The Signature Is Questioned

THE SIGNATURE IS QUESTIONED

--------------------------

Father Kelly Reviews "Carlos Maria Lopez" Letter

--------------------------

IGNORANCE OF SPANISH

--------------------------

Shows That the Writer was Not Born in the Linigayen District - Subterfuge was Resorted to

--------------------------

The following letter was received from the Rev. E. D. Kelly by the Argus Friday:

Editor of the Argus:-

Last Monday a letter appeared in your paper in defense of the High School Omega. I have waited several days to see if it was possible to discover the identity of the writer, as it is not satisfactory to deal with those who are too cowardly to allow their names to go into print while they are trying to get back at you.

My contention with the High School Omega was and is that the Johnson letter was an insult to Catholics and a disgrace to the school which officially allowed the publication of statements that the Catholics of the Lingayen district were idolators and worshipped images. Anyone who is not densely ignorant knows that Catholic doctrine is the same all the world over. If I am right, why descend to abuse; and if I am wrong, why not show me wherein I am wrong?

Two letters have appeared in defense of the high school publication and neither one of them was to the point. Connected with these letters are facts which ought to he known. The first letter of the defense was dated "Cleveland, June 23," the same day the Argus was issued containing an account of my pulpit criticisms. That date is lie No. 1, because the Argus could not possibly get to Cleveland for delivery on that day. The author signs herself Carlos Maria Lopez." This signature is lie No. 2. for Carlos is a man's name in Spanish, Maria a woman's name. Carlota, if the writer is a woman, should have been used. This ignorance of the Spanish names shows that the writer was not born in the Lingayen district, which makes lie No. 3.

I have the manuscripts of these two "defense" letters, and have asked several to examine the handwriting. They agree with me that the same party wrote both letters, for the handwriting is identically the same, while the signatures are different. It is quite likely that the party signed his or her true name to the second letter. This second letter did not come from Cleveland, but some way or another, the quality, size, etc., of the paper is the same in both instances. And that's no lie. There are other crooked things about these letters, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to be "quarrelsome." Since the "defense" has resorted to subterfuge and falsehood to "feed fat the grudge" they have, they are entitled to all the honor there is, but must excuse me from any further connection with the matter. I am willing to hand the case over to the jury.

You need not suppress my name, Mr. Editor, for I am not ashamed to defend what I believe to be right.

E. D. Kelly,

521 Elizabeth Street.

Ann Arbor, July 5, 1902.