The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1852-05-13

ready owners in fee simple of nearly all the re
ligious and charitable property in their church
and that it is better to provide by a genera
law for transmitting such property in trust t
their Successors How far the statement mad
is true we are not prepared to say. We hav
reason to believe that it is not true to the ex
tent alleged But, admit it in its length AM
property, not as Bishops, but as men it ma.
increase their personal consequence, but con
tributes nothing to the consideration or powe
of the order 10 which they belong; and OF
their decease, it is disposed of according to tn
general laws regulating property and
lost to the church otherwise, it must b.
disposed of by last will and testament Prop
erty held by such tenure, under such crcum
stances. may be squandered or perverted, bu
there is not much danger of its becoming {
permanent engine Of mischief Pass the gen
eral law asked for, and, while you keep wealth
out of the hands of John Hughes, a citizen o.
the United States, you concentrate it in the
hands of powerful Hierarchy, in which John
Hughes holds the rank of Bishop, and which
owes paramount allegiance TO a foreign Pontif
and Potentate Citizen Hughes is very willing
to resign his peculiar privileges in favor OF
Bishop Hughes-to surrender property, which
contributes little to his personal comfort or
power. to Bishop Hughes and Co. and their
successors forever, well knowing that the i'm
plicit confidence reposed by hundreds of thou
sands of good Catholics in such firm would
and open innumerable channels in which it
could be used so rs to strengthen and extend
! the power of the members of it,
But it is said " if the Catholics are entitled
to religious equality, they should be allowed to
manage their church property in conformity
with their own discipline Certainly, unless
that discipline prescribes mode of managing
property repugnant to republican institutions
The Civil Government which gives legal sane
ton and force to any church regulations or
rules in conflict with the principles on which it
rests, or the Constitution from which it derives
its power is false to itself and to the People it
represents The Legislature of State has the
right to decide what shall constitute COrpO-
ration, how its property shall be held to what
uses it shall be appropriated, how much it may
own, how long it may continue. Who doubts
for example, its power and duty to forbid the
appropriation of the funds Of a religious corpo-
ration, to Banking purposes, or the institution
Of an lnquisition? Should the disciplinary
arrangements of the Catholics in this country
require such an institution, and those of other
religious bodies exclude it, an act by the Legis-
lature, prohibiting it. though it might interfere
with the discipline of the Catholic church,
would be no Infringement on religious equality
The argument, indeed, involves the assumption
that a church may adopt regulations or insti-
tutiOns grossly repugnant to the institutions,
usages, and laws of country, with IMMUNITY,
the State being bound in every case to yield
to it's dictation.
If Catholics would hold and enjoy property
for religious and charitable purposes, let them
do rs their neighborS-clect trustees in whom
the law may vest the property in trust for
them. The provisions of the law on this subject
are ample, and ought to be satisfactory TO rea-
sOnable men. A writer in New York paper
shows this with great clearness and force,
besides exposing with eloquent indignation the
attempt to build up vast Moneyed Hierarchy
in this country We close by quoting large
portion of his article;
"FrOm the earliest foundation of the Amer.
can Colonies there has been in our legislative
action uniform policy to prevent this over
shadowing power of ecclesiastical domination
This is written upon every statute book as with
Il sunbeam When the bishop alleges this
legislation to have been in accordance with the
peculiar wishes of Protestant denominations
he utters Il simple falsehood. 1t was done in
opposition to such wishes The property of
the Episcopal Church, for illustration, had pre-
vouly been vested in their bishops That sect
were, of course, partial to that mode The
same was true of other Protestant denomina-
tons But the able statesmen who guided our
young Republic, designed to guard against
Protestant as well as Roman Catholic concen-
trated power. 1t is we'll known that church
property in England, the mother country, was
vested in bishops and ordinaries These sole
corporations welded mighty influence A
bishop dean, parson, and vicar, are given in the
English books again says the accomplished
Kent, AZ instances ofSOIe corporations, and they
and their successors in perpetuity take the cor
poratc property and privileges One of the car
dinal principles of republican government in
this country was to shake off this fearful incu-
| bus. TO effect this, our statutes, besides pre-
| scrlhlng that certain trustees or yestrymen to
be elected by the congregations of their respect
i've churchcs-( eminently in accordance with
the general theory of our Government --should
be the holders of such property, also restricted
ana hniltcd the amount of property to be held
by religious corporations They were required
to report periodically to the Legislature the
value OF property; and if larger amount
was acquired than 40 authorized, such corpora
tons would be dissolved They could not re
ceive property 10y will, unless expressly author
lied 50 to do. Various restraints upon tn,
power OF acquiring 10y devise were also imposed
BY some statutes, no person leaving wife OF
child can DEVISE to such corporations more thar
one-tourth OF hls estate, nor shall any will b,
valid giving to them property which shall not
have been made and executed at least tr,
months before the death Of the testator' Bishol
Hughes IS not 50 stupid as 10 misunderstood III
scope and deHgH Of such provisions II is 4
PVCem the accumulation Of property IN an ,rre
Sponabie church otgdrchg and IS AIMED as mueI
Gga'na Professionals as Roman Catholics Yet
in the face Of such facts, this bill Of OKecfe'
is coolly introduced overriding and breaking
down these admirable safeguards of our iealou,
toreiathers. 1t is now gravcly proposed to Civ,
to the Roman priesthood power ,chich IRA
Sedudousiy w,thhed from all other denomind
t'Ons The bill makes no restriction as L
amount mode of acquirng--by devise OF other
wise, or manner of the use--of the millions y,
acquired The business of banking, or con
structing of railroads or canals could be car
ried on with impunty under such an act. And
Bishop Hughes now attempts to Justify Thu