The Ocala banner. (Ocala, Marion County, Fla.) 1883-194?, 1894-11-02
CALL AND THE sApTIsTs'

Mr.. Bailey Replies to His Letter 81
planning His Vote for the Catholic
Appropriation for The Indian
Schools.
TO the Editor Of the Banner.
10 your issue Of the 10th ins- Won
publish letter from Senator Cali az
planning his votes on the approprIa-
tons for contract schools among the
Indians" By the United States con-
gress. You are pleased TO head this
letter "Another SANDER Refuted.u AZ
i am, perhaps, responsible for calling
public attention TO Mr. Calls votes. il
viii be becoming in me TO pay atten-
ton to bis letter.
I have this to say respecting this re-
vival Of the subject Of his letter, that
the charge made by me was not SLAM
der, nor Is his letter refusation. !
do not know that any one has said
anything concerning his vote ia the
recent congress. AS he voted for the
appropriations it was no more than
was expected of him, and hence it has
called forth no criticism that have
seen. But as he has written in vindi-
cation Of his course will convict him
by his own confession In his letter. He
says:
have never voted for appropriations for
Catholic schools or Protestant schools on the In
dian Reservation OF anywhere else have voted
for appropriations for schools which were taught
BY sectarians who were Catholics and protest
ants. without reference to their religious views.
the contracts being made by the proper authori-
ties Of the government
In a speech delivered by Mr.. Wead-
ock, Of Michigan, in the house of rep
resentatIvts, when the appropriation
bill was under consideration last sum-
mer, ! find this tabular statement as
to the amounts to be appropriated to
the different sectarian schools for 1894:
Roman Catholic, $37s, s45; Presbyte-
rian, $4,000; Congressional, Sc, $50;
Episcopal, 5000; Friends, $40, O2O;
Minnonite, $3.50; Unitarian, SIS, 400;
Lutheran, SIS, 40. The total amount
to ali the Protestant schools is ST., $50;
making the appropriations for the Ro-
man Catholics nearly five times as
much as oil the others combined! Sir.
Weadock is q Roman Catholic, and
would not make statement delcteri-
Gus to his own denomination. The
fact Is, according to Mr.. Weadock, the
enormous sum Of 1856, 905 was appro-
priated to sectarian schools, named in
the bill, and Mr. Call says he voted for
the bill Let the reading public de-
eide whether he voted for sectarian
school appropriations or not. Mr..
Calls quotation from his speech in
the senate does not relieve him in the
least. Speech is cheap, except to the
government, in the halls of congress,
as witnessed last June. 1t is easy for
q man to make speech In congress
for campaign purposes. His vote
counts far more than his words. Had
Mr.. Call voted according to his speech
we might believe him sincere in his
ulterances. but when he fatty contra
dies himself In the senate hall before
the ink is hardly dry that prints bis
speech, how can he ask intelligent
men to believe him? He does not be-
lieve himself, how can / believe him
VIII he plead ignorance in regard to
these appropriations? How then
came he to make the speech he did
His utterances on the bill proclaim his
knowledge Of its contents. How then
can he II have never voted for
appropriations for Catholic schools or
Protestant schools on the Indian Res
ervation or anywhere else ~
It seems that Mr. Call was Q MEM
Der Of the committee on appropria-
tiyns. II SO, he certainly ought to
have known the character Of the APP
propriations he was recommending to
the senate. In the further quotation
from his speech he says, that when
ever it is possible to do 80, In difference
to the growing public sentiment Of this
country, 1t would be better that all In
dian schools should be under the di-
rect contract of the government"
Italics mine.) Does Mr.. Call mean
that he is controlled by no principle
in this matter, but only cares TO pam
der to public sentiment? Alas, alas,