Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1853-04-13
Chr . aiIp SPY.
The Convent Indemnity Question

The Convent Indemnity Question
The question Of indemn,lying the PrOpr'e'0'' -
the UrsuIne Convent at ChaIlestown' 'Or '"'
strucIion of their buildings by ia"'esS "'o'
again been brought before the Legisa'"'e' ""o nus
nrov,ked considerable discussion, not only ~ the
State House, but in the public press
I, admired. on all hands, that the destruction
or,h. Convent in question:, was daslardy and dis
r.ces,I outrage, and that the perpetrators of that
go Of destruction deserved the severest punish
roeot that the law could infct upon them. Reli'
gons fervor and sectaran passion poor apologies
for wauton attacks property. Indeed they only
aggravae such outrages, for where there is perfect
religious freedom, there is no for religious
arrogance. The wretches who committed this yIo'
Ience, were therefore rloubIy amenabe TO the laws;
they not only invaded the sanctiy OF private proper
ty, but they attacked the principle Of religious lib
erty These are oui opinions of the act of burning
the Ursune Convent, and of its perpetrators; but
we nevertheless think that the bill before the Legs-
lature, to indemnify, from the State Treasury, the
owners the Convent, is not fair and equitable
measure.
Upon what principle do those favorable to the in-
demny, propose to grant it? Is it upon the rrinci-
pie that the State undertakes to protect the persons
and property of all her citizens, and ought therefore
to reimburse them for every unlawful injury which
they have received, and which she has not prevent
ed! II this principle waste be incorporated in
laws, and was held to be retrospective as well as
prospective, it would cover this Convent case, and
all other of arson and outrage since the esab
lishment OF the government But il $4,000 are 10
be voted to the proprietors of the Convent, as in-
demny for the burning thereof and if all other sim.
liar are to be left unheeded and uucared for
this act Of indemnity becomes partial act, and is
therefore opposed to the spirit of our laws.
The Convent was destroyed because the police of
ChaIlestown did not prevent the rioters from des.
troylng it. All cases of ncendiarism take place be.
the constituted authorities do not, or can not
prevent them; therefore, If rich corporation ought
TO be remunerated for loss sustained in this way so
ought every man whose barn whose house has
been so injured.
We do not look upon this question as sectarian
one, neither do we discuss it with reference TO how
a certain religious sect may be induced to vote We
look upon it simply as a question between the State
and several citizens whose property has been TN.
lawfully damaged, and who make special claim for
indemnity in consequence of that damage. We can
not see that there are any grounds upon which 10
base this claim The outrage was local; it was
kindred to numerous outrages which, if its CLAIM is
admitted, have prior claims upon the consideration
Of the Commonwealth; il was committed at a time,
too, whep there no means provided by law TO
meet such case; and its presentation, year after
year, to the State Legislature, seems to It's to be less
an evidence of the justice of the claim than Of The
stern pertinacity Of those who present ii. If the
Convent must be paid for, let Charlestown do it but
we do not see upon what principle, the State
ought to be taxed for this purpose.