The San Francisco call., 1896-02-16
FAT HER YORKE TO
B. F. HUDELSON,
Continued from Sirth Page.
consider such system necessity. have also

consider such system necessity. have also
-(Tirade)
The question reads: zone general, non-secta-
rian system" The numeral "one" precludes
the support OF other systems. Father Horke
has said that ne "believes in free public
school system" (see answer TO Question 6). He
has also said that he believes OUR free public
school system is necessity (see answer 10
leves in supporting from the public funds
ONE general, non-sectarian system" There
fore he has not answered my question, but has
again lodged the issue.
oUEsTIoT 27.
"Does Mr.. Yorke favor using public funds or pub
lie property for sectarian purposes, whether di-
YoRKE's ANswER-Neitner directly nor indi-
rectly 90 favor using public funds or public prop
erty for sectarian purposes.
tenance of its wards at ssctarian institutions, do
not why il should not do So If the state places
n boy out with farmer and pays for his ciothes
and his support, the state is not contributing TO
eectarian purposes, II the wife teaches the
boy 10 say his prayers and read his Bible.
What a ridiculous statement In one breath
Father Yorke makes the positive assertion that
neither directly or indirectly does he favor
using public funds or public property for sec
tion he declares: "But If the State sees fit TO
nay for the maintenance OF its wards at sec
tartan institutions l cannot why it should
not do So" Does Father YOrke intend TO deny
tnat in the latter case the State would, by pay
ing sectarian institution lor the care of its
wards, thus be indirectly contributing to its
support?
The father continues as argument: "If the
State places boy out with a farmer and pays
for his clothes and mis- support, the State is not
contributing to sectarian purposes, ETC." l
would like 70 ask Father orke at what period
in history the farmer became "sectarian pur-
poSe?
Father Yorke forgot TO tack on to this answer
his usual TRADE against the A. P. A.
QUESTION %.
"Does MI: Yorke oppose the taxation Of al non
YoRKE's ANswER-I have already answered this
question
the taxes of non-productive property. or even of
productive property, which it wishes to foster,
such remission is not always against public policy.
Zach case should be decided on its merits. There
no universal propositions in politics.
In his "reply" Father Yorke makes three
assertions.
ton" This is false. Reference TO question 16
will show that that is precisely what he did
not do. He ridiculed certain ideas, and he
stated his belief as 10 the financial soundnesS
of Methodist Bishops. But the very thing he
did not do was to state whether he is or is not
hostile to the taxation OF all non governmental
statement concerning sound public policy, and
may be relegated to the rubbish heap.
Third-Father Yorke says, There are no
universal propositions in politics" Possibly
not, Father Yorke, but there are universal
propositions in justice. Yet L cannot accept
propositions in politics." Please produce your
proofs of this assertion, since you ready 10
prove all your statements.
In his answer TO this question Father Eorke
forgot to vtuperate the \. P. A. The reply
scarcely sounds natural. Did you really write
II yourself, father?
QUESTION %.
''Does MI Yorl1e oppose the public inspection of
all private schools, converts, ntHneries, monas-
teres seminaries and other educational or char
YoRKE's ANswER-Most certainly do. and for
the very same reason that.I would oppose the in
spection OF my home. il any institution becomes
public nuisance menace TO the welfare OF the
State there are laws enough to suppress it without
having recourse 10 a smelling-c ommlttee.
Ii twenty ladies choose TO live in a community
do not see why their privacy should be disturbed
ms long as half dozen can live in boarding
house and not be subjected TO espionage.
Here Father Yorke, as usual, flies the track
l should like 10 ask him what resemblance a
seminary has to his home, that he should have
the same reason Tor opposing the inspection OF
one that he would have for opposing the in
spection OF the other.
Again Father Yorke says: "If any institution
becomes public nuisance or a menace to the
welfare of the State, there are laws enough TO
suppress 1t without having recourse to a
smelling ng-committee." Father Yorke, who in
simulated that any OF the insinuations referred
TO in my question were public nuisanceS 90
menaces TO the state? Who spoke of suppress
ing them2 Or does their public inspection
necessarily involve their suppression? And
by what right do you refer TO a proposed pub
lie inspector as smelling-committee? Also
ladies who may choose TO live together?" Such
institution is surely not a seminary, mon
cry, private chool or other educational in
sutution. Why, ,Aen, do you infer that this
principle is aimed only al converts and nun
neries?
And as a matter of fact are not "private
sc"ools, converts, nunnerieS, monaster les,
semlnarieS or other educational institutions"
institutions of e qussi-public character? And
as such ought they MOTTO be open to public in
spection?
To his answer 10 this question Father Yorke
sppends nauseating TRADE. the subject for
his venom being, as usual, the A. p. A. This
disgusting practice OF. his, viGfying decent
peop.e, must carry its own condemnation with
the public. And | have yet to see the first man
TO consider him pure. who. every time another
mentions an institution where women live,
jumps 10 the conclusion that that other is in
dulgfng in vile thought. "Honi soft qui NAL
pense -
docs Mr.. Eorle support for Office any person
who recognizes allegiance any foreign or eccle
hstlcal potentate as superior 10 our Government?"
NoRKE's ANSWER havA already answered this
question. (4ong TRADE against the A p. A.
Mr.. forke states the thing that is not. He
has not answered this question. In answer to
question he stated that he considers it sun
wise 10 put in office men who owe allegiance to
foreign power" But that does not state
whether or not Father Yorke personallysup-
ports such men for office. He has lodged
ag ain.
QUESTION 81.
rs Mr. Yorke in favor of granting public lands
TO other than actual settlerS9f
NoRKE : ANswER-I am not. believe that those
who profit by the liberality of the Government
should make return by cutivating the soil. CTirade
against the 4. p. A.
Father Yorke then approves this principle of
the A. p. A, and despite his almost endless vi
tnperation OF the order we have found another
bit OF common ground.
Mr.. Editor: have no time tonight for the
further consideration of Father Yorke's tier
have not yet consid cred his objections to
secrecy, and | desire TO show by the briefest
synopsis OF the points gone over just what the
articles OF disagreement are between the A. p
A and the Catholic church. or its representa-
uyes- The Sabbath, however, is my day OF
rest. will, therefore, with your permission
resume this communication on Monday Very
respectfully, B. F. HUDELsoN
President OF the A. Z. A. OF California.