The San Francisco call., 1896-08-13
AN OPEN LETTER
TO THE EDITOR OF
1.-THE CALL"


terday received from Rev. rather feter u
Yorke, editor of the Monitor:
Hon. Charles n. Shortridge-DEAR SIR: In
the issue of your paper dated August IL, you
make reply to certain statements published II
The Monitor, connecting you and your paper
with divers members and divers acts OF the So
called American Protective Association. AS
YOU have addressed your letter to me by name
/ conceive it my duty to acknowledge the ecm
munication over my signature.
You state that a public discussion of these
matters is repugnant TO you. Your repugnance
can be no greater than mine. l deplore the
ignorance, credulity and Intolerance which
have revived in this City the issues of pas
ages and have made us by-word to less civil
lied but more manly communities. At the
same time do not consider that any man is
bound to apologize for defending in public
that religious freedom which is guaranteed u:
by the constitution or for condemning the
schemes OF knaves and bigots who would pun
ish men and women for worshiping their ia
theirs God
THE CAUSE OF THE A. P.
Indeed. my opinion is that the disgrace
which has come upon our City and our State
through the very existence of the so-called
American Protective Association may be at
tributed 10 the cowsrdice which has locked the
mouths OF lle 0ullOrS OF Hi our great lily
dailies. The editors of these papers know
what every one knows, that the contentious al
present agitahng the community are not
purely religious contentious. They know
that it is not quarrel between Protestants
and Catholics. No church on earth would
claim the men bankrupt in pocket and bank
rupt in character who pose as leaders of the
A. P. A save the synagogue OF Satan.
The quarrel is a quarrel between intolerance
nd he limited States
is an attempt to destroy that fundamental
provision for which Protestants and Catholics
have fought and bled-the profession OF re-
lgiouS belief without pain or penalty. Inc
A. p. A. exists as a political party for one pur-
pose. and that purpose is TO punish every
Catholic for being Catholic by excluding him
from public Office
Though such u purpose is reasonable, not
one of our great morning dailies has dared to
say word in condemnation OF it. CALL,
Chronicle and Examiner, you have all been
silent. That the guilt of one is heavier than
the guilt OF the others do not believe. And
il gives me deep satisfaction i'll this open
letter, to arraign you all before the people OF
this City, whose best interests you claim 20
defend, as towards who did not dare in, a
grave crisis to utter a solitary word IN behalf
of that religious freedom without which our
country could not exist.
THE CHARGES AGAINST "THE CALL"
But why then you may ask has the Monitor
singled out The CALL for special reprobation
when the other papers are tarred with the
same brush. Ile answer IS eVlOenl. As 1dr as
public events showed the other papers were
guilty of an omission of duty, but the same
public events demonstrated that those who are
managing The CALL had by positive acts
entered into an alliance with the A. P. A. The
afldavitS and other documents which were
published III the Monitor for the past three
months were what L considered proofs of the
existence of this alliance between John ID.
Spreekels the a. 2. A. and The CALL.
At the same time l was 10th to believe that
decent men could enter into any compact with
such a society. When / published the testi-
mony as it stood in the records of the courts
ana of the lodges l declared that l would be-
Eeye your word as against the sworn state
ments of men like Hudelson, Marshall and
Ross. l stand by that declaration. AT the
close of your letter you write, eli, after read
ing this letter, you do not feel fully satisfied
with the facts here given 1 shall be most happy
to respond 10 any questions or to furnish any
oral or documentary corroboratiYe evidence
which you may. think wise to request
take advantage of this manly offer not TO ask
you to produce evidence, oral or documentary,
as to the truth OF your statements. Your word
is sufficient will go over the charges which
have been the reason for singing out THE
CALL for the sole purpose that you may have
an opportunity to set your explanation over
against them, and that you may be enabled TO
give categorical answer to questions plainly
put.
A MISUNDERSTANDING.
In the beginning let me deal with one point
in your letter which may cause some misun-
derstanding. Henry T. Marshall, a theological
student of the Presby terian Seminary at San
Anselmo and an occasional reporter on THE
CALL claims that he wrote the letters which ap-
peRred in your columns last February and
which were fathered by the Rev. Benjamin
HudelSon, Baptist minister and State presi-
dent of the A. P. A. of California. Concerning
this statement you write:
Marshall served as reporter on that
journal. (THE CALI was detailed by nv CITY
editor, Mr.. MacMullen, to in terview various
parties who were contributing to the contro-
versy on behalf of your antagonists, and
served In capacity similar to that OF Frank
McGulre, former editor OF the Monitor at
that time EN- ployed by The CALL who assisted
in gathering material for publication on be-
half OF the cause you espoused."
Permit me to remark that there must be
some mistake concerning the duties performed
by Frank Mcguire. l was the only person
who contributed to the Catholic side of the con-
troVersy in THE CALL and Mr.. Mcguire gath
cred no material for me nor did l ever dream
that he was deputized 10 do so. As far as l re-
member his sole duty consisted in carrying my
manuscript the few yards which separate our
offices, and if mistake not that duty was per.
formed far oftener by some of my clerks than
it was by Frank Mcclure.
AS to the question whether Marshall wrote
the letters or not | do not consider it worth
discussing. 1t affects no one but me, and l dc
not Intend to allow mere personal cOusidera.
tions to enter this matter at all. You deny that
you employed Marshall TO write the letters.
That ends the matter as far as am concerned.
THE BASIS OF THE CHARGES.
But to return to the main point need moi
remind you that the basis OF all the charges
made in the Monitor against THE CALL was
certain letter written by the Rev Benjamin
Hudelson, State president of the A. P. A. Of
California, and given to Henry F. Marshall, q
reporter employed by you for the previous
year, Tor the purpose of introducing him to
you. In order to have the document before
our eyes will copy it out in full.
SAN Francisco. Cal. January lS 1896
Hr. C. M Shortrfdge, San FTdnciSco-DEAR SIR.
This introduces Mr. II. +. Marshall, a friend In
whom have the utmost confidence; he is author
lied by me in my official capacity to confer with
you in matters of political character Most re-
spectfuly, B. F. HuDFIsoN
TSeal State Pres. A. p A of Cal
AS you are doubtless aware, this letter was
destroyed, but not before the provident Mar.
shall had tintype OF it taken. You also know
that said tintype was made the burden of an
affidavit in which H. F. Marshall swore thai
the letter was written in pursuance of a scheme
by which the Rev. Benjamin Hudelson he
CMarshalD and two others should throw the
solid vote of the A. z. A. to "Mr. John d
spreckels' faction in the Republican party in
consideration of the sum of S25OO a month
until next November and a lump sum q