for God or country? No good. The mention of such a
thing reminds us of the lukewarm water spoken of in Holy
Writ, which we feel inclined to spew out. Haven’t we Irish
cultivated humility long enough ? Haven’t our knees become
supple enough by cringing to satisfy all the requirements of
the “ Evangelization” process which we are told we are every
day operating? Let us hold*up our heads, say I, and think
and speak freely, and unreservedly, on every subject which
is given to man to think on. Let us, while we are properly
docile and submissive to rightful authority and to just law,
be ever jealous in preserving every manly right and preroga
tive, and thus shall we show ourselves in the end the best,
wisest and most reliable supporters of every noble institution
or cause to which we may attach ourselves.
’ The Republic gives a merited rebuke to the Radical party
for its betrayal of its principles and its friends, .'this casti
gation, in connection with the Republic’s splendid praise of
the Yankee, who is the father of Radicalism, shows that it
comes from a friend, and therefore should be heeded. Rut
the statesmen (?) of that party seem to care more to amass
wealth, to secure office, and toady to British ministers, than to
forever secure and hind to their party—which they might
easily do—the abundant materials (which are lying loose all
around them) for building up and perpetuating a great
party.
In this city, for instance, I verily believe the Radical
leaders do not want any other or greater help than what they
already possess. The Germans are considered by them sufli
ciently strong in numbers, and reliable in principle, to keep
and continue in office.and power the few who nod their wills
to the crowd of the willing followers of—not principles, but of
—“ leaders.” The Democrat newspaper, too, the big dog of the
Radical kennel, (when whose mouth is open no cur must bark,)
is pleased with the holy Newman Hall, the English hireling,
and thinks that we Fenians would he pursuing the best and
most conservative course by joining our forces with John
Bright, the English cotton-lord, and those other respectable
reformers who talk so well for, not freedom, but “ reform.”
I think sometimes other peoples and nations despise us.
"We are thought a kind of people that make good tools in the
hands of others. Why, I ask, cannot we sometimes use men
for purposes of ours, for our country and our cause, as we are
used by others for public-plunder and individual aggrandize
ment ? .
We can, Isay, if like others we mingle with our brilliant
national characteristics, method, worldly wisdom, enlightened
selfishness. We possess numbers, ability, force and dash, in
a word, everything necessary for success in a broad, generous
country such as this is. Why are we not in all cases a con
trolling element in the politics of the times? Why are we
not every day placing on the young and tender institutions
of this country, both social and political, the impress of our
strong, positive, Irish character?
It is the old story. - We must confess that we are not
united. If we see one of our own in a position of influence,
where he might befriend one of us betimes, are we not often
jealous of his importance, and do tee not want to drag him down to
our own level in the gutter ? But already this is too long.
More of this again. Occasional.
-—-——
The Organizers of the F. B.—Their Sayings and
Doings.
243 North Wells Street,
Chicago, October 28th, 1807.
To the Editors of The Irish Republic.
Messrs. Editors : I have read, with no less pain than
astonishment, a communication from John F. Finerty in
your issue of the 2Gth inst., a gentleman for whom I once
entertained the warmest friendship and kindest feelings.
Pain to think that in the brief interval that has elapsed
since last we met so marked a change should occur in his
sentiments and deportment as would induce me to doubt his
identity, had I not been clearly assured that unfortunately
there was no room to doubt his being the author of the
communication in question. Surely, then, my friend Finer
ty must have either fallen in with evil associates since I
had the pleasure of last meeting with him, or been under
some sinister influence, when he, in a moment of passion or
excitement, so far forgot himself, as to write such a letter
as must ultimately lessen him—if not retracted or apologized
for speedily—in the estimation of every honorable and well
thinking man, for its undignified and bombastic twaddle
and slang, which I would consider more in consonance with
the sentiments and deportment of a brutal bruiser, hired to
maintain by main force that which was vulnerable to logic
or reason, rather than the dignified bearing and lofty tone of
one I even yet would fain regard as a patriot and a gentle
man. Astonishment to think that in so brief a period his
memoiy should be so treacherous as to forget how even he
himself once regarded ci certain distinguished brother organizer
as a contemptible, selfish, sneaking egotist,” who, I believe, is
now making a eatspaw of niy fimous friend Finertv, not
having the pluck to come out himself in defense of his bread
and butter. I was then, and am still, of Finerty’s opinion
regarding this individual, who i*, i believe, the person
alluded to by "Cusli-la-no.” This organizer, who filled his
pockets so cleverly in St. Louis, is a man who has done more
I,arm andless good, who gave less money, but more empty
promises, than any other member who belonged to the Or
ganization. But, on the contrary, drone-like, he has ever
been fattening on it, and getting and spending more of its
funds than is either just or honorable on his part, or credit
able to tlie F. B., so that the sooner he and all other vam
pires who are sucking the life-blood of the Organization
are removed, the more vitality it will have. Indeed, I will
candidly confess that, in my opinion, the F. B. henceforward
needs other pabulum to sustain it and promote its vigor and
growth than the buncomb speeches of men who have no
other interest Tn it than self. If the Irish people to-day in
America have no other incentives to prompt them to action
and duty, than the momentary enthusiam instilled into their
souls by the spasmodic harangues of peripatetic orators, the
sooner such a fact is known the better, since they must be
so immersed and overwhelmed in the mire of apathy and
ignorance that even the trumpet of Gabriel, sounding the notes
of liberty, would be unheeded by them. Mr. Finerty, how
ever, and all the modern Wolfe Tones—as he modestly styles
himself and confreres, whose importance he proclaims—no
doubt, deem this rank treachery, and will call me a knave, be
cause, now that the dishonesty of one Wolfe Tone, bless the
mark, is ventilated, I choose to express my disapprobation
of such base perfidy on the part of any servant of the Organ
ization. But why do I say servants ? No, the word master
or dictator is more appropriate, as would appear from the
insolent and overbearing conduct of parties whose whole
stock to become arrogant from consists in the authority con
ferred on them and the emoluments they receive from those
whom they assume to despise. Had not this burst of
hauteur on Fincrty’s part, as well as other snobbish acts else
where, convinced me of my error and delusion, my Repub
lican ideas would still induce me to believe that since the
good old days, long to be remembered and regretted, when
kings Shaun and Shamus ruled and ruined so absolutely,
that the people ruled and their servants obeyed, and when
called upon would give an account of their stewardship.
Instead, however, of feeling indignant at this arrogant and
defiant tone of Finerty, who breathes forth destruction on
the devoted heads, not only of “ splenetic dastards and vile
assassins, ct id genus omne”—who claim the right to investigate
any of their servant’s conduct—or, I had, perhaps, better say
rutile the temper of any number of this self-devoted corps of
overtasked, well-paid patriots—we should rather feel grate
ful for the information we have thus received. Not only
the common herd, but even you, gentlemen journalists, are
threatened with annihilation if so temerarious or presump
tous as to publish aught but laudations, or what has their
approbation, “ unless you desire to challenge their ill
natures,” which I fear is the chief ingredient of some at
least of those modern Janizaries rather than model patriots.
If Mr. Finerty speaks authoritatively for others as for himself,
when he candidly asserts the great power they possess to in
flict injury on those offending the ring of organizers, which
he virtually admits is a secret body, bound by solemn obli
gations for mutual offense and defense, no other proof is
required to show that it is a dangerous concern, requiring
the fuli and speedy attention of those interested, and should
instantly be crushed ere it should raise its hydra-head against
those who gave it vitality and force. Let our modern Jani
zaries rave, foam and anathematize you, gentlemen; have
nothing to fear from the combined forces of hell, either in
the shape of British hirelings, Maynooth traitors or hungry
patriots, so long as you strike boldly and fearlessly at every
obstacle in the straight road to freedom, without pandering
| —as others styling themselves Irish-American journalists
have done heretofore—to the hollow-hearted bigots and
despots who have conspired to crush out liberty in Ireland,
to scatter the people homeless mendicants over the world,
or murder them by famines, in poor-houses, or on emigrant
ships—so long shall you be sustained by honest readers and
patrons, over whom this holy fraternity will be powerless of
mischief, as you now, as hitherto, have manfully and boldly
carried aloft the broad flag of liberty and freedom, which is
life to the people and death to the traitors and tyrants. But
once deviate from your course, or lower your standard, and
you would not find a dog mean enough to do you homage.
I am, gentlemen, yours in liberty,
Charles D. B. O’Ryan, M. D.
Officers of the Irish Army are all Competent.
New York, October 28, 1867.
To the Editors of The Irish Republic.
Gentlemen: In perusing your last edition, of October
26, I read an article headed, “ Have we competent officers in the
/. It. A.?” and signed I. E. G. Now, Sirs, while your cor
respondent may be sincere in his remarks, an erroneous
statement in public print will injure our Organization more
in one publication than we can repair in months, and I con
ceive it -my duty to correct a portion of his statement, and
also to enlighten all interested in this all-important subject.
\ our correspondent asserts, that “ officers elected apply to
headquarters for their commissions, and receive them without
anybody knowing whether they are competent to command
the company or notagain, he says, “when it is so easy to
get a commission, what ambitious youth would be a private?”
I will state for the information of your correspondent, I. E. G.,
as well as all interested, that in September, 1866, an order,
(a copy of which' I inclose,) “mustered out of service all
commissioned officers in the Army of Ireland previous to
that date,” and that since that time but one officer has been
commissioned in the I. R. A., either in Boston, the State of
Massachusetts, or in any portion of the New England States.
Numerous applications are now on file; but before commissions
are granted, all applicants, as well as those recommended,
are brought before a proper military board, consisting of old
and tried officers, and if found competent they are recom
mended, the proceedings laid before the President, carefully
examined, and if approved by him, the commission is then
issued, and an order promulgating the same is published for
the information and guidance of all concerned.
This is the modus operandi of appointing officers in the
re-organization of the Irish Republican Army.
Respectfully and fraternally yours, S. P. Spear,
Adgt. Gen. and A. S. War, I. tl. A.
The Editors beg most respectfully to suggest %that it
would be more satisfactory if the names of the Examin
ing Board of “ old and tried officers” were given to the public.
Who are the military authorities in whom we are invited
and expected to trust, and what is the record of their
services? _ _
Denouncing Temperance.
[In Ann Arbor, Michigan, there is a “ Father Mathew
Temperance Society,” and the members having secured the
services of one of the ablest American gentleman of the
. State, Dr. E. O. Haven, President of the Michigan Univer
sity, to deliver a lecture on Temperance, on the anniversary
of the birthday of Father Mathew, the priest of St. Thomas’
Church, in Ann Arbor, from the altar, denounced the Society,
and forbade his parishioners, on pain of excommunication,
to attend the lecture. We are sorry to say that, though the
lecture was a grand success, many of the Irish were slaves
enough to obey this inexcusable mandate. What must their
American fellow-citizens think of men(?) who can be driven
hither and thither beneath the lash of any village despot like
this. Are such people worthy of sharing in the citizenship
of the Republic ? We know the terrible power of the anti
temperance party among the Irish, but ere we can rescue
our country from her degraded position, we must fight and
conquer this demon of drunkenness, no matter who its
supporters may be. We honor the F. M. T. A. B. S. of Ann
Arbor for their manly action, and trust they will persevere
1 in their truly Christian and national work, even though only
a dozen members were found steadfast to independence and
principle among the Irish population of that place. Remem
ber that the reclaiming of one father of a family from drunk
enness [may save many from ruin and shame. We shall
endeavor, in some future issue, to make room for extracts
from Dr. Haven’s lecture, and in the meantime, we thank
him, in the name of our struggling people, for his large and
kindly sentiments.—Eds. I. R.]
Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 26th, 1867.
To the Editors of the Irish Republic.
Gentlemen : The fearless tone of your paper induces me
to forward you the items of an unpleasant controversy that
has taken place between the Rev. Father Delbaer, of this
city, and a portion of his congregation engaged in the cause
of temperance. The inclosed paper, having given mortal
offense to his reverence, and that portion of his congregation
with whom he fraternizes, (namely, the men who have got
rich by selling whisky, and who frown down any effort on
the part of their poorer countrymen to advance either the
cause of temperance or Irish liberty,) was denounced by
him in very severe terms from the altar, which denunciation
called forth the communication signed “ A Student,” and
headed “ Religion and Whisky” vs. “ Temperance,” to be
found in the Peninsular Courier of October 17tli. You will
find Di' Haven’s lecture in the Courier of the 24th October.
I think it deserves a wide circulation. The republication of
it in your paper would assist the cause of temperance and
morality. In such a case as ours, the only appeal is to the
sentiments of an enlightened public, and no matter how dis
agreeable it may be, our pride of country, and our indepen
dence as men, demand us to take the only course left.
Yours, Breffni.
At a special meeting of the Father Mathew Temperance
Society, Ann Arbor, Michigan, held Sunday evening, Octo
ber 6, 1867, the following resolutions were unanimously
adopted:
Whereas, The Reverend Father Delbaer, Pastor of St.
Thomas’ Church,Ann Arbor, Michigan, has this day publicly,
and from the altar of said church, denounced in bitter terms
the action of this society, in having secured the services of
Dr. E. O. Haven, President of the Michigan University, to
deliver a public lecture in Good Templar’s Hall, on the an
niversary of the birthday of the greatest apostle and advo
cate of total abstinence that ever appeared among men,
Whereas, The said Father Delbaer did, in his denuncia
tions this morning, declare it to be an act of apostacy from
the Church, and deserving of condemnation, even to excom
munication, for any member of the Catholic C urcio sub
scribe to or attend said lecture, Therefore, we the members
of the F. M. T. A. B. Society, No. 2, of A. A., in special
meeting assembled, do hereby consider it our solemn duty to
set before the public at large the true objects of our society,
and especially the rule regarding religion, by which we are
governed: • • ‘ .
CONSTITUTION.
Article 1. The obj'ect of this society shall be to eneour