The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-12-05
Death Said to Have Been
Threatened Pastor Ross in
Anonymous Letters.
SOME STRONG LANGUAGE USED.
Charges Made That the Catholic
Church's Champion Is Seeking
to Befog the Issue.

and Father Orke, representing TIC
Catholic church, progresses added interest
is given to it.
Rev. Mr. Ross now proposes to furnish
the proofs of his contention in public, as
demanded by Father Yorke, and IN his
open letter agreeing to do this he uses
some strongly satirical language IN re-
ferring to his adversary. Among other
things he charges that his life has been
threatened in a number of anonymous
letters. Following is Rev. Mr.. Ross
latest rejoinder to Father Yorke:
GOA DOUGLAS STREET, Dec. 4, 1895.
Rev P c. Y0rke, Chancellor Archdfocese OF
San FranciSco-DEAR SIR: On reading your let
ter of this morning l was reminded OF the d1tty
in which children indulge when they feel tn at
q rival is discounted:
You mad
And 1 am glad
And know what Will please you.
Well, you are mad, I see. You demand
the bet since you see l will not bet.
You originally threw down challenge and
backed it with a, bet. But now you
originally threw down bet and
backed it with challenge. If you had the
idea that you could win in this matter you
would not for one moment demand the bet as
the only condition OF proceeding. Why don't
YOU stand to your guns like a man? Now,
once and for all let me take up your challenge.
Ana IN DONG so let me QuOle YOUR oldlSLucutS
as published in youFfirSt letter.
You say in your challenge OF November ~,
1895:
81 wish to make a test case of the following:
The Roman Catholic church has the right 10
exercise its authority without any limit set TO
it by the civil powers. The Pope and the
priests ought 10 have dominion over temporal
affairs The Roman church and her ecclesi-
astics have right to immunity from civil law.
In case of conflict between ecclesiastical and
civil powers the ecclesiastical ought TO pre-
vail.
States to any charity named by the Rev. Donald
Ross if he can prove to the sauisfaction.of three
non-Catholic lawyers that the above state
ments or the substance of them, occur in any
Roman Catholic publication as statements OF
Roman Catholic teaching.
con condition that II the Rev. Donald Ross
fails to prove that these words, or the sub
stance OF them, occur in any Roman Catholic
publication as statements OF Catholic doctrine
he shall pay the sum of 800 in United States
gold coin TO a charity named by me.
THE arbitratO-S shall be lawyers, non Catho-
lies, one to be chosen by me, one by Rev. Mr..
Ross, and the two TO choose q third.
1.-The money to be deposited with this third
lawyer and to be by him paid as the conditions
require. Yours truly, PETER c. YORKE."
ANY reader of the above viii readily see that
the point of the whole matter is not the bet,
which you admit is only a condition" i'm
posed, and therefore not at all vital TO the
change, but that the truth or falsehood OF the
statements you quote IS the real issue.
You say l cannot prove to three non-Cath-
Ollie lawyers that the four several propositions
quoted, or the substance OF them, occur in
Roman Catholic publications as statements OF
teaching or doctrine. That is your challenge,
which stands unchanged, whether there is a
bet or not
Now, choose your lawyer, and 1 will choose
mine, and let them choose third.
And in order that you may have no hole TO
crawl through and escape your own bluff, let
us lay aside the idea OF debate, which seems
fO vnU q the thrna Ia sit
the platform OF large building where people
may attend and hear. Then shall lay my
proofs before them, the value OF which the said
lawyers shall duly consider.
There is your challenge and here is my full
and clear acceptance OF it on your own terms.
am not asking for debate at all. 1 only
show cause why the lawyers should not accept
my proofs as valid. When you throw out de-
bate you simply shut off all statements
of defense. According to your contention
is to be no word uttered but what
I say in presenting my proofs. That is quite
agreeable to me. should prefer to allow you
to rebuff my testimony, but the other is agree
able. If you thought for one moment that you
could sustain your bluff you would not retreat
coat tails first, as you are now doing, butwould
go in as you set out.
We, who believe in light and liberty, feared
you would not stand by your first letter, but
would at the last moment do the crawfsh act.
Onr fears proved true.
to yours OF yesterday published in this morn
ing's dailies
You say it is vain to teach me the manliness
OF standing by my word. When did | say l
would not stand up and prove the four propo-
sitions charged? What you want me to do is
to stand by your word and go betting. Well l
must say il is vain for you TO try to teach me
that kind of manliness.
That is Roman manliness, such as was
shown by them when they crucifed our
Savior. They gambled for his clothing. l
Aff Int n
keeping my word and sustaining il, which l
am ready to do, and which l will do
when the proper time comes, unless some
of the anonymous letters l am now
receiving, making threats that shall have my
brains shot out if l do not quit my contention
with Father Yorke, prove true. In that case,
OF course, shall not have the "manliness of
standing by my words" / shall then be lying
by my word, as ffPat' would say. However in
that event we shall have neared the beginning
OF the end OF that cause which brought the
American Protective Association into ex-
istence.
So you sent to the New York Sun to find out
that am an idiot or liar. OF course that
settles it, because you said the same thing in
the religious journal you publish. and two
against one is preponderance of evidence, as
the judge would say.
You have certainly quoted great paper
against me when you quote the New York sun.
That paper some time ago wrote a two-column
editorial to prove that T. De Witt Talmage
was a fraud and an idiot, and ever since that
hopeless idiot stark mad A little over
year ago the Sun said the great Charles T.
Parkhust was liar and forthwith he went to
limbo 10 contend againstsSatan for the pri-
macy in the fatherhood of lies. 1 must be bad
indeed when sum up in myself these two
combined.
had hoped YOU would have telegraphed to
Winnipeg IN reference to my statement of the
forgery OF the constitution, so that | could
drop few state papers latter on in this letter.
/ see you wisely left that undisturbed.
You also seem quite ready to de-
bate about the "bad grammar OF
Ms. Ross last" etc. My dear sir, why
don't you take your own medicine and finish
one thing before beginning another? Besides
did you not notice that it was q mere acci.
dental transposition of a word that troubled
your eagle eye? Thinking of that, noticed
you have tried all along to escape from the
propositions" and debate Donald
NJ. Ross, and thus befog the issue
Let me show you few figures
that your correspondence reveals. You have
used my name sixty-fve times. But the
propositions only ten times. Again, you
divert the attention from the real Issue to the
fact that / had sufficient sense of honor and
truth not to swear I was in the United States
before / came, as if that were a crime
Perhaps you do not know that an Irish Roman
Catholic once proposed to swear that was
here long enough if would go with him "agir
the Government" Ny dear Irishman, DOM
you know that when you speak in that man
ner it reminds the public OF Satan rebuking sin
II you came here first shall be here last-that
is all