The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-01-13

But if it be honest and manly and right to
treat both sides with equal justice, either to
give all the arguments or to give none, either
TO open the columns TO Catholic and the A. p.
A, or to close them against both, then John p.
Young is neither honest nor manly nor just.
Both times that / called on John p. Young
to offer my refutation of the A. P. A. calumnies
he assured me that il Catholics would hire
hall and disprove these charges from the plat
form he would treat as well as he was treat
ing our adyersaries. When, therefore, the new
campaign against Catholicism opened in the
August of 1895 and the Chronicle was adver-
Using it 10 the extent of two columns every
Monday morning made no more calls on Mr..
Young | determined to see what his word
was worth.
Accordingly hall was hired which, on two
occasions, was filed to the doors. John p.
Young stood by his promise by giving report
OF the proceedings to the extent OF lew
inches. Hence il was that when, in November,
] wrote letter questioning the authenticity
of certain quotations read at the METROPOLITAN
Temple, l did not go in person to see Mr..
Young. l instructed my messenger TO carry
the documents to the other papers, and if they
also refused I authorized him TO insert it at
regular advertising rates. The document was
refused, of course, by Mr.. Young, but was pub
hshed by the Examiner, and the result has
been that the public has learned that there are
two sides TO the question and that Catholics
can give a reason for the faith that is in them.
This is full account of the facts as l know
them which have led up to the present condi-
ton of affairs. For them the editor of the
Chronicle, ohm p. Young, is responsible.
Surely 1 am not bound TO stand dumb when
hear everything that is near and dear TO me
insulted. Surely ] am not compelled by any
law, human or divine, to refrain from defend
ing my character when my character is at
tackled. Have Catholics in this community
any rights as against the Chronicle and John
p. Young? Must we allow column after column
OF SANDER to be launched against US because
that journal or its editor processes TO imagine
that an answer viii stir up strife.
They are to blame who first gave publicity TO
the charges, not they whose good name could
be kept clear only by refuting them. II from
this controversy there shall arise anything TO
injure this City OF to tarnish its fame the re-
sponsibllty lies at the threshold OF John 7.
Young.
But l can safely say that the Chronicles ap-
prehensions of riots and burnings as base
less as its charges against me. In the days OF
the KnownothingS two cities were threatened
with mob violence Philadelphia and New
York. Ii Philadelphia not voice was raised
against KnOwnothingism and the sanity
Bishop Kenrich publicly urged his flock to say
nothing and remain within doors.
The burning churches, the looted converts,
the Catholics Shot down in their own homes
tell the result OF this policy. In New York
John Hughes combaued the conspiratorS with
tongue and pen. When the KnownOth ings
had elected their Mayor and had called their
great maSS-meeting, the usual preliminary 10
a riot, John Hughes straightway issued his
manifesto 1.-The laws of New York expect each
citizen 10 defend his property and his rights"
In two hours the call for the mass-meeting
was revoked. New York was delivered from
the disgrace of mob rule. Every conspirator is
q coward, and towards are careful TO attack
only the defenselesS and weak.
There is no danger that the present contro-
yersy viii pass beyond words 1t will continue
and end similar controversies have con-
tinued and have ended in the past. 1t viii do
about as much good as other controversies do
and about much harm. But If the evil
shall outweigh the advantage, and if the
contention shall tarnish the fame OF our City,
the blame is not mine. The blame lies with
those who advertised the ISLANDERS in the
beginning and who then refused us an opper-
tunity to speak IN our own behalf. The blame
lies with those who were too cowardly to
ignore the conspiracy altogether, too unjust
TO give both sides equal rights. The blame
lies before God and man on the shoulders OF
the Chronicle editor, John P. Young.
PETER G. YORKE.