The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1892-02-18
LAYMEN AND CLERICALS.
A DISPUTE OVER THE NEXT OATH
oLIo CONGRESS.


tons That the Laymea Wanted Put
on the Programme.
ST. LOUIS, NO., Feb. 17.-Atthe Catholic
congress at Baltimore in 1889, q committee
Of prelates and laymen was appointed to
make arrangements for Catholic congress
70 be held at Chicago in connection with
the Columbian exposition. The CON-
inittee wss also charged with prepar-
ing a programme Of the matters to be
discussed at the congress. Among the
members of the committee was Judge E. F.
Dunno of Ohio. Under date of Dec. 10 Mr..
Dunno wrote a personal letter to Conde B.
Pallen, editor of the Church Progress and
Catholic World Of ST Louis, giving his
views in regard to certain decisions Of this
committee. This letter in some way
came into the hands of Rev. G. Kuhlman,
who sympathized with the views expressed
therein, had the letter put in print and sent
copies TO all the cardinals in Rome. A
synopsls of this letter with comments upon
it was cabled from Rome yesterday and to-
day. After reading the Rome dispatch, Mr..
Pallen furnished TO the Associated Press the
text OF the letter. Mr.. Pallen says: "Were
it not for the fact that the letter has
D66l ulhuo III IkDu16 IN RaTDI6O
form, would not feel justified In giving it
out for publication, but in justice to Judge
Dunno, in justice to the lay committee
whom the ecclesiastics are trying to mis-
represent. and in justice to myself, place
1t before the public to be judged II accord
ance with its merits"
TEXT OF JUDGE DUNNE's LETTER.
The following is the letter:
EROAf 110 MAnISoN AyuNrru /
NEW YoRK, Dec. 16 1891.
Ny DEAR PALLEN-You see dispatches "from
st. Louis" written in Chicago) give the PRO
gramme Of papers" on the subject for discus-
sion in the next Catholic congress, as making
no mention of temporal power aud education,
and the impression is thus created land gener-
ally accepted) that those subjects were not
adopted by the archbishops. have not yet
received last weeks paper, so do not know If
you have corrected the lie; so / am going TO
make a statement. Though most Of it may not
be new to you, some of it may.
]. Our lav committee was appointed by the
last congress, the highest lay authority in the
matter. The bishops participated with us at
that congress, and to that extent recognized the
lay action, the legitimacy and proprtety of it.
?. Our first meeting was held at Boston in
July, 1880, and convened there because the arch
bishops were to have q conference there at the
time. We sent committee to wait on the
archbishops and made them cooperate with us,
They recognized our subcommittee, thus recog-
nizing the authority and legitimacy of our gem
eral committee. More, they accepted our invi-
tation and sent representation of their body to
meet and act with us, and they did meet,
'more's the pity" for they overruled my mo-
tion to instruct the subcommittee on organiza-
tion to place temporal power and education first
on the list.
3. The second meeting of our lay committee
met in New York Oct. 80 and received the re-
port OF our subcommittee on organization, the
adoption of which report l opposed, and so
criticised the report itself, because it studiously
shut out temporal power and education. The
result was the subcommittees report was
amended so that to the words ''the subjects TO
be discussed will naturally be (the seven social
subjects namedL then was added, "or may in
clude temporal power and education Instead
Of adopting the report thus amended it was
agreed to refer it to the archbishops assembled
at st. Louis for them to settle the programme
4 The chairman of our committee (aIaj.
Kelley informed the cardinal of that action
and asked him to inform what day, at St.
Louis they would meet our committee, so that
we (our Committee) need lose no time there,
but could arrange our travel and stay in st.
Louis to meet them on particular day. The
cardinal fixed II a. m, Dec. !, thus again re-
cognizng our lay committee.
o. On Dec, l, at II O'Clock a. M, the arch
bishops sent Archbishop Ireland as their secre-
tary: that is, as secretary of the meeting of
archbShops, to consider our subcommittee
report of asprogramme He addressed our chair
man and read to him from paper held in his
hand report Of the action of the archbishops:
l. That they amend the report of our subcom-
mittee by striking out the words "or may aud
inserting instead The words and
shall" so that it read 'and shall in
elude temporal power and education. q"
= That the archbishopS would cooperate
with our committee only on condition that the
cardinal could name nine bishops and arch
bishops who should be aggregated to our COM
tnittee, have equal voice with us on the floor in
the discussion and in voting measures, but
should also have the right of absolute veto on
al action finally carried in joint committee if
they choose, for the reason that IL they Joined
with US they would be held responsible, and they
must have the final vote.
On our secretary, Mr.. Hanson, reaching out
TO Archbishop Ireland for his written report,
from which he had been reading, so as to file
WIN his minutes, Archbishop Ireland withheld
the paper, on the plea that it was not in regu-
,ar FORM, that he would fix it UP and hand it to
lln later. All this was another oerogation of
our committee, and this time one in which
archbishop Ireland himself acted.
Q. Our committee then and there Immediately
voted to accept the conditions required by the
archoishops, and notified Archbishop Ireland
tnat our committee would meet at 8 O'Clock
mat evening to receive and act with the COM
hiVtee or nine bishops and archbshops to
Oe appointed by the cardinal
:, AT O'Clock that evening our committee
met again at the same place wnere all the other
meetings had been had, and to which place
Aecholshop Ireland had come to meet our COM
nittee, and to which place several of the COM
1lllIee OF nine came that evening, among them
atcholshop Ireland. but not enough were pres
cut 10 mold regular meeting.
o. while most of our committee, then in st.
,aouls were present with some of the commit
i iyeo ol nine, including Archbishop Ireland. the
snos 'Cer began talking about the programme,
opoAe OF how important these social
SuesIions were, that the writer's would have to
tsrs segeted with great care, etc., and the mat
t tors should be thoroughly treated" The
rnporal power and education question, he said.
Nv potu tt consume no time. They would be treated
SIue A. Iue adoption Of a resolution, not taking
Nc mo minutes to read and dispose OF, ETC. Our
,u neu made no fight on this because the commit.
~ U1 vas not in regular session. and because they
I,i Ieie Waiting to get that paper from Archbishop
t;auu Iuat he read from as the report of the ac-
ttOa OF the archbshops, but which they never got
N 1i GrohIIlm 1lm They remarked to one another that
tt"1Cuoshop Ireland was evidently going to try
In l9.notner those questions. And so there was
nggtk .k9ar ar meeting OF the joint committee that
So" out an agreement to meet the next day
q q III o'clock a. m.
i ~ o Inc next day at 10 a. M the joint commit
Son.Lsst ulst In the room of our committee at the
cbsifh cbrnefh MOTEL with Maj. Kelley In the cha as
lTeIannddan or our committee. Archbishop
msSuu auu moved that Archbishop Williams be
NJ chairman of this meeting
ane, arrey ofiNew York, of our committee,
ann iTed that we had chairman already
tbics eIected. Archbishop Ireland replied that
by ,bas a new committee altogether appointed
pev, le archbishop to conduct the business OF the
oiS1y,ngress, to be composed of nine prelates
tbay by the cardinal, and such laymeu as
sefe; cn1ose tSSe TO aggregate to them.
ana tolher organization as now existing,
take tL " again called on Archbishop Williams 10
their 'ue t chalr. Every man stuboorny asserted
Our a. Rnts, always addressing Maj. Kelley
Wbao oIIalrman, as chairman OF the meeting
OnabaII say our men, do not include Nlessrs.