The San Francisco call., 1896-02-26

-u3 .btuT S1F- nave not before answered.
YOUR letter OF October 30 because wished hrst
70 consult my colleague, Colonel Hay, who has
days.
on on tne lie OF Lincoln we came upon the charge
lhat the assassination of President Lincoln
was the work OF the Jesuits,' we answer that
we have read such charge in a lengthy news
paper publication
TO your second question, viz, "If you did
cor come across it did the accusation seem to be
enurely groundlesS?" we answer, Yes; II
seemed so entirely groundless as not to merit
any attention on our part Yours truly,
JOHN G. NIcoLAY.
FALsEHooD NO. 2.
sherman brings out the old fiction about
ohuruousco and gives himself as witness. In
answer permit me TO offer the following letter
Whlch proves that Sherman is like Ross and
the truth is not in him:
WAR DEPARTMENT,
ADJUTANT-GENERAL's OFFICE,
WASHINGTON, D. c., Nov. ?, 1S95;
1892 \. G. o.
Mr.. Philip Organ, 529 Clay street, San Fran
cisco, CaL-SIR: In reply TO your inquiry
OF the 25th ult have the honor to say thu
no record is made OF the religious denomina-
tIons to which enlisted men OF the army be-
long; that in the capture OF the convent at
Churubusco, Mexico, August 20, 1S4l, l2OO
prisoners were taken, and the official reports
OF the assault and capture do not show that
any deserters from the United States army
were among the prisoners captured. Yours re-
spectfully, j. c. GILMORE,
Assistant ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
FALsEHooD no. 5.
Sherman then introduced that great and
good man, Chenequy, who, he said, led forty
thousand Catholics from Romanism to Protest.
antism. OF course he was lying as usual. He
did not tell that Chenequy mad been sus-
pended, had been turned out OF his office for
bad conduct. He did not tell that he was ex-
PEELED from the Protestant synod OF Chicago
for fraud. He did not tell that the whole
presbyterian body rejected him, He Is indeed
q ut witness IOr Sherman and his llk.
FALsEHooD NO. 4.
Sherman then read a long rigmarole about
Bishop Foley and certain Stephen r. Moore.
wish TO say here that the thing is pure fab
rlcauon. Moore is a bigot o. the Sherman
stripe, and when the Rev. I. OSullivan of Chi
cago called upon him TO substantiate his state
ments he admitted that no such records could
De found In the court hereby challenge the
whole matter as outrageous fraud, and I
demand Sherman's proof.
DONALD ROSS.
So much for Sherman the unbiased, now for
Ross. His beautiful mixture OF who's and
which's has complete disdain for the cum ber-
some rules OF syntax, his unproveked assaults
on the Queens English all mark the deVotee OF
the Little Red Schoolhouse.
But have no time to waste on Ross person
ality. Let us see what he does with the propo-
sltions. He opens with the startling statement
that he never used them. They were inserted
in the Chronicle report by some concealed
Jesuit, presume bly, John P. Young.
If SO. how is it they were printed also in the
American Patriot? How is 1t D. Ross never
came out like man TO deny that he used
them? He imagined he could get little no.
toriety and cash out OF the defense of them,
and now. when he finds they are 1ndefensible,
he would repudiate them.
MY CHALLENGE.
Ny challenge consisted OF two parts.
l. That these propositions were not to be
found in Roman Catholic publications.
2. That the substance of these propositions
was not to be found in Roman Catholic pub
llcations.
PROPOSITIONS ARE NOT FOUND IN CATHOLIC
PUBLICATIONS.
These four propositions were read by Ross as
taken from Roman Catholic publications.
In their campaign literature the A. P. A.
spread them broadcast over the country as
genuine expressions OF Catholic teaching.
In Josiah Strong's book, "Our Country" they
were quoted from an "Encycllcal."
Yet Mr.. Editor. the four propositions are
forgeries, and Donald Ross knows it.
He knows it. because Josiah Strong admits in
the second edition OF his book that he mis-
led.
He knows it, because he had at hand the
copy OF the original propositions, which We're
manipulated TO produce these forgeries.
He knows that he could not find these propo-
siuons in any Roman Catholic publication,
and therefore he has not produced any Roman
Catholic publication, even though he has had
quarter OF q year 10 search.
CONDEMNED PROPOSITIONS.
In order TO explain the four propositions let
me tell how the forgery was committed.
ing truth. This mission was given her by our
Lord when he said go into the whole world
and preach the gospel"
This mission the church exercises in two
ways; first, by asserting the truth; second, by
condemning error. Thus she procaims there
is only one God. She condemns the statement
that there are less than seven sacraments.
When the church condemns error she gener-
ally takes the error as expressed by those who
teach it. She selects sentence from the works
of erroneous writers which sums up their false
NJ and chn FInh fnr,
wrong" These sentences are called "CoE-
demned propositions"
Now, therefore, when we wish to find out
what is the positive truth taught by the church
we have to consider these propositions very
care fully. Those who are familiar with logic
know that the contradiction OF propositions is
a matter which requires very delicate hand
Thus, for instance, we find condemned
proposition stating sit is lawful for man to
NJ airy two wives" The illogical man would
at once Jump to the conclusion that the doc
trine which the church teaches is, ut is not
lawful for q man to marry two wives" But
The proposition is condemned because of its
vague and general character. And it is Just
as false to say at is not lawful for q man to
marry two wives" az it is TO say ait is lawful
for man to marry two wives"
The true teaching is: 1t is not lawful for a.
man to marry q second wife during the life
time of the first Or, again, suppose the con-
demned proposition is, at never rains in Cali
fornia." We do not contradict il by SAYING
alt always rains in California" One PROPOSE
tion is as false as the other. The contrad ictory
is, cit sometimes rains in California" This
assertion Is quite true and contains the doc
trine put forward by the condemnation of the
proposition.
THE SYLLABUS.
Bearing this in mind, let us see where Ross
got his propositions. In 1864 a collection of
condemned propositions was published by
Plus TX. This collection is called the syllabus
Now, II we turn to the syllabus, we will find
the forty-second proposition to run as follows;
LATIN. ENGLISH
Kill In conf1ctu le- In the, conflict between
gum utriusque potesta the laws of the two pow
It's, jus civile prvalet. ers, the civil law prevails
The proposition is q universal affirmative
and it means that always and in every case the
civil law should prevail. 1t is precisely the
same kind OF proposition as 'It always rains
in California"
Because of its universally it is not true.
The American constitution recognizes cases
where the civil law does not prevail against
the ecclesiastical. Indeed the.Sim of the con-
stitution is TO remove from the domain of the
civil law matters which might cause conflict.
Thus. for instance, our civil law does not pre-
vail in spiritual affairs, it does not regulate
the services in our churches, the salaries of our
ministers. The proposition condemned by the
Pope is also condemned by our American sys-
TEN.
THE FORGERY.
VIII 6n0 Ho fol ;c