60
AN GAOḊAL.
THE IRISH-AMERICAN'S SENSE OF
JUSTICE?
In reply to libelious statements published in
the Irish-American for the week ending Dec. 20th
over the signature T. O'N. Russell, and the com¬
ments of the Editor, we sent the following letter
to the editor, but he refused to publish it, alleging
as his reasons for doing so that "He (us) most
unwarrantably drags the names of two respectable
ladies into his screed, in a manner that, at once,
puts him beyond the pale of decent journalism."
The reader has the whole matter, substantially,
subjoined and he can see if it contain one syllable of
the indecency which the ghoulish soul of the editor
desired to convey. But, in instances like the pre¬
sent, what else could be expected of the hero of
the Dublin p—, of Twenty-five years' ago, since
which time, he declares, he has a personal know¬
ledge of his client !
We never said Russell was a British detective
or spy (they are both the same) but we said and
do say that he has done work like that for which
spies have been engaged and paid. He has revi¬
led and aspersed the leaders of the Gaelic move¬
ment, beginning with Archbishop McHale, Tadhg
Gaolach, O'Donovan, O'Curry, Canon Bourke,
O'Reilly, the veteran Irish scholar, John Fleming,
Capt Norris, M. O'Shea, P J O'Daly (he called
him an ignorant bosthoon), and, though last not
least, Wm. Russell, thus seeking to beget a want
of public confidence in them. Read Davitt's Labor
World and you will see that Dublin Castle engag¬
ed, directed, and paid Pigott for doing the same to
the leaders of the Land League.
Had the Irish-American published our reply to
the libelious attack which they made on us this
matter would not appear in THE GAEL and, in the
absence of aught to sue, we have published it in
Justice to ourselves.
We have no personal enmity to Russell though
he seeks to make it appear that that is our reason
for exposing him; "because," he says, he "ridicu¬
led" us for not learning Irish from him. Was that
his reason for "ridiculing" Archbishop McHale
etc.? though he was only three years, he said,
studying Irish. Were he competent to teach them
or us he need not shift about for a living.
He will hardly challenge us again to prove that
he was in Ireland, for, unless seen there, no stron¬
ger proof could be adduced than the unguarded tes¬
timony of his own household. —
Editors Irish-American.
Gents. — In your issue of this week appear ex¬
cerpts from two letters of mine supplied by Mr. T
O'N. Russell. One of these letters, that to the
Chicago Citizen, was sent for pulication but Mr.
Finerty did not publish it [just as he done with
Capt. Norris's]; Why did Mr. Russell character¬
ize it as a private letter? He states that he lectur¬
ed twice for me. That is another falsehood — He
never lectured for me; he spoke for the Philo-Cel¬
tic Society on the occasion of two of their enter¬
tainments and received $5. from President Gilgan¬
non therefor, as did also the Piobaire Ban, who
was engaged on the same occasion. I merely men¬
tion these facts to show that Mr. Russell is not
particular as to what he states. Why does he not
state the truth in even these small particulars ?
Now to the main point. — Shortly after Mr. Rus¬
sell's coming to this country in '78 on his "Lectu¬
ring tour" Mr. Sullivan of Boston in a column
and-a-half article in a New York paper charged
him with being a British Spy, and based that
charge on the fact that he (Russell) was trying to
disorganize the Gaelic Societies then in the coun¬
try by sowing the seeds of discord amongst their
members, and also on the fact that he had no
visible means of earning his living, though he had
plenty of money to travel about the country.
It was thereafter circulated that Mr. Russell was
an agent for his brothers-in-law — two wealthy
French Vintners, and that he represented them in
this country. I, with others, believed that to be a
fact and thought a good deal of Mr. Russell at the
time. But some others wanted to sift the matter
and with that view canvassed Boston, Chicago
and New York (where he seemed to make his
headquarters) to see if he made any sales of liquor
in them. Not one could be found ! P. Hancock
Brady of Brooklyn, who was in the wholesale wine
and liquor business, and who attended the Chica¬
go markets, stated that he had seen Mr. Russell
there but never saw him transact any business.
Taking these matters in connection with the fact
that Mr. Russell has done all in his power to dis¬
organize the Gaelic movement by libeling all those
Irish scholars who were the life and blood of the
movement and representing as models of perfect¬
ion those who knew but very little about the Irish
language, the idea got abroad that his object was
the impairment of the Gaelic movement.
It being reported (as above stated) that his bro¬
thers-in-law were wealthy French vintners I was
very anxious to know if that was a fact but had
no means of ascertaining, thinking that they resi¬
ded in France.
Last summer a gentleman from Mobile, Ala., in
sending his subscription to THE GAEL incidentally
remarked that he expected to see T. O'N. Russell
over there in a short time as he and wife were to
pay a visit to his "brothers-in-law." This was a
surprise to me, and I wrote back to my Mobile sub¬
scriber requesting him when next writing to tell
me what Mr. Russell's brothers-in-law were, tell¬
ing him that they were represented as being weal¬
thy French vintners. Here is the reply to that
query. —
Mobile, Ala., Sept. 10th. 1890.
M. J. Logan.
A Shaoi,
I am in receipt of your favor of a few
weeks ago * * * Regarding Mr. Russell, what
I could glean of him is from the lady, an I¬
rish-American (of Chicago), who is married to a
brother of O'N R's wife. = = = Mrs. O'N.
R. has two brothers = = they are painters & decora¬
tors, = = =
The sister-in-law says, "Though French R
