Newspaper Page Text
are able and willing to invest one hundred
dollars in this great fight?
Who will put their names on this Roll of
Honor, and enlist with me, in the struggle
to save our country and our liberties from
the clutches of Rome?
I most earnestly hope the 300 — a Gideon's
band— will promptly volunteer.
- ■ ■»
A Roman Catholic Tries to Mur
der Theodore Roosevelt.
'T' HE Roman Catholic priesthood is the
only one that ever preached murder.
It is the only priesthood that ever
employed assassins.
It is the only one that ever declared, as a
religious doctrine, that it is no crime to
violate the Commandment which says —-
“Thou shall not kill!”
The record of the Roman Hierarchy reeks
with the blood shed by her private assassins.
King after King, has been “removed” by
poison, the dagger, or the gun.
Even 'Popes have been “removed,” when
the Jesuits could not use them.
Cardinals have poisoned cardinals, priests
have poisoned priests, and Popes have
poisoned cardinals.
In this pagan church w T here forgiveness of
any sin can be purchased, murder is a
fine art.
There is murder behind Convent walls, in
monasteries— infanticide being the most
common.
This being the atmosphere created in the
church, is it any wonder that the laymen
catch the infection?
Three of our Presidents have been mur
dered—by Roman Catholics.
A priest pointed out Gaynor to Gallaher,
and the would-bs assassin did what the priest
meant he should do. Gaynor did not die
from Gallaher’s shot, but the attempt on his
life cowed him into craven submission to the
Roman machine in New York City.
* * * * *
When in Rome, Italy, Roosevelt was diplo
matically req i tented to promise that he would
not visit the Methodist Mission, after he had
been received by th® Pope.
Roosevelt stood upon his American man
hood, and refused to make the promise.
Whereupon, the Pope declined to receive
the visit.
Immediately, the lickspittle Romanist
editors of this country began to rave about
.the insult which Roosevelt had given their
Pappy.
Tliern American degenerates forgot all the
favors that Roosevelt had heaped upon their
church during his Presidency.
They forged all their own expressions of
gratitude for those favors.
For no other reaeon than that Roosevelt
refused to allow another man to dictate to
him whom he should visit, after he had vis
ited thia other raan.
Ever since then, she American lickspittles
of this aged Italian peasant have been bitter
against the American whose robust manhood
asserted itself in Rome.
Therefore, it is, not surprising that one of
these dupes of the priests should trail Roose
velt, from State to State, watching for the
opportunity to kill him.
Had it not been for a thick wad of manu
script in his breast-pocket, Roosevelt would
have been murdered.
After having been shot, Roosevelt went
right on, and made his speech—something
that no other man living wWald have had the
pluck and nerve to do.
It must have cost Schrank a pile of money
to trail Roosevelt over such a wide territory,
and I am wondering where the finances came
from. \ T
THE JEFFERSONIAN
Watson’s Reply to Windle.
(concluded from page one.)
It is easy to realize that such a law tended
greatly to the dignity and independence of
married women.
The ancient tombs in which these Grecian
women were buried have yielded up the most
incontestable evidence of the adoration of
fathers, lovers and husbands.
In those sepulchers have 'been found the
most exquisite adornments which ever
enhanced feminine beauty. The finger-ring,
the bracelet, the necklace, the golden girdle,
every gem and every jewel were employed to
bedeck “the human form divine;” and the
toilet articles, the vase-paintings, the home
furnishings, the bath-chambers where the
daily bath was taken, are but a few of the
imperishable testimonials of the Greek’s con
sideration for womankind.
Mr. Windle’s attention is. called to the
fact that the Grecian’s wife, sister and
daughter were not subjected to polluting
questions poured into her ears by lustful
bachelor priests.
The wife was not educated to believe that
she must meet a man, in a place of privacy,
and allow that man to ask her what took
place between herself and her husband when
they went to bed together.
Her daughter’s mind was not sown with
prurient suggestions, designed to rob her of
modesty, self-respect and virtue.
In that particular, the Greek woman had
the infinite advantage of the Roman Catholic
woman.
******
What was the status of Woman, in pagan
Rome, just before-the dawn of Christianity?
Was she a “slave?”
In Lecky’s “History of European Morals,”
Vol. 11., 319, we read :
* * “the beautiful sentence of a juri
consult of the empire, who defined marriage
as. a life-long fellowship of all divine and
human rights, expressed most faithfully the
feelings of the people.”
The Roman wife, widow, or spinster had
full control of her separate property. She
employed lawyers to look after her business
interests, just as men did. In a divorce case,
her dowry had to be returned to her, unless
it were proven that she was the guilty cause
of the separation,.
The Roman wife had the same right to
divorce her husband that he had to divorce
her: thus the marriage became a copartner
ship which either could dissolve.
I am much mistaken if modern opinion
does not eventually settle down to the ideal
of old Rome; to-wit, that both the parties to
a marriage have the right to seek happiness
ettewhere, AFTER it has been fully demon
strated that the marriage is a failure.
Aristotle, Plutarch and Seneca taught that
the husband owed the same fidelity to the
marriage vows as the wrife did; and the
Emperor, Antoninus Pius, in signing a judg
ment against a married womanjor adultery,
added this condition:
“Provided always it is established that by
your life you gave her an example of fidelity.
It would be unjust that a husband exact a
fidelity he does not himself keep.”
That was the lofty ideal of a pagan mon
arch: what is the practice under Roman
Catholicism?
Unlimited indulgences for innumerable
adulteries, but no divorce for any cause
whatever.
What agency introduced into the world
the degrading principle that marriage was
“unclean,” and that Woman was the source
of “sin?”
THE ROMAN PRIESTHOOD INTRO
DUCED IT.
Celibacy is a standing rebuke to marriage.
Celibacy is the clerical assertion of Phari
seeism.
In celibacy, the priest savs to the Roman
layman, “I am' better than "thou.”
Ry saying to Woman—through the insti
tution of celibacy—that “If I marry you, I
enter into relations of impurity,” the Roman
priest insults the very mother who bore him,
and the father who begot him.
The Roman Catholic Church found
Woman free, independent, the equal of the
husband, in society and in the law.
Mould that the Roman Church had left
her so.
In subsequent chapters, I will demonstrate
how the Roman Church robbed Vi Oma n of
her liberties, and made her a veritable
“slave.”
—e —.
Russia aud Turkey Outdeue in
Georgia.
'T'HE Russian Cossacks have committed
atrocities in Poland, Finland, Persia,
and even in St. Petersburg; but the Cos
sacks have never been ordered to shoot
down people who had done so little to pro
voke it as had been done by thoee victims of
military lawlessness in the city of Augusta.
The Turks have shocked the world by their
butcheries in Armenia, and Albania; but
even the Turks, from their point of view,
had more provocation titan had those lawless
officers who proclaimed Martial law 7 in
Augusta, and then shot down citizens who
were ignorant of tl>e unprecedented, revolu
tionary and utterly illegal conditions.
Show me the statute which authorizes
militia officers to annul our State Constitu
tion and to abrogate our Code!
Such a statute can nowhero be found.
If the President of the United States calls
out the National Guard, it may be that Mar
tial law 7 could be declared. I have not
looked into that.
But these troops who were on duty in
Augusta were called out by the Governor of
the State of Georgia.
The Governor has no authority to proclaim
Martial law, and he did not do 90.
After troops are called out by the Gov
ernor, the law of this State prescribes their
line of cnduct toward the citizen.
As between officers and privates, in mat
ters of drill, discipline Ac. the U. S. Army
regulations may be adopted; but no farther
can military law go.
As between the cioite&n and the soldier,
our statute law marks the line which the
military must not overstep.
It is distinctly provided that even where
a riotous mob is collected, it shall not be fired
upon unless it is “engaged in the commission
of an atrocious felony”: “or otherwise
engaged IN ACTUAL VIOLENCE to -per
sons or property.”
Before the killing of any person who is
engaged in a riot can be justified, it must be
capable of proof that the killing was neces
sary to quell THE RIOT, and restore order.
(Spe Acts 1884-5, p. 74.)
In case it is necessary to prohibit the use
by citizens of a atoeet, road or place, the citi
zen must be “fully informed” of the prohibi
tion; and he is not at fault unless he “wil
fully and intentionally” ignores the prohi
bition.
Even then, the soldiers cannot lawfully do
more than arrest soch persons AND
TURN THEM OVER TO THE CIVID
AUTHORITIES.
The civil authorities can punish such per
sons by a fine of from one to a thousand dol
lars; or by imprisonment in jail for not more
than six months, or on tko chaiagang for not
more than twelve months.
(See Acts of 1895, p. 63.)
THOSE LAWS HAVE NEVER BE EM
REPEALED. , -
The Act of August 1912 does not at aO
affect the foregoing laws.
(continued on page twelve.)
PAGE NINE