POLITICS AND THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 
 
 Attitude of* tlie Democratic and 
 Republican Parties. 
 
 “ Our 
 
 you to rally 
 
 Common Schools are in danger ; we call upon 
 in their defense .”—Union League of America. 
 
 THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. 
 
 ♦ 
 
 The position of the two great political parties on the public school 
 question is clearly and unmistakably defined. As soon as the question as¬ 
 sumed a serious aspect, the Republican party “advanced to the front,” and, 
 without hesitation, became the champion of the public schools, boldly meet¬ 
 ing the question officially in her State and National Conventions. A few 
 illustrations will suffice to show the attitude of the Republican party on this 
 question. 
 
 THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS SUSTAINED BY REPUBLICAN 
 
 STATESMEN. 
 
 President Grant, in his speech to the army of the Tennessee, said: 
 
 <; Tlie free school is the promoter of that intelligence which is to preserve us as a 
 free nation. * * * * Let us encourage free schools, and resolve that not one dollar 
 appropriated for their support shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian 
 schools.” 
 
 In harmony with these views, the President, in his Message to Congress, 
 recommended: 
 
 “That a constitutional amendment be submitted to the Legislatures of the several 
 States for ratification, making it the duty of each of the several States to establish'and 
 forever maintain free public schools adequate to the education of all the children in the 
 rudimentary branches, within their respective limits, irrespective of sex, -color, birth¬ 
 place, or religion, forbidding the teaching in said schools of religious, atheistic,-or 
 pagan tenets, and prohibiting the granting of any school-funds or school-taxes, or anv 
 part thereof, either by legislative, municipal, or other authority, for the benefit or in 
 aid, directly or indirectly, of any religious sect or denomination, or in aid or for the 
 benefit of any other object of any nature or kind whatever.” 
 
4 
 
 Hon. James G. Blaine, in a letter, dated October 20, 1875, to a gentle¬ 
 man in Ohio, writes: 
 
 “ It seems to me that thi3 (school) question ought to be settled in some definite 
 and comprehensive way, and the only settlement that can be final is the complete 
 victory for non-sectarian schools. I am sure this will be demanded by the American 
 people at all hazards and at any cost.” 
 
 In order to secure this settlement, Mr. Blaine submitted to Congress 
 his proposed constitutional (school) amendment. 
 
 Attorney-General Taft, the late Secretary of War, in a speech at 
 Cleveland, Ohio, during the late campaign in that State, thus alluded to the 
 aggressive movements of the Roman Catholics: 
 
 “The Catholic clergy are attempting an impossibility. They have faith in the 
 divinity of their church ; but they will have to learn in America that there is a divinity 
 imtlie Republic as impregnable and more potent than that which any church organ¬ 
 ization can bring against it. ****** In my judgment, all attempts to se¬ 
 cure the division of the school fund, or the introduction of religious teaching into the 
 schools, in the interest of any church, are vain and injurious, and ought to be aban¬ 
 doned.” 
 
 At the Hayes and Wheeler ratification meeting, at Washington City, 
 June 19, 187G, Judge Taft again alluded to the school question in the fol¬ 
 lowing terms: 
 
 “ Popular education is the hope of the Republic. I trust that the time is not far 
 distant when all the people will acquiesce in sustaining the common schools, and when 
 they who would ask a division of the school fund will yield to the geniu3 of Republic¬ 
 anism, and be satisfied to give religious instruction and enjoy religious worship in the 
 family and in the church, while the State, with a sovereign impartiality, shall perform 
 ' its great duty of making education universal through the best system of common 
 schools the world ever saw.” 
 
 Ex-Governor Noyes, of Ohio, after participating in the campaign 
 in Ohio, which resulted in the election of Governor Hayes, made an ad¬ 
 dress in the Academy of Music, in Brooklyn, Oct. 30, 1875, in which 
 he strongly protested against the Roman Catholic crusade against our 
 schools. In the course of his remarks on this subject he said: 
 
 “ I recognize the right of the Roman Catholics to carry on their church govern¬ 
 ment the same as any other, as long as they confine themselves to the spiritual 
 domain, but when they step out of that and undertake to dictate the laws of this land, 
 and interfere with their enforcement, then we say, you are trespassers from your 
 domain, and you must retire to your place. 
 
 “ To-day the Catholics number one to six in our population. They are a great 
 political power, and unless we stop their interference with our schools at the very 
 threshold, then is the future of these schools in danger.” 
 
 General R. B. Hayes said, in the Ohio campaign, in the same year: 
 
 “ Our motto is honest money for all, and free schools for all. There should be no 
 inflation which will destroy the one, and no sectarian influence which will destroy the 
 other. ” 
 
Iii a speech delivered at Marion, Lawrence Co., Ohio, July 31, 1875, 
 General Hayes said: 
 
 “ Every body knows that the sectarian wing of the Democratic party begun this 
 agitation, and that it i3 bent on the destruction of our free schools. * * * No 
 Democratic speaker denounces those who began the agitation. All their epithets are 
 levelled at the men who are on the right side of the question. * * * Tne sectarian 
 agitation against the schools was begun many years ago. During the last few years 
 it has steadily and rapidly increased, and has been encouraged by various indications 
 of possible success. Its triumphs are mainly in large towns and cities. It ha3 already 
 divided the schools, and in a considerable degree impaired and limited their useful¬ 
 ness. The glory of the American system of education has been that it was so cheap 
 that the humblest citizen could afford to give his children its advantages, and so good, 
 that the man of wealth could nowhere provide for his children any thing better.” 
 
 ACTION OF REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTIONS. 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 From the platform adopted at Harrisburg, March 29, 1876 : 
 
 “ Resolved , That the common safety demands that our public schools shall not only 
 be free to all, but shall be preserved from all special or partial control. All attempts 
 to divide the school fund for any purpose whatever, or to divert any portion of it into a 
 channel not under popular control, is to be frowned upon and resisted with unyielding 
 firmness. The recent defeat in the Democratic Legislature of Maryland of a constitu¬ 
 tional amendment to secure the common school fund of that State against division re¬ 
 veals at once a grave danger, and its source, and with other like facts makes plain the 
 duty of Congress to submit such an amendment to the Constitution of the United 
 States as, when adopted, will effectually defend the common school system from all 
 enemies, open or covert.” 
 
 VERMONT. 
 
 From the platform adopted at Burlington, March 29, 1876 : 
 
 “ Third: The safety of the Republic depends upon the intelligence as well as the 
 virtue of its citizens, and it is essential that the public school system shall be 
 maintained, in order that every child may receive such education as will fit him for 
 useful citizenship, and we are unalterably opposed to any diversion of public money for 
 any purpose whatever.” 
 
 OHIO. 
 
 From the platform adopted at Columbus, March 29, 1876 : 
 
 “ Seventh: We stand by our system of free common schools, supported by general 
 taxation. There must be no division of the school fund, and no sectarian interference 
 with the schools.’* 
 
 IOWA. 
 
 The platform adopted at Des Moines, May 31, 1876, “supports free 
 education and the public school system, and no division of the school fund.” 
 
 CONNECTICUT. 
 
 From the platform of the late State Convention : 
 
 “We speak for the encouragement and support of education. The safety of the Re¬ 
 public depends upon the intelligence as well as the virtue of its citizens, in order that 
 
the unity of the nation, preserved at the coat of war, may be maintained in peace. It is 
 essential that the State schools shall continue to be common schools, where every child 
 in the State may receive such education as will fit him to be useful in the community,, 
 happy in his home, and absolutely removed from that ignorance which is the mother of 
 crime; and we are unalterably opposed to any diversion of the public school money for 
 any purpose whatever.” 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
 The Republican Convention at Saratoga, September 8, 1875, adopted 
 the following: 
 
 “The free public school is the bulwark of the American Republic. We, therefore, 
 demand the unqualified maintenance of the public school system and its support by 
 equal taxation. We are opposed to all sectarian appropriations, and we denounce as a 
 crime against liberty and Republican institutions any project for a sectarian division 
 or perversion of the school fund of the State.” 
 
 In the call for a State Convention to assemble at Syracuse, March 22, 
 1876, for the purpose of electing delegates to the National (Cincinnati) Con¬ 
 vention, and signed by Alonzo B. Cornell, as Chairman of the State Com¬ 
 mittee, those are invited to participate, “ who hold that the common school 
 system is the nursery of American Liberty, and should be maintained abso¬ 
 lutely free from sectarian control.” 
 
 The State Convention at Saratoga, Aug. 23, 1876, unanimously adopted 
 the following as one of the resolutions of its platform: 
 
 “ Sixth. —The Democratic party, in its controlling spirit, is false and untrustworthy 
 on every living issue ; false in practical government, for its eight months of power in 
 Congress are barren of good fruits ; false to equal rights and the new guarantees of the 
 Constitution; false on the currency, for it openly repudiates the resumption pledge ; 
 FALSE ON THE QUESTION OF THE SAFETY OF THE SCHOOLS, FOE THE SOLID DEMOCRATIC 
 VOTE IN THE UNITED STATE3 SENATE DEFEATED AN ADEQUATE AMENDMENT TO PRO¬ 
 TECT THE SCHOOL SYSTEM FROM SECTARIAN ATTACK.” 
 
 Hon. John M. Francis, on assuming the Presidency of this Conven¬ 
 tion, said: 
 
 “ The lines to-day are as sharply drawn as they were in 1861. On the one side 
 we have arranged the loyal and true men of the nation, under a leader who bas dis¬ 
 tinguished himself in the defence of the government, and who periled his life and shed 
 his blood that it might endure. These loyal and true men, and this gallant leader, 
 staod upon a platform that sustains the Union in its integrity, guarantees the public 
 faith, protects the just rights of citizens in all parts of the land, and promises Con¬ 
 stitutional SECURITY TO THE COMMON SCHOOLS AGAINST ALL SECTARIAN INTERFERENCE 
 OR ASSAULT.” 
 
 Hon. Geo. W. Curtis eloquently said: 
 
 “ Our cause is the cause of freedom in its largest sense. The cause in the old 
 time of free speech and free men is no less now the cause of free schools and free 
 voters.” 
 
 PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 
 
 Tie New York Legislature of 1875-76, which had a Republican majority 
 in either house, passed the following proposed amendment to the State Con¬ 
 stitution, which is yet to be submitted to a vote of the people : 
 
7 
 
 v 
 
 “Section 2 . Free common schools shall be maintained throughout the State 
 forever. The Legislature shall provide for the instruction in the branches of elementary 
 education, in such schools, of all persons in the State, between the ages of five and 
 twenty-one years, for the period of at least twenty-eight weeks in each year. 
 
 “ § 3. Neither the money, property or credit of the State, nor of any county, city, 
 town, village or school district, shall be given, loaned or leased, or be otherwise applied, 
 to the support or aid of any school of instruction under the control or in charge of any 
 church, sect, denomination, or religious society; nor to or in aid of any school in which 
 instruction is given peculiar to any church, creed, sect, or denomination, or to or in aid 
 of any such instruction ; nor to or in aid of any school of instruction not wholly under 
 the control and supervision and in charge of the public school authorities. This sec¬ 
 tion shall not prohibit the Legislature from making such provision for the education of 
 the blind, the deaf and dumb, and juvenile delinquents, as it may deem proper, except 
 in institutions in which instruction is given peculiar to any church, creed, sect or 
 denomination, or religious society. Nor shall it apply to or affect the Cornell Uni¬ 
 versity endowment fund hitherto pledged and appropriated.” 
 
 NEW JERSEY. 
 
 From tlie platform adopted by the New Jersey Republican. State Con¬ 
 vention, at New Brunswick, Aug. 30, 1876: 
 
 “ Resolved > That we are inflexibly opposed, to any and all attempts, direct or indi¬ 
 rect, to impair the efficiency of our free public schools, and we demand that they be 
 scrupulously kept forever free, by the adoption of an amendment to the Constitution of 
 the United States, from all ecclesiastical or sectarian interference.” 
 
 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION. 
 
 The following resolution was adopted by the late Cincinnati Presides 
 tial Convention, June, 1876 : 
 
 “ 7. The public school system of the several States is the bulwark of the American 
 Republic, and with a view to its security and. permanence we recommend an amend¬ 
 ment to the Constitution of the United States forbidding the application of any public 
 funds or property for the benefit of any school or institution under sectarian control.” 
 
 This declaration elicited hearty applause, and a second reading was 
 called for, when it was received amid tumultuous cheers. 
 
 General Hayes 7 letter accepting the nomination as a candidate for Pre¬ 
 sident, thus speaks of the above resolution: 
 
 “The resolution with respect to the pahhc school system is one which should 
 receive the hearty support of the American people. Agitation upon this subject is to 
 be apprehended, until, by conshtutiaiial amendment, the schools are placed beyond 
 all danger of sectarian control or interference. The' Republican party is pledged to 
 secure such an amendment.” 
 
 In harmony with the above, we have the following in Mr. Wheeler's 
 letter of acceptance: 
 
 “ In our system of government intelligence must give safety and value to the 
 ballot. Hence the common schools of the land should be preserved in all their vigor, 
 while, in accordance with the spirit of the Cbustltution, they and all their endowments 
 should be secured by every possible and proper guarantee against every form of 
 sectarian influence or control.” 
 
8 
 
 / 
 
 s 
 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. 
 
 The proposed amendment to the Constitution, as introduced in the 
 House of Representatives by Mr. Blaine, was amended by the House, and 
 passed by a vote of 166 to 5 —the five votes being given by Democrats. 
 After its passage it was sent to the Senate for concurrence, where it was 
 found to be radically defective, inasmuch as it simply prohibited a State 
 from diverting a part of the fund set apart for public schools to the sup¬ 
 port of sectarian schools ; but did not prevent the State from levying a 
 special tax for that purpose, so that under this amendment a State could 
 support sectarian schools to any extent. For this reason the Roman 
 Catholic members and their Democratic friends had no objection to vote 
 for it, and therefore they passed it. 
 
 In the Senate it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and 
 was finally rejiorted in the following amended form: 
 
 “Resolved, By tlie Senate and House of Representatives (two-thirds of each 
 House concurring therein), that the following articles be proposed to the Legisla¬ 
 tures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, 
 which, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid as a part 
 of the said Constitution, namely : 
 
 t: Article 16. No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion 
 or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and no religious test shall be required as a 
 qualification to any office or public trust under any State. No public property^and no 
 public revenue of, nor any loan of credit by or under the authority of the United 
 States, or any State Territory, district, or municipal corporation, shall be appropriated 
 to or made or used for the support of any school, educational, or other institutions 
 under the control of any religious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomination, 
 or wherein the particular creeds or tenets shall be read or taught in any school or in¬ 
 stitution supported in whole or in part by such revenue or loan of credit, and no such 
 appropriation or loan of credit shall be made to any religious or anti-religious sect, 
 organization, or denomination, or to promote its interests or tenets. 
 
 “This article shall not be construed to prohibit the reading of the Bible in any 
 school or institution, and it shall not have the effect to impair the rights of property 
 already vested. 
 
 “Section 2. Congress shall have power by appropriate legislation to provide for the 
 prevention and punishment of violations of this article.” 
 
 This amendment was agreed to by a strict party vote, every Republican 
 voting for it, and every Democrat against, it. 
 
 When it came up for its third and last reading, it met with a spirited 
 opposition from the Democratic Senators, the leaders of the opposition 
 being the Roman Catholics members, who were sustained by Protestant 
 Democrats. Senator Kernan, the Roman Catholic Senator from New York, 
 
9 
 
 opened the debate against it, declaring himself in favor of the House 
 amendment. Senator Bogy, another Democratic Roman Catholic, from 
 Missouri, also opposed it, and when the vote was taken on its final passage, 
 it was defeated by a strict party vote, every Democratic, including four 
 Roman Catholics, voting against it. The vote was yeas 28, nays 16. A two- 
 thirds vote being required to pass it, it was lost. 
 
 The vote in detail was as follows: 
 
 Yeas — Messrs. Allison, Anthony, Booth, Boutwell, Bunce, Burnside, Cameron 
 (Wis.), Christiancy, Clayton, Conkling, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, 
 Harvey, Jones (Nev.), Logan, McMillan, Mitchell, Morrill, Morton, Oglesby, Paddock, 
 Patterson, Sargent, Spencer, Wadleigh, and West—28. 
 
 Nays— Messrs. Bogy, Cockrell, Cooper, Davis, Eaton, Gordon, Jones (Fla.), Kelly, 
 Kernan, Key, McCreary, McDonald, Maxey, Norwood, Randolph, and Stevenson—IS. 
 
 Messrs. Barnum, Withers, Whyte, Saulsbury, Wallace, Bayard, and Dennis, who 
 would have voted against it, were paired with Messrs. Dawes, Hamilton, Hitchcock, 
 Cameron (Pa.), Robertson, Windom, and Wright, who would have voted for it; and 
 Mr. Ransom, who would have voted against it, was paired with Messrs. Howe and 
 Ingalls, who would have voted for it, he having two of the affirmative side to pair with 
 him to make the pair even where a two-thirds vote was required. 
 
 
10 
 
 * 
 
 THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 
 
 In their conventions the Democratic party always ignore the school 
 question. They dare not offend their Roman Catholic allies by passing 
 resolutions sustaining the public schools, and it would be equally unwise 
 for them to openly espouse the cause of the Romanists; therefore, as a 
 'party they are silent on the subject of the schools. 
 
 The platform adopted by the late Democratic National Convention, at 
 St. Louis, has only an immaterial reference to the school question. Not a 
 word on the subject was spoken by any of their orators. The Roman Cath¬ 
 olic element in that Convention was too large and too powerful to admit 
 the introduction of any subject distasteful to Romanists; but there was an 
 evident desire in all the proceedings of the Convention to gratify them. 
 A Roman Catholic priest was invited to officiate as chaplain—the New 
 York delegation elected a Roman Catholic (Mr. Kernan) as its chairman, 
 and the same Roman Catholic nominated Mr. Tilden. 
 
 In his letter of acceptance, Governor Tilden makes no allusion to the 
 educational question, thus treating the subject as of no importance. 
 
 It requires no argument to prove that the Roman Catholics of the 
 United States are the allies of the Democratic party; but a few facts in this 
 connection may be interesting: 
 
 Every emphatic demand for division of public school funds, recogni¬ 
 tion of parochial schools, or abolition of the system of secular education, 
 has come from adherents of the Democratic party. The New York Staats 
 Zeitung , the most widely circulated German Democratic paper in the coun¬ 
 try, translated and copied a letter pointing out evidences of Democratic 
 hostility to the school system at the West, and strongly enforced the lesson 
 by its editorial comments. The Staats Zeitung , of Chicago, and the Volhs- 
 Matt, of Cincinnati, though still supporting the Democratic party, speak 
 very strongly of its tendencies in this respect. The Westliche Post , of St. 
 
 Louis, constantly assails that party on the same grounds. 
 
 • 
 
 With remarkable unanimity, the whole Romish press urged the defeat 
 of President Grant, and the election of his competitor. Romish priests, 
 in the Catholic Telegraph , sounded the praises of Mr. Greeley, declaimed 
 with bitter denunciations against “the four years of misrule ” of the Repub¬ 
 lican administration, and joined with their defense of Jesuitism an exhor¬ 
 tation to all their followers to vote with the opposition. 
 
11 
 
 The Freeman's Journal (R. C.) of September 11, 1875, in an editorial 
 on the late Ohio election, copies, with approbation, the following from the 
 
 N. Y. Commercial Advertiser : 
 
 “Without the Irish Roman Catholic vote in Ohio, in New York, or in any State in 
 the Union, there would not be enough of Democracy left for seed. For fifty years and 
 more Irish Roman Catholics have given victory to Democracy, whenever it has 
 achieved victory. They have been hewers of wood and drawers of water to the Demo¬ 
 cratic party since the days of Jefferson and the alien and seditious laws.” 
 
 The Irish Roman Catholics have always been identified with the Demo¬ 
 cratic party, and they are now preparing with unusual spirit to take part in 
 the present Presidential contest. Their purpose is open and avowed. 
 
 Cardinal McCloskey says : “We must take part in elections,” the in¬ 
 terest of the Church demands it, for the success of the Republican party 
 would for a long time arrest the progress of Roman Catholic aggression, 
 hence they will move in solid mass in every State against the party pledged 
 to sustain the integrity of the public schools. 
 
 The vote in the House of Representatives on Blaine’s school amend¬ 
 ment was an adroit Democratic movement, intended to satisfy the people 
 that the schools were in no danger, and that the Democratic party was 
 friendly to them ; but when the true test came, as it did, in the Senate, 
 where they had an opportunity of so amending the Constitution as to 
 secure the safety of the schools for a long period, the masks were thrown 
 off, exposing the coalition between Catholic and Democratic Senators, 
 and thus acting together, defeated the passage of the amendment. This 
 first national victory over Protestantism and Republicanism has filled 
 everv Roman Catholic heart with rejoicing. 
 
 THE KEY-NOTE OF THE CAMPAIGN SOUNDED. 
 
 The Southern Catholic , published at Memphis, Tenn., issued the fol¬ 
 lowing, which meets a friendly response from the entire Romish press: 
 
 “There are two very essential steps to be taken in order to win the next Presiden¬ 
 tial race. It is scarcely necessary, we trust, to urge our fellow-Catholics to assemble 
 everywhere around the Democratic colors; for they are all, by choice or necessity 
 external to the Republican party, and it is incredible to believe that any Catholic who 
 has a modicum of self-respect and love for his church can co-operate with that party. 
 If hitherto he has done so, the time is at hand to abandon an organization which is 
 confessedly, and without longer disguise, at war with our holy religion.” 
 
 The Catholic Review , referring to the action of the Republican Con¬ 
 vention at Cincinnati, says: 
 
 “The Republican party goes out of its way to insult the Catholics.” 
 
12 
 
 9 
 
 I 
 
 The (R. C.) Freeman's Journal , of Jane 24th, says: 
 
 “ The plank (relating to the schools) in the Republican platform, is a gratuitous 
 insult." 
 
 On the first day of the late St. Louis Convention, a Methodist clergy¬ 
 man was invited to officiate as chaplain. The Boston Pilot , the organ of the 
 New England Roman Catholics, coarsely ridicules the prayer of the clergy¬ 
 man, but heartily endorses and supports the nomination of Tildes and 
 Hendricks. 
 
 A New York Herald correspondent, writing from New Lebanon, 
 Columbia County, New York, under date of August 17, 1876, has this 
 paragraph: 
 
 • 
 
 “ Father John Joseph Bsenxan, who is the principal Roman Catholic clergyman 
 in this latitude, is a strong advocate for Governor Tilden. He assured your corres¬ 
 pondent that all his people would vote for Tilden, without exception. At a late exhibi¬ 
 tion in New Lebanon, gotten up for the benefit of a Roman Catholic Seminary, Father 
 Bbennan made an address, in which he spoke kindly of Governor Tilden.” 
 
 From the Freeman's Journal of September 11, 1875 : 
 
 “ The Black Republican party in most regions of the country, have, by the intol¬ 
 erance of their conduct, forced Catholics, in disregard of other considerations, to take 
 part with whatever Democratic, Liberal, or hybrid party has opposed the Republicans.” 
 
 The same paper, in speaking of the Ohio Democratic nomination of 
 Allen in opposition to Hayes, says: 
 
 <: The Democratic State Convention of Ohio wisely and well avoided making any 
 such (sectarian) issue, directly or indirectly. It contented itself with a political plati¬ 
 tude about religious and civil liberty for everybody, and no favors to be shown to one 
 religious belief rather than to another. The Convention, we think, did well. In hon¬ 
 orable contrast to the Methodistico-Calvinistico-Beecheristico-Free-Love-Radical-Re- 
 publican Convention, it hurled no insults at Catholics ; but contented itself with the 
 reaffirmation of what are, most undeniably, the traditional tenets of the best and most 
 honorable political schools of the past of the United States—the principles of Washing¬ 
 ton, Jefierson, Jackson; and, since then, especially of the Democratic Party! ”— 
 Aug. 21, 1875. 
 
 When the New York Democratic party nominated Francis Kernan 
 for Governor, it was done because he was, as the Tribune said the next day, 
 
 “ a severe and earnest Roman Catholic.” 
 
 f 
 
 During the campaign, Horatio Seyjiour made a speech at Oneida, 
 N. Y., which was reported for and published in the Utica Observer. From 
 it we quote the following paragraph: 
 
13 
 
 “ In looking over the history of my State, I find that we have never had a Catholic 
 Governor, though Catholics constitute about one-third of the population and a very 
 large share of the voters. One thing I cannot bear to have said. They have been 
 voting for Protestants for nearly a hundred years, and I cannot bear to have it said 
 that Protestants are more bigoted than Catholics, and cannot vote once for a Catholic 
 m return. [Great applause.] Every public man in the State has asked Catholics for 
 their votes. I ask them if they oannot reciprocate the favor by votiug for an honest 
 Roman Catholic ? ” 
 
 In this contest, Mr. Kernan and the Democracy were badly beaten, 
 the Catholics not being quite strong enough; but now, they believe, they 
 have a controlling power, and they intend to exert it. Here is what the 
 Catholic Review says on that subject: 
 
 “ Our country contains a large number of Catholics. They increase year by year, 
 and it seems to be merely a question of time, and that not very remote, when their 
 numbers will preponderate over all religious faiths. * * * 
 
 “ We make this assertion, that at any moment the Catholics of the United States 
 move as a body, they can decide any election. We know that they cannot, nor do they 
 desire to form a distinct political party, but they can make any such party triumphant, 
 or insure its defeat.” 
 
 THE ROMAN CATHOLICS CONTROLLING THE DEMO¬ 
 CRATIC PARTY IN OHIO. 
 
 A Mr. Giiegan, an Irish Roman Catholic, was a member of the Ohio 
 Legislature in 1874, and was the author of a Bill giving the Catholic clergy 
 certain privileges in the penal institutions of the State. There was a strong 
 opposition to the passage of the Bill, and fearing that it would be defeated, 
 the organ of the friends of the Bill published the following : 
 
 “ The political party with which nine-tenths of the Catholics affiliate on account 
 of past services that they will never forget, now controls the State. Withdraw the 
 support which Catholics have given to it, and it will fail in this City, and County, and 
 State, as speedily as it has risen to its long-lost position and power. Mr. Ghegan’s Bill 
 will test the sincerity of its professions.” 
 
 That threat was effectual. The Bill was passed, and then the same 
 Roman Catholic organ said : 
 
 “The unbroken solid vote , of the Catholic citizens of Ohio will be given to the 
 Democrats at the Fall elections.” 
 
 They were so given, but Rutherford B. Hayes was elected notwith¬ 
 standing. 
 
14 
 
 ARCHBISHOP PURCELL’S ADDRESS. 
 
 # 
 
 Immediately after the passage of the school amendment to the consti¬ 
 tution, by the almost unanimous vote of the House of Representatives, 
 Archbishop Purcell, of Cincinnati, issued an address to the people of the 
 United States, the evident purpose of which was to create the impression 
 that the Catholics were not opposed to the public schools, and that the 
 school question should be withdrawn from political discussion. 
 
 It was clearly the opinion of the Archbishop that his “Declaration” 
 would be sufficient to arrest the further agitation of the subject, but it is 
 now apparent that he spoke only for himself. 
 
 This reply to the Archbishop’s extraordinary “Declaration” was given 
 by the Freeman's Journal , (August 26th), the leading Roman Catholic paper 
 of New York. Doubtless it speaks the sentiments of the Roman Catholic 
 party of the entire country. Here it is: 
 
 “ The Archbishop of Cincinnati, in his letter lately published, makes known nothing 
 more than his own views and sentiments. It was a perfectly good retort of a Black- 
 Republican in one of the houses of Congress, that ‘ Archbishop Purcell is not the 
 Pope.’ The Senator might have gone farther, and said that Archbishop Purcell’s letter 
 represented nothing , except the personal notions, on the day he uttered them, of this 
 good and zealous old missionary archbishop. This letter does not represent his 
 notions, as set forth in his organ, less than two years ago. * * * 
 
 “Archbishop Purcell's letter is the mere expression of the opinion of an excellent 
 old ecclesiastic, who has already passed the age of active and effective judgment on 
 the merits of questions as they rise. His expression of his views binds no bishop, 
 
 I 
 
 and no priest. He is one of about a dozen archbishops, and of some fifty or more 
 bishops, of the United States. These have not been gathered in any Canonical Coun¬ 
 cil, and, if they had been, their doings would need the approval of the Yicar of Christ, 
 to make them binding on the faithful. But, outside of all regular order, the personal 
 opinion of the venerable Archbishop Purcell, as to what the Catholic Church and its 
 hierarchy will do, or “waive” doing, is that of an aged, respectable, respected, but 
 utterly inopportune, gentleman. 
 
 “The manner in which the well-intended letter of the aged archbishop has been 
 attacked, makes it a kindness to excuse it. It cannot be defended.” 
 
 THE COERCIVE POLICY. 
 
 Hitherto, the success of parties was simply the triumph of a civil policy, 
 without any religious significance whatever. Political parties were combi¬ 
 nations of citizens of all churches and every faith, banded together to con- 
 
;ol the Government, not in the interest of church and creed, but for the 
 good of the whole people. Nominations were not based upon the religious 
 opinions of the candidate, but upon the general fitness of the man to fill the 
 office. The test of fitness was not his devotion to the Catholic, or the 
 Presbyterian, or the Methodist church, but his fidelity as a man and his 
 loyalty as a citizen. To this liberal spirit, growing out of the complete 
 separation of Church and State, we are indebted for that peace and 
 prosperity which have been enjoyed by each religious denomination and 
 every citizen in the land. 
 
 Our Catholic clergy have a perfect right to labor and vote for the Demo¬ 
 cratic party, but they have no right to use the discipline of their church to 
 force those who believe in their faith, but not in their politics, to unite with 
 them at the ballot-box. 
 
 Yet the coercive policy is the one now adopted. The discipline of the 
 Church is to be brought to bear upon its followers, and the Romish Church, 
 inspired by Jesuitical teachings, is to make common cause with Democracy 
 in its endeavor to overthrow the Republican party, and with it the free 
 school system which it sustains. 
 
 The legislation of Ohio and New York, especially their city legislation, 
 affords strong proof of the design of the Papal hierarchy to use the Dem¬ 
 ocratic party as the political lever to overthrow the free school system of 
 the land. This accomplished, the door is open for the control of other in¬ 
 stitutions in the future, and, through a national triumph of the party to 
 which the church is allied, to a radical change of our form of Government. 
 
 These possibilities should arouse intelligent citizens of all creeds, 
 whether of native or foreign birth, to the danger that threatens our coun¬ 
 try if the Roman Catholic element, through the success of Democracy, 
 should obtain control of our national affairs. If knowledge of what has 
 been done in Germany through priestism will awaken our people to the 
 designs of the same power in the United States, the firm stand of Bismarck 
 was not taken an hour too soon. That it may attract the attention of every 
 American citizen, and cause him to labor with greater fidelity for the party 
 that is pledged to the maintenance of civil and religious liberty, the support 
 of the free schools, and the perfect equality of all men before the law, is 
 the prayer of millions in Europe and America, who look upon our free gov¬ 
 ernment as the young giant that is yet to break the fetters of the world’s 
 oppressed.