.r 'I' p

w i

*	1		>i: p 'W '^: iv ;-,. V ^, >? fv ;^;^ |. A 'I, ,|g*^ ^ §.■ ■§■ i: i t i '1^ ^ ■ r:\ M M' * t * 11^ I.'	..^
fit" • ''Sk -1 ,■■* I ?*■ ;« 'ii ^
... vw. ;f -i t^ .1 # I'i ^ . . .: ¥:^'''ir€ -' ^' ^i:' w' -i :&- :li,:^ ■5^. 4-,' :W- -it.. &'. '^:< Ifa
	- m				.s^-.	•
'S.	■^ ■■*,•.			%. * .« I-	■^ •' ^ V ^-^ ^''

WATSON I AN

J

15c PER COPY

i iw TOM WATSON BOOK COMPAN'^/^ THOMSON, GEORGIA

193 — *

rwE

IPATSOniAIl

"I had rather go down in a storm than rot tied to the wharf !"-Thos. E. Watson

Vol. 2.

AUGUST, 1928 No. 7.

CONTENTS

Frontispiece

Editorials

A Survey Of The World

The Roman Catholic Hierarchy

Life of Thomas E. Watson

Letters From The People

THE TOM WATSON BOOK COMPANY, Publishers

WALTER J. BROWN, Editor

GEORGIA WATSON LEE, Founder and Associate Editor

J. E. TEASLEY, Business Manager

rt 7 7097 n, th^ nnKt nffir- at Thom'on, Ga., under the act of MoTchS, )879

Entered as second-class matter February 1, 1927, at the post ojjic. at nom.o ,

194

Catholic Lust for Political Control of Mexico is Manifested in General Obregon's Assassination.

(See A Survey of the World)

195

thp: watsonian

EDITORIALS

Now Play the Funeral March

The pemocratic party is dead!

It succumbed June 28 in Houston, Texas, at the hands of iDOUght delegations from northern and eastern states whose convention dele- ^ate^s are selected by "big Tammanys and little Tammanys' .

The noble banner under which Jefferson and Jackson fought was "run down" and the damnable, dogmatic, idolatrous flag of Rome was substituted in lieu thereof.

Why all this talk alx.ut the South deserting the Democratic party?

There is no such party.

There is, however, a Roman Catholic party headed by a wet Catholic of Tammany Hall who has as a running mate the Hierarchy's senate floor leader, and whose national chairman* is a Catholic bond- bleated wet of New York.

No. we have not deserted the Democratic party, we have only refused to entangle ourselves with this new ^ party which has the audacity to call itself "the Democratic party." Support Smith? NO! NEVER!!

"I know not what course others may take", but may God Almighty strike me dead when I shall sacrifice blood-bought liberties for a

mess of party pottage. — W. J. B.

* * * *

ROME OR AMERICA, WHICH?

Will Protestant America silently sit and see humanity chained, enslaved, and debauched again by diabolical paganism which sprung from the putrid carcass of the Roman Empire and went forth to conquer the world?

Supporters of the Democratic nominees are continually telling Protestants that there is nothing in the Catholic religion which is contrary to the American system of government. Some of the Cath-

* John A. Raskob, General Motors executive decorated by the Pope for special service "to his Papa". Member of Republican club of Philadelphia. By accepting the appointment by Smith he deserted his party showing the tie of Rome is stronger than the tie of party.

196 THE WATSOXIAX

olic priests, like the one Governcn- Smith has t(j interpret his rehyitin when asked a few simple questions, go so far as to say that their church prefers our form of government to any other, that they admire our institutions and spirit of our laws, that they accept our Consti- tution without reserve, and without any desire to see it changed in any feature.

All of these hullucinations are for the purpose of sugar coating the Smith pill so sweet that Protestant America will swallow it with- out bothering to investigate what is under the sugar.

The greatest historic fact of modern times, since Luther defied the Hierarchy, is, that our forefathers created this self governing Re- public as an escape from the foul, debasing partnership of Popes and Kings. Our ancestors fled from the old World to establish a gov- ernment which would not be cursed by the despotic and detestable methods of Popedom.

Much is being said about freedom of religion and the Smith organs tell us we are violating the Constitution in opposing Smith because of his religion.

To be sure America believes in the freedom of religion. It is a fundamental principle and in opposing the Catholic church we are fighting that this principle may be preserved.

America was entirely Protestant when our Constitution was written and a religious freedom clause is contained therein.

But does one see any "religious freedom" guaranteed in the Constitutions of Catholic countries?

In the Constitution of Catholic Chile (1833) we read:

The religion of the Republic of Chile is Roman Catholic Apostolic, to the exclusions of all others.

Catholic Argentina's Constitution of 1860 reads :

The Federal government supports the Roman Catholic Apostolic church.

Rome's supreme theory is, that there shall be one man at the head of the State and one man at the head of the church and these two shall divide between themselves the dt)minion of the universe.

A Catholic editor has spoken Rome's intent with reference to "religious freedom" :

If Catholics in America ever gain a numerical majority, religious freedom in this country is at an end. So our enemies sa3\ So we believe!

If the men and women of today had not been so falsely informed by a subsidized press, a burst of scorn and execration would greet the Catholic assertions that their church heartily approves the spirit of our laws and accepts without reserve our Constitution.

EDITORIALS 197

When and where, has this church favored the separation of Church and State?

When an where has this Church sanctioned freedom of speech, of press, of conscience, and of worship.''

When and where has this church pretended to support a demo- cracy, a republic — any form of a government other than a monarchy? Whenever oppressed humanity rose in desperation, striving to throw off the yoke of serfdom, there was the Roman Catholic church ever found, ready and eager and pitiless, with book and bell and candle, to consign everlastingly to hell the victims who sought escape from tyranny.

Let us not deal with ancient history but recur to modern times to discover whether the Hierarchy is honest in telling our people that their church approves our institutions and our laws.

One of our institutions is our Public schools. A Catholic priest, T. J. Shealey, has expressed the views of Rome in the following para- graph :

The Catholic church demands that we be not robbed for a system of education that we can not accept. We Catholics demand equal rights of all men, but we will never regard any such system of governmental education as an observance of these rights. If you will give up to secularists the power of teaching your children you give them the reigns of government. We shall endure tyranny, even though it comes from the ballot box, as the pespotism of the ballot box is not the government we fought for.

Father Shealy was only faithfully obeying the papal law as laid down by Pius IX.

Another of our free institutions is free press. Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Pius IX denounced all those who maintained the liberty of press in the most ferocious manner. Look at the press of Italy today. They have no such institution.

Pius IX also denounced savagely liberty of speech, and of con- science.

Gregory XVI says :

The unrestrained freedom of thinking and openly making known ones thoughts is not inherent in the rights of citizens and is by no means to be reckoned worthy of favor and support.

Even Catholic informed editors do not deny this in their editorials of today. Then how can Governor Smith's interpreters say that the Catholic church favors our American laws?

Owing to America's inclination to let matters drift, and to be over confident that what happened in Europe can not happen here, the Hierarchy has made astonishing progress in face of their denun-

198 THE WATSONIAN

ciation of America's laws. Astonishing indeed, when they have captured one of the old parties.

The American people are a lil)erty luxinj^ people. They don't like to hurt feelings and it takes great provocation to rouse them, l)ut when they are aroused — LOOK OUT ! It is to be hoped that before the November election is over they will be aroused.

These people are not going to have their blottd bought liberties submerged by papist hordes from popish Euroj^e !

This country is not going to be ruled from Italy, by a leacherous lot of "chemise-wfearing dagoes !"

ANOTHER DESERTION OF JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRACY

Aside from nominating a Catholic for President the greatest anti- Jefferson proceedure of the Houston convention was the tariff plank of the Democratic platform.

Thomas Jefferson was a "free trader" and when his party said "we propose to levy tariff duties that will permit effective compe- tition" it deserted another fundamental Jeffersonian principle.

Compare their present tariff plank with the tariff bill passed during Jackson's second term, the preamble of which reads:

All duties should be equal, and solely for the purpo.se of providing such revenue as may be necessary to an economical expenditure by the Government without regard to protection or encouragement of any bounty of domestic industry whatever.

This is Jeffersonian and Jacksonian doctrine. Nothing is said about tariff for protection. Jackson and Jefferson knew that manu- facturers are sufficiently protected by the greater cheapness of raw material, and the wide ocean which separates them from foreign rivals.

In discussing the shift of the Democratic party with reference to tariff the "Emporia Gazette" (Kansas Republican) said:

The party of Jeffersonian is controlled by its urban democracy, which means the little and big Tammanys in all the American cities who dominate the state delegations in the North and West. The rural South has lost its hold on the Democratic party. Therefore in joining issues on the tariff, Re- publicans join issue with Tammany on tariff.

The Democratic press of the South is having delirium tremens because some life long democrats have bolted their party. Forgetting the Catholicity and the wetness of the Democratic party, how can these editcjrs expect the South to stay solid when they lock arms wath the Republicans on such an important issue as tariff. This issue has been one of the causes for the solid South.

EDITORIALS 199

The South is still agricultural and history reveals that the farmers have prospered most when a low tariff, or a tariff for revenue only, was in force.

Thousands of abandoned farms in the South are a monument to high protective tariff.

George McDuffie foretold the story in his eloquent speech against the protective system, the last paragraph of which is quoted :

Sir, in casting my eyes over the history of human idolatry, I can fmd nothing, even in the darkest ages of ignorance and superstition, which sur- passes the infatuation by which the confederated priesthood of politicians and manufacturers have bound the great body of the people of the farmng states of this Union, as if by a spell, to this mighty scheme of fraud and delusion.

If this band of Southern writers who have so nobly crawled the Smith wagon desire to be successful in their determination to again pop the party whip they had better concock some method of hood- wink for this appaling desertion of a Democratic principle so bene- ficial to the South.

x\ low tariff is one method by which relief can come to a bleeding agricultural South.

^ 1^1 Jf? ^

JOHN WESLEY ON ROMANISM

If the "SOLID SOUTH" fails to stay soHd, the credit will be due, in the most part, to fearless Southern Protestant ministers who have placed principles above party name.

Bishop Warren A. Candler, Senior Bishop of the Methodist Epis- copal Church, South, issued a signed article in which he censured preachers of his church for "preaching politics."

The Bishop does not directly ask that they cease their war on the Democratic nominee but quotes from a conference report of 1865 in which was said, "Do not preach politics."

It should be remembered by Bishop Candler that in 1865 no political combinations of the Roman Catholic church, the liquor interests, and Tammany Hall confronted the Christian people of America.

Southern preachers have watched silently for many years the

■onward rush of Rome to capture America and wipe out Protestantism.

These men of God said nothing until the Roman Catholic church with

its political secret societies undertook to place in the White House

a man who is a subject of a Pope who declares Protestants heretics.

The following letter of JOHN WESLEY should be sufficient authority for southern :\Iethodists to continue their opposition to the

200 THE WATSON I AX

New York Tammanyite, liishop Candler U) the contrary not-with- standing. Sir:

Sometime ago a pamphlet was sent to me, entitled, "An Appeal from the Protestant Association to the People of Great Britain." A day or two since a kind answer to this was placed in my hand, which pronounces "its style con- temptible, its reasoning futile, and its object malicious." On the contrary, I tliink it clear, easy and natural; the reasoning in general, strong and conclusive; the object of design kind and benevolent.

And in pursuance of this kind and benevolent design — namely, to preserve our happy Constitution — I shall endeavor to confirm the substances of that tract by a few plain arguments. With persecution I have nothing to do. I persecute no man, for his religious principles. Let there be as "boundless a freedom of religion" as any man can conceive. But this does not touch the paint. I will set religion, true or false; utterly out of the question. Suppose the Bible, if you please, be a fable, and the Koran to be the Word of God. I consider not whether the Romish Religion be true or false. I build nothing on one or the other supposition.

Therefore, away with all commonplace declamation about intolerance and persecution for religion! Suppose every word of Pope Pius's creed to be true; suppose the Council of Trent to have been infallible; yet I insist that no government not Roman Catholic ought to tolerate men of Catholic persua-4 sion. I prove this by a plain argument (let him answer who can). That no Roman Catholic does or can give security for his allegiance or peaceable be- havior. I prove thus: It is a Roman Catholic maxium, established, not by private men, but by a public Council, that "No faith is to be kept with heretics." This has been openly avowed by the Council of Constance, but it was never openly disclaimed. Whether private persons avow or disavow ti, it is a fixed maxim of the Church of Rome. But, as long as it is so, it is plain that the members of that church can give no reasonable security to any government for their allegiance or peaceable behavior.

Therefore, they ought not to be tolerated by any government — Protestant, Mohammedan, or Pagan. You may say, "Nay, but they will take an oath of allegiance." True, five hundred oaths; but the maxim, "No faith is to be kept with heretics," sweeps them all away as a spider's web. So that still no gover- nors that are not Roman Catholic can have any security of their allegiance.

Again, those who acknowledge the spiritual power of the Pope can give no security for their allegiance to any government; but all Roman Catholics acknowledeg this; therefore they can give no security for their allegiance. The power of granting pardon for all sins, past, present and to come, is, and has been for many centuries, one branch of his spiritual powers. But those who acknowledge him to have this spiritual power can give no security for their allegiance, since they believe the Pope can pardon rebellious high treason, and all other sins whatever. The power of dispensing with any promise, oath or vow, is another branch of the spiritual power of the Pope. And all who acknowledge his spiritual power must acknowledge this. But whoever ac- knowledges the dispensing power of the Pope can give no security for allegiance to any government. Oaths and promises are none; they are light as air; a dispensation makes them all null and void. Nay, not only the Pope, but even

JOHN WESLEY ON ROMANISM 201

a Priest can forgive sins! This is an essential doctrine of the Church of Rome. But the}- that acknowledge this, cannot possibly give any security for their allegiance to any government. Oaths are not security at all; for the priest can pardon both purjury and high treason.

Setting, then, religion aside, it is plain upon principles of reason, no govern- ment ought to tolerate men who cannot give any security to that government for their allegiance and peaceable I^ehavior. But this no Romanist can do, not only while he holds that "no faith is kept witli heretics," but so long as he acknowledges either priestly absolution, or the spiritual power of the Pope. "But the late Act," you say, "does not either tolerate or encourage Catholics." I appeal to matter of fact. Do not the Romanists themselves understand it as toleration? You know they do. And does it not already (let alone what it may be by and by) encourage them to preach openly, to build chapels (at Bath and elsewhere), to raise seminaries, and to make numerous converts day by day to their intolerant, persecuting principles? I can point out, if need be, several of the persons. And they are increasing daily. "But nothing dangerous to English liberty is to be apprehended from them." I am not certain of that.

Some time ago a Romish priest came to one I knew, and, after talking with her largely, broke out, "You are no heretic, you have the experience of a real Christian." "And would you burn," she asked, "burn me alive?" He said, God forbid! unless it were for the good of the church." Now, whdfc security could she have for her life, if it had depended on that man? The good of the church would have burst all ties of truth, justice and mercy; especially when seconded by the absolution of a priest, or (if need were) a papal pardon.

I am, Sir, your humble servant,

JOHN WESLEY. City Road, January 21, 1780.

(The above letter appeared in the Public Advertiser of London in 1780. — W. B.)

^

202 THE WATSONIAN

An Open Letter to Watsonian Readers:

The fathers who founded our (Government planted in our soil the very principles which Rome has always condemned.

Freedom of conscience, of speech and ])ress. the complete separa- tion of Church and State, non-sectarian education, government by the people — these are precious liberities which cost so much blood, and every one of them had to be wrenched from Rome by men who were ready to die rather than longer endure her detestable tyranny.

The question now is. will we surrender these liberties by the elec- tittn of a Catholic president?

To defeat Rome in their effort to turn the machinery of the government over to one of their suljjects is a stupendous undertaking.

The Roman Catholic Hierarchy is turning heaven and earth in their effort to hoodwink Protestant people into voting for Alfred E. Smith.

America is still Protestant and we can defeat this sinster move- ment by informing Protestant America of the curses of Popery.

What are you going to do about it?

Will you silently sit and allow blood-bought liberties sacrificed without a fight?

Until after the election THE WATSONIAN will be filled to the brim with dynamic writings against the Hierarchy. With a desire of contributing to the cause of Protestantism we are making special club rates.

Our special offer is 10 six month subscriptions for $3.00; 25 six month subscriptions $5.00.

Help in this great fight of Catholicism vs. Protestantism by mailing in a club of subscriptions today.

Yours sincerely,

laftttMimx)

Editor — The Watsonian. P. S. — We have done our part — will you do yours?

203

PRESIDENT-ELECT OBRE- GON of Mexico was villainously assassinated on July 17th in one of the most brazen murders ever designed by the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. Evidence that the Catholic clergy is responsible for the outrage is overwhelming. In a signed statement immediately following the assassination Presi- dent Calles asserted that "the criminal has already confessed his tragic action was motivated by religious fanaticism. Fur- thermore, the authorities have gained much information com- plicating directly clerical action in this crime." As the pursuit into the various phases of the killing went for\vard, General Zertuche, chief of police, stated "the investi- gation will continue upon the same line that has marked it hitherto — that is, the responsi- bility of the Catholic clergy."

Everyone is conversant with the strained relations that exists between the X'atican and the Mexican Government, and of the constitutional manner in which General Obregon and President Calles succeeded in suppressing Catholicism in Mexico. The sub- sidized press in America has con-

stant!}' endeavoured to mold pub- lic sentiment into believing that negotiations for a settlement of the conflict were proceeding in a true Christian manner, and that a satisfactory agreement was to be expected in the near future.. This hallucination was obviously ad- vanced for the purpose of leaving the people with the impression that, in the event of a failure to reach a compromise, the fault should be attributed to the Mex- ican officials.

General Obregon's attitude to- ward the Hierarchy Avas well known, but in view of the various reports of the impending settle- ment of the state and church con- troversies a newspaper repre- sentative asked for an expression from him on the matter. He made it clear in his reply that there was to be no surrender or con- cession which would involve the loss of any of the hard won liber- ties of the Mexican people. He_ charged the Roman Catholic cler- gv with obstructing the policies of the Government in Mexico, and asserted that if the church offic- ials would approach the matter with sincerity and good faith, differences could and would be adjusted. It is a significant fact

204

THE WATSONIAX

that General Ohregon's views in this regard were given to a news- paperman on July 16th, the day before the assassination.

General Obregon's assassina- tion is an undeviated exemplifi- cation of the dastardly deeds to which the Catholic Hierarchy will stoop to advance its selfish, sor- did, despotic, encroaching and in- triguing purposes. If Protestant Democrats fail to recognize the uncontrollable lust and greed for power manifested in this coward- ly act ; if they fail to take cogni- zance of the similarity between Catholic political designs in Mex- ico and the United States ; if they adhere to the plea of party unity emanating from Tammany Hall and cast their vote for Al Smith, instead of following the dictates of their own conscience ; they may then expect to see the same duplicities, intrigues, briberies, false pretenses and barbarities employed in this country by the Hierarchy as has been witnessed in Mexico and all other countries in which Catholicism has pre- dominated.

* * * *

THE HISTORIC AND TRADI- TIONAL Democratic party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson apparently forgot the principles founded and advocated by these two immortal (states- men in nominating Governor Al- fred E. Smith of New York for president. At a time when the Democratic donkev had an ex-

cellent chance to win the race it allowed itself to become intimi- dated by the Tammany tiger and accepted by an overwhelming ma- jority the only man within the ranks of the party who would split the solid south, a section in- dispensable to the success of De- mocracy.

Manifestly the party is now under complete dominance of Tammany Hall who is endeavour- ing to force the South to accept the nominee through a vast sys- tem of ceaseless propaganda branding oj^position to him as bigotry and intolerance. This propaganda has become the fav- orite instrument of Roman Cath- olic political designs. It has raked the country for more than a generation and on a busy pub- lic without time or opportunity to investigate its siren voice is ir- restil:)le. But it is not as fatally effective as it appears. With all this chorus of editorials, harping on harmony, conformity, party loyalty and unity, it is evident that Smith is not the choice of Dixie. The people are beginning to think for themselves.

Southerners are naturally De- mocrats and have always been unwavering in their allegiance to the i)arty. But the realization was brought to them that they would be forced to leave the par- ty in the forth coming elections as they witnessed the shrewd manipulation of the Democratic party by Tammany Hall in the

A SURVEY OF THE WORLD

205

pre-convention campaign. Ad- mittedly it is a bitter dose to swallow but there is no alterna- tive. The issue is drawn. That issue is Romanism, Tammanyism and Al Smith. No party fanati- cism nor thread bare issues and traditions of the past will be per- mitted to interfere in their deter- mination to defeat this brazen challenge of a bunch of brewers, gaml^lers. Tammany bosses and

ward politicians.

* * * *

THE NEW MULLER CABI- NET in Germany has brought up in the Reichstag the question of a further step in the evacuation of the Rhineland. Herr Strese- mann openly stated that this was sufficient justification for his en- tering a ministry with which the majority of his followers are out of sympathy on domestic ques- tions. The universal desire for expediting the departure of for- eign troops from the Rhine is the one factor which made a Muller Coalition Cabinet possible despite the clash of principles among the Reichstag parties.

Premier Poincare may receive at any date a request for the with- drawal of the allied troops from the second zone of occupation centering about Coblenz as de- fined in the Versailles Treaty. That the continued occupancy of the Rhineland is not considered in France as a matter of national defense has long been clear. M. Briand declared several months

ago that France felt secure in the Locarno agreements and that she does not remain in the Rhine- land as a necessity, but as a right; a right which she is willing to cede for a consideration. Evacu- ation of the occupied territory will be accelerated if Germany can hasten the reparation pay- ments. The desire to do this has been manifested by the German Government. A definite fixation of her obligations in replacement of the Dawes schedules has been under way particularly since General Agent Gilbert's utter- ances on the subject.

With monetary stabilization ef- fected in France, M. Poincare is now comparatively free to co- operate with Briand in the final settlement of occupation and re- parations. Ostensibly the mat- ter is to be one of bargaining and what-ever the outcome the Pre- mier who has manipulated bil- lions of francs in the last few years will play an important role in trading with Berlin for the re- moval of the allied troops. It may be safely assumed that M. Poincare will insist upon a fair settlement to all concerned and so round out a notable record and

career.

* * * *

RECOGNITION OF THE NA- TIONALIST Government of China, recent conquerors of all China proper, has been urged up- on the American State Depart- ment bv Senator King of Utah.

206

THE WATSONIAN

Senator King urges the recogni- tion essentially on the ground that it would stabilize the condi- tions in China, and there is every reason to l)elieve that he is cor- rect.

Opposition to this policy will undoul)tedly be encountered. It will be contended that the pre- sent government of China has come into power illegally and by virtue of military conquest rather than a constitutional election. For that matter, however, every government in China for the last ten years has come into power by a military conquest, and we have recognized some of those govern- ments.

The theory will also be ad- vanced that the present regime has not yet had sufficient time to demonstrate that it is capable of assuming the responsibilities of carrying on governmental af- fairs, or of asserting its authority. Such tests have not always been the criterion for our willingness

t ) recognize foreign governments. Th.e State Department in 1926 recognizecl the Diaz government in .Nicaragua three day> after it was formed before it had the op- portunity to evince its capabili- ties, and this government prompt- ly a])pcaled for intervention.

It will also be said that the Xationali^t (ioxernment is too ])r<;-Chinese to merit our sujjport, too likely to insist u])on a new re- gime of c(jual treaties. liut the State Department has frequent- ly declared itself in favor of new treaties and the American policy has been traditionally friendly to China's as])irations for real sov- ereignty.

U is ol)\i()Us that recognition would strenghtcn the hand of the moderates now in control and create new friends for us in China. We agree \vith Senat(jr King that there is everything to gain and nothing to lose from a policy of recognizing the Nation- alist Government.

REPRESENTATIVES WANTED

We want a representative in e\ery community for The Watsonian and Watson books. Liberal commissions al- lowed. Write for particulars.

THE TOM WATSON BOOK COMPANY, Inc. THOMSON, GEORGIA

207

ROMAN CATHOLIC fflERARCHY

BY THOS. E. WATSON

CHAPTER XVI.

Substitution of rice bread for wheat bread in the "sacrifice of the mass ;" No authority for it; Extracts from Archbishop Ireland's sermon on "The Eucharist;" Further arguments against the dogma of Transubstantiation.

Were you surprised when you read, in the preceding chapter that the

Roman priests had substituted rice for bread, in their so-called "sacrifice of the mass?" The disuse of wheat flour may not be universal in the Romanist churches, but the use of rice — in this country, at least — cannot be denied.

By what authority. Biblical or otherwise, did the hierarchy discontine the employment of wheaten bread? What right does any Christian have to eat rice, as a part of the Lord's Supper?

Presumably, Christ's disciples ate their bread in the usual way, by mastica- tion. How else could they swallow it? Common sense teaches us that they consumed their Passover feast — lamb, bread and wine — just as other Jews did, and just as we ourselves eat our meals.

How is the symbolism retained, when anything else is substituted for either the wine or the bread? If one element of the sacrament may be ex- changed for something wholly different, the other may. Nobody associates rice with bread. It has never been so used by individuals or by nations. When we' say "bread," our minds contemplate the wheaten and corn-meal loaves. And in the time of Christ, the word, "corn," meant wheat; and the word, "loaf," meant wheat bread, cooked generally in oval shape. I don't suppose that Christ ever so much as saw a dish of rice. It was not a product of Palestine; and at that time the Jews knew nothing of the rice-growing countries, China, Japan, &c. What an abomination it is, then, to discard the wheaten loaf, and replace it with the disc made from the paste of rice! It seems positively sacri- legious. They might just as well substitute beer, for the wine.

In the days of Luther, wheat bread was universally used by the Roman priests. When rice was preferred, the change was made silently, secretly; and we have no record of the date or manner of its being done.

If a Romanist priest can transform a loaf of bread into the body of Christ, I admit that he might be able to work the same miracle on a dish of rice, or upon a wafer made from rice. It is likewise my firm belief that if a priest can change rice into a human body, he could, wth equal facility, work the same stupendous transformation in a dish of ham and eggs.

But before we go further, let us inquire whether American prelates, of the present era, resign their common sense to this monstrous doctrine of pagan Rome. Archbishop Ireland is a fair representative of the American priesthood; he knows what the Roman Church holds on the subject of the bread and wine. On Sept. 29, 1911, he preached a sermon on "the Eucharist." Doubtless, he prepared

208 THE WATSONIAN

himself carefully, for lie was addressing the Eucharist Congress, assembled in Cincinnati, Ohio. We reprint the following extract from the Archbishop's homil}', as reported in Phelan's Western Watchman:

"Priests of the Holy Catholic Church, you are the successors of the first twelve; you are the heirs of their privileges and powers. You celebrate your mass. At the moment of the consecration you repeat the words of Jesus: 'This is My body — this is the chalice, the new testament in My blood.' You speak as Jesus did speak, under the spell of His omnipotence — what He did, you do: the bread is changed into His body, and the wine into His blood: Jesus is on the altar, fully man, fully God. The bodily eye does not discetn Him, neither does the ear hear Him; yet our Christian faith bids us proclaim His presence. He is there: we have 'the more firm prophetical word,' from which there must be no dissent.

"Do you now ask in what relation the Eucharist holds itself to the incar- nation? The eucharist is the incarnation itself, continued through the ages

The eucharist is the complement of Bethlehem and Cavalry; through it the incarnation abides among men, in tlie fulness of the original gift, adown the ages even unto the consummation of the world.

"The eucharist is the incarnation, dwelling among us, realizing by immediate contact with the souls the mighty purposes the Word had in mind, when, in the counsels of the Godhead, he first exclaimed, 'Lo, I come!' "

Pope Urban expressed the same thought in bolder terms when he spoke of the priests, "who by their touch create God, Who created all things." The Papa also said that the priests offered up to God, the Father, the perpetual sacri- fice of God, the Son. All orthodox Romanists hold the same view; that is, when they eat the flesh of Christ they offer up to the heavenly F"ather the sacrifice of His only begotten Son. The priest does the same thing when he drinks the blood.

Thus, you will observe, all resemblance to the Lord's Supper is destroyed. There is no supper, at all. The Roman Catholics do not use the word.

Alosheim tells us, in his Ecclesiastical History, that the early Christians met around a common board, and celebrated the rite by eating bread and drinking wine. To those members of the congregation who were absent — through sickness or otherwise — a portion of the feast would be sent, in token of fraternal remembrance. The Lord's Supper was not, in the earliest ages of Christianity, restricted to places of worship. Apparently, the celebration often occured in a private dwelling What the primitive congregations did, was to assemble, on the first day of the week, and to eat a meal of victuals together in remembrance of the last meal of the Savior. The bread and the wine were, of course, the prominent elements of the holj- feast, but it does not appear that they were the only ones. It is highly probable that flesh was on the table, also, as at the Last Supper. But there was no limit put upon the amount of bread

ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY 209

any one should consume, nor upon how many glasses of wine, he should drink. We know from the Scriptures themselves that some of the brethren caused scandal by imbibing too freely.

But let us return to the sermon of Archbishop Ireland. He states that, by the words and the touch of the priests — white priests, yellow priests, brown priests, black priests — Christ is re-incarnated. He is there on the altar, "fully man, fully God." Isn't it amazing that sucli utterances can be soberly made, here in the 20th century? And in the United States! Tha kind of thing be- longs to the era of witchcraft, socery, demons, elfins, gnomes and haunted houses.

Christ upon the altar, "fully man, fully God?" That doctrine plays havoc with the Trinity. How can a Romanist believe in a Triune God, in Heaven, and at the same time have God on the altar? How can a human creature create God? How can he reconcile the doctrine of the supreme sacrifice on Calvary with the doctrine of a continual sacrifice of Christ — not only on the altars of churches, but in open-air ceremonies, and in the chapels permitted to favored ones in their homes?

God on the altar! And offered up to God as a sacrifice! He thus comes to us at any time and any place that a priest may choose. He has returned to the earth hundreds of thousands of himes, and been sacrificed anew each time! What ignorance was that of the apostle who wrote, under inspiration, of the second coming of Christ. The inspired writer of the New Testament was totally without knowledge that million^ of priests could bring Christ back to earth, millions of times! (No wonder the Roman Hierarchy keeps the Bible away from their deluded followers.)

When Christ sat down to meat, for the last time, it was as a man. It was a man who underwent mental agony in Gethsemane; it was a man that almost despaired, on the Cross; it was a man that died, and was laid away in the tomb. When Jesus spoke to His disciples at the Supper, it was a mournful man who said "Remember Me." He was very sad, and His humanity shrank from the dread ordeal that was at hand. He had to die a cruel death, before He could ascend to Heaven and take his place "at the right hand of God."

There was formerly a question as to whether the Christ of the Romanist celebration was alive or dead. Archbishop Ireland answers it. As he spoke by authority, he voiced the creed of his church. The body which the priest creates and which the congregation swallows, is a living body, for God cannot be dead. "Jesus is on the altar, fully man, fully God." So says the Archbishop, Since God cannot die, and since God is on the altar, the Romanist laity eat <hel Almighty, when they take the sacrament. A human priest creates the God who created him, and a number of pious ladies and gentlemen convey to their mouths the God that created them. The intestines receive this God, the gastric juices digest him, and he passes out of the human system along with other excrement! How revolting!

210 THE WATSOXIAX

To revive an inquirj- made by Erasmus, let us ask a priest what would have been the nature of the bread and wine, if Peter had celebrated mass while Christ was on the Cross. Anotlier thing: how can Jesus, as both man and God, be present at so many places on earth, without leaving vacant His place in Heaven? True, we say and believe that Jehovah is all-powerful and omni- present, but that means the Trinity, not one, only, of its constituent parts. If God is on the altar, it must be the whole Trinity, or else the Romanists abandon the doctrine of a Triune divinity. Furthermore, it appears to me that the mass, as the Catholics regard it, obliterates the Holy Ghost. In fact, it is beyond the ingenuity of the human brain to reconcile the ortliodox belief in a Triune God, with the belief that human beings can separate the persons of the God-head, and impiously use one of them as an asset in tlieir business.

And when we remember that this frightful dogma was Ijorrowed from ancient paganism and imposed upon the laity for the purpose of augmenting the powers and the revenues of a corrupt, grasping, and hypocritical priesthood, the detestation of it grows.

The ancients were cursed by impostors who pretended to talk with the gods. These impostors claimed to have "the ear" of their divinities, and to possess l)oundless influence over them. Whom tlie priests cursed, the gods anathmatized. Wliom the priests blessed, the gods favored. The priests could "bind and loose," for a consideration. If the deity was an ox, the priests took charge of him. If it was fire, the priests kept it up.

Even Alexander the Great wislied to know what the gods thought of his proposed invasion of Persia and went to the oracle to find out — the priestess being the mouthpiece of divinit\.

Faitli in these impostors was hHnd, unquestioning, fanatical. Riches poured into the temples. Priest-craft ruled the people and the rulers of the people. When they spoke, it was divinity speaking. Who could resist a secret society which monopolized the privilege of holding possession of the deities and of communing in person with the gods? No wonder the Kings were in awe of the chief priests. No wonder the people surrendered their wealth, in exchange for the favor of the gods.

Having profitably taken over so many other impositions of paganism, how could the Roman Hierarchy resist the temptation to imitate their ancient pro- totypes in the matter of taking possession of the divinity? All the world fears death and the hereafter; all the world reverences or fears the Almighty God; all the world will give money to make sure of salvation. Therefore, Rome takes absolute control of the Deity, absolute control of tlie road to Heaven, absolute control of the dead who are in purgatory, absolute control of the eternal destiny of every living soul.

Bacchus was the mythological god of the vineyard; wine was spoken of as his blood. Ceres was the goddess of the harvest, and she is pictured with

ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY 211

sheafs oi wlieat in her hand: when a Greek ate wheat bread, he was said to be eating the body of Ceres.

In the Grecian religion, "Eleusinian mysteries" were by far the most sacred rites. At the initiation of a new member, he was given the body of Ceres to' eat, and the blood of Bacchus to drink. That is. he reverently ate a bit of wheat l)read, and drank a glass of red wine. This was ages before the birth of Christ.

Whether the originators of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist had any knowledge of the Eleusinian Mysteries, I, of course, do not know. I doubt whetlier a single Cardinal of the present day knows that the Eucharist is a survival of the Grecian mythology.

From the orthodox Christian point of view, the Roman Catholic innovation concerning the perpetual sacrifice is in conflict with the doctrine of the Atone- ment. Christ did mean just that: the sacrifice was accomplished. Christ did not say "I am dying." He did not say "I am dead". He cried out with His last words, 'Tt is finished." What was finished? Not his life as a Jew, but His sufferings and His purpose, as the Savior who had come to die that sinners might live.

Elsewhere, and afterwards, he spoke of himself as having "died once," but who would now "live forevermore," Paul speaks in the same way of the one sacrifice: and when Paul wrote. Christ had been gone from earth thirty years.

If Peter and other apostles had been sacrificing Jesus repeatedly, as thcf Romanists now claim to do, how can we account for Paul's ignorance of the; fact? The ghoulish doctrine of the Catholic Eucharist is in deadly conflict with the plan of salvation, with New Testament evidence, with the practices of the early Christians, with the teachings of the Fathers, and with the declarations of the "infallible" Popes.

Gregory \'II., on one occasion, flung the consecrated elements into the fire, where they were consumed. Would an infallible Papa have cast Christ into the flames? Could a man's body and a God's spirit have been thus disposed of? This Pope was the famous Hildebrand, who compelled a German Kaiser to abase himself at Canossa.

Innocent III. believed tliat "something of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament, to allay hunger and thirst." Such a statement would seem to imply that the Roman Catholics, so late as the 12th century, used a considerable amount of the bread and the wine, making it something of a supper, in reality.

Pope Theodorus, in the year of our Lord 648, used some of the wine of the sacrament in signing his name to the e.xcommunication of Pyrrhus: and the Council of Constantinople (A. D. 869) signed the condemnation of Photius with pens dipped into the consecrated wine.

Pope Gelasius in refuting the Eutychian heresy, wrote:

"Tlie sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ which we receive is certainly a divine thing, and by them we are made partakers of the divine nature, but yet the substance, or nature of bread and wine do not cease to be in

212 THE WATSONIAN

them. Indeed the image and similtude of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in the mysterious action."

This Papa died in the year 496, and his church canonized him. He was the author of many treaties and was considered perfectly orthodox. Tliis was nearly 500 years after the Lord's Supper was instituted, and the head of the Roman Hierarchy knew nothing of transubstantiation. "Bread thou art, and bread tliou shalt remain," Pope Gelasius could and did say in all seriousness — not in flippant jest, as Luther heard the priests say when he went to Rome.

One more thought:

If the wine becomes Christ, how is it that Sacramental wine can be used to poison people? '

Only a few weeks ago, a priest in this country came near losing his life, because of poison in the consecrated chalice. As he began to drink "the blood," its peculiar taste aroused his suspicions, in time. Pope Victor III. was not so fortunate. He was poisoned by the Eucharist. How could Jesus, fully man and fully God, do such thngs? The Emperor Henry VII. (Germany) was also poisoned in the sacrament. A few years ago, in Palermo, Italy, the chaplain of Countess Mazzarini, while celebrating mass, dropped dead, after drinking the consecrated wine. Some enemy resorted to this method to kill him.

In the Missal (Romish Mass Book) page 53, we find this ludicrous para- graph:

"If a priest vomit the Eucharist, and tlie species appear entire, he must piously swallow it again; but if a nausea prevents him, tlien let the consecrated species be cautiously separated, and put by him in some holy place till they be corrupted, and after that let them be cast into the holy ground; but if the species do not appear, the vomit must be burned, and tlie ashes thrown into holy ground."

How could a living Jesus and a living God "be corrupted?"

Pardon me for having lingered so long, on tliat absurd Mass business. The doctrine is so monumentally monstrous that it is fascinating. An ordi- nary ugly man is repulsive; but when ugliness takes a form that is gigantic, colossal, phenomenal, prodigious, and altogether unprecedented, we gaze upon it, spellbound. Thus, the market women of Paris used to throw up ecstatic hands, when they beheld Mirabeau; and as the ecstatic hands flew up the fasci- nated women would exclaim, "O, tlie beautiful monster!" In fact, all bio- graphers, agree that the great orator was so grandly, gorgeously, super-humanly hideous, that he was the greatest lady-killer in France. In England, the same thing was true of the celebrated John Wilkes. His face resembled a mask. As you look upon his portrait in the books you find it difficult to believe that anj' human being was ever afflicted with such a countenance. There is some- thing weird, ghoulish, uncanny, saturnine and satyrlike in his visage; and the women just couldn't help loving him.

ROMAN CATHOLIC HIERARCHY 213

If the medallions correctly represent Marc Antony, he also was immensely, flagrantly, hugely repulsive, in features; yet he was the lady-killer of old Rome.

This mj-sterious psychological fact can l)e traced to the "Arabian Nights," the Decameron, the Heptameron, the Balzac novels, the stories of De Mau- passant, to say nothing of biographies and memoirs.

The ordinay religious doctrines of the papacy excite in me nothing more than a mild, philosophical contempt. I don't much wonder that there should be human beings of today who believe in saints, miracles, purgatory, holy water, prayer-beads, &c., for the simple reason that my researches have shown me that there have always existed people who believe in such things. Those superstitions are as old as the race itself — ^not only our race, but all others. Every religion of antiquity is cluttered up with such childish nonsense. But when I come to the Romish insanity about the Eucharist, my emotions overt- power me. They run the whole gamut; from laughter to scorn, and from scorn to pity, and from pity to tears. God! that any sane mortal should be so ab- solutely the slave of a priest that he can believe he is eating his own Creator! That he can drink his Maker! That he can devour a man and a God, at the same time! That he can vomit Jehovah, the Almighty!

I quoted, from the Missal of the Roman Church, the instructions to the officiating priest: if he "threw up" his God, he was told to try it again; and, then if his God just wouldn't stay on his stomach, he, the priest, was to lay his God aside "until it be corrupted;" after which it was to be buried in "holy ground." But if the priest, in vomiting, fail to bring up "the entire species" — that is, the bit of rice wafer, — "the vomit must be burned, and the ashes thrown into holy ground."

Isn't it almost inconceivable that any such disgusting and utterly insane doctrine should be prevalent among educated men and women of the 20th century? Never on this earth did any primitive, degraded and unkempt tribe revel in such religious lunacy as that.

The most benighted of the ancient pagans went no farther than to feed their gods. They devoutedly brought the food and the wine, leaving it before the idol, or the shrine; next day it was gone, and the poor superstitious dupes believed that the gifts had been accepted by their deity. Instead, the priests had made off with it.

Think of what an enormous advance was made by the Roman priests, when they began to be cannibals and to eat their God. Their banquet on the Divinity costs hard cash, when Mass is performed for the repose of souls; but they charge more for the High Mass than for the low; the eating of the man-God being done with greater ceremony in the one case than in the othr.

* * * *

LIFE OF THOS. E. WATSON

By His Grand-Daughter GEORGIA WATSON LEE

PERILOUS TIMES

In the l)iography it has been, and will continue to be, our policy to let ]\Ir. Watson tell his o\vn story whenever possible. Never shall this pen. or any other i)()rtray the events happening; in his life with such vividness as he pictures them himself.

In previous chapters Watson's record in the House of Repre- sentatives has been gixen. lie returned home in August, 1892, to wage a campaign for reelection.

Extracts from his "scrap book" are given :

"KNOCKED DOWN AND DRAGGED OUT" 1892

When I returned to Georgia in August 1892, I was met at Thomson by a wildly enthusiastic crowd of four or five thousand men.

Was borne upon their shoulders to a carriage decorated with festoons of flowers, and was driven to a stand which had been erected in a pine grove opposite to the Henry O. Williams Place — where Alexander H. Stephens made his last speech in this country.

Addressed the crowdi for two hours — arraigning the Democratic party for its violation of platform pledges and its departure from Jeffersonian principles.

After resting a few days at home, I entered into the most heated campaign ever known in Georgia. It is hard to convey in words an idea of the bitterness with which I was attacked and the deathless devotion with which I was defended. After a brief preliminary canvas of the district, I arranged a series of joint debates with my opponent, Hon. J. C. C. Black. He met me five times and refused (through his managers) to meet me further.

During the canvas I was "howled down" in Augusta, Ga., and Atlanta.*

At no place did I escape incivilities or insults.

My district having been "gerrymandered" l)y the democrats I was at a disadvantage in Hancock and Wilkinson counties. They had not belonged to my district when I was elected and therefore did not understand the issues upon which I had defeated Hon. Geo. T. Barnes.

Having refused to leave my place in Congress to come home and open the campaign I found that my opponents had largely forestalled me in those counties.

I carried all of my old counties by large majorities — excepting the home county of Hon. J. C. C. Black.

In Wilkinson the vote was almost a tie — though they refused to allow about one hundred of my votes. Hancock was "declared" against me by 800 majority, but in fact I carried it. R. H. Lewis has since admitted that I carried it by 800 majority but that they changed the ballots so as to give it to Black.

In Richmond County the most unprecedented frauds were committed. Not only were hundreds of voters imported from South Carolina but intimidation, bribery, and "repeating" was done to such an extent that a county which by the U. S. Census has only 45,000 inhabitants cast nearly 13,000 votes. By the

* Atlanta is not in the 10th Congressional district.

LIFE OF THOS. E. WATSON 215

report of the Comptroller General of the state for 1893 Richmond County had 11,466 in 1892 and cast 12,558 votes.

In other words if every man in the county had voted they would have had only 11,466 votes, whereas they actually got 12,558.

Leaving out Richmond, I won. But they kept all the votes legal and illegal and gave Mr. Black the certificate.

* * * *

This Feb. 4, 1894

(In addition to what I said on pages 528-9) I may add it was almost a miracle that 1 1 was not killed in the campaign of 1892. Threats against my life were frequent and there were scores of men who would have done the deed and thousands who would have sanctioned it. Fear of the relation which my friends wouki inflict prevented my assasination — nothing else.

A negro preacher who was making speeches was shot at — and the shot was fatal to Mr. Hall, of Jefferson County.

A mob threatened him here in Thomson and it became necessary for me to place him in my back-yard for protection. My premise being threatened on that account my friends had to assemble and remain under arms for a day and night. About sixty men with Winchester rifles convinced the Democrats that the dangers of collision with us were too serious to be risked.

On the day of the election the Governor had troops ready in Atlanta and Augusta to "move on" Thomson. Special engines were fired up and ready in the roundhouse.

Gov. Northern, himself publicly said that I ought to be killed and to a very considerable extent he represented Democratic sentiment.

February, 1894

On page 542 ma^^ be found a newspaper clipping, — (the clipping) — "Frank Jordan, of Sparta, had the misfortune the other day to find

out where Tom Watson was 'at' when he hurrahed on the train for

Black and said Watson had deserted the democratic party and sold out

to the republicans. To Jordan's suprise he found out in a pair of

seconds where the fiery young congressman was 'at' " which alluded to my thrashing a man whom the Sparta politicians had incited to put a public insult upon me.

This incident so maddened the Democrats of Washington, Ga., that when I went up there two days afterwards to have a debate with Judge Lawson, they mobbed me at the depot and insulted me in the most outrageous manner. It was cowardly in the extreme for my friends had all left town and I was practically alone.

In 1893 when I advertised a meeting there, these cowardly ruffians were so much in fear that I would retaliate upon them, that they sought protection from the Governor and again he ordered the military called out and put under arms.

Held the meeting all the same and won the; moral victory — for thousands of Democrats condemned the Governor's course and commended mine.

During the summer of 1893 I made a canvas of the entire State. Enormous crowds attended and the People's Party strength greatly increased.

216 THE WATSOXIAN

February 1894

Altho the Democratic majority in Congress is overwhelming and the hope of justice at their hands is slight yet I feel it to be my duty to make a record of the frauds committed to "down" me.

To obtain evidence in Richmond county was of course difficult, but we did tlie best we could. The Democrats introduced no testimony in rebuttal at all.

The case is now pending and I am pressing it to a hearing.

January, 1895.

The Committee on Privilege and Elections made a unanimous report against me, and the House seated Mr. Black without allowing me a hearing.

There was no member of my party on tlie Committee, Hon. Lafe Pence (Populist) did all in his power to secure me a hearing but failed. Many Demo- crats dodged the vote and my case was decided by less than a quorum.

* * * *

THE CAMPAIGN OF 1894

The Peoples Party Convention met in Alay. I was made Chairman of it, and also was elected Chairman of the State Ex. Committee.

Judge James K. Hines was nominated for Governor.

To reach the city and town people with our side of the discussion I started a daily paper on July 4th, The Daily Press.

Canvassed the state for Judge Hines inaking sixty odd speeches. Edited the paper, also, and managed the campaign.

The temper of the opposition had moderated greatly. Democrats were split into factions which hated each other fiercely. Hon. W. T. Atkinson, the Democratic nominee had made many foes in his own party by the character of his contest for the nomination. His opponent was Gen. C. A. Evans, an eminent Methodist preacher.

The fact that I had anticipated Evans' defeat for the nomination, and had secured the nomination of Judge Hines, a prominent Methodist, by our party, caused us to get a large vote from the disgusted Democrats.

We doubled our 1892 vote. Hines received 96,000 votes by Democratic count. In many counties, precinct returns were thrown out upon technical grounds by Democratic managers — provided the returns were in our favor.

How many votes we lost by these illegal proceedings we can not tell. The returns from forty odd counties were held back week after week apparently for the purpose of altering them.

Atkinson was declared elected by about 20,000 votes. As a matter of fact Hines beat him.

But even this reduction of majority frightened the Democrats immensely. They had defeated Peel by the majority of 80,000 — as they claimed, — and to lose 60,000 votes at one slide was unprecedented.

The effect was to incite them to more fraud in the Congressional elections. Such a carnival of crime was never before seen in Georgia, as we had in No- vember 1894. Bribery was unconcealed "repeating" was openly done upon system, whiskey was commoner than water, and riot and bloodshed completed the picture.

LIFE OF THOS. E. WATSON 217

In my own race there was a greater demand than ever for Democratic fraud, for my strength had been greatly increased by the Republican policy of the Cleveland administration, by the shameless violation of all campaign pledges by the Democrats, and by the fact of all my predictions of hard times, to come from our vicious financial system, had been verified by the event.

I carried McDuffie, Columbia, Lincoln, Warren, Taliaferro, Jefferson, Glasscock, Washington and Wilkinson Counties. Mr. Black carried Richmond and Hancock and was declared elected!

In Hancock there was "repeating" and fraud, but it was a mere sprinkle compared to the deluge of the Richmond County vote.

Having less than 12,000 polls by the official county they stuffed the ballot boxes until they contained 18,000 votes! Of these they allowed me to have 2400.

Thus Mr. Black got a majority of more than 15,000 in a county whose entire voting population is less than 12,000!

A great cry of shame and indignation went up from every part of the state against such enormity of crime.

I employed attorneys and was making ready for another contest election case, and the fact that the Republicans had inflicted a crushing defeat on the Democrats in the North, East and West, gaining an overwhelming majority in the next congress, made it certain that my case, this time, would get a hearing and perhaps an honest decision.

Still there were many reasons why I did not fancy the idea of owing my seat in Congress to the Republicans.

Through the newspapers I made Mr. Black the proposition to appoint a Commission to purge the box of illegal votes — the legal ballot to decide who had won.

He declined but made a counter proposition to resign and have the election over. I accepted.

His resignation is to take effect March 4th, 1895 and by the terms of our agreement the special election is to be held within 30 days.

Most of my friends think I have made a huge mistake.

I cannot believe it. The event will, I am sure, prove that I have done best for the party and myself.

These paragraphs give a vivid picture of the fraudulent way in which Mr. Watson was put out of Congress. Three times he renewed the struggle, three times the same methods were used against him ; then he quit — broken in purse, in energy, in spirit, and almost in mind. Afterwards he said in summing up these hardships "1 think I know how General Lee felt, as he rode away from Appomattox."

Here is a turning point in the life of Thomas E. Watson. His single term in Congress was by far the most beneficial to the Ameri- can people of any term of any congressman in the history of this republic. He deserved an endorsement term; his constituents gave it to him but the Augusta Democratic politicians cheated him out of it.

218 THE WATSONIAN

Had he returned to Congress the future would have been different for him as well as for the nation.

Populism was fast spreading and the Democrats knew that they must incorporate into their party the principles of the movement. With Mr. Watson in congress he would have continued his brilliant work. The masses all over the country would have more strongly advocated him and the fusion between the Democrats would have been without strife and the ticket "Bryon and Watson" would have gone into office. With Bryan in the White House, and Watson in the Vice President's Chair wonderful legislation for the masses would have been enacted. Four years as Vice President would have forced him to drop much of his combatent spirit and assume a more diplomatic manner. He would then no doubt have succeeded Bryan. Watson in the White House with his brilliant mind and unequalled intellect coupled with his love for the plain people would have made this nation a country for all people instead of a nation dominated by the money kings and privilege classes which are fast carrying the United States into a system of peonic slavery.

Yes, we are ahead of our story, but we thought it best to digress somewhat and give our opinion as to what this Augusta fraud meant to Thomas E. Watson and the nation.

Before proceeding further let us quote a few lines with reference to Mr. Watson's home life.

January 9th, 1895

A rainy day, witli never a break in the monotonj^ of the steady drip.

I am now in my 38th year and in the best of health. My finances are not seriously disordered although my expense and loss have been so great.

My wife is a picture of the sweet tempered devoted companion; and our son and daughter are all that we could wish.

And Louise,* the lost one, is not forgotten. Even now our hearts sink and the dull pain stirs in the unhealed wound every time we think of her.

In his 38th year and in the best of health let us now turn to the famous St. Louis Convention of the Populist Party held in July of 1896.

* This is the youngest daughter who died at the age of four. Mr. Watson was possessed of so highly a temperamental and emotional disposition that the death of Louise almost crazed him. These words nine months after the death will give the reader who did not read previous chapter, "The Dark Angel" an idea as to how the death of this little girl affected him. "But never to see her again; to hear her voice no more; to be greeted by her smile no more — this is the thought which breaks my heart and deadens my hope. GREAT GOD ! some day, some day, out of thy infinite compassion touch these weary souls with resignation and Hope." The lines which follow above were written six years after the death.

* + * *

219

LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE

644 N. W. 46 Street, Miami, Fla., July 14, 1928. Bishop James Cannon, Jr., Richmond, Va. Dear Sir:

Unable to attend the meeting you have called for July 18 at Asheville I offer this letter in an effort to do my bit in helE)ing defeat Al Smith.

The act of the democrats in running a candidate with the record of Gov. Smith on a dry platform approaches almost imbecihty in its unreasonable- ness. What can any friend of tem- perance hope for on any sort of a dry promise from a man like Smith? Did he not upon taking the oath as gover- nor of New York swear to uphold the constitution of the United States and then secure the enactment of the Mullan-Gage law which withdrew all support of the law making machinery of his state from the upholding of a part of that constitution? He did not swear to support only those parts with which he agreed. He gave his solemn pledge to support ALL the constitu- tion as the law of the land — the will of the majority — and he violated his oath just as he would violate any plat- form or election promise should it prove to run counter to his own in- fallible conclusions. If this nation is to endure as a free republic it can only do so by the full acceptance of, and the unhesitating respect for the will of the majority as its law. By the signing of the Mullan-Gage act Alfred E. Smith set up the will of a minority as paramount to the will of the majority and in doing so he shamelessly trod the miry ground of treason, helped break down the national respect for constituted authority, and set in mo- tion a revolt of the disgruntled against all law. Had he been fair, had he been honest, had he been of that finer mould of which statesmen are made,

he would have unswervingly stood for the strict enforcement of the 18th Amendment until it had either given prohibition a fair trial or l)een repealed by the wll of the majority. Surely, a man of the instability and inability of Al Smith is not of the stuff of which presidents of this great country should be made.

While the liquor record of Gov. Smith is such as to cause all friends of prohibition to earnestly combat his .election, may I suggest there is also another important issue which must and will be fought out in this campaign. To call this issue the religious issue is a misnomer. Assuredly we have no quarrel with Al Smith or any other man because of his religion so long as it is religion. But when a powerful organization under the guise, of re- ligious creeds and dogmas strives for temporal domain and power to compel acceptance of its doctrines and obed- ience to its laws, it passes beyond the realm of things spiritual and strikes at the very foundations of human liber- ty. And that is something about which ever}' red blooded American has something to say and will have his say regardless of any charge of narrow- ness, bigotry or intolerance.

In the Smitb-Marshall deblate in the Atlantic Monthly for May, 1927 much space was devoted to a dis- cussion as to how Catholic law should be interpreted. What difference does it make how anyone on this side of the Atlantic interprets that law? The question of vital moment is: How does the church itself interpret its laws in those countries where it has authority to compel obedience? What answer does Spain and other European and South American countries give to this question? Not one protestant church or place of public worship for non catholics can you find in all Spain.

220

THE WATSONIAN

And the same is true of the other coun- tries mentioned. But what else can we expect from a church that has taught for a thousand years and at this hour declares that it not only has the right to destroy, but that it is its sacred duty to wipe out all heretics, herecies and opposition. Even here in America it boldly and audaciously sets itself up as the only authority that can in keep- ing with the laws of God set a seal upon marriage, burj' the dead or save souls from eternal damnation.

The supporters of Al Smith loudly proclaimed that his reply to Marshall must silence all criticism of their can- didate because of his religious affilia- tions. But let me ask have there been any Protestant churches built in Spain or other catholic ridden countries since this famous reply? Has the Catholic church in this country made one single gesture towards acknowledging the sanctity of a protestant or secular mar- riage, opened any of its cemeteries for the repose of non-catholic dead or in any way admitted that protestant min- isters of the Gospel might have as strong a hold on divine grace as the priests of Rome, since Al Smith is- sued his erudite epistle on the equality of the churches?

For 1500 years the catholic structure has builded not upon the loving call of a divine saviour to a lost world, but upon force. Force to compel accep- tance of its creed and obedience to its will. It was the damning record of these centuries of intolerance and op- pression that had bound down the peo- ple of Europe in abject poverty, vasal- lage and ignorance until goaded to rebellion, that stirred Jefferson and our revolutionary fathers to cry out against such intolerance to fight the union of church and state and to finally give this nation a constitutional guarantee of religious liberty. Yet we now be- hold the shameful spectacle of our pseudo statesmen and would be demo-

cratic leaders doing violence to the memory of Jefferson by using his work and words to place if possible a catho- lic in the presidential chair and thus offer a national apology for the fight our forefathers made and an approval of the very things thej' fought against.

The catholic hierarchy is as em- phatic in its declarations for the union of church and state today as it ever was. It is as intent upon the attain- ment of temporal power and as insis- tent upon its right to destroy heretic and heresy and to compel all men to accept its creed as in the days of the inquisition. Indeed, it is today doing these very things, the things that Jef- ferson and his compatriots fought so bitterly, in every country where it has the power to do them. And I submit that to elect as president of this nation a man who bows to the dictum of Rome is to rebuke Jefferson and the revolutionary fathers anci acquiesce, and approve, indirectly at least, the claims of an arrogant, undemocratic and despotic Catholicism.

If Al Smith wants the votes of real Americans, if he wishes to carve for himself a place in history, let him be- come a red blooded American patriot and stand for those eternal principles of right our forebears so nobly died for. Let him rise to the stature of an American Martin Luther and nail another thesis to our political diet of Worms by leading the movement to cut American catholics forever loose from the archaic, wholly unAmerican and intolerant rule of Rome. If he is not big enough to do this then he is not big enough to be president of the United States of America. And if he does not want to do this then he is un- worthy the consideration of any true American voter.

Believing that in the momentious issues at stake in this campaign the hour has struck for every true Ameri- can to do his full duty I hereby offer

LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE

221

myself to do what I can either through the press or on the platform to help in securing the triumph of those princi- ples which insure the safeguarding and perpetuity of American institutions and ideals. I am at j'our service. Sincerelj-,

William Richard Twiford. * * * *

THOMAS E. WATSON, THE LAWYER

(By Judge C. J. Ramage, of the Saluda, S. C. Bar)

The writer of this article knew Senator Watson for many years, read all that Watson ever wrote, and kept in touch with him as long as he lived. When we speak of lawyers, we refer to three kinds — those who are strong in the law, that is, those who have great legal knowledge and facili- ty of finding what the Courts have decided; another class are those who are strong on the facts, and still anoth- er class who are simply members of the bar, but who have no peculiar fa- cility in any way and are mere make- shifts.

I should class Senator Watson as a great FACT lawyer. He himself disclaimed any extensive acquaintance with what is known as CASE law but he learned the principles from Kent and Blackstone and from his long practice at the bar. Now it takes a better mind to be a good fact lawyer than it does simply to pore over the law and see what the courts have de- cided. A man may know a great deal bf law and yet be unable to apply it in the court house. I remember reading a book by Col. Reed of the Atlanta Bar and he makes this statement. That the mere lawyer fetches and carries for the LION OF THE FACTS. Ben Hill, Stephens, H. V. Johnson and Howell Cobb were fact lawyers rather than case lawyers. I understand from reading Mr. Watson's books that Gen- eral Toombs was both strong on the

law and facts.

Mr. Watson had many things in his makeup that conducted to success at the bar before juries.

First: He had an almost uncanny knowledge of humanity. He could read the thoughts of people with whom he came in contact and could get be- neath the surface and lay bare what they were trying to conceal. This joined with his intellectuality and his quickness, made him a great cross examiner. .._.No man could stand be- fore him long and stick to a lie. The man might not come out and admit that he was lying but Watson would soon convince the Court and Jury that the witness was lying and that was all chat was needed. Hence, in the break- ing down of the other side, Watson was preeminent. That is a very use- ful attribute in a lawyer to put the other side on the defensive, to batter down its case by sheer force and to discredit it with the jury. I say ad- visedly that no man ever surpassed Watson in this respect. He went through the enemy like a 14-inch shell and left devastation all around. In other words, he literally blew to pieces all the positions of his opponents.

Secondly: Watson could take a small opening in the armor of the ad- versary, a small crevice so to speak, in the other side and he could insert a dynamite shell that would have disas- trous results. I never saw his equal in this respect. Woe to the man who left exposed even the smallest bit of fraud or inconsistency or untruth. Watson seized upon this and soon had the enemy netted and snared, or to use one of his pet terms, "hogtied." Little things that would escape the ordinary lawyer, were caught by his eagle eye and no one knew so well how to use them as he. It is stated that many times he would not put up testimony and get the last speech and lay hold of httle discrepancies and with liis un-

222

THE WATSONIAN

equalled gift of advocacy would destroy the case of the other side that looked at first to be impregnable.

Thirdly: He had a most wonderful memory. I doubt if he ever forgot anything. Testimony and circum- stances stuck in his memory like pitch. This put him at a great advantage in the trial of a case. While the lawyer on the other side was pouring over his notes, Watson's retentive and logi- cal mind would have the fact "on tap" and thus he could use it before the slower brother on the other side could get his hearings and finally when his opponent did realize what had hap- pened, Watson had gotten the full ben- efit of the situation with the jury and the opposing counsel might as well beat his head against a brick wall as to attempt to undo wiiat Watson had accomplished. He saw the whole case in all its bearings and his genius il- luminated it all like a flash of light- ning.

Fourthly: Watson was the great- est debater I have ever known; I do not think his superior as a contro- versalist ever lived, especially in our day and time. At least I have never known his superior in all my reading and experience. His mind seemed in- stinctively to know how to arrange for the combat; how to fix his own breastworks and defences; how to get the other side to make certain conces- sions and statements — to take certain positions and then to swoop down on his opponent with the swiftness and power of the eagle and carry him off triumphantly, helpless and struggling. This was never better demonstrated than in the old Weekly Jeffersonian. I do not think that Watson ever ap- peared to better advantage than he did in the old Weekly. I wish I had cop- ies of that paper now. The same pow- er exhibited by Watson in his showing up of "Bode" and "Duck" way back yonder in the weekly made him great

as a trial lawyer. (The old Watson readers will remember the reference.)

Fifthly: Watson was great as an orator or as we lawyers say, as an ad- vocate. Here he was in his native element. The power of speech was with his instinctive. He was a born orator and a natural talker. Words flowed from his lips and pen with a precison and fluency that was mar- velous. Grammar, Rhetoric, Logic, Eloquence and all that was useful or great in human speech were his ser- vants and came at his beck and call. His power of speech and choice of words and facility of expression could be explained on no other ground than that they were the result of genius. As an orator, he was more like Ben Hill than any other Georgian. Toombs, Stephens, Ben Hill, H. V. Johnson, Crawford, Howell Cobb, Gordon, and Tom W^atson are the great Georgia orators. It is stated that Chief Justice Lumpkin was great as a jury advo- cate but on the hustings he never ap- peared.

Watson could appeal to the emo- tions, to the reasoning powers, to the sense of laughter — in other words he could draw tears and laugiiter at his will — could run the whole gamut of the emotional powers of an audience with the skill and power of a master.

No man ever had such a hold on a Southern audience as he had and he has left a reputation as an orator second to none.

\\'hile in active practice, he stood at the head of the criminal bar of Georgia. Here his greatness and power had full scope and plaj' and no man could touch him in those appeals to the elemental principles of our nature that go far to determine verdicts on the criminal side of our Courts.

Mr. Watson was a lawyer by nature and he took those positions that de- termined the case by reason of the logical nature of his mind. He was a

ADVERTISEMENT

223

natural reasoner and logician and as law ought to be founded on these things, he simply took the positions that will in the end win out after the smoke has cleared away. In other words, where the ordinary lawyer ar- rived by a careful study of decided cases, Watson went at once by native genius and intuition.

Watson was a great constitutional lawyer. In this field he had evidently carefully studied the books on Consti- tutional law and the decisions of Mar- shall, Chase, Miller, Story, and Taney — the great masters of the Constitu- tional Law. He was not an extremist from the Southern standpoint. I think

that perhaps he agreed with Judge Taney more nearly than with any of tlie great expounders of the Constitu- tion. I think that Mr. Stephens was his guide on constitutional questions and that Watson followed closely in the footsteps of Little Alek, who was the sanest leader of the Southern side of his time. But be that as it may. Watson ranked great on his knowledge of the Constitution.

In all legal questions on which he expressed an opinion, he was general- ly right and his positions were found- ed on natural justice and on the law.

In my opinion Thomas E. Watson was a great lawyer — one of the great- est and best.

NEW EDITION

THE ITALIAN POPE'S CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AMERI- CAN CITIZENS

4th EDITION

By THOMAS E. WATSON

This is the latest tract from our press deahng with the Roman problem. It is timely and furnishes further infor- mation as to why Al Smith should be defeated.

TWENTY-FIVE CENTS POSTPAID $2.00 A DOZEN

The Tom Watson Book Company

THOMSON, GEORGIA

224 THE WATSOXIAX

^*vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv%*».*%*%*»,»%*%*%»v%»*I**I**I*»I**I»»I»*I*«I*»J»*i^I»*I*^^

X

HANDBOOK

•^ TT A KJT\T^r\r\TZ ?

t

? OF I

I Politics and Economics I

I -^

¥ By I

y ♦

X THOMAS E. WATSON X

Y A

*t* Contains platforms of ever}' political party. Filled with y^

X valuable date, invaluable to speakers, writers, debaters and y

y y

y students. y

X y

y . . ^ y

X The ground-work of this volume was laid when INIr. Wat- *»*

X son was in Congress. y

i . . . ?

A Its purpose was to furnish a simple explanation of our *t*

X money laws and THEIR consequences; our method of Fede- *t*

X ral taxation and ITS consequences ; our system of granting X

♦|. Special Priviledges, and natural result. X

X - . . f,

•!♦ On practically every subject of importance, relating to X

♦!♦ jiarty politics, political history, financial legislation and A

*\* monetary history, economic questions, and statistics covering »**

•!• social and industrial conditions, this book is at once 4*

y t

¥ AN ENCYCLOPEDIA AND A COMMENTARY X

y y

•f No other volume offers such a varietv of such valuable ♦!•

y ■ • ' Y

y information. ♦:♦

y y

Y A

y Air. Watson just before his death overhauled it thorough- ♦!♦

y . . . ♦

X ly, revised it, and added much new matter on Economics, ♦,♦

y Finances. Socialism, the X^egro Question, and the Roman •♦•

y - . ''~ y

Y Catholic menace. y

y y

y y

X FOUR HUNDRED — SIXTY — NINE PAGES X

Y 't*

X $1.50 POSTPAID X

Y t A X

|: The Tom Watson Book Company :|

% THOMSON, GEORGIA *k

y y

-ira

M m V.

4 i-. « ;f .1

^ ?^: J3 ^'i

■M M ^M

& '^

m: .m

m M

sf m .% n.

•^ w .^•

# € « V- ..

■f i i 1 I'