Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

Obe 3eßWsonian Vol. 14, No. 13 THE ROMAN BISHOP AND THE OLD SOLDIERS. r Mr. Lucian Lamar Knight Again Misrepresents the Confederate Vets. IN his card of March 15, in the Atlanta Con -5 Mr. Knight pays a glowing tribute to Col. James R. Randall, whom he calls “a star of the very first magnitude in Our poetic heavens.” I was a friend to Col. Randall and gave him, in 1901, an admiring mention in my Story of the Old Plantation: he wrote a grateful acknowledgement and attributed his Baltimore Reception—tendered to him Soon afterward—to my reproaching his Maryland people for having neglected him. But Mr. Knight is in error when he says that Col. Randall composed the music for ‘‘Maryland, my Maryland.” Just as “Home Sweet Home” makes a uni versal appeal through its sentiment and its melody,, so does Col. Randall’s poem: but John Howard Payne did not compose the music of “Home Sweet Home,” and Col. Ran dall did not compose that of “Maryland, my Maryland.” Mr. Knight says, “But the author of this renowned air w’as a Catholic.” As the air is of European origin, the au thor may have been a Catholic, but not Col. Randall. It is a very old serenade-song, heard on moonlight nights on German lakes, long be fore James R. Randall was born. The Columbia, S, G, u State" Goes Out of Its Way to Insult Protestants and Eulogize Romanism IN the capital of South Carolina, a publish * ing company whose President is Mr. A. E. Gonzales issues a paper, daily and semi weekly, named The State. Such a title no doubt originally signified that the publishers wished to be known as peculiarly representative of South Carolina. In a recent number of The State appears tin editorial tribute to a Roman Catholic priest who has come into South Carolina to take charge of papal propaganda and proselyting. This priest, William T. Russell, has been Wearing with great pride and pomp the for eign title of Monsignor, not known except to the “nobility” of the foreign potentate of Whom Russell is the sworn subject. The State did not content itself with a news notice of Russell’s coming from Washington City to Columbia, but went very much out Os its way to mention the fact editorially; welcomed him as a valuable acquisition to South Carolina; eulogized his character, and pis work in the national capital; and ex pressed the fervent hope that Russell’s labors for the Italian pope might be crowned with Success in South Carolina. Protestant minister, Rev. F. G. Whit lock, was surprised that a supposedly Pro testant and patriotic'paper should publish an Thomson, Ga,, Thursday, April 5, 1917 But what is the Compiler of our Colonial Records working himself up about? Why does he evade the issue, and misrep resent a group of old soldiers who fought as hard as those that wrote poetry? Nobody has denied that Father Ryan com posed several good minor poems; nobody is inclined to depreciate James R. Randall; but his output was quite small, while that of Paid H. Hayne, Sidney Lanier, Dr. Prank Tick nor and Henry Timrod was quite large. Let me once more state the position of the Macon Vets, as they themselves stated it in their respectful letter of protest to the Daughters. That letter was published in the Macon Evening News r and has been twice reprinted in The Jeffersonian. Therefore no excuse exists for misunderstanding the facts. The Vets objected to the selection of Bishop Keiley, not because he is a Catholic, but be cause of his disloyal course in enforcing in this State the foreign laics of his church, ichen those laws are in conflict with the laws of Georgia. Is that plain to you, Mr. Knight? Pray tell us whether our laws are to be trampled upon by the oath-bound subject of a foreign potentate? Pray tell us whether our laws are to be editorial of that kind, and wrote a letter of protest which The State published. But in the same issue of the paper the Edi tor printed a still more offensive article, in sulting to the Protestant clergyman, and ab solutely popish in its defense ot Roman Cath olicism. The Editors say that while they print Pas tor Whitlock’s letter, they take no pleasure in it, and that they do not know what denomina tion he belongs to, and “prefer not to know.” The Editors say that they do not believe that Pastor Whitlock wrote the truth, and thank Heaven that they have no sympathy with him. • The Editors then say that “there is no an cient church that should be judged by the partial record of its members or its clergy”—a sentence which can have no other meaning than that the ancient Roman church should not be condemned for the crimes, the vices, an.d the massacres committed by its popes, its cardinals, its bishops, its monks, and its priests. The Editors of this very amazing State then says— To our mind, and it is a conclusion from ob servation and experience, Roman Catholic and Protestant are much alike in their dealings with their fellow men and The State at least gladly ac- trampled upon by the oath-bound subject of a foreign potentate? It is not a question of who wrote the “Con quered Banner,” and “Maryland, my Mary land;” nor is it a question of having friends among the Catholics whom we want to meet in Heaven. Mr. Knight says that Heaven will not be Heaven to him, unless he meets his Catholic friends there. Well, that’s all right; but while we ar? here on earth we want Mr. Knight’s Catholic friends to respect our laws, and not lift against us the pope’s Hag of rebellion. In 1908— and not before — the infamous Ne temere decree was introduced into Georgia, and used to blight the homes and the lives of Protestant women whose marriages were perfectly legal under Georgia laws. We did not change our Protestant attitude in 1908: why did the Catholics change theirs? Did James R. Randall tell his Protestant friends that their wives were concubines? Did Father Ryan do so? No: they did not. Pope Leo XIII. published that Catholic doctrine, just as Pius IX. had done; but the Protestants did not then know it, and very few Catholics did. (continued on page three.) cepts as of equal and genuine truth the confes sions of both of humble loyalty to the Master that both profess to serve and follow. One incident, or it may be an accident, we can not forbear to mention. It is that never has there come to The State, so far as the writer is aware, or under his eye while connected witn any news paper, a letter from a Roman Catholic assailing a Protestant church in terms akin to those em ployed by our correspondent. It seems that a lesson of restraint even some of the Protestant clergy might learn from ‘ Rome.” The assertion that no Catholic has written to The State, denouncing the laws, the cus toms, and the records of Protestant churches, is best answered by saying, that those churches are not assailable, cither in their laws, their customs, or their records. If the Catholics could show that the lauw of Protestantism declare for intolerance, and class the murder of non-conformists as meri torious, they would most assuredly do so. If the Catholics could show that the fixed, permanent laws of Prostestantism make for complete overthrow of democratic principles and republican forms of government, they would lose not one day in doing it. If the Catholics could show that the Pro testant churches have inner secrets, held by oath-bound secret societies, and make it a settled policy, to lure immature young peo- Price, Five Gents