The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1893-01-04
Hallerou and Hallinger.

u&llcSOn Ii
To those who read Mr.. H%alleron's
extraordinary sermon on Hallinger,
delivered on Sunday, the most cogent
question must have seemed to be-
What brought Mr.. Halleron to see
Hallinger at allg He says, himself,
siFor some time I was impressed with
the duty of calling upon Hallinger."
Why2 In the name of all common
sense, why?
If Hallinger was not a Catholic, he
was a Baptist. Mr.. Halleron is a
Methodist. What business had he
there? Hallinger was not neglected.
Besides the priests who visited him
after his reconciliation-real or feign-
ed-with the Catholic Church, he had
a couple of Baptist ministers calling
on him constantly One or two OF
them visited him the very morning
of his death. If all the ministers in
town were Impressed with the duty
of visiting Hallinger," the Governor
should have reprieved him for a year
to give them all a chance. And what
could they do for the dying wretch?
Simply disturb and distract his mind.
Fortunately the great majority OF
ministers are content to do their
own duty and stop there. They are
not chasing sensations.
The whole point of Mr.. Halleron's
scenarios lies in the covert attack upon
Jailer Davis. Now nobody will sus-
pect us of loving a hair in Mr.. Davis's
head, and still we cannot silently be
party-for of course the publicity
sought in the press tends to make it a
party-to so ou~trageously bigoted,
and malicious an attack. We think
everything Mr.. Halleron said reflects
credit, rather than otherwise, upon
Mr.. Davis.
Firstly, he made no scruples what
ever about admitting Mr.. Halleron,
Hallinger having consented to see
him.
Secondly, Hallinger bore witness
that Baptist ministers had free access
to him.
Thirdly, Mr.. Halleron had free OPP
~portunity to pray with Hallinger and
exchange with him the extraordinary
condolences he now discloses.
Hallinger told Mr.. Halleron that
Jaiier Davis said to him that he
..nust not let the minister change his
religion" We certainly can see no
harm in that. Why should Mr.. Davis
not say it? 1t is absurd to suppose
that it was said in any mandatory
tone or spirit. 1t was doubtless a
piece of kindly advice. Mr.. Davis
was clearly within his rights in adj
yising n whom he had every right
to regard as a coreligionist against
any weakening in his faith upon the
brink of the grave. MI. Davis was
more than justified in thinking that
an attempt was about to be made on
the conscience of the condemned
man. Mr.. Halleron's mere presence
set UP a strong presumption in that
direction. We repeat, Mr.. Davis had
every right to try to strengthen his
unfortunate brother against it. In
deed it may be said that a broad
Christian would advise a man
against any change in his creed
30 near the awful hour of death.
even though he believed the change
70 be a little for the better. The
security of a fixed belief is what I'M
fortunate humanity needs at such a
time.
without accusing Mr.. Halleron of
conscious Misrepresentation, we must
confess to a total disbelief in the story
he tells. so far as its intent and pur-
pose are concerned Either Hailinger
was even viler as a hypocrite and a
liar. than as a woman butcher, or else
Mr.. Halleron altogether missed the
meaning of something, or everything,
that he said. Mr.. Davis is a pretty bad
nolitician. but we size him up for a
humane and kindly man. We believe
he is neither such a fool nor SO wicked
a to do the things Mr.. Halleron at
tempts to accuse him OF, on the EVIL
aence of a hanged monster.
Mr.. HalIeron is a severe critic of mod
srn vices. The press has been literally
,cored by him on the ground OF SEN
,ot;onalism. We would like to know
il he can point easily to a passage in a
newspaper which equals in deliberate