The Palatka news and advertiser., 1916-01-28
u M. Hudson, Candidate for
kernor, Discusses the Guardians
liberty and the Catholic Church

/ in these and other conditions genuine
cause for alarm. Therefore their
views are entitled to serious and
courteous consideration, whether we
agree with them or not.
| Is their alarm we'll founded?
The most frequent charge against
Catholics is that they oppose the pub
| lie schools. To the extent that they
do, they are at variance with the spirit
of the day, and yet it does not neces-
sarily imply disloyalty. l have heard
Frotestants, evens Protestant minis
ters, express opposition to the pub
lie schools. l have heard it from men
of intelligence and position. Their
views were regarded as erroneous,
but nobody thought of calling them
traitors.
I believe that the gravest charge
against the Catholics is that they
concede to the Pope the right to an
null these laws or acts of Government
"that would injure the salvation of
souls or attack the. natural rights of
citizens"
You will say without hesitation
that such doctrines are unpatriotic
and pernicious and can not be taught
or sanctioned by loyal American citi-
zens. Furthermore, they can not be
justified under the cloak of religion.
If any Catholic adhers to such theo-
ries, his position is indefensible, but
still there is no cause for panic. Ex-
actly the same theory has been MAIN
tanned in this country by such men as
Seward, Thaddeus Stevens, Wendell
Phillips and John Brown-Protes-
tants, who have been practically can
onized by public sentiment in certain
states. The only difference was that
they conceded to themselves the pow
er which some Catholics allow to the
Pope to appeal to "higher law" than
the constitutions and statutes of the
st+tes. This fact is not cited to JUS
tify the attitude of unpatriotic Cath
olics, but to arouse little charity for
those who may have been misled by
the bad example of certain American
Protestants.
Neither do l contend that a false
theory must be ignored if it is pre-
sented in the name of religion; but
l do contend that we should exercise
a little common sense in choosing our
methods when we attempt to combat
what we conceive to be an error.
To my mind there is but one rem
edy. Meet the evil and combat it in
the open. The only weapon available
in such controversies and consistent
with our free institutions is the ap-
peal to intelligence That appeal
when reasonably and fairly presented
will reach many Catholics as we'll as
Protestants.
We often hear that. the Catholics
work in secret and so must we, that
we must fight the devil with fire.
This is dangerous maxim. 1t has
been used to justify the buying of
votes, the corruption of the ballot and
even assassination. 1t is but anoth-
er form of the old proverb so objec-
tionable to Protestants, "the end JUS
titles the MEANS"
If | am correctly informed, the
Guardians of Liberty would in every
case refuse to allow a Catholic to
hold office. They thus assume that
all Catholics are unpatriotic. Yet
question whether one man could be
found who will assert that all Catho-
lies hold views abhorrent to our in
stitutions. If there are scpe Catho-
lies whose ideals of liberty and duty
are unimpeachable, and others who
acknowledge first allegiance to the
Pope, we are not Justified in CHASING
them together. Because one Catho-
lie is unpatriotic, we are not justified
in prescribing another whose ideas
and conduct are unexceptionable. To
do so can be justified only as short
cut, means justified by the end in
view. Such a justification l cannot
accept.
Under our system men are entitled
to be tried Individually for imputed
offenses. If a Catholic is to be dis
franchised it should be for his own
wrong and not for that of the Pope
or any other.