The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1902-10-18
KNIGHTS OF FATHER MATHEW
NOT TO LOSE FATHER C0FFEY
Remains Supreme Spiritual Director
on Condition That society Allow
the saloons No Quarter.

The Reverend Father James T. Corey
pastor OF 81 Johns Catholic Church. whose
action in refusing 10 allow his name 20 so
before TIE convention Of knights Of Father
Mathew as supreme spiritual director caused
much comment. returned home yesterday
In explaining the circumstance mat pre-
c~ipitated his action. Father Coney said;
THE Knights OF Father Mathew are
plcdEcd 10 total abstinence and 10 us
c0untenanCe intemperance in others \
pastor Il one OF the Catholic parishes OF
this city who had succeeded IN closing sew
eral ~disreputabie saloons in his parish.
learned that a prominent member OF one OF
the councils OF the order had sgucd the Pc
ution Tor a license to reopen one OF these
saloons. This pastor believes. as ! do. that
such an act was plainly lending support 10
saloons and a virtual violation OF tho
knights pledge He thereupon. 10 prevent
similar action hy other members OF the
order in the future. drew UP an amendment
10 our constitution. prohibiting mgmNeIS
FROM lending support directly or Indirectly
10 saloons and from signing a petition Tor
4 saloon license either as an individual or
A. an ar-aut art,ur fo- fra owner OF urop-
erty. The amendment was extremely radi-
cal. but ! believe that q man should be
pccialIy this. He must either d~iscounte-
nance saloons or openly support them II
was not my amendment. hut heartily IA
Nured It. When IL was introduced two dele
gates from thir city. prominent men. spoke
e~mph2tCally gains H.. and made remark
able speeches UNFOLDING the saloon element
The onponeuts OF the hiI shut on debate on
IL after these two speeches and moved the
prsyi rs question. giving The friends Of the
amentmeut no Chalce TO be heard
After the previous question had been
moved some one suggested that 7 wished 10
speak On the amendment ! would have
done ~. pr0habiy. before the debate was
shut Of. but 1 hal remained silent IN the
hope that the young members would them
selves take a decided stand inI favor q the
question. as I dlsllkcd 10 put myself In the
attitude OF attempting to control or dictate
10 them. However. after the previous ques-
10 had hLmn wmAHI.A ] LH.HHHL ~
the convention To give me the floor as "A
Special favor and said So The amendment
was overwhelmingly defeated. most OF the
DELEGATES thinking u too radical and IN
fringinE upon their personal privileges.
"whdn tho time FOR nominations Of SUI
prcme officers came I announced that rs
long as the organization allowed such a
blot upon It ] could not cO|us-ientiouSly
serve as supreme S~uirituaI director n my
name was placed before the convention. Ny
name was placed before Il and well re-
ccived. but 7 was firm IN my determination.
and Il was Withdrawn Later II was decided
not to make auy direct nomination for SUI
premc spiritual director. but TO allow that
to he made by the supreme Of
fccrs.
some time later a delegate from Chicago
lutr1 duced a resolution eInhndyinE most
verhatim the substance Of the amendment.
This was adopted without debate. While
the resolution has not the force the amend
mont would have. K indicates that the dele
CAFES are willing 20 recede somewhat from
the stand they took in defeating the
amendment. which IS somewhat satisfactory
10 me.
The supreme officers have since asked me
To continue q act rs supreme spiritual
director. promising 20 Introduce at the next
convention an amendment similar % the
ore lust defeated. On that distinct promise
I have consented 70 reconsider my determi-
nation not 10 accept the Office The amend
nent 10 be introduced at the next couveu- |
ton NAV not hr 80 extremely radical in
tone rs the n~reyiuus one. hut II will he a |
strong one nevertheless. and Il must be-
a law. The member who will support |
saloon element directly or Indirectly /
his pledge and has 10 place IN the
of Father Mathew"