Слике страница

Hope's precious pearl In sorrow's cup

tTnmelted at the bottom lay,
To shine again when nil drunk up

And the bitterness should pass awny.

No longer held together by outward forces and barriers, but bound together by the ties of love and loyalty and the cling of section to section. East and West, North and South, to work together for the good of each and each for the good of all! One country! Old Glory is the standard, the banner of constitutional liberty in each and every section, and the South stands ready to follow wherever Old Glory bares her beauty to the breeze; one people, devoted to that great banner which hangs back of the chair of the able Vice President of the United States.

Mr. President, I can not give my consent to have any banner, church pennant, or anything else fly above our flag. I will not agree that it is necessary to put it above it in order to announce religious services. I say that it would be better to set up a pole on the side of the ship and place a church notice there, because the flying of church pennants is not the .sort of worship that appeals most to Jesus Christ our Lord. It is not by these outward signs, this pomp and show, that have no religion in them. Religion is a contrite heart, a humility of spirit, earnest devotion, and faithful service to the Christ of God, the Son of Man, the Savior of the world.

I challenge the strange doctrine that you have got to lower the United States flag and put this Roman cross above it in order to be accessible to a throne of grace. I challenge the doctrine that this Government should permit it for a moment. It ought not to permit it. We are going on record as to whether or not we will permit it. I ask again why this particular flag was adopted by the Navy?

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I explained to the Senate on yesterday the circumstances in connection with this matter, and it seems to me the explanation is perfectly clear.

Mr. HEFLIN. I like the Senator personally. I hope he will not get out too far into the water on this particular question.

Mr. HALE. I was not alive when the church pennant was adopted, and the Senator was not alive. It has been in use in the Navy for probably 150 years—since the very beginning of the Navy. We have records showing that it was referred to in 1867, and in all probability the flag that is now used was taken over when we started our Navy, and its use was in accordance with the English tradition. They had the same custom in their own navy. The Senator referred to this as a "Roman Catholic flag." What does he mean by a "llomau Catholic flag"? I did not know there was such a flag.

Mr. HEFLIN. Well, the- Senator is not able to discu.ss this matter with me if he does not know that [Laughter.]

Mr. HALE. There is a cross on this flag, and there is also a cross on the Red Cross flag. Does the Senator say that is a Roman Catholic flag?

Mr. HEFLIN. I am speaking about this particular one.

Mr. HALE. But I should like to have the Senator explain what he means by a "Roman Catholic flag." This is purely a uonsectarian flag; it has nothing to do with any religious denomination in any way whatsoever.

Mr. HEFLIN. Has not the Senator ever seen a cross flying on the Catholic banner around their institutions and in their parades, and in other places?

Mr. HALE. Does the Senator mean to say that the cross may not be used at all on any banner in this country?

Mr. HEFLIN. If the people want to use a cross, of course, Christ was crucified on a cross; but I do not propose for Catholics in the Navy, if I must speak plainly, to prescribe what pennant shall be' used to the exclusion of all others, and I deny that this particular pennant has been used all along by our Navy—the order permitting the use of this one seems to have been issued recently. So now in the Navy it seems that when other denominations worship they are compelled to have the United States flag lowered and this particular Catholic pennant put above It

Mr. HALE. The cross Is not a Catholic symbol in this case in any possible way, shape, or manner. The only Catholic flag that I ever heard of is the flag of the Vatican, which, I understand, has a cross on a black and yellow field, and on that cross Is superimposed the corpus; that is, the figure of the body of Christ. I understand that to be the Vatican flag. I have not seen that flag myself, but I have heard it so described.

Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator is more familiar with the Vatican and its flag than I am.

Mr. HALE. This question has nothing to do with any such flag as that.

Mr. HEFLIN. That is what I said, that it was designed on the order of the Vatican flag, and the Catholics are well pleased with it

Mr. HALE. It is not in any way a sectarian flag, and I can not see why the old custom of the Navy should be changed because the Senator objects to the particular flag which is used.

Mr. HEFLIN. I will ask the Senator, does lie believe that any flng or pennant should be put above the American flag? What is the necessity for it? Does the Senator believe that the people of Maine want that flag lowered by any denomination and another flag put above it?

Mr. HALE. I do not think the people of Maine would in any way be disturbed by the Navy keeping up the custom that it has always kept up. The move to put that flag over the other flag was a religious move; certainly not a sectarian move. It was done in order to do reverence and honor to religion, no particular religion but to religion in general.

Mr. HEFLIN. But this I understand Is not the pennant always used. How would the Senator stand on fixing up a banner of American design and putting that up there with a little red schoolhouse on it? That would represent the publicschool system of America, the bulwark of American liberty. The Roman hierarchy and political machine of Rome are deadly enemies of the little red schoolhonse that opens the door of education and opportunity to every boy and girl in (he country.

Mr. HALE. The hierarchy and political machine of Rome, to which the Senator refers, have nothing to do with this question in any way in the mind of anyone except the Senator from Alabama.

Mr. HEFLIN. I regret that the Senator feels that way about it; but let the people of Maine help him to determine that question.

Mr. HALE. I am perfectly willing to leave it to the people of Maine.

Mr. HEFLIN. I am satisfied that the Senator is going to be questioned about it, because this serious matter means a great deal to informed wide-awake Americans. They do not want these things put over their public servants at the Capitol, some of whom seem to be stone blind and deaf with regard to this important American matter.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Mr. President, will the Senator permit me to suggest also that the Army chaplain's flng is a Latin cross in white on a blue ground.

Mr. HEFLIN. I am going to take both of them down. [Laughter.] I will ask the Senator from Pennsylvania if he does not think it would be better to put those banners or pennants somewhere else below the United States flag rather than above it?

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. In the Army there are not any masts, so they can not put one above the other.

Mr. HEFLIN. Why not?

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. Because the Army does not have any masts.

Mr. HEFLIN. They put the flag up and fasten it to a pole.

Mr. REED of Pennsylvania. They do not put two flags on the same pole.

Mr. HEFLIN. They can lower the American flag on the pole and put the Roman cross above it. Senators can not get away from this issue by reciting statements here that were taught them by Roman Catholic chaplains of the Navy. [Laughter.] I am familiar with them.

I want to remind the Senator of another thing. A Protestant boy on one of the battleships was beat up by some of the officers and men. He seems to have struck nu officer a backhanded lick, not knowing he was there. It seemed that he had been drinking. It was his first offense. When he discovered that he had struck an officer be never touched him any more and did not hurt him at all seriously. That boy has been transferred to another ship. He and one other were the only two Protestants on that ship; among the whole outfit there were just two Protestant sailors, and there is only one of them now.

These things Just do not happen in this way. I am talking to you about matters that vitally affect this Government. The Bible says, "My people perish for lack of knowledge." Some countries perish for lack of courage in their public men. Now, here Is what happens with some of them: This Roman machine slips around; it keeps in touch with Protestants it can use. It tells them, "If you will do this and do that we will give you the Catholic vote." You never get such Protestants to open their mouths for Protestant institutions or for American free institutions any more. Such men are not worth 5 cents any more to the cause of the country; but they get enough of that vote and by pussyfooting and whispered conversations do get elected; and when you bring up the question of the sovereignty of this Government, supreme power of the flag, they say, "That is all right; sure, that is all right. That just happens to be a cross, and the Pope has got one just like it pn the Vatican, but what of It?" That is fine logic, is it not?

Now I am going to give you a chance to say whether or not any pennant shall fly above the American flag. I am going to ask the Senator from Maine if he will vote for a resolution that will declare it to be the fixed policy of this Government that no flag or pennant shall fly above the American flag?

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, I do not object to the question of the Senator in any way. If we are going to have any nction on that matter that involves a change in the whole procedure of the Navy iu this respect, I should think it should go before the Senate Committee on Naval Affairs to see whether or not there is any rhyme or reason in the request. Certainly I should not object to that.

Mr. HEFLIN. From what the Senator knows about it now, with the question up as to whether or not the pennant should fly above or below the American flag, which way would the Senator vote?

Mr. HALE. Does the Senator mean after the argument that he has made whether I would agree with him? If so, I must certainly say that I would not, and I do not believe that there are 10 Senators iu the Chamber who would.

Mr. HEFLIN. We will give the Senator an opportunity to see, and I am going to predict that the Senator will receive a number of telegrams from Maine to-morrow.

Mr. HALE. The Senator from Maine will be delighted to have them.

Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator may speak his convictions and those of the Jesuits and others who do not want that pennant pulled down from above and put under the American flag, but he is not speaking the sentiments of the rank and flle of Maine. I have been in Maine; I have spoken there; I know those people and they do not agree with him on tills question. They do not want any flag hoisted above that flag; and when the Senator stands on this floor and becomes the champion of the Roman Catholic chaplains and the hierarchy, to keep that Roman cross above the flag, he is taking upon himself a considerable job.

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, the Senator knows that what he is saying is not based on facts in any way, shape, or manner whatever. He knows, if he has any intelligence, that that is not a Roman Catholic flag, and he has no right to call it Much:

Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator is improving in his defense of tlie hierarchy. I assert that it is the Roman Catholic papal banner.

Before I pass from this point, let me say that just yesterday, after the Senator from Maryland objected to the passage of the resolution, I saw that this Roman Catholic anointed of the Pope, Nobile, is to fly to the North Pole, and here is a picture on the front page of the Wasliingtou Times showing the cnrdlnnls, and the Pope amongst them, anointing him. They have got a cross made out of a tree that grew iu the garden of the Vatican; and Nobile, before he sets out on his mission, is blessed and anointed, and he agrees to pray, when he plants that cross on the top of the world, in (he name of the Pope, whom they claim is the supreme power of the world.

I just wish the Senator from Maine could have gone there and witnessed that. If he had done that, he would have been in better position to defend them. This man is going up to drop that cross, to plant it in the ice. I imagine that a hundred years from now, when trips will frequently be made there, they will find that thing looking as though it grew up out of the ice, and there will be a lot of pilgrims who will swear that Christ himself put it there. Oh, it would have been glorious for the Senator from Maine to have been present on that occasion.

Mr. President, I have here a picture of the battleship Florida. There is Old Glory, drawn down a couple of feet or more; and up goes tlie Roman cross, flying to the breeze. In spite of the imagination of the Senator from Maine, it is flying there in the picture. I received a letter from a patriotic citizen who sent it to me, and he asked me why we did not look after that situation and change it. He said that he did not want to see any flag fly above our flag. Yet I encounter opposition from the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Maine when I raise the question as to which flag should fly in the uppermost place, when I contend for the right of our flag to be first, the right to have it fly with no other flag challenging its supreme authority. There is but one excuse you can give me—one of two. One is that the Romans want it there; the other is that Old Glory is not fit to fly first.

Mr. President, that flag flics over the great American housebold in which is sheltered religious freedom in America. But for that flag and its sovereign power. I would not have the right to worship as I choose; neither would you, nor the people here who hear me. It is by the sovereign power which that flag represents that I am entitled to worship as I choose. It is that flng. and what it represents, that gives every man and woman in the country the right to kneel down and worship God as lie or she sees fit; tlie right of congregations throughout

the country to repair to their churches on Sunday, whether they are plain log houses, brick, or stone, and conduct their services as they choose; and yet the Pope of Rome, Piust IX, declares in his doctrine that the State lias no right to permit the citizen to have tlie religion of his choice. He declares in his doctrine, following that, that tlie Roman Church has the right to set up the Roman Catholic religion as the exclusive religion, and to exclude ail other religions but the Roman Catholic religion.

Cardinal Gibbons, of Maryland, said:

Nowhere In recorded history can you flncl a single instance where the doctrine Iiiid down by any Pope was ever condemned or repudiated by another Tope. The doctrine of one Pope becomes the doctrine of all Popes, unchangeable and eternal.

Now, if that doctiine is taught in this land of ours—and it Is—wliy do we sit here with folded arms, having eyes to see and seeing not, and ears to hear and hearing not. when they are pulling down our flag upon the battleships and elsewhere and flying the Roman cross above it?

Let me read to you what is being taught iu the parochial schools of America right on this subject.

Tliis is from the Manual of Christian Doctrine, and so forth, forty-fourth edition. It bears the imprimatur of Cardinal Dougherty as an approved textbook. The system of instruction is by question and answer. I quote two or three samples of the instruction that is now being given to our American children iu Catholic parochial schools:

Q. May the state separate itself from the church?—A. No; because It may not withdraw from the supreme rule of Christ.

Q. What name Is given to the doctrine that the state has neither the right nor the duty to be united to the church to protect it?—A. Tliig doctrine is called liberalism. It is founded principally on the fact that modern society is founded on liberty of conscience and worship and liberty of speech and of the press.

Q. Why is liberalism to be condemned?—A. Because it denies all subordination of the state to the church.

That is being taught in the parochiirt schools of America. One of the fundamental doctrines of this Nation is the separation of church and state—religious freedom—that every man, woninn. and child may worship God as they choose. That is left to the citizen to decide; but here we are confronted with the doctrine »f the Roman Catholic hierarchy, backed by the Roman Catholic political machine, with Al Smith as its chief head, trying to become President of tlie United States, claiming delegates right and left.

He has not got 500, and some of them are in question, and there will be contests at the convention. He is claiming 659. This little squirrel-headed fellow up here iu the press gallery named Fox has claimed about enough to nominate him. They say Senator Reed is as mad as a wet hen, if he will excuse the slang; that they are claiming his delegates and claiming other delegates; and now they bring forth the startling statement from Tammany that the thing that concerns them most is how to keep from nominating him on the first ballot!

What do you think of that? There never has been such a campaign made in the history of this country. My judgment Is that there never has been so much money spent iu any one man's campaign. I think a great deal has been spent in Mr. Hoover's campaign. I think the metropolitan press has determined to nominate Hoover for the Republicans, and Smith for the Democrats, and I think the hierarchy would be satisfied with either. Of course, they would like to have their own dear Al Smith, but they are not going to get him; and I do not think Hoover is going to be nominated. I think the Vice President has some chance: I think Frank Lowden has some chance; but I am inclined to think that you will nominate either Hughes or Coolidge. Put that in your pipes and smoke it until the convention and see how it works. [Laughter.]

Why are the leading Republicans trying to get Smith nominated? Why are the Republican Washington Post and these little Republican pen pushers boosting Smith and just trying to shove him right over on us? Because they know that if we nominate him, you Republicans will get in a room and you will laugh your sides sore. [Laughter.! You will say. "By golly! They did it. We can go fishing now." [Laughter. 1 You know you can beat him by ten or fifteen million votes, and that is why you are trying to put him on us. I want you to stop it [laughter] because I think something of the future of my party; the well-being of the Democratic Party.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The occupants of the galleries will be in order.

Mr. HEFLIN. It looks like the Democratic Party is fast becoming the only champion of the flag. The leader from Maine has gone back 011 it. The Senator from Pennsylvania was about to get Into the lake. The Senator from Maryland— may the Lord have mercy on his soul! [Laughter.]

Here is a little fellow called Rothwell Brown. Rothwell Is a pretty bright squib writer. He writes the " Postscripts," and he Is properly the postscript. Listen what he observes about this race of Governor Smith's:

If Senator Jim Rekd wore as philosophical us Senator Wai.sh, he would realize that If Al Smith is finally turned down because he is a Catholic the Democratic nomination for President would be Just ahout as valuable to any other candidate Ob a plugged nickel In a Broadway night club.


I)o you understand how to count notches on a mile post, or to interpret figures on a cat-faced pine? Then there is a threat to the party that the Roman Catholic hierarchy will bolt; that unless we do their bidding, and accept their chosen candidate, they will vote some other ticket. Of course they will. That is nothing new for them. I understand they have interrogated these candidates for President a little.

I advocated this resolution to raise a committee to investigate the.se slush funds, and I am satisfied that there are Senators on that committee who are going to make something out of the Investigation. You are going to investigate in earnest, and not let it be a farcical performance to whitewash somebody. I understand that Governor Smith gave out a statement that he had not even authorized anybody to give anything for him, and he had not asked anybody to act as treasurer. Why, of course not. Those are the Tammany tactics. Somebody else does that; and you note this: He has not made a speech in a single State in the Union outside of New York. He has not discussed national issues once. You will pardon me if I tell you J do not think he can. [Laughter.] I do not think he is presidential timber. I do not think he is big enough to fill that office. 1 do not think the Nation ought to accept a Tammanyite of that stripe for the office of President.

Grover Cleveland denounced and repudiated Tammany. Bryan, whose voice sounded around this Nation like a trumpet call, denounced and repudiated Tammany. Woodrow Wilson, a great man. twice elected President, denounced and repudiated Tammany. Her history is covered with the slime of crookedness and corruption from its birth time; and yet the great Democratic Party, which has produced some of the ablest men that ever adorned public life in this country, is now called upon to accept that man to be the leader of the host of Democracy; and we are threatened, like that Rothwell Brown squib, and others say that if we do not accept him they will bolt the party, and bring it to defeat.

Are we ready to heed those threats? Is the South ready to accept the threat against her, that Governor Smith and his bunch would punish the South by opposing measures which would benefit the South unless we fell in line and supported Smith? Yet that is a fact. Even the Washington Post had an editorial on that, and condemned them for employing those tactics. They went down in Virginia and made that speech. There is a publication gotten out by Doctor Scharf, a Roman Catholic, who is aiding Smith in the South, to the effect that they bolted in 1924, and that they would bolt again If Smith were not nominated.

What are they saying to us, in effect? Rothwell Brown has said that if the Democrats of America decided to nominate a Protestant Instead of a Catholic, the Catholics would bolt. That is what they are saying. There is not any other way to express it but to tell the blunt truth about it. They are saying in their Catholic papers, "If you do not nominate Smith, the party will commit suicide." What is that equivalent to saying? "We are demanding his nomination, and if you do not accept him, we are going to bolt."

I say to loyal Democrats, you have no business considering a man like that as a candidate of the Democratic Party. He has no right or claim upon leadership in the party, or upon the support of Democrats.

That last move by Tammany was interesting; that the thing that was troubling them was how they were going to prevent a stampede to Smith, with Smith being nominated on the first ballot. They hope to avoid that! Are they not considerate and kind? They do not want to hurt the feelings of the favorite sons. Some Democrats are going to have a hard time ever emerging from this wreck that Is coming if that fellow is nominated and they vote for him. You will see some of them after It Is all over and ask. "How are you?" A great many of them will be lame and halt, and they will be saying, "I am poorly"; and they will be poorly.

And now Tammany is saying: "All we have to do now Is to hold them back, and do not let them nominate him on the first ballot!" That is the only thing that is troubling them.

That reminds me of old Rufus, who joined the church when he was 80, and the parson said, " Some of you " niggers" stayed out of the church all your lifetime. I am going to give you a chance to say something now. I have got my eye on one who has been out all his life, and now he is 80 years old," looking at old Rufus. Old Rufus looked pious and blinked, and then got »ip and said, "As fur as I is individually concerned, the way is clear, dry, and smooth, just like the ceiling. They ain't no rocks or roots or stumps in the way. All I has to do is to walk right up to the pearly gates and go right in. The only thing that's troubling me is how is I gwine to get my shirt on over my wings." Old Rastus, a crap-shooting old fellow, sitting in the corner, rose up and said, "Yes, you old crap-shootin' devil, you; your trouble's gwine to be how is you gwine git your hat on over your horns." [Laughter.] That is going to be Alfred's trouble at Houston. They are not going to be able to put the Democratic hat over the ears of that Tammany tiger. The moral forces in the Democratic Party will never accept that as leadership.

The Senator from Maryland rises in his place here and makes wet speeches, attacking the eighteenth amendment and the law-enforcement forces of the country, nearly every chance he gets. He did imagine at one time that Ritchie had some chance; but Ritchie spoke himself out up here at the Jackson Day banquet. He is now not much more than an aid society to Alfred E. Smith.

The Senator from Maryland stands up here talking about violation of the law, and what is going to happen. You remember last year in the debate with me he said that if a dry were nominated there would be a third party, and a wet would be nominated. Do you remember that? I thought about him the other night. I read a horrible story from Kentucky, of a mother with her two boys and her daughter and her sister living with her out beneath the' shades of her own roof tree; an American mother, entitled to protection, entitled to live undisturbed.

There was a stillhouse or two operating near her home. Her toys wwe being tempted. Her desire to rear them away from that miserable influence, her desire to see the law of the country enforced, her desire to have the Constitution lived up to, prompted her to walk 14 miles—an American mother, earnest enough to get out and walk the highway 14 miles in and 14 miles back—to quietly inform the officers of the law, of the law being broken, and of these evil influences near her home. It got out amongst the distillers that she had told. They gathered around her house at midnight and called one of her boys to the door, pretending to want to hire him to chop wood the next day. The boy agreed to do the work and he went back Into the house. They found who was there. In half an hour or more they were awakened by hearing the crackling of fire. The house was filled with smoke. Their house was afire, being consumed in a flood of flame—and all this right here in America.

Outlaws and thugs had gone there, lighted this house with a torch, and gathered around with their guns. The door had been fixed so that it could not be opened, and one of the boys had to break it down with an ax from within. Then one of the boys leaped out through the smoke and they shot him four or five times. He hollered that he was shot. That was the first sound that greeted his mother's ears as she followed, the cry of her offspring, of her eldest boy, who was shot down and murdered in her home. Then they shot her, and she passed away In a moment or two. They shot her sister and shot her other boy and her daughter.

There was a mother guarding her offspring from the road of ruin, aiding the constituted authorities of her country to enforce the law, murdered for being a good citizen, killed for opposing the conduct of criminals, and hearing the wails of her offspring dying before she passed away, right here in the United .States.

The outlaws, the criminal horde who attack the eighteenth amendment and the Volstead Act. are moving against the strongholds of the Government, shooting down mothers and killing their children, inspired by speeches made in this body, no doubt, and by other forces that are at work, since they feel that Al Smith, the Tammany wet, will soon be in charge, and the law will not be enforced, and the barrooms will come back, with all their attendant evils, these hell holes that haunted the Nation and dragged men and women down to ruin in the years that have gone; driven out by the prayers and the efforts of godly mothers and fathers in the country, by ministers of the gospel, by moral men and women, and now they are fighting to keep them out. Alfred Smith said in a speech in New York, we- are told, that be wanted the day to come back when he could put his foot on the bar rail and blow the foam from the glass.

You would bring back the barroom, Governor Smith? We have a serious problem with the negro now. We have the best negroes in the world, and we have some of the meanest, and your social-equality ideas, Governor Smith, are hurting us iu the South; already your dnnce halls in your home city of New York, where negro men dance with white women in New York City every night, present a mean and contemptible form of social equality.

Your effort to have the antilynching bill passed when your Democrats from Tammany would not vote with us was putting a premium on the crime of rape, and sowing dragon's teeth in the paths of white women in the South and in other sections of the country.

Governor Smith, you are not sound on that question; you are not sound on the whisky question; you are not sound on the great moral issues of the Nation. You are a Constitution nullifler. You withdrew your State from the Union so far as the eighteenth amendment is concerned. You bade defiance to that portion of the Constitution and announced in effect that you had no sympathy for it and no support for it in the action you took.

Now, Governor Smith, there is a doctrine in your church which declares that any part of the Constitution or laws condemned by the Pope is not binding on Catholics.

Not long ago, Governor Smith, the Delaware Express, a paper In the United States, took the college of cardinals to task for advising the repeal of the eighteenth amendment and the lawenforcement statutes of the United States, and that Delaware paper said that they were not taking their inspiration and directions from the Vatican in Rome, but were taking them from the people of this country, and that they relied upon the United States Congress to attend to these things.

Mr. President, on top of that, they are going around and digging up this money and pussyfooting about the country, slipping it here and yonder. It is hard to keep track of them. But you see the evil effects of their corrupt work.

I hope the campaign investigating committee will summon here the editor of the Asheville Citizen, of North Carolina, Mr. Webb. I want them to call him here and ask him if any contribution has been made to him or to his paper for the support of Governor Smith in North Carolina. I want the manager of his campaign in North Carolina subpoenaed, and I want the manager of his campaign in each congressional district subpoenaed, and asked who is furnishing the money they are using in North Carolina; asked the source of the financial aid they are getting.

I would like to have Mr. Wilbur Marsh, of Iowa, brought here, and Mayor Walker, of New York City, and others. There are some active up there, I understand, who are not in the city of New York; they are operating for Smith in this campaign on the Jersey side of the river. Let the committee inquire about them, and bring them down and see what they know about this question.

Mr. President, another word or two for the moment, and I will be through. Let me read you something interesting on this subject:

When a Catholic candidate Ib on a ticket and the opponent is a nonCatholic, let the Catholic candidate have the vote, no matter what he represents. (Catholic Review.)

A priest can not be forced to give testimony before a secular judge. (Tnberna, a papal theologian, vol. 2, p. 288.)

The Roman Catholic citizens of the United States owe no allegiance to any principles of the Government which are condemned by the Pope. (The Tablet—R. C.)

Undoubtedly, it is the intention of the Tope to possess this country. In this intention he is aided by the Jesuits and ail the Catholic prelates and priests. (Dr. O. A. Brownson—Catholic writer.)

Mnny non-Catholics fear us as a political organization and are afrnid that the Catholic Church will dominate and rule. We are working quietly, seriously, and, I may say. effectively to that end.

June number, 1909, of the Missionary Roman Catholic:

We can have the United States in 10 years, and I want to give you

three points for your consideration: The Indians, the negroes, and the

common schools.

They will get control of the common schools of America. The next time I discuss this question I am going to tell how they captured the common schools of a large city, a city of considerable importance, and just what happened to the institution after they got charge of it, how they ignored the requests of the Protestants and how they have filled the places of teachers with Catholics.

I nm going to call attention now to a bill introduced In the Legislature of New York a few years ago providing a penalty for any agency to go out in the rural districts seeking a school for a son or a daughter or a neighbor and telling what church

they belonged to. At the hearings It was disclosed that the Knights of Columbus objected to the present way of doing these things because they said Catholics were discriminated against. If the Protestant people out in the communities were told that the person seeking a school was a Catholic they would not employ him or her, but wanted a Protestant. Think of that. Senators! Why should not they have Protestant teachers if they wanted them? Would you muzzle a Protestant community and deny it the right to have n Protestant to teach Protestant children? That is what that Catholic move sought to do.

Senators, did you know that Governor Smith offered an amendment to the State constitution of New York proposing to repeal the present provision which provides that no subdivision of the State or the State itself shall appropriate the taxpayers' money for sectarian schools? Governor Smith offered an amendment to repeal that provision in the constitution so as to allow subdivisions to appropriate money to the Roman Catholic schools. That is what was meant by sectarian schools. They control New York City absolutely, so they were going to put parochial schools on the basis of public schools, and Governor Smith was the author of that amendment. I have it.

Mr. HALE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for a moment?

Mr. HEFLIN. I yield.

Mr. HALE. I am compelled to go to a meeting of the conferees on the naval appropriation bill. I would like to explain that the flag which I described this morning as the papal flag was not the papal flag. The papal flag consists of a mitre with crossed keys under it.

Mr. HEFLIN. How is that?

Mr. HALE. The papal flag consists of a mitre with crossed keys under it. I described this morning a flag with a crucifix and cross on it.

Mr. HEFLIN. Now the Senator says the cross Is under it

Mr. HALE. I have stated that the papal flag is a flag with a mitre and crossed keys underneath.

Mr. HEFLIN. Crossed keys?

Mr. HALE. The keys are crossed under it.

Mr. HEFLIN. That is a cross just the same!

Mr. HALE. Oh, no; it it not.

Mr. HEFLIN. That is a very interesting piece of information the Senator from Maine is now offering. It does not make any difference whether the cross is made of keys or straight bars. Show it to me. Oh, no; that is not a key. That is a flag flying at each end of the material forming the Catholic cross.

Mr. HALE. Oh, no; it is a mitre and crossed keys.

Mr. HEFLIN. I do not know what they call it. I know It is a flag at the upper end of the crossed bars. They have two flags flying at the upper end of the cross.

Mr. HALE. No, Mr. President. I have explained that it is a mitre, and the crossed keys have nothing to do with a flag.

Mr. HEFLIN. The Senator is not only wrong on the other question, but he is blind on this one. Anybody can see that those are little flags at the end of that cross. Would the Senator give the impression that they are the Vatican keys to unlock the sovereign household of America? Well, I do not think that will be done.

It does not make any difference whether they run the flag at the top of those crosspieces, or whether they run it at the bottom. The flags are there. The pennant is one that has been gotten up, not by the Protestants of America, not by the Jews, but by that other force. They are very successful in getting certain Protestants to come to their rescue, and they will get the Senator from Maine in a lot of trouble if he does not mind. They will have him explaining all over Maine why he has championed the plan of a foreign potentate to fly that flag above the United States flag. I did not ask him to get into this discussion. I told him at the outset I would rather he would stay out. [Laughter.] But he has come in of his own accord, and that is his privilege. Now let him explain to his people in Maine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we vote immediately on this flag resolution of mine.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fess in the chair). Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Alabama?

Mr. BRUCE. I object. I desire to say something on the matter.

Mr. SMOOT. Mr. President, according to the rule we would have to have a quorum called first

Mr. HEFLIN. I have not yielded the floor.

Mr. SMOOT. Before a vote could be taken by unanimous consent we would have to have a quorum call.

Mr. HEFLIN. Very well; I had a purpose in making that request now; I will wait and renew the request later. It may be necessary for me to make a motion. My resolution is already on the table and can be taken from there. I want a quorum here when we vote on it. I want every one to have a chance to express himself on It. I think it is high time that the country, through the Congress, should fix a policy regarding t!ie we and abuse of the United States fla"g. We will never have this question hefore us any more if we do that. If anyone wants to put up a pennant somewhere around the ship'* edge to announce religious services on Sunday, that can be done. I am utterly surprised that any Senator on this floor would rise here and quibble on the question when it Is so simple that a child can see it and understand it. If there is no design in putting it. above our flag, why does not everybody rise up and say so? There would be no harm done. Put it below our flag. Why should they insist that it go up there? That is a question for us to consider.

Who are we representing, the people of America or the people who have some sort of secret allegiance to a foreign government? Mr. President, I told the Senate the other day that the supreme authority of that flag in the United States was challenged by the Pope of Rome and his cardinals recently. Sixtythree Americans, members of the Catholic Church, in Rhode Island, who had given large sums of money to a Catholic bishop and priest, asked what they had done with it. They refused to tell. They said, "We will take you into court." Was it not the natural thing for American citizens to want to go into nn American court of justice to have their claims adjudicated? They ought to have been encouraged. Of course, the bishop and priest hud to go into court in the matter. They were indignant. What did they do? They took the names of those 63 Americans to Rome. The Americans were not there in person. They tried those American citizens in a college of cardinals, a church court in a foreign country.

They found against them on this transaction in Rhode Island. United States of America. They condemned and repudiated those American citizens. They excommunicated them, which means that so far as they could they sent their souls to hell for going into a court of justice in America, suing the bishop and priest to get an accounting of the funds in their hands amounting to a million dollars or more. They attacked their business. One of them was an editor. They issued an edict that he could not run his American paper another day. They tried to confiscate his paper by an edict under the Roman flag in Rome when he was exercising his rights as an American citizen under the American flag at home. Which one of those countries has jurisdiction? I say again, we have soldiers and marines in Nicaragua defending the property of American citizens, but who is defending that poor editor in Rhode Island, right under the United States flag, for committing no crime whatever? All he did was to go into an American court of justice instead of a Roman Catholic Church court in a foreign country. They wanted to know the truth and they had a right as American citizens to know it. Their names were taken to Rome in their absence; this action was taken: they condemned his property and ordered him to cease publishing his paper at once.

Senators do not seem to know what is going on. Doctor McDaniei, the great Baptist preacher, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, said in the last public speech he ever made to his people: " Of all countries in the world, the Pope wants to get control of America." I have read you doctrine from the Catholic books showing that they intend to control it. The strong men are now laying the foundation, one of them said. Doctor Chapman, of Yale or Harvard, in his book said the Roman Catholic Knights of Columbus slogan is "M. A. C.," meaning "Make America Catholic." Doctor McDaniei said Mussolini and the Catholics had destroyed free speech in Rome; they have destroyed religious freedom; they have destroyed the religious press; they lave closed Protestant churches; and burned the lodges of Masons. They have murdered Masons in their homes, 137 of them in one night in Florence, Italy. The grand master of the Masons in Italy is now in prison because he dared to meet with his brethren in a Masonic lodge—five years imprisonment by Mussolini's order, the most dangerous Roman Catholic tyrant in all the \vorld.

Pardon me for expressit g the belief that Mussolini was in that plot to kill King Emanuel recently when a bomb exploded. They tried to say that he, loo, was in danger, but he was not. The bomb exploded before the King got there. He was a little late. Now, subsequently, we are told that Mussolini is talking about driving the king from his throne and taking it himself. This tyrant, this Roman Catholic tyrant, this man who Is secretly conniving with the Vatican in Rome, is a dangerous man. Doctor McDaniei said if the Roman Catholics of the United States wanted to, they could use their influence on the I'oi>e and Mussolini and stop the killing of Protestant and Jew Masons, stop the burning of their lodges, unfetter speech, restore free press, and permit the Protestants and Jews to wor

ship as they choose. He said if they wanted to they could do that, but they will not do it. He said if Mussolini and the Pope wanted to give this freedom to those Protestants and Jews there they could do it, but they will not.

Wake up, America! That flag is the ensign of a Nation's strength and solidarity. It is the battle flag of a patriot Republic. It is the banner of constitutional liberty. Marks, of Tennessee1, once speaking of America, said:

Her emblem is the caste. Iler flng, like a scrap of midnight heaven, blossoms with stars. Stars and eagles belong near the sky, and she will take them home if glory's wing can get her there.

I want our flag to be first and uppermost nearest the sky. I do not want any eye in the world to see that flag pulled down and another flag put above it. Whether it be a Roman Catholic flag or any other flag. Let our flag be first at all times, asserting at home and abroad her single and supreme national authority.

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. President, the Senator from Alabama has said, "God bless the State of Maryland; I sometimes sympathize with her." I reciprocate by saying, "God bless the State of Alabama ; I often condole with her," and so does all the press of this country at the present time, and I might say also all of its enlightened citizens.

Of course, the Senator from Alabama is not inclined to draw distinctions between the religious crosses that are consecrated by the strong devotional feelings of mankind. The only cross in which he is interested is the "fiery cross" of the Ku-Klux Klan, which has been responsible during the last three years for no fewer than 700 floggings in the State of Alabama, some of old men, some of women, and some of children.

Mr. HEFLIN. I challenge that statement. It is not true. There has been a lot of misrepresentation made about that by the Roman-Catholic-controlled press of my State.

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. President, I decline to be interrupted. All I want to say is that the truth would be in a bad way if the final test of truth was the ultimatum of the Senator from Alabama.

Many years ago a Member of this body entertained the same fear of assassination by some agency, the exact nature of which I forget, that the Senator from Alabama does, of assassination at the hands of the Catholic Church; and Senator Thurman, of Ohio, commenting on that fact, said on one occasion that the idea of that Senator that he might be assassinated was "the airiest bubble that had ever found lodgment in an empty head." So I say that an airier bubble never found lodgment in a—I will not repeat the adjective—head than the idea of the Senator from Alabama that I have been prompted by any Catholic ecclesiastic, prelate, or layman to object to tho instant consideration of the bill which he attempted to bring to a vote yesterday. Not one single, solitary ecclesiastic, prelate, or layman has ever had a word to say to me, either epistolary or oral, with respect to that bill. Equally absurd is the idea that the conditional objection that I made to it yesterday was prompted by any special interest of any sort. Never has a single line been written nor a single word uttered to me by any banker, broker, factor, merchant, trader, or any person whatsoever in relation to the bill. The abusive allegations of the Senator from Alabama are wholly the fictions of his own distempered, and I am beginning to believe almost deranged intellect. [Laughter.] I simply asked that the bill, which I had had no opportunity to examine, should not be taken up yesterday for instant consideration, as I wished an opportunity to examine its contents.

Mr. HEFLIN. It was on day before yesterday.

Mr. BRUCE. Was it the day before yesterday? If that is true, I am glad to see that the Senator from Alabama is for once accurate.

Mr. HEFLIN. I will be accurate again in a few minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER, Does the Senator from Maryland yield to the Senator from Alabama?

Mr. BRUCE. No. It is beyond the Senator's power to bo accurate. I recollect that Judge Black once spoke of somebody or something as being "marked by loose and lavish unveracity," and I have never heard the Senator from Alabama make n sjicech in my life that was not marked by loose and lavish inaccuracy.

I took it for granted, naturally enough, that our Department of Agriculture would not have pursued for years the practice of making predictions with reference to crop prices unless there had been some popular demand for price prediction, and unless there had been some sort of substantial basis found in tho human reason for such a practice; but I was as good as my word. As soon as I had the opportunity I read the bill, and notwithstanding the fact that I observed that it had been so amended as to eliminate from it all reference to predictions iu

« ПретходнаНастави »