THE CASE OF FERRER.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1031, 21 January 1911, Page 13

THE CASE OF FERRER.

, [To. THE Emtor.] Sir,—Your correspondent, Coleman Phillips's mixed, tangled and twisted letter is nothing but a concoction of blasphemy, and vapid declamation. You have certainly gone to the extreme of indulgence in allowing open insult to be offered to thousands of Christians by this irresponsible writer. The offensiveness of -his charge lies thick and plain and rank upon its surface. Ho has loaded himself _ with bittern«s seldom equalled even* by Voltaire or Briand", who could not smother their hatred against Christianity. In real Ferrer style, he insultingly declares that wo must "get rid of' Jesus Christ and 'His • teaching -from New Zealand." I enter an emphatic protest. Apart from his' anti-Christian news, his letter was a mere morass of muddy thought and-' weedy words—a rough and tumble . impeachment of a faith and a nation. It is evidently easier for him, and more to his taste, to throw unsound eggs than 'sound argument.—l am, etc., PLIMSOLL. [We agree heartily with our correspondent's views upon the sentiments expressed in tho letter ho objects to. But it is our rule to grant a special indulgence to those correspondents with whose opinions we most disagree, since wo desire above all things to keep our correspondence columns freer and, 60 far as possible, entirely uncensoredj Sir,—lt is tho usual practice amongst the champions of "clericalism," whenever they find themselves in a tight corner, to misrepresent, I must not say-falsify, the statements of their opponents; and your anonymous correspondent, "A Wellington Catholic," is'no exception , to the rule. Thus, in your issue of the 12th inst., he has tho hardihood to affirm, "Mr. Gammell asserts that there.were no witnesses against Ferrer at the trial." Needless to say, such a. preposterous statement as that was never penned by me, but this is my critic's, version of the charge I brought against him ill person, that he himself in his first letter never adduced a> single word of evidence in proof of the accusation that Ferrer was privy to the.Barcelona riots—the charge on which ho was put to death. He quotes some outrageous sentiments from what, lie says was a text book in use in Ferrer's schools, but, in view of the s, way in which he misquotes them, I must have some' better proof that tho "Quaderno Mauuscreto" was a Ferrer text-book than his. bare assertion to that effect, to say nothing of the fact that we must know the date of the work. Further on, too, we are told "Ferrer's schools were dens*of immorality, . . things took place therein which we do not 'find even' amongst 1 the savages." Naturally ive ask, where is tlie evidence on which the.?o grave charges are- founded? I repeat it, I don't believe a word of these imputations; they aro simply priestly slanders, of which we know from tho whole history of the past the supply is unlimited; they aro the product of the rage of the Spanish priesthood at sight of the secular schools which aro to. undermine their tyranny over the human rnind. Calumny is the favourite weapon ,of "Clericalism" . everywhere, as is seen in the fact that your correspondent, "A Wellington' Catholic," himself resorts to it. At the conclusion of his.letter he assoeiates my.name, with anarchistic sentiments, arid' this though' he knows perfectly well that the principles tff "anarchy are at least as hateful to me-as they aro to him. "Mr. Gaminell and his friends can rest assured," lie says, "that Christians can and will unite solidly against tlie introduction of anarchistic secularism into our happy little Dominion." No one is. 1 attempting to ' introduce. Anarchistic Secularism into New Zealand,' and "A Wellington' Catholic" knows' this perfectly well; but ho also knows, th-it calumny succeeded at Barcelona; eighteen ihonths ago, and so determines to giyo it a chance here with the more ignorant- of ydur readers. But he forgets that these piactices have:the boomerang habit of returning upon' tHcsfe'"who iisetKem. Sinco this controversy began much Ferrer, literature" h'as "/poured in upon m'e, and, in particular, 1 there have been brought to, my notico several articles in ",'M'Clure's, Magazine"- bearing. 011 our subject'. .A special: investigation of; the casb was made by . Mr. ■ Wm. Archer, aiid his'report has, just appeared' . iri- the November and December numbers, of "ir.Clure." As . wo, cannot try. Ferrer . over again in the columns of this newspaper, perha'ps I cannot do better than.'call attention to the conclusions arrived at' by .this most- competent' writeV. . . . Mr. Archer says:—"Ferrer was certainly not .tho ; author and chief of the revolt—that ' accusation 'was a !monstrous absurdity. ... .- What, is perfectly, clear-is'that it was-not the crumbs of good ovidenco ■ agaitist, him- that led to his condemnation, but the:'.mountain of bad evidence': to most ; nf .which a rational court of law would have refused to'liston' for a moment.", Moreover, contrary to what my opponent affirms, there was no cross-examination of the witnesses allowed, whilst, at the public, trial, which only lasted one day, the witnesses were not even. examined, their evidence being simply real. Ferrer's own family, who could easily have proved an alibi, were not" allowed to : give evidence. Of the minor erroneous assertions of "A Wellington Catholic," one is that Ferrer did not surrender - himself voluntarily, but was arrested. The plain fact now appears to be that lie. had left his place of concealment, telling his friends there that he would go and .deliver himself up to■ the authorities. This, ho -undoubtedly had done when accused 'years.ibefore. On the road/ito "-Barcelona,--however, lie was recognised and arrested. ' ■ 5. " With' npologics for the length to which this 1 letter•, has extended,—l am, etc., . V JOHN' GAMAIELL. Seatoun Heights, January 16, 1911.' [We. have . had: .to curtail Mr. Gammell's .letter .severely, but we. think we. Have destroyed noire of his points. Our major operation was tlie-excision of his summary of Mr. Archer's account of the events surrounding ■ Ferrer's-trial. Jlany of Mr. Archer's statements were given hy Mr. .Coleman Phillips, and'in any event those who aro interested may easily; see "M'Clure's Magazine" ',for . themselves.]. Sir,—l thank you for the privilege of replying to the letter of Mr. Coleman Phillips on the above subject, which, should afford all Christians in this country ample evidence of , what, they Would have to'endure if ever he 'and his fellow ■ secularists - got -the upper, hand, is a rule, they cunningly;--'attempt, to, conceal -their true object, which is to drive God' and' Christianity out' of the country, but occasionally,' as in the present instance, they reveal their real purpose. I set out to enlighten your Christian' readers as to the truo facts about the Anarchist, and gave my authorities with exact references to. "day, date, and page, and yet none of my assertions have been refuted.' I stated thatFerrer was a callous libertine, who lived openly with a wealthy paramour, Mourner, while his lawful wife was starving—Seiiora Ferrer's appeal to the Paris authorities is too-heartrending, and long to quote in a limited , letter—and again my statement proved irrefutable. Tho numerous authorities quoted;'by me in support of niv contention as to the absolute guilt -of infamous Anarchist have not been discredited .by any opponents, for the sound reason that they were unable to do so. The appeal to the Ferrer school-books also proved disastrous to them, as I quoted excerpts and gave the pages in support of my statements that Ferrer's schools were hotbeds of Atheism, immorality,'and revolution. Nothing authoritative' has'been'adduced to show that Ferrer was not tho prime mover and instigator of .a' blqody and inhuman massacre in, Barcelona. ' The secularists have, unfortunately, for the time being, seized' tho power in France and Portugal, and tho unspeakable outrages inflicted in' these countries on innocent aiid noble men and: women would be repeated in this fair Dominion if these vaunted .lovers of freedom, enlightenment, and justice, had it in their power. Perhaps that independent and fearless writer, Mr. Shipinaii, may. be quoted as an excellent antidote for Coleman Phillips and others who have been suffering from an overdose of M'Cabe, anil those of his ilk. Mr. Shipman, in the paper "America," January 8, 1910, writes as follows-.—"Mr. Joseph M'Cabe's libels on tliei Spanish' clerrv are 'gross as a mountain, open, palpable.' During a six years' residence, in tho Penirisuhi I had exceptional facilities for knowing the truth about the Spanish clcrgy. For many of them whom I know personally I entertained, and

still entertain, the highest esteem. I found that tho clergy of Spain, as a ! body, were earnest,«zealous, God-fearing 1 men. Many of them were men of great learning and ability. I have never heard a single scandalous rumour, from any well-informed source, concerning the moral character of the Spanish clergy in general. 'JJhe first stone should certainly not be cast at them by an apostate Franciscan, who has broken 'his vows, turned Atheist, and taken a wife." It is well for us, Christians, that , this slumbering Atheism, etc., 'has had the light of day shed on it, as we nqw where our real foe lies. It ill becomes' Mr. Coleman Phillips % to give advice to any Christian. He should sincerely and deeply appreciate the fact that, while we Christians in this country can stand shoulder to shoulder, and heart to heart against Atheism, Hcd-llagism, and kindred other-reprehensible and unnationalisms, we. have accorded the race, of which he is, I believe, a member, every courtesy and respect—an • experience which has not been theirs amongst other nations. Again .thanking you .for' your kindness in permitting a final reply-fronr a truthful and Christian standpoint,—l am, etc., A WELLINGTON CATHOLIC. * [With this letter we close tho controversy.] • • .