The menace., 1914-09-05
4 Catholic Argument

One John S. Sweeney Ia priest
probably Of Rochester, n. Y, in
an article in the Herald Of that
city, in which he denies the right
OF one Rev. Kennedy Of that city
TO freedom Of speech, gets OF the
following lucid argument;
We must 20 to the spirit Of the or.
ganie law of the eouHtry 10 ascertain 10
What leagth Ons may 20 IN exercising
bis right Of freedom Of speesh. In or.
der 20 make the point ~ clear a. possible
u will be Becossary 10 explain that the
supreme Court Of the United States has
declared with unanimous voice that the
Constitution was but the form and let.
ter Of the organic law Of which the Dec.
larniiOn Of Independence Is the spirit
and body.
In the preamble Of this document Is
the following; "we hold these truths
10 he self-evident, that all men are
created equal aud endowed BY their
Creator with certain inalienahle rights,
among which are life, liberty and the
pursuit Of happiness. " Thus, accord.
ing 10 the spirit Of the organic Law, the
right Of anyone 90 interfere with the
life, liberty or happiness Of another is
denied. Happiness, in the last analysis,
Is simply contentment. And no person
can be in a eontented frame Of mind
while harboring feelings Of resentment.
And q Is natural for people 10 feel this
way when they hear the institution which
they revere shamefully viIli6ed,
Thus according TO the above analysis,
Rev. Mr.. Kennedy Is trespasslsa - tAe
fundamental rights Of some Of Tue DO
pie, aud should therefore be prolf6ated
from continuing to do %. This deduc-
tion is not only fundamentally sound.
but is in entire harmony with reason.
JoHS L. suEINEY.
Rochester, July 20.
The meaning of all this is that
anything that excites resentment
or arouses antsgonism in any way
or manner is an infringement Of
the United States Constitution,
because the preamble Of the Con-
stitution declares that all men
have a right TO "life, liberty and
the pursuit Of happiness. "
But It is not the happiness of
all men that seems TO be in ques-
tion, only that of the Catholic
(priest) and he can't be happy
or contented if there is the least
real or implied criticism of his
church, and those who cause his
discomfort are violaters of the
Constitution and, of course, must
be suppressed.
Do you get the constitutional
argumentf A Catholic has a con-
stitutional right to happiness and
eontentment, and he can't be
happy if his church is opposed.
This doctrine and argument will
account for the rioting, mobbing
and other antics of Catholics.
They were simply acting in de-
Tense of their rights and in self
defense, even if il was a mob
against one unarmed man.
This means that you mustnt :
"rile" a Catholic, a priest espe.
cislly. Anything that makes him
discontented is a violation Of
law. Don't eriticise his church
in anyway, or object to anything
its leaders propose TO do. If they
want to destroy the public school
system, keep still about it, or
you'll make some Catholic angry,
and you will be the law breaker. |
If they put their hands in ma
tional or state treasures and
ladle out the funds TO Romanist |
institutions, hushl Don't say a
word. They won't be happy if you
do. If they snatch every helpless !
girl in the land and wear her life |
out, in their private prisons, keep |
still about it. Remember that op-
position produces discomfort.
Especially, if a Catholic wants |
an Office, let him have it, Don't
oppose him. Isn't il his right
His constitutional right IL it is,
it is unconstitutional to oppose
him or vote against him. I'll
is his right to have and hold |