The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-03-10
SOME oUEsrIoxs ANSWERED.

SOME QUESTIONS ANSW EAE<D.
The Rev. j. l.. Hudgins. of Danville,
Ind. takes exception to a recent edi-
torial paragraph in the Journal and fires off
a series of questions with a request that
they be answered. The Journal will do so.
1. Is not Romanism in this country
political machine that allies itself with any
party that will give IL power?
The Journal does not think so. There is
no evidence that the Catholic Church is in
politics or that 1t is reaching out after
political power. Quite a number of Cath
olics are in politics and they sometimes get
into office, but the number of Protestants
is much greater.
2. Was it not an alliance of Romanists
with Democrats that defeated the Repub-
lican party in Illinois in 1892?
The Journal never before heard of such
an alliance, and does not believe that there
was any,
3. Is it not true that Roman Catholics
have more church property in Washington
city than all other churches put together?
The Journal thinks not. The new d.
rectory of the District Of Columbia for 1894
shows that there are in the District IA
Catholic churches, II Baptist. Congrega-
tional, Disciples of Christ, "a Episcopalan,
10 Lutheran, So Methodist. 10 Presbyterian,
| Reformed and one each Of Swedenborgian,
| Unitarian, United Brethren and Universal
| ist This shows 115 Protestant churches
against IA Catholic. That seems to settle
the question.
4. Are not the present Commissioner of
| Pensions and his first assistant and also
the chairman of the House subcommittee
| on pensions Roman Catholics?
The Journal neither knows nor cares
what the religious faith of these officials
| is, nor does it believe that the fact of them
being Roman Catholics would in any way
| initiate against their faithful performance
of public duty.
| ). Are not all the members of the Court
! of Appeals of the District of Columbia
| Romanists?
Answer the same as to No. g. with the
added remark that the court referred to
Journals certain knowledge. a large ma
jority Of the judges in the District are
| Protestants.
6. Are not one-half of the clerks in the
| agricultural departments Roman Catholics?
Answer the same as to No. 8, with the
| added remark that the Journal does not
believe anything of the kind.
| Z. Is not the only chief of division in the
| Land Office appointed by Harrison and
| who still holds the position, Romanist?
| Answer the same as to No. 8. with the
| added remark that for every chief of
| division in Washington who Is Catholic
there are scores who are Professionals
| g. Why were Roman Catholics placed at
| the head of the national campaign commit
| tees. Of both the, Republican and Demo
| cratic parties in 1S92?
| Because they happened to be or were
thought to be the best men available for
the place, and they both worked hard for
the election of Protestant.
| g. Why is it wrong for a Protestant
clergyman to point out the political cor
ruption in Roman Catholicism?
1t is not when they tell the truth. but it
| is very wrong for them to disseminate
malicious and absurd falsehoods.
| 10. Do Protestants object to being scruti-
| nized politically by Romanists? If So give
| a few instances Of recent date.
The Journal has not an extensive ac-
quaintance among fighting religionists, but
It has not heard of any Romanists who are
engaged in politically scrutinizing Protest
ants. 1t is of the opinion that politicians of
| all creeds are none the worse for being
scrutinized, and most of them will bear a.
good deal of it.
The propounder of these questions seems
to be suffering from an overflow of misin-
formation and prejudice. He ought to try
and school himself into the realization of
the fact that the world was made as much
for people who differ with him in religious
faith as for himself. If he is so fortunate
as to get to heaven, as the Journal hopes
he may be, he can rest assured he will
! find there a great multitude of good people
who went by the Catholic road, and who
were never asked at the pearly gates
whether they were Catholic or Protestant.
|
The Senate tariff bill as reported by the
finance committee puts Senator Voorhees,
in hole which the Journal predicts it will
take him a long time TO crawl out of. I'M
medately after the bill had passed the
House and been sent to the Senate Mr..
Voorhees, was told that the Sugar Trust
intended to try and get duty on refined
sugar, and was asked if it would probably
succeed. He replied
1t will not get MILL A duty on refined
sugar is solely protection to the most cor
rupt, grinding and oppressive monopoly in
the country. intend TO make it my especial
duty TO see that this trust be smashed. You
can depend on one thing certain-that what
ever is done in the way of changing duties
raised by the Wilson bill there will be no
change which will help any trusts
Yet he has reported the bill to the Senate
with amendments giving the Sugar Trust
more than it asked for and putting mil
lions of dollars into the pockets of the
Whisky Trust.
I'll