During the spring and early summer of 1916, an election campaign was on, and the issue was very apparent. The patriotic citizens were determined to elect American citizens to office who would uphold the American principles. I was talking several times each week, and evidently something was hurting, for the Catholic Sentinel, published in Portland, which is the mouthpiece of Archbishop Christie, printed a fine "advertisement" for me in its issue of June 8, 1916. There has been many comments on some of my statements regarding the activities of the "Knights of Columbus," and this article from their own paper will substantiate what I have said:
I do not care to take space here to comment on this article at length; there is a great deal of truth in it and then there is a great deal that is not true. I will say that the time spoken of when the White Temple turned me down, there were about three thousand women that congregated to hear my message, and I delivered it to them, but not in the White Temple; I hired an automobile and we went to the Plaza, where I talked from the machine. The above article speaks of the "strong disapproval of the trustees of the church." It took them quite a long time to give out the announcement, for the lecture had been advertised for two weeks. Any American can guess why this building was closed at the eleventh hour. Of course, I am no orator. How could I be after spending my life in the convents of the Roman Catholic system? And, if I talked in the language of the gutter, where do you think I learned it? Surely it must have been learned in the parochial school, the confessional or the convent. Four of the eleven Knights of Columbus appointed to take action against me were prominent lawyers of Portland, and no doubt they worked overtime trying to hatch up some scheme to get me before the bar of justice. If they for one moment thought that I could not prove what I was saying about the system I had lived so many years, why did they not call on me to produce my proof? I have in my possession a letter from the wife of one of these noble "knights," which, in part, reads as follows: "I was not surprised when I heard that you had left the order. The last time I was up there I asked for you and they told me you had been sent to Canada. I felt then it was the beginning of the end. What led up to it all I do not know, but I felt I must tell you that so far as we are concerned, our sympathies are with you. I know such a thing could not have come to pass without your having experienced much suffering and heartache. And I want to tell you we are with you heart and soul. Of course, you know our attitude toward them. We have felt for a long time they are lacking in charity. We could not reconcile ourselves to their attitude towards the nurses. Mr. —— and Sister —— had a passage at arms the last time he was up there. The old order of things was good, but there seems to have crept in an element which has the money-making. If you have time, I should like to hear from you and something about the work you are doing. I know one thing, that it is effective. We have never forgotten the service you rendered Mr. ——, and I have always felt that you more than any other contributed to his recovery." "A Gift from God"—Five Years' Growth. (Photographed Jan. 29, 1917) Yes, I did contribute to a great extent to this gentleman's recovery when his two physicians and the special nurse had abandoned all hope. And from this letter it was apparent that he was pleased to hear that I had left the order. Then, why such a radical change in the mind of such a highly educated man? Had some of the "holy fathers" been to see him and demanded, and as a good "knight" he had to serve? Or, was his name placed on the committee for show? The latter is more probable. I wish my readers to read the article very carefully and thoughtfully and then draw your own conclusions. The fact remains that I was lecturing and the effects were hurting somebody. These "somebodies" were busy in nearly every town where I would be billed to speak, endeavoring, with their threats of boycott and with their committees appointed to wait on the city officials, to close halls, and to even keep me from entering the city. What was evidently hurting them was the fact that I was telling the truth to their own adherents, and in several of the small cities where I spoke, some of them renounced the Roman Catholic faith; others would take their children or some relative out of a Roman Catholic orphanage or parochial school. "An institution that cannot stand the light, needs to have the light turned on it," and that is just what I was trying to do. It makes no particular difference whether I was drawing large crowds or not (but I was drawing immense crowds), whether I was using language of the gutter or not, whether I produced any evidence to prove my contentions or not, whether the churches turned me down or not, I was doing the work I had started out to do, viz., tell the public of |