The second meeting called last Thursday evening by certain "parishioners" against the St. George's parish priest, Deacon Krauciunas, was much shorter than the previous meeting about which Lietuva has already written. The first meeting was called as though in the name of the parish, but without the knowledge of Deacon Krauciunas. Reverend Krauciunas, having possession of the parish charter, which gives him such rights, got an injunction against this meeting, on the ground that it was not legal, and the meeting was dispersed by the police.

It seems to us that the parishioner who called this second meeting tried to act more wisely than he had previously--that is, in respect to parish rules. Therefore, this time the leaflets declared that this meeting was called "by the parishioners, but not by the Deacon." But even that did not help.

2

Crowds of people were waiting in front of Freiheit Turner Hall half an hour before the door was opened. It was clear that crowds of people were coming on streetcars from other parts of the city. Last week forty hours of devotions were held at St. George's Church; during that time, the Right Reverend Jakstis of Indiana Harbor delivered a very sharp speech against this meeting; but from reading the leaflet, it seems that he advertised this meeting more than anything else. Many people who had supported the idea came to this meeting, while others came just for the fun, in order to see what the outcome of this comedy would be.

In reality, it turned out to be not very humorous comedy. At about 7:30 P. M., the galleries of the hall were packed and the hall itself was almost full. Many people were still coming in, among them many women.

On the stage there was a man, who seemed to be the chairman; he was 3the one who had called this meeting. He was the same man who had signed the first leaflets under the name of "Parishioner"--a certain Mr. J. Dimsa.

The conduct of the audience was orderly. Mr. Dimsa asked the public to take seats, and he even asked the men to stop smoking because many women were in the hall. But Mr. Dimsa did not even have a chance to open the meeting. The meeting was closed by the police in a very improper manner. The police captain from the 35th Street police station immediately appeared on the stage, and said something to Mr. Dimsa. Then, with his club, he struck the pitcher of water which was on the table. Parts of the pitcher flew in all directions, even the water spattered as far as the first seats on the main floor.

"This meeting is over!" cried the police captain, grabbing the arm of Mr. Dimsa.

4

The policeman revealed himself as a very cruel man, because Mr. Dimsa had a police permit to hold the meeting, and the conduct of the audience was orderly. It seems that the police decided to provoke an excuse to prevent the meeting from being held. The policeman grabbed Mr. Dimsa by the neck, and threw him from the stage to the floor below. The audience, which was very orderly, now stared at the police, awaiting the outcome of this commotion.

Mr. Dimsa went back up on the stage; of course he did not want to give up to the police. The audience greeted Mr. Dimsa with great applause for his daring action. Nevertheless, the triumph of Mr. Dimsa did not last long because the police captain again appeared on the stage, and at the same time several of Dimsa's friends went on the stage too, and demanded that the police explain what right they had to make trouble at this orderly and peaceful meeting. Then the riot began because the police captain and several policemen and detectives began to "clean up" the stage. At the same time, turmoil began in the audience in the hall.

5

Then Mr. Dimsa was arrested, and the police tried to take him out. But the supporters of Mr. Dimsa surrounded the police, and decided to take Dimsa from them.

Then there arose a real commotion in the audience. Part of the public ran out the door because they were afraid that in such a riot both guilty and innocent would suffer. Such a tumult arose in the hall that it was impossible to understand what was going on. Only one strong voice--belonging to a man--from the gallery was heard over the boisterous noise of the audience: "Do not give up, Dimsa! Do not give up, Dimsa!" Meanwhile, a group of men and women were standing around Dimsa, and over the top of people's heads, the policemen's clubs were swinging in every direction. Several were severely beaten.

In the hall, the people had been getting together into several groups, with everyone trying to express his own opinion about the situation. Some of them blamed the Deacon for calling the police. On the left 6side of the hall, in the group of women, one woman said, "The church should be set on fire, and Reverend Krauciunas should be burned with it." This woman was one of the parishioners who were angry with the deacon, and had tried to call a meeting because the deacon was not sufficiently devout and did not take care of the church. That parishioner was one who had a great deal of trouble with him.....On the right side of the hall, there was another group of women who were standing on the table and telling a much different story. One young woman said, "These people are crazy; they themselves give money to the priest, and now because of that same money they are fighting among themselves. If they had not given money to the priest, they would have nothing to fight about now." Some of the other women agreed with her.

No matter how it was, the police in this case do not deserve any approval for their brutality. If this meeting was illegal, the police could have found some other way of stopping this meeting, than by pounding the heads of the people with their clubs. This police action almost 7provoked terrible bloodshed.

They tell a very interesting story of the reason for this tragicomedy. The supporters of the deacon and those who claim that they are very well acquainted with all the circumstances say that all this turmoil was caused by a certain Mr. Dimsa. They say that this same Dimsa, several weeks ago, was a parishioner at the Providence of God Church at 18th Street and Union Avenue; and that here, too, he had a dispute with the former rector of that church, Reverend Stefanavicius; and that when another priest replaced Reverend Stefanavicius, the troubles in the parish came to an end.

Then, Dimsa transferred his membership to St. George's Parish in Bridgeport. [These same people charge] that he went to the deacon, paid his parish dues, and about ten days afterwards called, as a full-fledged parishioner, the first meeting against Deacon Krauciunas. When that meeting was unsuccessful, he called this second meeting. He himself 8gave the order to print the leaflets, and rented the hall. We ought to remember that all this costs a lot of money. Many people, therefore, cannot understand clearly what the devil is going on here. The charge is that Dimsa himself is making a specialty of such situations. They further declare that he has made similar trouble in other parishes. Others are saying that the younger priests have made a secret agreement among themselves to remove this old deacon, and that in his place they would seat themselves--in the oldest and largest parish in Chicago. It is said that they have hitched their wagons to the devout women and that they have found a good foreman, Dimsa, for the women; and also that they are giving Dimsa money in order to bring about this "revolution".

Is this true? At present it is impossible to say, because such plans are always made in secret. If this is true, such clandestine action would indicate no honor to the Lithuanian priests of Chicago and is not worthy of discussion, especially when such a conspiracy involves one priest as against another.

9

What these "revolutionists" want from Deacon Krauciunas, we have not so far been able to learn because not one of these meetings that we have seen has reached a decision, and the leaders of this "revolution" have had no chance to explain to the public what they want from the deacon. The rumor is going around that the deacon is not conducting the parish budget properly; that the parishioners have contributed large sums of money and still the church is in debt for several tens of thousands of dollars. There are also some other accusations. For this reason, the "revolt" is brewing.

The deacon says that he developed this parish and that he erected the church and paid off all the debts. He says that the present debt is for a recently built school, which is one of the largest Lithuanian schools in America; and that having been at this parish for over twenty years, he has already reached old age. He claims that the parish books have been taken care of properly, and that they are open to the parishioners; if they want explanations about the books, let the parishioners elect 10a proper committee, and everything will be explained to them. The deacon says that he does not want one who has been a parishioner for only a few days to "hold him up".

As things are, it is impossible to say which side is telling the truth. Only God knows! One thing is clear: that from all this will come many such comedies in the future, and the spectators will not have a chance to see a single one of these comedians.

[Lietuva Editor's note: Mr. John B. Dimsa came to our office and told us who the members of this committee were, and who called these meetings. The committee consists of John B. Dimsa, John Jonutis, Joseph Babicius (all of them live at 3302 South Union Avenue), George Darzinas, and Frank Bakutis. He explained further that there was no public meeting for the election of this committee; that this committee was elected in the office of Attorney Morgan, at 32nd and Halsted Streets by about twenty people.

11

He was asked what demands they wanted to present to Deacon Krauciunas. J. B. Dimsa says, in brief, that there should be such order in the Church of St. George as exists in Holy Cross Church in the Town of Lake; that the financial affairs of the parish should be taken care of by the parish committee. He added that the people want the church to be open all the time, and that there should be Lithuanian priests in addition to the deacon, instead of Polish priests who do not understand our people's language.

"Is it true, sir, that you joined St. George's Parish only ten days before the first meeting was called?"

"It is not true!" answered Dimsa. "I have belonged to this parish since 1911, and I can prove it." He then produced receipts for 1911, 1912, and 1913, bearing the signature of Deacon Krauciunas, as proof that John Dimsa, for those years, paid his dues in full to St. George's Parish.

12

"How does it happen, Mr. Dimsa, that while you were a member of St. George's Parish in Bridgeport since 1911, you were also a member of the Providence of God Church on 18th and Union Avenue, and that the people say that you introduced a 'revolt' there against Reverend Stefanavicius?" This was the second question asked of Mr. Dimsa.

"You see, sir, I belong to that church, too, because I belong to the Apostolic Society there and I also sing in that church. I have a book which shows that I have paid in full there, too," answered J. Dimsa.

"Is it true that in Pennsylvania also you have destroyed two or three parishes?"

"No, it is not true!" hotly denied Mr. Dimsa.

"Did you have a police permit when you called this last meeting?"

13

"No, I did not. My lawyer and his associates told me that this is a free country, and for free speech one needs no permit."

"You see, sir, your lawyer gave you bad advice. You see, without the permit, the police had a chance to beat up severely many people. As you have said, some of the people received a severe beating on their heads, and for no reason innocent people had to suffer. What further do you expect to do?"

"At present, I do not know," concluded J. Dimsa.

"Who had rented this hall?"

"I, myself," answered Dimsa.]