The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-17
CONGRESS IND TIE CHARLESTON
SISTERS OF MERCY.
The Proposed Appropriation for their
ktl1ef.

the debate in the United States Senate on the
Sd instant, which preceded the rejection Of The
clau.e in tho Civil Appropriation bill aporo.
pr;a.in. $4,000 to rebuild tho Orphan Asylum
of the Sisters Of Mercy. Wo make some fur
tlIer extracts from the full debate as reported
in the Congressional Globe:
Sir. Howard. trust that know hoy to 'p.
preciate the s,ryceS OF the ladies' interested
in this clam; but, sir ii is not to be for often
that their profession is tho doing OF good tc
persons in distress, the poor, the SICK, the
naked the destitute. 10 this object they arc
by tseir profession devoted. They arc set apar
tor those purposes. Ihcy are as much, how
ever, subject to The control of their eccleslas-
teal superior, the bishop of the diocese, as arc
| any other OF his subordinates, and apprchcno
| that although we may make thus gratulty, as
it is called, to them personally, they Will derive
no benef from it whatever. Twill be to ihem
no compensation; but the fund, it 1T should De
thus appropriated, Will be applied according to
the direction OF their ecclesiastical superior
and to such purposes as he NAV see fit to ap-
ply it to. The ques ion would be somewhat
different ii the money which we are called
upon to appropriate was to go into the poc let's
OF these devoted women. ! suppose, however
1t will not. -.
Now, sir, am unwilling TO make distinc-
ton between the Sisters OF Mercy or the SIS
ters of Charity, ladies belonging to the Roman
Catholic Church devoted to these deeds ol
ll-doing, and other ladies belonging to Fro
testant Churches at the North and at tho South
who have evrnced an equal spirit or deVotor
to the country and to the offices OF humanity
and of Christian Kindness. There are all over
tbe country thousands and thousands upon
thousands of those devoted ladies who in our
| hour of need gave their services. and many OF
them their fortune, the healths and tbelI
lives to the cause of the cou ltry, who have no,
come forward here to ask any such plausible
recognitio as this on the part OF Congress,
but whose services. compared with those rem
Church, certainly are equally meritorious. and,
in my humble judgment. intellectually more
meritorious to the cause OF the county.
Mr. Hendricks. The only difficulty that pre-
sents itself in this case, ss l think, is this
that property which is destroyed IN battle
whether the property OF the enemy or the prop
erty OF the supporters OF the government, Is
not to be paid Tor. That Is the general propo-
sition; and the proposition is absolute In re-
gard to individuals Of the enemy's country as
| In war between independent nationS. But
think that doct ine ought not to be applied te
the case Of charitable institution destroyed
Among nations o charitable institution Wouo
not be regarded, AMI could not be regarded, as
public enemy. I suppose tina; II great
progress of the war, had destroyed one OF the
instit1tions of charity, it would not be lncon'
sistept with the duties of that nation. IN taking
possession of the resources OF the country con-
auered, to restore that charitable institution.
While we would not all think of making up to
individuals the losses susta ned IN the war, II
would seem to be cry proper to restore IN IN
stitution Of charity which had fallen under tha
prosecution OF tho war, for the reason that an
institution Of charity cLnIot bo regarded as an
enemy. Its nature forbids 1t; its mission for
bids 1t.
Now, Mr.. President. this institution, worth
more money, as understand from the sei;l-
tors from South Car lima, than the approprla'
ton proposed, was destroyed du. ing the bonn
bardment of Charleston. I understand, as
su. gested by senator near me, that .he ln-
stjtution was worth twice the amount thlt wo
propose to appropriate. What was that insti-
tuition? The senator from Michigan saws IL
was owned by the bishop. do not know VINO
owned it, ID do not care who owned 1t. IL
is enough to know that the little children, who
are to be protected by men with he arts III their
bosoms, Of all nations aud under oil clrcum-
stances. that little orpban children without IA
theirs to care for them, the children OF the
State, we're fed and clothed in that institution.
It was not established, it was not maintained,
it was not continued for the purpose OF giving
ald to the military power OF any section; but 1t
purpose Of feeding and clothing little children;
and hs and that government that provides for
the orphan has Gods blessing. II ID not uube-
coming the government OF the United States,
whom IN the dreadful casualties OF the war
charitable institution like this has falon, that 1t
shall hep to rear it again. It is proper for the
reason that it is a charity. We do DOT bestoW
charities by APPROPRIATIONS made by Congress,
but we may restore that which the prosecution
OF the war has destroyed.
The senator from South Carolina ls acqualnt-
ed with the facts, and has made hs statement.
Then these Sisters, as claim the tact to De,
upon the statement Of tho senator from South
Carolina, have extended their kindness to the
soldiers of the United States. There IL no
question of loyalty or disloyalty involved. IL
is 4 question OF destroyed home OF the
orphan, DESTROYED in the prosecution of the
war, DESTROYED in the taking Of city which 1t
became necessary, in the prosecution of the
war. to captaIe, Shall we make this appro-
priation OF 100000? I do not care whether
that charity in its legal ownership BELONGED 20
the bishop or belonged to the SISTERS. There
is no question that the institution was USED
properly for the highest pun poses, AID it is not
TOR the individual benefit, when it is restored.
either of the bishop or Of the Sisters; 1t Is for
the bene fit of the orphan; and beiug consistent
with the laws Of war, and required by the laws
of charity aud kindness AMI m orallty, l choose
to respond to the appeal that is made. ,.
Mr.. Frelinghuysen. do not look at this
su jcct IN sectarlan view or desire to Invoke
those feelings and preiudices. | look upon 1t
Rs proposition to take so much money out o.
the Treasury, and "a guardians OF the Treasu-
nv the question for us To determine is whether
it is our duty to vote it or not. Now, this IS
eithe ,al claim against the United States
or 1T is gratuity. 1t is not b,th.
MIR. Morrill,, Of Maine. II the senator Will
allow me, hs co nm,ttee put it 81 nply on the
latter grou ID. that it is nothing moro nor less
than gratuity.
Mr. Frelinghuvsen. But the senator fro q
Indiana puts it partly On the one ground aud
partly on the other. It is eith:r the ono
thing or the other. Is 1T q claim against this
government to pay tor tho bomb .rumen OF
property IN Charleston, Of al p aces IN this
)rld for loyal claim to come from Inc
senator says that we. re not forbidden bv the
lay to Jay for the destruction OF institutions
OF charity. Neither are We forbidden by tho
law 70 ply for private property. The ques-
ton is whether there is any obligation or law
upon US TO pay for either in an enemy's ountry.
Then the senator from Indiana plays With
that word "orpha,,;" and man must be very
callous whose heart does not make some re-
sponse Whenever that word is mentioned; but
would romind the seuator that wlthl.l tho ast
ten days tho Committee on tho Judiciary, on
an appeal being made to the Senate 10 vote
money for the orphans of the so.dle"s WHO wcro
killed at Gettysburg, for institutions which arc
there established, not scc:arlan i'll their char
acter felt it their duty to report aud advise
this Senate not to mako the appropriation. A
to it's being grasuity, all have to say ot that
subiact is tina. if we enter unon thct line oi
eratuitles We enter upon l!ac which has nc
iin,i for there Is not State in the UGiou
there IL hardly neighborhood ut tho North
that has noS had similar institutions to pro,
mote the welfare of tho patriotic soldier, OF
thus country; but they never have thought o.