Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

/ 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