The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1872-03-03

iOosanS, VI PeTiecG equality. The lady In
the parlor and servant in her kitchen abide
banker and Ss Forrest Sierk nSTd prsciisiy
the same faith, and the wealthy merchant
and MS drayman out there in the street
kneel ct the same altar. We are aware
that All this is " horribly ungenteel," but it
is an old habit of our people. Eighteen
hundred years ago, and more, we were as
snred that the poor we have always. And
we have them. They never leave MS, and
sre not likely to. Poor-houses came in
with the Reformation, and then poverty
hrst became disgracefnl. For poverty and,
yet more, for the shame of poverty, the
needy and wretched cannot enter elegant
| Protestant cOnventicles.
| AND now that we have seen the nature
and completion of the attempted revival
of know-Nothing violence, it may be ask
ed, who are the men who promote it, Great
,ng prejudice, fostering pigotry, infaming
neighbor, and endangering the peace of the
| community Have they special mission
from on hight Are their scribes inspired
writers9 Or, perchance, are the antece-
| dents OF those publishers and proprietors
such as to have established character for
pre-eminently superior as to authorize
them to set themselves up for the self
constituted guardians of American liberty
and evangelical Christianity.
We propose to examine these questians
in the light of the printed record of the
responsible proprietors of the Journal of
Civilization. To that printed record we
shall strictly coptine ourselves. And in
taxing the first step towards the fultilment
of our duty, We regret that circumstances
will compel the revelation of some awful
disclosures.
The excitement and violent denunciation
of Catholicity produced many years ago by
the publication of an infamous book said
to have been written by one Maria Monk
me saossugH exposure Of fts litter false
hood, made by, CDE Stone of Now York,
and other Protestant gentlemen.
The book was entitled Tile -4wful Dis
closures Of Maria Monk, and from it's title
page purported to be published by Houe
Dc Bates. Howe g. Bates! Who were
Howe s. Bates7 There were none to make
reply For neither to the book trade nor
in the flesh were Howe & Bates ever known
to mortal man.
AS to the character of the book in cues
ton, we are further enlightened by the
Jesuitism by Protestant" published by
the Harpers in 1898. At page 81 of the
book, Maria Monks work is described as
zone of the most arrant fctions that was
ever palmed upon the community" and the |
author adds, "The people of this land
nature-love excitement, and unfortunately !
there are those who know how to produce |
it, and profit by it," Unfortunate, indeed, |
it is that there are those who stand ready |
to profit by foul SANDER and malignant
falsehood concerning their neighbour. Tn
fortunate, indeed, that men can be found
who, for the sake of a few dollars, could
consent to spread, broadcast upon the
world, printed utilization and outrage of |
noble, pure-minded women, WHO, solely for
the love of God and out of their own
abundant charity, devote their lives to
alternating the sutferings of the needy, the
and the sick. Who are they who
profted by itP If we can obtain a salts
factory answer to that question, we mag
probably be far on the way toward solving
he mystery which hovers over the exist
ence of Howe & Bates"
Maria Monks disclosures were not all
made in the book published by that some
What nebulops firm. The most lawful" of
III her lawful disclosures" were made in
he dignited form of bill in equity which
he filed against her publishers, who, by
heir own admissions and declarations,
urn QUITO be not GLOVE and Bates" who
rom this moment for ever disappear from
lew, but Messrs. James, John, Joseph W., 1
nd Fletcher Harper. |
The bill fled for discovery and account |
gainst the defendants as booksellers and ;
ublishers- by Maria Monk, minor, t
trough her next friend, shows that com I
lalnant was authoress of a work which
lie had copyrighted and stereotyped, and 9
lat said stereotype plates were paid for /
y her with money belonging to her, and 9
lat she was liable for any balance unpaid '
lat after the copyright had been SO taken :
at, the said plates got into the possession !
the defendants, and that they had pub
shed the work under the title of "A,cful
disclosures of Maria Monk, as exhibited in q
narrative of her sufferings during resi- v
,nce of five years as novice, and two .
ears as black nun, in the Hotel Dieu at t
ontreal.n Further, that she was a minor Il
as entirely unacquainted with the modes q
doing business, that she believed that d
,rsons protesting to be her friends had r
ade some bargains for her in relation to "
id work, that this was known to the de- Il
ndants, and yet they pretended to take
1t another copyright of the same work in
@ District of Massachusetts,, and pub p
she'd large number of impressions from y
g plates, and issued the book; and that al
ey had large profits in their hands which ps
Ii Dppd RI the comnlainant