The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1914-07-18

as our mayors are. He is elected by
the municipal council of the city
corresponding to our board of alder
men), which consists of eighty per-
sons, at least twenty of whom must
represent the minority. Politics is
much divided in Rome. For nearly
thirty years conservative and some
times Catholic mayors had taken Of
fee before Nathan came in. At his
election the municipal council con-
sisted of Liberals, Progressives, Radi-
Gals, Republicans and Socialists, while
the twenty minority members were
Conservatives, Monarchists and
Catholics. Nathan managerial.
though a Socialist-to get what he
termed an "anti-clerical bloc" among
the members of the municipal coun-
Gil, and by the union of these ordin-
arily disaffected elements "a sort of a
fusion vote, as it were) he secured a
majority out of the eighty members
for his election as Sindaco of Rome.
The Roman people had no part in his
election, except so far as they elect
ed the councillors by their respective
parties. Had they known that Nath-
an was to be the ultimate candidate
things might have been otherwise,
just as they have been at the recent
elections there, when Nathan's party
was ANONYMOUSLY defeated.
No sooner was Nathan installed as
mayor than he began to level his
oratory-of the style. of our home
product, the Menace-against the
Vatican and the Supreme Pontiff.
Every time he opened his mouth, he
was not only insulting the Pope but
he was violating the statute law of
his own land. AS mayor of the city
of Rome he should have been mayor
OF the entire populace, not the mayor
OF faction, and he should have con-
sidered the feelings of those under
his rule.
The twentieth of September is a
day in Rome-under the Italian king
dom-comparable to our Fourth of
July. 1t is the anniversary of the
entry of Victor Emmanuel and his
troops into Rome. It is usual to
make fulsome speeches on this day,
but Ernesto Nathan as mayor took a
special pleasure in delivering an adj
dress this day in every year of his
term directed bitterly and vindic-
lively against the Holy See. This
was in addition to his messages and
press notices through the year. Some
of them became so gross that the
Holy Father was compelled to take
notice of them and utter remon-
strances.
These addresses and remarks were
not only untrue deductions from his
tory and misstatements of fact, but
they were bitter invectives and calum-
MES directed at the person of the
Holy Father. It was almost incred-
IDLE that a person holding the high
Office of mayor over a half million of
people should use his official posi-
ton to insult his fellow citizens and
the Catholics of the whole world in
the person of their pontiff. For a
parallel savagery and intemperance
OF language we have to go back to
the days of Luther or the French
Revolution. He spoke of "the pre-
siding genius and monarch of supersti-
ton who sits enthroned in the Vati-
cam; that "he bided his time to place
his yoke of superstition and ignor-
ance again upon them;" declared that
the Pope exploited the faithful for
the money to be derived from them;
and that now that the sunlight of
knowledge shone upon them they
should never allow the ruler of the
Vatican to again enthrall them in the
darkness of ignorance. His speeches
and remarks contained personal allu-
sions and bitter insults calculated to
wound the Supreme Pontiff and every
faithful Catholic. This was not done
once, but time and time again during
Nathan's incumbency of office.
Now Italy is the very nation which
has objected keenly to persona non
grata. In 1871 Benjamin Kelley, then
young man and private citizen,
made speech in the south, sharply
criticizing the Italian government for
taking Rome. Fifteen years later
President Cleveland nominated him
as minister of Italy. Some one in
Rome found out about this speech,
which every one in America had for
gotten, and raked it up; the Italian
government objected to receiving Mr..
Kelley, and the President had to
withdraw his name. That is how
keenly Italy took a single speech to
heart, and how promptly she acted
in refusing to accept him. It cer-
tainly gives us a precedent for the
case of Signor Ernesto Nathan.
Because he used his office as mayor
to persistently vilify and insult the
Sovereign Pontiff, an act forbidden
by both his own law and bv the com.