Historical _Kesearches.

VOL. XIX. OCTOBER, 1902. No. 4.


Entered as Second Class Publication at Parkesburg, Pa.

Archbishop Ireland On History.

Archbishop Ireland in his great address before the National Edu- cational Association at Minneapolis in July, 1902, on “TrurH, THE CHIEF VIRTUE OF THE TEACHER,” spoke as follows on History.

History—the material from which is woven so largely the texture of our thoughts and our philosophy of life, is very often gatnered from the mere surface of things. What was said by writers of yesterday is repeated by writers of to-day, as what had been said at an earlier date was repeated by writers of yesterday. And readers, unfortunate- ly, are inclined to give their faith to the volume which first falls into their hands. Frequently the sources of our historical store are second- hand statements, and, in this manner, egregious historic falsehoods can be pointed out, that pass down through many generations, doing vast injustice, not only to individual names, but to whole nations and whole races. What should be done for history, is to go deeply into first sources, study each question in the light of the epoch more or less remote to which it originally belongs, by impartial investigation of contemporary documents of whatever nature these be: or, if this is impossible, for certain ones among us to seek out, as far as we may, writers who have gone to the first sources and who are noted for their fair-mindedness, and, in controverted matters, to give an atten- tive hearing to witnesses on both sides in the dispute.

In late years there is visible a wondrous improvement in the study of history, for which the worshipers at the shrine of truth cannot but


be most grateful. No one is to-day reputed a worthy historian who has not gone, in a most patient and laborious manner, to first sources. Lustre of name, literary beauty of style win no confidence, if proofs are not given of sound erudition and absolute honesty of purpose. Facts are in demand, and facts must be offered, or the volume is ruth- lessly set aside. National governments honor themselves by lending aid in this search for facts. Their secret archives are opened to in- vestigation and their treasures, hidden for ages on dusty shelves, are printed for public use, usually at the expense of governments them- selves. In this instance I take pride in recalling the act of Leo XIII, twenty years ago, in giving to all enquirers free and facile access to the archives of the Vatican palace, to which there repaired in ages gone by, more than to any other center of section, the records of the plan- nings and doings of Christendom. But why should not governments, whether of spiritual or temporal politics, be ever ready to enlighten the world on the happenings of the past? Governments, or powers what- ever, afraid of truth, are doomed, for truth crushed and silenced to-day will rise and speak to-morrow, so surely as the God of truth reigns. “Truth is mighty and it will prevail.”


Advice of Leo XIII. to historians in general: “Men of courag»,” said his Holiness, “men versed in historical studies, must devote them- selves to writing history in such a manner that it shall be a mirror of truth and sincerity, and that the insulting accusations too long directed against the Roman Pontiff shall be learnedly and becomingly exploded; that to scanty narratives dili- gent and ripened investigations shall succeed; thet rash judgments shall give way to prudent verdicts; baseless views to learned criticism. Lies and falsehoods must be refuted by having recourse to original sources, at the same time remembering that the first law of history is never to set forth what it not true; that its second law is never to fear to state the truth, and lastly, never to lay yourself open to even a suspicion of a spirit of flattery or of hatred.”

The Shamrock (N. Y.) November 19th, 1814, contains “Brutality of the Enemy” being an account of the British attack on St. Inigoes and the desecration of the chapel, and sacred vessels—the Blessed Sac- rament taken away. This was on October 31st, 1814.


Errors of Catholic American History. The Settlement of Maryland.—The Toleration Act.

“The Catholics of Maryland, fleeing from persecution in England formed the colony of Maryland, and embodied in the laws the great principle of liberty of conscience.”

That,in various forms,is standard history among Catholics. Not one of the Catholic “gentlemen adventurers” nor Lord Baltimore’s brother, Leonard who came as Governor had to “flee from persecution.”

There was then no special persecution of Catholics. The Dissenters and Puritans were then getting the lash that had been lifted from the Catholics. am

Lord Baltimore did not come to Maryland. He was a convert to Catholicity. That’s a fact some well informed Catholics do not know and some have been surprised at being told of. He got the estates in Ireland and the title he bears in history after his conversion and from a Protestant King. The grant of Avalon in Newfoundland and of Maryland were King’s favors. His attempt to colonize Avalon failed. So he sought land in a more congenial climate, and was granted Mary- land. The twenty “gentlemen,” who were the chief settlers, have no records of suffering for the Faith in England and so “fleeing” to Mary- land to be free in the exercise of tneir religion.

Not a bit of concern in religion are they shown to have ever mani- fested either in England or Maryland. Very many, if not the majority, of the first settlers were Protestants. So Lord Baltimore had to be tolerant of necessity as he was from principle. He couldn’t exclude Protestants from his colony which needed settlers.

His, alleged, “persecuted” brethren were not overeager to rush to the unknown land across the sea, even to escape the “persecutions,” though two priests went with the first expedition. He was himself tolerated, in fact, if not in law, in England at tne time of the two grants to him.

So he could not have restricted liberty of conscience to Catholics and would not have been permitted to try to do it. He could not, and of course would not debar Catholics from it. He wished his grant to to be peopled and prosperous. So he desired to allay religious antagon- isms and have people live in harmony if not in unity.


Nothing appears in his papers or in others of the settlers to indicate the least concern about the Faith, or the desire to establish an asylum for his persecuted” brethren. Even the priests who came were, as far as Lord Baltimore was concerned, but settlers of land and entitled to grants according to the number of people they brought to Mary- land. None of the Lords Baltimore were specially gracious to Fathers White and Altman or their successors simply as priests. Indeed as such they were restricted, hampered and controlled and not in the gracious consideration of the Proprietors at any time. Lands given them or granted them by the Indians were taken from them. There are those who see “retributive justice” in the political and social troubles that came upon the successive Lords Baltimore for measures antagonistic to the Jesuits. The Toleration Act of 1649 sent to the Maryland Assembly by Lord Baltimore for adoption was passed. It little matters whether the majority of the Assembly were Catholics or Protestants—both claims are made. It was an attempt to keep Mary- land free from the Puritan agitation and warfare prevailing in Eng- land. In plain terms it simply forbade Catholics and Protestants in Maryland from calling each other names. It really did not grant Toleration. That had existed for years.

We Catholics boast greatly about the Act granting Religious Tolera- tion of Maryland, 1649,as establishing religious liberty in this country. But we don’t want to know as C. M. Scanlan, of Milwaukee, wrote The New Century, of Washington, November 10th, 1900 that, “This so- called act of tolerance was the first act of intolerance in Maryland. Under it Jews, Unitarians, Infidels, etc., could be put to death for expressing their beliefs.”

Mr. Scanlan says: “I believe every Catholic member voted against the Act.”

Remember the Act decreed death against all who “shall deny the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, or the Godhead of any of the Three Persons of the Trinity or the unity of the Godhead, etc.”

The Toleration Act amounted to nothing. The Puritans in Eng- land beheaded Charles I. The tribe in Maryland upset things gener- ally and gave no toleration to Toleration.

So if Public Schools of Maryland are teaching that Protestants were in the majority in the Assembly of 1649, which passed the too much lauded Toleration Act, the children will be quick-witted enough to discover the insincerity of the Protestant Assemblymen by the sub-


sequent action of the Puritans in their intolerance towards Catholics. At the Restoration, Lord Baltimore was reinstated in his rights, and more peaceful, if not harmonious, times came again.

Catholics, after the settlement in 1633, nor at any time, did not rush from the actual persecution that at times prevailed in England and Ireland against them. Any special “fleeing” was to the Contin- ent. It is doubtful if at any time the Catholics in Maryland were in a majority. Father White at one time wrote that “three of four parts” were “heretics.” When Catholics in England were being let alone, then Religious Toleration prevailed in Maryland. When anti-Catholic agitation or persecution went on in England, then the Catholics in Maryland had a hard life of it. After the overthrow of James IT. they were worried, harrassed, doubly taxed and restricted in religious exer- cises like the Mass to private houses, and the priests almost debarred from visiting the sick, and prevented from attending Protestants so as to save them from conversion to Catholicity. Catholic Maryland! What a misnomer at any time, and especially for nigh one hundred years prior to the Revolution of 1776.

Protestants ought to be ashamed to claim that a majority of the Assembly of 1649 was theirs in view of the subsequent wrong doing to the Catholics, and the obliteration of all signs of Toleration.

Dr. Shea’s History of the Church, Vol. IV, in relating the destruc- tion in 1844, of St. Augustine’s Church, Philadelphia, says: “The church was fired and the cupola soon encircled with flames, which wreathed around the old State House bell that first rung out the tid- ings that the Declaration of Independence had been made by the Con- tinental Congress,” (p. 51.)

That is an error: The bell and clock destroyed had been bought from the city in 1828 for $250. The bell was not the Liberty Bell, but a bell which had belonged to the Province of Pennsylvania before the Revolution and had been used to call the Assembly together. It was hung upon the State House building in front of the steeple under a small belfry and was rung for fires. When the steeple on the State House was built in 1828, clock and bell were sold to St. Augustine’s church on petition of citizens of the neighborhood irrespective of re- ligion because the situation of the church enabled the clock to be so placed ag to be seen by many for a Jong distance just as is the case to-day.

The Bible in Schools.

To the Editor of The Public Ledger:

It is noticeable that your correspondents who protest against the ‘ible in the public schools as an invasion of the American principle of separation of Church and State, and who deem themselves capable of advising Christians how best to maintain and promote Christianity, are themselves non-Christian, that is, those who are commonly called infidels, persons without any settled denominational religious views or doctrines.

They want the Bible kept out of the schools, fearing it may impress the youthful minds with religious opinions and so retard the growth of the non-Christianity views they hold.

No wonder they so argue when their own nothingness in religion is, as a fact, the very religion which comes from the public schools. Thus one class of the community, and that the smallest in number, as pro- fessed infidels surely are, have their system of religion established in the schools. Those who uphold, even when they do not profess avowedly by membership in one of the sects, and those who do believe and practice doctrines and exercises of some Christian denomination, as well as our Hebrew brethren, are the very ones whose religious con- victions must have no bearing upon the education of their children.

The Nothingarians, as we may call them, have all the advantages of a system of education which promotes their system of religion, that is, the absence of any religious belief.

Isn’t that a queer system for keen-witted Americans to have—one that gives a small minority all and deprives those who have religious convictions which they cherish as their comfort in life and their hope in the future of any?

No wonder such correspondents are alert when such a question be- comes of public consideration. They are active, persistent and ag- gressive, and so have actually mastered the great bulk of the people by their plausible appeals for the upholding of separation of Churen and State, and pointing out horrors of religious strife.

How anxious they are for peace among those with whom they have no sympathy. They have possession of the schools now, and do not wish to have their control jeopardized. The marvel is that those of religious convictions let them have their way to their own damage,


and do not set about finding a way by which religion, which cannot be known until taught, any more than arithmetic, can be taught to the children of those who believe in it, and nothing of it to the chil- dren of those who do not believe any religious doctrines ought to be taught their children. Let such have their way with their own and not with the offspring of other people, as they have their own and others under their method now.

On the other hand, look at the attitude of those who wish the Bible in the schools. ‘They appear not so candid and fair or honest as the infidels or Nothingarians. The National Teachers’ Association, at its recent convention, lamented the lack of moral teachings in the public schools. Experience has shown these educators the need of it, and perhaps the dire results of its absence. They want morality inculeated. Do they stand up boldly for the Bible as an exponent of morality, and so ask it to be returned where it has been excluded, or introduced where it is not now known? Oh, no! After mourning, almost, over the absence of moral teachings, the association put its plea for the Bible on the plane of its being a very good specimen of English, and so as a text book of literature ought to have a place in the system of public education. Isn’t that a pitiable spectacle? The Bible simply a specimen—the best there is, may be, of literature.

How can it, as a piece of well written literature, lessen the im- morality deplored or add strength to the inculcation of moral ideas? To do that the Bible must be read with humility, simplicity and faith as the word of God, and not as a bit of literature, the best in our language.

I wonder if these teachers who have noted the absence of moral prin- ciples in their pupils, and so think the Bible, as a piece of literature, will remedy the evil they regret to declare exists, know the practical effects of the presence of the Bible in the school room. Is it a pro- moter of morality? Far from it. I-went to a public school, but was exempted from Bible reading. Those who did read it made known every obscene passage or text in it to others, and so every verse which impressed immoral ideas on youth was well known to all. The read- ing of the portions selected daily for class reading which told of up- lifting and better things were not those remembered.

That was the Bible in the schools as I knew it in my youth. Even yet the teachers in national convention are deploring the lack of


morality in their pupils, but think the Bible would be the remedy. Oh, no! It would promote immorality. These teachers want moral- ity. Don’t they know that Washington, in his farewell address, which to-day is not heeded in any respect, told us all not to hope that mo- rality could exist without religion? It does not and cannot, and there is no reason it could. If, then, the teachers want morality impressed upon youthful minds they must bring in religion to do it.

But oh, horror! Teach religion in the public schools, the schools supported by everybody’s money! Other countries are doing it, and are we to admit we are so unskilled in the settlement of public ques- tions on which depend the welfare and happiness of our people that we cannot simply, out of fear of something we could not suppress if it appeared, adopt a system of public education which will not oblige our educators in national convention to deplore the lack of morality in our public schools, and who can suggest no other remedy than to introduce Bible reading, and that not as an embodiment of moral teachings, but simply because it is a well-writen piece of English literature? That shows our educators are appalled, and not the ones to improve a system of education fraught with immorality and so of impiety. Where the Bible has been tried it tends to lessen, not to strengthen, simply because the religious idea, the teaching of the re- sponsibility to God does not go with it, and could not be made to go with it as a specimen of literature. It could not rank even as that, as the pupils explain and strive to get at the _ ‘ue interpretation of the poets and writers whose literature they are given to study, but to do that with the Bible would be religion, and hence confusion would pre- vail. Yet we Americans boast of our progress, wisdom and ability, and yet we cannot have for our children a system of education that will satisfy all. Why Canada, for whom we almost have contempt, has done that so that general satisfaction exists.

At any rate the system we have is a failure, and a failure in its most important part, and the National Teachers’ Association pro- claims it. A system that does not promote morality strengthens ir- religion and that brings national decay. Washington taught Ameri- cans that. We must come back to his principles in that and in all other concerns. He was God’s instrument to deliver us. He was God’s messenger to teach us. Martin I. J.GRIFFIN.

Philadelphia, August 18, 1902.

Some Early Day Catholic Papers.

To the Editor of the Catholic Citizen:

In all early Catholic matters, always keep Philadelphia at or near the top.

On November 30, 1822, was issued in Philadelphia The Catholic Herald and Weekly Register. It supported Father Hogan, the ex- communicated priest of St. Mary’s church. On February 22, 1823, was issued The Catholic Advocate and Irishman’s Journal. Its ob- ject was “to defend our ancient and holy religion from the pestiferous breath of heretical innovation.” So it supported Bishop Conwell. But before either of these had been published, The Erin was issued in August, 1822, and continued during 1823. Last December I ex- amined some copies preserved in the Library of Congress, Washington, D. C.


Still earlier was The Irishman and Weekly Review issued April 13, 1822. The prospectus of this publication makes no mention, however, of religion. All these publications arose out of the Conwell-Hogan controversy. The Catholics were Irish, so not only was religion out- raged by its own, but as they were Irish, poor Ireland had to be tra- duced. So these several Irish papers came forth to her defense.

The Irish Shield, you say, was published in this city “by an Irish- man named Pepper,” but he transferred it to Boston and changed the title to The Literary and Catholic Sentinel. The singular fact is that Mr. Pepper was not a Catholic, though he was, at one time, editor of The Pilot. I once had a volume of The Shield, but from memory (not taking time to get the record), I think is was published in New York for a while.

But before these papers, or any you mention, even The Catholic Miscellany of Bishop England, was The Shamrock or Hibernian Chronicle of New York. A volume from December 15, 1810, to June 5, 1813, is in the Library of Congress. Also its continuation, The Shamrock from June 18, 1814, to August 16, 1817. During this time Thomas O’Connor, the father of the eminent lawyer, Charles O’Conor, was publisher, with Gillaspey. You will note that his father used two “n’s” in his name. The son contented himself with ene, having, I am told, made investigations which showed one “n”


was all that his family should use. Whether The Shamrock continued after 1817, I have not investigated, but I presume it did, as the re- cord of the Library of Congress says it “became The Truth Teller in 1825.” There is not much Catholic information in The Shamrock from 1810 to 1817, but there are lists of passengers arriving from Ireland at New York and Philadelphia, which it would be well for the American-Irish Historical Society to have copied and published as of genealogical value. SOME OLD PAPERS.

The Emigrant, published in New York from January 16, 1833, to September 23, 1835, and called The Emigrant and Old Countryman from October 28, 1835, to April 18, 1838, probably are of Catholic and Irish interest. The two volumes are in the Library of Congress, but I had not time to make examinations of them on a recent vist.

The Catholic Citizen is not in the library. Few Catholic papers are. All ought to be, for it is a great, and will be a greater storehouse for all newspapers and other publications. I recently sent there The Catholic Telegraph, 1833-4, and have presented hundreds of books and pamphlets. Unless we look out for the preservation of our own records, others ought not to be expected to.

Martin J. J. GRIFFIN.

Philadelphia, June 21, 1902. Catholic Citizen, June 28, 1902.

Thomas Lloyd the Stenographer.

The National Shorthand Reporters’ Association held its annual convention at Boston from August 19 to 22. It appointed a com- mittee of two Washington stenographers and made a sufficient ap- propriation to enable them to erect a memorial tablet near the grave of Thos. Lloyd, inSt. Augustine’s graveyard, in this city. Mr. Lloyd was a Revolutionary soldier, a stenographer and official reporter of the first House of Representatives, which met in this city. In 1789 he pub- lished “The Unerring Authority of the Catiolic Church.” He had an eventful career, which has been detailed in THz AMERICAN CATHO- Lic HistoricaL ResearcuHeEs, for January, 1890. This was read att the convention and determined its action.


The Beginning of the Hierarchy in the United States.—The Appointment of a Superior.— Benjamin Franklin’s Recommendation of Rev John Carroll, His Companion on the Embassy to the Canadians, in 1776.

Monsignor Doria, the Papal Nuncio at Paris, wrote, on July 28th, 1783, Benjamin Franklin, the Minister of the United States:

“The Apostolical Nuncio has the honor to send Mr. Franklin the enclosed note, wnich he requests he will be pleased to forward to the Congress of the United States of North America, and support it with his credit.


“Before the revolution, which has just been completed in North America, the Catholics and missionaries of those provinces depended, as to their spiritual concerns, on the Apostolical Vicar, resident in

London. It is well known that this arrangement can no longer exist; but as it is essential that the Catholic subjects of the United States should have an ecclesiastic to govern them in their religious concerns, the congregation de Propaganda Fide existing at Rome for the establishment and conservation of missions, has come to the de- termination of proposing to Congress to establish, in some city of the United States of North America, one of their Catholic subjects, with the powers of Apostolical Vicar, and in the character of Bishop, or simply in quality of Apostolical Prefect.

“The establishment of an Apostolical Vicar Bishop appears the most eligible, the more so as the Catholic subjects of the United States would find themselves in a situation to receive confirmation and orders in their own country, without being obliged to go for that pur- pose to the country of a foreign power. And as it might sometimes happen, that among the subjects of the United States, there might be no person in a situation to be charged with the spiritual government, either as Bishop or Apostolical Prefect, it would be necessary, in such circumstances, that Congress should consent to choose him from among the subjects of a foreign nation the most friendly with the United States.” [Sparks’ Diplomatic Correspondence of the Revolution, Vol. iv, p. 158-9. ]


Another translation of the above may be read in De Coursey-Shea’s History of the Catholic Church in the United States, page 56, edition 1856. The same is used in Shea’s Life and Times of Archbishop Carroll, p. 213-4.

The Jesuits in the United States were at this very time considering the same subject. On 27th of June, 1783 they had met at White- marsh, Md., “to deliberate on the state of religion,” and again on No- vember 6th. At this meeting a memorial was addressed to Rome solic- iting “the nomination of a Superior to be chosen from themselves.” A committee was appointed “to establish a form of government for the clergy, and lay down rules for the administration and government

of their property,” but such rules were nut adopted until October 11th, 1784.

Among the Resolutions adopted was one declaring:

That a Superior wth powers to give confirmation, grant faculties, dispensation, bless oils, etc., is adequate to the present exigencies of re- ligion in this country.

That a Bishop is at present unnecessary. That if one be sent, it is decided by a majority of the chapter, that he shall not be entitled to any support from the present estates of the clergy.

This Resolve was sent to Rev. John Thorpe “their agent at Rome.” He did not present it.

Franklin informed Congress of the request of the Nuncio, where- upon, on May 11th, 1784 Congress resolved: That Doctor Franklin be desired to notify the Apostolical Nuncio, at Versailles, that Con- gress will always be pleased to testify their respect to his sovereign and state; but that the subject of his application to Doctor Franklin, being purely spiritual, it is without the jurisdiction and powers of Congress, who have no authority to permit or refuse it, these powers being reseived to the several States individually. (Secret Journal of Congress, iii p. 493.)

The Secretary of the Propaganda, on June 6th, 1784, presented Pius VI a report on the Church in the United States, and proposed the nomination of Rev. John Carroll, as Superior.

“Our Most Holy Father, by Divine Providence, Pope Pius VI, on the report of the undersigned, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, granted to the Rev. John Carroll, Superior of the Mission in the thirteen United States of North America, the faculty cf adininistering the sacrament of Confirmation, in the said provinces


during his superiorship—the said faculty to be exercised in accordance with the rules prescribed in the instruction published by order of the Congregation on the 4th of May, 1784. Given at Rome in the house of the Congregation, on the day and year above named. STEPHEN Borel, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation de prop. fide.

[Shea, 11, p. 224.]

“The Sacred Congregation on the report of Reverend Stephen Borgia, its Secretary, declared Superior of the missions {a the thirteen United States of North America, the Rev. John Carroll, secular priest, with authority to exercise the functions which regard the government of the missions, according to the tenor of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation, and of the faculties granted to him, and not otherwise nor in a different manner. Given at Rome the 9th of June, 1784. L. CarpDINAL ANTONELLI, Prefect.

S. Boreta.

[Shea’s History ii, p. 224.]

On the evening of June 9th, 1784, the day the decree was signed, Rev. J. Thorpe, an English ex-Jesuit, agent of the clergy of the United States, wrote Dr. Carroll informing him of his appointment as Su- perior, and adding: “when the Nuncio, M. Doria, at Paris, applied to Mr. Franklin the old gentleman remembered you; he had his memory refreshed though you had modestly put your own name in the last place on the list.”

This letter was received by Dr. Carroll on August 20th. In his re- ply, he spoke of Dr. Thorpe’s “partiality, joined to that of my old friend. Dr. Franklin suggested me to the consideration of his Fioliness.”

In the writings of Franklin we find under date of July 1st, 1784: “The Pope’s Nuncio called and acquainted me that the Pope had, on my recommendation, appointed Mr. John Carroll Superior of the Catholic clergy in America, with many of the powers of a Bishop, and that probably he would be made a Bishop in partibus, before the end of the year. He asked which would be most convenient for him to come to France, or to go to St. Domingo for ordination by another Bishop, which was necessary. I mentioned Quebec as more convenient than either. He asked whether, as that was an English province, our government might not take offense at his going thither. I thought


not, unless the ordination by that Bishop should give him some authority over our Bishop. He said not in the least; that when our Bishop was once ordained, he would be independent of the other, and even of the Pope, which I did not clearly understand. He said the Congregatian de Propaganda fide had agreed to receive and maintain and instruct two young Americans in the languages and sciences at Rome. He had formerly told me that more would be educated gratis in France. He added, they had written from America that there are twenty priests, but that they are not sufficient, as the new settlements near the Mississippi have need of some.

“The Nuneio said we should find the Catholics were not so in- tolerant as they had been represented; that the Inquisition in Rome had not now as much power as that in Spain; and that in Spain it was used chiefly as a prison of state; that the congregation would have undertaken the education of more American youths, and may here- after, but that at present they are overburdened, having some from all parts of the world.”

The official document appointing Dr. Carroll Superior appears to have been given to the Nuncio at Versailles and by him to Count de Vergennes, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for France, who forwarded it to Barbe de Marbois, the French Charge then resident in New York, who sent it to Dr. Carroll, that being the course of trans- mission of an authority to extend the Jubilee of 1775 (which was not announced on account of the Revolutionary War) to the United States. That was in October, 1784. On November 26th, the decree appointing him Superior was received, and presumably, by the same governmental channel.

[ Decree, Shea, 11. p. 243.]

In November, 1784, Rev. John Carroll received from Monsignor Doria, the Nuncio at Paris, a letter saying “the interests of religion, Sir, requiring new arrangements relative to the missions of the United States of North America, the congregation of the Propaganda directs me to request from you a full statement of the actual con- dition of these missions. In the meantime I beg that you will in- form me what number of missionaries may be necessary to serve them and to furnish spiritual aid to Catholic Christians in the United States; in what provinces there are Catholics and where is the great- est number of them; and, lastly if there are among the nations of the


country, fit subjects to receive holy orders and exercise the functions of missionaries. You will greatly oblige me by this attention and in- dustry which you will exercise in procuring me this information. I have the honor to be, with esteem and consideration, Sir, your very humble and obedient Servant.


The Nuncio enclosed memorandum of questions:

1. Who among the missionaries might be the most worthy, and, at the same time, agreeable to the members of the Assembly of those Pro- vinces, to be invested with the character of Bishop in partibus and the quality of Vicar-Apostolic.

2. If among these ecclesiastics there is a native of the country, and he should be among the most worthy, he should be preferred to all others of equal merit, otherwise choice should be made of one from some other nation. In default of a missionary actually residing in those provinces, a Frenchman will be nominated, who will go to es- tablish himself in America.

The Superior became the Bishop. At St. Mary’s Seminary, Balti- more, may be seen this certificate.

“By these presents we testify that, assisted by the Reverend Charles Plowden, and the Reverend James Porter, priests, we did, in the chapel of Lulworth Castle, Dorsetshire, England, on August 15th, 1790, the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin, confer Episcopal consecration upon the Reverend John Carroll, Bishop-elect of Baltimore, the Apostolic Letter, given under the seal of the Fisher- man at St. Mary Major’s, November 6th, 1789, having been read, and the oath having been taken by the Prelate-elect, according to the Roman Pontifical. Given at Lulworth, August 17th, 1790.

CHARLES WALMESLEY, Bp. of Rama, V. A. CuarLes PLowpeEn, Assistant Priest. JAMES Porter, Assistant Priest. CHARLES FORRESTER,

Priest, Missionary-A postolic. THoMAS STANLEY.

Bishop Calderon, of Santiago de Cuba, in 1674 made an Episcopal visitation of Florida and perhaps “actually reached South Carolina.” He confirmed in the eight months of his visitation 13,152. [Shea 1, p. 172.] 3 Sess

eevee veers


The Glorious Record of an Illustrious Priest of the Diocese of Detroit, The Septuagenar- ian, Father Amandus Van Den Driessche.

There died on the morning of November 23, 1901, at his residence in Detroit, suddenly, from heart disease, while, with his rosary in his hand, he was about to enter his private chapel to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice, Rev. Amandus Van den Driessche; who for five years had been on the retired list of the clergy of the Diocese of Detroit ; mean- while enjoying a salary of $500 per year, as emeritus pastor of the suburban parish of the Assumption, at Connor’s Creek.

He was born in Moorslede, in the Province of West Flanders, Bel- gium, in 1825.

Among such a busy people it is not unusual to find many families who have numbered among their sons and daughters, both priests and religious women.

In Father Van den Driessche’s family, there were three priests and two nuns. ;

He came to Detroit in 1846, and completed his theological studies under the supervision of Rt. Rev. Peter Paul Lefevere, D. D., Bishop of Zela,and co-adjutor administrator of the Diocese of Detroit, to whom he was related on his mother’s side. He was ordained to the priest- hood December 21, 1850.

His elder brother Charles, had become a member of the Society of Jesus, and who had preceded him in coming to America, had been received into the Archdiocese of Cincinnati, by Archbishop Purcell, and joined his brother Jesuits at St. Francis Xavier’s in that city, where he soon after became the active pastor of that parish, at the time in a central locality, the majority of whose members were of German and Irish nationality, the latter probably predominating. Father Charles, who had become proficient in the English language, in which he was an eloquent preacher, soon found that his Belgian name was too long, and in many cases unpronouncable, decided to change it to the shorter name of Driscoll ; and by the name of Father Driscoll he soon became generally known, loved and esteemed, by the faithful of the Jesuit parish. Driscoll being an Irish name, while his natural bonhomie and the rosy complexion of his face, warranted the belief,


he lived, worked, and died in the belief of nis parochial community, that he was in reality an Irish priest.

A younger brother came to Detroit after Father Amandus had been ordained and completed his theological course under the supervision of the Very Reverend Peter Kindckens, Vicar General. He was in time ordained and sent to Lansing, the capital of the State, where he organized St. Mary’s church. When in that city some years later, I visited the Boy’s Reformatory. It was 3 o’clock in the afternoon and much to my surprise and gratification, I found Father Van den Driessche instructing a numerous class of Catholic boys, preparatory. to their confirmation.

None other than a family of wealth could have given the collegiate education to the three young men, two of whom subsequently became identified with the diocese of Detroit, while the third became a Jesuit, requisite to the preparatory course of theology; while after the semin- ary course of the two young ladies had been completed, it required at least 2000 francs for their dot, upon their reception into a religious community.

It was the custom of Bishop Lefevere after he had ordained the young postulants to the priesthood, to give them a short probation as: assistants in his own cathedral or at one of the city parishes.

What was known at the time as the Gratiot Turnpike, was one of the main outlets leading southeast to Port Huron. About eight miles from the center of the city this thoroughfare was crossed by a deep stream leading from the forest on the north, down into Lake Ste. Claire. South of the Gratiot Turnpike, and between the latter and the lake, on the west side of the stream, the land for about a mile in width, had been owned by the Connor family, for a century or more; this was the Catholic branch of this family, prominent in the history of American civilization in Indiana, Ohio and Michigan, whose descen- dants still oceupy a considerable portion of the family patrimony. . When the townships east of Detroit were laid out and named, the territory tributory to this stream was named after it, Connor’s Creek.

North of the Gratiot Turnpike, as late as twelve years ago, the terri- tory was still owned and occupied by tne descendants of the original French grantees. About the period mentioned a tract of two hundred or more acres had been purchased two miles north, of the thorough- fare, as a site for the future necropolis of the Cathelics ‘of Detroit,


now known as Mount Olivet Cemetery. The approach to these grounds is by the “French Lane” from Gratiot.

While engaged in the preliminary work of the development of these romantic grounds of Mount Olivet, and on my way homeward one afternoon, a violent storm arose; my horse became so restless that I was forced to seek refuge in an antiquated looking farm house east of the “French Lane.”

It was a typical French farmer’s home, occupied by the owner of the farm, who was a widower, and an octogenarian, with his son and the latter’s family. Seated in a capacious armchair was the maiden sister of the proprietor, who was also a nonagenarian, and who was busily en- gaged in plaiting fine straw into tresses for straw hats. Neither of these venerable representatives of the French race, who had been born on the soil on which they lived, understood or could speak the English language.

The home was comfortably provided, and the farm buildings were extensive and well-stocked ; while large herds of horned cattle, horses sand sheep could be seen grazing in the adjacent fields. About a mile veast of the creek, on the south side of the road, had been located dur- ing Father Richard’s time on a plot of perhaps two acres, a chapel ‘and cemetery, where at times a priest from Detroit offered the Holy Sacrifice and instructed the children for their reeeption of the Holy Sacraments. East of this station or chapel, which in time was known as that of the Assumption, the land was covered by the primeval forest even as late as the early “thirties.” The soil, which was heavily wooded, was of a rich Ieum.

In the meantime Daniel Corby, one of the original Irish Catholic pisnecrs cf Detroit, had i.ccme 2 resident of the city and had in- vested considerable money in real estate; desirous of providing a suburban heme for himself and his increasing family, he was attracted to the vicinity of Connor’s Creek, where he purchased extensively from such of the French proprietors as he found disposed to part with a portion of their holdings, and building the first brick residence in that vicinity, he moved his family from the city. Following Mr. Corby, came a number of German Catholic families of intelligence, and well provided with means, who purchased land in the vicinity.

Thus was formed the nucleus of the Catholic settlement of Connor’s Creek, early seventy years ago.


The old chapel had to be enlarged from time to time; services were held irregularly, perhaps once every two weeks under the auspices of Vicar General Badin, who had succeeded Father Richard.

The journey from Connor’s Creek to Detroit was disagreeable; it had to be made, except during Winter, over muddy or dusty roads. Upon the advent of Bishop Lefevere, Mr. Corby determined that the time had arrived when the community should have a resident priest, and he approached Bishop Lefevere to this effect; but the Bisnop had no available priests, and if he had there were many other and more necessitous localities in his diocese, where a priest was more de- cidedly needed, than Connor’s Creek, which was but a comparatively short distance from Detroit.

But Mr. Corby seeing the young community of the Catholic settle- ment yearly increasing, determined to carry his point; funds were collected, the grounds around the old chapel were improved, a house for the priest was built and a school house also, in which a young lady of one of the Catholic families was installed as teacher. Finally in 1850, the Bishop having more priests available, saw his way clear to promise a resident pastor for Connor’s Creek within a year.

Soon after Rev. Amandus Van den Driessche was appointed pastor