National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1877-06-22
THE PARTING SHOT.
FATHER WHITE ,UNRAyELs a WEB
or SOpHTSTRY.

EDiToR REPUBLICAN; The Rev DIR. New
man has at length, under high pressure, been
compelled to notice, directly, at least four Of
the slandcrors assert ions of which VIC accused
him. OF the nine other calumnics against the
Catholic Church, the Pope and the Jcsuits he
stands convicted, and my object In the present
communication is merely to unravel the web
Of sophistry by which, he has attempted to
throw dust into the eyes of the people, and to
make II appear that he has not illuminated the
four individual parties to whom he alludcs in
his last letter. The Doctor labors hard, and
even seems to chafc In the effort to make out
his case, as may be inferred from the gran
eloquent and hattoring cpithcts with which he
has honorcd us-desgnating us rs a "mcddlc-
some, quarrelsomc, bgotcd old man." out
raging public deccnoy," "the magician of st.
Matthews" and the like. Everybody knows
what Importance is to be attached to this style
of polcmics, abuse being almost always substi-
tutcd for argument in bad case So far as It
concerns us personally, we shall only say with
the poet
moral, sensible well.brcd man will not aiIront
me, and no other can.
The question before DIR. Newman was
myself from the difficulty into which
have fallen9 l have misrcprcsented
the religious tenets of the great majority Of
the Christian and civilized world, and II Is
impossible for me to show, by reference to tho
DEGREES Of councils, the teachings of the Popes
or tho catechisms and theoogians Of the tatho-
lie Church. that I have stated the truth. l
have also attributed to four individual aud
highly respectable parties the most outrageous
design to overthrow the civil institutions Of
this country so soon as they would have the
power. These parties have scvcmlly denied
most positively that they ever uttered such
sentiments What can l say in my justifca-
tionr 1t is easy to see that this was tight
place for preacher of the Gospel TO be in, re-
minding us Of what the old Latin poet says.
Faclis dcsccnsus Averni,
sedrev0cnregndnm, superasque erhdare nd Auras,
Hoe opus, HE labor est. -.EHcid e. CA.
II is not difficult for man TO sink into the
depths Of crime or Of ialsehood; but to rise from
the abyss Is Hcrculcan task Of which few are
capable. propose to show, Mr.. Editor, that
Rev. Dr. Newman has not risen from his deg
radiation. As to his misrepresentation Of
Roman Catholicism it is unnecessary to say ono
word, rs he has made no attempt to justify his
fnlsehoods. We shall therefore consider only
the manner or tactics by which he has en-
dcavored to clear himself in regard to the four
individual parties.
]. THE Bishop of Pittsburg said. 1--WE quote
from Thanksgiving sermon,) Religious liberty
Is merely endured until the opposite can be
carried into effect without peril to the Catho-
lie world"
Sentiments Of the equivalent meaning were
attributed to tho thros other parties. With
reference to the first, DIR. Newman, In his
charge against the Bishop Of Pttsburg, did not
mention the name Of the bishoI, and the
answer which we received from Pittsburg to
our inquiry on the subject was in reference to
the then presiding bishop, the Right Rev. DR.,
Domcnec. As the thanksgiving sermon did
not mention the name Of the bishop who hal
expressed the obnoxious sentiments, and as
DIR. OConnor, the former bishop, was then de.
ceased, 1t was natural to suppose that ithc
preacher alluded to DIR. Domenec. At all
events We have o positive ASSURANCE from the
ecclesiastical authorities of Pittsburg that the
language imputed TO the Bishop Of Pittsburg
was not used by DR.. Domenec.
DIR. Newman seems to chuckle a good deal
over the fact, that the bishop he alluded "a
was not DR.. Domenec, but DIR. Michael O'Con'
nor. Well, did DIR. OCOnn0r use the language
which DIR. Newman imputed to him? We can
not communicate with DIR. O'Connor, deceased
as DIR. Newman invites us to do; but we shall
prove from the following sworn affidavit Of 4
Protestant gentleman in this city, who wa.
well acquainted with DIR. O'COnnor, that Oh,
letter never held such sentiments as have beer
attributed to him.:
] hereby certify that the words attributed to tn,
Bishop OF Pitsburg by the Rev. Dr. Newman, ant
which he now says were uttered by Bishop O'Con
nor, were published IN the Pttsbufg CdihRc by II
editor, layman and recent convert about the yea
lS12 but were publicly dsciui6d IN the same I,1IJe
by BbhoP oConnor, as not being his sentiments oil
those OF the Catholic Church.
FRANK g. BAKEwELL,
JUNE 10, TIT. No. sos East Capitol street
Sworn To and subscribed before me this 18Th da
of June, A. ID. 1877. N. CALLAs,
Notary Public.
2. "The Archbishop Of st. Louis said, 81
(See charge against him In DIR. Ncwman's las
letter, NATIONAL REPUBLICAN, June 49, d.
Newman thus expatiates In this paragraph
According to DIR. White the Archbishop of 81
Louis writes: IL never used the language n,
tributed to me, which Is referred to In you
letter. Very well. Yet Father White admit
that this language was printed In the ROniis
organ, styled the Shepherd Of iAe Valley, a lapc
through which the Archbishop communicate
officially with his diocese. Qli Jacit per ala,
tacif per 81 Is q maxim as wise as il Is usefu
When u statement appears in the official orga
Of prelate Of the Church. 1t Is fair to presum
that he approves thereof" &c. Now, 1t is her
precisely where DR.. Newman Ii at fault. II
not fair to assume anything Of the kind be
cause n Bishop or ArchbishOpis not responsible
for any statement of paper which he uses IA
communication with his diocese, except ~ IA
~ II IL sanctioned by his signature or that Q
his vicar general.t The legal axiom Qai Gioii pt
dliua Jdcit per sc is indeed true and useful, bu
only when properly understood. 1t mean
that when o person has appointed an agent /
represent him, he is responsible for the acts
that agent; but in the case Of the AIchbisho
Of 1t. Louis, the newspaper Shepherd Of the Va
ley had no authority to speak or act In hi
name nor was he bound, except so far as h
own Judgment might dictate, to correct III
mistakes of that business periodical.
3. DR.. Newman proceeds: 1.-THE editor of III
} Catholic Reriep is interviewed by DIR. Whit
who Is answered tibet the quotation is an ign,
rant forgery But no correspondence ca
settle such question as that DIR. Clark give
January 7, 1889, rs the time when the quots
} tons appeared, and the only witness competer
!, in the case is the copy of the Reriep In que
ton" We may well exclaim here, o tempor
/ o moreI In the first place, why did not d
! Newman get copy Of the Review at the tin
Of his thanksgiving sermon, when the edtt
,, Of the RtpieW wrote to him and called upO
him to show on what occasion that paper ha
expressed sentiments he imputed to IT. Br
the Doctor, as the editor says, did not answt
, his lctter.t In the second place, DIR. New
mans witness is a DIR. Clark, who gives, jar
Q uary 7, 1852, as the time when the Repieu con
I mitted the grave mistake. Now, the Cathoi
RerieU did not mako its appearance until III
year lS72-that is, twenty years after 10 is n,