Newspaper Page Text
/
3 - lEI |w iUf .
A Kb/% ni /> I | /% 1! 7*7 "
O W fW 1I W w Wlw bO? i(r
# IS
Vol. 14, No, 25
The Jeffersonian Outlawed in Savannah
Did Bisl&op Kelley and the Knights of CoShhiljiis Have it Done ?
I T is very well known to the readers of
The Jeffersonian, as well as to its stock
holders and directors, that it has been the
object of the most determined attacks from
the Roman Catholic Hierarchy.
They vised the mails illegally, to carry on a
propaganda to frighten off its advertisers.
Anthony Matrep the Secretary of the Na
tional Federation of Catholic Societies, was
the active agent of this conspiracy, which
was first formed against our Magazine and
paper, at the convention held by those socie
ties, in New Orleans.
It is also well known that they caused the
newsdealers to refuse to handle the Maga
zine, on account of a series of articles, giv
ing the history of the manner in which the
Christian Church at Rome, gradually evolved
the monstrous system of paganism and impos
ture which sought to rule the world, and
which, for many centuries, did rule it—cen
turies in which Christendom was plunged
plunged into the most wretched conditions
ever inflicted upon so large a portion of the
human race.
These chapters were so unanswerable and
so damaging to this foreign priesthood, which
has made such marvellous headway in our
own country, that they instituted a prosecu
tion which hung over the head of the editor
for five years.
As our readers know, the gist of that pros
ecution was the re-publication, by The Jeffer
sonian, of the vile language which these un
married priests of Rome, use to Catholic
women in the privacy of their homes, or in
the privacy of the confessional.
When the prosecution broke down last De
cember, I knew very well that it would come
back, under some other form, and I am not
at all surprised that it conies back in the
home of Bishop Kieley.
For many years this paper exposed and
combatted the illegal relations existing be
tween the Catholic church and the school
board, in Savannah.
The Roman bishop had made a demand on
the school board for a division of the school
funds; the board had at first taken its posi
tion on the law namely, that the State's
money could not be appropriated to any in
stitution of the church. But the Romanists
persisted, until they obtained a portion of
the public school funds, sos the maintenance
of two of their schools, in which religious
instruction was given.
Bishop Kieley treated the just criticism
of The Jeffersonian with the contempt so
characteristic of priestly arrogance.
Ex-Judge Sam Adams stood by the Cath
olic bishop, and in every possible way lie
endeavored to obscure the facts, and to de
feat the law.
The State Superintendent of Schools, Mr.
M. L. Brittian. publicly defended this mis
use of the State’s funds, delivering one speech
to that effect to the Teachers* Convention.
However, he came so near to defeat last
year, that he suddenly decided to ask for the
•pinion of the Attorney General of Georgia ;
Thomson, Ga,, Thursday, duty 5, 1917
and the Attorney General. Mr. Clifford
Walker, very promptly wrote cut a splendid
opinion, condemning the Savannah situation.
Os course, this prolonged light made some
bitter enemies for The Jeffersonian, which
was the only paper which would handle the
subject, and keep it before the people.
It is also well known that I advocated the
inspection of all institutions, where persons
of any age or color are held in confinement.
I think it a shame that any -State should
tolerate a system, in which unmarried priests
hold women in convents, inaccessible to any
except those unmarried men.
It is a begging of the question to say that
the women are voluntarily confined: the
State should not be satisfied with the unsup
ported word of the men who hold those pris
oners, in solitary confinement : if they have
surrendered their liberty, and find their hap
piness in dungeons, it will not do any harm
lor them to say that much to State officials.
A committee of the grand jury can as safe
ly be trusted with that duty, as with any
other, and those women will not be in any
greater danger of contamination from those
grand jurors, then they are from the priests,
whom they actually meet.
Bishop Kieley defied this law: defied the
Superior Court of his county, and put him
self in an attitude of rebellion against the
commonwealth in which he lives.
The Legislature now in session will be
asked to give its attention to this lawless con
duct of Bishop Kieley, and he knows that
Tliq Jeffersonian will not cease to demand
that he and his priests and the women who
manage bis convents, shall obey the law—-
just as every other citizen has to obey it.
I do not know to what extent the Knights
of Columbus and Bishop Kieley are connected
with the action of Postmaster Marion Lucas,
who stopped The Jeffersonian last week, in
the Savannah post-office.
But anybody who has read that paper,
must feel convinced that free speech and free
dom of the press have already been abolished,
if such conduct as that is to be approved by
the Government.
I am not even informed as to which part
of the paper was considered ncn-mailable, nor
can I understand, except upon the theory
already indicated, why the postmaster at Sa
vannah should have done what no other post
master has vet done.
Is it a crime for an editor to make an argu
ment, in parliamentary terms, against a stat
ute. which he considers a plain violation of
the highest law?
When the States, in ISGS, amended the Con
stitution, by saying that neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude should exist, except as
a punishment for crime, of which the person
shall be duly convicted, does not that supreme
law repeal every other that conflicts with it?
Grant, for the sake of argument, that prior
to 1865, a conscription act was legal, although
Daniel Webster argued it w r as not. still it
must be admitted that the Thirteenth Amend
ment made a change in the law, although
perhaps it was not realized, at the time.
Congress has no authority to establish any
system of slavery: no one will dispute this—
but how can you take one part of the Thir
teenth Amendment and reject the other?
Congress surely could not donscript a mil
lion free men, and put them to laboring in
the public parks,, or constructing post roads.
When the citizen is taken, against his will,
and made to serve the Government in any
capacity whatever, the Government is vio
lating the Thirteenth Amendment, and vio
lating the time-honored principles of Magna
Charta, which declare that no free man shall
be taken. against his will.
Again, 1 have argued, with the utmost
good faith, and with profound conviction,
that an Act of Congress cannot any more de
prive a man of his liberty than it can of his
life. The English Parliament, in the days
of royal tyranny, took men's lives by what
were called acts of attainder, and they
stretched the laws of treason, until it was
death to imagine a change of government, or
to oppose the royal will.
Our forefathers vividly remembered those
cruel acts of arbitrary power, and they lim
ited treason, so that Congress could never en
large it.
The citizen can commit treason in but one
way only: if he commits overt acts against
his government, in time of war, and there
are two witnesses to these overt acts, he is
guilty of treason; but not otherwise.
Nothing he can sag or write amounts to
treason.
Again, the law is perfectly plain, and our
forefathers wrote it there for a purpose, that
the citizen cannot be deprived of his life,
liberty or property. without due process of
law.
An act of the Legislature is not the due
process of law, which safeguards your lib
erty.
An act of Congress is not the due process
of law, nor the hnv of the land, as meant in
those constitutional safeguards.
Judge Cooley lays this down with the great
est emphasis, in his Constitutional Limita
tions, and he cpiotes decision after decision of
the Supreme Court of the United States.
I also argue with perfect fairness, and in
terms that were strictly parliamentary, that
it is one of the old common law rights of
the citizen, to remain in his own country, if
that is his preference.
In the President’s letter to Mr. Arthur
Brisbane, he stated that he recognized fully,
the right of the citizen to discuss the public
conduct of public men, and to criticize the
acts of the Government.
The most violent tirades I ever read against
President Wilson,' were written by Bishop
Kieley, and by Archbishop Blenk. when the
President recognized the provisional govern
ment of Gen. Carranza.
The “Morning Star.” Archbishop Blenk's
personal organ, was so violent, that it even
made threats against President Wilson.
(continued on page five.)
Price, Five Vents