Daily Kennebec Journal

The Decoration Services once again

Editor Journal:--It appears by the last issue of the Maine Standard that its editor is not yet fully satisfied in relation to the decoration ceremonies. His article of last week is however a decided improvement on that of the previous week in relation to the matter, although he scatters much of the loathsome slaver of personal abuse, instead of argument, and varies his charges from "refusal" to neglect, as he may next soften them to a mere omission or an accident. He enters vigorously upon his work, making medicine and law alike tributary to his genius, and gathers from the nomenclature of disease in one and the maxims of the other the choice materials which he mixes for the intellectual feast to which he invites his readers. Like the wise Dogberry, he concludes his charges against those who differ from him, or dare to dispute him, by declaring them to be "lying knaves." Like that worthy, he is "too cunning to be understood," but will not fail to be written down in his true character. Whether he most deserves pity for his weakness, scorn for his unnecessary abuse of his fellow citizens, or contempt for his persistent arraignments, without proof or semblance of cause or reason, his craven insinuations without inquiry that flowers were withheld from soldiers' graves to insult a church, a people and mourning friends, and for his supply of the guilty motive of insult to the memory of the dead soldiers from his own imagination, is difficult to decide. Still, he has greatly changed. At first he characterized the matter of which he complained as a "cruel neglect," "the feelings of the Catholic church had been outraged" by this "apparently purposely made omission," and "the honor of the city compromised" by such "unexplained and apparently invidious discrimination."-- Now he says, "The parties responsible for this neglect, as we take it, are not the city authorities." Then all this cruel and outrageous procedure "was under the immediate charge and control of the Capital Guards." Now he says this organization, which is the pride of our city, is not capable of any act of this character, and its members, we are well satisfied, are in no wise responsible for this neglect!" As every member of the committee of arrangements was and now is a member of the Capital Guards, he must admit, after a week's examination, a most culpable ignorance of the whole matter, or he entirely exonerates the city authorities, the Capital Guards, and the committee of arrangements. Perhaps he did not mean this, but it is proverbial that children tell the truth, and other classes of persons may be like them in this particular, sometimes by accident, if never by design. So that henceforth his quarrel is individual and personal, and we beg to suggest that it would be well for him at least to be sure of his facts, unless it is a pleasing procedure to be obliged, as in this case, in a single week to withdraw a swearing charge against a committee, a company, and a whole city, made with so much flourish of trumpets and so loud a demand for an answer, and only be able to say instead that the "parties are responsible to whom they entrusted this part of the work." He pushes himself forward as the especial champion of the "honor of the city," and sounds abroad through the columns of his paper, to be heard and read of all men wherever that paper goes, a charge against the very city whose honor he is defending, so bitter that a neighboring paper at Gardiner publishes it, on his authority, under the heading of "Contemptible," and says that "if true, (as he now confesses it was not true) the capital should be removed to a more civilized locality," and quotes this unjust notice of the city approvingly, after a week's reflection, in the same article in which he says the city authorities are not responsible! Heaven preserve the city from such championship. At least it is to be hoped if he is to assume the character of a Knight Errant to run a tilt against all comers in the defense of the honor of the city he will try, unusual and difficult as his nature and custom and inclination may render the effort, to assume some of the courtesies and civilities due the occasion and his fellow citizens, instead of opening his attack with the flourish of the clown's cap and bells, and continuing it with the crack of the ring-master's whip. But he says 'the demand was made in a kind spirit." If it is kind to say that "the feelings of the Catholic society have been outraged," "the honor of the city is compromised by an invidious discrimination in a sacred service" then we may believe him for he said all this. He says it was made "with the purest purposes, without charging improper motives upon any one, least of all upon the Capital Guards." It charging "the neglect or refusal of those having the matter in charge to decorate the graves" in the Catholic cemetery, coupled with the sly suggestion that he "is slow to believe the religious sentiments or nationality of these dead heroes contribute to this cruel neglect." and compromised, the tenderest feelings of humanity were outraged" by an "apparently purposely made omission" the dead insulted by "reproachful action," and more of the same tenor, charges "no improper motives" and "least of all upon the Capital Guards" for I quote his language, that it is impossible to gather his meaning from his words, and he has abundant use for the law maxims of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus which he quotes so glibly at home he must charge improper motives. It is the very kind of his accounting, without it no wrong has been done, he cannot escape it truly as he will, and this "honest man" only raises the cry of "liar" and "sneak" and "villifier" and "slanderer" because forced to utter the recriminations of his own conscience. and ignominiously to accept the old dodge of the pickpocket who cries "stop thief" the loudest of any to divert attention while he crawls silently away. The coldest charity would speak for him better order and greater decency in his retreat than he has shown in his advance and attack in this matter.

It is a matter of little consequence to the public with what vigor and success he may carry on his warfare upon individuals among his fellow citizens, and perhaps as harmless an amusement as any in which he can be engaged; certainly it is one in which he evinces a peculiar interest. For myself, I confess his criticism on a few words of reply to his 'kind'" article, written, as he tells us now, while he like the countenance of the Ghost of Hamlet's father was "more in sorrow than in anger," seem to be quite in keeping with his former attack upon the organizations, which he now disclaims.

I said I could not believe the author of the suggestion that the religious sentiments or nationality of these dead heroes contributed to this cruel neglect," saw the full force of the charge. and that it "must have been a mistake," for here was the whole matter, if no omission was made on purpose because the graves were those of Catholics and Irishmen, then no crime and no blame, no dishonor to the city, no "invidious discrimination or reproachful action," all of which he charges. I thought it was charity to him to say he could not believe a hundred citizens guilty of withholding flowers from a soldier's grave for so mean a prejudice, and that he could not deliberately charge it. What is his answer? He says "The reply is artfully written," "unfair," "disingenuous," "dishonest in purpose and interest," and "casts a vile, wickedly false insinuation." In the next verse it is "verbose" "unfair" again. and "dishonest" and displays "much malice." Its accusations are "base," "to name its author were sufficient to stamp its untruthfulness." The "charges" are "wickedly false" in "spirit and assertions all solid abuse." done by a certain wily politician who does not love the soldiers so well as to make political capital, and closed with the sentence "Faith without works is dead," which expresses a fine sentiment though without connection, and sounds like scripture though it is not quoted. All this is the mild and genial reply of the editor full of "solemn regret" to my statement that I thought he could not deliberately accuse a community or believe them guilty of an intentional wrong like the one he specifies. He has since thought better of it, and takes off all but a dozen. the committee of arrangements. He did not like the picture he had drawn when held up for his examination and nothing was left for him but denial of the legitimate construction of his own language.

He becomes greatly excited over the question why, if present. he forgot then, who feels so tenderly now to secure the decoration of these graves, or if absent. to give a single hour of his time to this service, for all the nation's dead. Protestant and Catholic alike: and the suggestion that "no mourning friend of the Catholic soldier will be gratified by angry words or pleased by the abuse of those who were his comrades on account of an omission to decorate his grave, by those who were too careless to prevent it. or permitted the occurrence for an opportunity and a purpose." Whether present or absent he gives no sign, but coldly asks if it was a citizen's duty to follow each squad of soldiers as they marched to their duty of scattering flowers, and that he be told "what opportunity or purpose we imagined he sought by this neglect.' As he is especially familiar with the assignment of motives for others, we beg leave to decline to answer, and permit him to assign the motive himself. As he says in the next two lines, it is a "vile slander," "wickedly false in spirit and assertion," it appears he will have the courage after a time to deny it quite vigorously.

He claims to have seen a letter from Father Eagan, the former priest here, who he says declares "that he made no objection and 'did feel it his duty to join in the service.' Having attended the decorations and participated in them from their establishment, and having no recollection of the presence and assistance of Father Eagan in these rites, I am confident he will find he did not assist, and he puts Father Eagan in the position of knowing his duty without doing it, which those who know him cannot credit, and is as awkward in his new job as champion of the clergy, as in his former attempt to defend the honor of the city. But, says he, "could not the flowers have been strewn without a prayer?" "Is praying essential to decorating?" We suppose the flowers could be scattered without prayer, but most persons believe in some recognition of a Supreme being on such occasions; and he is much mistaken if he believes that any light allusions to christian prayer or other ceremonies of the religion of the cross will be pleasing to any Catholic ear. however witty they may seem to his own.

In reference to the general custom of decoration among other things I said "as I remembered no special detachment had been sent to the Catholic cemetery since the ceremony was practiced," giving at length the custom and reasons as I understood them, and that "no special public recognition has been made purely from respect for the religious convictions of our Catholic friends, whose patriotism has never been doubted. and whose martyr soldiers are deserving of all honor." This frank statement, made in regard to the general custom of former years, after the decoration, as an answer to his charges, this man who complains of "unfair" treatment, of "artful" writing, and "dishonesty," uses, as if it had been spoken entirely of the ceremony of this year, discussed openly and these graves refused a decoration, and pictures the soldiers "marching by those undecorated and un-flagged graves," commenting on "the absence of arrangements for their decoration" and "acting under orders" unable to scatter flowers upon them; and asks, "Is not this a confession that the omission was purposely made then?" This is too absurd to receive an answer. The simple statement of a proposition so ridiculous is all the refutation needed, and its consummate weakness is only equalled by its desperate malignity.

He says a prominent Catholic citizen called on the Marshal the day before, in relation to decoration of the Catholic Cemetery, and that he (the Marshal) promised to call the attention of the Committee of Arrangements to it. not that the committee did know it : he does not say this man consulted the committee at all. only the marshal; and this he argues, disposes of the chance of "error or mistake" and establishes his theory of design and falsifies all the points made in my reply. And this is his idea of fairness. Not a scintilla of evidence for all his charges and calling of "pet names" in his choice fashion, an assertion of confession in form of a question, and another that somebody saw the marshal who promised to see the committee. all his own, are made a foundation for a torrent of abuse, and the accusation that the living soldiers wilfully refused the decoration of the graves of their dead comrades. No "error or mistake" says he it was purposely" done. But he has found another "cruel neglect," another "outrage" on our Catholic fellow citizens. He drags in a long quotation from a speech of Hon. T. S. Lang at Bath, complimentary to our foreign born citizens and says "no such words greeted the ears of our foreign born citizens living here, and the graves of their sons and brothers were denied decoration." and that it is "no answer to this charge to abuse the editor of the Standard." The quotation is fine; Col. Lang is able and eloquent and we congratulate the Standard on learning so suddenly what his friends here knew very well many years ago.

There needs be no more to illustrate his claims to fair treatment. We have no quarrel with him personally nor with the Standard and we seek none, only his sweeping attack forced a reluctant examination of the subject. He is welcome to the coarseness of his medical allusions, to the epithets with which he seems familiar as household words. welcome to the airing of law maxims and unquoted texts of Scripture; but a different record is needed to establish his right to be the especial champion of the dead soldier or the defender of his memory, as against his comrades, be be protestant or catholic. We do not believe his abuse is desired by the mourning friends of a single catholic soldier, and what does he here among their graves abusing their comrades who know best their worth?

(Suppose in the solemn service of the catholic church, when the holy water was sprinkled upon the congregation, a single pew or section should be omitted and the omission should be unnoticed till the assembly was dismissed and any man should claim that this was purposely done and demand an explanation for such reproachful action imputing a criminal purpose to the church officer in charge? Is there a catholic but would be ashamed to harbor the thought. and yet this Decoration Service is one deeply solemn and the circumstances similar to those supposed) We would be content to leave it in their hands.

But he says there are one or two points yet in reserve. This is not at all surprising for this "wily politician" is but one man in buckram," and our champion would not be outdone by his prototype, Jack Falstaff who fought eleven at Gadshill: so let us have the whole eleven as briefly and as rapidly as possible. But he closes this labored article at last and fearing no one will accept his bland proposition to acknowledge themselves a "lying sneak," and a "villifier of honest men," because he dared to dispute some of his conclusions, he trusts some member of the committee will if any proper explanation exists, state it to the public "over his own usual signature," &c., for he declares the city is not responsible, the Capital Guards are not responsible, the committee belongs to the Capital Guards, and says practically : I have fought my way out of the catholic cemetery, and laid down my cudgel with which I have belabored all within reach; I have abused all. and now have excused them and won't somebody please tell me what it was all about. and tell it slowly over his own proper signature so that I shall not be mistaken and have to apologize any more? We hope he has been convinced that it will be difficult by any amount of epithets and fretfulness and accusation to bring organizations or individuals at his feet by fear or to gain information by assuming the general guilt and calling on individuals to prove their innocence. But we cannot help him as a Committee of Arrangements in this pitiable warfare of personalities, and herewith take leave of him, as, doing any catholic whose feelings are injured that at any time the fullest information we may have will be given in regard to the matter. especially that there could not have been the slightest intention to discriminate invidiously or to do injustice to their dead and our own.

Member of Capital Guards
AND COMMITTEE OF ARRANGEMENTS