New-York tribune., 1919-02-05
Hughes and Root
TO Fight Dry Law,
Declares Pastor
Father Farrell Predicts the
Measure Will Be Revoked.
i'm Answer to Charges
of Anti : Saloon Leader

Father William B. Farrell, of the
Catholic Church of the Assumption, in
brooklyn, IN replying last night to a
statement from William H. Anderson,
State Superintendent of the Anti-Sa-
loon League, said he had been informed d
lon on most excellent authority" that
Charles +. Hughes, Louis Marshall
oppose national prohibition.
Father Farrell's comment was
prompted by the following statement
from Mr.. Anderson:
- Father William B. Farrell, of the
church of the Assumption in rushing
to the defence of Cardinal Gibbons.
has simply added 70 the mess of un-
truthful and inaccurate statements.
Father Farrell said:
Anderson twisted the Cardinals
statement for his own purpose so as to
make 1T appear that the words of His
Emlnence applied to the whole United
States.'
"This lacks in either intelligence or
frankness. Or both, in the face of the
Cardinals statement as follows:
We have 10000 Catholic clergymen
in the United States, who every day
offer the sacrament of the mass. How
can they perform this duty if they
cannot obtain wine?'
Maryland Fight Recalled
"Will Father Farrell now please ex-
plain in what respect we twisted the
Cardinals words in applying them to
the United States Father Farrell said:
The Cardinal made a true state
ment. He was speaking of conditions
in Maryland last fall At that time
the Meth odist were fighting to elect
men to the legislature pledged to make
that state SO bone dry that the use
OF fermented wine for sacramental pur-
poses would have been prohibited.'
THE only trouble about this state
ment is that it is not true. There was
no attempt by the Methodists or by the
Anti-Saloon League, which is the
agency indorsed by the Methodists in
Maryland in common with most other
denominations, to interfere with the
sacramental use Of wine, and there has
been no such attempt anywhere in the
country. But the shortest and most
conclusive evidence of the fact that
Father Farrell's statement is not ac-
curate is found in the fact, which is a
matter of record, that neither the
Methodists nor anybody else tried to
elect a legislature in Maryland last
fall, because no legislature was elected.
IL was eIecCed year ago last tall and
ratified the Federal amendment last
winter, and is not elected again till
next fall"
When a Tribune reporter read Mr.
Anderson's statement to Father Farrell
last night he commented on it as fol-
lows:
Anderson is a fanatic. Cardinal
Gibbons correctly stated the position
of the Catholic Church toward prohibi-
ton. We know as we'll as any one
that the law aims to exempt the use
of Wine for sacramental purposes. That
would have to be done under the Con-
stitution, whether it was so stated in
the new amendment or not.
Expects Law To Be Revoked
owe take the broad ground that the
new prohibition law interferes with
personal liberty, and we are sure that
it will be revoked as soon as the Su-
preme Court has a chance to pass on it.
Besides. we have the opinion of the
most distinguished legal talent in the
country, including Judge Hughes, Louis
Marshall and E]ihu Root, that the new
amendment is unconstitutional"
Asked specifically about the retention
of these lawyers by the opponents of
national prohibition, Father Farrell
said:
81 am informed on most excellent au-