| OCR Text |
Show Catholic Journalistic Wits. ONCE upon a time Father Phelan of the Western Watchman, glancing over one of his Catholic exchanges ex-changes (Father Lambert's paper, the Freeman's Journal), discovered between be-tween the lines what he thought was a sly insinuation, to-wit, that he (Father Phelan) had ulterior reasons for supporting sup-porting the president in his policy towards to-wards the Spanish friars in the Philippines. Philip-pines. Father -Phelan felt hurt over the supposed . personal injury and in vigorous language affirmed that everything every-thing he did was above board; that he would not vote for Roosevelt unless the president ran on a Democratic ticket; that he .never split his ticket but once to vote for three Republicans, and two of these were now in the penitentiary. inow ijatner pneian is one of the few Nestors of the Catholic press who wear the cassock and Father Lambert Is another-"-brilliant in repartee, clear in logic ahd , incisive in argument.' Father Phelan and Father Lambert are friends, have been fast friends for years, and their "bit of an argyment," so far from developing acrimony, only provoked that humor which Father Lambert can make so attractive, yet so seldom seen In the religious press. Father Phelan's allusion -to the split ticket and its sequel presented an opening for Father Lambert. The honest candor of the St. Louis priest has afforded the other no end of literary liter-ary amusement. This is from the last Freeman's Journal, under the heading, "An Erroneous Impedimental Hypothesis:" "A judge out in St. Louis where the Western Watchman is published recently re-cently gave the following official decision decis-ion on the legal rights of dogs: ""Any dog has the legal, undeniable right to bite any man, woman or child who purposely, and with intent to disturb dis-turb said dog's tranquility and peace of mind, does attach, or cause to be attached, to said dog's tail a tin can or other weight which will impede the progress of said animal. The dog which bites his persecutor in such a ease j3 acting purely and honestly in self-defense, and is justly immune from punishment as the man who shoots a burglar in defense of his own life and welfare.' If we were not assured that they are in the penitentiary where they cannot can-not exploit their wisdom before the world from the judicial. If not judicious bench, we would suspect that the judge above quoted was one of the two Father Phelan voted for on his split Democratic ticket. Any alleged judge wnq is so inexperienced and ignorant as to think that a tin can attached or appendixed to a dog's tail "impedes the Progress of said animal" Is not competent compe-tent to dispense justice, even in St Louis; in fact, he is not worth current expenses. He ought to know that if there is anything that gives alacrity to the progress of a canine and sets w u. in 'howlin& Precipitation,' as Washington Irving would put it it is a tin can. The judge's decision is, therefore, based on false premises! Hence, even If the dog knew that the Intent was to 'disturb his tranquilty and peace of mind h . nM according to the judge's theory, in biting bit-ing unless he finds the tin can appen-d appen-d lx an impediment to his progress from ?2 pIace- or from the starting point to any where. He-knows-ai every dog of experience knows-that it is not an impediment to his locomotion; locomo-tion; consequently the cause assigned by tle learned judge as justifying the aggressive use of his (the dog's) dental organs, has no existence; is, in fact non coram judice.' But even granting the erroneous impedimental hypothesis, i equires another condition nnajS, ify.dentaI ,nctsln. The canine ?. ?n P?d ?ust know that tfie intent of minlf Ul hJ3 tranquility and peace of mind. Until he knows this Intent he cannot take summary action. But i!3 he kntnv lt? The tent of ItLlZ Wlth,a can and a P'ece of "ring is not always apparent. He may Lfin& Ashing, or he may be after onlvhhf, dg' and hls lntent ma dStrhf " amusement and not the disturbance of anybody's peace of mind. To Insert a canine tooth Into his leg on mere suspicion would be an abuse of privilege; In which case the dog could not be said to be acting as the judge requires: 'purely and honestly hon-estly in self-defense.' "Considering the judicial decision in its tout ensemble and in all parts, it seems to place the dog in a condition of chronic doubt, and puts him under the necessity of having to stand still and retrospect to see what the poor boy is going to do before he tastes him; . a necessity that seems to curtail rather than increase his canine rights. "Some one said 'the sagacity of the canine quadruped surpases the com-prehensibility com-prehensibility of man's capability,' and so does the decision of the St. Louis judge." |
