The Watsonian [serial]

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