal of the poorer people, will greatly lessen the hardships of such panics.”

In speaking of the rapid growth of the postal savings bank and its favor with the people, he let the figures speak for themselves. On January 1, 1912, there was in the bank $11,000,000; now there is $30,000,000. On this money the depositors receive 2 per cent interest. The Government, however, invests this money so that the department is self-supporting and so far has paid all its own expenses.

Not only in the domain of the United States Postoffice are papal agents busy, but also in other departments of Governmental control. Statements of sinister import come, for example, from Oklahoma of the activities of that adroit representative of the Papacy, Father Ketcham, in securing the selection of a Federal building site in Oklahoma City on land adjoining, or in close proximity to, the Roman Catholic cathedral, nunnery, etc., etc. Father Ketcham is Rome’s trusted agent in the manipulation of Indian affairs at Washington. Residing at the National Capital, he (Ketcham) is in such close contact with the Papal Delegation there, and with Cardinal Gibbons— the very crafty, though unlearned prelate of Baltimore—that he may be relied on to discharge the duties of the high functions you, sir, have seen fit to honor him with ; first, to the full satisfaction and benefit of the Vatican ; secondly, to the profit of papal priests, monks, and nuns operating among whites and Indians in Oklahoma, as well as elsewhere ; thirdly, with no consideration whatever for the real permanent moral upliftment of the Indian. In promoting Ketcham to a position of (administrative importance in the management of Indian affairs, had you, sir, in view the value of cunning, unscrupulous devotedness to a foreign priest and pontiff, rather than earnest patriotic purpose to do duty to the humanity of this great Nation by the upliftment, on Christian bases, of a fallen and vanishing race?

You can not, sir, be ignorant of the teaching of American History as to Roman Catholicism’s degrading and decimating influences on the Red Man everywhere, from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. Yet you give Roman Catholicism a voice of control in the person of Rev. Ketcham, trusted ally of Papal Delegate Bonzano and Cardinal Gibbons, over all Governmental dealings with the surviving Indian races under the jurisdiction of the American Flag. Nay more, Ketcham has potent say and sway in matters pertaining to the Postoffice Department. The great Congregational Church of ‘the United States had in Oklahoma City a site for the Federal Building, much better adapted to public needs than the Ketcham-papal site selected finally by the Department. The Congregational Church in Oklahoma City had, at the time the Ketcham Vaticanistic land deal was put through, a distinguished representative in the Rev. Thomas H. Harper, pastor of Pilgrim Church, a Republican of worth and a citizen of eminence, as well as a clergyman of unassailable purity of life. No man in all Oklahoma had, for clean government and for the Republican cause, which he considers inseparable, made more sacrifices than the Rev. “Tom” Harper. But Harper stood away from and far above any alliance or collusion with the infamous liquor ring of Oklahoma City, which is one of Rome’s most powerful instrumentalities in that prohibition State. Neither Rome nor Rum would have Harper for mayor of Oklahoma City. The people voted him in—the Roman bosses counted him out. The Government at Washington, coinciding with Rome and Rum’s estimate of this worthy man, has denied him and the masses of the clean-living people of Oklahoma’s principal city all say or suggestion in the selection of a Postoffice site for a city where Protestants may do the voting, while Romanists do the counting.

To return to my chapter on “Papal Despotism:”

Archbishop Falconio had good reasons [so the work on “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation” continues] for tendering his sincerest congratulations to the American Federation of Catholic Societies at its convention held at Columbus, Ohio, August 20-24, 1911, for its ” rapid progress” and “the effective good work accomplished’ ‘ by it. He was fully aware, I presume, of the destruction of much printed “matter offensive to the Church” in the postoffices of the United States of America since their last reunion at New Orleans.

With good reason there immediately follows in my book:

I know that several large parcels of printed matter mailed at the General Postoffice in Chicago during the months of December, 1910, and January and February, 1911, never reached their destination. This destruction commenced immediately after their New Orleans convention. On receipt of numerous complaints from subscribers the sender called on the Postoffice authorities for an explanation, but received no satisfaction whatever. This party’s mail continued to be held up, and, surmising the cause, the sender threatened public exposure of such unlawful action on the part of the Postoffice Department.

Are you, Mr. President, aware of the fact that Catholic employees in Post Offices are taught by their “father confessors’ ‘ that they are bound in duty to “Holy Mother Church” to prevent, by all available means, the circulation of any mail matter, be it letter, book, or paper of any kind, exposing the operations of the crafty, covetous, and lecherous priesthood and Hierarchy of Rome? So teaches “Father” Gury, the wellknown Jesuit theologian, whose “Moral (?) Theology” is the text-book of so many Roman Catholic training schools for priests.

I defy production of any Roman Catholic “theologian” who takes a stand on this point contrary to that assumed by Gury. The first duty of a devout Romanist is, according to all Jesuitical authority, (all modern Roman Catholic “moral” theological teaching is Jesuitical), to an infallible pope. A Catholic is a Romanist first, an American, an Englishman, or a German, a long way after. This is the doctrine taught at the Roman Catholic University at Washington, and at the Georgetown Jesuitical College, both at your very door; and by every Catholic educational institution in America and the world over.

The pope being, according to Jesuit theology, “king of all earthly kings,” “ruler of all earthly rulers,’ ‘ having power from on high to invalidate and suppress all legislation framed by Congress, Parliament, or any other law-making instrumentality on earth, is the sovereign to whom devoted confession-going Romanists owe first allegiance. Him, first, must they serve, even to the extent of violating oaths of office, injuring neighbor and fellow-citizen, betraying the country affording them life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

You have, sir, made appointments to several offices at the instance of and in accordance with the desire and request of Romanist bishop and priest. The professing Catholic so appointed must, to retain the good-will of the influences back of his appointment, be loyal to pope and papal requirements, regardless of all other interests involved in his discharge of official duty. To destroy, for instance, mail matter, by him, as a loyal Romanist, considered inimical to papal machine interests, is one of the essential obligations of the Romanist postmaster or Romanist post office employee.

The Romanist priesthood very often prefers for postmasterships—to say nothing, for the moment, of other offices—a professing, nay even ” pious’ ‘ Protestant, ready to prove his liberality in things denominational, by giving, when appointed, more attention to local “holy fathers’ ‘ than a Catholic postmaster might care to exhibit. The assistants of this weak-kneed, time-serving American official are certain to be either devout Romanists, or complacent non-Romanists, as ready as their chief to carry out the behests of the Vatican.

Vaticanism has, in America, its professing Protestant representatives. They are conspicuous in prayer-meeting, in Sunday school, and in pulpit. They sometimes reach leadership at synods, conventions, and even in ministerial associations.

The amazing power attained by Romanism in this Republic is, safe to say, due as much to socalled Protestant agencies as to direct Roman Catholic effort. The Protestant United States Senator, relying for re-election, on the support of a John Ireland of St. Paul, a Glennon of St. Louis, a Quigley of Chicago, a Blenck of New Orleans, a Moeller of Cincinnati, or any other papal archbishop or bishop, is more condescending to Romanist importunity for pelf and patronage than any professing Romanist could afford to be.

The professing Protestant Congressman, mindful of the big vote that “Father Tom” or “Father Mike” or some other priestly boss in his district, is believed to have under control; mindful of the close alliance in so many citieis between the priesthood on the one side and the saloon and the red light districts on the other, will recommend for appointment or reappointment no man distasteful to priestly demands and exigencies.

No New York man need be told of the alliance between Tammany Hall and the priesthood. Talk of the fat Church establishment of Protestant England! It yields positis ponendis, small revenue to Anglican bishop or priest compared with the vast annual flood of tainted gold turned into papal coffers of New York, through the activities and organized endeavors of Tammany Hall. No marvel why the pope looks away in disgust from the European countries, which place so many needed restraints on priestly greed and monkish rapacity! No marvel why his crafty eye lights up with cheer and hope as he gazes fondly on American Tammany Halls pouring into priestly, monkish, and nunnery treasure box volume after volume of glittering currency!

Every American city under Romanist control, and many are such cities, from Atlantic to Pacific, from Mexican Gulf to Superior’s shores, has its Tammany machine in some form. The boss may bear one name in New York, another in Louisville, another in Chicago, another in Cincinnati; his name may be anything that befits a Knight of Columbus, or a lay agent of Jesuitism. “Whatever his name, he sees to it, first of all, that tithe and toll are paid to pope, prelate, and priest from every wage of sin, death, and deviltry in his bailiwick.

Romanism, tried for centuries in France, Italy, and Portugal, as well as other Catholic lands of Europe, and everywhere found wanting, is fastening itself on the American Republic, on Great Britain, and on the British possessions of this and other continents.

Cast eye for a moment on French Catholic Quebec, a Province of the Canadian Dominion. The Vatican, having yoked that vast and rich domain to its chariot wheel, is now directing the overflow of Quebec’s ever-expanding population to the New England States. A French Canadian Catholic is already Governor of Rhode Island. French Canadian Catholic mayors are found in ever-growing numbers in the cities of New England. French Canadian churches, of cathedral size, proportion, and adornment, dot the towns of that one-time stronghold of Puritanism from Memphremagog to Narragansett pier.

Not a word disrespectful toward the French Canadian people, in so many regards admirable, do I speak when I refer with regret to their traditional subserviency to Rome. The French Canadian is himself welcome to the United States. Let him bring his beautiful language, let him bring his racial gallantry, let him bring his numerous progeny; but he must not, with American approval, be made the agent for the erection on this soil, sacred to liberty, of a Vaticanized Quebec, with its dearth of efficient public schools; rich in monkish minsters and in nunnery halls, but poor in agricultural school, in free library, in elementary education, and even in independent press.

There is, sir, at Ottawa a Papal Delegate, with powers similar to those of Delegate Bonzano at Washington. The delegate at Ottawa is striving to Quebecize, that is Vaticanize and enslave the great chain of provinces, extending from the St. Lawrence’s mouth to Vancouver Island. The Papal Delegate at Washington is preparing, through archbishop, bishop, priest, and nuns, the American States for an ultimate alliance with the Quebecized or Vaticanized Canadian Provinces, and for one grand Papal Dominion or Satrapy, extending from Florida to the sources of the Yukon.

Cable after cable tells of the pope’s blessing America. Every toll of American or Canadian gold laid at his feet—many and frequent are such tolls—calls for such blessings.

Rejoiced, especially, is “Holy Father” in the Vatican, when subservient Protestant allies of his American representatives make telling display of ” liberality” to the Papal System, As well for child to be playful with wolf, or maiden trustful of tiger as for free American to confide in papal rapacity.

The pope was for three centuries supreme in the Philippine Islands. You, sir, know the result— a beautiful archipelago and a region incomparably favored by nature, cursed till the other day by monkish superstition, priestly depravity, and hierarchical greed. With iEneas of old, the Filipino might, before the American occupation of his country, exclaim, “Quae regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?”

Vaticanism has now put on American gloves and assumed American voice to levy toll off the Philippines, but while the hand of greed may be that of Jacob, the voice of the despoiler and ravisher is, assuredly, that of Esau! Clerical immorality is in the Philippines so deeply and so firmly rooted that the infusion or intrusion of American priests there, several of these as immoral as Spanish priest or native cleric in the archipelago, at the time of the American conquest, could not improve conditions.

Testifying to the Philippine Commission, of which you, sir, were leading member, Senor Don Felipe Calderon, a native of the Islands, educated by the Jesuits at Manila, declared October 17, 1900:

With respect to their [the Friars’] morality in general, it was such a common thing to see children of Friars that no one ever paid any attention to it or thought of it, and so depraved had the people become in this regard that the women who were the mistresses of the friars really felt great pride in it and had no compunction in speaking of it. So general had this thing become that it may be said that even now the rule is for a friar to have a mistress and children, and he who has not is the rare exception, and if it is desired that I give names, I could cite right now one hundred children of friars.

Asked if these children of friars were in Manila or the provinces, Senor Calderon added: In Manila and in the provinces. Everywhere. Many of my sweethearts have been daughters of friars.

Asked, again, if the friars who have had these children were still living in the Islands, Senor Calderon declared:

Yes ; and I can give their names if necessary, and I can give the names of the children, too. Beginning with myself, my mother is the daughter of a Franciscan Friar. I do not dishonor myself by saying this, for my family begins with myself. Requested to produce a list, Senor Calderon proceeded:

I can give it to you right now: In Pandacan, Isidro Mendoza, son of the Bishop Pedro Payo, when he was the parish curate of the Pueblo of Samar; in Imus, the wife of Cayetano Topazio, daughter of a Recolecto friar of Mindoro; in Zambales, Louise Lasaca, now in Zambales, and several sisters and brothers were children of Friar Benito Tutor, a Recolecta friar in Bulacan; in Quingua, I can not remember the last name, but the first name is Manuela, a godchild of my mother, is a daughter of an Augustinian friar named Alvaro; in Cavite, a certain Patrocinio Berjes is a daughter of Friar Rivas, a Dominican friar; Colonel Aguillar, who is on the Spanish Board of Liquidation, is the son of Father Ferrer, an Augustinian monk.

Dealing with the question of general licentiousness on the part of the friars, Senor Calderon states:

It was a general licentiousness, because, as I have said, the exception as to the rule among friars was not to have a mistress and be the father of children by her. The friar who was not mixed up with a woman in some way or other was like a snowbird in summer.

Continuing, Senor Calderon affirms that:

The moral sense of the whole people here had been absolutely perverted. So frequent were the infractions of the moral laws on the part of the friars that really no one ever cared or took any notice of them; and this acquiescence on the part of the people was imposed upon them, for woe be unto him who should ever murmur anything against the friars, and even the young Filipino women had their senses perverted, because when attending school they had often and often seen the friars come in to speak to their openly avowed daughters, who often were their own playmates.

Coming to the unpopularity of the friars in the Philippines, Senor Calderon defines this very clearly:

They [the Friars] were the expression of the most exaggerated despotism, not of the Government of Spain, but of their own despotism, which they exercised, using the name of the kingdom of Spain, because their system was to deceive both Spain and the people. That was the line they had laid down, and, unfortunately, they are still following it, as they used it during the time of the Spanish regime. They would say to the people, ”If it were not for me the Government would annihilate you,” and then they would say to the Government, “If it were not for me the people would overthrow you. ‘ ‘ And even at the present time there is not the slightest doubt that they have said to the American authorities that all of the Filipino people were a lot of anarchists and insurgents who were conspiring to overthrow constituted authority, while to the people of the Philippines they say the American Government will place a chain around the waist of each of them; I do not make this assertion as an emanation from myself. I have seen it in writing. In the confessional they say to them, “How can you be in favor of the Americans when they are absolutely the enemies of our religionV And they say that constantly to the secular clergy, adding that woe betides the poor Filipinos who deliver themselves over unconditionally to the American Government, and I have heard this from the very lips of Monsieur Chapelle (Archbishop of New Orleans and Papal Delegate to the Philippine Islands). — Senate Document No. 190, 56th Congress, 2d Session, pp. 139, 140, 141.

Joseph Roderigues Infante’s testimony in the siame State Document recites that in point of morality native priests and friars were about on the same footing:

All these priests have [he states] the same vices, and when you take into account that they were purposely kept from following their natural bent to obtain an education by the friars, in order to show the Pope that there was a natural want of capacity in the Filipino, it can be seen why they became easy tools of the Spanish priests and great mimics of them in their loose life. —Senate Document No. 190, 56th Congress, 2d Session, p. 148.

Senor Nozario Constantino, of Bigan, Province of Bulacan, a life-long resident of the Philippines, testifying at the age of fifty-eight, declared solemnly of the friars:

There was no morality whatever. . . . About the year 1840 and the year ’50 every friar in the Province of Bulacan had his concubine. Dr. Joaquin Gonzales was the son of a curate of Baliuag, and he has three sisters here and another brother, all children of the same friar.

. . . The multitude of friars who came here from 1876 to 1896 and 1898 were all of the same kind, and to name the number of children that they have would take up an immense lot of space.

. . . I will cite a case that actually happened to us. It was the case of a first cousin of mine, Don Soponee, who married a girl from Baliuag and went to live in Agonoy, and there the local friar curate, who was pursuing his wife, got him the position as registrar of the Church in order to have him occupied in order that he, the friar, might continue his advances with the wife. He was fortunate in this undertaking and succeeded in getting the wife away from the husband, and afterwards had the husband deported to Puerto Princesa, near Jolo, where he was shot as an insurgent, and the friar continued to live with the widow and she bore him children. The friar’s name is Jose Martin, an Augustinian friar. — Senate Document No. 190, 56th Congress, 2d Session, pp. 150, 151.

Maximo Viola of San Miguel De Mayumo, a native of the Philippines and a physician, declared as to the morality of the priests:

There was no morality. . . . I do not know of a single one of all those priests I have known in the province of Bulacan who has not violated his vow of celibacy. . . . From my own personal experience I think all the priests and friars are on the same level. I have never seen one that was pure. I do n’t deny there may be exceptions, but I have not seen them. The large majority have violated their vows of celibacy and chastity. For this reason I believe that Protestantism will have a very good field here, for one reason alone, and that is that the Protestant ministers marry, and that will eradicate all fear of attacks upon the Filipino families on their part. — Senate Document No. 190, 56th Congress, 2d Session, pp. 156, 157.

Of the native priests, Brig. Gen. R. P. Hughes, U. S. V., Commanding Headquarters at Iloilo, Island of Panay, said, sir, to you:

To be plain, Judge, there is no morality among them, not a particle. They gamble in their convents; they send for members of their congregation to gamble with them. There is no morality. — Senate Document No. 190, 56th Congress, 2d Session, p. 177.

That moral and social conditions can be improved in the Philippines, by the employment there of American bishops and priests, there is very small ground for hope, as my work, “Romanism— A Menace to the Nation/ ‘ very clearly proves. No stream rises to higher level than its source.

Drunkenness, graft, and immorality are very prevalent in American priestly ranks, from cardinals down to curates. Respect for public opinion compels, in many cases, concealment of priestly vices in the United States. But there is not a State in the Union without flagrant examples, not a few, of priestly profligacy.

Mr. Monfort ascribes to my pen the article in The Menace, published at Aurora, Mo., Saturday, January 25, 1913. This honor is not mine. The author of the said article is Mr. H. George Buss, at the time Staff Correspondent of The Menace, who, over his own name, assumed publicly full responsibility therefor.

Mr. Monfort, instead of writing direct to Mr. Buss at Washington, D. C, or to the editorial management of The Menace, at Aurora, Mo., addresses me January 29, 1913, stating of this case, then “entirely” out of his hands, “I have not received reply to my letter of January 24th, nor have you called at my office for an interview.” Then the Cincinnati postmaster menacingly adds:

Unless I hear favorably from you I shall write to The Menace and demand that my letter to you should be published as my defense, as I can not reach half a million people in any other way.

Why should I, sir, let me repeat, call on Mr. Monfort in reference to a case now admittedly, according to his own words, “entirely” out of his hands?

But if this case be “entirely” out of Mr. Monfort’s hands, it is attracting papal attention. So pleased are the Jesuits of Cincinnati with Mr. Monfort ‘s indorsement of Hurney that they have bestowed on Cincinnati’s postmaster what is, in eyes Jesuitical, a signal honor, by inviting him to lecture lat their college in this city, one of the most aggressively papal institutions of learning in the Middle West.

Jesuits confer no honors on Catholic or non- Catholic, unless the conferee have rendered notable service to papal interests. Close watch do Jesuits and other Roman representatives keep on the judicial bench of the United States, and of every State, that judges subservient to the interests of the papacy be appointed ; or that judges already on the bench may be induced to interpret law according to Roman interests. Are you aware, sir, that political parties in many cities and in many States place tentative lists of candidates for judicial as well as other offices before Roman Catholic bishops and other Church dignitaries? Any name objected to by the priesthood is sure to be obliterated.

Known, all over the land, is the constant interference, now open, again underhanded, of the priesthood in civil, military, and naval promotions. The participation of the priesthood in every stage of political activity, from the ward contest to City, State, and Nation-wide struggle for party domination, is everywhere in evidence.

Papial “statesmen by chemistry,” adepts in the art of removing rivals by poison, there are to-day, as well as in the days of the infamous Borgia, who on assuming the papal crown took the name of Alexander VI. The lecherous Cardinal Antonelli, Prime Minister of Pope Pius IX, found singular satisfaction in removing “by chemistry’ ‘ cardinals who refused to indorse his infamies. In passing, I might state that “His Eminence’ ‘ Cardinal Antonelli, to the knowledge of the Hierarchy, had a natural daughter (Countess Lambertini), who, on her father’s death, claimed through the Italian civil courts a share of her father’s estate, amounting to 100,000,000 lire.

The Right Rev. George Conroy, Bishop of Ardagh, Ireland, Papal Delegate to Canada and Newfoundland in 1877-78, was, in August, 1878, poisoned at St. John’s, Newfoundland, by the infamous Bishop Carfagnini, a greedy Italian, who had been forced into the see of Harbor Grace, Newfoundland, where he gave so much dissatisfaction and excited such opposition that Delegate Apostolic Conroy was about to recommend his removal.

What was done to Carfagnini? He was brought back to Italy and promoted to a better and richer see—that of Gallipoli!

In my book, “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation” (pp. 51, 52, 53), mention is made of several cases of murder by expert clerical chemists and other papal assassins. Some of those murdered were Police Officer Hyland, Vicar General Dowling, of the archdiocese of Chicago ; a woman of Rev. Cashman’s parish, concerning whose death certain high ecclesiastics, such as Bishop Muldoon, could give full particulars. Pertaining to the same case Rev. Cashm’an states that he knows the person by whom “her mysterious death could be explained.”

The suppression of such a book as mine, through the offices of postal employees, is a work very close to the heart of Jesuit and every other class of papal agents.

Is it through the influence of these Cincinnati Jesuits that Postoffice Clerk Hurney, whose case is still sub judice, has been transferred from the city postoffice building to Station I, Avondale, Cincinnati! This transfer of Hurney is either a promotion or a demotion. If a promotion, it is an official vindication of him from the grave charges by me preferred; if a demotion, a censure altogether inadequate of the accused man Hurney.

It is, sir, in either event, an attempted disposal of the case, now “entirely” out of Postmaster Monfort’s hands. Actuated by no personal animus whatever against Postmaster Monfort, or any other officer of the Postoffice Department, I desire that this matter of my complaint against Hurney be so finally decided and equitably determined that public interests and private rights may be conserved conspicuously and permanently.

Time, indeed, that this complaint should be, both in the public interests and in my own, passed upon decisively. Hurney, it is very evident to me, his own statements to the contrary notwithstanding, not only knew me well by sight, but knew also the nature and contents of my book. Several of his fellow postal officials had purchased copies of my volume, which had thus become a subject of frequent conversation in postoffice circles. Acting clearly (to my mind) under Jesuitical inspiration and prejudice, Hurney grasped the first opportunity, to him looking favorable, for expression of profoundest animosity for myself and my printed production.

To me, it is easy, after Hurney’s blasphemous and obscene outbreak on August 15, 1912, to understand why several copies of my book, mailed by me personally at Window No. 9, Cincinnati postomee, between July 16, 1912, the very day of its publication, till August 15, 1912, the day of Hurney’s vulgar verbal assault on me, failed to reach their destination.

An American citizen, proud of this designation and this distinction, glad of the responsibilities, rejoicing in the discharge of every duty which American citizenship imposes, I raise humble but emphatic voice against special privileges for any class, creed, race, or individual in this Nation of freedom. Special privileges are, sir, to Americans, abhorrent. The heroes of the Revolution died that special privilege might perish from this land and ultimately from the world. A paper published in the Canadian Northwest utters a very significant truth—I quote from the Edmonton Bulletin:

In a new country of mixed peoples nothing more surely or quickly brings one class into general dislike and general disrepute than a suspicion that they have aims other than are common or claim rights or privileges other than are generally accorded. “Special privileges for none” was the watchcry of this Nation’s fathers and founders. The maxim it was, sir, of the first President of the Republic, the guiding star of the virile statesmen who led the American Ship of State through two great wars with Britain, through the struggle with Mexico ending in the extension of freedom’s boundaries to the Pacific; through the terrific conflict between the States, terminating in the triumph of the most cherished and most salutary of Washington’s purposes—the unity, the indivisibility, ‘and the sovereignty of the American Nation. Worship the name and memory; revere, do all Americans, the achievements and triumphs of Washington, because

This was the man God gave us when the hour
Proclaimed the dawn of liberty begun;
Who dared a deed and died when it was done.
Patient in triumph, temperate in power—
Not striving, like the Corsican, to tower
To heaven, nor, like Philip’s greater son,
To win the world and weep for worlds unwon
, Or lose the star to revel in the flower.
The lives that serve the eternal verities
Alone do mold mankind. Pleasure and pride
Sparkle awhile and perish, as the spray
Smoking across the crests of cavernous seas
Is impotent to hasten or delay
The everlasting surges of the tide.

I am, sir, at your command for any further information at my disposal. My affidavit in the case, dated August 17, 1912, has never yet been met, either wholly or in part, by any adequate or satisfactory contradiction.
I have the honor, sir, to be,
Very respectfully yours,
Jeremiah J. Crowley.

CABLE ADDRESS
CROWLEY. CINCINNATI. JEREMIAH J. CROWLEY
Author, Lecturer, and Publicist
619 JOHNSTON BUILDING
CINCINNATI. OHIO. U. S. A.

Me. President: February 26, 1913.
I am enclosing, under separate cover, an “open” letter concerning postal and other matters. This “open” letter bears date February 22, 1913.

I am likewise sending, under still another cover, not only the various exhibits referred to in my “open” letter, but also a six-page circular illustrating my work.

I have the honor, sir, to be,
Very respectfully yours,
Jeremiah J. Crowley.

To the Honorable William H. Taft,
President of the United States,
Washington, D. C.

Part of the circular referred to above is here given:

A searchlight on the Papal System—startling charges against individuals in the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, made and filed by the author and a score of prominent priests, with letters, affidavits, cancelled checks, photographic proofs, etc., exposing Rome’s traffic in religion, (!) sin, and shame; stupendous exposures of the political influence of the Roman Catholic Church in Municipal, State, and Federal Governments.

This volume recites the authentic experiences of a man who occupies the unique position of having voluntarily withdrawn from the Priesthood and membership of the Church of Rome without being canonically excommunicated. Concerning Crowley and his unanswerable book Rome is as silent as the grave. Why? Because she dare not reply. However, she is secretly striving to prevent its circulation with such aid as she can command from certain employees in the Postal Service, and time-serving politicians of divers Church affiliations.

The charges in this book are either true or false; if true, the crafty, guilty priesthood and prelacy of Rome are a living menace to decency, truth, and liberty; a portentous danger to clean living and pure home life. They should be, as such, prosecuted and punished by their respective governments.

The governments of several Catholic countries have already dealt vigorously with this dread, ever-present menace to National, social, and individual life. Italy, France, Mexico, Latin America generally, and Portugal have banished religious orders—monks and nuns—either wholly or partially. Other Catholic governments are making ready to follow in their footsteps.

What the governments of Roman Catholic countries have done, or are preparing to do, America, Great Britain, and Germany must soon do. Why? Read this book.

If my specific charges were false, Rome surely would not hesitate to prosecute me! Why should any of the civil authorities, real or seeming allies of the Papacy, fail to take fitting action against me as a libeller?

Legal prosecution has not been, and shall not be, invoked against me ; for Rome and its governmental allies know full well that my distinct, repeated, and specific charges would be, before any tribunal of a free country, not only substantiated, but reaffirmed and emphasized with an hundredfold force.

Since I first turned the searchlight on priests, prelates, and “princes of the Church,” some of those by me specifically charged with crime have died by their own hand; some from drunkenness; others from unprintable diseases. But the majority of the surviving phalanx of accused, wicked Roman hierarchs have been promoted, or otherwise rewarded, for brazen criminality, accepted as “signal service” to Church and Pope! Nay more, some of my one-time ecclesiastical cooperators and financial backers—for example, Revs. Cashman, Smyth, McNamee, Croke, Foley, et. al. (see page 54 of book—have bartered conviction for advancement and profit at the hands of ecclesiastical authorities whom they once bitterly assailed. Easy, therefore, to see why they also prefer to keep ” operating’ ‘ lucratively among deluded Catholics and self-seeking non- Catholics. All done, of course, for ” God’s greater honor and glory,” with the authority, approbation, and blessing (!) of “Holy Father,” Pope Pius X, “Vicar of Christ,” “Our Lord God the Pope,” “King of Heaven, Earth, and Hell.”

The Vatican’s policy—that of cunning, calculating guilt’s systematic silence—should not be permitted to cover, even for one moment, from gaze of a confiding people the awful criminality and frightful perils confronting the nations.

Every citizen—be he Protestant, Catholic, Jew, or non-church-goer—all governmental agencies should combine to rid mankind of this vile incubus of treason, corruption, and organized diabolism— the Papal System.

Every man interested in the race’s welfare, every lover of truth, enlightenment, and liberty the world over should insist upon a stern and thorough investigation of the stupendous charges formulated and promulgated by myself and my associates, lay and clerical.

This volume will enlighten you; it will guard you, and, through you, your country, against the abominable conspiracies of ROMANISM. Many judicious readers declare this book a storehouse of incontrovertible facts. Estimating it in the same way, the Roman hierarchs fear that its dissemination will bring about a revolution in the Church of Rome, dethroning spiritual despots, great and small ; uprooting ecclesiastical rapacity and diabolism forever.

March 17, 1913.
The Honorable Woodrow Wilson,
President of the United States,
Washington, D. C.
Your Excellency:
Called by an observant, appreciative, and admiring people to the highest office in the world’s gift, you have, in a career of singular and significant success, proceeded from position to position; advanced from responsibility to responsibility, ever justifying in your friends ‘ estimation the tribute paid to traveler of old: Coelum non animam mutant qui trans mare currunt.(Latin for “Change their climate, but not the soul of those who run across the sea.” — Google translate.)

Places, indeed, you have changed, but wherever duty has laid command on you, a remarkable fixity of purpose has animated your resolves, guided your determinations, and ennobled your successes.

You have, sir, as college professor and as president of a great university, inspired the flower of American youth with the worship of loftiness in ideals and purity in practice. You have stimulated ambition, fostered courage, developed righteousness, enlarged generosity, and directed way unerringly as well as invitingly to success untarnished by malevolence, unclouded by injustice.

You have as Governor of one of America’s historic Commonwealths shown firmness, foresight, and constructiveness in dealing with the complex problems of popular self-government constantly arising under our political system. To one feature in particular of your administrative methods, I may be permitted to refer. For American citizenship you hold reverential regard; for American citizens, both as individuals and en masse, you prove ready to use all Constitutional powers in you vested as safeguards against bosses and bossism. No citizen, however humble, suffering from injustice of any character, has been, so far, by you given deaf ear. You have, in your magnificent inaugural address, made appeals and defined principles which are at once an inspiration and an augury. Take, for instance, the following:

The firm basis of government is justice, not pity.
The first duty of law is to keep sound the society it serves.
The feelings with which we face this new age of right and opportunity sweep across our heartstrings like some air out of God’s own presence, where justice and mercy are reconciled and the judge and the brother are one.

Again, these words of warning : There has been something crude and heartless and unfeeling in our haste to succeed and be great.

Then, the forceful declaration dictated by fearless introspection:

Our life contains every great thing and contains it in great abundance. But the evil has come with the good, and much fine gold has been corroded.

I rejoice, Mr. President, to find you in such thorough accord with your illustrious predecessor and fellow-Virginian, George Washington, who said:

I know that as, on one side, no local prejudices, no separate views or party animosities must misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye, which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests; so, on another, the foundations of our National policy must be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality and the pre-eminence of a free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world. There exists in the economy of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness and between duty and advantage.

With the immortal Jefferson, you believe:

Equal and exact justice to all men of whatever state or persuasion, religious or political; peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations ; the support of the State Governments in all their rights; the preservation of the general Government in its whole Constitutional vigor; absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority, the vital principles of Republics from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism; freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of person. This road alone leads to peace, liberty, and safety.

Side by side with the solemn, undying utterances of these early chieftains in American statesmanship will history place your own matchless definition of National duty and of individual obligation:

At last a vision has been vouchsafed us of our life as a whole. We see the bad with the good, the debased and decadent with the sound and vital. With this vision we approach new affairs. Our duty is to cleanse, to reconsider, to restore, to correct the evil without impairing the good, to purify and humanize every process of our common life without weakening or sentimentalizing it. There has been something crude and heartless in our unfeeling haste to succeed and be great. Our thought has been that ” Every man look out for himself; that every generation look out for itself,” while we have reared giant machinery which made it impossible that any but those who stood at the levers of control should have a chance to look out for themselves!

With striking and gratifying stress, as well as unanimity the American press receives your inaugural declarations as expressions of a patriotism above question; of promise above doubt; of determination without hint or suggestion of failure. Beginning with my home city, I find, sir, The Cincinnati Post writing:

In his inaugural address to-day the new President is like a reborn Lincoln.

For the first time in our generation, the Nation is asked by its elected head “to count the human cost” of greed and reckless ambition; TO PUT MEN AND WOMEN AND LITTLE CHILDREN BEFORE MERE DOLLARS.

Thus does the counsel of William Jennings Bryan, rejected with seeming scorn in 1896, become in 1913—a very brief time as time is measured in history—the will of the majority. For, make no mistake, the country is back of this appeal. Back of it so sincerely, with such firmness of determination, that no new outpouring of predatory money can debauch its purpose, no trickery or intrigue long delay the accomplishment of its aims.

The New York Times gives stately form to a general sense of approval:

No President of the United States, in any utterance, ever sounded a higher or clearer note of aspiration and idealism than Woodrow Wilson in his inaugural address yesterday. It is perhaps the most carefully studied, concise, and deeply moving expression that has yet been given to the new ideas which have become a force in our politics. The address will make a profound impression upon the American people and upon the friends of progress and of this Republic throughout the world. The people of this country will be inspired by the President’s word; inspired, we hope, with a resolve to do their part in accomplishing the noble purposes to which he dedicates and devotes his administration ; inspired, too, with confidence in their new President. Mr. Wilson speaks as a just man, as a man moved with the desire and with the intention to see that justice is done among men.

The Republican New York Tribune tenders congratulations in terms truly fitting:

President Wilson is to be congratulated on the scope and tenor of his inaugural address. The speech is creditably full of “vision and ideals.” It breathes a sincere desire to help the country forward, to protect and uplift the weak and those of narrowed opportunity, and to give free scope to the feelings of the new age which seek to bring into the conduct of human affairs a larger measure of mercy and justice.

Filled with hope, the New York Sun defines its attitude very cheerfully: We quote five words from President Wilson’s inaugural:

“We shall restore, not destroy.”

This is the promise, the pledge, the platform. If the promise is kept, the pledge redeemed, the platform obeyed, the administration now beginning with the good-will and good wishes and best hopes and reserved judgment of all of Woodrow Wilson’s fellow-citizens will be in the truest sense progressive, and in the truest sense conservative; and what more could any patriotic American desire?

Not to be outdone by Eastern contemporaries, the Chicago Tribune adds:

The inaugural address of President Wilson is an utterance singularly lofty in tone and felicitous of phrase. It is less a State document than an invocation, a prayer, and in that sense Americans of all parties will devoutly respond, Amen.

At any rate, the new President has made an appeal to his fellow-countrymen which will touch their loyalty and bring the cordial wish that he may cap high aspiration with noble achievement.

From cold and classic New England come the Boston Globe’s cordial acknowledgments:

The voice is the voice of a prophet and a leader. It remains to be seen whether the hand is the hand of a strong man, equal to the greatest task in the world.

Animated, sir, by the conviction that you are both prophet and leader, I call attention respectfully to the intolerable injustice on me personally, and through me, on the American public, as set forth in the columns of The Menace, a paper of National standing and circulation.

Jesuitical influences have, sir, busied themselves in protecting a Romanist offender and perpetuating the outrage by that Romanist offender on an anti-Romanist American citizen, unafraid of publishing the unhallowed personal experiences of twenty-one years of priestly life, the execrable purposes and stupendous crimes of Vaticanist agents and representatives. Persona gratissima is Postmaster Monfort of Cincinnati to the Jesuits, as The Commercial Tribune, Cincinnati, February 6, 1913, very fully establishes.

The Jesuit colony in Cincinnati is, sir, one of the oldest and most successful of that crafty order’s establishments in the United States. It lavishes no such attentions as those extended so munificently to Postmaster Monfort without such strong motives as recognition of services done the Order; hope of further favors for proteges, such as the profane, obscene, and blasphemous Hurney ; expectation of continued injury and outrage to be visited upon anti-Romanist citizens like myself through complacent postoffice officials.

When Hurney offered me grossest insult, he was, sir, clerk in the Mailing Division of the Cincinnati Postoffice; he was therefrom assigned, about December 1, 1912, to Station I, Avondale; he now, I am credibly informed and have reason to believe, comes to the General Postoffice every day from Avondale to serve for eight hours, in sorting all mail going to Avondale, a leading suburb of Cincinnati, of which mail he is during these hours in full control.

It would from all this seem, to ordinary observer, that outrage and insult upon inoffensive and unoffending American citizens by Roman Catholic postoffice officials establishes for the offender strongest claim to protection, advancement, and reward.

The true attitude of the Romanism we have in our midst is, sir, denned with great emphasis and overpowering lucidity by the Rev. David S. Phelan, LL. D., Rector of Our Lady of Mount Carmel parish, St. Louis, Mo., editor of The Western Watchman, official organ of Archbishop Glennon, active candidate for a “red hat” and high place among the “princes of the Church.” Editor Phelan enjoys not only the confidence of Cardinal that-would-be Glennon, but proudly points to the encomium of Cardinal Satolli, who declared him “the Dean and Senior of the Roman Catholic journalists of the United States.” The citation I offer from Editor Phelan ‘s assaults on American citizenship, on American loyalty, on American brotherliness, on the basic principles of the American Declaration of Independence, has never been disavowed by any higher Church authority; nor explained away, even in smallest measure, by its own author. The utterances of Priest-Editor Phelan are, therefore, the official declaration of war on American institutions by the Papal System in the United States. Why does Papal Delegate Satolli praise Phelan? Because Phelan is doing the will of his master in the Vatican. Why does Glennon of St. Louis so ardently co-operate with Phelan and make use of Phelan ‘s journalistic activities! Because Phelan is a person of importance, a scribe of value in the Roman System; a very Daniel come to judgment, valuable, indeed, in Glennon ‘s campaign for a cardinal’s hat.

The citation referred to above is taken from a copyrighted sermon which appeared in The Western Watchman, June 27, 1912, nnder the heading “Catholics Are Royal Now; They Will Be Divine,’ ‘ and which sermon was delivered by Priest-Editor Phelan on Sunday, June 30, 1912. He says:

We of the Catholic Church are ready to go to the Death for the Church. Under God, she is the supreme object of our worship. Tell us that we think more of the Church than we do of the United States; of course we do. Tell us we are Catholics first and Americans or Englishmen afterwards ; of course we are. Tell us, in the conflict between the Church and the civil government we take the side of the Church; of course We do. Why, if the Government of the United States were at war with the Church, we would say to-morrow, “To hell with the Government of the United States;” and if the Church and all the governments of the world were at war, we would say, “To hell with all the governments of the world. ‘ ‘ They say we are Catholics first and Americans decidedly afterwards. There is no doubt about it. We are Catholics first and we love the Church more than we love any and all the governments of the world; and we love the Church more than we love our fathers and mothers, we love the Church more than we love our own children. Why? Because we are children of the Church of Jesus Christ, and He says, “Unless you leave father and mother, sisters and brothers, kinsfolk and acquaintances for My sake, you are not worthy of Me.” I love the people of America; I love the people of every nation; I glory in their loyalty ; but let the governments of the world steer clear of the Catholic Church; let the emperors, let the kings, and the Presidents not come in conflict with the head of the Catholic Church. Because the Catholic Church is everything to all the Catholics of the world, they renounce all nationalities where there is a question of loyalty to her. And why is it the Pope is so strong? Why is it that in this country, where we have only seven per cent of the population, the Catholic Church is so much feared? She is loved by all her children, and feared by everybody. Why is it the Pope is such a tremendous power? Why, the Pope is the ruler of the world! All the emperors, all the kings, all the princes, all the Presidents of the world to-day are as these altar boys of mine. The Pope is the ruler of the World. Why? Because he is the ruler of the Catholics of the world, the Catholics of all the world, and the Catholics of all the world would die for the rights of the Pope. He is the head of the Church, and they would die for the Church. And the Church is the Church of Jesus Christ, and they need not have any misgivings on that score ; there need be no misconceptions there—the Catholics of the world are Catholics first and always; they are Americans, they ‘are Germans, they are French, or they are English afterward.

In the self-same sermon Priest-Editor Phelan, “the Dean and Senior of the Roman Catholic journalists,” spokesman-in-chief of Vaticanism, so declared and crowned with becoming papal laurels by Cardinal Satolli, bastard son of Leo XIII, and envoy extraordinary as well as minister plenipotentiary of the Vatican in the United States, goes on to state:

And even when Protestants come into the Church they find it profitable to say they are converts because they know the weakness of Catholics. The truth is, Catholics to-day look up to Protestants ; and to paraphrase the words of the first Pope, I repeat, “Look down on Protestants; yes, look down on them.” The poorest Catholic boy in this parish is a prince compared with the best Protestant boy in this city. Look down on them all. We, the children of the inheritance; we, the children of God, have a right to look down upon the plebeians of heresy and infidelity. Now, I tell you this is true in America, where we are all free and equal.

Defending the infamous “Motu Proprio” Decree of Pius X, Priest-Editor Phelan writes in his paper, January 25, 1913:

What hypocrites those Protestants are! Rowdies they always were ; but hypocrisy is now their most pronounced trait. Pius X did not retreat before the frenzy of the embattled Lutherans of Germany ; .he will not yield to the clamors of the hypocrites now. People are speaking for the pope, and some of them very close to him. We are assured that the privilegium fori does not apply to Germany, or to States with concordats. Don’t mind all such statements.

Pius X—Phelan to the contrary notwithstanding— yielding to the demand or command of Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany, did, soon after the issuance of the “Ne Temere” decree, declare it inapplicable to Germany. Had our Government taken due steps to inform the world that any man in these United States declaring a legal American marriage null and void would be visited with sternest punishment, no Ne Temere papal legislation would break up American homes or bastardize American children born in lawful American wedlock.

The attitude of Priest-Editor Phelan towards America and American institutions is in strictest accord with papal fulminations. In his Encyclical dated at Rome, December 25, 1891, Pope Leo XIII said:

The American Republic under Protestant rulers is with the worst enemies of the Church. . . . This Republic, having seized upon the lands discovered by Christopher Columbus, a Catholic, and usurped the authority and jurisdiction of the Supreme Head of the Church, the United States is filled with obscure heretics. The Catholics have been oppressed and the preachers of iniquity established.

With deep sorrow we are now constrained to have recourse to the arm of justice, and are obliged to take action against a Nation that has rejected the Pope as head of all Church and State Governments.

The imminence of the issues raised in my work, ” Romanism—A Menace to the Nation,” and alluded to but briefly in this letter, urges an emphatic appeal to you, Mr. President, to arrest, without harshness or injustice to any section of our very much mixed population, the Romanizing— the Jesuitizing—of this Republic. Two recent incidents offer proof very conspicuous and truly alarming of Romanistic efforts in this fateful direction, aided and abetted, unfortunately, by a man eminent in American public life. In the Roman Catholic organ of this city, The Catholic Telegraph, March 6, 1913, there appears this very striking narrative: :

Me. Taft and the K. of C.

One of the last private functions attended by Mr. Taft was a reception given to him by the Knights of Columbus, last Saturday evening, in their hall on E Street. The building was packed. An address of welcome, of appreciation, and of farewell was delivered by one of the eloquent members of the fraternity. The President, in his reply, said:

“I am very much touched by the cordial and altogether too nattering tone of your welcome .and of your kindly farewell. I am going to a humble station to work out as best I can the problem of supporting a family and of doing as well as you can for other people. You have no motive—I can conceive of none, except that of good-will, good fellowship, and sincerity.”

He then urged that the Constitution should be safeguarded, because it represents a thousand years of struggle for liberty protected by law, and he made a plea for the independence of the judiciary, because, finally, the courts are the guardians of our rights under the Constitution. He was frequently applauded.

At the conclusion of his impressive address he put this sentiment and signature on a large steel portrait of himself, which will be framed to adorn the council hall:

“For the Knights of Columbus of Washington, D. C, with heartfelt gratitude for their cordial farewell.
“W. H. Taft.
“March 1, 1913.’

His visit will long be remembered by the Knights in Washington.

What a heritage, sir, Mr. Taft has left you! The Knights of Columbus have been long dear to his heart. Addressing that body at Portland, Oregon, October 12, 1911, Mr. Taft stated:

Instead of being a reason why you can not be patriotic, loyal sons of the United States, willing to yield up your lives if occasion calls, the fact that you are members of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is an assurance that you are such patriotic, loyal citizens.

If, sir, it is the cheerful duty of Romanists, as Priest-Editor Phelan so clearly states it to be, to say, ‘ ‘ To hell with the United States’ should the United States dare differ from the Vatican — “To hell with all the governments of the world’ ‘ should the Government declare independence of the papacy—then strange, indeed, must be your predecessor’s view of patriotic loyal citizenship. The truly loyal and patriotic American citizen is loyal to America first, last, and all the time, regardless of desire, decree, edict, or ukase of foreign pontiff, kaiser, czar, or potentate of any dignity or description whatever.

You are, sir, a son of old Virginia, a State which made such generous sacrifices of blood and treasure for the doctrine of State Eights. The war between the States did not eliminate that doctrine from American political economy, but gave it more permanency through a clearer, more definite and enduring definition.

Enemy of that basic American principle of government is the Roman Catholic Church, the powerful ally of organized alcoholic endeavor in every State of the Union where liquor selling and liquor drinking have foothold, legal or illegal. To that Church, so closely tied up as to its financial interests and property development with the liquor trade, wholesale and retail, Mr. Taft paid, in the closing days of his reactionary and retrogressive administration, marked homage — testified to very fully by The Catholic Telegraph, already cited:

The bill, introduced by Representative Edwin Y. Webb, of South Carolina, to prohibit the interstate shipment of intoxicating liquors from “wet” into “dry” States to be used in violation of the local prohibition law, which passed both Houses of Congress by large majorities, was, on February 28th, vetoed by President Taft, who said:

“After giving this proposed ^ enactment full consideration, I believe it to be a violation of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution, in that it is in substance and effect a delegation by Congress to the States of the power of regulating interstate commerce in liquors, which is vested exclusively in Congress,”

Mr. Taft supported his veto with citations of Supreme Court decisions and with an opinion by Attorney-General Wickersham confirmatory of the holding that the bill is unconstitutional.

Two hours after the veto was signed the Senate passed the bill again by a vote of 63 to 21, and on March 1st the House passed it again by a vote of 244 to 95.

So it is now law, and will remain law until a case can be decided by the United States Supreme Court.

No blow more lethal at States’ Rights, at the social security and moral uplift of Southern homes especially, could have been struck than the Taft veto of the Webb liquor bill. How the Bacchanalian cohorts of Rome’s ” loyal and patriotic” citizens applauded the President’s action! How zealously will this same element of moral turpitude and decay labor to induce the Supreme Court of the Nation to tear down the barrier, so honorably set up by Congress, between the homes of the South and the forces of liquor and lust!

What manner of men the Jesuits are is attested by a writer of National fame, Hon. R. W. Thompson, former Secretary of the Navy, who, in his celebrated work, “The Footprints of the Jesuits,’ ‘ openly charges that infamous body with the poisoning of Pope Clement XIII:

The impracticable demands of the Jesuits had brought on such an issue between the spiritual and the temporal powers as to leave no ground for concessions on the part of the sovereigns, so long as they were persisted in. They were bound to maintain their own temporal powers within their dominions, or else allow the Jesuits to rule over them according to their pleasure. To this they could not submit without absolute degradation. However strange it may now appear that the pope did not see this sooner, it should be regarded as creditable to him that, when he did see it, he bowed his head humbly before the pelting storm, and yielded to a necessity he could not avoid. Due credit should not be withheld from the man who does right, even at the last extremity, especially when, as in this case, after Clement XIII decided to change his course, he went to the extent of promising the sovereigns that “he would pronounce the abolition of the society in a public consistory,” and leave the Jesuits to suffer the consequences of their own folly. Having made up his mind to this, a day was appointed for the performance of the solemn act of signing the death warrant of the Jesuits. But this postponement led to a result which had not been dreamed of—one that furnished new evidence of the capacity of the Jesuits for intrigue. During the night preceding the day appointed for the public ceremony of announcing the abolition of the Jesuits, Clement XIII was suddenly seized with convulsions and died, leaving the act unperformed, and the Jesuits victorious. Cormenin, writing in France, where the Jesuits are better known and understood than here, records this event in these terse and expressive words: “The Jesuits had poisoned him. 9 ‘—pp. 223, 224.

The Jesuits put up a vigorous fight to elect a, successor to Clement XIII friendly to their society. The story of their failure is thus impartially recited:

It required three months to elect a successor to Clement XIII. The cardinals were divided into two parties—one supporting the Jesuits, and the other the Governments of France, Spain, and Portugal, united in opposition to them. The former desired to subject all civil governments to Jesuit dominion; the latter insisted that the Church and the State should each remain free and independent of the other in its own domain. After innumerable intrigues—such as are familiar to those who manipulate party conventions—the latter party triumphed by the election of Ganganelli, a Franciscan monk, who took the name of Clement XIV, and entered upon the pontificate in 1769.—Idem, p. 225.

To Pope Clement XIV, Mr. Thompson pays just tribute:

He was greatly esteemed for his virtues, and possessed a conspicuously noble character and a mind well and thoroughly disciplined. That he was a man of profound ability is abundantly shown by his letters, which have been preserved and published, and whieh contain many passages of exceeding eloquence and beauty. He was far better prepared, therefore, to form intelligent and impartial conclusions upon the evidence concerning the Jesuits than Clement XIII, because, apart from his qualifications, he was not under the dominion of undue prejudices. — Idem, p. 225.

Clement XIV courageously ordered the continuance of the investigation of the charges made against the Jesuits, already entered upon, till it should be completed, and determined that the questions involved should be decided according to right and justice.

This [says Mr. Thompson] was due to the sovereigns, to the public, and especially to the Church. Cormenin says he was suspicious of being dealt with like his predecessor, and that he took the necessary precautions to guard against it by substituting a faithful monk for the cook of the Quirinal, so as to guard against the possibility of poison. Howsoever this may have been, he persevered in his course with the courage of a man who fears no evil when in the faithful discharge of duty. Eesolved, however, not to act with undue haste, but to have all matters brought full before him, together with the evidence bearing upon them, he continued the investigation for the period of four years, so that when his final decision was made the world should be convinced that it was the result of calm deliberation and honest conviction. He says of himself that he “omitted no care, no pains, in order to arrive at a thorough knowledge of the origin, the progress, and the actual state of that regular order commonly called the Company of Jesus ;” and Ranke, the great historian, says he “applied himself with the utmost attention to the affairs of the Jesuits;” and adds that “a commission of cardinals was formed, the arguments of both sides were deliberately considered,” before his conclusion was announced. No greater deliberation and no more serious reflection could have been bestowed upon any question. The evidence was carefully inspected and everything duly considered. The scales were held at equipoise until the preponderance of proof caused the beam to turn against the Jesuits, when he was constrained by a sense of duty to the Church, to Christianity, to the public, and to his own conscience, to announce the result which gave peace and quiet to the nations and joy to the great body of Christians throughout Europe. This he did, July 21, 1773, by issuing his celebrated bull, “Dominus ac Redemptor”—called by the Jesuits a brief — whereby he decreed “that the name of the company shall be, and is, forever extinguished and suppressed,” that “no one of them do carry their audacity so far as to impugn, combat, or even write or speak about the said suppression, or the reasons and motives of it ; ” and that the said bull of suppression and abolition shall “forever and to all eternity be valid, permanent, and efficacious.” — Idem, pp. 226, 227.

Of what did Pope Clement XIV find the Jesuits guilty? He declares that, charged with things “very detrimental to the peace and tranquillity of the Christian Republic” by various sovereigns who had from time to time complained of them, Pope Sixtus V had found accusations against them “just and well founded.” He enumerates eleven popes, including Benedict XIV, who had “employed, without effect, all their efforts’ ‘ to provide remedies against the evils they had engendered. He accuses them of opposition to other religious orders; charges them with ” great loss of souls, and great scandal of the people,” with the practice of ” certain idolatrous ceremonies, ‘ ‘ with the use of maxims which the Church had “proscribed as scandalous and manifestly contrary to good morals;” with “revolts and intestine troubles in some of the Catholic States;” and with “persecutions against the Church” in both Europe and Asia.

Clement furthermore cites the fact that Innocent XI had forbidden “the company to receive any more novices;” that Innocent XIII felt obliged to threaten “the same punishment;” and Benedict XIV had decreed a general visitation and investigation of all their houses in the Portuguese dominions. Concluding that it would be “very difficult, not to say impossible, that the Church could recover a firm and durable peace as long as the said society subsisted,” Clement XIV pronounced final judgment in these impressive terms:

We deprive it of all activity whatever, of its houses, schools, colleges, hospitals, lands, and, in short, every other place whatsoever, in whatever kingdom or province they may be situated. We abrogate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees, and constitutions, even though confirmed by oath, and approved by the Holy See or otherwise. In like manner we annul all and every its privileges, indults, general or particular, the tenor whereof is, and is taken to be, as fully and as amply expressed in the present Brief as if the same were inserted word for word, in whatever clauses, form, or decree, or under whatever sanction their privileges may have been conceived. We declare all, and all kind of authority, the general, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said society, to be forever annulled and extinguished, of what nature soever the said society may be, as well in things spiritual as temporal. — Idem, p. 231.

What happened to Clement XIV? Increased apprehensions as to the Pope’s personal safety followed the issuance of the bull, “Dominus ac Redemptor.”

The manner in which Clement XIII had met his death on account of the mere promise to suppress the Jesuits was [writes Mr. Thompson] well calculated to excite the fear that the same fate might befall Clement XIV in revenge for their actual abolition. Hence, all the avenues of approach to the pope were carefully watched, and the utmost precautions employed to guard against the possibility of poison. These were successful for about eight months, when a peasant woman was persuaded, by means of a disguise, to procure entrance into the Vatican and offer the pope a fig in which poison was concealed. Clement XTV was exceedingly fond of this fruit, and ate it without hesitation. The same day the first symptoms of severe illness were observed, and to these rapidly succeeded violent inflammation of the bowels. He soon became convinced that he was poisoned, and remarked: “Alas! I knew they would poison me, but I did not expect to die in so slow and cruel a manner I” His terrible sufferings continued for several months, when he died, ‘ i the poor victim, ‘ ‘ says Cormenin, “of the execrable Jesuits.” — Idem, pp. 227, 228.

Refusing to remain suppressed, the Jesuits finally succeeded, after forty-one years of intrigue, calumny, intimidation, and venality, in having their Society revived and restored by solemn decree of Pope Pius VII, one of the most reactionary pontiffs that ever filled the papal see. Pius conferred on the Jesuits the right to exist as an Order throughout the world, thereby approving and indorsing their vilification of his “infallible” predecessor, Clement XIV. He declared that his decree of restoration should be “inviolably observed,” and that it should “never be submitted to the judgment or revision of any judge.” He further commanded that “no one be permitted to infringe, or by audacious temerity to oppose any part” of his decree, declaring that any one guilty of disobedience thereto “will thereby incur the indignation of Almighty God and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul.”

Sworn enemies of civil and religious liberty, of popular self-government, and of all the beneficent influences of the Reformation, the Jesuits, immediately upon their restoration, got busy in striking their hardest blows at freedom of speech, of the press, and of religious belief. Encourage, did they actively, the alliance between the papacy and the monarchs of Europe, because both stood for the union of Church and State as the surest guarantee for the preservation of monarchism. Going to Rome, they enjoyed the plenteous patronage of the papacy, and their cunning hand is seen clearly in the Congress of the “Holy Alliance” at Verona, where the pope and allied sovereigns pronounced themselves, in the most solemn form, that they would continue to prevent the establishment of popular governments, and would unite all their energies in preserving the monarchial institutions where they existed, and in re-establishing them where they had been set aside by the people.

It was this Jesuitical declaration of the Holy Alliance which called forth the Monroe Doctrine, that every liberty-loving American should cherish as a second Declaration of Independence.

Acquiring complete domination in the councils of the Church, the restored Jesuits induced Gregory XVI, immediate predecessor of Pius IX, a pontiff of our own day, to denounce the “poisoned sources” which produced “that false and absurd or rather extravagant maxim that liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each man,” and to anathematize the liberty of the press as “the most fatal liberty; an execrable liberty, for which there never can be sufficient horror.” He finally inculcated the duty of “constant submission to princes.”

It was Jesuitical intrigue and influence which railroaded the infamous dogma of papal infallibility through the Vatican Council. Leo XIII, a product of Jesuitical training and education, has again and again declared that the American people are doomed to rapid decay and ultimate ruin unless they reunite themselves with the Holy See of Rome and obey the pope and his successors, occupying the place of Christ on earth!

Well does Mr. Thompson indicate that a man must be stupid if he can not, and willful if he will not, see that, according to the religious doctrines announced by Pius IX and Leo XIII—omitting other popes—all the great fundamental principles of our Government and all the laws enacted to preserve them are held to be impious, and so in violation of the divine law that they may be rightfully resisted whenever the pope sees fit to command resistance. The Papal System condemns as violative of divine law these fundamental principles of free American institutions; the separation of Church and State; the freedom of conscience and of religious belief; the liberty of speech and of the press; the subjection of ecclesiastics to laws like other citizens; the people as exclusive depositaries of political power; the refusal to concede to the pope the potential power of conferring upon bishops and clergy the prerogative right to manage Church property in contravention of the civil laws ; and last, but far from least, the American Public School System established all over this Republic.

The effect of the papal infallibility dogma is thus defined by a Romanist writer, Very Rev. Thomas Canon Pope, in his authoritative work, The Council of the Vatican:

The Council will vindicate its authority over the world and prove its right, founded on a divine commission, to enter most intimately into all the spiritual concerns of the world, to supervise the acts of the king, the diplomatist, the philosopher, and the general; to circumscribe the limits of their speculative inquiries; to hold up the lamp which is to light their only path to knowledge and education; to subjugate human reason to the yoke of faith; to extinguish liberals, rationalists, and deists by one stroke of her infallibility. Infallible dogma is a brilliant light, which every intellect must recognize, whether willingly or reluctantly. . . . The Church claims its right to enter the world’s domain, and recognizes no limits but the circumference of Christianity; to enforce her laws over her subjects; to control their reason and judgment; to guide their morals, their thoughts, words, and actions, and regard temporal sovereign’s, though entitled to exercise power in secidar affairs, as auxiliaries and subordinates to the attainment of the end of her institution, the glory of God, and the salvation of the immortal souls of men. — p. 11.

Your Administration is already preoccupied with the serious problems arising from disturbed conditions in Cuba, Mexico, and the Central American Republics. With the celebrated Leon Gambetta, of France, who, soon after the disastrous Germanic war, into which the French prelacy and priesthood had plunged that country in 1870-1871, uttered plaintive cry of warning, America may be at early date obliged to exclaim, “Le clericalisme, voila I’ennemi.”

The hand, sir, of the clerical disturber and white slaver is at work in Latin America to create conditions inimical to American interests in all this hemisphere, and particularly to American rights in re the Panama Canal. Synonymous are, in Latin America, the terms “las- Americanos’ ‘ and “los fanaticos.” Eome teaches Latin American youth to hate from earliest infancy this America of ours, as the land of hidebound heresy and of ancestral hostility to Latin civilization. Notorious is the fact that the priesthood of Spanish American countries advises the sending of sons land daughters of wealthy families to Europe that these susceptible young folk of Latin blood may be spared the contamination of close association with heretic American boys and girls!

So far is the antagonism of Central and South American clerics carried to our American schools that even Romanist schools of approved orthodoxy in the United States are considered perilous to youthful Latin Americans. The very atmosphere of these United States is considered unhealthful for the perpetuation of any of the Romanist superstitions, unfortunately too prevalent in the countries to south of us.

Bear in mind, should Americans, the prophecy of General Lafayette, reared and educated a Roman Catholic:

“It is my opinion that if the liberties of this country—the United States of America—are destroyed, it will be by the subtlety of the Roman Catholic Jesuit priests, for they are the most crafty, dangerous enemies to civil and religious liberty. They have instigated most of the wars of Europe.”

Responsible is this same accursed agency for unsettled conditions at present in America. Mexico, rent in sunder, its smoking ruins drenched in blood; Central America, torn by sanguinary fanaticism, brother fighting brother and father fighting sons ; Brazil, menaced with a revolution of Romanist priestly origin to restore the empire under an Orleanist Catholic prince; Venezuela, and various other Latin States, disturbed, distracted, and oppressed by priestcraft, greed, and superstition: all give evidence, painful and portentous, of papal activities and aggression.

The coldness and hostility of Latin American States towards this Republic is, sir, I say it without fear of contradiction, due in controlling measure to the influence of the Roman prelacy and priesthood. The property holdings of the Church in Spanish America are enormous—in Mexico its real property alone is valued at $200,000,000.

Nothing the priests of Spanish America fear so much as an ingress of American trade; an adoption of American educational methods; an advent of the American free school, free press, and free speech; an election of America’s cult of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as rights inalienable of all men, born free and equal. Better, in priestly view—ten thousand times better— superstition, degradation, internecine conflict, with inevitable, oft-recurring seasons of slaughter and rapine, than the establishment of permanent free republican institutions on the American model, with fullest liberty of conscience guaranteed to all, offering adequate instrumentalities for the suppression of conventual, clerical, and prelatical White Slavery systems. We guard sedulously and rigidly against cholera and bubonic plague, but cholera and bubonic plague are blessings compared with White Slavery as it flourishes under the aegis of Romanism from Montreal to Montevideo.

In my book, “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation/ ‘ I charge that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of Chicago profit very largely from contributions of gamblers, saloonkeepers, and white slave keepers, particularly so as a result of the work of the Vice Commission recently held in that city. I have it on the very best authority — authority that can not be disputed—that this Commission was manipulated and controlled by Roman priests. It serves to furnish them with most valuable information which they could not obtain through the Confessional or otherwise. Such information in the hands of the Roman Hierarchy affords a new and rich species of graft —Vice Commission Graft. The Vatican System thrives on ignorance, vice, and crime. No wonder the priests and prelates hope to establish similar Vice Commissions in the large cities throughout the country!

White Slavery is nowhere, sir, so rampant and audacious as in Roman Catholic countries. What Protestant city is the equal of Paris, Vienna, Naples, or Rome itself, in patronage of prostitutes and prostitution! “What Protestant country tolerates such irreverence for and disregard of the marriage vow as the Latin countries of Europe and America?

Illegitimacy is nowhere more prevalent than in Roman Catholic lands, both in the New and Old Worlds. Why? Because the priesthood holds not marriage in honor, nor womanhood in veneration.

You are, sir, to be asked by the Illinois Senate Commissioners to aid in the fight against White Slavery. The purity of your private life, the profound and abiding regard you inherit from Southern and Presbyterian blood for stainless family hearthstones, your record as educator and reformer, entitles you to leadership in such a movement. Tied up, should you not be, in slightest degree with Rome-bound and priest-ridden schemes of social reform, whether these schemes be indorsed by civic or State authorities.

The Roman priesthood has been in control of Latin America for four centuries. Where does prostitution more unrestrainedly flourish? Nowhere, save perhaps in the Latin countries of Europe, where for seven centuries or more priestly licentiousness has vitiated the very atmosphere and tainted every avenue, social and civic.

No, sir, no; Rome may not be permitted to inject her pernicious personality into the war on White Slavery. White Slavery is one of her most potent agencies of graft and gain—”Ubi Roma ibi infamia”—a war on White Slavery, with yon, sir, for chief, on the side of personal and domestic purity, can permit of no alliance or inmixtion with papal intrigue or priestly bestiality.

The greed, the aggressiveness, the intolerance of Romanist designs upon America has never been in recent years more deliberately, definitely, defiantly expressed than by the ” Right Rev.” Edward J. Hanna, Auxiliary Bishop of San Francisco, to the Knights of Columbus. Bishop Hanna wants all of this country, fenced in with a papal wall of granitic intolerance, for pope and prelacy of Rome. I call, sir, your especial attention to the menacing words of this Roman propagandist. Not Loyola, in his most sanguine hope and enthusiastic purpose to subject the world to papalistic absolutism and bloodthirsty cruelty, ever thought out a plan more carefully or delineated it more cold-bloodedly than does this ardent envoy of the reactionary Pius X detail his claim for Roman Catholic domination, in temporals and in spirituals, over this free Republic. Here are Hannahs words:

This country is ours by inheritance. The world was given to Christ for His inheritance. Truth always has a claim where error can not come. The Holy Roman Catholic Church brought the truth to America, and as we are the inheritors of the earth, this glorious country is ours by right—it ought to be ours by right-—by right of fighting and by right of conquest.

This country was found by a great Catholic — the man after whom our order has been named. The Catholics have made this as great as it is because we hold in our power and grasp the high principles that go to make greatness. We found this country and we have made it great. America is ours because we found it and because we have conquered it.

And what a noble inheritance it is! God’s country, with its valleys and its mountains, its rivers and its oceans—and the Kingdom of Christ stretching from sea to sea. This is our inheritance, and it is your duty as Knights of Columbus to hold and to keep that inheritance which we found, won, and are making our own.

Were any non-Romanist citizen to utter sentiments so seditious and so perturbing, he were surely called to task, if not incarcerated, at the instance of Knights of Columbus or other prelatical agencies. Roman prelates, priests, laymen are allowed a license of speech menacing social tranquillity and civic order throughout the Union.

What a perversion of historic truth Bishop Hanna’s utterly untenable, because unveracious, statement that the Roman Catholic Church alone brought the Gospel truth to America? What little of truth it has brought, sir, is so darkened and distorted by priestly corruption, lechery, greed, and cruelty as to handicap the saving power of these few Christian messages of upliftment which papist monks, Jesuits, and priests have occasionally professed solely to cover crime, rapacity, and other infamy.

The pure Gospel message, delivered by men of pure purpose and sainted life, never degrades. It uplifts, purines, blesses, and strengthens peoples saved by its touch. The Eoman message of lust and loot degrades and decimates1 every land it afflicts with pernicious presence and activity. Those parts of America, from Quebec to Quito, where Eomanism has acquired domination suffer to this day from its deadly and deadening touch; those parts which have accepted the Christian message of the Eeformation, the sublime, Godgiven tidings of purification, of enlightenment, of disenthralment of the benign and loving Jesus, have from Mexican line to Arctic Circle prospered and advanced. No, no, Mr. Hanna! America is not of the pope’s domain. It is, as you, Mr. President, know, the land of the free and the home of the brave, free to worship God as conscience, not papal despotism and darkness, may dictate. Not one State in this Union—not even New Mexico, so long under the ban and bane of Eomanistic semi-barbarism — may be, by a proud, fearless, and God-loving, Bible-reading people, suffered to become a Calabria or a Quebec, the only spots on earth where papalism to-day enjoys undisputed sway and shuts out light of Gospel, grace, and freedom.

Such, sir, is the foe that I have denounced and exposed, boldly and unanswerably, in my book, “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation.” Such the foe that, fastening itself on the postal service of this free country, exercises through complacent officials inquisitional powers.

I mail, under separate cover, copy of the book, “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation/ ‘ so generously lauded by people, press, and pulpit.

My purpose, Mr. President, is not to acquire mere personal gain or personal fame. A purer and, I would fain believe, better ambition impels me. My purpose is to live up to standard well set by Henry Van Dyke:

There is a loftier ambition than merely to stand high in the world. It is to stoop down and lift mankind a little higher. There is a nobler character than that which is merely incorruptible. It is the character which acts as an antidote and preventative of corruption. Fearlessly to speak the words which bear witness to righteousness and truth and purity; patiently to do the deeds which strengthen virtue and kindle hope in your fellow-men; generously to lend a hand to those who are trying to climb upward ; faithfully to give your support and your personal help to the efforts which are making to elevate and purify the social life of the world — that is what it means to have salt in your character.

The whole question resolves itself, sir, into this plain formulary: Is this a Government of the people, by the people, for the people, or a Government of the pope, by the pope, for the pope?

Bearing on my standing as author and publicist, let me cite: Pages 693, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, and 700 of my book, ” Romanism— A Menace to the Nation.”

With all respect for you personally, and for the great office the Nation has called you to fill, I ask respectfully that the matter of my complaint against postoffice clerk Hurney, now before the Postoffice Department of the United States, be brought to speedy decision. My earnest wish is, Mr. President, that you may be blessed and strengthened throughout your official life, and ever after, by the Almighty Father, whose Book your lips on inauguration day touched at these sublime and comforting words:

And I will walk at liberty: for I seek Thy precepts.
I will speak of Thy testimonials also before kings, and will not be ashamed.
And I will delight myself in Thy commandments, which I have loved.
My hands also will I lift up unto Thy commandments, which I have loved: and I will meditate in Thy statutes.

I have the honor to be, sir,
Very respectfully,
Jebemiah J. Cbowlby.

DIVISION OF IN REPLYING
SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES MENTION INITIALS AND DATE
Post Office Department
FIRST ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL
Washington

Mr. Jeremiah J. Crowley, Marcn U> 1913.
619 Johnston Building, Cincinnati, 0.
Sir:
The receipt is acknowledged of your letter of the 22d instant, addressed to the President [Taft], and referred to this Office for action, in reply to which I beg to state that your complaint has been sent to a postoffice inspector for a full and complete investigation, who no doubt will call upon you for any additional facts to substantiate the charges which you may be able to give him.

Upon receipt of his report you will be promptly advised of the action taken.
Respectfully,
Daniel C. Roper,
First Assistant Postmaster General.

Hon. Daniel C. Roper, March 25, 1913.
First Assistant Postmaster General,
Washington, D. C.
Dear Sir:
Mr. Charles Gr. Swain, postoffice inspector, called on me to-day in reference to my alleged complaint “as to the destruction of mail.”

My complaint in the letter addressed to President Taft, on February 22d last, and repeated in a letter to President “Wilson, dated March 17th, had to do exclusively with the outrageous insult and injury offered me by one Hurney, a postoffice clerk. That, sir, is the one subject of complaint from me now before your Department, and I do respectfully ask for early investigation and judgment thereon.
Respectfully yours,
Jeremiah J. Crowley.

DIVISION OF IN REPLYING
SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES MENTION INITIALS AND DATE
C. F.
Post Office Department
FIRST ASSISTANT POSTMASTER GENERAL
March 28, 1913.
Mr. Jeremiah J. Crowley,
619 Johnston Building, Cincinnati, 0.
Sir:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, which the President [Wilson] has referred to this Office, relative to your complaint against Clerk Hurney, of the Cincinnati, Ohio, postoffice, for using disrespectful language. In reply I beg to state that the matter was referred to a postoffice inspector for a thorough investigation on March 14th, and your letter just received has been forwarded for consideration in connection with the case. Respectfully,
Daniel C. Roper,
First Assistant Postmaster General,

Up to the moment of this book’s going to press no redress has been vouchsafed me by the Government at Washington for the grievous wrong recited in the foregoing letters to Presidents Taft and Wilson.

Our Washington statesmen are, it may be, too busy attending requiem high masses for deceased Roman Catholic rulers to attend to administrative duties on behalf of the American people. Observe the subjoined, from The Catholic Telegraph, Cincinnati, April 24, 1913:

[Catholic Press Association.]

Washington, April 23d.—The President of the United States went to Mass on April 18th in St. Matthews Church, this city. The Holy Sacrifice was offered for the repose of the soul of Gen. Manuel Bonilla, the late President of Honduras. Msgr. Lee officiated, assisted by Msgr. Russell, Msgr. Mackin, and other priests. Vice-President Marshall, Secretary of State Bryan, other members of the Cabinet, the majority of the Diplomatic Corps, members of Congress, and other distinguished personages were also present. The Guardians of Bigotry and all the other bogus “patriotic” societies will have a fit when they learn that President Wilson was officially present at the celebration of Mass in a Catholic Church.

Americans who bow not before the idols of popery may well ask—Are our Presidents and Vice-Presidents, our Cabinet officers and the Judges of the Supreme Court, our Senators and Representatives placed in office to play part so subservient and so dastardly servile to Rome’s foulest purposes? Rome is now egging on Japan to annex Mexico, seize on the Philippines, on Hawaii and Alaska, to wipe off the United States of America from the map of the world’s great powers. While our Presidents are attending mass the Jap and other foreign emissaries in America are busy stealing plans from the Navy Department and studying every weak spot in our National armor, to report thereon promptly and fully to hostile governments.

Rome, hating a free, popular government like that of America, is ready to coalesce with Jap or any other agency—pagan, atheistical, or professedly Christian—to destroy our Nation. The following pages constitute a searchlight of unerring power and accuracy on Romish intrigue and diabolism.

The neglect of the United States Government to do me even elementary justice in the Hurney matter is paralleled exactly by the dilatoriness of the Iowa State authorities in adequately punishing my assailants at Oelwein, June 12, 1913, and by the cruel and callous refusal of Pittsburgh’s (Pa.) police system to investigate a robber’s forcible entrance to my apartment at the Hotel Henry, when he abstracted a watch especially valuable by reason of the memories it suggested. What form of brutal outrage must I next await?

Jeremiah J. Cbowley.
Cincinnati, 0., August, 1913.

Subject: Papal Intrigue, Usurpation, and Episcopal Vandalism, illustrated by the case of “The Most Reverend” John Baptist Purcell, Archbishop of Cincinnati, Ohio, U. S. A.

“Your Holiness:”
I feel free to address myself directly to you, not indeed because I acknowledge subjection in smallest measure to your authority, either in spirituals or temporals, but because I charge you — CHIEF OF WHITE SLAVERS, HIGH PRIEST OF INTRIGUE—with being the fountain-head of evils world-wide, the arch-disturber of humanity’s peace, religious and social; the relentless foe of the three basic principles of American National life and liberty—freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the press.

From America you draw large part of the revenues used by your System to enslave mankind. Every one of your hundred and more bishops under the American flag is collector of “Peter’s Pence,” his standing with your government depending on the amounts he is enabled to wring from an already overtaxed constituency.

Generous in one respect only are you—in the bestowal of blessings which, singular to say, fail to bless recipients in any noticeable degree. One of your predecessors blessed the French armies setting out in 1870 to destroy Protestant Germany; another blessed Spanish armaments, setting out in 1898 to crush heretical America, but your predecessors’ benedictions did not save France, in 1870, from merited humiliation, nor Spain, nearly thirty years later, from crushing defeat and the annihilation of her colonial empire.

That your System is a direct tax upon this Republic the following effusive acknowledgment of a receipt of ‘Peter ‘s Pence’ very clearly demonstrates:

The Vatican.
January 23, 1913.
Secretariate of State of His Holiness. Right Illustrious and Right Reverend Lord:

The Petrine Alms that the Apostolic Delegate in the United States lately transmitted in your name, truly bespeaks the devotion of yourself and of your Faithful, and bespeaks the diligence of yourself and flock in the effort to collect so generous a sum. In this you have shown yourself so deserving that the August Pontiff praises you and embraces you with fatherly benevolence, and, through me, returns to you thanks, blessing you, your clergy, and your people.

I avail myself of this occasion to reassure you of the esteem in which I hold you, and to subscribe myself as Your Lordship’s Most humble Servant,

[Signed] R. Cardinal Merry del Val.

To the Right Illustrious and Right
Reverend Lord
Denis O’Donaghue,
Bishop of Louisville.

No need to dig into ancient history to find that your System of iniquitous repressiveness is at work actively, systematically, and industriously in America. Let the following dispatch speak:

Milwaukee, Wis., Feb. 22.—Archbishop Sebastian G. Messmer, of the Catholic archdiocese of Milwaukee, and four bishops of the Catholic Church were sued for $100,000 damages in an action started Friday by a Polish newspaper published in Milwaukee.

The four mentioned with the archbishop are Bishops Joseph Fox, of Green Bay; James Schwebach, of Lacrosse; L. F. Shinner, of Superior, and Frederick Eis, of Marquette, Mich.

Conspiracy to ruin the business of the newspaper is charged.

The trouble is said to be largely the result of the efforts of the American Poles to obtain Polish bishops through the organization of the American Federation of Polish Catholic Laymen, founded by the editor of the paper.

Not one outspoken newspaper on this continent were permitted to live a day could your agents vent papalistic fury upon its publishers.

How different the sordid, selfish impulse and motive back of your nefarious System’s activities and purposes from the self-sacrificing, Christlike love that inspires and actuates the true Gos pel preacher!

“Unstained, unwhipped by passion or desire,
A thing clean, strong, and true uplifts its head
Above all grosser things for sale or hire,
Above the grasping hand for gain outspread.
It takes no bribe, it asks no recompense
For largess of the heart, but, in accord
With noblest impulses of soul and sense,
In glory of the gift finds full reward.

“It mellows, winelike, in the cask of time;
Knows naught of jealousy, the ego’s crime;
Monopoly doth scorn, and to the end
Shares friends and freedom freely with a friend,
It stands alone, apart, all else above.”

Papal eye has been for a long time fixed on America as fecund revenue producer for a System of which older countries have long ago grown tired. Vaticanism looks hopefully for early coming of the day when all Protestant forms of religion shall have disappeared and Eomanism shall stand alone in America as representative of orthodox Christian beliefs.

No writer better informed as to Vaticanist purposes and policies than Maria Longworth Storer, who acquired international prominence a few years ago by vain efforts to obtain a “red hat ‘ ‘ for John Ireland, holding from you the title and position of Archbishop of St. Paul. Mrs. Storer gives Americans benefit of her inside in- formation as to papal hop© and aim. Writing in The Cincinnati Enquirer, Sunday, March 9, 1913, she states under the heading:

President Taft is, therefore, entirely justified in asserting that:

“The one trouble we suffer from — if it is a trouble—is that there are so many Unitarians in other Churches who do not sit in the pews of our Church. But that means that ultimately they are coming to us.”

It is this fact of dissimilarity in creed which is commented upon by Bishop Raphael, the head of the Syrian Greek Orthodox Church in America, in a pastoral letter in which he declares a union between the Anglican or Episcopal Church and the Greek Church to be impossible. Bishop Raphael says:

“I am convinced that the doctrinal teaching and practices, as well as the discipline of the whole Anglican communion, are unacceptable to the holy Orthodox Church. I make this apology for the Anglicans, whom as Christian gentlemen I greatly revere, that the loose teachings of a great many of the prominent Anglican theologians are so hazy in their definition of truths, and so leaning toward pet theories, that it is hard to tell what they believe. The Anglican Church as a whole has not spoken authoritatively on her doctrine. Her Catholic-minded members can cull out her doctrines from many views, but so nebulistic is her pathway in the doctrinal world that those who would extend a hand of both Christian and ecclesiastical fellowship dare not without distrust grasp the hand of her theologians; for while many are orthodox on some points, they are quite heterodox on others. I speak, of course, from the holy Orthodox Eastern Catholic standpoint of view.

“I do not deem it necessary to mention all of the striking differences between the holy Orthodox Church and the Anglican communion in reference to the authority of holy tradition, the number of General Councils, etc. Sufficient has already been said and pointed out to show that the Anglican communion differs but little from all other Protestant bodies, and therefore there can not be any intercommunion until she returns to the ancient holy Orthodox faith and practices and rejects Protestant omissions and commissions.

“I, therefore, as the official head of the Syrian Holy Orthodox Catholic Apostolic Church in North America, and as one who must ‘give an account (Hebrews 13:17) before the judgment throne of the ‘Shepherd and Bishop of Souls’ (1 Peter 2:25), that I have fed the ‘flock of God’ (1 Peter 5:2), as I have been commissioned by the holy Orthodox Church, inasmuch as the Anglican communion (Protestant Episcopal in the United States) does not differ from some of the most arrant Protestant sects in things vital to the well-being of the holy Orthodox Church, direct all Orthodox people residing in any community not either to seek or accept the ministrations of the sacraments and rites from any clergy excepting those of the Holy Orthodox Greek Catholic Apostolic Church, for the apostolic canons command that the Orthodox should not commune in ecclesiastical matters with those who are not of ‘the same household of faith’ (Galatians 6:10).”

There seems to be every prospect that President Taft’s prophecy may be fulfilled in regard to the Protestant world.

A similar prophecy by Charles Eliot, President Emeritus of Harvard University, is uttered in a pamphlet called the ” Religion of the Future,” printed by the American Unitarian Association. Mr. Eliot says: “(1) The religion of the future will not be based on authority, either spiritual or temporal. The decline of reliance upon absolute authority is one of the most significant phenomena of the modern world.” “(5) The religion of the future will not be propitiatory, sacrificial, or expiatory.” “(6) The religion of the future will not perpetuate the Hebrew anthropomorphic representations of God, conceptions which were carried in large measure into institutional Christianity.”

Mr. Eliot concludes that “in the future religion there will be nothing ‘ supernatural, ‘ ‘ ‘ and that “it is not bound to any dogma, creed, book, or institution.”

President Eliot bases his prophecy upon “the revolt against long-accepted dogmas, the frequent occurrence of waves of reform, sweeping through and sometimes over the Churches, the effect of modern philosophy, ethical theories, social hopes, and democratic principles on the established Churches and the abandonment of Churches altogether by a large proportion of the population in countries mainly Protestant.”

These, then, are two notable prophecies spoken by two American Presidents—one of the United States, and the other of our oldest and most important university. They are worthy of very serious consideration by the American Protestant world.

Now surely American Protestants will get good; and make ready, on the one hand, to drop allegiance to “any dogma, creed, book, or institution,’ or, on the other hand, kneel humbly to you or your successors.

Notable, in very truth, is it that Rome should here in Cincinnati offer such ultimatum to American Protestants. Remarkable, too, that this ultimatum should come from the pen of a former Protestant, who, with all the earnestness and zeal of a convert, strives for the Romanization of a country to which Romanism means destruction as certain as your System has visited upon Spain and other countries cursed by its domination and finally crushed by its despotism.

Cincinnati has known more, perhaps, than its share of Romanistic activities. Burned deeply in heart and memory of the Queen City are certain achievements of your System, which brought discredit on the community’s fair name, disaster upon families, and utter ruin upon individuals.

Your governmental records show that as far back as 1833 the papacy’s purpose was to make Ohio, land of beauty, fertility, and promise, an appanage of the Vatican. There was sent to Cincinnati in that year a representative of your System qualified in many respects for this task. No sooner had John Baptist Purcell taken survey of the field consigned to his episcopal care than he determined to make of Ohio an impregnable stronghold of Romanism, by the power of MONEY.

All real property donated or purchased for Church uses was conveyed to him in fee simple. This property he might sell, exchange, or give away, as in his own judgment he might determine. Lord and master absolutely of the whole situation as far as Roman Catholic holdings in Ohio were concerned, he lost no time in providing himself with adequate pecuniary resources. He transformed himself into a bank of deposit. Little or no difficulty did he find in persuading an ignorant, confiding flock to entrust its savings to him, whom the ” Vicar of Christ” had appointed their bishop. There was, from 1833 till 1879, a constant stream of depositors to the Purcell bank. From a list of receipts covering the period between 1847 and 1877 there was, it appears, deposited in the Purcell bank in that time a total of more than $25,000,000, as is shown by the following excerpts from Brief, pp. 39, 40 :

A hasty addition of the figures shows the following deposits for these years, and the amounts unpaid:

Year Money Deposited Unpaid
1847 $221,006 $14,481
1848 282,449 18,870
1849 220,454 20,199
1850 268,891 16,916
1851 401,351 31,319
1852 448,368 29,764
1853 460,621 36,874
1854 614,549 23,177
1855 558,601 23,024
1856 668,061 35,241
1857 375,431 30,300
1858 541,757 25,963
1859 817,814 65,204
1860 746,936 71,099
1861 487,392 64,831
1862 478,733 75,465
1863 393,768 38,241
1864 178,848 11,131
1865 162,260 19,053
1866 735,918 226,362
1867 101,348 32,424
1868 124,795 27,836
1869 128,719 56,119
1870 44,591 15,463
1871 237,656 102,008
1872 730,959 253,750
1873 725,470 211,859
1875 1,011.675 406,873
1876 413,086 212,858
1877 768,740 554,501
$13,349,847 $2,751,605

If we had all the books, we would probably find the total deposits reaching $25,000,000, and instead of an unpaid balance of $2,751,605, the unpaid balance would be between $4,000,000 and $5,000,000.

How much there was received from 1833 till 1847, the records having been suppressed or destroyed, it is impossible to state with exactitude. That the amount ran, however, well up into the millions is evident from the activities of John Baptist Purcell in the acquisition of valuable real estate and the building of schools, nunneries, priests ‘ residences, and churches. A conservative estimate places the total receipts of the Purcell bank, from 1833 till its disastrous failure in 1879, at $50,000,000!

The vast sums of money poured into Bishop Purcell’s lap by a confiding, ignorant people enabled that ambitious prelate to stand exceedingly well at the Vatican, where from time immemorial money has been all-powerful in the securing of honors and dignities. So well did John Baptist Purcell use his plethoric resources in Roman Court circles that, in 1855, he was made an archbishop—one step only removed from a seat in the College of Cardinals, his heart’s consuming desire, as it is to-day that of the Irelands, Quigleys, Glennons, and Moellers, who shine so conspicuously among leading lights of your System in America.

When John Baptist Purcell became a multimillionaire, millionaires in America were few indeed. Great, then, was his prestige among the impressionable and ignorant people of his diocese. • A very colossus of financial strength lie towered in their midst. With wonder and amazement they saw rising on every side churches, convents, monasteries, and the sight impelled them to cry out, ” Thank the Lord for the wise Pontiff in Rome who has given us so resourceful a Bishop in Cincinnati ! ‘ ‘

An astute politician was John Baptist Purcell. That he might have in his cardinalitial ambitions the backing of the Austrian Government (Austria was at the time predominant in Germany), Purcell favored the appointment of Germans in preference to Irishmen to episcopal sees in the great territory comprised in his archiepiscopal province, which included Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The Irish had no powerful government behind them. Hence did this weak-kneed son of Erin raise and re-echo the cruel inhibition of Know-Nothingism : “No Irish need apply.”

His marked friendship for German bishops and priests gave impetus also to his money-getting schemes. Two-thirds of the depositors in the Purcell bank were Germans, and three-fourths of the total deposits were theirs. Direct assurances of the Archbishop’s personal and official responsibility for all moneys deposited with the Purcell bank were given, not only by the Archbishop himself, but by his brother and factotum, Very Rev. Edward Purcell, Vicar General of the Diocese, who acted usually and generally as the Archbishop’s banking agent. To inquiring depositors Archbishop Purcell and brother Edward would so say.

See excerpts from the evidence of Paul Arrata (Brief, pp. 10, 11, Supreme Court of Ohio).

Paul Arrata testified (see Vol. Ill, p. 1178) as follows :

Q. Did you ever have any conversation with the Archbishop?

A. Yes, about a couple of months before the assignment.

Q. What took you there?

A. I went there on the 2d or 3d of November ; I wanted my money out to use; he told me, of course, he had the money all out in the churches and he could not get it right away. I said, You promised me the money in three days; he says, That is all right, I can get it about the 20th of this month, it is all right; I went up about the 20th or 21st.

Q. The Court: When was this?

A. In 1878; it was before he made a failure; it was in November. I went there, and he told me he had not the money, but he expected $40,000 from Philadelphia by express, and to come there in the afternoon. I told him my business did not allow me to come up then, and I said I might come up the next morning; and I went up, and he said that the express had not come in, and I concluded to go and see the Archbishop ; I thought I would see him; I went up to the room, and I says, Look here, I deposited with your brother — Mr. Lincoln: This is objected to. The Witness: I says, I deposited a little money with your brother; he said, How much? I says, Fifty-three hundred dollars.

Q. The Court: This is to Edward?

A. To the Archbishop. I said, I want it understood that I deposited money with your brother, and he told me he was doing business for you; he says, That is all right, what my brother owes you we are able to pay you that amount; pay you double the amount, we could have it.

Q. When was that?

A. That was in the same month; I believe the 20th or 21st of November, 1878.

Q. When was it Edward told you first that he was doing business for his brother John?

A. In 1870, when I went there first.

Q. What was said then?

A. That was not with the Archbishop, it was with Edward.

Q. Very well, when you took money there ?

A. I saw that he signed his own name ; I says, do you receive money for yourself or your brother; he says, for my brother; I am doing business for him. That is all I asked him. See excerpts from the evidence of Mrs. Wheeler (Brief, p. 24, Supreme Court of Ohio). Mrs. Wheeler testified (see Vol. Ill, pp. 1060, 1062) as follows:

A. When I first took the money, he told me that the Archbishop was responsible for any money that he took.

Q. Edward did?

A. Yes, sir; that he had on deposit; then he told me that all the church property was responsible. Q. Did you go to the Archbishop about it?

A. No, sir; I did not think it necessary, and then about two or three years after that I brought it up one day; I told him I would not trust it with anybody but the Archbishop himself ; he said I had good security.

Turn to the assurances of Edward Purcell to Joseph A. Wempe (Brief, p. 26). Joseph A Wempe testified (see Vol. Ill, p. 1072) as follows :

A. About as near as I can remember, about two years before the failure, I went to Edward Purcell’s office to deposit money, I think it was either one hundred or one hundred and fifty dollars ; it was a small amount, and the Archbishop happened to be in there, and one of them made a remark, the Archbishop or Edward, ‘why do n’t you take this money and buy a home and pay for it.’ I had been depositing there, and my wife also. I said I wanted to save up enough to go into business; Edward says, ‘whenever you want any of this money you will have to give us two weeks’ notice, as we have it standing out among other congregations.’ The Archbishop said, ‘yes, yes, the money is out among poor congregations that have to get money from us;’ that was all the conversation I had.

Q. When did you begin to deposit money there ?

A. I think some five or six years before that. Similar statements were made to Mrs. Twohig (see Brief, p. 27). Mrs. Kate Twohig testified (see Vol. Ill, p. 1146) as follows:

Q. Are you a creditor of the Archbishop or Father Edward?

A. Well, when I gave my money to Father Edward, he told me that the Archbishop was good for it.

Even to bankers “Father” Edward Purcell was positive in defining the Archbishop’s responsibility for deposits and loans. It was this clergyman’s habit to assure credulous depositors that the sun was more likely to fall than the Purcell bank to fail. To all depositors Archbishop Purcell and his brother said in substance, as Judge Miller well states in said brief, p. 30, 31, 32 :

Listen to what Archbishop Purcell said to these poor people—aged and decrepit—when they went for the purpose of saving their money, and deposited with him their last dollar !

Give the money to Edward, he is just the same as me; Edward does business for me, he works for me; deposit the money with my brother; I am always the boss; it will be safe. You will not lose your money here; the whole diocese is responsible for the money; the whole diocese is good for it; you are safer here with us than you are with the banks on Third Street; safer here than you are any other place. We got plenty of churches and schoolhouses and land, if you bring your money here you can get it; we have credit for $1,000,000; we are not robbers and thieves, you will get every cent of your money; ladies and gentlemen, as sure as you see that cross, so sure is your money. He said he wanted money to get priests to help the churches; was sorry he had not priests enough ; he put the money out in the churches, and he put it among the poor congregations. He certified to the correctness of deposits, signed his name to notes, and followed it with “Abp.,” and offered to mortgage the Cathedral.

And listen to what Edward Purcell, the brother, priest, agent and vicar-general of the diocese, said to the same unfortunates when they deposited the money with him.

I receive the money for my brother; you do not need to see the Bishop, as I am his agent; I do the business; it is the same as giving the money to the Archbishop if you give it to me; I am attending to that business. I am the authorized agent ; there is no other agent, and what I do is the same as if the Archbishop did it; the Archbishop is good for it. The business is carried on for the benefit of the diocese ; the diocese is responsible for all money received on deposit; the property of the diocese is bound for the debts incurred ; the whole Catholic diocese is responsible for the money, and it is better than a mortgage ; you worked hard for your money, and you had better take it away from the Aurelius church, and bring it to me, for that is a dangerous place. The Archbishop is responsible for any money that I take; all the church property is responsible; you have good security; you have all the church property in Cincinnati; the churches are good enough for your money. The money is for the benefit of the diocese, and there is three, four or five millions of church property in the diocese ; the money is for the churches in the whole diocese; whatever goes to the Roman Catholic Church goes to one party, and we can pay everything— the church can; the church will be responsible for the whole Catholic debt ; the church is responsible to pay all the debts in the diocese.

We have the money standing out among the churches; if you want a mortgage on the Cathedral you can have it; now be quiet and go home, you won’t lose one cent of your money, we have the Cathedral and a good many churches in the country, all will have to pay, all the debts will be paid by them. The money is in the diocese, and the diocese is bound to pay; my brother has plenty of property and money in the diocese, you ain’t poor, don’t cry. You might as well tell the sun to come down as to sav that Bishop Purcell will fail; he has $5,000,000 worth of property in Hamilton county; the very sun will come down on this earth sooner than Bishop Purcell will fail. He said to the bankers, the Archbishop’s signature carried with it the liability of the property in the diocese, and when asked, he signed notes, John B. Purcell by Edward Purcell. And in addition to all this, Father Ferneding, Father Henny (see Vol. Ill, p. 1013), Father Halley and other priests, acted as solicitors from their pulpits and in their private walks to send their deluded followers with their money to John B. and Edward Purcell, to deposit it in the church, as the poor widows and orphans, and the aged and worn-out, who are left destitute, were made to believe.

The cases of Miss Lizzie Bruns and Miss Dorothea Bruns are of especial interest. Both of these good women, for many years and now respected residents of Cincinnati, are natives of Germany, born near Bremen. They are Protestants who came to the United States in 1856. Landing at New Orleans, November 15th, they reached Cincinnati March 5, 1857. They were nine weeks coming by boat from New Orleans. Their good father found work in a pork house, but falling ill, died April 9, 1857. The whole family lived in one room, paying therefor rental of $2.00 a month.

The devoted mother washed to support the children. When Lizzie reached the age of fifteen, the mother fell a victim of rheumatism and died some time after. Dorothea had been sick ever since landing in America, but worked for a tailoring firm on coats. Lacking strength for this work, she subsequently did housework and was, for a time, obliged to carry in coal and scrub sidewalks.

The Bruns sisters were advised by a Roman Catholic friend to put their earnings in Purcell’s bank. Edward Purcell, the Archbishop’s brother, assured them, on receiving their hardearned moneys, that these deposits would be used to raise up the religion of Christ. They gave their money to Purcell March 18, 1878. The amount they first intended to deposit with the Purcells was $1,396, but by pinching themselves raised it to $1,400.

Work was hard to get that Spring, but the Bruns sisters, having full faith in the Purcells, left their money with them. A week, however, before Christmas they were informed by a Catholic that the Purcell bank was in a shaky condition. Miss Lizzie Bruns called at the Purcell residence dozens of times. Edward Purcell at first assured her that people living outside of Cincinnati should be paid first. Leaning, on one occasion, on the mantle, Edward Purcell assured Miss Bruns, “As sure as there is a God in Heaven, you will get your money, for the Church is good for it. ‘ ‘

He said, on another occasion, “I ’11 give you my coat if it will do you any good. p ‘ Whereupon Miss Bruns replied, “I do not want your coat. I need my money. ” To a Catholic woman, who had been at one time rich and gave the Purcells $4,000, Miss Bruns heard Edward Purcell chivalrously exclaim, “Go on, you crazy thing, you!” This woman was forced afterwards to make a living, washing. She was a German Catholic. Working at home, when she could, making coats, one of the Bruns sisters was assisted by the other just as health and opportunity permitted. The Bruns women never sued the Purcells. When the latter died, Archbishop Elder became Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cincinnati. Miss Lizzie Bruns, calling on him, Elder stated, “Why, my dear child, I never got your money. All I have got here is my room, for which I have paid.” “But,” said the Bruns woman, “we need our money. We worked too hard for it to be beaten out of it.” Elder said, “Come about Easter, when my friends may help me. Whatever the Churches got from Archbishop Purcell, they will pay back to me.”

Miss Lizzie Bruns has worked alone for seventeen years to support herself and her invalid sister. Falling ill in December, 1907, this good woman went to the Sattler Hospital, where, at her request, the nurse wrote Archbishop Moeller requesting a payment. The letter was ignored. Afterwards when Miss Bruns was able to go to his residence on Eighth Street, “His Grace” said, “We can’t have you running here all the time,” to which Miss Bruns replied, “Pay me and I will never trouble you again.’ ‘ Later on Moeller declared, “I ’11 give you nothing unless you give up your notes. If you do so, I will give you ten cents on the dollar.”

His brother, “Chancellor” Moeller, meeting Miss Bruns on one occasion, at the Chancery office, Eighth and Plum Streets, threatened to kick Miss Bruns downstairs if she again dared to trouble “His Grace,” the xlrchbishop, to pay a just debt. That was in 1910.

Going, in 1911, to the Rev. Dr. Watson, a Presbyterian minister, to whom she told her story, the latter went to see the Moellers. Dr. Watson later on informed Miss Bruns that the Archbishop told him: “We do not have to pay, but we might do something—paying perhaps $100 or $150, provided Miss Bruns gives up her notes.”

Some time after Rev. Watson’s visit to the Moellers, priest Moeller gave Miss Bruns $10 ($5 on each note) and promised to pay $10 every two months; but when the total amount paid reached $150, she would, he insisted, have to give up her notes. To this proposition she has constantly demurred. Priest Moeller fusses and foams at all recent payments.

Priest Moeller, Chancellor of the archdiocese of Cincinnati, brother and co-partner of Archbishop Moeller, on another occasion, telephoned the police to come over to the Chancery office to arrest Miss Bruns, a woman defrauded and wronged by the Roman Catholic Church. The police, to their credit, refused to interfere. Safe are we in saying that if the police of Cincinnati attempted to place Miss Bruns under arrest, Cincinnati would have witnessed a repetition of the Bedini (anti-papal) riots of the fifties and the Tom Campbell courthouse riots of the eighties. Safe, too, is it to say that had the Purcell frauds occurred in the neighboring State of Kentucky, there would have been found, in due season, dangling from lamp-posts the worthless carcasses of some Roman prelates and priests, as well as those of some papalistic assignees.

The Misses Bruns are two of many Protestants duped into leaving money with the Purcells. Can Americans stand by quietly, idly, and pusillanimously to permit these good women, now, as many including myself well know, in straitened circumstances, to be denied what is theirs justly, that cruel, callous, and lustful prelates, as well as priests, may live in ” palaces,’ ‘ enrich houses of ill-fame, and lavish the money of such honest women on luxurious trips to Europe, the South, and elsewhere?

The attention of the Purcell creditors and of all readers is respectfully called to the Moeller ‘ Archiepiscopal Palace ‘ ‘ in aristocratic Norwood —a regal mansion of fifty or more rooms, with thirteen bath-rooms !

“His Grace” Moeller lives in highest style and luxury, while surviving creditors of his predecessor, Purcell, starve in their old age; while others eke out miserable existence in lunatic asylums ; and the ashes of many more fill the premature graves that opened hospitable arms to victims despoiled by a greedy, heartless Church.

“His Grace” Moeller, refusing to live where Purcell perpetrated his robberies, builds for himself a mansion in an exclusive suburb of Cincinnati, surrounding this veritable palace with wellkept lawns and stately approaches of prelatic pride.

Would not honesty, to speak not of elemental self-respect, suggest that before palace building, Moeller should have wiped out the stain and the shame from his Church’s brow by paying off all the good people living (or the heirs, executors, and assignees of those dead) who were plunged by Cincinnatian Vaticanism into financial ruin?

Archbishop Moeller’s Seal.

The legend of this seal, that of the Archbishop of Cincinnati, reads, “Pasce oves meas”—translated literally, “Feed My sheep.” Had Archbishop Moeller consulted Justice—and God is Justice itself—he would have had for archiepiscopal motto, “Pay thy just debts,” and, acting thereon, Moeller had, since his accession to the archiepiscopal see of Cincinnati, in 1904, spared no effort to pay off the Purcell church debt of $4,000,000, due to widows, orphans, to aged men and women, Catholic and Protestant, for years eking out existence miserably because of this atrocious piece of papal rascality.

“Pay thy just debts’ ‘ ought a Christian conscience say to Moeller, inheritor of the Purcell profits from robbery and spoliation. Go into lunatic asylums and relieve the insane, driven into madness by that infamy. Go out into the byways and relieve the children of the dead parents, driven to premature graves by thy predecessor’s highwaymanship. Pay, O Moeller, pay thy just debts, and then feed thy sheep!

Clever financier, “The Most Reverend” Henry Moeller, Archbishop of Cincinnati. “Witness The Catholic Telegraph, Cincinnati, April 10, 1913:

It was with the greatest of pleasure that the Most Rev. Archbishop announced that the annual collection for the Seminary, taken up in all the Churches during the past year, was the largest that has been received since the Seminary collection was started, $23,427.71.

In the circular read in all the churches last Sunday announcing the annual collection for Pentecost Sunday, the Most Rev. Archbishop stated that a new chapel building will soon be a necessity at Mt. St. Mary Seminary and also that, as soon as the funds were at hand, the St. Gregory Preparatory Seminary, now temporarily closed, will be reopened at Norwood Heights, where a tract of land has been purchased for that purpose.

This money should, by right, go to paying off the still unpaid Purcell debt of thirty years ago or more. Go, it should, to still the cry of the defrauded lunatic, or dry the tear of wronged widow and undone orphan. But, go it shall, instead, to train young men into the fraud and filthiness of Liguori’s theology, that they may themselves, first, become adepts in lying and in lechery, and then teach others to become so!

The very direst visitations of Providence offer chance to financial experts of the Roman stamp to enrich Romanism and Romanism’s agents. The Catholic Telegraph, Moeller’s official organ, tells, April 10, 1913 :

The following is the amount received by the Rev. Chancellor [Moeller’s brother] for relief of the flood sufferers up to Tuesday, April 8, 1913 : From Churches and Friends Outside Archdiocese.

From Churches and Friends in Archdiocese.

Total, $23,193.82 ; Amount received by Chancellor up to Tuesday evening, April 8, 1913.

Why did not Moeller turn over this flood fund of his to Mayor Hunt, or to some civic and secular agency, thoroughly equipped for the systematic relief of suffering? Why? Because moneys for the relief of flood sufferers, turned over to honest American citizens, would be used for one purpose only—that for which its donors intended.

The secular and civic boards managing flood relief funds never ask a sufferer if he be Catholic, Protestant, Jew, or Gentile. The Catholic sufferer rarely, if ever, gets aid from his priesthood. Papal funds are deaidedly “personal, private, and confidential! ‘ ‘

Few indeed would have been the Purcell bank’s depositors had the impression taken strong ground that the properties held in fee simple by John Baptist Purcell ($5,000,000 thereof in Hamilton County, Ohio, U. S. A., alone), were not considered responsible for his monetary obligations.

Beneficiaries of Purcellistic generosity got busy when the bank failed in seeking to shield the author of so much disaster to the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned. An “ambassador of the New York Sun” was, for instance, induced to write an apologetic sketch of Archbishop Purcell.

Eulogists of Purcell have harped repeatedly and monotonously on the personal honesty of John Baptist Purcell.

Is the betrayer of a trust an honest man! In his funeral oration over John Baptist Purcell, Bishop Gilmour, of Cleveland, said of the dead prelate :

He has consecrated eighteen bishops, ordained hundreds of priests, and received the vows of thousands of consecrated virgins. Fifty-seven years he has served at the altar; fifty years he has sat in the chair of Moses—a ruler, a Prince in the House of God, with but one thought—God ; one desire—good; one ambition—the salvation of men.

Noble instinct! noble ambition! worthy the highest aims of human desire and the tenderest affections of the human heart. Nobly begun, nobly ended. The name of John Baptist Purcell will go down to history stainless in its manhood, stainless in its priesthood, amid the tears and affections of his people, whom he loved so well [and robbed so well]. … A purer mind, a more disinterested Bishop has seldom gone to God. [Of course his victims, Catholic and non- Catholic, go to Purgatory and Hell.]

Bishop Gilmour further said: His whole life was one abiding offering. He received but to give, as all well remember who ever came in contact with him. Money he valued only so far as it was a means to do good. His giving was only limited by his inability to give more.

John Baptist Purcell was, truth to tell, part and parcel of the System of which you are the head, a System utterly without heart for the suffering, the poor, and the helpless. What right had John Baptist Purcell to use poverty’s deposits, labor’s savings, left with him in sacred trust, to bribe greedy followers of your court, to buy mitres for ambitious priests, and to gild a pathway for himself to a seat among your cardinals? When he betrayed his trust, the pope of Rome was his partner in betrayal. Yea, the pope was author of that betrayal. Agent was Purcell of the pope, for the pope, and by the pope, for all papal schemes in the entire Middle West. The approval of your predecessors, expressed or clearly implied, he had for all his schemes of banking, bartering, stealing, and looting. Says Bishop Gilmour again:

Not within the century has there been a richer tint to the name of the dead than that of Purcell to the Episcopacy. For fifty years he [Purcell] has stood a prominent factor in the American Church. He has seen it grow from tender infancy to stalwart manhood, a sapling to a sturdy oak. A part in its creation, a hand in its direction, he has been a prominent factor in its history. At one time almost dominant in her councils, everywhere his influence has been felt. When through this “prominent factor’s’ ‘ financial failure, his robbery of thousands of confiding people, suffering widespread was inflicted, what did your predecessors do to alleviate the sufferings of those wronged and undone by the Purcell brothers? Your immediate predecessor is credited with writing to the Catholic Society of Vicenza :

Justice have I worshiped. Long struggles, labor, chicanery, plots, and hard blows have I borne. But, of faith the champion, I will not flinch. For Christ’s flock how sweet to suffer; yes, even in prison ; how sweet to die!” Fine sentiments indeed, but these sentiments of your predecessor did not, evidently, apply to the United States. Nowhere is it on record that he made any adequate effort to secure for the Purcell creditors reparation for the losses so cruelly inflicted by one of his most prominent representatives.

When, “Holy Father,’ ‘ have you, or any of your predecessors, taken time from familiar pastime of denunciation and cursing, to bless the multitudes of this struggling race of men in its upward movement?

The Kaiser Wilhelm once summoned before him a bishop of Alsace-Lorraine who had “cursed’ ‘ a grave on German soil. To that “cursing” bishop the Emperor of Germany spoke in terms plain and energetic. “Your office is,” said the Emperor in substance, “not to curse, but to bless. Why dare you curse the grave of a loyal son of the Fatherland? Withdraw, sir, and be ashamed of your unchristian conduct.” That bishop was, after all, doing just what, as he saw it, duty to his master, the pope, demanded and commanded. No person, priest, prelate, or layman, believing in or submitting to the doctrine of papal infallibility, can be truly loyal to another government. The moment a man acknowledges another power superior to his country’s in claims on his allegiance, he becomes that very moment traitor to the country under whose flag he enjoys blessings of freedom and security. Your present theological system, dating from 1870, declares the pope infallible in matters of faith and morals. Within the domain of morality lies every duty political, civil, social, domestic, and individual that man is called to fulfill. The Roman Catholic is, at every turn, at every step, within the sphere of daily duty met by the imperious command that, above Presidents, Princes,

Congresses, and Parliaments, is pope of Rome. The history of papal intrigues and usurpations, dating from Constantine, brings us through the fiery struggles against the independent National life of peoples by Gregory VII; the insolent parcelling out of a New World between Spain and Portugal by the infamous Alexander VI; the establishment of the Jesuits, the unchristian definitions of the Council of Trent, and, finally, the horrible blasphemy of the Council of the Vatican. Bishops, at one time considered your equals, are now mere puppets in the stern, selfish, unfeeling hand of your System.

John Baptist Purcell, of Cincinnati, the creation and creature of modern papalism, was, in all his treachery to the toiling masses, whom he duped and robbed, a faithful type of Rome- made and pope-crowned bishop. No sin for him to rob laborer Paul that he might give abundantly to grasping, greedy prelate in Rome calling himself successor of Peter!

I am, Respectfully,
Jeremiah J. Crowley.

Subject: The Purcell Case but one instance of Eomanistic greed and intrigue.—Canada fruitful field for papal exploitation.

“Your Holiness:”
John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati, defaulter for at least $4,000,000 to honest German and other toilers—some of these Protestants—was typical agent of your iniquitous System of rapine and pillage, whose history, written in the blood of twelve centuries of martyrs, is one of humanity’s darkest reproaches. How faithfully Purcell toiled for your System, that he might, at nod or beck of some predecessor of yours, be raised to the rank of cardinal, is borne out by Bishop Gilmour in his funeral oration, cited in my first letter. He says:

I have seen him in the rude shanty sitting for hours, hearing the confessions of the people who came from far and near to see and hear the farfamed prelate, and when the day’s work was done for others, hear him in the courthouse, explaining the doctrine of the Church. He seemed never to weary, nor did the gay and cheering words of the hard-worked missionary ever fail. … No matter how hard the work or difficult the task, no one ever heard him complain or murmur at the toil.

How was the fidelity of this trusted agent of your System rewarded by the papacy? A French proverb expresses very clearly the significant truth: “Dans Vadversite on connait ses vrais amis” (In adversity one knows his true friends). When John Baptist Purcell’s day of adversity came, where did the papacy stand? Did it arise, equal to the occasion, and draw from its hoards in British, Dutch, and other banks, the moneys necessary to pay off the sums due to Purcell’s 3,485 creditors? A loan of $4,000,000, secured by the Archbishop of Cincinnati’s diocesan property, worth easily three or four times that amount, could have been, without difficulty, made by your predecessor.

Or, your predecessor might have issued command to the Church in America to raise the needed amount as suggested by the New York Herald. See The Cincinnati Enquirer, March 12, 1879, p. 5, col. 5:

The Archbishop’s Debts.
[New York Herald.]

There are in the United States about six million Catholics, and less than a dollar from each would cancel the indebtedness. It is very probable, however, that upon investigation the grand total of the amount deposited with the Archbishop will be found to be much less than $6,000,- 000 ; but even should it reach that sum it could be paid in a day by general subscription. The moral effect of so splendid an illustration of Christian faith and good works would be incalculable. As an evidence of solid faith it would be of more practical value than a score of costly cathedrals. The Catholics of this country have, in our opinion, the greatest and grandest opportunity to show the faith which is in them, and at the same time perform a noble charity, that was ever offered to a religious denomination. To serve their poor, ruined brethren of Ohio by a united effort would be the most impressive moral spectacle of the century, the brighest chapter in the history of the American Catholic Church. To allow the opportunity to pass unimproved will be to deepen, if possible, the stain that has fallen on the Catholic name and character.

But ungrateful master, indeed, is your Roman System. No helping hand is hers for sorrow or misfortune. No practical sympathy did the papacy show to its fallen and humiliated prelate, of whom a generous writer then spoke in these feeling terms: ‘ ‘ His step is unsteady, his hands tremulous, his eyes unsteady, and his face deeply lined, evidently more by mental anxiety than by years. ‘ ‘

Into Vatican recesses failed to penetrate the sobs and sighs of despoiled, penniless victims of the Purcell fraud. From The Cincinnati Enquirer, March 2, 1879, I take the following:

One man said yesterday in the Trustees ‘ office : “I had $2,000 in the Archbishop’s hands. I have no work and no money. My wife and children are barefoot, and but for the charity of some Jews who are my neighbors they would have starved. This morning a good friend of mine, a good man with a family, who has $900 in the Archbishop’s hands, came to me and said, ‘ Good-bye ; I am desperate ; my family starve, my money is gone, and I will kill myself.’ A poor woman went crazy in the Trustees’ office a few days ago, maddened by her trouble. Scores of such cases might be enumerated of utter desperation born of misery.

One sees them thronging every morning at the Archbishop’s door, asking the monotonous question: ‘Is there anything for us yet? Even a little to buy some bread?’ ”

The Cincinnati Enquirer, March 4, 1879, states :

All yesterday the office of the Trustees, at the corner of Main and 5th Sts., was thronged with creditors of the Archbishop, clamorous for the settlement of their claims. They filled the rooms of Mannix & Cosgrove, the Trustees’ attorneys, so that it was impossible for the Trustees to hold their usual meeting, and at night dozens of them besieged Father Quinn in his room at the Archiepiscopal residence. During the afternoon Father Albrink, one of the trustees, and Mr. Mannix, started out in search of a suitable person to accept the position of assignee to the Archbishop, but their search proved futile. Archbishop Purcell has fully determined upon an assignment and will make it as soon as an assignee can be procured. At present he is engaged in a Lenten retreat [!] a few miles out of the city, but within an hour’s call whenever needed.

The Purcell case attracted universal attention. In the New York Sun, March 25, 1879, appeared another very striking article entitled :

The thing which people seemed to find most difficult in understanding about the failure of Archbishop Purcell is, “What has become of the money?”

It is without precedent in the history of bankruptcies that so vast a sum should leave so little trace of its disappearance. . . .

The allegation has been made that large amounts of the depositors’ money had been sent to Rome.

While the creditors of your System’s agent, John Baptist Purcell, had to go without bread, Catholic authorities were giving strong assurances that all the Purcell obligations would be liquidated. The Enquirer, March 8, 1879, quoted “One (N. Y.) Catholic clergyman’ ‘ as saying:

There need be no fear that the funds will not be furnished to make good all claims against Archbishop Purcell. When St. Peter ‘s Church in Barclay St. was involved to the extent of $100,000 under the administration of Father Pise and Father Power, Archbishop Hughes appointed Father Quinn, now Vicar General, to take charge of its affairs, and under his administration the debt of the parish was almost entirely paid off. Since then, however, St. Peter’s has become deeply in debt again. Another more notable instance occurred recently in Orange, N. J., where a Catholic clergyman bought considerable property, built a fine church, and established an orphan asylum, incurring a debt of about $170,000 on property that would not sell under foreclosure for more than $50,000. Bishop Corrigan, of the Newark Diocese, however, assumed the whole debt, saved the property from foreclosure, and has now paid off nearly all the claim.

With the Vatican’s ears closed, and its heart (?) steeled against cries of distress from Cincinnati, with the failure of brother Bishops in America to make up the Purcell obligation, with the diocesan priests of Cincinnati enjoying life as has been always their wont, oblivious of everything save personal good cheer and comfort, the Purcell creditors went without their money. To their graves have gone hundreds of these plundered people in the last thirty years, some in their dying hour cursing both Pope and Purcell. One of the saddest scenes which I ever witnessed while I was a member of the Eoman Hierarchy was that of an old maiden lady in Manchester, N. H., who died in 1886, cursing Archbishop Purcell and the pope of Rome for having swindled her out of her hard earnings. See “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation,” Chapter VI, p. 108.

Here it may be well to ask why was not the like treatment meted out to ordinary bank defaulters and trust looters, administered to the Purcell brothers! The law’s just severity duly applied might have brought about as prompt and complete settlement of the sad affair. Clear is it that the Purcells obtained money under false pretences ; clear, also, that they misused the moneys to their care entrusted. Why were they suffered to escape the punishment such atrocious misconduct so richly deserved?

The Cincinnati steal is but one instance of papalistic intrigue and rapine in America. There has been besides, the Wagoman Catholic University defalcation, and many another of less prominence. Greed and rapacity are predominant characteristics of your infamous System. Look, for example, at one of the garden spots of Romanism in America.

The Province of Quebec, Canada, is certainly striking instance of Roman activities and influences. From a paper, Holy Father, friendly to you and the causes you represent, edited by a Protestant clergyman, Rev. J. A. MacDonald, I take the following clear exposition of conditions in one Canadian city only, in the matter of municipal taxation. Writing from Montreal, February 20, 1913, Toronto Globe’s duly accredited representative, J. C. Ross, says:

Montreal, Feb. 20.—Toronto is not the only city in Canada which is agitated over the land-tax question. Montreal is now facing a phase of this question which promises to develop into one of the most important and far-reaching controversies in the history of the city. In Toronto, apparently, the question is largely one of the relation between improved and unimproved property. In Montreal it is the question of whether or not property belonging to religious organizations shall be exempt from taxation or not.

At the present time over one-fifth of the property in the city of Montreal is exempt from taxation. The seriousness of allowing this wholesale exemption of property to exist is further shown by the fact that Montreal has a civic debt to-day which absorbs every year over 27 per cent of the entire revenue raised by the city.

The case in Montreal is not an isolated one. The city of Outremont, a residential suburb of Montreal, has over one-third of its property exempt from taxation. The city of Westmount and other municipalities adjoining Montreal, show a similar condition of affairs. Not only in these outlying suburbs, but in Montreal as well are located large farms owned by various religious orders, on which not one cent of taxes has ever been paid. In addition, valuable down-town business sections owned by Church organizations are largely free from taxation. To spend over 27 per cent of the civic revenue for interest charges and to exempt over one-fifth of the total property places unnecessary and severe burdens upon the citizens who contribute to the city coffers.

The abuse which has grown to such tremendous proportions began in a small way. At the outset churches and religious orders were poor and comparatively few in number. With the growth of the city they increased in number and wealth, until to-day not only are churches and the property they hold exempt from taxation, but all sorts of charitable, educational, or religious organizations in any shape or form connected with the Church has become exempt. In some cases religious orders have made all their investments in real estate. They purchase valuable property from private owners, which immediately becomes non-revenue-producing to the city as soon as it passes into the hands of a religious order. As they are not forced to pay taxes nor in any way assist in the upkeep of the streets, police, fire, light, or other public utilities serving the property, these religious orders can hold their property for an indefinite time, and undersell, if necessary, the man who holds property alongside, on which heavy taxes have to be paid. As soon as a property becomes sufficiently valuable these religious orders sell it and immediately reinvest in a still larger property; thus the evil spreads, and more and more property is passing from the revenue-producing to the non-revenue-producing class.

An example or two will illustrate this: In May, 1910, the Grey Nuns purchased a property at the corner of St. Lawrence boulevard and Sherbrooke street for $135,000. As soon as they purchased it, it ceased to contribute to the revenue of the city. The nuns held it for a year and a half, and then sold it for $395,000, making a profit of $260,000 not a cent of which went to the coffers of the city, whose activities made the land increase in value. A few years ago the ‘ ‘ Hornerites ‘ ‘ purchased a property on Bleury street for $3,000, built a little church on it which cost $4,000, and sold it a few months ago for over $80,000. St. George’s Church, opposite the Windsor Station, was recently sold for upwards of $1,500,000, although it cost but a very small fraction of this. For the Archbishop ‘s palace on Dominion Square, assessed at but a trifle over $800,000, an offer of $3,000,000 is said to have been made.

The Seminary of St. Sulpice maintains a farm of nearly one hundred acres in the heart of Montreal and Westmount. It is valued at $1,750,000. Various other farms within the city limits are valued at from a quarter of a million to half a million dollars. These farms are entirely surrounded by the highest class residential property and entail enormous expenses on the citizens who contribute to the city’s upkeep. Sidewalks and streets must be opened past these farms, street railway lines constructed, sewers and water mains laid to the residences beyond, telephone lines and all other public utilities carried past these vacant spaces. The improvements made to the residential property adjoining these farms enormously enhance their value, and many of these farms, if broken up into building lots—as is done from time to time—would sell to-day at over two dollars per square foot.

It must not be inferred from the above that the Roman Catholic Church is the only Church which has its property exempt from taxation. Every religious denomination is exempt, but as the Roman Catholic Church constitutes over fourfifths of the population, their exemptions naturally greatly exceed those of all the other denominations combined. In addition the Roman Catholic Church has many semi-religious, educational, and charitable bodies connected with its organization, who seem to have specialized in real estate investments. Many of these orders have become immensely wealthy, and to-day own large farms in the residential districts, on which they pay not one cent of taxes. When the question does come up for settlement, it will be dealt with not as a religious question, but as an economic one. If all the Churches and religious orders were made to pay taxes on their holdings, none of them could reasonably complain. They should at least contribute part of their unearned increment to the city, which furnishes them with public^ utilities and makes possible the increase in their realty earnings.

Certainly something must be done to secure more revenue. Montreal’s total assessment today is $638,000,000, of which $136,000,000 is exempt from taxation. Three years ago the taxable property in the city was $260,000,000, while the exempt property was $68,000,000. In the three years the exempted property has more than doubled, while the taxable property has not shown a similar increase. The city has a debt of $63,- 000,000, or a per capita debt of $118. Out of her revenue $2,750,000, or over twenty-seven per cent, is paid out yearly as interest charges. The city has the unenviable reputation of being the worst governed city on the continent. Its streets are dirty, poorly paved, and ill-lighted, while the whole civic machinery is open to condemnation. In spite of all this, Montreal adds to her exempted property millions every year. The more thoughtful business men in the city and in the council are asking where it is to end. The question is one of the biggest confronting the people of Montreal to-day.

Not alone in the matter of municipal taxation is the Roman Church, of which you are the head, enemy of the people of Quebec and of the Dominion of Canada, but also in the grave issues of sanitation. Read from The Toronto Globe, Ontario, organ of Sir Wilfred Laurier:

Montreal, Feb. 16.—The smallpox situation in the Province of Quebec at the present time is causing some uneasiness in medical circles. There are now 31 counties in the province reporting smallpox cases, and the total of cases reported is between two and three hundred.

The more funerals, the more revenue for priests and Church !

Two rebellions in the Canadian Northwest were started and guided by the Roman priesthood. The leader of each of these rebellions was one Eiel, at one time a student for the Roman Catholic priesthood. Archbishop Tache, the leading Romanist hierarch of the Canadian Northwest, was a hater profound of the English language and, in especial manner, of the Irish race. He wanted the great Northwest, now divided into the flourishing Anglo-Saxon and Protestant provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta, closed against immigration and settlement. Certain high officials of the Hudson Bay Company, from which the Roman prelate received large pecuniary subventions, lent inspiration and encouragement to Archbishop Tache’s anti-British and anti-Canadian crusade, in re Northwestern colonization.

But for his anti-Canadian writings on the subject of the Northwest’s acquisition and settlement, there had been no Riel rebellion, no shedding of Protestant blood at Fort Garry in 1870. All of old Canada resounded at the time with the call of the West:

The West is calling, calling,
Seeking men who can rejoice
In her beauties all-enthralling;
Quick, awaken to her voice!

Wild her cataracts are falling,
Reigning lone in mountain glen
Aye, the West is ever calling,
Ever calling loud for men !

Hark, her deserts vast are chanting
Out their song—a voiceless song;
And, her arid wastes are panting
Neath the sun the live year long.

The West is calling, calling;
Wake, ye dreamers, hear her cry !
See her beauties all-enthralling
Spread their wealth beneath the sky!

Golden sunshine in abundance,
Fruits and flowers and joy’s release—
Eden’s garden’s fair resemblance
Lies within her land of peace!

This call, so well expressed by Eugene Carroll Nowland, appealed profoundly to all Englishspeaking and Protestant Canada. But Archbishop Tache, direct agent of the Vatican, desired to have the Northwest closed forever against Anglo-Saxon colonization or transformed by iniquitously partisan and sectarian legislation into another Quebec.

Archbishop Tache ‘s successor in Manitoba is as much in earnest in 1913 as was Tache himself from 1851 till 1894 in the work of Gallicizing and Romanizing the Canadian Northwest. The Montreal Star of May 7, 1913, states :

R. C. Archbishop Commends Roblin Education Policy.

Winnipeg, May 6.—Archbishop Langevin has issued an important pronouncement upon the school question in the form of a letter to be read in the Catholic churches. A portion of the document was read at High Mass in St. Boniface Cathedral on Sunday by Monsignor Dugas, Vicar- General, and the remainder is to be made public on a future occasion. The letter is an exposition of His Grace’s views on the school issue.

The Archbishop laments that the bill enlarging the boundaries of Manitoba did not safeguard the rights of the minority. The Coldwell amendments were, he says, the result of negotiations at Ottawa, following the passage of the bill.

It is also pointed out that the acceptance by the Winnipeg School Board of the proposition made by Mr. Coldwell would be a partial concession, and would not be regarded as a settlement in full.

The Roblin government is highly commended for having given French-Catholics their own normal school, three inspectors of their own language and faith, the right of French schools to employ teachers in religious garb, and to keep the crucifix upon the walls of the schools.

These are declared to be “appreciable services.’ Commendation, though less specific, is also passed upon the Saskatchewan government.

The letter closes with a declaration of unalterable hostility to national schools, State university, and compulsory education.

A province of Manitoba, a postage stamp on the map, was in 1870 carved out of the immense Canadian Northwest. Catholic separate schools and the French as an official language were promptly forced on the new province.

This Jesuitical scheme failed, however, to work. Of the immigrants to the newly-opened Northwest nine out of every ten were Englishspeaking and Protestant. The French was, first, abolished as an official language. Sectarian Romanist schools were, next, done away with. The priests had been drawing salaries, in most cases, as teachers, and never kept school !

No sooner, however, were the so-called Roman Catholic schools abolished, than the Hierarchy raised the cry of persecution! Appeals were made to the general government at Ottawa and to the government of Britain against the action of the Manitoba legislature in providing free public schools for all children in the provinces, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. Grave crime, of course, in papal eyes!

Your Holiness can not name any non-Christian country on earth into which your missionaries have entered and bettered permanently the inhabitants. I present, in this connection, the following Washington dispatch published in the Courier- Journal, Louisville, Ky., February 8, 1913:

Washington, February 7.—With the transmission to Congress to-day by President Taft of a special State Department report on Anglo- Saxon exploitation of South American Indians in the Putuyamo District of Peru, conclusions on the same subject by Frederico Alfonso Pezet, Peruvian Minister to the United States, were made public by the State Department.

The latter statement shows that the Peruvian Government has been aware of every step taken by American Consul Stuart J. Fuller, and the minister gives the assurance that already steps have been taken by his government for the improvement of conditions in the Putumayo territory.

Although it was at first feared that Consul Fuller’s efforts had been rendered valueless in many respects by the espionage of agents of a British rubber company, State Department officials now are hopeful that the crying abuses of which the native Indians have been long-suffering victims eventually will be terminated.

In bringing the Putumayo District under the protection of Peruvian law, the administration of justice, the minister points out that his government will rely largely upon the co-operation of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

The moral uplift of the aborigines has received very special attention [says Minister Pezet] . The administration ha s decided to erect at Iquitos, on the Amazon, a bishopric, and to establish at different places in the region five missions.

These will have a sufficient number of priests to serve the spiritual needs of the Indians, as well as to furnish instructions to them. By thus living with and among them, these Indians will be effectively protected from any new attempts to maltreat or brutalize them in any manner or form.

He says the government at Lima will seek to keep in constant communication with the Putumayo country by wireless, and a flotilla of gunboats will patrol the streams in the district to see that there is no return to the old outrages.

As a result of the investigations by the Peruvian Judicial Commission [he continues] the several parties indicted for the crimes against the aborigines will be brought to justice and such of the criminals as had fled the country will be brought back as soon as the proper extraditions can be obtained.

Consul Fuller finds that the travesty on justice which exists in the rubber section is entirely in the hands of the Peruvian Amazon Rubber Company’s section chiefs. It is the Putumayo country’s remoteness from the Peruvian capital, from all governmental authority, that has left the natives entirely at the mercy of the company, according to the report.

The Andes form an almost impassable barrier to the westward, while, to reach the outside world through the Atlantic Ocean, river craft must traverse almost the entire 3,300 miles of the Amazon. Railroads are unknown, and no highways exist worthy of the name. In this far-away corner, with no means of appeal or redress, the Indians were held at the mercy of the company’s overseers. When they failed to bring in a toll sufficient to satisfy the demands of the overseers, flogging, mutilation, and sometimes death followed, it is asserted. Several of the overseers are declared to have admitted that they had put Indians and even white laborers in stocks for minor offenses. Many of the Indians whom Mr. Fuller saw bore scars of floggings and other maltreatment.

Mr. Fuller found that the labor of the Indians is secured by a system of peonage based on advance of merchandise. Although payment is made for this labor, it is declared to be nothing more nor less than forced labor.

Debt is declared to have been the chain with which the Indian has been fettered. By being encouraged to buy more imported goods than they could ever hope to pay for, they have been reduced to what Consul Fuller found was virtually slavery. As claims are transferable, the person of the debtor being transferred to the new creditor, the Indians and their families really are bought and sold. Families pass on indebtedness from generation to generation.

Your missionaries have been for four centuries among the aborigines of South America, Peru, of course, included. They should, surely, in that time have made the influences of Christianity, if these influences were really represented and reflected by them, felt among the aborigines of South America. The fact is that your Romanistic System does not anywhere, either in the Canadian Northwest or in Central or South America, work for the real upliftment of the ignorant or the downtrodden.

When Roman hierarchs in Montreal, Canada, in anarchical defiance of their country’s and of the British Empire’s laws, annulled a marriage legal before God and man, reducing lawfully wedded wife to rank of concubine and branding her children as bastards, the Orange Order of the Canadian Dominion rose up generously to protect womanhood wronged and childhood outraged.

Romish divorce courts, sitting under the very shadow of the very Vatican itself, are, every day, issuing divorces. So they are in all other countries of Europe and in all parts of America — conspicuously so in the United States and in Canada. These anarchical agencies act more openly and defiantly in French-Catholic Canada, where in very recent times they have separated a vinculo et thoro Mrs. Tremblay, a lawfullymarried woman, from her husband, who, on finding another woman he liked better, went to popish priest and had the latter declare null and void, for cash considerations, of course, his marriage to lawful wife, and mother of his children, that he might marry the other and younger party with full approval of Church and State.

How utterly indefensible is the Roman Catholic priesthood’s action in this matter is very clear, from the fact that the priest who first married the Tremblays was bound by Church law to ascertain if any relationship or other impediment existed to prevent their marriage. Having satisfied himself on this point, he might proceed with the ceremony, either on his own authority or through the dispensing power of his bishop.

No justification whatever, in any case, is there for the annulment of a marriage between third cousins when the Church, after every opportunity to investigate, declares the parties competent under ecclesiastical law to wed. The State allowing such infamy is unfit for self-government.

Thus tells The Toronto Globe, April 5, 1913, of the Tremblay case:

Ottawa, April 4.—The Grand Master of the Orangemen of British North America, Lieut-Col. J. M. Scott of Walkerton, has, it is understood, forwarded to Montreal the balance of the amount of the security required by the judgment of the Court of Review of Quebec to be deposited within fifteen days for appeal to the Privy Council in the Tremblay-Depatie marriage case.

Arnold Wainwright, K. C, of Montreal, has the now famous suit in charge. Although both parties are Roman Catholics, it is felt by the Orange Order that the cause is one of justice to Mrs. Tremblay. The limited time set for the appeal to the Privy Council necessitated immediate action, and the response to Mr. Wainwright ‘s appeal has been prompt. J. H. Burnham, M. P. for West Peterborough, contributed $500 to the fund earlier this week.

Montreal, April 4.—Arnold Wainwright, K. C, counsel for Mrs. Napoleon Tremblay, the appellant in the fourth-cousins marriage annulment case, this morning made application before the Court of Review for an extension of the time set for the deposit of $2,000 as security for costs before the appeal to the Privy Council can be taken.

Mr. Justice Delorimier said that it would not be necessary to put up cash, as real estate would be considered as security by the court. His Lordship also stated that Mr. Wainwright yet had nine days in which to get the security, and he thought that would be adequate.

Mr. Wainwright, it is said, had made his application because the court rose to-day until the sixteenth.

Paul Germain, K. C, who appeared on behalf of the husband, objected to the delay, and argued that Mrs. Tremblay, when the appeal proceedings were begun, months back, should have then made provision for the security for costs. He also held that an affidavit from Mrs. Tremblay authorizing the appeal should have been submitted to the court.

Mr. Wainwright said he had filed his own affidavit that Mrs. Tremblay ‘s authorization to proceed had been secured. He further remarked that no matter what happened, the decision of the Privy Council on the case would be obtained.

Judgment was reserved by their Lordships.

Quebec is the most illiterate and backward Province of the Canadian Dominion, because its school system is priest-ridden. Ontario is every day becoming more and more a Romanized satrapy, because political partisan exigencies connive at the Gallicization and Romanization of whole counties in its eastern section. Rome has blotted out the Protestants of Quebec as a political factor in that important section of the Dominion. There were, in 1867, when the Canadian Provinces were federated, from fourteen to sixteen counties in Quebec, with Protestant populations sufficiently large or influential to entitle the minority to sixteen out of sixty-five representatives in Parliament. There are to-day four counties only in Quebec out of sixty-five where the Protestants are numerically strong enough to insist on having a Protestant representative in Parliament.

The school system of Quebec is under control, absolutely and exclusively, of the French bishops of Canada. All the bishops who have dioceses, either wholly or partially in Quebec, are members ex-officio of the Council of Public Instruction. The Archbishop of Ottawa, the Bishop of Pembroke, and the Vicar Apostolic of Temiskaming, who all live in Ontario, and the Bishop of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, having portions of their dioceses within the territorial limits of Quebec Province, are also members exofficio of this French Canadian Council of Public Instruction. Three or four lay delegates are reluctantly permitted by the Bishops to sit and vote as members of this Council.

This Council, having full and entire charge of the school system of Quebec as to religious instruction, discipline, text-books, teachers and their qualifications, meets four times a year in the Parliament Buildings at Quebec City.

The members are given mileage to and from their places of residence, all the Bishops having at the same time in inside pocket railroad passes ; they are further paid $10 per diem for arduous services in the promotion of popular benightment and moral degradation.

The rural schoolhouses of Quebec, and many of those in towns, are in disgraceful condition of dilapidation and inefficiency, the text-books antiquated and inferior, the teachers poorly qualified. But their “Graces” and their “Lordships” of the French Hierarchy of Canada wax fat and rich on the unfortunate people forced to bow to their i i educational control. Of Americans and all other civilized men, I ask—Do you want this Romanized Quebec present-day system of schools foisted upon your children to darken their minds, enslave their bodies, and paralyze their every energy?

The English language was at one time frequently enough heard in the Quebec Legislature. Now it is very rarely used in that body. No French member thinks of using it. The English speaking member who employs the English language in a supposedly British Legislature at Quebec is forced to address empty benches!

Your System has made the English-speaking British subject an alien in language, laws, and religion in a land over which his country’s flag is by the Vatican still permitted to float!

I am, Respectfully,
Jeremiah J. Crowley.

Subject: The Failure of the Romanist Priesthood as an Instrumentality of Human Upliftment.

“Your Holiness:”
Your priesthood has been tried and found wanting. Your missionaries have nowhere builded structures of permanency. Why? Because they have preached popery, not the gospel of Jesus Christ. You point, indeed, to your Francis Xaviers and others. Xavier was a gloomy fanatic, whose work left no enduring result in the Far East, where your historians claim for him millions of conversions. Compared he may not be for one moment with the immortal David Livingstone, brave, tireless “watchman of the night, who toiled when all was dark.” What other man, but true Christian missionary like Livingstone, could draw fitting eulogy like that from the diamond pen of Adelaide M. Plumtre:

Who is ‘t that asks that he be not forgot?
Why should he miss his fellows’ common lot?
Why speak of him, after a hundred years,
When Time has wov’n oblivion o’er his peers?

This was the man who left the laboring loom,
Forsook the student’s life, to pierce the gloom
Of matted jungle, brave the swamp’s foul breath,
In Africa. Where ofttimes lonely Death

Stood by the flood, lurked in the treach’rous grass,
And watched, with greedy eyes, his victim pass.
Dauntless, the traveller walked; nor storm nor sun
Feared he, “immortal till his work was done.”

Light weighed he wealth, and those dear household joys
That dip the scale when men in judgment poise
That good ‘gainst this, wejl knowing that they choose
But once. So chose he, wittingly, to lose

All that strong men hold dear, that he might save
From his long doom of woe the moaning slave.
This was his hope—to salve “the open sore”
That bled the world, and for this cause he bore

Loss of all earthly honors, counting it but gain,
If he might win the world to loathe the stain
And curse of slavery. Yet not this alone
Could satisfy the heart of Livingstone.

Forever as he went he held on high
The Cross of Him who loved enough to die.
So passed he through the land, righting the wrong,
Helping the weak to struggle with the strong.
Telling of love and making love seem true
Because he sought the deeds of love to do.

I have interesting testimony from the Very-
Rev. E. J. Vattmann, “Missionary Apostolic,” and Chaplain U. S. Army, an enterprising Catholic priest, who, by President McKinley’s own appointment, visited the Philippine Islands on an official mission. His mission was to ascertain, right on the ground, the social and religious conditions of the Philippine populations, with the view of enabling the American Government to devise—from information such as he might obtain— the best measures for establishing an enduring form of government in the archipelago under distinctly American auspices.

Father Vattmann informed me personally on his return from the Philippines that ninety-eight per cent of the priests in the Philippines were living brazenly and defiantly in concubinage the most flagrant and often revolting.

When Vattmann gave me this information, he was soliciting immunity from exposure for his friend and co-worker, Father Heldmann, to whose shameless exploits explicit reference is made on pages 412-415 of my book, “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation.’

Vattmann, when stationed as Senior U. S. Army Chaplain at Fort Sheridan, near Chicago, spent the major part of his time going about from one priest’s house to another in the city, dining, wining, and soliciting moneys for purgatorial masses, reaping rich harvests indeed.

Vattmann is now a pensioner on the United States Treasury—but besides drawing pay from our Government for services (?), he acts as Secretary, member of the Board of Directors, and of the Executive Committee of “The Catholic Colonization Society, U. S. A.,” with headquarters in Chicago. This Society has agents at work all over Europe. See “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation,” Chapter VI, pp. 104-108.

For his services as Secretary and Director of this organization Vattmann draws liberal pay. He stands in well with railroads and other transportation agencies, to whose revenues the land companies controlled by this Catholic Colonization Society are liberal contributors, for the conveyance of immigrants to their destination in various parts of the West and Southwest.

The owners of the lands upon which the Catholic settlements of Vattmann’s organization are founded provide, free of charge, Romanist church buildings, schools, nunneries, and priests ‘ houses, thus placing foreign-governed Roman Church in absolute control of large sections of American territory.

Your missionaries replace a purely pagan superstition with a semi-Christian superstition incapable of inspiring respect for the Christian domestic life established by the religious system of Jesus Christ. Your unmarried missionaries often lead in pagan lands lives sadly at variance with Gospel teachings. The lecherous missionary can not inspire intelligent heathens, (millions of intelligent heathens there are), with respect for clean, moral living.

Your clergy are taught disrespect for the married state. Often they revolt from the cruel condition of unmoral servitude imposed by a heartless System. A recent instance is just one of many constantly occurring in this and other countries:

Special dispatch to Commercial Tribune,

New York, Feb. 16th.—For the first time in New York Church circles a Roman Catholic priest of years of experience, and for the last five years of great prominence, entered to-day upon the rectorship of a Protestant Episcopal Church.

The Rev. William Thomas Walsh, a leading member of the Society of St. Paul, or as they are better known, the Paulist Fathers, whose church is that of St. Paul the Apostle, at Columbus Avenue and Sixtieth Street, became rector of St. Mary’s Episcopal Church, Alexander Avenue, near 142d Street, one of the old and well-known Episcopal Churches of the Bronx.

During his connection with the Paulist Fathers, Father Walsh was one of the special preachers to non-Catholics. He was selected for this work because of his eloquence and because of his ability to argue in favor of Catholicism and against the Protestants. Last November Bishop Greer received him into the Episcopal Church without additional ordination, but requiring a good deal of study of the Protestant position. To-day he put him in charge of St. Mary’s, whose vestry has formally elected him rector. — The Commercial Tribune, Cincinnati, February 17, 1913.

The Independent, New York, July 3, 1913, refers to the withdrawal, within a few years, of seven Paulist Fathers from that Order, and of not a few other priests in this country and in Europe, a number of them even Jesuits.

No respect has your System for the sacredness of the marriage tie. Money may buy divorce from your courts, which override and defy all State laws on the subject of marriage. How the papal divorce tribunals bleed litigants for all they are worth is clear from the following:

Rome, March 8th.—Mgr. Parrillo, defender of the matrimonial bond, has appealed against the recent decision of the Rota Tribunal, annulling the marriage of Count Boni de Castellane and Anna Gould, now the Duchess de Talleyrand.

Two decisions have already been rendered by this court—the first, against Count de Castellane, who sought the annulment, and the second, reversing the former decree and granting the annulment. The case will now come up for the third time at the sitting of the Rota, about two months hence, and Mgr. Parrillo Js appeal has been entrusted to Mgr. John Prior, an English member of the Rota Tribunal, for the necessary investigations.

No matter what the decision of this court may be, another appeal is possible, but only if based on errors in the procedure or in the law, or on new evidence. In that event the Segnatura Tribunal, the Supreme Court of the Vatican, might either reject the appeal, or, if it admits the claims, decide that there must be another hearing before the Rota Tribunal. It is not probable that a final decision will be reached before July or August. — Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky., March 9, 1913.

Rome, May 3d.—The verdict of the Tribunal of the Rota annulling the marriage of Count Boni de Castellane to Anna Gould, now the Duchess of Talleyrand-Perigord, will shortly be published. Count Boni de Castellane has been trying to secure this annulment for some time, and has carried the matter through several of the Vatican tribunals. The following is an authentic summary of the decision of the Rota Tribunal:

“This case was brought before three Judges of the Rota Tribunal, who heard the evidence of the plaintiff, which showed that Anna Gould’s consent to a Catholic ceremony and the other necessary agreements before the marriage was invalid. Following this witness, the court heard Count John de Castellane, a brother of the plaintiff; Prince John del Drago, and Mrs. Catherine Cameron.

“Further evidence was brought by the plaintiff to show that even after their marriage Anna insisted that she was free to divorce her husband. The evidence produced by the defendant with the object of proving that neither before nor after marriage had she spoken of divorce consisted of the following witnesses: Howard Gould, Edwin Gould, George Gould, Edith Kingdon Gould, Addie Woodward Adams, and Edna Montgomery. After quoting numerous canonists, the Judges declared the marriage null and void for lack of consent.”

As soon as this decision is promulgated the defenders of the matrimonial bond will appeal against it, and the case will be brought before the Rota Tribunal. The Duchess Talleyrand- Perigord has instructed Mgr. Patrizi to look after her interest and further evidence, since the case has been decided against her for lack of sufficient evidence. — The Commercial Tribune, Cincinnati, May 4, 1913.

Pope Pius X, “Vicar of Christ” acting as Chief Justice in the Castellane-Gould divorce case recently before the Vatican’s Supreme Court of Divorce, decides finally in favor of Count Boni. The Catholic Telegraph, June 19, 1913, tells part of the inhuman, un-Christian story:

Rome, June 7.—The second Rota judgment in the Castellane-Gould marriage case upsets the previous sentence and declares the marriage null. The count based his first appeal to the Holy See on the plea that Anna Gould married him with the intention of getting a divorce—which is contrary to the very essence of Christian marriage. The Rota found that his case was not sufficiently proved, and decided against him. He appealed. The evidence he adduced was that a quarter of an hour before the marriage Anna Gould declared to his (the count’s) mother that she did not really know if she wished to be married or not. To the Prince del Drago she said:

Yes, I will go before the archbishop, as you tell me that it must be so, but, understand clearly, I am getting married without really knowing why, and under pressure from the count, without having time to reflect. In my case, I want both you and the count to fully understand that I am a Protestant and an American, while he is a Catholic and French; that marriage for us has not the same significance ; and that I am determined to leave him and get a divorce if I like. We have the advantage over you Catholics that we can marry again and you can not. That is why I did not want to become a Catholic.

Three other witnesses besides the Prince del Drago bore out this statement.

Anna Gould denied having used these words, and said she accepted the marriage freely. She never spoke of divorce during the first three years of married life. Then she had suspicions, later amounting to certainty, of his infidelity, and she got a separation, and subsequently a divorce. Asked if at the moment of marriage she intended to remain always with her husband or if she had a divorce in her mind, she replied :

I was still quite a child. The possibility of a second marriage had not occurred to me. I said “yes” as I was getting married in the ordinary way that any one gets married. I had no other thought.

The judges note several discrepancies in her evidence. Turning to the law of the case, they put above all the absolute principle of the indissolubility of marriage being a sacrament. They quote authorities, from St. Thomas Aquinas to Cardinal Gasparri, to the effect that a marriage in which the indissolubility is not recognized is not a marriage. On that account they upset the previous decision and declare the marriage null.

The Roman Catholic Church decrees and declares that her pious, pure, faithful, and loyal son Boni is now free to marry again, and that the children born to him by his lawful and legitimate wife, Anna Castellane, nee Gould, are “bastards”!!!

Were the litigants in this Castellane case poor, Rome had never given it the smallest attention. But Boni de Castellane has managed somehow to lay hand on an abundant supply of cash; the Duke de Sagan has now, and always has had it, in plenty; so also have the Goulds. Thus the Roman ecclesiastical vampires fatten on the prolongation of this and similar cases. And yet, we are told there is no divorce in the Catholic Church.

The most indecent and libidinous books extant are the treatises on what the Romanist clergy call Moral (?) Theology. These books are for the exclusive use of the clergy. They laugh and joke about their suggestiveness in every-day speech. Before, in fact, any young man is advanced to priestly orders, he is subjected to special instruction on sins of the flesh, even the most forbidding and abominable, by some older priestly professor.

To keep up appearances as defenders of social purity, the Romanist bishops of Ireland have of late entered upon a crusade against British papers accused of licentious tendencies and teachings. A letter from Dublin, February 22, 1913, to the Courier-Journal, Louisville, Ky., gives a view of this hypercritical, not to say hypocritical, Romanist movement:

Dublin, February 22d.—(Special.)—The campaign against the “vile publications which come to us from across the water’ ‘—the words are those used by the Catholic Bishop of Derry — gathers in force and vehemence. It must be admitted that the enthusiasm which has led to the boycott of Dublin news stores which handle certain English publications is not entirely due to a dislike of pernicious literature.

The opportunity of getting even with English newspapers is far too tempting to be resisted. With characteristic humor even the “Hooligans” of Dublin have joined in this purity crusade, which has for its professed object the suppression of the sale in Ireland of half a dozen Sunday newspapers published in England, which get huge circulation chiefly by their detailed reports of filthy divorce and police court cases.

It will interest American readers to know that the Sunday newspaper published by W. R. Hearst in London — The Weekly Budget—is not blacklisted by these crusaders. It is one of the few English Sunday newspapers that are now allowed to be sold openly in the streets of Dublin.

This agitation has already resulted in arrests, and may cause actions for criminal conspiracy to be brought by the English proprietors of the banned newspapers. Two well-to-do brothers named Larkin recently were arrested and fined $5 apiece for causing obstruction on Sunday afternoon by distributing handbills in Dorset Street, outside of an offending news-vendor’s store, and refusing to desist in compliance with the policeman’s request. The LarMns are members of the Dublin Vigilance Committee, supported by practically every bishop in Ireland, and is adopting in the cause of Christian purity those time-honored methods of boycott and intimidation that played such prominent part in Ireland’s struggle for self-government.

The handbills which caused the disturbance bore the inscription: ” Do n’t deal with shops which sell bad Sunday papers or other evil literature.”

After the arrests were made a great crowd threw mud into the news-vendor’s store, and his windows were covered with Purity placards. Other arrests are likely to be made in the near future.

An interesting phase of this agitation is that in the eye of the law the blacklisted English newspapers are entirely respectable. They also have the largest circulations of any newspapers in the world, two of them exceeding 2,000,000 every Sunday. Yet they publish details in connection with assault and other cases that would never find their way into a daily newspaper in the United States.

How determined the Irish people are to put a stop to the circulation of such newspapers can be gauged from the statements made on the subject by the following religious leaders:

Cardinal Logue—”I have often before warned the people against the moral ruin to which so many are exposed by vile publications, which are not only offered, but forced upon them by every device ingenuity can suggest. Unscrupulous agents for a little ill-gotten gain circulate these publications in spite of all remonstrance. What is most astonishing is that this corrupting traffic goes on openly under the very eyes of the supposed guardians of public order and decency, without the least effort to bring the delinquents to account. They tell of detectives and employ every device and disguise—and rightly so—to trap even those who adulterate food; one would think that similar ingenuity would be well employed in detecting the corrupters of public morals. It is not so in other countries, even in those governed by the professed enemies of Christianity. Thank God! our people have at last taken the matter in their own hands ; and they have embarked in a noble cause.’ ‘

Dr. Walsh, Archbishop of Dublin. ” There are in this city persons calling themselves Catholics who, by taking part in this sinful traffic in publications of a debasing, seductive, or otherwise irreligious character, lend themselves to the diabolical work of undermining both the morals and the faith of our Catholic people. Let it be clearly understood that such unworthy members of the Church, as long as they persevere in their evil courses, are unworthy to be admitted to the sacraments.”

Dr. Healy, Archbishop of Tuam. — ” Those booksellers where this unsavory 190 THE POPE—HIGH PRIEST OF INTRIGUE literature is exposed for sale must be cautioned, and if they persist in such noxious traffic, the faithful must be warned against frequenting their shops for any purpose.’ ‘

Dr. Fennelly, Archbishop of Cashel. — “In the case of the destroyers of purity by the sale of bad literature, the Lord will rush at them on the day of judgment with the fury of a wild beast robbed of her whelps, and take vengeance on them for the souls of which He is being robbed by their abominable traffic.”

Dr. McHugh, Bishop of Derry. “Irish publications like the Irish Press are as a rule pure and clean. The great source of danger is to be found in the vile publications which come to us from across the water. Is it not an intolerable state of things to find a few persons for the sake of worldly gain undermining and corrupting the morality of a people!”

From the foregoing it can be readily seen how determined and serious are the leading spirits of this campaign, although half the zest of the fight, from the public point of view, lies in the fact that all this class of literature is published in well-behaved England.

If the prohibition of immoral literature came from a notably clean and moral body of men, attention profound it would surely command. But the Irish Roman Catholic bishops are not noteworthy for clean moral living or sobriety. One Irish bishop was by Leo XIII forced to resign on a well-proven charge of bastardy. Others just as guilty have escaped deposition because cunning enough to cover their tracks.

There lived for several years in Toronto, Canada, one Timothy O’Mahony, Bishop of Eudocia, in partibus infidelium (in infidel parts), Auxiliary to the Archbishop of Toronto, and pastor of St. Paul’s Roman Catholic Church in that city. This man O’Mahony came to Canada with a past redolent of grossest licentiousness. O’Mahony, native of Cork, Ireland, was product direct and legitimate of the Roman Propaganda. Educated in Rome, ordained in Rome, Roman to the very uttermost limits of his being, in morality, in ambition, and in activity, he came back to Cork, where he was appointed assistant pastor of St. Finnbarr’s parish. To prove the orthodoxy and thoroughness of his Roman training, he became while there father of a child, “Mary O’Mahony.’ ‘ Named soon after, in 1870, Bishop of Armidale, Australia, he voted in the Vatican Council for papal infallibility, and then went to his antipodean diocese to test the fallibility of women. He became in a short time father of several children. Archbishop Vaughan, of Sydney, impelled by public opinion, petitioned Rome for O’Mahony’s removal. Brazen and defiant, O’Mahony went to the Eternal City and made some attempt at defense, but the Propaganda, knowing his record in Ireland and in Australia, promoted His Lordship to Toronto, Canada — “Promoveatur ut removeatur” (“Let him be promoted that he may be removed”).

* When Bishops have to be shelved for crime, or any other cause, or given a titular standing, Rome accords them a title taken from AEgean Sea Islands or Asia or Africa, where schismatics, pagans and infidels now hold sway. The shelved or nominal prelate is not obliged to go to his new diocese. He is simply reduced to a condition of innocuous desuetude. Leo XIII. abolished the title in partibus infidelium, substituting for it “Titular Bishop of Eudocia, ^Echinas, etc.” Coadjutor and auxiliary bishops receive only titular standing.

Archbishop John Joseph Lynch, of Toronto, himself under gravest charges of personal misconduct, happened at the time to be in Rome. Lynch entered into an agreement with the Propaganda. If the latter dropped its charges against him, he (Lynch) would relieve Rome and the Propaganda of the very unwelcome presence and importunities of Papa O’Mahony. Coming to Canada, O’Mahony began conspiring against his benefactor, Lynch, and made himself odious to the public in the Christian city of Toronto by some deplorable alcoholic outbreaks.

There was, in 1874, held at Quebec a bicentenary celebration of the foundation of that Roman Catholic diocese. Bishops from all parts of the Canadian Dominion were invited to be present. The English-speaking preacher for the occasion was to be “The Most Reverend” John Joseph Lynch, of Toronto. But “His Grace” was, on the night appointed for his sermon, so very much under the influence of intoxicants as to be forced to remain in retirement. The sermon was preached by an itinerant priest !

“The Right Reverend” John Walsh, Bishop of London, Ontario, Canada, paid for years house rent for a disreputable woman. This same prelate was several times taken off the street by his priests when his helplessly intoxicated condition gave scandal to passersby. His grossly immoral conduct caused several sisters to leave one of the convents of his episcopal city. His administration there ended in financial scandal.

This same bishop imported from Ireland a priest, whom he appointed Secretary of the Diocese and pastor of St. Mary’s Church, London. His Lordship’s secretary proved an enterprising disciple of Venus. He supported several mistresses. He was forbidden the home of a wellknown Catholic publisher, this judicious publisher having an impressionable daughter who had fallen victim of the Secretary’s good graces. This lecherous “Ambassador (?) of Christ” is now office bearer—to-wit, one of the Examiners of the clergy—in the State of Nebraska !

For his success in promoting morality per se et per alios, the libidinous Bishop of London aforesaid was by Rome promoted to the archiepiscopal see of Toronto, Canada.

“The Right Reverend” John O’Brien, D. D., Bishop of Kingston, Ontario, died, in 1879, of alcoholism in a Quebec hotel. The see of Kingston having fallen vacant under circumstances most painful and humiliating, the Vatican appointed thereto an Irish priest, James Vincent Cleary, of the diocese of Waterford. Cleary was high-strung, injudicious, and intemperate. He had large quantities of Irish whisky shipped to him direct from the “old sod,” the boxes bearing the label, ” Books, not to be opened.’ ‘ A zealous customs officer at Kingston, allowing his curiosity to master discretion, once insisted on having a box of these episcopally consigned ” books’ ‘ opened. There were in the box more bottles than books. But the indiscreet officer soon after got warning from his superiors at Ottawa to leave the Bishop’s “books” severely alone.

A favorite at the Vatican in marked degree was Bishop Cleary. He was a liberal contributor to “Peter’s Pence” collections. He brought on his every visit to Rome a heavy contribution, levied vi et armis, from his Canadian diocese. Bishop Cleary was in consequence promoted to archiepiscopal honors. But no honors that Rome could give increased his popularity in the Canadian Dominion. He was, from first to last, one of the most unpopular prelates that ever held ecclesiastical sway in the Dominion.

J. M. Bruyere, who served as Vicar General under three Upper Canadian Bishops—De Charbonnel, of Toronto; Pinsonneault, of Sandwich, and Walsh, of London—had a typically interesting “missionary” career. Coming to America from Lyons, France, he first distinguished himself in New Orleans as an ardent devotee of Venus.

Things getting too warm for him on the Gulf Coast, he moved northward to Kentucky. There his attentions to Negro wenches and white slaves involving him in trouble, he moved to Toronto, where Bishop De Charbonnel, his fellow-countryman, made him Vicar General. He was not long in Toronto till he seduced a young woman of St. Paul’s parish. Father Fitzmaurice, a respectable priest, pastor of that Church, entered formal protest against Bruyere before Bishop Phelan, of Kingston, Senior Bishop of the Province. But Bishop Phelan, dying a few days after the receipt of the complaint without action taken thereon, the Fitzmaurice document, found among Pbelan’s papers, was acted on in a way very different from that which justice and decency called for.

De Charbonnel, getting hold of the complaint, suspended Fitzmaurice for noble duty done! The people of Toronto refused, however, to approve Bishop De CharbonnePs action. All the more so as Soulerin, another French Vicar General of this very French Bishop, had, about the same time, seduced a nun. Murmurs of discontent first filled the air; a roar of indignation was headed off by the Vatican, which, advised of the demoralization brought on in Toronto by the beastly impurity of that city’s two Vicar Generals, Bruyere and Soulerin, as well as other priests in high places, disgusted at De CharbonnePs incompetency, which had made him a by-word and a reproach among leading Canadian Catholics, finally forced him to take an Irish-born Coadjutor, the aforesaid John Joseph Lynch, who, consecrated on November 20, 1859, became Bishop of Toronto April 26, 1860. De Charbonnel, followed by curses of a long outraged people, retired into a French monastery, where he died in obscurity in 1891.

Bruyere withdrew, on De Charbonnel’s retirement from Toronto, to another French Bishop, Pinsonneault, of Sandwich, a little French town opposite Detroit, made an episcopal see solely because it was French. There Bruyere, installed again as Vicar General, once more made himself odious to priests and people. Pinsonneault, vain and weak-minded, following Bruyere ‘s evil counsels, went on from one blunder to another till, forced to resign in 1866, after a ten years’ inglorious administration, he sunk into needed oblivion.

When the aforesaid John Walsh became, in November, 1867, Bishop of Sandwich, he retained Bruyere as Vicar General. Moving the see back to London in 1869, Walsh brought Bruyere to that thriving city. There for twenty or more years this little Frenchman, owing to Walsh’s alcoholic incompetency, lorded it mercilessly over priests and religious, male and female. His whole career in America was blackened by cruelty, lust, and selfish intolerance. Typical Roman ” missionary’ ‘ indeed!

The case of Rev. J. P. Molphy, of Ingersoll, Ontario, calls for special mention. Dying, this man left $10,000 to a young lady, Miss , forgetting his two poor sisters, whose hardearned money—made by them as chambermaids in New York City—secured him ordination as a priest. Molphy stood at one time so high in his Church as to be elected to the office of Grand President of the Catholic Mutual Benefit Association, commonly called the C. M. B. A. Noble celibate, in very truth!

Coming to Ottawa, the capital of the Canadian Dominion, we find a young French Canadian priest named Duhamel, made, in 1874, bishop of that important see. Little else had this young man to commend him for episcopal honors save the fact of his being a French Canadian, an allimportant qualification with the hierarchs of Quebec.

The leading, the most active priest then in Ottawa was a native of old France, “Father” Porcile. Full of Gallic enthusiasm, Porcile established, with Bishop DuhamePs warmest approval a new Religious Order to be devoted to teaching Catholic children. Some well-meaning young men entered the new Order. It had not been many weeks in existence when the whole community was startled and shocked by the revelation that Porcile had attempted to pervert the first home of the new Order into a temple of Sodom! Porcile fled, and the short-lived Order was suppressed. Not so, however, Porcile. He joined in New York the Order of the “Fathers of Mercy.” Of this Order, notwithstanding his Ottawa record, he became a presiding officer. He established at Vineland, N. J., under the auspices of the Fathers of Mercy, a College of the Sacred Heart, which became in a very short time such a repellent den of infamy that, upon repeated complaints from Vineland’s good citizens, Bishop O’Farrell of Trenton was compelled to suppress the institution. Porcile is now, or was recently, pastor of “Our Lady of Lourdes ,, Church, Brooklyn, N. Y.

Some years after his Porcilian experience, Bishop Duhamel sent for clerical training to Rome a young Irish Canadian candidate for holy orders, named Farrell J. McGovern. Returning to Canada immediately after ordination, McGovern was named “private Secretary’ ‘ to “His Grace” Archbishop Duhamel. The latter had been, in 1886, raised to the archiepiscopal honors due his overwhelmingly generous contributions to “Peter’s Pence.’ ‘ Young McGovern, profiting by his Roman training and experiences, resolved to secure for his own use and benefit in Ottawa a subservient and devoted “priestess.” He found the “priestess,” but his attentions to the lady were so defiant of discretion and decency that the Archbishop was obliged to relegate his “private Secretary ‘ ‘ to rural quiet and oblivion.

Interesting, too, is the case of “Father” H. J. McDevitt, D. D. (Doctor of Divinity), now of Portland, Oregon, where he is rector of the cathedral. McDevitt is a graduate of the American College in Rome. Made pastor, soon after ordination, of the Sacred Heart parish, Dayton, Ohio, he led a life of scandal so gross that he had to fly suddenly and finally from that city and State under threat of certain public exposure. The article for the press in re the McDevitt scandal had been actually written and was ready for publication at the time of his flight.

McDevitt told his credulous friends, before leaving Dayton, that, finding the life of the ordinary secular priest not rigorous enough, he had decided on joining the Passionist (should it be passionate?) Fathers.

Instead, he went to Omaha, but, things getting too hot for him even there, he moved to the more inviting and salubrious atmosphere of the Pacific Coast. He is Archbishop Christie’s fidus Achates, and champion of the Knights of Columbus.

McDevitt ‘s successor as pastor of the Sacred Heart parish, Dayton, was “Father” Finnerty, who had for housekeeper an English ex-barmaid of undoubted sportive proclivities. Finnerty ‘s conduct with this and other women was so shameless as to constitute a grievous public scandal. He went so far as to visit a hotel in a neighboring city with this ex-barmaid mistress, and register with her as husband and wife. This audacious indecency forced the Catholics of Dayton to rid themselves of his uncleanly presence.

A Dominican priest named Thompson was, according to the Daily News, Portland, Oregon, December 3, 1909, indicted there by the Federal Grand Jury for sending indescribably obscene matter through the United States mails, to two women in San Francisco. (See “Romanism— A Menace to the Nation,” p. 387.)

The evidence against Thompson was overwhelming and most revolting. Language refuses to express the baseness of the fellow’s conduct, decency rebels at the monstrosity of his indecencies. There is no parallel for his fiendishness, even in the annals of the Borgian papal era. I have personal knowledge of all the facts and details of this most forbidding case, derived from official sources, which, should it be translated into print, would damn forever the whole iniquitous institution of the Romish priesthood.

“Rev. Father’ ‘ W. R. Thompson was brought before Judge Wolverton. To head off revolting exposures, Priest Thompson entered at once a plea of guilty. There was no evidence, in detail, submitted. The confession of guilt was made to preclude it. Judge Wolverton, instead of immediately pronouncing condign punishment on this vile transgressor of all laws of civic and personal, Christian and individual decency, suspended sentence! Mild, humane Judge! How considerate to a priestly leper, deliberately using the mails of the United States to spread the virulence of his own moral distemper!

Judge Wolverton, finally yielding to pressure of prelates, priests, and politicians, turned Thompson over to the Dominican Fathers, with the understanding that he be placed in a sanitarium.

Where is Thompson to-day? Why is he not behind prison bars ? Why is not this wretch who polluted the country’s mails with sponges filled with his own seminal emissions not on a rock pile, where others are expiating crimes of less revolting character ? Let intriguing Romish prelate and ward-heeling Knight of Columbus answer. Why is this infamous corrupter of American womanhood, this base and brutal violator of American homes permitted to walk a free man on the soil of the United States, while the youth who steals a nickel, mayhap, to buy food, is incarcerated for years in reformatory cells?

The Thompson incident is typical manifestation of uncontrollable priestly lust and turpitude. All, who dare do it—I refer to priests—or would do as Thompson did, if the fear of lynch law did not hold them back.

Among Rome’s legion of lecherous priests in America there are hundreds of Thompsons. Look to it, reader, that some such an one is not, at this moment, polluting the sanctuary of your own home, or, at all events, busy with lechery in your own home town !

The Postoffice Department at Washington is being appealed to by Roman Catholic societies, and by individual Romanists of influence, lay and clerical, to exclude The Menace and such papers from the mails. The Menace is letting in the light on Roman infamies, such as the Thompson case. This good work is being promoted by several other papers of courage and conviction. The Romanists demand the exclusion of all such from the mails.

Romanists complain of The Menace and papers of its kind and class, but is there one of their own publications that does not, week in and week out, month in and month out, wallow in libellous and lying attacks on Protestant Christians and on Protestant organizations? Protestant denominations are, by the Romish press, denounced continuously, in language of the foulest character; Protestant clergymen, of highest class and standing, calumniated and vilified in lowest forms of speech; Protestant societies and orders charged with every crime on the calendar; Protestant missionaries abused and ridiculed.

The Catholic paper and periodical reek with infamous libel. Libel is, in fact, their chief stock in trade. Without it, they had little to say. With it, they fill column after column with choicest billingsgate and coarse mendaciousness.

The young mind, fed on the un-Christian, iniquitous, untruthful, and slanderous pabulum doled out every week by the Catholic press, blessed by pope and commended by prelates and priests—the people in many cases are ordered to pay for and take these vile sheets—is certain to be warped and darkened, perverted and demoralized.

If the mails of the United States are to be denied to any class of papers, it should be to Romanist organs of mendacity and calumny. Catholic books, too, filled with savage assaults on Protestantism, or reeking with obscene filth, or blackened with historic lie, pass in tons every year through the mails of the United States. Should these not call for attention from the Postmaster General?

Now, I do ask the fair-minded people of America, and the Postoffice Department in particular: Are you going to deny the mails to The Menace and other outspoken American papers, and permit priestly violators of America’s postal laws like Thompson, to go scot free, when convicted of guilty misuse and pollution of the mails f Is there to be one law for Protestant Americans and another for Romanist priests? Must the one suffer for denouncing organized crime, while the other is permitted to use the mails of the country to debauch girlhood and destroy womanhood?

Does Woodrow Wilson’s Administration want to plunge America into the horrors of a revolution?

No city in all rural Ohio with a more lawabiding and self-respecting Christian people than Troy, in Miami County. Startled, beyond power of expression, was this decent community when, in the early spring of 1906, rumor, specific and persistent, fastened on “Rev. Father’ ‘ F. J. Knipper, of St. Patrick’s Church, the shockingly atrocious charge of mistreating several young girls of his parish, in manner and by methods of revolting and unnatural indecency. These stupendous indecencies were committed on young girls most of them not yet out of short dresses, while Knipper was, ostensibly, preparing them for Confession and first Communion.

Advised of Knipper ‘s misconduct, Archbishop Moelier tardily appointed one Quatman, priest of Sidney, Ohio, to visit Troy and investigate (?) the charges against Knipper.

Knipper had, meantime, fled the coop. Quatman ‘s visit to Troy had been fixed by Archbishop Moeller for a Sunday, but, on the previous Wednesday, Knipper got to Cincinnati, whence, with the connivance no doubt, of his superiors, he fled into parts for a time to the general public unknown.

Quatman, after reading at the close of “Holy Mass” the letter of Archbishop Moeller, of Cincinnati, sympathizing with the broken-hearted parents of the outraged girls, and with the congregation generally, knew very well that Knipper was somewhere beyond the clutches of Ohio law, and the indignation of an aroused American community, closely safeguarded from just punishment by “Holy Mother Church.’ ‘ Hence, he (Quatman) felt free to condemn, in stentorian tones, the infamous and unnatural fugitive from justice, and hope (?) that he might be captured!

Quatman read, also, to the congregation of St. Patrick’s, Troy, the archiepiscopal document appointing him auditor of an investigating (?) committee, and then bravely invited every one knowing anything against the fugitive Knipper to appear before him.

William Burgin, father of one of the wronged girls, who had sworn out a warrant against Knipper, made accordingly a statement to Quatman, who urged him not to blame the Church or Knipper ‘s family for the misdeeds of the foul priestly monster, flying from the law and from the wrath of an outraged Christian community.

Here it is pertinent to call attention to the Bull, ilMotu Proprio,” issued October 9, 1911, by Pope Pius X, which excommunicates any person, lay or cleric, man or woman, who shall without the permission of ecclesiastical authorities, summon any Roman Catholic ecclesiastic before a lay tribunal either in a civil or criminal case. (See “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation,” pp. 185, 186.)

Between the Wednesday, when Knipper was seen in Cincinnati, and the Sunday on which Quatman visited Troy, Knipper had found time, as it soon after developed, to get over to Canada, and find safe asylum in one of the clerical fortresses of that country, where priestly inebriates, lechers, seducers, sodomites, and murderers obtain for a time hospitable and even luxurious cover. Quatman Js investigation was a farce. Moeller’s letters added insult to injury! For Moeller actually paid for Knipper ‘s keep in Canada.

These ecclesiastical houses of refuge, relaxation, and entertainment for criminal priests, of which there are several in the United States, are worth attention from officers of justice and the public generally. There the popish Church harbors, protects, amuses, and cheers up not only criminal priests, drunkards, seducers, rapists, sodomites, and even murderers, but also lay criminals of every sort able to put up the cash. And the irony of the whole abominable travesty on justice and religion is emphasized by the fact that the foul priests immured in these shelters of unpunished rascality actually celebrate “Holy Mass ‘ ‘ every morning !

So shameful the conduct of these ” protected’ ‘ criminal priests that the civil authorities at Longue Pointe, Canada, felt constrained in the public interest, to forbid the “Ambassadors of Christ” retired to the priestly refuge house in that locality, from appearing on the king’s highway, which some of these saintly hermits had enlivened by insulting women and girls.

There was executed in Massachusetts not long ago a Baptist minister named Richeson, who had seduced and then poisoned a too confiding girl of his flock. Richeson’s crime was grave and the punishment meted out duly called for. But how different the treatment awarded to Catholic priests guilty of destroying girls? Instances like the Knipper case abound everywhere. That, for instance, of Priest Boyle, of North Carolina, who some years ago turned his church edifice into a brothel, attracted nation-wide attention. He assaulted in his room in the church building a respectable young lady, daughter of one of the leading Catholic families of the Southland. His guilt was so atrocious as to be incontestible, and when the sentence of death was first pronounced on him, not a dissenting voice was raised in all North Carolina or anywhere else, North or South. James Cardinal Gibbons and other Catholic prelates at once, however, got busy. They first had the death sentence modified into one condemning Boyle for life to State’s prison. No sooner had Boyle been placed behind the State’s bars, than the aforesaid Gibbons and his hierarchical associates started to obtain his release. They finally succeeded, and Boyle is to-day busy in priestly ranks somewhere, under some assumed name, seducing other women, violating girls, and preparing himself generally by studied and ceaseless licentiousness for high place in the priestly elysium. No purgatory for Boyle and his likes!

One O’Grady, an Irish priest who had seduced a girl named Gilmartin, in the old land, followed her to America, where she had fled from his lecherous attentions. Tracing her to Cincinnati, ‘Grady foully murdered her on Central Avenue, a busy thoroughfare of Cincinnati. The cowardly murderer then feigned insanity, and finally succeeded in escaping from the lunatic asylum. Rome’s cunning Italian hand is all too visible in ‘Grady’s deliverance from the punishment his atrocity called for. ‘Grady is to-day exercising the “sacred” ministry under an assumed name, of course.

That the race of Knippers is still alive and active in Ohio, two other Ohio instances of priestly depravity, both recent, very clearly demonstrate. The police records of every city of any size in America can offer similar, and several even worse, instances of depravity on the part of James Cardinal Gibbons’ “Ambassadors of Christ.’ ‘ But let the Ohio cases speak here.

There was arrested on Jnly 26, 1912, at 10.15 P. M., as the police official records very clearly show, one “John Smith,” residence, Cheviot, Ohio. He gave his occupation as “clerk,” and his age as twenty-eight. The arresting officer was George Gerwe. The officer in charge of this police station was Lieutenant Jacob Conver. “John Smith’s” real name is “Rev. Father” Otto B. Auer, of St. Martin’s Church, Cincinnati, Ohio.

He had been carried from a saloon, southeast corner Harrison and Spring Grove Avenues, in a state of intoxication which had reduced him almost to helplessness. Placed, at first, by Patrolman Gerwe and an unknown citizen in a hallway of the Buck Building, at southwest corner Harrison and Spring Grove Avenues, he befouled himself, vomited on the floor, and created such a stench about the place that a lady residing on the third floor, after making investigation and discovering the real facts of the case, called up the Fifth District Police Station, and threatened to notify the Chief of Police unless the vile drunken priest was at once taken out of the place. Lieutenant Conver directed the patrol to gather in “Father” Auer, who at the Police Station registered as “John Smith.”

Having been gathered in for safe keeping only, “Father” Auer was let out in the morning to go and “sin some more.” Xenia, Ohio, not to be outdone by Dayton, or Troy, or Cincinnati, offers for consideration one “Rev. Father” F. P. Quinn, who in Kennedy’s Official Catholic Directory for 1913, registers as pastor of St. Brigid ‘s, Xenia, Ohio, where, besides a church, he has a parochial school, conducted by five Sisters of Charity, having in charge 132 pupils. What manner of instruction a school under Quinn ‘s direction and control can impart will be made evident by the police record of Quinn, taken from official papers on file in Cincinnati police headquarters.

“Father” Quinn, a frequent visitor to Cincinnati, and patron of its gin mills and houses of prostitution, fell into the hands of this city’s police, June 3, 1913, at 4.15 A. M. The charge registered against Quinn is that of disorderly conduct, his occupation that of “Priest (Catholic).” He was arrested in Bernice Parker’s notorious dive, 307 Longworth Street. The police report of the case is signed by Lieutenant August Keidel, officer in charge.

The disturbance leading to Quinn ‘s arrest on that date arose out of his refusal to meet the financial terms of the landlady. He had paid the Parker woman $5 to take out one of the girls in a taxicab. Returning to the house on Longworth Street, he offered $5 in addition to stay all night. The Parker woman demanded $10, but finally yielded for peace’ sake to Quinn’s offer. The girl he wanted, however, fearing physical injury from Quinn, refused to spend the night with him.

Quinn thereupon started a “rough house” breaking up furniture and gas fixtures till the police patrol took him to the station.

The official records show that Priest Quinn was released on bond at 6.55 A. M., June 3, 1913, but failed to appear for trial at 9 A. M., sending to Judge Arthur Fricke a statement that he was ill from acute gastritis. Judge Fricke thereupon facetiously remarked on the suddenness with which ” these fellows’ ‘ took acute gastritis to escape appearance in court. The case was continued till July 10, 1913.

The testimony offered by Bernice Parker was to the effect that “this priest’ ‘ had been a frequent visitor to her house of prostitution, and had been on several occasions during his eight years of visits to the place refused admission because of his brutal treatment of the girls and Ins generally violent conduct. Quinn had on this particular occasion (June 3, 1913), besides breaking up the furniture, etc., struck one of the girls in the Parker house, and driven all the women under cover to a room which they feared he might break into.

Searched at the police station, a pint bottle of whisky was found on him, and he fought hard to retain it. When the case was finally heard, July 10, 1913, there was no prosecution and Priest Quinn escaped with a fine of $2, covering the costs in the case !

The information here given concerning Priests Auer and Quinn is, I repeat, taken from police and court records. The press of Cincinnati was studiously silent on these men’s gross misconduct. Had either been a minister of a Protestant denomination, columns of notoriety had been given their lapses. One Cincinnati paper only gave brief mention to Quinn ‘s indecencies, and then described the culprit as merely ” saying’ ‘ he was a priest.

No uncommon thing is it for priests in large cities, such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and New Orleans, to spend nights in houses of ill-fame, and ascend altars next morning in parish and convent chapels to say “Holy Mass!” The country priests come into the cities for lustful gratifications. The city priest moves away, for like purposes, a few blocks from his ordinary place of residence. Rome, Rome, lust and hypocrisy are thy name !

Now comes Archbishop Moeller with dozens of such lecherous men under his charge issuing orders against ” tango” dances. The Cincinnati Evening Post, August 5, 1913, publishes the following :

Any Cincinnati Catholics who may dance the tango, the turkey trot, and other objectionable glides, can not obtain forgiveness of their sins, according to an announcement made Tuesday by Archbishop Henry Moeller. The statement of the archbishop indorses the stand of Bishop Thomas B. Byrne, of Nashville, who declared:

‘Should any priest attempt to absolve such a penitent, the absolution would be worthless and the confession would be a curse rather than a blessing.’

Bishop Byrne ordered his priests not to forgive those who do these dances and repeat the sin after confessing it.

‘Some time ago I warned Catholics/ teaid Archbishop Moeller. ‘ There is no doubt that the dances in question are immoral. Forgiveness for sin can only be given by priests to those who are truly penitent and resolve never again to commit sin. I have issued no order to the effect, but every clergyman in my archdiocese has the right to refuse to absolve those persons who persist in performing immoral dances.’

The Pittsburgh Catholic, July 17, 1913, offers the following:

Rt. Rev. Bishop Byrne, of Nashville, Tenn., has put the ban of his official censure on ‘animal’ dances—the turkey trot, the tango, and the bunny hug. His edict was read from every Catholic pulpit in the diocese on Sunday, June 29th. It is the most drastic yet recorded in the fight against rag dancing.

To turkey trot and remain a Catholic is now practically a matter of impossibility. The edict bars all offenders from participating in the sacraments. Bishop Byrne in his edict said that the new dances were ‘an immoral amusement and the approximate occasion of sin.’ While they rarely failed, he declared, to affect the dancers.

The laity may not dance the ” turkey trot,” the ” tango,” or the ” bunny hug;” the priest may, however, bring the blush of shame even to red-light women by monstrosities in their resorts that none save a Satanic disciple of highest degree could perpetrate. Why not, Prelates Moeller and Byrne, lasso your libidinous priests before forbidding the ” turkey trot,” the ” tango,” and the ” bunny hug” to the laity?

Think of it! The priest receives a purse full of cash from weeping, credulous poor people to say Masses for the release of their deceased kindred from Purgatory, and forthwith hies himself off to the red light patch to throw away this money, consecrated by the tears of unselfish love, upon the scarlet women of infamy!

Like instances of up-to-date priestly rottenness in all parts of the world could be related ad infinitum.

There is, “Holy Father,” coming in America an awakening that will shake the religious world to its lowest foundations. That awakening is modestly but clearly forecasted by the Western Christian Advocate, Cincinnati, February 12, 1913:

On a recent Sunday evening we attended a service in one of our Churches to hear a sermon on “Ecclesiastical Tyranny, or Roman Catholicism.” We went through curiosity as well as interest in the subject. This was the closing theme of a series the pastor had been giving his people, with many good results, among them a splendid increase in his Sunday evening congregations. We were told the church would be crowded to the door, that many people were interested in the subject, that the pastor would have a great opportunity to preach the Word of God. That was a service we wanted to attend. A great crowd has always appealed to us. And a sensational theme is not against our taste. As predicted, the church was crowded even to the door. People were turned away. As we sat with the pastor before the multitude of faces, we kept asking questions of ourselves: Why this demonstration? Are all these people interested in the subject to-night? What has brought them here? Is this the regular congregation built up by the eminence of the pastor? Is it the sensational character of the subject of the sermon, “Ecclesiastical Tyranny,” has that drawing power? No, surely. Is it the last part of the subject, ‘ ‘ Roman Catholicism?” Is that growing to be a live topic? Is that the reason this multitude of men and women are here to-night? If so, then this pastor has discovered a live subject for the Protestant pulpit. Does this mean that men are awakening to the heritage of Protestantism? If so, again let us say it, let this note ring out with loud acclaim across the land. Here is where we need to rally our forces. Protestantism was once a unit in doctrine and life. We stood joined compactly under one standard and to one end until denominationalism came to threaten our dissolution. We witness to-day the fiercest struggle and the darkest problems Christianity has ever faced, notwithstanding the enforced optimism which at times is urged upon us. The commendation that may be given us and the one center of hope is, that we are working harder at the solution of our problems than ever it was given man to toil for any cause. Only in this lies the cause for optimism. Our embarrassments are not those of Catholicism, and she, witnessing our discomfiture, takes inward pleasure and registers what she thinks is the disintegration of her old antagonist, expressing the complacent faith that the “Church of God stands sure.”

A candid review of the present conditions of Protestantism assures the verdict that this heritage, once given unto men, seems to be no longer appreciated. Is it because we no longer lay emphasis there? Are we like those who enjoy and squander their patrimony without counting its cost to those who gave it, neither our loss without it? It is verily true that the interests of denominationalism have overshadowed the very movement which gave us birth. Better a thousand times sink denominationalism in the sea of oblivion than to lose the heritage bought so dearly by the fathers of Protestantism. Why not a revival of the old doctrine of Luther and Wycliff, John Huss and Savonarola? Why not a welcoming of the old champions of “justification by faith’ ‘ and the priesthood of every believer? Why not a return to the heights of faith in Jesus Christ, whose atoning grace can be received by faith without any intermediary? Why not a revival of Protestantism? Yes, why not? Men and women will hear that call. They will rally in defense of that heritage if the pulpit will awaken to the opportunity. How many of that great audience will come again? How many of them will appreciate the fact that they are Protestants? Many of them look upon the Catholic Church with dread and fear, and never think of taking any relation to the Protestant Church. Many of them never think of joining the forces of the pastor whose words they applauded. Here is their culpability. They are Protestants, but not of the Protestant Church. They enjoy the civil liberty she has bought for them, and because of their recreant attitude toward her, the very cause for which her sons suffered loses its authority over men. Can we not call these multitudes back to our ranks? Can they not be led to see the obligation they owe the Church and the heritage which is slipping away because Protestantism is through their hands losing its religious character and becoming a civil force! We predict an awakening in this line in the next few years. This heritage must not be surrendered. If it proves a live and pulsating subject, the men of the pulpits will not fail to take it up.

America once fully aroused to its enormities, your System’s final and early downfall is sure as crack of doom.

I am, Respectfully,
Jeremiah J. Chowley.

Degradation and demoralization of the confessional and kindred agencies.

Fellow-men:
David, King and Prophet, filled with a genuine and grateful exaltation of spirit, at all the benefits received from his God, exclaimed:

O praise the Lord, all ye nations: praise him, all ye people. For his merciful kindness is great toward us: and the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord.

For this sublime invocation of the Royal Prophet papal eulogists of to-day may invite us to sing:

O praise the pope, all ye humankind: praise him, all ye nations. For his goodness is ever at command of highest bidder, and his favor endureth as long as suppliant’s gold holds out.

The great whore of Babylon, by all sane interpreters of Holy Writ held to be the Papacy, is ever active in securing new fields for the exploitation of victims and the garnering of harvests of infamy-won gold, characteristic of whorishness, never to be satisfied!

The whore of the seven hills of old Rome has in America an army of 20,000 priests and as many more monks of various type and degree, holding in White Slavery the most atrocious 150,000 nuns and half a million at least of other women. The ordinary white slave receives some form of recompense for her servitude: the Romanistic white slave naught but black-hearted injury and, finally, neglect, cruel and callous.

Lord Robert Montague, who, when the British aristocracy felt, half a century ago, a strong Rome-ward impetus, became a Roman Catholic, had excellent opportunities to study from the inside the iniquitous workings of the Papal System. Given an Irish seat in the British House of Commons by the Hierarchy of Rome, Lord Robert stood for a time in high favor with papal priesthood and prelacy. But his ancestral Protestant blood at length recoiled from the lethal touch of the Vaticanist serpent. Leaving the Romish System, he wrote, with remarkable clearness, power, and repudiative skill, concerning the Papal System of human enslavement. Of Lord Robert, as writer, it may well be repeated, Nihil tetigit quod non ornavit. Read, for example, his exposition, masterly and unassailable, of the Roman Curia:

The System of the Church of Rome is a wonderful mechanism. Its center is the pope. Yet it is independent of the pope. Many a pope has been a dotard: very many have been debauchees. Yet the machine works on irrespectively of his idiosyncrasies. It is the cabinet, the privy council, the college of cardinals that governs.

Very true, indeed, the statement of Lord Robert Montague:

The advance of the papacy has always been the advance of the plague, irresistible, unsparing, remorseless, and deadly.

POPE ALEXANDER VI.

This is the infamous Pope Borgia, whose reign and rule rival in licentiousness, those of the pagan emperor, Nero. Borgia’s daughter, Lucretia, with whom he is believed to have had incestuous relations, became mother, afterwards, of several children, from whom the leading European royal families of this twentieth century, Protestant and Catholic, are descended.

For fuller particulars concerning this murderer, adulterer, and incestuous brute—this “infallible Vicar of Christ,” see “Romanism— A Menace to the Nation,” pp. 323-331.

Gury’s “Manual of Moral Theology” is the text-book of all leading Roman Catholic theological seminaries of the present day in the United States, and several other countries. The author was a Jesuit.

Jesuits are the most popular of confessors. Priests guilty of gravest crimes flock to Jesuits for absolution. To priestly offenders the Jesuit Father confessor is very “easy” indeed. To adulterous priest, to priest guilty of seduction or sodomy; to self-abusing, drunken priest “easy,” in very truth, the Jesuit confessor, especially if offending priest has money, political pull, or good, solid standing with his bishop.

The poor workingman sinner may be obliged to do severe penance—to fast, to pray for hours on bended knee for offenses against God’s law; taxed he may be very heavily, as to purse and physical endurance, by the fashionable Jesuit confessor, so lenient with priestly or episcopal transgressor.

Let besilked and perfumed adulteress enter the Jesuit’s confessional, and she is at once made welcome. Her “slight irregularities ‘ ‘ are dealt with in spirit of unctuous leniency. To sisters in sin she proclaims “Father Stanislaus’ ‘ the “sweetest of confessors.” ‘ He gives her, for multiplied adulteries, just “one Our Father” and “one Hail Mary” to recite, and then she goes forth to sin some more.

To the rich and the powerful the Jesuit confessor is studiously and systematically complacent. The poor and powerless he repels by stern frigidity and relentless severity. Instructed by Gury’s Theology as to sins of the flesh, committed or committable, by women married or single, he seeks to attract to his confessional women, and not men. Twenty-five women and girls, to one man or boy, go to confession.

Are regularly and frequently confessing Catholic women better than Protestant women, who, abhorring the very suggestion of confession to a sinful man, avoid it as they would death itself? The records of police courts, of county jails, of reformatories, penitentiaries, and State prisons prove the contrary. Prostitution draws the major part of its recruits everywhere from Catholic womanhood and girlhood, perverted by the lewd and lascivious interrogatories of the Jesuit confessors. Nearly all modern confessors may be, whether members or not of the Society of Jesus, termed Jesuitical, for all study theological textbooks whose authors are Jesuits.

With what species of filth the minds of Jesuitically trained confessors are filled, I refer the reader to ” Saint’ ‘ Liguori’s and ” Father’ ‘ Gury’s ” Moral (?) Theology,” which contains a mass of sensual abominations that hell itself alone could suggest. The priest is bound to question the girl or woman penitent in manner most forbidding. Not alone her most secret actions, in all their revolting details, but her most private thoughts must be circumstantially related to carnal male monster sitting in the confessional.

Liguori and Gury make the young matron mental slave—often, too, alas! corporeal—of the wily and obscene confessor. He questions her as to her most private and sacred relations with husband—who may be, perhaps, a Protestant. Bound, she is, to detail minutely her carnal intercourse with lawful consort, as if such were sinful. To excuse his perverse questions, the confessor declares it his duty to find out if married female penitent is guilty of sin in her sexual relations with husband!

If American manhood, if the manhood of the civilized world realized the infamy of the questions put by unmarried priests—many indecent in life and character—to girls and women, for the most part of purest life and disposition, a speedy end were put, the world over, to this infamy operated under the sacred name of religion. Liguori’s theology, the fountain of all the vile theological treatises of the confessional, placed in the hands of priests, could not be translated into any form of English which were not appallingly disgusting and repellent.

Yet, guided by this text-book, inspired by this sensuous author and his disciples, the confessor is directed to put to maiden and to matron seeking divine grace and guidance in the confessional the most indecent of questions, virtually instructing young souls in practices of infamy the most darksome and stupendous. Why does civilization stand for such organized debauchery of the young? From no other institution but the papal church would such crime upon national youth and human vitality be permitted. When will the governments of the modern civilized world arise against the White Slavery which has center of activity in the confessionals of Rome’s corrupt priesthood?

Instructions most minute and disgusting are given by confessors, not only to married young women, but to virgins about to wed, as to when, how often, and in what manner they are to yield husband his marriage rights. Well does Prof. Joseph F. Berg, in his “Synopsis of the Moral (?) Theology of ‘ Father ‘ Peter Dens,” say of the chapters thereof, treating of sins of licentiousness:

It would not be decent to translate even the least offensive of these chapters. The most outrageous forms of bestiality which it is possible for iniquity to assume are gravely discussed, and held up with most revolting particularity before students of divinity, who are under a vow of chastity and perpetual celibacy. The filthiness of this slimy puddle of Romish casuistry is so offensive that I must be excused from stirring the scum; I can not permit its effluvia even from a distance to annoy the mental olfactories of my reader by a translation. — Berg, Synopsis of the Moral Theology of Peter Dens, pp. 339, 340.

Come we now to the doctrine of Mental Restriction,’ or Mental Reservation, under which Jesuitical teaching Catholics may lie for sake of Holy Mother Church. Mendacity may take any one of several forms. A liar may lie grievously by silence; by verbal negation or verbal affirmation; by a partially uttered truth that is a whole lie.

Professor Berg, in his “Synopsis of Peter Dens’s Moral Theology” (pp. 316-320), concludes with these striking observations:

The closing remarks of this section [Dens on Lying] plainly show that equivocation is no sin, in the estimation of a disciple of Peter Dens. This is no new discovery, and it is therefore not becoming that we should speak of it as something strange or unexpected. A very little acquaintance with the practice of the veracious pupils and admirers of Peter Dens is sufficient to teach us that they understand the art of equivocation to perfection. But the horrid attempt to make the Blessed Saviour, whose title is, faithful and true witness, encourage the practice of this detestable vice, is blasphemy for which we were not prepared. The very attempt at refutation would be irreverent. Let the reader turn to Luke 24: 19, and he will see that nothing could have been further from the Saviour’s mind than the intention of furnishing a precedent for the deceitful equivocations which are the glory of the Church of Rome.”

Jesuit Gury, in various portions of his Moral (?) Theology, particularly in his treatises De Actibus Humanis; De Justitia et Jure, De Contractibus and De VIII. Decalogi Prcecepto, not only excuses, but commends falsehood, especially when the interests of Holy Mother Church are concerned. Gury’s teaching is just this, in brief:

The Catholic may lie ; may break an oath, commit theft or violate solemn obligation, if, in his judgment, Holy Mother Church is to benefit from such perversity. Lie, in fact, must the devout Catholic, break, must he, solemnly sworn oath or any other obligation, commit theft or even murder, if Holy Church’s needs call, in the opinion of his confessor, for such misdeed.”

The Ten Commandments of God translated into papal language are thus rendered:

1. One Lord and one God shalt thou adore, in the “Supreme Pontiff” at Rome, “Vicar of Christ,” and like unto Christ, sinless and infallible.

2. Bless every day of thy life the holy name of pope and pontiff, proving thy sincerity by daily offerings to “Peter’s Pence.”

3. Keep holy the feast days of “Holy Church,” especially those of the Blessed Booze and the cherished St. Boodle.

4. Honor the “Holy Fathers” of thy Church and reverence the “Holy Mothers” of White Slavery, toiling so steadily for “Holy Fathers” comfort.

5. Kill thou shalt not, save “Heretics”, “Schismatics” and other enemies of the blessed White Slavery of the Vatican.

6. Commit not adultery, unless thou faithfully pay the price set by “Holy Church” for many masses for “souls in Purgatory.”

7. Steal not, unless to hand over proceeds to “Holy Fathers” for saloon, red light, and other agents of needed priestly refreshment and recuperation.

8. Do not lie, save and except when duty to “Holy Church” and the interests of its White Slave and Wine Room activities demand.

9. Covet not thy neighbor’s wife, unless thou art prelate, priest, or monk.

10. Covet not any of thy neighbor’s goods that thou couldst not turn readily into coin of the realm, for the benefit of White Slave Institutions and Temples of Sodom, under control of “Holy Fathers” for the spiritual upliftment of men and women.

The hugest and most heartless trust in the world, and at the same time most criminal, is the Church of Rome. Its first effect is to kill patriotism; for it demands for its sovereign (the pope) alien and hostile to the independence of every nation in the world, the first endeavors, affections, and the deathless allegiance of men of every country under the sun, especially that of Roman Catholics. If a man have anything of affection and allegiance left after the Vatican is satisfied, he may give it to country, to king, to flag, and then only by permission of the pope!

The most Catholic populations of the world, those of France, Italy, Portugal, and Mexico, have, in consequence, cut loose from Rome. Spain and others must, for self-preservation, soon follow. Impossible for any people, for any government, to stand in with the papacy, without giving up everything that racial or national self-respect, traditional and geographic ties, governmental and civic achievement, invest with sacredness.

“God is God, and Mahomet is his prophet” is cry of ferocious Mussulman; “The pope, my Lord God on earth, forever ” cry of the sincere Romanist. Why does decay cover, with gloomy, death-like pall, every country afflicted with papalism? Because the hearts of that country’s people are turned away from its betterment to the aggrandizement of a greedy, insatiable autocracy with headquarters on the yellow Tiber.

There are 3,000,000 Catholic Federationists in the United States, all actively at work, not for American, but for papal interests. “Forced into politics” the Knights of Columbus claim to be; but their politics is as yellow as tawny old Tiber itself. “Forced into politics,” even as are the Knights of Columbus, is the German Federation of Catholic Societies. The Catholic Union and Times, March 13, 1913, publishes the following:

The Federation of German Catholic Societies of this city has sent a copy of the following letter to the congressman from this section and to the United States senators from this state:

Honorable Sir: We, the undersigned, representing the Federation of German Catholic Societies of Erie County, New York, in compliance with a resolution adopted by said body, herewith protest against the appointment of General Nelson A. Miles as a member of the committee on celebration of the 100th anniversary of Commodore Perry’s victory on Lake Erie. We protest on the ground that General Miles is not a proper person to represent any constituency of true and loyal American citizens, as he is the head and representative of a bigoted and unpatriotic organization calling itself the Guardians of Liberty, an organization whose avowed purpose is in contravention to the constitution of the United States. It seeks to deprive a large portion of the citizens of this country of the rights and privileges guaranteed to all citizens, without regard to racial or religious affiliations.

We very much regret that we must register a protest conferring any honor upon a man who is supposed to have distinguished himself in the past in the service of our common country. We would have preferred very much to join our fellow-citizens in any mark of honor or distinction that might have been accorded him on account of his past service. But in view of his prominence and leadership in this un-American and unpatriotic organization we feel that we would render ourselves and our ten thousand members unworthy of the dignity of American citizenship if we did not resent the insult, which, through his appointment, is directed to more than fourteen millions of the population of this country, which includes men and women in all branches of our government, national, state, and municipal.

Furthermore, we fear that if this insulting appointment is not revoked, the celebration will be a fiasco, and the effect which is so much desired by all true and loyal citizens be entirely lost.

Very respectfully yours,
Nicholas Scherer,
Henry J. Doll,
JOS. M. SCHIFFERLI,
Committee.
Alois J. Werdein,
Secretary.

When General Miles was fighting his country’s battles on hardest fields of struggle—first in the war between the States ; again, in repressing the savage red man of the wild West ; and later, in the effacement of Spain and Spanish papalism from America—where were these Scherers, Dolls, Schifferlis, and Werdeins? In Bavaria, Wirtemberg, or Naples? They were not, at all events, at the front. Not at any front can they be ever found, save at that of popish legions, warring against Americans and Americanism.

Not satisfied with Joseph Patrick Tumulty as Private Secretary to President Wilson, the papal agents, “forced” into American politics, have successfully landed in other high governmental places Charles Patrick Neill and Dudley Field Malone. How many more will they land before President Wilson’s term is completed? The Catholic Union and Times, of Buffalo, might tell. In its issue of March 13, 1913, it boasts proudly of Neill ‘s appointment, which is very distasteful to the South:

Washington, March 11.—The most important appointment that President Wilson has yet made, as indicating a general policy by the new administration, came last week, when he sent to the senate the name of Charles Patrick Neill for commissioner of labor.

Mr. Neill was appointed labor commissioner by President Roosevelt and was reappointed by Mr. Taft, so the President has filled this important post with a man who has served through two Republican administrations and whose leanings are supposed to have been toward Republican principles.

President Taft had appointed Mr. Neill for a third term, but his appointment was one of the number that were held up by the Democrats in the senate. His reappointment by Mr. Wilson is regarded in Washington by independent observers as admirable, so far as the interests of the Bureau of Labor are concerned, and indicate conclusively that Mr. Wilson is looking first to the character of the men, and not to the political service they have rendered.

Mr. Neill was born at Rock Island, 111., in 1865, but spent most of his life in Texas. He has degrees from the University of Chicago and Johns Hopkins. He was the first instructor of Political Economy in the Catholic University of America.

No use has Knights of Columbus’s organ for non-Romanist fraternal societies. No use for the Masonic or other orders devoted solely to man’s upliftment, through brotherhood, and free absolutely from Romanist tinge or taint. Bonds and barriers it would place between honest Catholic wishing to join the popeless and priestless orders of true benevolence, commanding, in thorough papal style, every Catholic to enter pope and priest-ridden society only. Here is the mandate :

No Catholic need join outside societies to get insurance or to make friends. We have plenty of societies—religious, social, fraternal, protective. The man who permits himself to be led into the secrets of the outsiders is foolish. — The Catholic Forester.

Political machines many has this world seen from the days of Nebuchadnezzar to Nero; from Nero to Pope Borgia (Alexander VI); and from Pope Borgia to Pope Sarto (Pius X); but no political machine ever devised by the wicked ingenuity of man has equaled, in the deadliness of its execution, the extortionate exactions of its rapacity, the mercilessness of its unceasing demands, the papal machine doing business at Rome. All honor to the immortal Elizabeth of England for delivering her race forever from the thraldom of such a machine. All honor to Luther, the bold, majestic, and magnificent apostle of conscientious reform in Germany, for delivering the Teuton and Scandinavian races forever from that vile and sanguinary curse ; all honor, also, to the French Revolution for inaugurating for Latin Europe an era of liberation from Vaticanistic vengeance and papalistic pollution; all honor to the intrepid reformer, Savonarola, who was burned to death in 1498. When the bishop of Vasona said to the dying Savonarola, “I separate thee from the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant,” Savonarola replied in firm tones, “Not from the Church Triumphant—that is beyond thy power,”

The Romish Church would now like to enroll Savonarola amongst its “Saints.” Having put him to cruel death, the papacy sees, with deepest regret, that his name and fame have not suffered in popular estimation. Hence the Church of the twentieth century would gladly place the name of Savonarola as a “Saint” on that roll where the crafty Leo XIII recently inscribed that of the infamous Inquisition leader of Spain, the bloody Torquemada.

But Rome may keep its peace; humanity has already made of Savonarola one of the patron saints of conscientious freedom, as it has of Luther, Calvin, and the many martyrs of the Bloody Mary’s inglorious reign. The world is unerring in its judgment of men, unselfish and brave enough to die for the race. It has made saints of Livingstone and Lincoln, of Washington and of Wilberforce; and it will go on, without let or hindrance from papal intriguer or Vaticanist corruptionist, adding to its list of the sanctified, name after name of emancipator, whether soldier, statesman, or divine.

Rome sacrificed Joan of Arc, the worshipful maid of Domremy; burnt that noble, heaven blessed girl at the stake, and then, to cover its own infamy, made her, centuries after her cruel sacrifice, a “saint!” Joan of Arc is more than a Roman saint. She is, like Savonarola, a saint in Humanity’s Catalogue of unselfish achievement.

Rome sells its titles of sainthood as it does its red hats of cardinalitial power; but the world, an emancipated and disenthralled humanity, places just value, and that only, on all the meretricious favors of the crafty and corrupt Vatican court.

The head of the papal machine is the pope of Rome but its controlling, dominant power is the Curia, or College of Cardinals. Principal agents and beneficiaries of the System, in outside countries, are archbishops and bishops. They may, like Turkish tax collectors, gather in all they can from the superstitious hopes and fears of the servile or ignorant multitude, keeping for themselves a most abundant share, provided they yield to Italian grafter at the Vatican his stipulated “pound of flesh.”

Surpassing, perhaps, all other Vaticanist tax collectors are bishops in English-speaking countries, in Ireland especially, and in the United States, in constant demands upon their people for contributions to papal exchequer and to private coffers of extortionate prelates in Rome, whose good offices these bishops so often need to pull them out of trouble accruing from illicit relations with nuns and other women, and also from too close an acquaintance with genial old Bacchus.

Lesser agents and beneficiaries are leading priests and monks, who preach “Peter’s Pence,” and other thievish schemes of the machine, to complacent people. Observe, reader, that nine and ninety out of every hundred Roman priests come from poor and unlettered, thriftless, and even worthless families. The clerical training and education of these sons of poverty and social debasement—some of them bastards—is paid for by the Church, from the Seminary Fund maintained by yearly contributions extracted largely from the poor.

Most devoted agents for extortion and rapine do beggars make for plutocratic principal. The beggar born thrills with pleasure at contact with gilded and purpled lord and master. To serve as menial to such a lord and master is, for pauperbred priest, glory indeed.

Noblesse oblige, the French put it—” Blood will tell,” the English form of it—applies not, except negatively, to these servile agents of Vatican vampire. Young men of birth and blood, of good family surroundings and training, do not enter the priesthood. When, rarely indeed, one such does become a priest, he soon regrets his mistake, and quits, or the machine gets rid of him; witness the unfortunate Father Tom Sherman, and numbers of others. Cardinal Howard, himself of English royal blood and lineage, died a few years ago in Rome, a helpless, hopeless madman, his heart broken by the wretchedness and infamy of the System. Too much was papalistic mendacity for his noble British blood !

The machine sends special envoys to foreign countries to interfere with the local political and also the international affairs of these nations. These envoys are, in some places, called Nuncios ; in others, Apostolic Delegates. Whatever their appellation, they represent everywhere a force of mischief, of conspiracy, and of deterioration. Catching Lorenzelli, the last papal Nuncio in Paris, with documentary proof of guilt, striving to destroy the French republic, France banished the intermeddler, and broke off forever diplomatic relations with the Vatican.

“My Kingdom,” said Christ, “is not of this world.’ ‘ But think and assert otherwise does the ” Vicar of Christ,” so called, in the Vatican palace. “All kingdoms, and the gold and gems thereof, with the crowns or presidential seats thereof, also, belong to me,” is blunt and brutal avowal of present-day papal statesmanship. Every man forming part of this world-wide machine— from the pope himself down to humblest parish priest—is grafter and political marplot a teacher, preacher, and practicer of anarchy — ready, with priest Phelan of St. Louis, to shout, “To hell with my country’s flag and government, when that flag and government come in conflict with pope and papacy.”

General W. T. Sherman called war “hell,” and he was right; let some other fearless American call the papal machine hell’s most powerful and most blood-thirsty agent on earth, and I will feel that that American has used the American language righteously and to enduring good purpose.

ROMANIST SOCIETIES AGENTS OF INQUISITIONAL SAVAGERY.

Going the rounds of a portion, at least, of the non-Romanist press is, still, the alleged oath of the Knights of Columbus. Some of the Knights deny the authenticity of this oath. I leave in abeyance, for the moment, any detailed discussion of that particular point. The leaders of the Knights of Columbus are, in many cases, infidels. They are Knights of Columbus and leaders of Romanism for political or personal profit only. The rank and file of the Order are well-meaning men used by skillful politicians. The Order itself is a passing phase of Romanist effort to fasten papal political hold on the governments at Washington and elsewhere. That done, the papacy will apply a liberal and vigorous segment of shoeleather to the Knights of Columbus. It is not, however, amiss to state here that the alleged oath of the Knights of Columbus should not concern the public so absorbingly, when oaths of cardinals (see “Romanism—A Menace to the Nation/ ‘ pp. 199, 200), archbishops, and bishops (further on recited) establish the diabolical, destructive hostility of papalism toward heretics and non- Romanists generally. The Knights of Columbus are bound, by strictest allegiance, to obey all commands of pope, cardinals, archbishops, and bishops. The servant is not, in this or any other case, greater than his master. The Knight of Columbus must, if true to his obligation of unquestioning subserviency—miscalled obedience — to his superiors, walk, when called on by these superiors, knee-deep in Protestant blood, as did the predecessors of the Knights of Columbus in the thirteenth-century massacres of “heretics” in Southern France, of which Professor Draper, in his “Intellectual Development of Europe,” states:

Language has no powers to express the atrocities that took place at the capture of the different towns. Ecclesiastical vengeance rioted in luxury. The soil was steeped in the blood of men, the air polluted by their burning. From the reek of murdered women, mutilated children, and ruined cities, the Inquisition, that infernal institution arose. Its projectors intended it not only to put an end to public teaching, but even to private thought.

Judge S. A. Miller, of Cincinnati, one of the most eminent jurists in his time, after thus citing Draper, goes on to declare:

The fourteenth century beheld the close of the Crusades, while it witnessed the relentless brutal murders of the Inquisition and the extirpation of whole classes and orders of people who ventured to examine the Scriptures or to think for themselves in any matters of learning or advancement. Light had begun to shine upon the minds of men in some parts of Europe, and hence the bloody massacres under the decrees of the pope to shut it out and continue the pall of darkness and ignorance.

The fifteenth century was marked by the same arrogance, crime, and brutality on the part of popes that characterized the preceding century. The canon law still prevailed over nearly every nook and corner of Europe. A single example will illustrate the respect which is due to it as then understood and enforced. John Huss was a professor of divinity in the University of Prague and an ordinary pastor of a church, but he endeavored to withdraw the University of Prague from the jurisdiction of Pope Gregory XII. His religious opinions were conformable to the established doctrine of the Church, except he declaimed against the infallibility of the pope. He was summoned to appear before the Council, which was assembled at Constance, where for these reasons he was declared a heretic and burnt to death, under the canon law, by the canonists themselves on the 6th of July, 1415, and his friend Jerome, who accompanied him to the Council, by the same canon law and at the hands of the same canonists was made to perish in the flames on the 30th day of May, 1416. This is the Council that enacted a decree branding the name of Wickliff, who was long since dead, with infamy, and ordered all his works and his books to be committed to the flames. — Argument of S. A. Miller before Supreme Court of Ohio, in re John B. Mannix vs. William Henry Elder et al, pp. 142, 143.

Well does Judge Miller insist that

Revived shall be, here in America, the fires of the Inquisition, just as soon as Romanism feels warranted by numerical strength and political control to order their rekindling. In the Altoona, (Pa.) Tribune of March 3, 1913, was a report of a sermon by a priest named Sheedy in that city, in which the priest said :

In thirty States the Catholic Church exceeds all other denominations in strength. In fifteen States 50 to 90 per cent of all Church members are Catholics. All the six New England States are overwhelmingly Catholic. Five-eighths of the Church membership in New York is Catholic. All the large cities are overwhelmingly Catholic. At the beginning of the nineteenth century there were 85,000 Catholics in the United States; now there are 15,000,000 under the flag. The speaker said this growth has alarmed certain classes, despite the tolerance of the age, and that the hierarchy has been described as a political machine. President-elect Wilson has been warned against the appointment of a Catholic to his Cabinet. A Catholic is to be the President’s private secretary. The country is flooded with vile sheets full of foulest calumny against the Church and Catholic societies. All this, to every thinking man, is falsehood ; it is an appeal to the ignorant and the prejudiced, he said.

Priest Sheedy’s figures are gross exaggerations, but it is in and through exaggeration that such intolerants and bigots express the real purposes near their hearts. Mark well my words, American reader:—the Church that ordered St. Bartholomew’s massacre in France, that lighted the brutal fires of Smithfield, that slaughtered one hundred thousand Irish Protestants in the first half of the seventeenth century, will repeat on American soil all these and other atrocities as soon as her College of Cardinals deems the times opportune.

But, friends, in God we trust. Rome shall not, on this soil consecrated to freedom, ever acquire domination. The control she now enjoys, too extended in area and in population, the good citizenship— the brave manhood and pure womanhood of America—must first abridge and finally abolish.

Whatever the Knights of Columbus swear or do not swear, all persons having charge of cathedral and superior churches, monasteries, convents, houses, and any other places soever, of all regular orders soever, even of military ones, and all persons assuming dignities, canonries, and any other ecclesiastical benefice, are bound to take the oath of Pope Pius IV:

I recognize the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church as the mother and mistress of all churches ; and I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman pontiff, successor of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ. All other things also delivered, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and ecumenical councils, and by the holy Synod of Trent, I undoubtingly receive and profess; and at the same time all things contrary, and any heresies soever condemned by the church, and rejected and anathematized, I, in like manner, condemn, reject, and anathematize. This true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can be saved, which at present I readily profess and truly hold, I promise, vow, and swear, that I will most steadfastly retain and confess the same entire and undefined to the last breath of life (with God’s help), and that I will take care, as far as shall be in my power, that it be held, taught, and preached to my subjects, or those whose charge shall devolve on me in virtue of my office. So help me God, and these holy Gospels of God. — Judge S. A. Miller, Argument, etc., p. 167.

That the Inquisition has simply suspended its activities, but has not abandoned them finally, is well attested by the form of excommunication pronounced by a Roman Catholic Irish bishop against one Francis Freeman, who embraced the Protestant faith in 1765 :

By the authority of God the Father Almighty, and the blessed Virgin Mary, and of Peter, and Paul, and all the Holy Saints, we excommunicate Francis Freeman, late of the County of Dublin, but now of Juckmill, in the County of Wicklow, that, in spite of God, and Peter, and in spite of all the Holy Saints, and in spite of our most Holy Father the Pope, God’s vicar on earth, and in spite of Philip Dunn, our diocesan and worshipful Canons, who serve God daily, hath apostatized to a most damnable religion, full of heresy, and blasphemy; excommunicated let him be, and delivered over to the devil, as a perpetual malefactor and schismatic ; accursed let him be in all cities, and all towns, in fields, in ways, in yards, in houses, and in all other places, whether lying or rising, walking or running, leaning or standing, waking or sleeping, eating or drinking, or whatsoever thing he does besides: we separate him from the threshold and all good prayers of the Church ; from the participation of the Holy Jesus ; from all sacraments, chapels, and altars; from the holy bread and holy water; from all the merit of God ‘s holy priests and religious men ; and from their cloisters, and all pardons, privileges, grants, and immunities which all the Holy Popes have granted them; and we give him over, utterly to the fiend; and let him quench his soul when dead in the pains of Hell fire, as this candle is quenched and put out; and let us pray to God, our Lady, Peter and Paul, that all the senses of his body may fail, as now the light of this candle is gone, except he come, on sight hereof, and openly confess his damnable heresy and blasphemy, and by repentance make amends, as much as in him lies, to God, our Lady, Peter, and the worshipful company of this Church ; and as the staff of this holy cross now falls down, so may he, except he recants and repents.
Philip Dunn.

Alexander MacDonell, first bishop of Upper Canada, 1820-1840, pronounced in a Toronto church a frightful form of excommunication against certain Catholics, who had become guilty of the atrocious crime of differing from the bishop’s politics, and, in so differing, followed the lead of Eev. Dr. ‘Grady, a clever, cultured Irish priest, whom MacDonell had, out of political rancor mainly, suspended from ecclesiastical ministrations, which ‘Grady’s talents and merits had honored.

One of MacDonell ‘s successors, James Vincent Cleary, bishop and archbishop of Kingston from 1880 till 1897, pronounced at Kemptville, Ontario, abominable curses and blasphemous anathemas on one McGovern, guilty of marrying a Protestant. McGovern ‘s marriage was legal, but Rome is above all civil law!

The laws of the United States say that civil marriage and marriage by any legalized authority are recognized by law and are wholly legal. The pope and the priests say such marriages are not legal. Thus is the Church of Rome denying and defying civil authority just as clearly as Mormon priests and people denied and defied such authority in polygamous marriages.

The New York Times recently printed this item:

There is to-day, unfortunately, a disposition on the part of Catholics to contract irreligious marriages, said the Rev. Msgr. Edward W. Mc- Carty, pastor of the St. Augustine Roman Catholic Church, Brooklyn, during his Lenten sermon last night. Frequently they go before ministers of other denominations, before justices of the peace and aldermen, and have the ceremonies performed. In such a case there is no marriage whatever. It is impossible for a minister of any denomination other than a Catholic priest to bind a marriage tie between two Catholics. There is no public official, whatever his name, who can effect this union. Those who go before a minister or justice of the peace for this purpose show that they have a low estimate of the sacredness of the marriage state and of the fixity of the marriage tie.

For anarchy does Rome, in truth, stand here in America and in all civilized lands.

I now offer for my readers ‘ consideration the declaration or oath of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, read by Mr. Joe Devlin, Irish Nationalist, M. P., before the House of Commons of England:

I do declare and promise I will keep inviolable all the secrets of this Society of Brethren from all but those whom I know to be members in good standing and the Roman Catholic clergy, and that I will support the constitution and by-laws of the Ancient Order of Hibernians to the best of my ability; and I further promise that I will not divulge or allow to be divulged the password of the Order, not even to a member of my own division ; that I will be true and steadfast to the brethren of this Society dedicated to St. Patrick, the Holy Patron Saint of Ireland; and that I will duly conform myself to the dictates of my legally-elected officers in all things lawful, and not otherwise; that I will not provoke or quarrel with any of my brethren.

If a brother should be harshly spoken of, or otherwise treated unjustly, I will espouse his cause and give him the earliest possible information, aiding him with my sincere friendship when in distress.

I also promise that I will not propose or assist in admitting any person of a bad or suspicious character, and that I will at all times be zealous for the interest of this Society, and will not wrong a brother to my knowledge. I do not, and will not, while a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, belong to any Society condemned by the Holy Roman See.

All this I pledge my sacred word of honour to do and perform so long as I remain a member of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, and having made this promise of my own free will and accord, may God assist me in my endeavour to fulfill the same, and may He protect our friendship, and grant us to live in this state of grace.

As to the restless activities of Romanism, in America alone, I present the following from a non-Catholic source:

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF CATHOLIC SOCIETIES.

The American Federation of Catholic Societies was founded in 1901. It is composed of 19 National organizations, many State and County federations and parishes. Total membership, about 3,000,000. Its objects are the cementing of the bonds of fraternal union among the Catholic laity and the fostering and protection of Catholic interests. The Federation has the approval and blessing of 80 archbishops and bishops, and of Pope Pius X. National headquarters is at Victoria Building, St. Louis, Mo. The officers are as follows:

President, Chas. I. Denechaud, New Orleans, La. First Vice-President, Thos. Flynn, Chicago, 111. Secretary, Anthony Matre, St. Louis, Mo. Treasurer, F. W. Heckenkamp, Jr.
—N. Y. World Almanac, 1913.

No Catholic society, be it Knights of Columbus, Ancient Order of Hibernians, or any other, may call itself Catholic unless it remain in closest touch with and absolute subserviency to bishops and priests of the Roman obedience. Now, here is the oath that every bishop of the Roman Church must, on taking possession of his see, pronounce and subscribe to most solemnly:

I, N. N., Bishop-elect of the See of N., do swear, that, from this time henceforth, I will be faithful and obedient to the blessed Apostle Peter, to the holy Church of Rome, and to our Lord the Pope, and his successors canonically appointed. I will to my utmost defend, increase, and advance, the rights, honors, privileges, and authority of the holy Roman Church of our Lord the Pope, and his successors aforesaid.—I will not join in any consultation, act or treaty, in which anything shall be plotted to the injury of the rights, honor, state and power of our Lord the Pope, or of the said Church. I will keep with all my might the rules of the holy Fathers (i. e., of the Council), the Apostolical (Papal) decrees, ordinances, disposals, reservations, provisions and mandates; and cause them to be observed by others. Heretics, Schismatics, and rebels to our said Lord the Pope and his successors aforesaid, I will to the utmost of my power persecute and destroy. — Sub. Jul. Hi. An. 1551.

Among the papal decrees that the bishops are by oath bound to carry out is the celebrated bull, “In Coena Domini,” An. 1638:

First Article. We excommunicate and anathematize, in the name of God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and by the authority of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and by our own, all Wickliffites, Hussites, Lutherans, Calvinists, Hugonots, Anabaptists, and all other heretics, by whatsoever name they are called, and of whatsoever sects they may be ; and also all Schismatics, and those who withdraw themselves, or recede obstinately from the obedience of the Bishop of Rome; as also their Adherents, Receivers, Favorers, and generally any defenders of them:—together with all who, without the authority of the Apostolic See, shall knowingly read, keep^ or print, any of their Books which treat on Religion, or by or for any cause whatever, publicly or privately, on any pretence or color defend them.

What punishments were to be inflicted on Heretics, etc.?

If any Bishop be negligent (Cone. Benni. Tom. 11, p. 152) in purging his diocese of heretical pravity, he, by the 3rd Canon of the 4th Lateran Council, must be deprived of his episcopal dignity; and by the Council of Constance (Sess. 45, Tom. 7, p. 1122), and by the Canon Law (Decretal lib. 5. tit. 7, cap. IS), Bishops, by their above oath of consecration, are bound to do so. And the punishment to be inflicted on the heretics, must be excommunication, confiscation of goods, imprisonment, exile, or death, as the case may be. (Concil. Benii. Tom 8.)

mendacity
(mɛnˈdæsɪtɪ)
n, pl -ties
1. the tendency to be untruthful
2. a falsehood

When the Roman Catholics of the British Isles, long excluded from civil rights, not because they were Catholics, but because they were Bomanists first and British subjects after, sought in the beginning of the nineteenth century for legal relief from political disabilities, their prelatical leaders declared, openly and repeatedly, that Catholics were, in matters civil and temporal, under no obligation of obedience to the pope. Writing to Lord Liverpool in 1826, Bishop Doyle, the ablest of the Irish bishops, declared:

We are taunted with the proceedings of popes. What, my lord, have we Catholics to do with the proceedings of popes, or why should we be made accountable for them? — Essay on Catholic Claims, p. 111.

To a Committee of the House of Lords, in 1825, Bishop Doyle declared, in answer to the question :

In what, and how far, does the Roman Catholic profess to obey the pope?

He replied:

The Catholic professes to obey the pope in matters which regard his religious faith and in those matters of ecclesiastical discipline which have already been defined by the competent authorities.

To another important question:

Does that justify the objection that is made to Catholics that their allegiance is divided?

Bishop Doyle made emphatic reply :

I do not think it does in any way. “We are bound to obey the pope in those things that I have already mentioned. But our obedience to the law and the allegiance which we owe the Sovereign are complete and full and perfect and undivided, inasmuch as they extend to all political, legal, and civil rights of the King or of his subjects. I think the allegiance due to the King and the allegiance due to the pope are as distinct and as divided in their nature as any two things can possibly be.

The Vicars Apostolic, who with Episcopal authority governed the Roman Catholics of Great Britain, declared in 1826 :

The allegiance which Catholics hold to be due, and are bound to pay, to their Sovereign and to the civil authority of the State is perfect and undivided. . . .

They declare that neither the pope, nor any other prelate or ecclesiastical person of the Roman Catholic Church, . . . has any right to interfere, directly or indirectly, in the civil government, . . . nor to oppose in any manner the performance of the civil duties which are due to the King.

The Irish Bishops, addressing the Roman Catholic clergy and laity in a Pastoral, dated January 25, 1826, repeat :

It is a duty which they owe to themselves, as well as to their Protestant fellow-subjects, whose good opinion they value, to endeavor once more to remove the false imputations that have been frequently cast upon the faith and discipline of that Church which is entrusted to their care, that all may be enabled to know with accuracy their genuine principles.

Among these “genuine principles’ ‘ the Irish Bishops enumerate:

They declare on oath their belief that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither are they thereby required to believe, that the pope is infallible.

Then, after various recitals, they set forth:

After this full, explicit, and sworn declaration, we are utterly at a loss to conceive on what possible ground we could be justly charged with bearing toward our Most Gracious Sovereign only a divided allegiance.

The Roman Church boasts that in matters of doctrine it is unchangeable. From 1826 till 1870 the period is not lengthy, as far as historical progress is concerned. Yet what vital changes in that brief time in Roman Catholic faith !

When, in fact, we speak of the decrees of the Council of the Vatican, we use a phrase, as Mr. Gladstone well points out, “which will not bear strict examination. The Canons of the Council of Trent were, at least, the real Canons of a real Council ;” the Vatican Council’s ” decrees’ ‘ were a simple approbatory acceptance of decrees formulated and promulgated by the pope alone.

Mr. Gladstone is very explicit; so very much so as to be unanswerable in defining the scope of Papal Infallibility:

Will it be said, finally, that the Infallibility touches only matter of faith and morals? Only matter of morals! Will any of the Roman casuists kindly acquaint us what are the departments and functions of human life which do not and can not fall within the domain of morals? If they will not tell us, we must look elsewhere. In his work entitled Literature and Dogma, Mr. Matthew Arnold quaintly informs us—as they tell us nowadays how many parts of our poor bodies are solid and how many aqueous—that about seventy-five per cent of all we do belongs to the department of ‘ ‘ conduct. ‘ ‘ Conduct and morals, we may suppose, are nearly co-extensive. Threefourths, then, of life are thus handed over. But who will guarantee to us the other fourth? Certainly not St. Paul, who says, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” And, “Whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus.” No! Such a distinction would be the unworthy device of a shallow policy, vainly used to hide the daring of that wild ambition which at Rome, not from the throne, but from behind the throne, prompts the movements of the Vatican. I care not to ask if there be dregs or tatters of human life such as can escape from the description and boundary of morals. I submit that Duty is a power which rises with us in the morning and goes to rest with us at night. It is co-extensive with the action of our intelligence. It is the shadow which cleaves to us, go where we will, and which only leaves us when we leave the light of life. So, then, it is the supreme direction of us in respect to all Duty which the pontiff declares to belong to him sacro approbante concilio; and this declaration he makes, not as an otiose opinion of the schools, but cunctis fidelibus credendam et tenendam.—The Vatican Decrees, by Gladstone, pp. 27, 28.

Speaking of 1826, Mr. Gladstone states :

Papal infallibility was most solemnly declared to be a matter on which each man might think as he pleased; the pope’s power to claim obedience was strictly and narrowly limited: it was expressly denied that he had any title, direct or indirect, to interfere in civil government. Of the right of the pope to define the limits which divide the civil from the spiritual by his own authority, not one word is said by the prelates of either country [Great Britain or Ireland].

Since that time all these propositions have been reversed. The pope’s infallibility, when he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals, has been declared, with the assent of the bishops of the Roman Church, to be an article of faith binding on the conscience of every Christian; his claim to the obedience of his spiritual subjects has been declared in like manner without any practical limit or reserve ; and his supremacy, without any reserve of civil rights, has been similarly affirmed to include everything which relates to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. And these doctrines, we now know on the highest authority, it is of necessity for salvation to believe.

Independently, however, of the Vatican Decrees themselves, it is necessary for all who wish to understand what has been the amount of the wonderful change now consummated in the Constitution of the Latin Church, and what is the present degradation of its Episcopal order, to observe also the change, amounting to revolution, of form in the present as compared with other conciliatory decrees. Indeed, that spirit of centralization, the excesses of which are as fatal to vigorous life in the Church as in the State, seems now nearly to have reached the last and furthest point of possible advancement and exaltation. — The Vatican Decrees, by Gladstone, pp. 24, 25.

Accept must all Roman Catholics, as infallible judgments, the papal denunciations of the Masonic and other fraternal orders, so splendidly equipped and so noble in achievement for human betterment. The essential difference between Masonry and Papalism is well set forth by the Masonic Chonicler:

Masons often complain of the aggressive methods of members of the Catholic Church, and ask why Masons do not follow their example and thereby do more in the way of promoting each others welfare.

The answer is simple. The Catholic Church is a thoroughly organized and well-managed business and political institution, probably the greatest on earth. It wields its influence to promote and advance the interests of its members in business and political affairs. Its members recognize this powerful influence, and, being ever ready to safeguard their selfish interests, they are obedient and servile. This obedience and servility increase the power of the Church and, through the united efforts of all of its members, the material benefits derived are manifold.

On the other hand, the Masonic order is in no sense a business or political institution. It is strictly a fraternal organization, relying on Truth and Justice for its strength and support. It neither favors nor antagonizes religious beliefs, and refuses to be drawn into business or political controversies. It makes it clear to every member that he should aid and support his brother in his laudable undertakings, but such aid and support is purely voluntary, or solely within the member’s discretion. There is no law compelling a member to fulfill his obligation in this regard, nor any powerful influence exercised to induce him to do his duty. In other words, Masonry does not appeal to the selfishness of its members by holding out a reward for obeying some edict. It remains passive, relying on the honesty and devotion of its members.

Masonry can not nor will not stoop to the despicable methods of the Catholic Church in order to promote the interests of its members.

The sole offense of Masonry, in Romanist eyes, is its refusal, peremptory and perpetual, to accept Rome as mistress and mother. Let any society be as “secret” as it may; let any society be as destructive to human betterment as it can, Rome is, on its acceptance of the Roman collar of subserviency, prepared to receive it into full brotherhood and communion.

No such darksome and lethal record as the Jesuits has any organization known of civilized man; but the Jesuit is persona gratissima to pope and cardinals, because prepared to commit any abomination to further the interests of popery.

Since the re-establishment of the Jesuits, the Roman Church has fallen under the dominancy of Alphonsus de Liguori, a “Saint” of high degree, a “Doctor of the Church,” in the Roman Martyrology. De Liguori, born of a noble family, led in early life a worldly and, it is said, sinful career. He entered in due time upon the practice of law, but, called of God as his admirers and apologists put it, he determined to give himself entirely to religion. Close study of the man shows him to have been a monomaniac of so pronounced a degree that he may have been possessed of evil spirits. His so-called theological writings display a minute acquaintance, truly diabolical, with every detail of evil which hell alone could supply.

Friendly to the Jesuits, who had trained him, De Liguori used every influence to prevent their suppression. By diabolical or other agency he managed to make himself, so authentic writings disclose, appear in Pope Clement XIV’s private chamber while actually present at the same moment in his own home, many miles away. The Liguori in the pope’s chamber tried to dissuade the pontiff from suppressing the Jesuits. The other, or real Liguori, accepted the suppression, and upon the ruins of the Jesuits erected a new Religious Order, called the Redemptorists, who make it their special glory to call this demon possessed ” saint’ ‘ their founder.

Grateful to Liguori for his friendship to their Order in hours of darkest trouble, the Jesuits make his teaching the basis of all their moral ( 1) theological systems. The theology of Liguori, as far as its teaching of clean living and Christlike demeanor to men and women of the world is concerned, is a work of direct and darkest abominations.

When Hecker and his friends of the ” Brook Farm” left Protestantism to embrace the Roman creed, they first thought of attaching themselves to the Congregation of the Redemptorists. But the Redemptorists, for the most part a Belgian and German Order, soon shocked their sensibilities. They applied to Rome for the formation of a new Order, to be called the Paulists, intended especially to receive Protestant ministers desirous of qualifying themselves for duty as priestly missionaries of the Roman Catholic Church.

Hecker, being a man of blameless life, attracted some followers, but the Congregation of Paulists, approved at his instance by the pope, has demonstrated itself a failure as an instrument of religious upliftment. The Paulists are nowhere, in the few establishments they have founded, the power for good that Hecker intended them to be. Everywhere they have, on the contrary, fallen into evil ways and gainful occupations. They have descended to the level of the lascivious, greedy, secular priesthood, using the latter for unworthy purposes. See ‘ ‘ Romanism A Menace to the Nation,’ ‘ pp. 118-121.

The Paulists planned of Hecker and the Paulists of to-day are as different as auroral splendor from clouded night. The Paulists were founded for the purpose, express and exclusive, of Romanizing America — a purpose very close to the papal heart, as the following, from a leading Roman Catholic paper, demonstrates :

During the Lenten season, now drawing to a close, devotion on the part of the Catholic people of this diocese has been remarkable. Thousands have approached the communion rail every day, many missions have been given, while the customary Lenten exercises have been taken advantage of by great crowds of devout people, who have stormed high heaven with their earnest petitions. God answers prayer. He will answer the supplications of those faithful thousands.

We hope our people are not selfish in their prayers. America must become Catholic, and it is only through the prayers of the people that this can be brought about. The Apostolic Mission House at Washington [operated by the Paulists] is doing wonderful work for the conversion of our country. It is the agency for the training of priests to work effectively among non-Catholics. It is a work which should be encouraged and helped by giving generously toward its support. What greater work, what nobler work can claim the attention and sympathy and charity of a true Catholic heart?

There are those who will say this is the old, old story of dollars and cents. It is, to a certain extent, for little can be done without funds. People should remember, however, that these missionaries realize that every cent raised is given for a sacred cause. It is given to enable the gospel message to be preached to those who are not of the fold, but many of whom will save their souls by membership in the Catholic Church through conversion.

In an urgent appeal, the missionaries say:

“Relying on your constant generosity, we have great hopes of sending into neglected districts especially well-trained missionaries who will do much work for God. A great deal is being accomplished now, but we have need of a more extended apostolate. We shall not be content until every State in the Union has its missionaries to non-Catholics. This larger field calls for greater funds, and we rely on you, dear friend, to help us.”

The Roman Church is busy with the Public School System of the country, either denouncing it, or manipulating it for its own forbidding purposes. The Catholic Telegraph, of Cincinnati, 0., under date May 15, 1913, states:

Found guilty of circulating the bogus K. of C. “oath” among her pupils, a public school teacher named Miss Koch, of Marcus, Iowa, was dismissed from her position. Credit for securing her expulsion is due to the Knights of Columbus of Marcus. In the forty years of the existence of the public schools in that city but one Catholic has ever been employed as teacher.

Catholic teachers all over the country circulate books assailing Protestantism, belying historical record and conclusion. They also in many places distribute Romanist Catechisms and controversial works among Protestant pupils; and, besides, give them medals, rosary beads, and other papistical trinkets blessed by pope, prelate, or priest.

The American people ought to dissociate everlastingly the Public School from all contact with Romanism. The Roman Church dignitaries denounce the public schools as godless, fomenters of crime, and nursing places of sedition. Let these dignitaries be, therefore, kept closely to the control of their own parochial system of education, which is now so prolific in raising a plethoric population to fill the jails and penitentiaries of this Republic, and, consequently, in urgent need of firm supervision.

Americans permit no clergymen of other denominations to assume controlling interest in public schools. Is it not time that a line be drawn against the Roman priest to make him keep hands off the people’s schools? We know very well, from his parochial school effort, to what a level of degradation he would reduce the public schools. Take another item from the same paper:

After a visit to the two public schools within the confines of St. Anthony parish, New York City, Rev. Cherubino Viola, 0. F. M., obtained permission from the principals for the Catholic children, nearly all of whom are Italians, to attend special religious instructions. About one thousand boys and girls, some of whom had rarely been in a church before, attended the instructions for an hour on three successive days. As a result, four hundred are now preparing for their first communion and confirmation on May 25th.

Why should this priest be permitted to interfere with the regime of the public school on any pretext whatever?

Unfortunately, our public schools are controlled largely by ward politicians, of divers Church affiliations, who bow and cringe and fawn in the presence of a Romish priest. He can, they believe, make votes for the gangsters, who in turn are ready to sacrifice public schools, public moneys, and American patriotism itself on the altars of graft and gain, at which popish priests so gladly minister.

How subservient American non-Catholics are to Rome receives further confirmation in The Catholic Telegraph, May 15, 1913 :

Confirmation services at St. Mary Industrial School, Baltimore, last week, were attended with unusual solemnity. The Most Rev. Archbishop Bonzano, Apostolic Delegate, administered the Sacrament, and the Grand Army of the Republic, through General John R. King, presented two flags to the school. Bishop Corrigan replied to General King, accepting the flags. Mayor Preston was also present.

There had been no Grand Army of the Republic if Rome could have prevented. When the organization was first started, it encountered bitter opposition from priests all over the country. Now leading Grand Army men hand over the American flag as a tribute to Papal Delegate Bonzano, who hates a Republican form of government. To take further grip of army and navy is the very evident purpose of Rome, as this statement from The Catholic Telegraph, May 15, 1913, very clearly demonstrates :

A convention of the Catholic chaplains of the army and navy will be held next month in Washington, D. C. This is the first gathering of its kind in the country, and far-reaching results are expected from its deliberations. The plan of the convention is based largely on the suggestions offered by the Rev. George J. Waring, chaplain of the Eleventh Cavalry, in an essay entitled, “The Chaplain’s Duties,” which the War Departmen has published as an official document and has recommended as a sort of text-book for chaplains of every denomination.

One of the suggestions of Father Waring which will receive attention at the convention is the appointment by the hierarchy of a Bishop, who will have jurisdiction over Catholic chaplains in both branches of the service. This plan is followed in the British army, the Bishop at the same time governing his own diocese. The chaplains are subject to him only while in service, and from him they receive their faculties and powers. They are responsible to him for their conduct, and he is responsible for them to their respective Bishops. The plan has worked satisfactorily and to the benefit of religion, and it is held the same results would follow from its adoption in this country.

What next? Will President Wilson continue the practice of his predecessors and consult Gibbons, Farley, and O’Connell, Rome’s red princes in America, as to army and navy appointments? Will America’s army, papalized and foreignized, be so weakened and emasculated by Romanistic control as to make it easy prey for perfidious Jap? The soldiers of Spain were once justly reckoned brave and almost unconquerable. Romish control for centuries has reduced Spain to the level of a fourth or fifth-rate power. The control, the influence of Romanism, nay, its very contact, is deadly to every independent endeavor and to every achievement of bravery.

How active Romanism is in its endeavor to seize on and throttle America, the following, from the same issue of the Catholic Union and Times, March 13, 1913, establishes :

The ninth annual report of the Society for the Propagation of the Faith in the archdiocese of New York has just been issued by the director, Very Rev. John J. Dunn. It shows a remarkable increase in Catholic interest in the mission cause. Through Msgr. Dunn’s efforts the sum of $163,- 457.25 was collected for the missions during 1912, an increase of more than $40,000 over the preceding year. The money expended in collecting this large sum amounted to $11,489.71, leaving the net contribution of New York to the missions, $151,967.54.

The report is gotten up in a businesslike manner. The various expenditures are classified and the amount received from various sources clearly indicated. A business man looking over the report will be impressed with the economic manner in which the office is run. The expenses amount to less than seven per cent of the sum collected. Over ninety-three per cent went to the missions. In the body of the report Msgr. Dunn thanks all who have co-operated with him, and acknowledges his indebtedness to the press, religious and secular, for the kindly spirit which its representatives have exhibited towards his work.

The Society for the Propagation of the Faith is growing very fast in the United States. Boston and Philadelphia are only a little behind New York, which leads the entire Catholic world in aid of the mission cause. Cardinal Farley is keenly interested in the work of the society which he established in New York, and views its growth with deep interest and satisfaction. The New York office is in communication with all parts of the mission field, and the report gives some indication of the vast field and the complex problems met with by the missionaries in carrying the gospel to the heathen.

So do the subjoined, from The Catholic Telegraph, March 30, 1913 :

A suitable church being badly needed to accommodate the body of professors and students of the Catholic University, Washington, D. C, and a reasonable number of visitors, the rector, Msgr. Shahan, is appealing to the Catholic women of the United States to undertake the work of raising funds for the purpose. The proposed new church will be dedicated to the Immaculate Conception.

The annual report of the Diocesan Seminary of Philadelphia shows that the total collection during the past year was $67,402, or $5,000 in excess of the previous year. It was stated that thirty candidates were excluded for lack of room, and the rector suggests that a separate preparatory seminary be erected.

Here I may be permitted to remark that fully fifty per cent of the contributions to the Romanist development in America is given by non-Catholics ; very largely, indeed, by ardently professing Protestants. Some of the latter are out for Catholic business patronage, others for political advancement. Some conceal or have their contributions covered up under various devices; other Protestants, however, do not flinch from publicity, as for instance:

From Charlottetown, P. E. I., comes a story that bears repetition. A few weeks ago the magnificent new Cathedral of that city was burned, just as the Bishop was preparing to celebrate the paying of the last indebtedness on the property. The first to come forward with aid after the fire was a Methodist firm with a donation of $5,000, with which the Bishop purchased the old Zion Presbyterian Church as a temporary place of worship for the congregation. This was followed by a subscription of $6,000 from Frank R. Heartz, a Methodist, while another prominent Protestant gave $10,000.—The Catholic Telegraph, April 3, 1913.

While Catholics have no hesitation in asking Protestants to subscribe for the building and support of Romanist edifices, no Catholic is permitted, according to strict Catholic teaching, to give one cent towards the erection of any distinctively Protestant or professedly non-Catholic structure. So far does the prohibition of Catholics extending aid or countenance to “heresy” go, that a Catholic may not enter a Protestant church edifice to take part in the funeral services of a deceased friend, even if that friend were of closest kinship. The same prohibition extends to the attendance of Catholics at weddings, christenings, and other ceremonies in Protestant church edifices or elsewhere. Catholic young women serving as bridesmaids to Protestant young women friends are excommunicated. And the sinning excommunicated Catholics attending Protestant funerals, weddings, or christenings, are denied absolution until they have recourse to the Romanist Bishop of the diocese, who may live 200 miles away and whose mercy may have to be paid for very liberally.

This is in strict accordance with the theological teaching of the Church of Rome. However, in non-Catholic countries such grave misdemeanors are frequently tolerated, sometimes even encouraged by priests and prelates, in the hope of making those countries “dominantly Catholic”—”the end justifies the means.”

No doubt whatever that, since 1870, the Roman Catholic American citizen, the Roman Catholic British subject, or the Roman Catholic of any other country, owes first allegiance to the pope, a second and very subordinate one to the country whose protection he enjoys. Well says The Truth Seeker:

Every Roman Catholic is fighting under two flags; or rather, living under one and fighting under the other. And, strange as it may seem, he is fighting the flag under which he lives and which protects him. It can not be denied that the papal flag is one that every Roman Catholic must fight under when the order is given, and, until that order is given, he is working in secret against the Stars and Stripes. No papal flag should ever be hoisted above our soil.

Into many strange inconsistencies and extraordinary contradictions does the doctrine of papal infallibility lead Romanist apologists. The pope, who suppressed the Jesuits in the latter part of the eighteenth century, was, of course, according to modern Romanism, infallible. So also, of a truth, must be considered, according to the same System, the pope who, for reasons of as much weight to papalism as impelled Clement XIV to suppress them, restored the Jesuits, forty years later, as a Religious (?) Order of the very highest standing in the Church.

Pius X, raised to the papal throne on the death of Leo XIII, has repeatedly condemned what he terms “Modernism,” by which he means human betterment and social progress. Ask Pius X, I may without unseemly intrusiveness, whether the papalism of to-day, with its deification of Virgin Mary and of pope, is not a very “Modern” institution. Subservient enough were the spiritual subjects of the Vatican in the Middle Ages, but the pope could not, even then, have forced on the masses of so-called Christians acknowledging obedience to the Roman See, the dogma of Pius IX, dated 1854, making the Virgin Mary part of the Godhead, nor that of the same pontiff, dated 1870, giving the Roman pontiff divine attributes.

The Vatican, through influences open and occult at Washington, has succeeded in securing firm and profitable hold of the Philippine Islands. Did Americans wrest that magnificent archipelago from Spain to hand it over to the papacy? Present conditions do certainly point in that direction. A new Hierarchy, with a very thin American veneer, has replaced the older Spanish ecclesiastical machine; but scratch off a little of the Vatican’s veneer, manufactured expressly by Gibbons, Ireland & Co., for the “Holy Father’s” use, and yon will discover the selfsame deadlyequipment for human enslavement, so long and so lucratively used for the joint profit of inquisition- loving and people-crushing popery.

Paganism was the author of spiritual degradation, and fitting promoter, therefore, of material or manual bondage. The Christian message delivered by Paul of Tarsus, its ablest exponent, was a clear announcement of human deliverance from enslavement in its every form.

In his letter to the Galatians (4:1-7), Paul with admirable force and clearness, propounds the announcement of human upliftment:

Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be loved of all; but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world: but when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.”

No anarchist, Paul the Apostle, who to the Romans wrote:

No such an institution as the papacy was dreamed of in the days of Paul. Had there been such an establishment as that, since termed by papalists the “one visible head of the Church on earth,’ ‘ the PVicar of Jesus Christ,’ ‘ the “Infallible Pontiff,” “Successor of Peter,” etc., etc., Paul had not assuredly failed to mention it, especially to the Christians in Rome, to whom and for whom he wrote. He preaches loyalty to the civil authorities of the Roman Empire, uttering not one word of allegiance to such a monstrous usurpation as the papal machine of today.

Let every soul be subject unto the higher [civil] powers. For there is no [civil] power but of God: the powers [civil] that be are ordained of God. . . . Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers [in things civil], attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.—Romans 13: 1-7.

Nothing known in Paul’s day of the Vatican market for the sale of indulgences; of matrimonial dispensations and annulments; of easy exits from purgatorial fires to front seats in glory. When these monstrous perversions of the Christian system made themselves most flagrantly and perniciously present, another Paul, in the person of Martin Luther, arose to call men back to the Pauline vigor and simplicity of the faith. Like unto Paul, Luther thundered forth in language that reached the very ends of the earth:

We beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more. For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus. . . . For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.—1 Thess. 4: 1-7.

Not even Peter, first pope and bishop of Rome, according to Vaticanist apologists, knew anything of his own supremacy or infallibility. For in his first epistle he says not:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of mine, as to commands of Christ’s Vicar on earth. I am pope and must be obeyed.

No impostor or usurper, the good Peter. Modestly, but authoritatively, he writes, not as a Hildebrand, or a Borgia, or a Pecci, or a Sarto:

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme ; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well-doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men : as free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the King.—1 Peter 2: 14-17.

Cold day, surely, for the papacy, when even the Apostle Peter adds not: ” Honor the pope, Christ’s Infallible Vicar on earth.’ ‘ The Modernists, anathematized by Pius X, may adopt Peter for patron saint! No pope, no monks or nuns in the early days of the Church. Not one word in apostolic letter or preaching of these later sinister and satanic developments of papal power. No mention, in the times of pristine purity of faith and discipline, of such an agency of enlightenment and humanity as the Inquisition.

At work to-day is the Inquisition in America. Leo XIII declared Torquemada, the infamous Spanish Inquisitor, a ‘ ‘ Saint! ‘ ‘ And there is yet a tribunal of cardinals in Rome, in every-day active service, called ‘ ‘ The Holy Office, ‘ or i ‘ The Sacred and Universal Inquisition. ‘ ‘

Give Rome control of the American Republic and you shall soon see the fires of Inquisitional fury burning and the blood of truth-lovers drenching our soil. And, in secret, the Inquisition is ever at work, even in America. The most fearful punishments are visited on nuns who reject the attentions of lecherous bishops and priests; the most damnable cruelties are visited on the very few self-respecting priests, secular and religious, who, by clean living and manful denunciation of sin in high places, incur the hostility of immoral hierarchs.

The following editorial from the North Carolina Christian Advocate of March 13, 1913, illustrates how the Protestant Church papers are awakening to the situation:

A note in these columns anent Mr. Wilson and the Roman Catholics in our issue of February 20th evidently got under the epidermis of one Roman Catholic. Usually they are very thick-skinned and do not let on, but this time one of them came back through the mails with the meanest letter we have received in many a day. Now, we published the little item as a matter of news, with some plain comment, and we are satisfied from the tone of the letter received, if we had no other evidence, that there is one man, either a Roman Catholic or a Roman Catholic sympathizer, who would love to kindle the fagots around our feet. Any one who thinks that the Roman Catholic Church is any more tolerant in spirit than it was in the days of the Inquisition should revise his notion. To be sure, the Roman Catholics have a right to their place as citizens in this Government, but their hobnobbing for special recognition, such as was given them under Mr. Taft’s administration, will not be regarded with complacency. They have made some bad history, which will continue to plague them as long as they maintain their attitude of bigoted assumption of a divine prerogative in civil matters. Until this attitude is changed and their bigoted claim is relinquished they have no right to expect that the public opinion of this Protestant country will regard them as above suspicion.

Romanism points and presses downward. Humanity is called by Gospel and other messages to look upward and to move in forward direction to the light and in the light. The System which holds in the most degrading White Slavery 150,000 nuns and candidates for nunnish servitude is on trial in America, and sure to be found wanting. Its record is, as I have shown elsewhere, one of darkest infamy.

The black or brown robed sisterhoods of the Romish Church have begging representatives constantly on the road. They visit office buildings, stores, hotels, private dwellings, saloons, and houses of prostitution, with hand out at all times for gifts to coffers bursting already with riches, but as deaf to cries of human suffering as the steel of which they are made.

Let some benefactor of the nunnish collectors meet with poverty and want and sickness ; let him then in his simplicity say unto himself: “Go will I to the Sisters ‘ hospital that I have, week in and week out, so long contributed to.” Let him, in the honesty of confiding faith, knock at the gate of the sisterhood’s “domicile for Christ’s poor,” and his ears will be stunned and heart chilled by the repulse: ‘ ‘ Go, we know you not. The city must take care of you. ‘ ‘

A word of warning right here to Protestant parents. Nunnish agents are everywhere, in the United States and other countries where non- Romanists are in a majority, striving to obtain Protestant-born children as pupils for convent schools. Devilish trick, most assuredly! The Protestant child in the convent school is made special object of lustful attentions from priests, prelates, and even from nuns (Spouses of Christ) ! She is, first of all, induced to take private instructions in religion from the Convent Chaplain, often a lecherous, drunken ruffian. He begins by giving her gilded doses of popishness, and, after a time, seduces her into base surrender of body and soul.

Convent schools have driven hundreds of Protestant, as well as Catholic, girls into houses of sin; forced them into the streets, and ultimately consigned them to prisons and the grave. Turn ye, Christian fathers and mothers, your children’s thoughts far from Rome and popery, but to the Lord God, who “will fulfil the desire of them that fear Him; He will also hear their cry, and will help them.”—Ps. 145:19.

One of the common priestly boasts is of the ease priests find in seducing Protestant girls attending convent schools. The lecherous priest sometimes fears attempts on Catholic girls or women, who might give him away to a jealous confessor, or denounce him to parents or guardians, but little or no fear has he in making attempts on Protestant girls in convent schools, or on other Protestant women, married or single. For, amongst other reasons, should a Protestant woman accuse a priest of wrongdoing, credulous Catholics would throw up their hands in horror and call it a Protestant plot to destroy the priest. A further result might be that the accusing Protestant woman and her family might be forced to leave the neighborhood.

The crafty priest who is a disciple of Venus, and nearly all priests are so, makes it a study to acquire dominating influence over Protestant women. Well knows he that these women know that he must keep lecherous tracks well covered ; and, further, knows he that they, for their own interests and protection, have to keep religiously sacred the story of any of their lapses with him. Hence does the wicked priest feel so noticeably free to give attention with evil intent to women not of his own creed. Protestant fathers and Protestant husbands have small idea indeed of the number of Protestant daughters and of Protestant wives seduced or liable to be seduced by Catholic priests.

No Catholic priest is safe guest for Protestant home. He goes there, not for good, but for evil darkest and most deadly. There was, some years ago, a priest named Nix, stationed in the county of Hastings, Ontario, Canada, who, having lived in open concubinage for some time with a Protestant doctor’s wife, fled, after exposure, to the United States, and there continued to exercise his priestly faculties. Another instance was that of “Father” Charles Ormond Reilly, of Detroit, whose scandalous escapades with women, Protestant and Catholic, aroused the indignation and disgust of all Michigan. Reilly was a Roman D. D., one of the most prominent pastors of the diocese of Detroit, and Treasurer of the Irish National League of America.

Still another example—that of the Rev. Dr. Stafford, of Washington, D. C, some of whose Protestant victims moved in the National Capitol’s highest social circles. And these are but few of the myriad of such incidents that from time to time startle and stupefy the American people.

Priests forbid Catholic men to marry Protestant women, but no prohibition is there in Roman System for priest to seduce Protestant daughter, sister, or wife. Priests succeeding in such efforts of beastliness boast of it, we repeat, in their post-prandial conversations, and to themselves glory in it as a triumph of Romanism over heresy.

Interesting truly is a papal conclave. “Con” and “clavis” are two Latin words signifying respectively “with” and “key;” liberally translated, “under lock and key.” For, while the cardinals are in meeting for the purpose of electing a pope, they are supposed to be locked in, absolutely, from the world, communing with the Holy Ghost and with a conscience enlightened of God only.

How very worldly and corrupt have been, however, many of the conclaves! To go no further back than the days of the infamous Borgia, who bought the papal tiara and called himself Alexander VI, we see venality, mendacity, immorality, and greed dominating a body sworn to act in the interests solely of the Christian religion.

Supposed to represent the apostles of Jesus Christ Himself, the humble and devoted fishermen, who, truly filled with the Holy Spirit and governed by its inspiration, undertook without shoe or scrip to convert a powerful, prejudiced, self-centered, and cruel world, the college of cardinals is indeed a very different body.

Appointed, for the most part, by intrigue, often by corruption, and as frequently through favoritism the most objectionable, the cardinals of the Roman Church are the most carnal-minded, venal, and selfish politicians on earth. So judging them, in his day, Wolsey, one of the most astute of modern statesmen, and typical churchman of his time, sought the papacy several times in succession. In his efforts to become ” Vicar of Christ,’ ‘ and wisely doubting the efficacy of the “Holy Ghost’ ‘ alone, he used very lavishly the gold and political influence of England, but Charles V of Spain and Germany, as well as other continental sovereigns, stood between him and the prize.

Men inferior to Wolsey in ability, and not superior to him in virtue, were the winners of an honor as absent from Christ-like character, surrounding, or suggestion as the very court of Satan.

Men of the Italian race have been, for several centuries, selected to fill the papal throne, to the exclusion of churchmen of almost all other nations. Why? Because the jealousies of greater peoples than the Italians have made pathway to the “chair of Peter” easy for sons of a blood and country not in the race for world-wide domination in temporals.

While, however, Italians have exclusive entree to the papacy, the government of other countries take lively interest in the selection of a pope friendly, or at all events not hostile, to their policies and purposes, Not a papal election but brings to Rome the most adroit and unscrupulous of worldly diplomatists. They fully understand the cardinals; and the cardinals understand the diplomatists just as thoroughly.

Every papal election since the days of Borgia, four hundred and more years ago—he was elected in 1492—has been, with exceptions that might be counted on the digits of one hand, a bargain and sale as flagrant as ever disgraced the rotten borough system of Britain before 1832, or has since defiled the ward elections of New York, Chicago, or San Francisco.

A papal conclave is a gathering intent primarily, often exclusively, on doing that which will bring to the scarlet-clad few, given the right to vote, the most ready cash. There is always a strong candidate—sometimes two or more in evidence— a short time before the dead pope has gone to his last account. Each of these men knows that it is money which in such an election counts. He begs, borrows, or steals with the earnestness of a seeker for parliamentary, civic, or congressional honors.

The various governmental agencies also get busy. It can happen that no government is pleased with the aspirations of the avowed candidates. Each of these agents looks around for a satisfactory candidate, and if one is found, finds the cash necessary to move the “Holy Spirit” of the conclave to decide on his election.

The really strongest and really ablest candidates are often defeated for a weak and docile prelate, whom skillful managers of the Curia may manipulate without difficulty. For four centuries, if we except the forty years of their temporary suppression, 1773-1814, the Jesuits have played telling and frequently decisive part in the election of popes.

Stop at nothing to attain an end do these unscrupulous men. Says Hon. R. W. Thompson in his celebrated work, “The Footprints of the Jesuits,” Chapter XII, pp. 196, 197:

Wheresoever they [the Jesuits] were sent among heathen and unchristianized peoples, they gave trouble to the Church and inflicted serious injury upon the cause of Christianity. When they found a missionary field occupied by any of the monastic orders, they endeavored either to remove them or to destroy their influence by assailing their Christian integrity, so that they could have everything their own way. They accustomed themselves to obtain their ends by whatsoever means they found necessary, considering the latter as justified by the former. Not in Paraguay alone, but wheresoever else they obtained dominion over ignorant and credulous populations, it was mainly accomplished by persuading them to believe that conversion to Christianity consisted in the mere recital of formal words the professed converts did not understand, and in the ceremony of baptism without any intelligent conception of its character or of the example and teachings of Christ. The seeds of error they thus succeeded in scattering broadcast among the natives of India, China, and elsewhere, have grown into such poisonous fruits that all the intervening years have failed to provide an antidote, and it remains a lamentable fact that the descendants of these same professing converts have relapsed into idolatry and continued to shun Christianity as if all its influences were pestilential. They [the Jesuuits] became Brahmins in India, and, by practicing the idolatrous rites and ceremonies of that country, brought the cause of Christianity into degradation. Continuing steadily to follow the advice of Loyola, they everywhere became “all things to all men” by worshiping at the shrines of the lowest forms of heathen superstition, as if they were the holy altars of the Church.

Would such men, I ask, stop at anything to secure the election of a pope friendly to their deceit and treachery? There is a saying common enough in Rome:

Three popes have we, the white pope (the reigning pontiff), the red pope (the cardinal prefect of the Propaganda), and the black pope (the general of the Jesuits), greatest of all three. When rebuked for their temporizing with paganism, or rather surrendering to its superstitions, Mr. Thompson adds :

They [the Jesuits] justified themselves upon the ground that any form of vice, deception, and immorality became legitimated by Christianity when practiced in its name. In China they engaged with the natives in worshiping Confucius instead of Christ, and made offerings upon his altar without the slightest twinge of conscience. They omitted nothing, howsoever degrading, which they found necessary to successfully planting the Jesuit scepter among the Oriental populations, until at last, after a long and hard struggle, they were brought into partial obedience by the Church, whose authority they had defied, and whose precepts they contemptuously violated. . . . They shamelessly cast aside the profession of Christianity as if it were a thing of reproach, and performed with alacrity the most revolting Hindoo rites, seemingly as regardless of the obligation of obedience to the Church as of their own dignity and manliness of character.

Mr. Thompson does not mince words:

They substituted fraud, deceit, and hypocrisy for that open, frank, and courageous course of conduct which a sense of right never fails to suggest to ingenuous minds. They unchristianized themselves by becoming Brahmins and pariahs, crawling stealthily and insidiously into the highest places, and sinking with equal ease and skill into the lowest and most degrading.

Imagine men like these Jesuits prepared, for temporary gain, to paganize themselves in tireless activity during a papal election! Tammany politician the most corrupt, ward heeler the most conscienceless that American politics has ever known, could not hold candle to these adepts in mendacity and hypocrisy. We have heard of ballot- stuffing, of vote-buying in a thousand forms, we have heard of fraudulent counts and lying certificates of election, we have heard and known of assassinations to prevent lawfully-elected officers from taking their seats ; but at no crime less than those perpetrated by the worst of American politicians have Jesuits hesitated, in order to place pontiff of their choice on the papal throne.

Remember, let Americans in particular, that under the American flag Jesuitism flourishes as it does not seem to thrive elsewhere; save, perhaps, in Britain and the overseas dominions of that empire. The Jesuits under the Stars and Stripes are more powerful and wealthy than they were in the whole world before their suppression in 1773. There are in the United States proper several Jesuit provinces and missions. The headquarters of these provinces and missions are New York City; St. Louis, Mo.; San Francisco, Cal. ; El Paso, Tex.; New Orleans, La.; Spokane, Wash. ; and Buffalo, N. Y.

The Jesuits are particularly strong in the Philippine Islands. In the 1907 “Official Catholic DirectoryV statement for the Archdiocese of Manila we read :

The Jesuit Fathers.—Came to these Islands in 1581. In 1595 they founded the college of St. Ignacio, which was made university canonically approved by the pope and the king of Spain in 1621. Latin, rhetoric, mathematics, theology, canon and civil law were taught therein. At the same time they established the famous college of San Jose, which to-day is affiliated to the Santo Tomas University and is the hall for the medical department the colleges of San Felipe, Santa Cruz, and Cavite, and also a printing house. The Jesuit Fathers came back to the Philippines in 1859. Since then they have established the institutions above cited and opened great many missions in Mindanao. In the Ateneo there are 31 priests and 22 brothers. In the Normal School there are 19 priests and 13 brothers. Total, 50 priests and 35 brothers. Very Rev. Pio Pi, supr., 157 Arzobispo st.

From the “Official Catholic Directory,” 1913, P. J. Kennedy and Sons, Publishers, New York, pp. 814 and 871 :

New York—Maryland 362
Missouri 384
New Mexico—Colorado 67
New Orleans 132
California 139
Philippines 57
Total 1,141

To which may be added for the Diocese of Dallas, Tex., 11 belonging to the Sicilian province, and for that of Havana, Cuba, 34; a grand total of 1,186.

Large sums of money are, by the Jesuits of the United States and Canada, sent to Rome regularly to help elect friendly popes and to keep the pope ‘ ‘ right ‘ ‘ after election. The present pontiff is a creature of the Jesuits. They aided freely and generously in his election: they dominate his councils and procure from his pontifical pen the most stupidly reactionary documents the Church has known for thirty years.

When the papacy stultifies itself, to the Jesuits it looks for defense. Pius X, knowing how he was elected, needs the skill and daring of such defenders as the sons of Loyola.

Pius X owes his election to the “veto” exercised by Austria against Rampolla’s proposed selection. Each of the four Catholic powers — Austria, France, Spain, and Portugal—had for three centuries exercised the right of vetoing the election of any pope not satisfactory to its government. On account of Cardinal Rampolla’s pro-Gallic tendencies and other reasons Kaiser Wilhelm induced Austria to veto his election to the papacy. To illustrate how completely the “Holy Ghost” dominates the election of a Roman pontiff, let it be borne in mind that to Cardinal Satolli, bastard son of Leo XIII, Rampolla was most odious. By Satolli ‘s agency Kaiser Wilhelm ‘s activities were set on foot during the conclave. It is, therefore, to Wilhelm, not to the “Holy Spirit,” that credit must be given for the selection of so reactionary and retrogressive a pope as Pius X.

The latter immediately after his enthronement showed his gratitude to the “Veto” by formally abolishing it forever. Talk of American politics! The most astute and adroit American boss ever known is mere pigmy in political management compared to the bosses of the Sacred ( ?) College of Cardinals. When the world wants to learn what real political activities are like, what deceit, mendacity, and venality in action really resemble, let it cast eye on the secret workings of a Roman conclave!

The public press in large part stultifies itself by treating these conclaves—these reunions of pious (?) and learned (?) men—as free agents firmly resolved on doing the right. Never yet has conclave, since conclaves were first invented, been free from a corruption, intimidation, dissimulation, and fraud that would put to shame any purely secular gathering of grafters and boodlers.

When Pius X dies, the hand of Jesuit, gilded and crafty, will control the conclave called to select his successor. The ” White Pope” dies, but the “Black Pope” (the general of the Jesuits) never ceases to operate.

No reason, however, this, that Christian people should lose hope or drop activity. The human heart longs for higher and better things than this life can ever afford or Romanism would permit. It leaps out into the future and grasps the hope of the better life for which Jerome of Prague died and Luther strove. It longs for immortality!! Man calls his highest imagination into requisition to find it. Freed from Romanist chains, he looks up into the very gate of heaven and asks, “Will man live again ? ‘ ‘ “Is there life beyond ? ” ” Will the longing desires of my nature be satisfied?” “Will I live forever?” Questions of the soul are these—questions that call forth the answer, “He that believeth on me, though he die, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die.” The poet, hearing this answer, breathes to us in words of deepest tenderness the message that infidelity’s no hope is the dawning of hope for every Christian man. It is the dawning of the hope that —

“There’s a home in the skies where the weary will rest, A glorious home in the land of the blest; There tears will be wiped from the sorrowful eye, And the broken heart will forget to sigh.

No pestilence rides on the wings of the air, No wave of affliction or sorrow is there; In darkness that region shall never be furled, For the smile of the Lord is the light of that world.”

The papacy is certainly the enemy of the free press. That enmity began not yesterday, but started with the art of printing. See for example, Leo X, in the Council of Lateran, Session X, regarding the printing of books:

Lest that which has been wholesomely invented unto the glory of God, and the increase of the faith, and the propagation of the liberal arts, be converted to the contrary effect, and bring forth detriment to the salvation of the faithful of Christ, we deemed it right that our solicitude should be exercised concerning the printing of books, lest in future thorns grow up along with the good seed, or poisons be mixed up with medicines, wishing, therefore, to provide an opportune remedy for these, with the approbation of this sacred council, that the business of the printing of such books may succeed with the greater prosperity, in proportion as a more close search shall be employed with greater diligence and caution; we decree and ordain that henceforward in the time to come, no one shall presume to print, or cause to be printed, any book, or any writing soever, as well in our city as in all other cities and dioceses soever, unless such books or writings be first carefully examined in the city by our vicar and the master of the sacred palace, but in other States and dioceses by the bishop, or some other person to be deputed for that purpose by the same bishop, and by the inquisitor of heretical depravity, in the State or diocese in which the printing of such books might take place, and be approved by their subscription with their own hand, to be affixed in all cases, lest by taking an easy short cut a heavy loss be sustained, as an inscription ought legitimately to precede an accusation, so also ought a charitable admonition to precede a denunciation, and a clamorous insinuation an inquisition, such check being always employed, that, according to the form of the trial, the form of the sentence also to be worded. — Buckley, page 313.

No man connected with the press is free from interference by the Catholic prelacy. He is, if a Catholic, informed that his duty on the secular press is to cover and conceal all misdeeds of bishops and priests. He is, if editor of a Catholic (so-called) paper published by the bishop’s approval, obliged to write constantly or to receive and publish writings belauding the worst of bishops and the lewdest of clerics.

Catholic papers are maintained by episcopal authority solely. These papers are either owned by the bishops themselves or depend for circulation on the approval of bishops. One of the papers standing best in episcopal estimation is The Western Watchman, edited by that unclean priest, D. S. Phelan, of whom the St. Louis Globe- Democrat, August 20, 1892, published the following editorial, to which Phelan never dared make reply :

The ribald cleric who, “for some inscrutable purpose,” as Mr. Greeley once remarked, is permitted to edit a weekly “religious” newspaper in this city called The Western Watchman, takes me for a topic in answer to some editorial remarks in the Globe-Democrat on his criticism of the life and death of the late Judge Normile. I seem to have stirred him to his innermost depths in a very short paragraph calling attention to the brutal and unprovoked character of his assault upon the memory of a man who, whatever his faults—and they were many—deserved something better than the maledictions of a renegade priest, at his death. “Noble spirits war not with the dead,” says an old aphorism, but the ignoble spirit of Phelan is proof against all sayings, old and new, that are on the side of decency, humanity, or charity. His whole article in so far as it attempts to be a statement of fact is a tissue of falsehood. He says my arraignment of him was based on his criticism of the sin in Normile. He lies. What I reprobated in his infamous fulmination was that he took scarcely any notice of the supreme sin of suicide and spent all his curses upon the offense of Normile in “changing his belief on his way from the cradle to the grave” as I phrased it. Suicide is never justified, and least of all in a case like that of Normile, in which it was an unmanly surrender of one who was neither pursued nor besieged by a troublesome foe. But there was nothing in the life or death of Normile which justified his damnation in cold type; still less was there anything in the life or character of Phelan which justified in damning of anybody. The article bore the evidence of malicious personal spite all the way through. It was, on Phelan ‘s part, a gross abuse of his office as a priest, although he may claim that it was the editor, and not the priest, who did the base work. One of these days the devil will get the editor, and then where will the priest be? A cause is no better than its advocate, and to estimate correctly the righteousness of the Watchman’s maledictions, it can not be unfair to investigate the character and reputation of the man who uttered them.

The pen of Chas. Dickens painted the prototype of Phelan many years ago, when it wrote the immortal “Pickwick Papers” and gave to the world the Rev. Mr. Stiggins, who, for reasons kept entirely to himself, was known as the gentle shepherd. Mr. Stiggins had all the vices which Phelan has and which a clergyman should not have, including hypocrisy and bibulosity. He cultivated the latter weakness to such an extent that the elder Mr. Weller says of him that when he made a pastoral call on the family, he always brought a pint-and-a-half bottle with him, which he filled with pine apple rum, and that when he got through with that bottle there was nothing left in it but the cork and the smell. The parable between Stiggins and Phelan is perfect in many respects, and it is hard to believe that Dickens in creating Stiggins did not foresee Phelan. The chief physical characteristic of Stiggins was a red nose. Phelan has a nasal capacity an hundred candle-power greater than that given by Shakespeare to Bardolph. It is a cartilaginous temperance lecture, which he who runs may read. It was acquired by sponging at the sideboards of the impertinent rich while its owner was using his sacred office to denounce the small sins of the improvident poor. Then there is, as already remarked, the parallel of hypocrisy between the two. But Stiggins was a much more manly hypocrite than Phelan, in whom it is difficult to determine whether the liar or the hypocrite predominates, and who fails to add theft to his other accomplishments only because he lacks courage of his convictions. Mr. Phelan complains that in a former article I did nothing but call names—which is not argument. In this writing I am trying to do a little portrait painting, in the execution of which I trust a small amount of clumsiness will be excused for a great deal of truthfulness.

In learning and literature Phelan is a pretentious ass and impostor. He is a fool among scholars and a scholar among fools. He has contrived to pick up a little knowledge between his drunks, but it is fast disappearing under the fumes of alcohol, which have already rendered it nebulous and uncertain. He has not read a book in twenty years, but has lived during that period in a state of intellectual hibernation, drawing a sustenance from the scanty acquirements of his youth—like a bear in winter quarters sucking his paws to live on the flesh acquired during the summer. He is fond of quoting Latin, but rarely ventures beyond the familiar phrases of that language to be found at the butt end of a Webster dictionary. In his intellectual process he often mistakes delirium tremens for a divine inflatus, and thinks he is inspired when he is only tipsy. In his judgment of the product of other minds he is, like Cassio, nothing if not critical, but the standard of criticism which he applies to others would, if applied to him, make an indecent exposure of his rum-drenched brain, even to the ignorant few who still believe him to be a scholar because he is an ecclesiastic. Thus he can find nothing more pungent to say of the few editorial lines that provoked from him a column of maudlin malevolence than that they exhibit “a want of continuity of thought. ‘ ‘ In his salad days he heard the schoolmen say that “continuity of thought’ ‘ was an essential of good English composition, and finding that small remnant of his education still in the lumber-room of his memory, he brings it out, brushes the dust from it, and flourishes it as something new and hitherto unrevealed. He answers a quotation from ” Hamlet’ ‘ in which Ophelia rebukes the puffed and reckless libertine who “shows her the steep and thorny way to heaven,” by saying that Ophelia was crazy when she made the speech. Shade of the mighty William, did you craze Ophelia on the threshold of the play, in the very first act? Then we are told that the “ungracious pastors” whom Ophelia rebuked were “sixteenth-century performers.” Here we have the ignorance of the Watchman’s ecclesiastical sot exposed again, though under the disguise of a jest. The scenes in “Hamlet,” according to the best commentators, were laid at least five centuries before the advent of the “sixteenth-century performers.” Ophelia had in her mind’s eye the Phelans of her time. Since its earliest day the church has always had its Phelan, just as the vine has its louse and the rose its scaraboons. Shakespeare drew from types of men, and not from individuals. The “sixteenth-century performers ‘ ‘ doubtless had their Phelans ; but as reformers they were not sufficiently developed to be adequate to the purpose of the great master, who in his matchless creations looked before and after, and was “not for a day, but for all time”—who drew the Shylocks of to-day in the “Merchant of Venice” just as he drew the Phelans of to-day in “Hamlet”

In his original article of August 14th, the Reverend Phelan dwells especially on sins of the flesh, as calculated to drive from the sane the Spirit of God. How much of the Spirit of God, then, can there be left in the soul of a man—and that man a priest—who indecently addresses a virtuous woman on the street, “Where are you going, baby?” Is this (spoken by a man to a woman he had never seen before) the language of the flesh or an exhalation from the spirit? For this language, with the conduct accompanying it which suited the action to the word and the word to the action, D. S. Phelan, wearing the garb of his holy office, was marched to the station house, not long ago, by a policeman, at the instigation of the woman he had insulted. Two strongly opposed arguments—his cloth and one of those howling drunks in which the reverent gentleman is, to quote from his own favorite language, the Latin, facile princeps—united to secure leniency from the police, and instead of being thrown in a cell, like a common malefactor, he was sent home in a hack. One day this reverend father trod “the primrose path of dalliance” on Eleventh street, and the next day he resumed his pious occupation of teaching sinners “the steep and thorny path to heaven.” In the meantime, however, he had to plead hard with the police to keep him off the steep and rocky road to the workhouse, via the Black Maria. The case was one for a husband and a horsewhip rather than for a policeman and a station-house. The matter was kept out of the newspapers. I suppressed it in the Globe-Democrat because I gave the reverend accused benefit of a doubt as to the extent to which his condition rendered him irresponsible for his conduct. He is not merciful to me as I have been, and yet am, to him, for I still cover with the mantle of his booze his “sin of the flesh,’ ‘ while he arraigns me under a distinct charge of having received money for the silence of this newspaper on a certain occasion. Of course, he lies, and knows he lies, and he knows, too, that the apostle—he is very fond of quoting the apostle—condemns lying as almost as bad as insulting a virtuous woman on the street. Further than this I can not go in defense of myself against anything said by a deadbeat of the Phelan stripe, except to remark incidentally that if hell were dosed with tartar emetic, the last dregs of the last vomit would be a Phelan in full canonicals.—Mack [J. B. McCullagh].

Orestes A. Brownson, who joined the Catholic Church when Hecker and others submitted to the Roman yoke, established a Quarterly Review for the purpose of exposing and defending Romanist teachings. An American, Brownson used an American freedom of speech and soon incurred the hostility of the Church authorities. He had, mark you, sacrificed everything on going over to Rome. But Rome had no mercy for her convert. It drove him to poverty, and even misery. To Brownson, poor and even hungry, Rome refused bread: now she is building monuments to his memory, obtaining money even from Protestants for the purpose. Neglecting him living, they traffic on him dead. No charity, in truth, in the creed of the Roman Catholic Church!

We are, sometimes, told of the munificence of the monasteries of old. Of this Adam Smith in his ” Wealth of Nations’ ‘ states:

Over and above the rents of those estates the clergy possessed in the tithes a very large portion of the rents of all the other estates in every kingdom of Europe. The revenues arising from both those species of rents were, the greater part of them, paid in kind, in corn, wine, cattle, poultry, etc. The quantity exceeded greatly what the clergy could themselves consume ; and there were neither arts nor manufactures, for the produce of which they could exchange the surplus. The clergy could derive advantage from this immense surplus in no other way than by employing it, as the great barons employed the like surplus of their revenues, in the most profuse hospitality and charity. The hospitality and charity of the clergy not only gave them command of a great temporal force, but increased very much the weight of their spiritual weapons. Those virtues procured them the highest respect and veneration among all the inferior ranks of people, of whom many were constantly and almost all occasionally fed by them.

The monks, in other words, so oppressed the people by heavy levies upon their produce that the tillers of the soil, after being robbed of the result of their labor, were driven to the robbers to beg food enough to prevent starvation from a supply that must otherwise have gone to waste. The monks multiplied their adherents, because the people were thus made dependent. Nothing was there in their conduct which evinced a single element of the principle or law of charity, but on the contrary, they established by oppressive taxation the relation of slavery and despotism or tyranny.

What was true of the monks and nuns of the Middle Ages is true to-day. Orestes A. Brownson sought to defend the monastic greed of his time, half a century ago, but because he could not conscientiously do it as papalism desired, he was suffered (genius that he was!) to die a pauper. Henri des Houx, a gifted and amiable French writer, was, under the pontificate of Leo XIII, editor of Le Journal de Rome, a daily French paper considered generally as an official organ of the Vatican. M. des Houx, in close touch constantly with Vatican authorities, wrote under Vaticanistic inspiration. Happening on one occasion to write, under that very inspiration, an article which gave offense to a leading government of Europe, M. des Houx was called upon by the selfsame authority which had inspired it to disavow the article. Hesitating or refusing to do as commanded by the Vatican, his paper was condemned and its editor reduced to penury !

Woe betide the Catholic editor who does not write as bishop, the pope’s agent, commands. What the pope is in the Church universal, the bishop is in his own diocese.

The pope is their spiritual king ; and what they call their Church, that is, their bishops all over the world, is, one may say, their Spiritual Parliament. Now, as this parliament of bishops from all parts of the world can not meet without great difficulty, and as no one but the pope can call it together, it is the pope alone who in reality holds supreme authority over his spiritual subjects, the Roman Catholics. The way in which the pope governs his churches all over the world is this: He publishes a kind of proclamation, which they call a bull, and sends it round to all places where there are Roman Catholics. As every bishop by himself is a subject of the pope, who calls himself the Bishop of bishops, the bull must be obeyed by them. Every bishop commands all his priests to see that the orders of the pope be obeyed by all those who are under their charge. The priests preach the necessity of complying with the orders of the pope; and when people come to get absolution of their sins, by privately confessing them, they are told that they can not be forgiven unless they obey the bull from Rome. So, you see, that if all the world were true Roman Catholics, the pope would do what he pleased everywhere. Such, in fact, was the case for many centuries before the Reformation. The popes in those times boldly declared that they had authority from God to depose kings from their thrones, and many a fierce war has been made in consequence of the ambition of the popes, who wished all Christian kings to recognize their authority. King John of England was obliged by the pope to lay his crown at the feet of a priest who was sent to represent him. That king was, moreover, made to sign a public deed, by which he surrendered the kingdoms of England and Ireland to the pope, reserving to himself the government of the realms under the control of the bishops of Rome ; and finally, as a mark of subjection, bound himself to pay an annual tribute. The priest who represented the pope took away the crown and kept it five days from the king, to show that it was in the pope’s power to give it back or not, as he pleased.

So writes Dr. Blanco White, at one time chaplain of the King of Spain, and afterwards clergyman of the Church of England.

The Rev. “Father” Lambert, one of the ablest clergymen that the Church of Rome has ever had in America, incurred the displeasure of Bishop “Barney” McQuaid, of Rochester, N. Y. Mc- Quaid, a foundling as far as his origin is known, possibly the bastard son of a priest, advanced himself to distinction till he finally became Bishop of Rochester. No more despotic man ever filled an espiscopal see. He fell angrily upon Lambert, not because Lambert had written aught against the truth, but because, jealous of Lambert’s success as a defender of Christianity against Robert G. Ingersoll, he (McQuaid) desired to rob Lambert’s contributions to the press of their proper weight and authority.

Michael Augustine Corrigan, son of a Jersey saloon keeper, and himself very inferior in talent and acquirement, became, by one of the “accidents” peculiar to the Romish System, Archbishop of New York. Safely enthroned in the American metropolis, he fell upon Dr. McGlynn, who had written on the taxation problem favorably to the working and toiling classes generally. Corrigan had not brains enough himself to tell what a Christian ought to believe concerning taxation, but, having a personal grudge against Mc- Glynn, decided to destroy the latter on the ground that McGlynn advocated anti-Catholic doctrine in re taxation, and also home rule for Ireland. By papal bull McGlynn was suspended (?), and even excommunicated ( 1) . But Leo XIII, astute politician and opportunist, realizing after several years that Corrigan was unable to crush McGlynn, restored to him all faculties and prerogatives!

Patrick Boyle, editor of the Irish Canadian, of Toronto, Canada, was a noble son of Erin. In days that were dark for Irishmen in Canada, he was their gallant defender. A Catholic, he submitted, of course, to all reasonable demands of the Church. The Catholic Separate (Parochial) School System of Toronto, controlled by Archbishop John Joseph Lynch, became in time a reproach and a scandal to all citizens. There was a Separate School Board, carefully selected at St. Michael ‘s Palace, Lynch ‘s residence, whose main duty it was to manipulate the school taxes of Catholics to the benefit of Lynch.

The Separate schools falling into neglect and backwardness, Boyle felt, like other Irish Catholics, that inquiry should be made into the causes of failure. Slight investigation disclosed the source of the trouble. The archbishop stole from the school funds what was, of right, belonging to the Catholic children of Toronto.

Boyle exposed the outrage. He became at once the object of archiepiscopal fury. He and his paper were vigorously denounced. Lynch set up a new paper, The Tribune, to destroy the Irish Canadian, which had been for so many years his devoted organ. But The Tribune did not receive the popular support that Lynch desired. It failed, and Lynch submitted gracefully to grievous loss ; gracefully, because while his own paper suffered, he had the satisfaction of driving Patrick Boyle out of business and into poverty.

W. H. Nagle, of Ottawa, back in the seventies started a Catholic paper called The Herald, for the special purpose of defending the Catholic cause. Nagle was able, far-seeing, and disinterested. He was, however, an Irish Catholic, an unforgivable sin to J. T. Duhamel, the ignorant little French-Canadian Bishop of Ottawa at the time.

The latter bought, on a certain visit to Rome, a sack of bones, said to have been the remains of a “Saint Emilius,” supposed to be Christian martyr of the reign of Diocletian. Bringing back to Ottawa these bones, which might have been those of a dog or a cat deceased but ten years or less, Duhamel offended all sensible people—Catholics as well as others—by instituting a special devotion to “Saint Emilius” and placing his “remains” under a particular altar, located prominently in the Cathedral of Ottawa.

Nagle objected to the whole proceeding. Emilius had, according to Duhamel ‘s own story, died in the fourth century. “How,” asked Nagle, “had his bones been so long preserved f” ” Again,’ ‘ asked Nagle, “why should Catholics depend for salvation on mere bones, when the word of God was at their command?” Too much was this for the little ignorant French bishop to stand. He condemned The Herald and put it out of business. Nagle afterwards died in want.

L’Electeur, a French liberal paper of Quebec, incurred in 1896 the hostility of the hierarchy of that province. It opposed Romanist Separate Schools in Manitoba. Put out of business, at great loss to its owners and publishers, it reappeared under a new name, Le Soleil, and had then to walk the plank of ultramontanism very cautiously, indeed.

Another French paper published in Montreal was driven to ruin because it had the audacity to condemn a French priest, Ghuyot, guilty of seducing, through the confessional, the wife of a prominent French-Canadian lawyer. Such cases as that of Ghuyot occur every day. Ghuyot was discovered because of fool obscene letters written by him to the woman he had wronged. These letters, discovered accidentally by the outraged husband, led to public exposure of the infamy. So excited was all Canada over the Ghuyot infamy that the bishops of Quebec were forced to issue a pastoral letter explaining it away.

No such thing is there as freedom of the press for Catholic reader or editorial writer. Leading Catholic papers have had for editors notorious drunkards, such for instance, as “Reverend” Thomas E. Judge, D. D., LL. D. ; Dr. Judge, of The New World, Chicago, ex-professor of Philosophy in Maynooth Seminary, Ireland, whose whole record in America was one scarlet mark of infamy, from New York via St. Paul to Chicago, and rivaled his exploits of infamy in Ireland, England, and Rome itself.

The Rev. Thomas F. Cashman, rector, St. Jarlath’s parish, Chicago, writes of Priest-Editor Judge, in part, as follows:

This man Judge came into the Archdiocese of Chicago under the darkest kind of an ecclesiastical cloud. He is a man of considerable intellectual ability, but he is a moral pigmy. His normal state is to be under the influence of drink, and, being a constant transgressor against ecclesiastical codes and proprieties, he is the veriest sycophant in defending with his pen and eulogizing with his tongue Muldoon and the present regime. He (Judge) is, as I said before, a “sacerdos vagabundus” (tramp priest).

In the fall of 1902 the writer, together with the priests listed on page 54 of my book, “Romanism— A Menace to the Nation,” had printed and forwarded by registered mail to the pope and cardinals a book of 198 pages, containing an expose of the crimes of priests, prelates, and “princes of the Church.” From said expose, page 40, I quote the following in re Priest Judge :

You [Archbishop of Chicago] about a year ago appointed Rev. T. E. Judge to a city parish, while you knew that he was a periodical drunkard, a “sacerdos vagabundus” in the fullest and completest sense of that expression.

Soon thereafter Archbishop Quigley, of Chicago, appointed Priest Judge editor-in-chief of The New World, the papal organ of Chicago. And soon again thereafter that ” sacerdos vagabundns” was created a D. D. (Doctor of Divinity!) by Pope Pius X, as a reward for his diabolical and treasonable writings against Free Institutions at home and abroad.

Dr. Cronin, of Buffalo, N. Y., able and brilliant, incurring the dislike of misfit bishops like McQuaid of Rochester, Quigley of Buffalo (later of Chicago), and others, fell, too, by the wayside.

The press and the Roman Church can never work in harmony unless press subject itself absolutely and entirely to papalism. Romanism has not, since Pius IV, undergone the slightest change. It was that pope who declared:

The books of arch-heretics, as well of those who invented or excited heresies after the year above mentioned, as of those who are or were the heads or leaders of heretics, such as Luther, Zuinglius, Calvin, Balthazar, Pocimontanus, Swenchfeldius, and such like, of what name, title, or argument soever, are utterly prohibited. And the books of other heretics, such as professedly treat of religion, are altogether condemned. But such as do not treat of religion are permitted, after having been examined and approved by Catholic theologians, by order of the bishops and inquisitors. But Catholic books, written as well by those who after falling have returned to the bosom of the Church, being approved by the theological faculty of some Catholic university or by a general inquisition, may be permitted.

Catholic books only, approved by “a general inquisition” or some Catholic university, may be read. The Catholic paper in America is a mere apologist for papal misdeeds. We have one in Cincinnati, in close alliance with the liqnor traffic, as the cuts on pages 334, 339, and 341 will show.

Catholic papers in other cities stand out just as prominently for “Rum and Romanism.” The bishop owns the paper, or owns editor and publisher. No freedom whatever permitted in editorial page or any other. The Catholic paper, blessed by pope and authorized by bishop, is simply an apologist and supporter of Romanist White Slavery—a slave licking hand of slaveowner.

Appended is a typical wail of the Romanist press on the subject of divorce. Charity should, however, even with Romanist press agents, begin at home. Why does not The Catholic Telegraph begin by asking for the abandonment of divorcegranting or annulling of the matrimonial tie by Archbishop Moeller’s clerical matrimonial tribunal, which, in defiance of the State laws, severs the lawful marriage bonds of persons seeking its good offices secretly, but with plentiful cash supply for the necessary dispensations, etc.?

Matrimonial ” causes” yield to Romanish exchequers tributes most bounteous. And the Romanist agent knows well—taught as he is on the Liguorian plans of fraud and filthiness—how to work the game.

There is little or no respect for marriage in Latin Europe or in Latin America. Thousands of people live in the latter region in adulterous relations, continued for years, even for a lifetime, without slightest thought of a marriage ceremony. The priests themselves live in open concubinage. Marital infidelity is extremely common in France, whose civilization is product of centuries of papal training as well as priestly domination. A like statement is in order concerning Spain. Moral rottenness, everywhere Romanism prevails, is the sickening evidence of contemporaneous history.

Washington, April 9.—United States Senator Ransdell, of Louisiana, who is a practical Catholic and a Knight of Columbus, in a lecture delivered on April 2d before the Law Club of the Catholic University denounced divorce.

At the last census period the divorce rate was higher with us than in any foreign country except Japan, there being 73 divorces for every 100,000 souls in the United States and 215 in Japan. The next highest was Switzerland, with 32, and Saxony, with 29. Austria permits divorce to its non-Catholic citizens, and denies it to the Catholics. Its ratio was one as compared with our 73. “The island of saints”—old Ireland—granted only one divorce per 100,000 in five years of the last period. Italy had none, as divorce with permission to remarry is prohibited there, though separation is permitted. Absolute divorce is also prohibited in Spain, Portugal, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Cuba.

Divorce is growing rapidly in the United States. In the twenty-year period from 1887 to 1906 the number of marriages dissolved was 945,625, while from 1867 to 1886 it was 328,716, or a little more than one-third. Discussing these figures of 1886, Mr. Carroll D. Wright, an eminent non-Catholic official, said, “However great and growing be the number of divorces in the United States, it is an incontestible fact that it would be still greater were it not for the widespread influence of the Catholic Church.’ > In 1887 there were 483,069 marriages and 27,919 divorces, a little more than one divorce for every seventeen marriages. In 1906 marriages numbered 853,290 and divorces 72,069, or one divorce in every twelve marriages. This is a fearful rate of increase. If it continues in like proportion for the next forty years, the middle of the present century will see one marriage out of every five dissolved by divorce.

Senator Ransdell stated that he had never taken a divorce case and never intended to do so. He continued:

Every lawyer in the country should refuse to take divorce cases and do all in his power to have divorce laws repealed. If a large percentage of the lawyers of America were to frown upon divorce, oppose it in every honorable way, and refuse to represent litigants seeking divorce, the evil would rapidly decrease. — The Catholic Telegraph, April 10, 1913.

Senator Ransdell is, I presume, an honest man. Jesuitry keeps him in the dark as to his Church’s filthy connection with adultery, legalized and lawless; with divorce used freely to gather in gold to a ravenous treasure-box.

The Cincinnati Romanist divorce court is thus made up (see “The Official Catholic Directory,” 1913, p. 73) :

Ecclesiastical Court for Matrimonial Causes— Rev. , judge; Rev. George X. Schmidt, defensor matrimonii; Rev. J. T. Gallagher, secretary.

No decree of this or any other such court is valid until and unless approved by the archbishop or bishop. No decree ever granted till paid for!

Take, again, the Diocese of Rockford, 111., presided over by “Pete” Muldoon, of unhappy fame. There (see “The Official Catholic Directory,” 1913, p. 664) we find:

Curia for Matrimonial Causes (Judex appointed in each case)—Rev. D. J. McCaffrey, Defensor Matrimonii; Rev. J. J. Flanagan, Secretary.

Rev. D. J. McCaffrey, “defender of the matrimonial tie,” has a most unsavory record. For years he has been a habitual drunkard and has very frequently been locked up in Chicago police stations, escaping trial on every occasion, as do the vast majority of priests caught in similar delinquencies all over the country. McCaffrey is now pastor of the Sacred Heart Church, Marengo, 111. Notwithstanding his stupendously shameful record of lechery, drunkenness, saloon escapades, and other such like achievements, to the contrary notwithstanding, Bishop Muldoon deems him just the man to care for souls in Marengo, 111., and defend the sacredness of the matrimonial tie in the Diocese of Rockford. Immediately preceding his promotion by his chum (Muldoon), McCaffrey spent most of his time in a saloon at the corner of Twelfth and O’Neil Streets, Chicago.

Similar conditions might be disclosed by an examination of the Romanist divorce mills throughout the country.

At the marriage ceremony of Miss Louise Warfield to Count Ledochowski, of Poland, nephew of the late Cardinal Ledochowski, celebrated at Baltimore, May 8, 1913, Cardinal Gibbons said, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer: The marriage contract is the most solemn and most sacred of all other [sic] contracts. Other contracts may be dissolved ; other treaties may be violated. The marriage contract can not be violated, can not be annulled. It can terminate only at death.

Nay, Sir Cardinal, and is it so ? Do you yourself believe that this is the correct Romanist teaching and practice?

Why, Sir Cardinal, looking over Kennedy’s “Catholic Directory for 1913,” I find (p. 17), the following, supplied from your own cardinalitial offices :

Curia (Court) for Matrimonial Causes—Rev. C. F. Thomas, D. D., Judge; Rev. P. A. Urique, S. S., D. D., defensor matrimonii (defender of the marriage tie) ; Rev. P. C. Gavan, S. T. L., secretarius (secretary).

You have, therefore, Sir Cardinal, in your own city and diocese of Baltimore, a divorce court always ready for action; ready, for pay, to annul any marriage that you may desire to have annulled. This divorce court of yours is not a mere ornamental institution. It is a big revenue-producer for your “works of piety.” It is a graftmaker par excellence.

Let any Boni de Castellane, with well-filled purse, come to foot of your princely “apostolic” throne seeking annulment of lawful marriage, and you, Sir Cardinal, with one eye fixed on golden treasure, the other upraised to heaven, will soon lift holy hand to untie the bond attaching the aforesaid Boni, and any such, to an heretical spouse, or even to a Catholic wife, without equal share of filthy lucre to maintain her rights in your venal court of divorce.

The Roman divorce system is so cunningly devised and so guiltily worked as to invite Catholics married to Protestants to put up money enough to secure a divorce decree. These courts are inducement to rich Protestant men to join Rome in order to get rid (religiously!) of wife, whether she be Protestant or Catholic. The most diabolical of all the infamous divorce machineries afflicting humanity is the divorce system of Rome. It is false, greedy, unscrupulous, and deadly ; and no man better knows it so to be than James Cardinal Gibbons. Scarcely a day of the year but Rome annuls lawful marriages, and annuls them for pay!

Still busy at his old stand, as if Savonarola had not died or Luther lived, is the pope; his Jesuitical agents not less so in the sale of indulgences and in other forms of grafting. Pope Pius X, instigated by impecunious Roman shopkeepers, by greedy cardinals and avaricious courtiers, has just proclaimed another “Universal Jubilee” of which we read in the Journal and Tribune, Knoxville, Tenn., March 30, 1913 :

Rome, March 29th.—Thousands of pilgrims from all parts of the globe are assembled in this city to witness the opening of the series of celebrations which the Vatican has arranged to commemorate the sixteenth centennial of the proclamation of the edict of Milan, known as the Peace of Constantine, which marked the Christianization of the Roman Government. On the surface this celebration, which will extend over the whole year, is supposed merely to be a fitting remembrance of the adoption by the Emperor Constantine, following his victory over the pagan general, Maxentius, just outside of Rome, of Christianity as the official religion of the State. No secret, however, is made of the fact that back of the celebration are two other motives. In the first place, this commemoration is intended as a protest of the Vatican against the celebration by Italy two years ago of the fiftieth anniversary of its unification, a celebration which was highly offensive to the Vatican because it commemorated an event by which the Vatican was deprived of its temporal power.

To celebrate the anniversary of the unification of Italy the Government had arranged exhibitions on a magnificent scale at Rome and at Turin, but owing to the outbreak of the war with Turkey, the prevalence of a cholera epidemic and other unfortunate conditions the celebration proved a failure and attracted but few visitors to Italy. One of the motives in arranging the “Constantine Year” celebration by the Vatican was to prove to the world how much greater is the temporal power of the Vatican than that of the Italian Government. Judging from the number of pilgrims already assembled here and the many thousands who are either on their way to Rome or have made their plans to visit the city at some time during the celebration year, the Vatican bids fair to make a good showing. Although the commemorative celebrations planned will all be held in this city, some of the principal anniversaries will be observed by Roman Catholic Churches throughout the world.

The illness of the pope will probably prevent him from taking part in the services and ceremonies scheduled to take place within the precincts of the Vatican, but there will be enough pomp and spectacular display of a magnificent order to satisfy even the most exacting sightseeing visitors. Should the condition of the pontiff improve he may, by his presence, lend greater importance to the religious ceremonies in the Vatican, to be held in April. The traditions of the Church will, of course, exclude the pope from all celebrations held outside of the Vatican precincts.

The series of commemorative celebrations will begin to-morrow with a solemn eucharistic procession, passing from the catacombs of Saint Domitilla to those of Saint Callixtus and then to the church and catacombs of Saint Sebastian, where a Te Deum will be sung and the blessed sacrament administered to the pilgrims.

From April 6th to 13th, inclusive, a solemn Octave will be celebrated at the Church of Saint John Lateran, with exposition of the “Acheropita.” During the Octave the mornings will be set apart for the reception of pilgrims of Young Men’s Christian Associations, Arch Confraternities, congregations and religious orders; with a sermon every afternoon by a bishop and benediction by a cardinal, culminating in a pontifical high mass on April 13th, celebrated by a cardinal in the presence of the pontifical court, the diplomatic corps accredited to the holy see, and the high dignitaries of the Church in Rome.

On April 20th there will be a solemn commemoration at Saint Peter’s on the same scale of magnificence as the feast of the Prince of the Apostles, with the exposition of the relics of the passion of the Savior, which are kept at Saint Peter’s.

On April 27th there will be a celebration and pontifical mass at the patriarchal Basilica of Saint Paul, on the Ostian Way. May 2d, 3d, and 4th there will be pontifical masses in the Church of Saint Croce, in Gerusalemme, and on the night of May 4th an immense electric cross will be inaugurated on Monte Cavo, eighteen miles from Rome. In May, June, August, and December other commemorative celebrations of an impressive character will be held at the papal chapel at St. Peter’s, the Church of Saint Agnes, the Church of Saint Laurence, the parish church of Saints Peter and Marcellinus, the cathedral of Albano, and the Church of Saint Mary Major, where for three days the holy image of the Blessed Virgin, known as the “Borghenia,” will be exposed to the view of the visiting pilgrims. There will also be special services and celebrations at that same church on each of the three days, December 6th, 7th, and 8th, which will close the series of the celebrations.

Constantine was never a Christian. He was a great imperial statesman, who, seeing that the old Roman pagan systems, dating from Romulus and Remus, 750 years before Christ, had lost hold of the populace, re-paganized the new form of religion called Christian, and made it the official cult of the Roman Empire, for which he founded a new capital on the Bosphorus, bearing his own name—Constantinople. He, and not the pope of Rome—there was no such person or official then known—was the head of the Church. He established bishops or ” overseers’ ‘—there were no “bishops” before Constantine—to correspond to civil officers, known as ‘ ‘ exarchs. ‘ ‘ Both exarchs and bishops were appointed by Constantine alone. No pope or College of Cardinals then to distribute fat episcopal sees to Italian and other priests hungry for gold !

Constantine called the Council of Nice, and appointed the officers who presided there. The papacy as now known was unknown utterly to the Council of Nice, an almost exclusively Eastern gathering. The Bishop of Rome had a standing in Constantino’s religious system equal to that of the Bishops of Constantinople and Alexandria —that and nothing more. Nor would he have been for a moment allowed to assume any higher rank.

The papal figment that Constantine deeded temporal control in and over Rome to the bishop of that city has no historic ground whatever to support it. It is one of the many forgeries used, centuries after, to justify papal thefts of territory and papal usurpations of spiritual authority.

Jubilees are of enormous monetary value to the papacy and to papal agents. The railroads, traction lines, and maritime transportation agencies all over the world, especially in America, derive enormous profits from Jubilee or other pilgrimages. To St. Anne de Beaupre, near Quebec, hundreds of thousands of credulous people are every year brought by rail and by boat, yielding enormous profit to transportation companies. Jubilees, therefore, pay big premiums to non-Catholic capitalists, who must in turn “whack up” when the priest passes around the hat for a papal collection. How the scheme works locally The Catholic Telegraph, March 20, 1913, explains: