Foy has hardly anything to say in answer to Brownson's letter of the 26th. Between an "advisory committee" and a "supervisory committee" there is simply the difference between tweedledum and tweedledee. But Foy does not blame Brownson for assenting whether tacitly or expressly to the creation of one or the other. Why should there be any secrecy about the matter of this committee or why should the existence of an episcopal committee to inspect the papers be clothed with the mystery of a semi-secrecy. The fact cannot long be disguised. Foy has no opinion to offer as to who should be put on that committee and can only dimly dwine the object of it all. Certainly it cannot be any apprehension on the part of James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop John Ireland and Bishop John S. Foley that lay matters would express heretical ideas. That hypothesis is too absurd-if absurdity admits of qualification. Under the circumstances Brownson could hardly have done, otherwise. However he should notify his writers in a delicate manner that the papers will be subject to inspection by a committee of learned and pious bishops who will practically have a veto power over them. This power eliminates from the movement its vital and creative idea but nevertheless the writers should be informed of it. There can be no free spontaneous utterance of lay Catholic sentiment when the papers must be shaped to coincidence in line and identity in color with stereotyped patterns. But let that pass and make the best possible of the circumstances. Noone is more disposed than Foy to back up His Eminence, but the trouble is that he or at least those who speak in his name fear to give anything of a free rein to the laity. But as Foy has told Brownson before, he does not feel called upon to champion the original project of a lay Congress, when those who originated it have in a measure been coerced into accepting modifications incompatible with the original plan. What is to be done now is to aid in giving as creditable as possible an appearance to the Baltimore meeting and to lay the foundations of a permanent organization which shall be the organ of Catholic sentiment in this country. Foy does not know who Frederic R. Coudert is nor his vies on the Temporal Power - nor does Father J. J. Hughes. Brownson did well to write him - that is, had no alternative underthe circumstances. If he refuses, write to Charles J. Bonaparte. Brownson might ask Archbishop Ireland to name the writer of the paper on temperance. The Stronger it is the better, for in that case the advisory committee will probably quarrel over it. Let the bishops have full swing since they mistrust the laymen and insist on clipping their wings. Foy does not believe that story about Bishop Martin Marty. There was not a single dissenting voice in Detroit when the proposition to conduct the proceedings of the Congress in English was before the Conference. Foy spent a few days last week over in Saylor's Springs, Illinois, but did not like the place. He was trying to find out something about Coudert or would have written sooner, though have had hardly anything to say, not having heard from William J. Onahan or having seen Henry J. Spaunhorst. Father Hughes tells him that the Congress is a subject of growing interest in Catholic circles. :: III-3-c A.L.S. 8pp. 8vo.