The Richmond Indiana palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1854-1855, 1855-07-26

being to lind the fntd prohloIted
g. That under section % of the law and
the parts of the law toGwhich il refers, provis-
ion is made for notice the owner, and of the
time and place when ana where the question
of the purpose for which it was held will be
tried.
o. That the substantive provisions of the
act are SO independent of each other that the
declaration that one or more provisions was
unconstitutional would not impairl tie others.
The Court has no. made decision in the
case. and will probably hold it until the next
term.
ga One Of the principal orators at the
Know Nothing Fusion Convention at Indian
apols on the 18th. was David y. Holloway,
Of Wayre county. The burden Of Hobo
WAYS speech was denuncia'ion Of the Catho-
lies, whom be applied every harsh epithet he
could think Of 1t may be remembered that
few years ago, when this man Holloway was
member of the State Senate. Major Simon
son presented to the State some books and a
picture WHICH he had purchased in Mexico
The books were of religious character, and the
picture was portrait of some Mexican saint.
Soon after these things were presented IN the
Senate, Holloway got up and charged hat the
books and picture were taken from Cathchc
church in Mexico. and, with holy horror. de-
picted the sacrilege Of our gallant soldiers in
thus despoiing church. He declared that
the Almighty would smite with his VENGEANCE
the whole State if we should keep such troph-
les as these. He spoke of the horror of the
pious Catholic when he should discover the
loss of his PRAYER book and the picture of his
saint. Holloway finally concluded his speech
by moving that the books and picture be pre-
Cd ~ V, k,1Ic nf To
they were entirely too holy to remain in the
State Library.-New -1Uany Tribune
We found the above he State Sentinel.
credited to the New A ny Tribune, falsely
credited no doubt purI ely, to give charac-
ter to the SANDER. 1t funds much more like
the alderdssh generally found in the Ledger,
old line paper, published by fellow nam
ed - well, we have forgotten hi, name, but
no matter.
We are not now, any more than when a
member Of the Seuate. in favor of "robbing'
churches. "Purchased by Capt. Sinonson''
indeed In one of the books it is plainly
written 'faken by Capt. Simonson" from the
Halls of the Montezuma. We supposed then.
we suppose now. that the word '-taken'
meant stolen" Not at night, as the cow
ardly thief would steal. but simply taken as
the highwaymsn obtains his spois, because
the owner was not able to defend his proper
ty. Whether they were so taken or stolen,
we only have the evidence of Capt. Simonson.
We never made the charge except upon his
assertion.
But it is said this picture snd books feH in
to Simonson's hands by the fortune of war,
Now, if this is true, did they become his privnte
property to be disposed of as be saw proper.
or did they become the property of the Uni
ted States? He WAS an officer in the army Of
the United States, and whatever booty came
into his possession by the fate of war, such
officer, it should have been handed over to
his commanding officer, his agents. But
would that commander have received such
"trophies?" Would Gen. Scott have permit
ted such conduct, as 'taking'' the religious
books, and portraits of canonized saints.
from a church had he known it? We are in
formed by a gentleman who was in Mexico
at the time, that il was with the most positive
orders that some men were restrained from
taking" things from the churches Mould
our government tolerate the robbng of
churches-would the editor of the Ledger
defend such a course of infamy. There are
but few instances upon record where govern
ments protesting christianity ha--- ''ns'' ufo-
graced their cause in this manner, and we
were opposed to Indiana being the first State
in our model government sanctioning sucl.
deep infamy, hence our opposition TO receiv-
ing the picture and books taken by Csptxin
Simonson" from the Catholic church of
Mexico.
We did not in our remarks at the Conren-
ton Of the 18th, nor have we on any other
occasion said one weird against the Catholic
religion. We would have the Catholics pro-
tected in all their religious rights, any Other
religious denomination. Religious liberation
is the most glorious feature in our free institu-
tions. and we would defend it as the dearest
and most sacred right. But to the political
feature of the Roman Catholic church. we
have ever been, and ever expec; 10 be opposed.
and shall not hesitate to denounce il, when
ever We see proper TO do SO.
The CITY ABOUT TO DE SUEp-Ne are in
formed that Solomon Beard. talks of com
mencing suit against the city for damages he
sustained on the fourth of July. by tesm of
horses becoming frightened and running
against him. throwing hin, down. and break
ing one of the bones in his left arm, and other
wise bruising and injuring his person He
bases his claim against the city uron the fac,