CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY.

IN this chapter the reader will find my reasons for writing this book, and a brief sketch of my life to enable him to form an intelligent opinion as to the weight of my words.

THE BOOK.

Catholic priests and prelates are determined to destroy the American public school. Their slogan, (suggested by the Roman cry against Carthage in days of old, “Delenda est Carthago“), is, The public school must be destroyed. The Romans had in view the maintenance of their commercial and military supremacy: the Catholic hierarchy has in view the selfish interests of its priests and prelates and not the true welfare of the Church or State.

The Catholic hierarchy offers the parochial school as a substitute for the public school. I shall deal in this book with the Catholic parochial school as it is, and I shall show that it is a curse to the Roman Catholic Church, and that it is a menace to the Nation.

The utterances of the clerical champions of the parochial school clearly show an intense hatred of the public school an institution which the American people rightfully regard as one of the greatest bulwarks of their liberties.

I shall show the general’ phases of the settled clerical plan now being carried out to encompass, if possible, the utter destruction of the American public school. My information has its sources in personal experience and observation; conversations with priests and prelates; the public utterances of Catholic ecclesiastics; and the history of the school controversy which has raged, with more or less intensity, during many years.

I shall show that the parochial school, as an institution for educating and training American youth, is hopelessly deficient by reason of the anti-Americanism of its board of education, the pedagogic incompetency and moral delinquencies of its officers, the inefficiency of its teachers, and the glaring defects in its curriculum.

During the year 1903 Bishop McFaul, of Trenton, New Jersey, Archbishop Quigley, of Chicago, Illinois, and Cardinal Gibbons, of Baltimore, Maryland, three of the most prominent members of the American hierarchy, publicly expressed sentiments which are radically antagonistic to the American school system. The secular and religious press of the continent freely quoted the utterances of these ecclesiastics, and storms of adverse criticisms were aroused. If the course of these prelates is pursued by the hierarchy certain things must inevitably follow. Animosities will be engendered among the American people which should have no place in the citizenship of our Republic. The Catholic Church will lose all of Her power and prestige in America.

A hurricane of hate is brewing. I love the Catholic Church, and to save Her from destruction in America I write this book.

I shall use very plain language. I am compelled to do so because I am writing for all classes and not solely for learned men.

I shall not conceal the truth. In this I but conform to Catholic requirements as will be seen by the quotations which follow.

Pope Pius X. (the reigning Pontiff) said to Dr. Pastor, the celebrated historian of the Catholic Church:

The truth is not to be feared. The New World, November 7, 1903, p. 13.

Pope Pius II. said in a certain bull:

He who remarks anything calculated to give scandal, even in the Supreme Head of the Church, is to speak out freely. Dr. Pastor’s History of the Popes, Vol. Ill, p. 272.

Cardinal Gibbons says that the Catholic Church has no secrets to keep back:

There is no Freemasonry in the Catholic Church; she has no secrets to keep back. She has not one set of doctrines for Bishops and Priests, and another for the laity. She has not one creed for the initiated and another for outsiders. Everything in the Catholic Church is open and above board. She has the same doctrines for all for the Pope and the peasant. The Faith of our Fathers, p. 14.

Cardinal Manning declared that truth in history should be supreme:

The historica vcritas ought to be supreme, of which we have a divine example in Holy Writ, where the sins, even of Saints, are as openly recorded as the wickedness of sinners. Notice written for the first volume of Dr. Pastor’s History of the Popes.

Dr. Alzog, the renowned historian of the Catholic Church, stated that the historian should not conceal the possible shortcomings of his church:

Historical impartiality demands… that the historian … shall frankly acknowledge and openly confess the possible shortcomings of his church, for silence here would be more damaging than beneficial to her cause. Dr. Alzog’s Manual of Universal Church History, Vol. I, p. 14.

The celebrated Pere (Father) Lacordaire asserted that history should not hide the faults of men and Orders:

“Ought history,”asks Pere Lacordaire “hide the faults of men and orders? It was not,”he replies,” in this sense that Cardinal Baronius understood his duty as an historian of the Church. It was not after this fashion the saints laid open the scandals of their times. Truth when discreetly told,” he continues,” is an inestimable boon to mankind, and to suppress it, especially in history, is an act of cowardice unworthy a Christian. Timidity is the fault of our age, and truth is concealed under pretense of respect for holy things. Such concealment serves neither God nor man.”Dr. Alzog’s Manual of Universal Church History, the Preface.

The Great St. Gregory, the revered Hildebrand of the Pontifical Throne, once wrote:

It is better to have scandal than a lie. Homil. f, in Ezechiel, quoted by St. Bernard.

Cardinal Baronius once said:

God preserve me from betraying the truth rather than betray the feebleness of some guilty minister of the Roman Church! Annales, ad. ami. 1125, c. 12.

Count de Maistre proclaimed:

We owe to the Popes only truth, and they have no need of anything else! Du Pape, lib. ii. c. /j.

St. Bernard said:

I would not be silent when vice was to be rebuked, and truth defended. Epistola 78, torn, i., p. 38.

It will be alleged by the champions of the parochial school that my unfavorable views of it are founded upon unusual and infrequent facts of the moral delinquencies of its officers and the pedagogic incompetency of its teachers; but I know whereof I affirm, and I solemnly declare that I am conservative in my statements.

There is not a diocese or an archdiocese in America which has not priestly devotees of Bacchus and Venus wine and women and in the prominent dioceses and archdioceses there are scores upon scores of ecclesiastics who are the slaves of these goddesses. But the universal ecclesiastical vice is grafting. The American clergy, high and low, exhibit an insatiable desire for money. They seek and obtain it in the sacred name of religion for God and Holy Mother Church! Many of the means they employ to secure it are not only questionable but criminal. Instead of preaching the Gospel of Christ they proclaim the message of mammon. The money acquired is spent, in the main, in the service of Satan.

It is impossible for those who are not prelates, priests, monks or nuns to know how much sin there is in ecclesiastical circles. It is not difficult for me to understand how hard it must be for non-Catholics to believe that individuals, dedicated to the service of God by most solemn vows, can live in daily violation of their sacred covenants, and I know how extremely loath Catholics are to give credence to any report of clerical misconduct, no matter how well founded, as they have been trained from infancy to regard a priest as a holy man another Christ.

Policemen, railway and street car conductors, steamship officers, hotel proprietors, waiters, porters and cabmen know that I do not exaggerate in my descriptions of clerical sin. Hardly a day goes by in our great cities that policemen do not pick up drunken priests and also take them out of houses of shame. Railway conductors from all parts of America tell me that Catholic priests are among their toughest passengers. Steamship officers relate tales which make the heart sick. Hotel proprietors, waiters and porters tell facts which for numerousness and nastiness defy comparison. If policemen would suddenly become authors and tell what they know of sinning priests the world would hardly be able to contain the books. Cabmen, the knights of the whip, have as their most profitable customers clerical rounders, the knights of the cloth, whose chivalry vents itself in attentions to ladies who live in houses of shame. Catholic prelates understand full well the personal knowledge which these various individuals and others possess of priestly debauchery.

I know that the conditions are appalling in the Archdiocese of Chicago. I have been assured by an American Arch226 bishop, whose former ecclesiastical positions ought to enable him to speak with the authority of personal observation and experience, that the conditions in Buffalo, New York City and other places are many times worse than they are in Chicago. If he were to speak to-day I believe he would say, in view of the additional light he has received on the Chicago situation, that New York City and Chicago are equals in ecclesiastical rascality.

I am well aware that this book will arouse the intense wrath of Catholic ecclesiastics, who hate the American public schools. Be it so! In this connection, Catholic laymen, permit me to warn you against being deceived by the official Catholic press. It will bitterly assail me. Its columns will be rilled with villification and vituperation. But who control the official Catholic press? Priests, Bishops and Archbishops as a rule. These men will unite in bitter opposition to any publicity of sin. The editors of the official Catholic publications are under the thumb of ecclesiastical power. Woe to them if they show any independence of thought and action! I have been grossly slandered in official Catholic publications, while in private my detractors have admitted that I was right in my course. This expose will bring upon my head torrents of written wrath from men who know that -I reveal but a small part of the awful case in hand; but these same writers in private conversation will be heard to say: “O, Father Crowley, God bless him! is all right, but we have got to stand in with the authorities; we have to look out for our bread and butter.”

My opponents will seek to befog the issue raised in this controversy by charging me with making attacks in this book upon my Church. In answer to this anticipated malignant accusation I say now that / do not attack my Church; I attack solely its corrupt ecclesiastics. I am not fighting my Church and never will. / am fighting priestly corruption, and I will fight it as long as God permits me to live.

My opponents will also say that I am attacking Christian education. Let it be remembered that I am not attacking Christian education, but that I am dealing with the parochial school as it is in America. I make war not upon the theory of Christian education, but upon the present practice, for the latter, under prevalent conditions, is devilish.

The cry will be raised that by this publication I am giving scandal. My opponents will seek to blind the Catholic public by this false cry. Let the Catholic people remember that it is the only answer left to the debauched priests whose wickedness I expose. The scandalizers of our Holy Church are not the men who protest against clerical impurity, falsehood and injustice; but they are the ecclesiastics whose lives are rotten, and the Church dignitaries who try to cloak the rottenness.

Some of the grossest of the clerical sinners referred to in this book have been publicly arraigned by name. When this book becomes public property I look to see them adopt a much-abused attitude. They have already expatiated upon the hardship of their position in not being able to say a word in self-defense until the charges are proved!! If they were anxious to have the charges proved, why did they not ask Rome to thoroughly investigate them? But there was no difficulty in the way of their appealing to the civil courts, and they did not. They knew there were laws in this country to protect the slandered. Were there not penitentiaries for criminal libelers? Yes, there were, but those penitentiaries were also for clerical thieves, adulterers, rapists, seductionists and sodomists.

One of the first copies of this book will be sent to the Pope. I hope that the Pontiff, as soon as he is acquainted with the real condition of the public school controversy in America, will decree a policy for American priests and prelates which shall be in entire harmony with American history and ideals.

THE AUTHOR.

Yielding to the insistence of my friends and advisers I insert this biographical sketch, not for any self-laudation, but to enable my readers to see what manner of man I am so that they may form an intelligent opinion as to the weight of my words, and also that a stop may be put to a gross imposition which is being practiced all over the country by wicked priests who assume my name when they are arrested by the police, and when they ask for financial help. To aid in carrying out these objects this book contains my photograph, and I state now that my height is six feet and three inches, and my weight is two hundred and fifty pounds.

I was born November 20, 1861, in County Cork, Ireland: “The Island of Saints and Scholars.”My parents were of Celto-Norman stock and belonged to the plain people. My father was a farmer of means. He died July 7, 1904. My mother’s maiden name was Nora Burke. She died a few minutes after my birth, while I was being baptized, she having received the last rites of the church. My father thought I could not live, and immediately before the priest pronounced the words of baptism he made an offering of me to the priesthood in the hope that God would graciously spare my life.

When I was about five years of age I was sent to the National (primary) School. When I was seven years of age I became an altar boy, and so continued until I was fourteen years old, when I was sent from my native parish to Bantry for better educational advantages. I staid a year in Bantry, and I was then sent to the Model School at Dunmanway, where I remained nine months. I was then sent for three months to the Classical School at Skibbereen. When I was sixteen years of age I was sent to St. Finnbarr’s College, Cork, where I remained four years. I passed the required examination, and was sent to St. Patrick’s College (Seminary), Carlow, County Carlow (this being the oldest Catholic College (Seminary) extant in Ireland), where I remained four years and a half, and completed the prescribed classical, philosophical and theological courses.

I was ordained a priest of the Catholic Church on the I5th day of June, 1886, for my native diocese of Cork. My father paid full tuition rates for my education from the time I entered the primary school until my ordination.

My earliest thoughts were associated with the expectation that I would some day be a priest in the Holy Catholic Church and could stand at her sacred altars to offer up the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for the repose of the soul of my dear mother, whom I had never seen.

My relatives, friends and neighbors expressed no other thought for me than that I was destined to be a priest. When I was at St. Finnbarr’s College, being nineteen years of age at the time, my father came to see me, and to test the sincerity of my vocation to the priesthood he said to me, “A priest has a great many trials and troubles; if you would prefer to follow some secular profession, there is the Queen’s College (University), I am willing that you should enter it now!” I replied, “No, father, I have but one desire in life, and that is to be a priest.”My father expressed great joy over my reply, and he was supremely delighted to learn that I was blessed with a vocation.

I said my first Mass in my father’s house. I was ordained Tuesday morning, and I traveled all night to reach the home where I was born that I might there offer up my first Mass for the eternal repose of the soul of my mother.

From boyhood I had the desire to go to America when I became a priest. Many of my friends had gone to the United States. I was ordained for the Diocese of Cork, but there was no vacancy in it, and I said Mass for some weeks as private chaplain to Bishop Delaney of Cork. The opportunity to go to America came to me then through the Very Rev. E. M. O’Callaghan, now Vicar-General of the Diocese of Manchester, New Hampshire, and the Right Rev. Monsignor D. W. Murphy, of Dover, New Hampshire. The Coadjutor Bishop of Cork gave me his permission to go to America on a temporary mission, and he wrote me the following letter:

Cork, November 7th, 1886.
My Dear Father Crowley:

I am glad you have taken the Mission offered you through the kindness of Father O’Callaghan.
You may expect a hearty welcome from me on your re- Yours faithfully,
t T. A. O’Callaghan,
Coadjutor Bishop.

My kindest regards to Father O’Callaghan.

I also bore the following letters:

St. Patrick’s College, Carlow, Ireland, June 21, 1886.

I feel happy in testifying to the excellent character borne by Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley during such time as I have had the pleasure of knowing him in this college. In matters of discipline he was regular and attentive; in the discharge of his duties diligent; and in every branch manifested quite an anxiety to give satisfaction. His conduct while here affords every reason to believe that his future will be characterized by the same good qualities^
(Rev.) John Delaney, Dean.

St. Patrick’s College, Carlow, Ireland, July 2, 1886. Previous to his ordination to the priesthood last Pentecost the Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley had spent four and a half years in this college. He read rhetoric, moral philosophy, and three years theology with credit to himself. His moral conduct was always edifying, and I have every reason to hope that he will be a most zealous, useful and pious priest. (Very Rev.) Edward W. Burke, D. D.
President.

When I reached America I was appointed assistant rector of St. Anne’s Church, Manchester, New Hampshire, which was the mensal parish of the late Bishop Denis M. Bradley. I staid there sixteen months, when my time for returning to Ireland came in obedience to my promise to the Bishop of Cork.

As to the manner in which I had discharged my priestly duties in Manchester, I quote the following letters:

Manchester, N. H., April 2, 1888.
My Dear Father Crowley:
In acceding to your request to be permitted to return to your own Diocese, I cannot refrain from assuring you of my gratitude for your labors in my Diocese during the sixteen months that you have labored therein. You have always and under all circumstances carried yourself in a manner becoming a good priest.
Yours respectfully,
f Denis M. Bradley,
Bishop of Manchester.

Manchester, N. H., April 3, 1888.
To Rt. Rev. Dr. O’Callaghan,
Bishop of Cork.
Right Rev. and Dear Sir:
The bearer, Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley, a priest of your Lordship’s Diocese, has exercised the sacred ministry in my Diocese during the past sixteen months. He returns to his home at his own earnest solicitation.

I beg leave to add that he has given me entire satisfaction during the time that he has been subject to my jurisdiction. Yours very respectfully,
f Denis M. Bradley.

I make the following quotations from the non-Catholic and the Catholic press of Manchester to show how I was regarded by all classes. Neither directly nor indirectly had I anything to do with the writing of the articles.

The Manchester Daily Union, March 28, 1888.

A SAD OCCASION.
THE REV. FATHER CROWLEY TO LEAVE MANCHESTER FOR IRELAND.

Rev. Father J. J. Crowley, the able assistant pastor at St. Ann’s Church for some time, is to leave Manchester for Ireland on Wednesday next, and in all probability will sever his permanent relationship with this city for all time. On Friday evening last he delivered a farewell sermon, taking for his text the following words: “Seek first the Kingdom of God and His Justice.”There was a very large congregation in attendance, and after an eloquent discourse upon the above text the Reverend Father took occasion to thank the people for their kindness, goodness and respect toward him during the sixteen months he had spent among them… The entire congregation sobbed aloud and heard with sadness the farewell words of him they had learned to love and esteem.

The Manchester Daily Union, April 2, 1888.

WARM HEARTED FATHER CROWLEY.

HE RECEIVES MANY EVIDENCES OF ESTEEM.

OVERWHELMED WITH KINDNESS EXPRESSIONS OF REGRETS.

Since the announcement was made that Rev. J. J. Crowley, assistant pastor of St. Ann’s Church, intended to dissolve his official relations in this country and return to Ireland to accept a position in the Diocese of Cork, he has been overwhelmed with callers who have waited upon him to express their regrets because of his intended departure, and to wish him the choicest of blessings in all time to come… Among Protestants also he is highly esteemed, and among people of all manner of beliefs and callings there is but one sentiment, and that of regret because of his going away. Unnumbered kindnesses have been heaped upon him within the last few days… Father Crowley leaves Manchester on Wednesday afternoon next, but will pass several weeks in the principal cities of America before sailing for the “Isle of Saints.”

The New Hampshire Catholic, March 31, 1888.
It is safe to say that no priest captured the affections of the Catholics of this city so completely, in so short a time, as Father Crowley has done. There is nothing small about him… In the zeal with which he discharged his priestly duties he could not be surpassed. He is a model specimen of the Soggarth Aroon (dear priest) and quickly and thoroughly the people perceived the fact. Utterly devoted to his sacred calling he is also a staunch Nationalist, and is heart and soul in sympathy with the cause of Home Rule for his beloved native land…

The New Hampshire Catholic, April 7, 1888.
About three o’clock Wednesday afternoon the depot began filling up with people, most of whom were not in travelling garb, and very many had evidently come from the mills to attend the train. It was quite apparent that all eyes were turned on one person, a stalwart young clergyman, who towered head and shoulders over the throng. There was no mistaking the earnest and kindly features of Father Crowley, who had his hands full to bid good bye to the sorrowful friends who came to see him off.. There were few dry eyes in the throng… In the brief period of sixteen months he has been in this city, Father Crowley has captured and bears back with him to the diocese of Cork to which he belongs the esteem and affection of our people from the head of the Diocese down.

I arrived in Ireland about the middle of June, 1888, and September 20 I was appointed assistant pastor at West Schull (Goleen), County Cork, Ireland. I served in this place until March, 1892. This parish was about twenty miles long and seven wide, and it was inhabited principally by tenant farmers. During this time I was imprisoned seven months in Her Majesty’s prison in Cork for the heinous offense of having succored Mr. Samuel Townsend Bailey, a Protestant gentleman, seventy years of age and stone blind, who had been deprived, on a mere legal technicality, of his estate by the clergy of his own Church, and turned out upon the roadside without money, food or shelter. As my enemies charge that I was once in jail because of some grave violation of the law, in the palpable hope of discrediting me with the public, I am constrained to give the details of this incident, for on it they found their base slander. They have circulated the tale at home and abroad that I was” such a devil” that the British Government was compelled to lock me up to protect the public.

In the year 1847, which was the famine year in Ireland, Mr. Bailey, a Protestant, was in the possession of a comfortable estate, which afforded him a substantial stone residence and an adequate income. Most of his tenants died of starvation during the famine, and he was deprived of his income. Mr. Bailey’s Protestant Rector was a Rev. Mr. Fisher, whose assistant was a Rev. Mr. Hopley. The people were starving and dying all around, and Rev. Fisher wrote to Protestant societies and individuals in England, telling them that if he had money to buy food for the people he could convert all the Catholics. Money poured in upon him. He called upon Mr. Bailey, who was his chief parishioner, sympathized with him and offered him financial aid, which Mr. Bailey was very glad to get. Rev. Fisher then went home for the money; he returned with it and also a shrewdly drawn assignment of Mr. Bailey’s property to the church trustees, the assignment to take effect after the lives of three individuals and thirty-three years (which finally proved to be a term of about forty years), which assignment he wanted as a mere formality in case his generous friends in England should ever question his handling of the funds. Rev. Fisher died before my return to Ireland, and he was succeeded by Rev. Hopley. Rev. Hopley wanted to get Mr. Bailey’s stone residence and its adjoining five acres for a woman who was then his maid-servant, and he urged the church trustees to commence legal proceedings to evict Mr. Bailey. The case was fought during three terms of court. The Judge kept putting off the delivery of his decision in the hope that the church authorities would see what a harsh enterprise they were engaged in, and relent. He finally pronounced judgment, and, on a technicality, was forced to hold against Mr. Bailey.

Mr. Bailey in despair turned to me, having heard of my championship of the civil rights of Protestants as well as of Catholics in that district. His son came to see me. I said, ” Before I attempt to do anything I must see your father’s tenants and learn from them whether he has been a kind landlord.” In a few days the tenants came to me in a body, and told me that old Mr. Bailey had been a most indulgent landlord. I then said, ” It is the duty of Christians of all denominations to come to his rescue.”I then asked if anyone present would give a site for a hut (a little frame cottage) in the vicinity of the Bailey homestead. Mr. Thomas Donovan, a Protestant farmer, gave a site right across the road from Mr. Bailey’s stone residence. There was a vacant hut ten miles away, and I called for volunteers to transport that building forthwith and put it on the new site. Within twenty-four hours the hut was transferred to the new location, and above it I had placed two flags, one green and the other orange. Before the erection of the hut a fair rental was tendered on behalf of Mr. Bailey for the stone house and five acres, but it was refused.

A few days later a force of bailiffs and police evicted the blind old man and his family, and1 threw them”on the roadside.” Word was sent to me and I hastened to the seat of difficulty. There I found the blind and helpless old man sitting on the roadside; I took him by the hand and led him into the hut, his aged wife and son following.

Rev. Mr. Hopley was insanely maddened by the presence of the hut and its occupants in such close proximity io the old homestead, and to his own home, which was about a quarter of a mile distant. The Tory Government trumped up against me a charge of intimidation; I was arrested; and, under a revived statute, passed in the reign of George the Third, I was “tried,” not before the ordinary and usual tribunal, but before two”Removable” Magistrates paid government officials. My conviction was a foregone conclusion from the beginning.

My prosecution was the subject of many editorials. I give a few excerpts.

Eagle and County Cork Advertiser, Ireland, June 28, 1890.

THE PROSECUTION OF FATHER CROWLEY.

When the history of Ireland comes to be written up to date, no more extraordinary event will present itself to the writer than that which has occurred in West Cork during the past few days. If the historian does his work faithfully, both the Land League and the National League will occupy prominent places in historical records. To the agrarian question of the present day much time and thought will be devoted, but in no event from the Clanricarde evictions, from the founding of New Tipperary, down to the most trivial affair, will be found such an episode as that which presented itself at Goleen on last Sunday. No less than eight Protestant families changed their religion, and joined the Roman Catholic Church, to show and prove their indignation at the conduct of their own pastor, the Rev. Mr. Hopley,… Out of Bailey’s eviction and the threat to remove Donovan for an act of kindness have arisen the proceedings which terminated on Wednesday in the conviction of Father Crowley under the Crimes Act…

Yesterday Mr. Cecil Roche (one of the two presiding magistrates) consummated the outrage which he was sent to West Cork to perpetrate. At the conclusion of a farcical trial, during the course of which it was quite easy to see that the Bench meant to convict, a most outrageous sentence was passed on Father Crowley, of Goleen. Seven months’ imprisonment is what is awarded against Father Crowley for tal’/ng the side of the poor Protestants of Teampeall-na-bo’ct against their evictors and persecutors. Father Crowley denounced these people. He made public charges against a parson and against a policeman which these persons could have got investigated by means of a civil action. They did not do so. The fact that the paid Castle (Government) magistrates have come down, and in violation of the spirit of the law and of all constitutional usages have sent Father Crowley to gaol for seven months does little to better their position. We have no doubt that this “trial” of Father Crowley will receive immediate attention in Parliament. The sentence is not only abominable and vindictive in itself, but it is a deliberate evasion of the law which gives every subject the right of appeal from every sentence of over a month’s duration in Ireland, and from all sentences whatsoever in England…

His imprisonment is, in every respect, a misfortune for his locality. In the poor district of Goleen he has been a peacemaker of a model type between landlords and tenants, and both classes are equally thankful to him. The fact that he interfered in favour of Protestant as well as Catholic proves the spirit of broad-mindedness in which he approached his work. It was not because the parson sided with the evictors of one of his own flock that his mouth was to remain closed, and it did not remain closed. For what arose out of his thus championing the oppressed he goes to goal…

We simply say that under the circumstances a prosecution on an absurd charge was a gross misuse of public authority and a scandal on the administration of justice.

The remarkable prosecution at Bantry came to an end yesterday, when the sentence demanded by Mr. Ronan, Q. C., (Crown Prosecutor) was imposed on the defendant, the Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley, the popular young curate of the parish of Goleen…

Seeing the nature of the charge and the constitution of the Court, the result can have surprised no one. But it is a strange prosecution, arising out of very exceptional circumstances and connected with some very curious occurrences… A sentence of savage severity is imposed on this young and blameless clergyman. That severity will assuredly defeat its own purpose. The immense popularity of Father Crowley in West Cork was demonstrated in Schull and Bantry in a way that must have impressed Mr. Cecil Roche. Even before the trial the feelings of the people with regard to the prosecution and the conduct of the Rev. Mr. Hopley were exhibited in a perfectly startling and unprecedented fashion. Up to eight Protestant families left the Rev. Mr. Hopley’s congregation and joined the Catholic Church.

The incident proves, at all events, that even among the Protestants of his district the Rev. Mr. Hopley has lost his influence through his interference with tenants like Bailey and Donovan (both Protestants) and that the young priest has won the affections of Protestants and Catholics alike by his generous and practical sympathy with the poor and the oppressed. Removables Welch and Roche are, perhaps, of opinion that Father Crowley’s influence in his district will not survive a term of imprisonment, and that the National League must cease to exist west of Bantry. On the contrary, Father Crowley’s sufferings in their cause will but render him ten times dearer to the hearts of the people and make ten times stronger their resolve to overthrow a system under which the imprisonment of a young and kindly clergyman becomes a necessity of State.

West Cork is the western half of County Cork, and is about sixty miles long by thirty wide.

The details of my journey to gaol were given in extended press notices at that time. I quote briefly from one of them:

At half past six o’clock Father Crowley was driven”from the police barrack in a covered car to the railway station, accompanied by a strong escort, and followed by a large cheering crowd. Cordons of police were stationed at all approaches to the station, and allowed to pass only those who were traveling by train. A large crowd, however, by climbing over the walls and ditches, succeeded in reaching the road outside the station, but their progress to the platform was barred by a strong force of police drawn across the entrance. At the station, District-Inspector Smyth was in charge of a body of police and a great portion of the crowd was prevented from entering the railway premises, but they soon fringed the line and cheered the Rev. prisoner loudly. Father Crowley’s brother clergymen were allowed on the platform, and he had many a hearty handshake before the train started. District-Inspector Stewart, Kinsale, was in charge of Father Crowley, who was accommodated in a first-class compartment, and the bodyguard consisted of four policemen. In a third-class carriage a dozen policemen traveled, while the fifty soldiers of the Welch Regiment, who had been on duty, also returned to Cork by the train. As the train moved off the Rev. gentleman was followed by the enthusiastic cheers of those gathered on the platform, and which were vigorously echoed by those outside. At the stations en route to Cork Drimoleague, Dunmanway, Ballineen, Enniskean, etc., crowds cheered Father Crowley enthusiastically, and bonfires were lighting as the train steamed by.

In Bandon the whole populace appeared to have turned out, headed by the town band, but at the gates of the station they were met by a body of police under the command of Mr. Gardiner, R. M., who had traveled from Cork by the evening train. He at once ordered the police to charge the people, and the batonmen obeyed the order with alacrity. The bandsmen were beaten and the instruments seized. On the platform priests, Town Commissioners, shareholders of the line, railway porters and all were hustled and shoved about, and the police did all they could to provoke a row. When the train arrived Mr. Gardiner’s excitement was intense, and he rushed from carriage to carriage shouting out for military and police as if the train was about to be seized and carried off the rails. At last he rushed to the compartment in which Father Crowley was, and seeing District-Inspector Stewart, he ordered that officer to get a number of his armed policemen out of the train, and clear the people off the platform if the cheering was not stopped. The inspector carried out the magistrate’s order, and the moment the cheering was renewed the police charged the crowd, and a number of people were punched with the butts of rifles. Fathers Magner, O’Shea and Coghlan were present, together with Mr. C. Crowley and several Town Commissioners. These gentlemen protested to the stationmaster against the manner in which the Bandon people had been treated on the railway premises, but all Mr. Rattray could say was that he was powerless in the matter. After a short delay the train started for the city of Cork, Mr. Gardiner traveling by it in order to take charge o the police force on duty at the Cork terminus.

The news of the sentence on Father Crowley was pretty well known in the city of Cork about nine o’clock, and a goodly number had assembled outside the railway terminus when the Bantry train reached Cork, shortly after half-past nine. There were but few persons on the platform, as the police appeared to have superseded the railway officials in charge of the station. A body of police kept the gates, and exercised an arbitrary power over the rights of the citizens generally. The Mayor was admitted and some town councillors got through in a rather undignified manner, but dogged pertinacity alone procured admittance for some other gentlemen, while the vast portion of the crowd was crushed outside. A considerable number of plain clothes men (detectives) mingled with the crowd, while a few of them took up.positions on the station platform.

Just as the train reached the platform about twenty policemen, under District-Inspector Bourchier, drew up opposite the carriage in which Father Crowley was in custody, while the moment the train stopped the military, who occupied the carriage next the engine, quickly sprang out and formed on the left of the policemen. The large body of policemen who had come in on the train then came forward on the far end of the platform, completely barring the few persons present from approaching any portion of the train. A minute after Father Crowley stepped from the train, and was hurried by his escort to the police side-car. A number of policemen treading on one another’s heels, pressed after the Rev. gentleman, and surrounded the car while he was taking a seat beside District- Inspector Stewart. The gates being thrown open the police car, followed by the brake, which was loaded with fully armed policemen, drove out into the thick of the crowd amidst loud cheers for the Rev. prisoner. The general body of police immediately followed and kept up with the cars for some little distance.

Amongst the gentlemen who were present in the railway station when Father Crowley arrived were the Mayor; Rev. P. O’Neill, S. S. Peter and Paul’s; Rev. J. M’Donnell, S. S. Peter and Paul’s; Rev. Father Murray, C. C.; Messrs. W. Kelleher, T. C.; J. C. Forde, Sec. National League; Aid. J. O’Brien; and E. Murphy, sessional chairman, Cork, Young Ireland Society.

The route to the gaol (jail) was by the South Mall, Grand Parade, Great George’s Street and the Western Road, and all along the way the sidewalks were covered with people, who cheered loudly and long for the Rev. prisoner. The usual police cordon was drawn up at the gaol Cross, but it was rather surprising to find a crowd of people at the very gaol door as the prisoner drove up. The Mayor accompanied Father Crowley into the prison and saw him lodged in the reception ward.

I had for my jail diet the first three days bread and water; thereafter I had the usual prison fare. For the first month my bed was a plank.

Within a few days after my incarceration, letters, telegrams and cablegrams poured in upon Rev. Mr. Hopley’s bishop, asking him if he had been a party to this injustice. The bishop sent at once three clergymen to tender to Mr. Bailey his old residence and the five acres, with the privilege of occupancy rent free during the rest of his life. Mr. Bailey replied, “No, gentlemen, Father Crowley is in prison, suffering for me. You must get Father Crowley out of prison before I could think of going back to my old home.”I heard of this offer, and succeeded in communicating with Mr. Bailey and insisted upon his going back, which he most reluctantly did.

Great pressure was brought to bear upon me by the Tory Government to sign a peace bond, and thus to put an end to my captivity at the end of the first month, Mr. Gladstone, the Liberal Party and the Irish Party having become interested in my case, which was debated in the British Parliament. I refused absolutely to sign any such bond, as its signing I considered would be tantamount to an admission of guilt, and my refusal had the unanimous approval of the Catholic bishop and clergy of the Diocese of Cork. The result was that I remained in jail six months longer.

Upon my release, on my way home and at home I was greeted by vast throngs of people who testified in every possible way the esteem in which they held me; but the one welcome which touched me most was that given me by Mr. Bailey the old and blind Protestant gentleman threw his arms around my neck and kissed me.

Some press excerpts seem apropos and I give them:

Father Crowley, the gallant and patriotic curate of Goleen, was released from Cork prison at 7: 30 o’clock on Saturday morning, after undergoing seven months’ imprisonment for an “offense” under the Coercion Act. The circumstances under which Father Crowley was imprisoned are already well known to our readers. We are glad to say that the true-hearted Soggarth (priest) is in excellent health and spirits, and has borne his imprisonment with a cheerful courage worthy of the cause for which he has suffered. Father Crowley comes out of the prison with the happy consciousness of not only having done his duty as a faithful priest and a robust politician, but of having won the battle for which he fought.

The law might call his offense “intimidation.” But at least his intimidation was a success. The man whose cause Father Crowley advocated the cause of an evicted Protestant against his own parson has gained. When Father Crowley was a short time in gaol, he was re-instated, and notwithstanding this the authorities still detained the Rev. gentleman in prison.

On Wednesday Fatlier Crow-ley proceeded from Cork to Bantry. He left Cork for the purpose of visiting his friends and former parishioners in West Cork, and at the different stations along the route he received hearty ovations. Rev. W. Murphy, P. P., Kilbrittain, traveled with him as far as Enniskeane. At Waterfall a large crowd gathered, by whom hearty cheers were raised. At Bandon there was a very large number of people with the brass band of the town, including the Very Rev. Dean M’Swiney, P. P., V. G.; Rev. Mr. Magner, C. C.; Rev. Mr. Russell, C. C.; Rev. Mr. Coghlan, C. C.; Rev. Mr. M’Donnell, C. C., Kilbrittain.

When the train steamed in Dean M’Swiney was the first to shake hands with Father Crowley and welcome him back out of the hands of the Balfours and the Roches, and when the train was leaving the station he a-gain called for cheers for Father Crowley, which were heartily responded to.

At Enniskeane Rev. Mr. O’Sullivan, C. C. and a large crowd were gathered, and at Dunmanway there was another large concourse assembled.

At Drimoleague Rev. J. Murphy, P. P.; Dr. Crowley, Messrs. W. Fitzgerald, J. Connolly, A. M’Carthy, P. L. G., and a number of others were present.

At Bantry Father Crowley was met by Rev. J. O’Leary, C. C.; Rev. J. O’Hea, C. C.; Rev. J. Kearney, C. C.; Mr. J. Gilhooly, M. P.; Mr. P. T. Carroll (solicitor), and a large deputation of the townspeople. As the train steamed in hearty cheers were raised for the Rev. “ex-criminal,”and when he stepped out on the platform a rush was made to seize his hand and welcome him to liberty once more. The Rev. gentleman then proceeded to the residence of the Very Rev. Canon Shinkwin, P. P.

In the evening a meeting was held in the town hall in his honor. The building was filled to overflowing…. The Rev. J. O’Leary, C. C., presided.

The Rev. Chairman briefly introduced Father Crowley, and referred to his sufferings in prison, and the fortitude and dignity with which he had borne, them. He said the glaring injustice of which Father Crowley was the victim, and the iniquitous punishment to which he had been subjected, had only more endeared him to the hearts of the people of West Cork, and it was with a hearty caed mille failthe they welcomed him amongst them once more (cheers).

Addresses were presented from the Bantry Branch of the National League, and the Bantry G. A. A…

From Bantry Father Crowley proceeded to Skibbereen. The arrival at Skibbereen was marked by en enthusiastic ovation from a large crowd assembled at the terminus. Amongst those present were Rev. Fathers O’Brien and Cunningham; Dr. Kearney; Dr. O’Driscoll; Messrs. Florence M’Carthy; Cornelius M’Carthy, Town Clerk; Timothy Sheehy, T. C.; John O’Shea; Charles O’Shea; P. Sheehy, solicitor; Edward Roycraft, Chairman Schull Guardians; etc.

At Ballydehob a great crowd was assembled, and a most enthusiastic cheer was raised when the train pulled up at the station, the fife and drum band of the village playing a series of National airs.

It may be observed here that on the occasion of Father Crowley’s release on Saturday last the village was brilliantly illuminated, tar-barrels being lit in the streets and the windows of all the houses being illuminated. The band paraded the streets, playing National airs, and followed by a large crowd. On Thursday the band joined the train at Ballydehob and traveled with us all the way to Goleen. A tremendous cheer was raised as the train steamed out; the band playing the while. With the band the following representatives from Ballydehob accompanied Father Crowley as far as Schull Rev. D. Corcoran; Messrs. T. McSwiney, Hon. Sec. I. N. L.; D. Gallagher; J. Coughlan, M. Cotter, R. Hodnett.

On the arrival of the train at Schull a scene of the most extraordinary enthusiasm was witnessed. Before the station was reached the road for a long distance was crowded with men and women, the men waving their hats, and many men and women bearing aloft evergreens. On the platform the throng was dense, and immediately that the train stopped a rush was made fdr the carriage in which Father Crowley traveled, joy beaming on every face, and the people almost walking on each other in their eagerness to shake the hand of Father Crowley. Schull itself presented a gay appearance. All the way from the station the road and fences were lined with people, of whom there were some thousands, not alone from Schull, but from all the surrounding country, and even from Goleen. There were triumphal arches across the streets, bearing suitable mottoes, flags waved from many windows, and as the procession wended its way through the village to the Rev. Father O’Connor’s house the greatest enthusiasm was evinced. Schull, on the occasion, did honor to the patriotic priest in a splendid manner. On the day of his release they showed their joy in a befitting way with tar-barrels and illuminations, while the country all around was blazing with bonfires. .,

Father O’Connor addressed the meeting, and said that he need not say how happy they all were at seeing Father Crowley amongst them, and their pleasure was the greater at seeing him in such splendid form, notwithstanding all that he had endured endured so unjustly and cruelly, in “Balfour’s Hotel” in Cork during the past seven months. He need not relate to them the reasons why he was imprisoned. He was put into jail for trying to promote justice between man and man and for championing the cause of a poor blind old gentleman, who was a Protestant. They were all proud of Father Crowley’s action in defending one who then differed from him in creed (cheers). Father Crowley had always endeavored to see justice between landlord and tenant, and it was for these reasons that he was immured in Cork Gaol (groans and a voice, “Thank God he is not the worse for it”). They were all delighted to know that he was as determined to work in the national cause in the future as he had shown himself to be in the past (cheers); and he hoped that that future would be a long and a happy one (cheers).

Father O’Connor, then read the following address: “To the Rev. J. J. Crowley, R. C. C.

“Dear Father Crowley, On behalf of the Schull and Ballydehob branch of the Irish National League, we beg to tender you a hearty welcome from” Balfour’s Hotel.”You may feel sure we highly appreciate your noble efforts and sufferings on behalf of the poor and oppressed people of West Schull. We feel the injustice of the terrible sentence seven months inflicted upon you for no earthly reason but that you championed the cause of a poor blind old gentleman against landlord rapacity, and we feel the greater pride in your action because that he differed from you ‘in religion. We congratulate you upon the splendid state of your health after your term of imprisonment, and we hope you will be long- spared to work in the future as you have so nobly done in the past in the grand old cause of fatherland.” Father Crowley, who got a splendid ovation, addressed the people and said that he could hardly express in words his grateful thanks for the enthusiastic welcome accorded him, and for the genuinely hearty manner in which they had received him. It was almost unnecessary for him to remind them of the history of the struggle which had just come to an end…

At the conclusion of the addresses the word was given

and a long procession was formed. First came Father Crowley, accompanied by Father Corcoran and Father O’Connell. Then came a body of pedestrians, including many women; then came the Ballydehob band, followed by a long line of spring carts, equestrians, and common carts, the procession reaching nearly two miles in length. Along the line of march the people congregated in groups near the houses, bonfires blazed along the hill-sides, and evergreens were tied to long poles, fixed in the ground. At intervals in the procession flags were borne aloft, and at every now and then enthusiastic cheers were raised by the crowd of pedestrians that formed Father Crowley’s guard of honor. The evening was beautifully fine, and as the procession wended its way along with banners flying, and the horses decorated with green, the effect was picturesque in the extreme. When we arrived at

the band struck up a tune, and at the “Poor Man’s Church” some of the villagers met us. The rocky elevations around the village were occupied by cheering groups. Bonfires blazed, horns were” tooted,”and the enthusiasm of the processionists reached a high pitch when a banner was observed waving from Mr. Bailey’s window. Outside Bailey’s house a great crowd was collected, the women and children waving green branches, and the men cheering enthusiastically. A halt was called here, and Father Crowley paid a visit to Mr. Bailey, who wept for joy when he clasped Father Crowley’s hand. Poor Mr. Bailey is not very well just now, though he is able to be about. All the cabins were decorated with ivy and laurel, and the villagers gathered around Father Crowley as he emerged from Mr. Bailey’s, some saying- that but for him they would be far from Toormore now, and all expressing their joy at his return, and their sorrow at his forthcoming departure, some of them saying that they’d never let him be sent away from them. Leaving Toormore, the crowd of pedestrians was very considerably augmented, and as the shades of evening were falling,

was reached, the hillsides as we approached our destination being ablaze with bonfires in all directions. Goleen itself was brilliantly illuminated, every house in the village being a blaze of light. Before entering the village the crowd struck up”God Save Ireland,”and the chapel bell boomed forth its deep notes as Father Crowley reached his old home. On the rocky elevations above the village tar-barrels blazed, and were surrounded by cheering crowds. As Father Crowley made his way on to one of the rocks, which served as a sort of platform, the enthusiasm of the multitude reached an extraordinary pitch. He was accompanied by Fathers O’Driscoll, Corcoran, and O’Connell; Messrs. Florence M’Carthy, R. Roberts, T. Ward, S. Bailey, John Roycroft, James Roycroft, and all the principal men of the village and the surrounding locality. The whole population of the district for miles around was present on the occasion. The Rev. Father O’Driscoll, C. C, was chosen to preside, and, in opening the proceedings, said that they were assembled on a historic occasion to give a welcome home to Father Crowley after his absence of seven months in jail (cheers). The people showed their love of Father Crowley unmistakably that day. From Mizen Head to Dunbeacon the people had shown by the numbers of them who went to Schull to welcome him what popularity he had earned amongst them by his labours on their behalf. Father Crowley had every man and woman and child to welcome him back to their midst, while if Removables Welch and Roche, who sent him to jail, came there they would have nobody to greet them but the police (groans). He concluded by asking Mr. Florence M’Carthy to read the address to Father Crowley on his release.

Mr. McCarthy read the following address: “Address to the Rev. J. J. Crowley, C. C. (Catholic Curate) from the parishioners of Goleen, on his return after seven months’ imprisonment,

DEAR FATHER CROWLEY, It is with feelings of sincere pleasure that we welcome you back safely to liberty after enjoying for seven months the care and attention of our paternal Government in one of its bastiles. We are delighted to find that your long imprisonment has neither injured your health nor subdued your spirits. We cannot refrain from referring with pride to your imprisonment being the result of your denouncing the harsh and unfeeling treatment dealt out by the Trustees of his own Church to an old Protestant gentleman. Your hatred of oppression urged you to expose the cruelties and hardships of evicting and leaving to die near the ditch this old man of seventy winters, with his wife and family. Your kind thoughtfulness, however, provided them with a home, and it must have been a pleasure to you to-day, as the knowledge must have been for months past in your lonely cell, to find Air. Bailey and his family restored long since to their old home. You were beloved by us before; but the hall-mark of the prison endears you to us a thousandfold. The Government through motives of petty vindictiveness, detained you for months in prison after the wrongs you denounced had been rectified; and while you, a Catholic priest, have not hesitated to come to the aid of your oppressed Protestant neighbors, and cheerfully go to prison for their sakes, the Government and its supporters are not ashamed to urge for political purposes the knowingly false cry of ‘ Catholic intolerance ‘ and oppression of the Protestants as a reason for withholding Home Rule from Ireland. Thank God, Catholic Ireland can proudly refer to her present and past history to refute this libel. A natural hatred of wrong, an inherent sense of justice have been intensified by your sojourn in (America) the land of liberty. The hardships they were obliged to endure, and the petty tyrannies and wrongs the poor people of the parish were subjected to aroused your indignation; and once you were convinced of the necessity for action you never hesitated to espouse the cause of the oppressed, and were fearless of the consequences. Your prompt and decisive action Vept many in their homes; but while checking the aggressiveness of unfeeling landlordism, you would not tolerate the withholding or non-payment of fair rents, and have in many instances largely increased the landlords’ rent collections. Regardless of yourself, you were at any time of the day or night, when duty called, by the bedside of the suffering, bringing tender-hearted’ sympathy to the couch of pain, and succor to the poor and lowly. In our selfishness we hoped you would be left longer with us to enjoy the little improvements we recently made in your home in anticipation of your return and stay with us. If this is not to be, we can only assure you that your memory will always be treasured by a grateful people, who will look forward to your visiting them occasionally, when you may calculate on receiving at all times, as you do now, a cead mille failthe.”

Father Crowley, on coming forward to address the people, received a magnificent reception. He said that he was unable to express in words how happy he felt at being back again in Goleen, and how glad he was to find them all in such spirits. He was happy in being able to tell them that he was in good health and spirits, too (cheers). He was very thankful to his dear people for the enthusiastic manner in which they received him, and for the address presented to him on behalf of the people of Goleen…

As Father Crowley was making his way from the place of meeting to his own house, a most extraordinary scene was witnessed. The men and women flocked about him, and wept as if their hearts were breaking at the thought of his departure. It was a most pathetic scene, and as the loud sobs of many hundreds of sorrowing hearts were echoed back from the surrounding rocks, the effect was at once weird and wonderful. Such devotion as was here displayed is a thing that but few priests have ever experienced. The manifestations of sincere love exhibited were most impressive. The people rushed to kiss Father Crowley’s hand, and it was only after a long struggle that he was able to tear himself away from amidst a weeping throng of admirers, many of whom loudly declared that they would never let him be removed from amongst them.

The foregoing suggestion of my removal from Goleen was founded upon the fact that my bishop was seeking to promote me. He yielded to the wishes of the people of Goleen, as will be seen by the following letter:

Cork, Feb’y 8th, ’91 Dear Father Crowley: I have yielded to the wishes of the good people of Goleen, and I have determined to leave you with them for some time longer. There is much to be done in the parish, and the distress of the poor people will give you many opportunities of exercising your zeal. I remain Yours faithfully, f T. A. O’Callaghan.

I remained in the parish of West Schull (Goleen) fifteen months longer; then I was promoted to the parish of Newcestown, near Bandon, where I staid four years.

When I returned to Ireland I determined to go back to America at some future time. I asked permission of my bishop in 1895 to return. He begged me to withdraw my request, and would not yield until my importunity drew from him the following reluctant consent:

Cork, June 18, 1896. The Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley, of the Diocese of Cork, has my permission to seek a mission in the United States, and I have given it to him reluctantly at his own earnest request as I sincerely regret his departure. He is a good, hard-working priest, zealous and devoted to his duties. During the eight years he has been in the diocese I have had no fault whatsoever to find with him. He has already labored on the American Mission and is now anxious to return. f T. A. O’Callaghan, Bishop of Cork.

I also received the following letters:

Bantry, County Cork, July 13, 1896. As the Rev. J. J. Crowley, who for some years officiated in the Deanery over which I preside and is now of his own accord severing his -connection with this Diocese, has asked me to say what I think about him, I feel much pleasure in complying with his request. He was always faithful in the discharge of the duties that devolved upon him and thoroughly devoted to the work of his sacred calling. His ministry was highly efficient and fruitful, and so appreciated was it by the people amongst w’iom he labored that, when he was taken from them, they manifested the greatest possible regret. His relations with priests and people were of the kindliest character. All who know him wish him a bright and happy future, and indeed none more sincerely than myself. M. Canon Shinkwin, P. P. V. F.

Bandon, County Cork, June 15, 1896. Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley, who has ministered in this Deanery for four years, is a very worthy priest. He is hardworking and energetic, is esteemed by all who know him, and it gives me great pleasure to be able to state that he leaves us without the least stain on his character. Joseph Canon Shinkwin, P. P. V. F.

From the Cardinal Primate of all Ireland I received the following:

Ara Coeli, Armagh, July 13, 1896. From all I could learn regarding Rev. Father Crowley I believe him to be a good, regular, hard-working priest. I am sure Father Crowley will labor with zeal and success in any mission entrusted to him. | Michael Cardinal Logue.

From Bishop O’Donnell of Raphoe, Donegal, I received the following:

Letterkenny, County Donegal, June 25, 1896. Having met Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley of Cork more than once and heard a great deal about him from others, I have much pleasure in stating that he bears the name of a zealous and efficient priest, and it is my expectation that he will prove a very useful worker in whatever mission in America his lot is cast. f Patrick O’ Donnell, Bishop of Raphoe.

I also received the following letters:

Maynooth College, County Kildare, July 20, 1896. I am happy to testify from personal knowledge and from reliable information that Father Crowley is an excellent priest with a stainless record. Intellectually, socially, and physically he is everything that could be desired. He ambitions a wider field for the use of the gifts God has endowed him with; and I confidently pray that his zeal and prudence may be as conspicuous in the future as in the past. Edward Maguire, D. D. (Professor).

St. Finnbarr’s Seminary, Cork, Aug. 15, ’96. Most Rev. M. Corrigan, D. D., Archbishop of New York. My Dear Lord: Father Crowley asks me for a line of introduction to Your Grace. He is seeking for a mission in America with permission of his bishop, from whom he has got an excellent letter. To that I would wish to add the very strong personal recommendation of my brother (Very Rev. John B. O’Mahoney, D. D.), President of our Diocesan Seminary, and who knows Father Crowley particularly well, as he was one of his earliest pupils.

I take this opportunity of thanking your Grace for all your kindness on the occasion of my last visit to New York, every way one of the pleasantest of my many pleasant souvenirs of America. I write this from my brother’s place, where I am staying for a few days on my way to All Hallows (College). Most Respectfully Yours in Christ, T. J. O’Mahoney, D. D. (Professor of All Hallows College, Dublin).

I arrived in New York in August, 1896. After a few days I paid a visit to my friends in Manchester, New Hampshire, and received the following letter to the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of New York:

Manchester, N. H., August 30, 1896. My Dear Monsignor Mooney: This will introduce to you Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley of the Diocese of Cork. He exercised the sacred ministry in this Diocese for sixteen months. He was an assistant here in the city during his stay in this Diocese. He is an excellent priest, sober, zealous and of great faith. Yours sincerely in Christ, f Denis M. Bradley, Bishop of Manchester.

I was received most cordially by Archbishop Corrigan and other Church dignitaries at New York, but there being no vacancy I came to Chicago.

I called upon Archbishop Feehan in Chicago, accompanied by a prominent ecclesiastic. I was appointed an assistant pastor at the Church of the Nativity of our Lord, 37th St. and Union Ave., Chicago. I was there nearly three years. On December 20, 1899, I was promoted by Archbishop Feehan to the Oregon, Illinois, parish and the outlying missions thereof, receiving from His Grace the following letter: Chicago, December 20, 1899.

I hereby appoint Rev. J. J. Crowley pastor of St. Mary’s Church, Oregon, 111., and also of the missions attached to that place.

I recommend him to the kindness and confidence of the Catholic people. f P. A. Feehan, Archbishop of Chicago.

I remained in Oregon until August 3, 1901, when I was ousted by an injunction issued by the civil court on the prayer of a petition alleged to have been filed by the direction of the late Archbishop Feehan of the Archdiocese of Chicago.

And now I come to the famous Chicago controversy which arose in the summer of 1900 over the appointment of an Auxiliary Bishop to the late Archbishop Feehan. It was commenced by twenty-five priests of most excellent standing, and it is still pending.

During the Oregon, Illinois, litigation, commenced against me as stated in the name of Archbishop Feehan of the Archdiocese of Chicago, I had prepared a printed brief which set forth the pleadings, affidavits, etc., in that litigation, and I mailed copies of this publication to various Church dignitaries. To the fly-leaf I attached a little slip, a facsimile of which is as follows:

With the Compliments of The Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley, Pastor of Oregon, Illinois, Archdiocese of Chicago

A full and authentic history of the sad condition of the Catholic Church in the Archdiocese of Chicago, is now being prepared and will be given to the public in the near future.

A consequence of the foregoing slip was the sending to tne of the following unjust and invalid document, Cardinal Martinelli, (the Papal Delegate to the Church in the United States), having been persuaded to adopt this, course in the hope that it would save himself and my opponents from exposure by frightening me into a cowardly submission:

[TRANSITION.] APOSTOLIC DELEGATION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. No. 1393. WASHINGTON, D. C. This No. should be Prefixed to the Answer.

Inasmuch as the Sacred Congregation for propagating the Faith has learned that certain priests of the Archdiocese of Chicago have taken grave offense at the election of the Rev. P. J. Muldoon to the Episcopate, and have with all their vigor, pertinaciously and wrongfully protested against his consecration, therefore, it, [the Sacred Congregation], by letters No. 45,708, dated Rome, August 21, 1901, has charged this Apostolic Delegation with the duty of watching closely lest the matter should grow to too great a scandal, and at the same time of canonically admonishing, and, as far as may be necessary, visiting with ecclesiastical censure, whomsoever it [said Delegation] might happen to find guilty.

Now, however, since we have with safety learned that the Rev. Jeremiah Crowley, a priest of the said Archdiocese, made a very bitter contest against the aforesaid election and consecration, and does not even now desist therefrom, since, indeed, we have before us

1. A bill of complaint by him presented to the civil court,

2. A defense which his advocate undertook to prepare,

3. A promise made by him in writing concerning the early publication of a work wherein he will relate the sad state of the Archdiocese existing in his mind,

We require the said Rev. Jeremiah Crowley, in the Lord, for his own good and for the honor of the Church, to desist from his pertinacity, and at the same time we peremptorily, once instead of thrice, warn him to give certain signs of repentance and reparation.

But if he shall refuse and if, within the space of ten days, to be computed from the day of his receiving notice of this Admonition, he shall not repair the scandal,

1. By desisting from the prosecution of the suit in the civil tribunal,

2. By altogether prohibiting the printing of the promised book, or, if it shall have already been printed, by not publishing the same,

3. By making public reparation for the public scandal,

4. And by submitting himself to the authority of the Archbishop,

We declare him ipso facto e.vcommunicated, and we reserve to this Apostolic Delegation the power to annul (or to absolve from) this excommunication.

Moreover, we commit to the Court of the Archbishop of Chicago the execution of this decree, and we, therefore, charge it with the duty of transmitting these presents to the aforesaid Rev. Jeremiah Crowley, all legal requirements being observed. But if the said Rev. Jeremiah Crowley is absent or cannot be found, then, the edict being posted up in the churches or in other public place, after the space of ten days, as above mentioned, he still not desisting from pertinacity, we ordain that this decree shall in like manner take effect.

Given at Washington, From the palace of the Apostolic Delegation, October 13, 1901.. Sebastian Card. Martmelli, Apostolic Pro-Delegate.

In due course the following unjust and invalid document was issued in the name of Archbishop Feehan of the Archdiocese of Chicago:

Chicago, III, Oct. 26, 1901. Whereas, the Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley, a priest exercising faculties in the Archdiocese of Chicago, has grievously violated the laws and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church and of the Archdiocese of Chicago, and as he persists contumaciously in his unlawful conduct, therefore, after due warning from the Apostolic Delegation of the United States, as shown by the above document, which was delivered to the Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley in person on Wednesday, the i6th day of October, 1901, and the said Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley having failed to comply with the conditions laid down by the Apostolic Delegation within the period of time allotted to him in the said decree, we hereby declare publicly and solemnly that the Rev. Jeremiah J, Crowley is excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church and all participation therein, according to the decree of His Eminence, Sebastian Cardinal Martinelli, Pro-Delegate Apostolic.

The effects of this most grave censure of the Church are: 1. He is cut off from the communion and society of the

faithful.

2. The faithful are forbidden, under severe penalty, to hold communion with him or assist him in his unlawful conduct.

3. He cannot receive or administer any of the sacraments of the Church. Should he attempt to give absolution in the tribunal of penance, said absolution is invalid and sacrilegious.

4. He cannot be present or assist at any of the public exercises or offices of religion in the Roman Catholic Church, nor can he be present at mass, vespers or any other public service in the Roman Catholic Church.

5. He cannot receive or fill any office within the gift of the Roman Catholic Church.

6. Should he die while under this excommunication he will be deprived of Christian burial.

All the pastors of this Archdiocese are hereby commanded, sub pocna suspensionis, to attach the above decree and this letter on the wall of the sacristies of their churches for thirty days, in such a manner that it may easily be seen and read by all.

This order goes into effect immediately upon receipt thereof.

Given at Chicago, on this 26th day of October, 1901. f Patrick A. Feehan, Archbishop of Chicago.

By order of the most Reverend Archbishop, F. J. Barry, Chancellor.

This unjust and invalid ban of excommunication was removed within two months by Bishop Scannell of Omaha, Nebraska, U. S. A., he acting as the representative of the Papal Delegate, Cardinal Martinelli. / made no apology to the priests against whom charges had been made, and I made no promise to desist from issuing the publication the announcement of which had been the moving cause of my unjust and invalid excommunication.

The following- is a translation of the Celebret given to me by Bishop Scannell upon the removal of the ban of excommunication :

To the Rev. J. J. Crowley: By these presents we testify that you for honorable reasons known to us obtained leave of absence for six months, and we make known to all with whom you may come in contact that you are of good moral character, and that as far as we know you are not laboring under any ecclesiastical censure or canonical impediment. Wherefore we request in Christ the Bishops of all places in which you may be to permit you to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

In proof of which etc.

Given at our palace at Omaha the 26th day of December, A. D. 1901. -J- Richard Scannell, [Episcopal Seal]. Bishop of Omaha.

I received from the Archbishop of Chicago the following Celebret, which was sent in obedience to the command of Cardinal Martinelli:

Chicago, 111., February 7th, 1902. The Rev. Jeremiah J. Crowley is, so far as I am aware, under no ecclesiastical censure and may be permitted to say mass “de consensu Ordinariorum.” Yours faithfully, f P. A Feehan, Archbishop of Chicago.

On March 9, 1902, I celebrated Solemn High Mass in the Archdiocese of Chicago, and I quote the following from the headlines of The Chicago Tribune of the next day:

Authorized by Martinelli to Celebrate High Mass. Officiates at Special Services in the Church of the Immaculate Conception and is Recognized by the Congregation Papal Benediction on the Parish is Received and Read to the Members.

Most solemn promises were made to me by Cardinal Martinelli in person at Washington, of a parish in Chicago, salary from the time I was ousted from my Oregon parish, etc., but none of these promises was kept, as the priests against whom the twenty-five prominent pastors had made grave charges insisted that I should first sign an apology to them. I refused to “whitewash” them.

It does not come within my purpose to give in this publication the history of this now famous and still pending Chicago controversy. The publication of its history remains, perhaps, for the future. But my readers will probably be able to glean a few hints of its facts and importance by perusing the quotations (a volume of which I have in my possession) which I now give from religious and secular publications of high standing. My friends insist that I shall not eliminate from them the flattering expressions, and most reluctantly I yield to their advice.

Father Jeremiah J. Crowley, until recently pastor of the Catholic Church at Oregon, 111., was the central figure of the most sensational incident in western church history, Sunday, November 3d. Defying a recent edict of excommunication from Cardinal Martinelli, of Washington, he entered the Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago, while solemn high mass was in progress, and took a seat immediately below the altar. Chancellor F. J. Barry, of the archdiocese of Chicago, was in charge of the mass, and in pursuance of the laws of the church that no excommunicated priest shall be allowed to take part in the services of a Catholic Church, ordered Father Crowley to leave. The priest quietly refused to go. The music was stopped; the choir filed out, and the priests retired. Chancellor Barry explained the situation to the congregation, most of whom left; low mass was hurriedly rendered, and Father Crowley remained to the end. The sensational incident had its origin last July, when Father Crowley, in connection with twenty-five other priests, protested against the appointment of Peter J. Muldoon as auxiliary bishop of Chicago. Archbishop Feehan disregarded the protest. Father Crowley resigned from his parish in Oregon. Later he withdrew the resignation. The archbishop, however, accepted the action of Father Crowley and appointed a pastor in his stead. Father Crowley refused to give up the church and the archbishop secured an injunction, prohibiting Father Crowley from acting. The injunction suit is still pending. The archbishop notified Father Crowley that he must desist in his charges against brother priests or suffer excommunication. Father Crowley refused to withdraw his charges, and the letter of excommunication by Cardinal Martinelli was printed in the Chicago press. Father Crowley insists that he cannot be excommunicated without a trial.

Father Crowley is forty years old and a man of striking physique. He is gifted as a scholar and orator.

A brave and pious priest in the Roman Catholic communion is not so scarce a personage as he was within the memory of men now living. Indeed, it is the character of the priesthood that has been the chief objection which men have argued against this ancient church. When its own clergymen, however, come to a lively appreciation of the shortcomings of their order, hope arises that this mighty ecclesiastical system may have within itself the seeds of a new life. But the reformation, if it come, will not be without stubborn conflict, as is indicated by what is now taking place in the archdiocese of Chicago. When men were recently raised to high offices in the diocese, a young priest, Father J. J. Crowley by name, asked the church authorities for a thorough investigation of these men’s records. The answer was a sentence of dismissal of Father Crowley from his own parish, which he was serving 1 most faithfully and acceptably, and after it appeared that his contention was being seconded and supported by all honorable Catholics, he was summarily excommunicated. But this loud edict, which was so dreaded once, has failed to alter the fixed purpose of Father Crowley. He is a man whom it will be hard to defeat. He is finely endowed physically, standing more than six feet high; mentally, having a thorough classical and theological training; and spiritually, for one to look into his open face and clear eyes assures one that he is a man who has been with God. Compared with the types of priest that are seen most frequently, slim, ferret-eyed, shifty, designing creatures, or greasy, obese, dull-witted ones, Crowley looks like a man from another planet.

The case of the Reverend Father Jeremiah J. Crowley, a priest of the Roman Catholic diocese of Chicago, who was excommunicated recently by authority of Cardinal Martinelli, furnishes at once the most unique and the most interesting controversy that has ever arisen between that wonderful church and one of its anointed ministers.

It differs from the McGlynn case, which was one of direct disobedience to the commands of Rome; it differs from the famous Koslowski case, which was one of schism; it differs from all the minor cases in which the accusations against the excommunicated were based on immorality or religious infidelity.

Father Crowley is a man and a priest of high intellectual endowments; one of rare, almost fanatical piety. His career as a student, as a citizen and as a minister of his church is exemplary from the standards of measurement within and without the Roman church. A product of Carlow College, a living example of the genuine Irish gentleman, young, handsome, a giant physically and yet a person of much tenderness, as well as courage, Father Crowley stands forth in his own right as a personage sure to prepossess acquaintances and likely to win and hold their high regard. He is abstemious in his habits, industrious to. the limit of his great physical power, studious to a degree, intensely sincere, direct and frank of mind and manner.

The very character and reputation of the man make his present sad plight incredible to strangers. He has been cursed by Rome through a published document of excommunication uttered by Cardinal Martinelli. If he died to-day his body would be denied burial in holy ground. His presence at mass in the parish church of Archbishop Feehan in Chicago has been sufficient to stop the ceremonial. If Lucifer himself had appeared in the church, no greater consternation could have reigned amongst the priests celebrating the sacrifice. The music ceased, the lights were quenched and the high ceremonial was abandoned. The preacher leveled his logic and his eloquence against the outlawed priest, who, in spite of her malediction, was kneeling there worshipful, silent, alone and, as it seemed, defenseless against the pontifical thunderbolts falling around him.

Having thus pilloried a good man and a good priest before all men, the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church have at least invited the astonished curiosity of all religionists, all thoughtful men. What has Father Crowley done to incur the most awful curse that can befall either a Catholic layman or priest?

According to his own statement, he began, many months ago, to oppose and expose the alleged sinful machinations of a number of clergymen then and now high in the councils of the Chicago diocese. To his Archbishop, and through him to Rome, he protested against certain deeds of priests whose lives, thought Father Crowley, were a menace to his church and a blasphemy against her holiest teachings. At first he waged his crusade through the secret channels of the hierarchy, not that he feared candor, but to evade scandal if possible.

His efforts were absolutely ignored. If his communications, offers of evidence, names of witnesses and other statements ever reached the proper authorities, they elicited no action or response. Then came Archbishop Feehan’s declaration that he would appoint the Reverend P. J. Muldoon as auxiliary Bishop of Chicago. Twenty-five priests of the diocese, one of whom was Father Crowley, protested against the appointment on grounds already exploited in the secret crusade against corruption and sin in the high places. The Archbishop ignored this protest and preparations for the consecration of Father Muldoon proceeded.

Then Father Crowley gave to the world a story of alleged priestly decadence ana corruption such as has been seldom charged even against ordinary self-respecting men of the world. The question as to whether these charges were true was never raised by the church authorities. The first action of the diocesan was to begin civil proceedings to relieve Father Crowley of his mission as pastor of St. Mary’s Church at Oregon, 111. The priest defended the injunction suit thus brought, on the ground that he had been neither accused, tried nor found guilty of anything that could debar him from his rights as pastor. But he bowed to the arm of the civil law and obeyed the enjoinder. A priest was sent thither to supplant him. The case took its place on the docket of the Circuit Court of Ogle County. The briefs then issued by Crowley’s attorneys contained between the flyleaves a slip of paper announcing that later Father Crowley would publish a book exposing the alleged state of affairs in the diocese of Chicago.

Father Crowley and his friends believe that this threat (never carried out) was the true cause for the commotion which followed in the high councils of the Catholic Church. The offending priest was warned that unless he withdrew all past charges, expressed penitence and accepted the punishment which Archbishop Feehan might mete out within ten days he (Crowley) would be excommunicated. The priest, yet believing that his charges were true and uttered in a holy cause, refused to recall his words. He permitted the ten days to elapse.

A printed circular, with Cardinal Martinelli’s name attached, was served upon him by three constables, hired laymen, while the priest was at dinner. It proved to be a stereotyped form of excommunication and upon the same day was posted in the sanctuaries of every Catholic Church in the diocese. It was a shocking surprise to Crowley, who expected at least a trial. The causes for the decree of excommunication were summed up as (first),”appealing to a civil court.”To this Father Crowley replies that it was his Archbishop and not he who went into the civil court. The second charge was that Crowley had sought to defend himself in a civil court at law. To this the priest replies that neither priest nor man needs an excuse for self-preservation. The third charge was to the effect that he had threatened to expose the “unfortunate diocese of Chicago as he believes it to exist.”

To this last and most significant accusation Father Crowley answers: “I threatened to tell’ the truth about this diocese for no other motive than to further the best interest and preserve the sanctity of my Holy Mother Church. I do not believe that my church is benefited by the suppression of truth and the continuation of evil men in her holiest offices. If I have falsified, why do they not investigate, and prove me false? But I have not. My charges were supplemented by willing and credible witnesses, names and dates. I am not fighting my church and never will. I am fighting the evil men who, in this diocese at least, are sapping her power, dishonoring her sanctuaries and blaspheming the God of all Christians. If that be a crime, I do not understand what loyalty, decency and virtue mean. But, right or wrong, I am entitled to a trial. The meanest criminal is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. My worst enemies accuse me of no sin. I believe that my church will yet hear me; that she will uphold me. But, come what may, I shall never fight against nor villify my church. I shall remain a Roman Catholic, as I was born and as I am to-day.”

Father Crowley has appealed to Rome through the American Ablegate, Cardinal Martinelli. He is willing to withdraw from, the fight if the church authorities will appoint an unbiased court and investigate the charges he has made against his fellow-priests of this diocese. He is willing to abide by the results of that investigation. He believes it will be given.

Meanwhile he continues to attend holy mass in the face of physical, oratorical and tacit opposition. His opponents, clerical and lay, insist that he has already committed the unpardonable crime of scandalizing his church by accusations against her clergy. They insist that even the truth of those charges cannot condone the inherent offense. His friends and adherents, and they include some of the ablest and best of the priests and laity of the Chicago diocese, contend that there can be no sin in telling truth, in exposing corruption, no matter how cloaked with the sacred vesture of office. They say that there are bad priests, just as there are bad preachers, bad merchants, dishonest lawyers, but, they argue, it is the duty of honest Catholics to “drive them out.”

Every new movement made by Archbishop Feehan and Bishop Muldoon of this city to crush Father Crowley is of a nature calculated to convince the Protestant onlooker that the priest has attacked the prelates and their favorites at a point where they do not dare to make a fair reply. Father Crowley’s charges of immorality among the clergy of the diocese have been definite enough in all conscience to deserve attention, but his overlords absolutely refuse to order or submit to investigation. As a climax to his tyranny Archbishop Feehan has issued an edict prescribing that any priest who gives countenance to Crowley shall by that act be automatically suspended from the priesthood. This is done in spite of the tact that Father Crowley has been upheld by the highest authority of the Catholic hierarchy in this country, Monsignor Martinelli, and stands now in perfect nominal relations to the church. This decree of ostracism, a punishment not only without conviction but even without charges, is full of the very spirit of the old-time Inquisition. We can only hope that for it the archbishop will incur the avenging wrath of the papal delegate whose will he has virtually defied. Martinelli, of course, is as tyrannical as anybody, but there would be some rude kind of justice in an apportionment to Feehan of a good big dose of his own sort of medicine.

The most important question before the Vatican is, what will it do with the many protests on file there against the irregularities and immoralities in the church itself? These are made by good Catholics. They are not attacks from without, but are appeals from priests and people within. Conditions as they exist in the archdiocese of Chicago are perhaps akin to those which exist elsewhere. Instead of disproving Father Crowley’s charges or giving him a chance to prove them, the church excommunicated him. He was, however, almost immediately restored to church communion, which act was a confession that he was right, and yet there is no evident intention of cleansing the church of its unworthy priests.

Archbishop Feehan died July I2th, 1902, and Bishop Quigley, of Buffalo, N. Y., was appointed his successor, coming to Chicago March TO, 1903.

Archbishop Quigley of the Archdiocese of Chicago, with full knowledge of the villainy of some of the priests of his Archdiocese complained of by the twenty-five protesting pastors, has demanded that I sign a document which would in effect whitewash them. At our last interview he handed me an apology in Latin and what purported to be a translation of it in English, the latter paper bearing across its top in the handwriting of His Grace the words, “Authentic translation. J. E. Quigley.”I now give a photographic copy of this translation.

Chicago, Ill.
Most Reverend and Dear Archbishop:

Having come to the conclusion that the course pursued by me for the last two years Is altogether wrong, and having In mind the solemn promise of reverence and obedience to my Bishop, which 1 made on the day of my ordination, I hereby renew that promise and pledge myself to be henceforth to your Grace, an obedient son In Christ.

I regret and deplore the injury I have done to certain of my fellow-priests by publishing charges against them after said charges had been duly considered and set aside by the competent ecclesiastical authority, and I pledge myself to accept any penance which your Grace may deem fit in satisfaction therefor.

I sincerely engage myself to do all in my power to stop th further publication of anything which may give scandal or offense. I hereby bind myself to submit all matters of grievance or dispute between me and my confreres to the judgment of the proper ecclesiastical authorities; and I will abide by their decision. Therefore I have withdrawn certain cases now pending in the civil courts, specified by me in another letter of even date with this; renouncing at the same time all right on my part to re-open them.

Henceforth I shall earnestly endeavor to repair my short-comings of the past. I will accept without question any charge your Grace shall confer upon me after my re-instatement. Your Grace has my permission to make public this letter at any time or in any way you may select. Trusting that your Grace will find it possible to restore me shortly to the full exercise of faculties as.. a priest of the Archdiocese of Chicago, I remain, Your Grace most obedient servant in Christ,

To the Host Reverend James Edward Quigley, Archbishop of Chicago.

Catholic people, note this: I was but one of a band of twenty-five priests of the Archdiocese of Chicago who protested against clerical corruption. I alone am made to feel the weight of ecclesiastical displeasure, and I alone am commanded to apologize for telling the truth. I have been subjected to persecution. My name has been unjustly removed from the directory of the Catholic clergy of the Archdiocese of Chicago. I have not received, as is my ecclesiastical right, any financial support from the funds of the Archdiocese. I have been left without a parish, without a home, without any salary, and have been uncanonically forbidden by the authorities of the Chicago Archdiocese to say Mass, or in any way to exercise my “faculties” as a priest in the Archdiocese of Chicago, although I have a “Celebret.”I am convinced that I have been subjected to this cruel treatment with the deliberate design of forcing me to apologize to corrupt priests.

For the information of my readers I now state that a “Celebret” is a canonical document which is given to a priest by the head of the diocese to which he belongs, or by some higher Church dignitary of competent jurisdiction, when that priest travels outside of his own diocese. It is, in effect, a certificate that he is of good moral character and not laboring under any ecclesiastical censure or canonical impediment.

I have never looked upon the face of Archbishop Quigley since March 28, 1903, when he handed me the apologies in Latin and English. These papers, it is needless to say, remain and will remain unsigned. I will never sign a lie for any man, be he layman, priest, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal or Pope! I have nothing to regret or retract. I can only say: God save the Roman Catholic Church!

Archbishop Falconio succeeded Cardinal Martinelli as Papal Delegate to the Church in the United States. He was made fully acquainted with the details of the Chicago controversy by a mass of official documents on file in the Delegation Office; and a correspondence ensued between His Excellency and myself looking towards a settlement of it. I now give a photographic copy of one of his letters to me:

(Unfortunately because the text was in cursive writing, it cannot be transferred to this page.)

My reply to the letter of Archbishop Falconio of June 6, 1903, was as follows:

Sherman House, Chicago, June 9, 1903.
His Excellency,
Most Revd. Diomede Falconio,
Apostolic Delegate,
Washington, U. S. A.
May it Please your Excellency:

I beg to own receipt of your kind favor of the 6th inst., in which you inform me that you have been carefully looking into my case, and that you are ready to render your decision.

I should be glad to comply with your request to come to Washington on the I9th inst., accompanied by my advocate. But the fact is the latter gentleman is now in California, on an indefinite leave of absence. Moreover, I am somewhat deterred by the consideration of expense, since this would be my third journey to Washington on a similar errand, both of which proved fruitless, and I scarcely feel justified in thus using funds generously contributed by loyal friends in different parts of the country, to whom I feel in a measure responsible. You will kindly bear in mind, your Excellency, that I am placed in this dependent position by reason of the fact that, though I am a priest of this Archdiocese, I have not been allowed one dollar for salary or support since Aug. 3, 1901. In view of my inability to come to Washington with my advocate, I must trust to your fair consideration of the subject, which has been fully presented to you in person by my advocate and myself, April 3rd, 1903, and later, in a formal written statement, under date of April i/th.

Permit me again to beg simply that I may have your early decision. With profound esteem, I am,

Your most obedient and humble servant in Xt.,
Jeremiah J. Crowley.

About June 17, 1903, Archbishop Falconio and Archbishop Quigley met in the City of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, and discussed the Chicago controversy. Archbishop Falconio evidently departed from that interview determined to use his influence to compel me to sign the apology which had been presented to me by Archbishop Quigley, a photographic copy of the English translation of which I have already given.

My canonist is one of the most prominent priests in the Catholic Church in America, and he told me that Archbishop Falconio placed in his hands in the City of- Washington, on June 19, 1903, a document which was signed by fourteen of the accused priests, in which they begged the Papal Delegate to compel me to sign an apology to rehabilitate them before the world, solemnly declaring that they were under such a cloud since the accusations against them had been made public that they were not welcome to the homes of their own relatives. On this occasion Archbishop Falconio told my canonist that he would be in Milwaukee on June 30, and requested him to tell me to call upon him there.

I now give an abridged account of the interview that I had by appointment with Archbishop Falconio, the successor of Cardinal Martinelli as Papal Delegate to the Catholic Church in America. He arrived in Milwaukee, Saturday, the 27th of June, 1903. I went to. Milwaukee the following Tuesday morning and saw His Excellency. He said: “Are you going to sign that apology? “I said:” No, Your Excellency, I most respectfully decline to do so.”He said: “Why?” I said: “Because I would be signing a lie! Our charges were never, as it states, duly considered and set aside by the competent ecclesiastical authority.”He said: “Yes they were! “I said: “How? Do you mean to tell me, Your Excellency, that our charges were duly investigated?” He said: “They were not investigated, but they were duly considered and set aside.”I asked: “How were they duly considered and set aside? “He said: “Why, your superior officers took your charges, looked at them, and then threw them into a wastcbasket!”I replied:”Your Excellency, I must insist that that was very far from being a canonical consideration, investigation and setting aside of our charges.”

Pius X. now sits in Peter’s Chair. I am confident that in due time His Holiness will decide the Chicago controversy and that He will settle it on the basis of Fiat justitia mat coelum let justice be done though the heavens fall.

In 1897 I took out my first naturalization papers in America; and I became a full-fledged citizen of the United States in 1901. I do not forget my native land! The shamrock is in my heart! I am proud of an Irish ancestry whose characters were formed by the noblest ecclesiastical and patriotic ideals. But America is my country by adoption; I glory in her history; I rejoice in her free institutions; my ardent prayers ascend for the continued blessing of Almighty God to be poured upon her. My highest civic ambition is to discharge to the letter the solemn obligations which I assumed in my oath of naturalization.

Humbly and devoutly I thank God for ever calling me to minister at the sacred altars of His Holy Church. My supreme religious joy is the fact that I am in her priesthood. I have no other desire than to be faithful unto death to my duties as a Catholic priest. I believe that the Church is a divine institution the bride of Christ. For Her welfare I have counted it a joy to labor; for Her good I am glad to suffer; in Her behalf I will cheerfully lay down life itself. In the Catholic Church I was born; in the Catholic Church I have lived; in the Catholic Church I will die.

I am not unmindful of the seriousness of the position which I take in openly exposing the parochial school, in directly championing the American public school, and in boldly assailing ecclesiastical wickedness in high and low places. I know full well the greatness of the power financial, social and ecclesiastical which I oppose. I know that it has vast capital and great prestige. I know that it dines with rulers and is on terms of intimacy with governors, judges and other public officials. I know by several personal attacks that it has henchmen who are ready to take life for pay. I know that it claims to be able to muzzle the press, and that by a show of its strength it stifles protests against its wrong-doing. But I know some other things. I know that God lives. I know that the genius of His Church is against ecclesiastical corruption of every kind. I know that the honest Catholic people of America are crying out for deliverance from ecclesiastical tyranny, immorality and grafting. I know that the masses of the American people are lovers of purity, truth and justice, and that they are loyal to the Republic. I know that this is not the first time in human history that a lone man, relying only upon the blessing of God and the approbation of decent men, has assaulted intrenched iniquity and overthrown it. I do not dread the struggle, for

(Editor: I’m not sure how relative this material is today. The parochial school in America may be doing even better now than government run public schools! I may discontinue posting more chapters of this book for a while in order to give priority to other projects which may be more relevant for today. If you want me to finish this book, please say so in the comments section below. If you do, it will inspire me to finish it.)