Waterbury evening Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury, Conn.) 1887-1895, 1891-11-14
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.

Card From the Rev j. III. O'DonneIl.
To the Editor of the DEMOCRAT -
The following editorial appeared in
the current issue of the Connecticut
Home, prohibition organ, published at
Hartford. Mr. Allen Lincoln is its edi-
tor:
"Thc Rev James b. O'Donnell, Catho-
lie priest of Waterbury, sends the Home
an extended communication citing al
legged instances" of ''intemperate Ian
guage" from the columns of the Home
on the liquor question, but entirely ig-
noring the chief question at stake be-
| tween us viz: What is the matter with
our public schools?' The Home hereby
| frankly says that it has no space to
| waste on such equivocations, until Mr.
O'Donnell is ready to meet the public
school question fairly and squarely. We
have promptly returned his communica-
ton to him, with a letter stating that
when he is ready to discuss the main
question in a straightforward, manly
| way we will make room for that and
for his other points too-but not be-
fore.
l hereby pronounce the above unjust,
and calculated to deceive; dishonorable
and unworthy of an editor; above all, it
is mendacious. Here are the facts of
the case: Some time ago the Home re-
ferred to the action of Vicar General
Brady of st Louis in emitting Catholic
pupils of the public schools from a
certain chorus that is to be
the venerable Archbishop Kenrick.
The Home did not comment on the
vicar-generals action, but resorted to
the retort insulting in these words
Ibid he (the vicar generaD extend his
| Introduction to all of his communicate
who have been publicly drunk or had
graduated from our jailsT / pro-
nounced these words an insult to the
venerable archbishop, the vicar general
and to Catholics generally. 7 asserted
moreover, in connection with the above
insult, in my first letter to the
Home, that the editor and his contribu
tors are often more Incorporate il
speech than the poor men, who are
overcome by liquor. He, thereupon
challenged me to cite instances of in
temperate language. | did so. This
| however, was but one phase of the issue
between us. The Home desired also my
views on Vicar General Brady's action
as we'll as on the question: "What is the
matter with our public schools" My
| communication, containing positive
proofs of Incorporate language being
quite lengthy, told the Home would
|
issue. Mr. Lincoln will not deny
this fact and yet in the face of this
truth; he summarily returned my manu-
script; and now he unblushingly states
that l ignored the chief question. Il
was not by any means the chief ques
ton; it was only question and nothing
more. Nay, it is a question which
only dyed-in-the-wool s9ctaries
want to discuss. Moreover, il
was question which I would
have sincerely endeavored to answer
as l did the other relating t.
abusive and Incorporate language
If 1 had not formally stated tC
him, that 1 would take up the othel
points at issue, there might be reasons
for believing that I did not desire tt
meet them. Therefore, say that thu
summary return of my manuscript wa!
unjust and dishonorable and calculated
to place me in a false light before thu
readers of the Home. / state it as ny
emphatic opinion, that the Home dareC
not publish my article. may say in con
clusion, that l have had, off and on
many years dealing with newspapers
but this is the first time l was eve
insulted and treated dishonorably by al
editor.
May / ask the DEMOCRAT to publish
next Monday the letter that was re
turned to me? 1 will cheerfully leav
it for your readers to decide whether O
not I have proven my charge of intern
perate language. 49,, -.
JAMES H. O'DoNNELL!l ,
Waterbury, Nov 10, 1891. -