The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-03-17
CONGRESS- and THE CHARLESTON
SISTERS OF MERCY

CONGRESS- and THE CHARLESTON
SISTERS OF MERCY.
Tho Proposed Appropriation for their
N.l1ef.
We have already given brief synopsis ef
the debate in the United States Senate on the
Sd instant, which preceded tho rejection Of he
clause in the Civil Appropriation bill appro
pratlng $4,000 to rebuild the Orphan Asylum
of the Sisters of Mercy. We make some fur
thor extracts from the full debate as repo ted
in the Congressional GLOBE:
Mr.. Howard, trust that know how to D.
preciate the services Of the ladies interested
IN this claim; but, sir, il is not to be for often
persons in distress, the poor, the sick, the
| naked, the destitute. 10 This object they are
| by their profession devoted They are set apart
tor those purposes. ] hey are us much, how
tical superior, tho bishop Of the diocese as are
any other Of hlS subord mates, and apprehend
! that although we uay make thus gratuiy, rs
it is called, to them personally. they will derive
no benefit from it whatever. it will be to them
| no compensation; but the fund, IL 1t should be
| thus appropriated, will BIO applied according to
| the direction OF their ecclesiastical superior,
and to such purposes as he may see fit to APP
ply it to. The ques ion would be somewhat
different il the money which we are called
upon TO appropriate was to 60 into the poo cts
OF these devoted women. suppose, however,
1t will not.
Now. sir, am unwilling to make distinc-
| tion between the Sisters OF Mercy or the Sis
ters Of Charity, ladies belonging to the Roman
Catholic Church devoted to these deeds OF
| well-doing, and other ladies belon ring to Pro-
testant Churches at the North and at tho South
who have evlnced Oh equal spirit of devotion
| to the country and to the Offices OF humanity
a pr0u 1
the country thousands and thousands upon
thousands Of those devoted ladies who in our
hour OF need gave their services, and many Of
them their fortunes the healths and their
lives to the cause Of the cou ltry, who have not
como forward here to ask any such plausible
recoRnition as this on the part Of Congress.
put whose services. compared with those ron
dered by members Of the Roman Catholic
Chcrch, certainly are equally msritorious, and,
| In my humble judgment, intellectually more
msritorious to the cause Of the country.
sents itself in this case, as / think, is this:
that property whioh is destroyed in battle,
whether the properly OF the enemy or the prop
erty of the supporters Of the government, is
not to be paid for. That ls the general pro 30
sition; and the proposition is absolute in re-
| gard to individuals Of the enemy's country as
IN o war between independent nations. But
the case OF charitable institution DESTROYED.
Among nations a charitable institution would
not be regarded, an could not be regarded, as
. pubic enemy. 1 suppose tina, 1t great
power were to conquer q country, and, in the
progress OF the war, had destroyed one OF the
instit .tions of charity, it would not be incon-
slstent with the duties of that nation, in taking
possession OF the resources Of tue country con-,
quered, to restore that charta bic institution.
While we would n Ut all think of making up to
individuals the losses susta ned in the war it
would seem to be very proper to restore an in
Btitution OF charity which had fallen under ths
prosecution Of the war, for the reason that an
institution OK charity cannot he regarded as an
enemy. It's nature torbids it; it's mission tor
| bids it.,
Now, Mr.. President, this institution. worth
1 more money, as understand from the seua-
| tors from South Car lima, than the approrria-
ton proposed. was destroyed during the bonn
Darameas ,astas Of h oharisston: understand, as
sttutlon was worth twice the amount that we
propose 10. appropriate. What was that insti-
tuition? The senator from Michigan saws it
owned it, q I'd do not care who owned it. 1t
is enough to know that the little children. who
are TO be protectei by men with hearts In their
stances, that little orphan children without ia
thers to care tor them, the children Of the
State, were fed and clothed in that institution
II was not established, 1t was not maintained,
| 1t was not continued for the purpose of giving
aid to the military power Of any section; but It
was maintained. by whOmsoever owned. for the
purpose Of feeding and clothing little children;
and he and that government that provides for
the orphan has Gods blessing. 1t 10 not uube-
coming the government OF the United States,
when In the dreadful casualties OF the war q
charitable institution like this has fallen, that it
snai hep & to y rear it ssan Il is proper fortbe
char1tles by appropriations made by Congress.
but we may restore that which the prosecu ION
OF the war has destroyed.
The senator from South Carolina is acouaint-
co with the facts, and has made his statement.
Then these Sisters, "a cla,m the fact to be,
upon the statement Of the senator from South
Carolina, have extended their kindness 70 the
question Of loyalty or disloyalty involved. It
is question of q 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 captare. Shall we make this appro-
priation of $40 600? do not caro- whether
that charity In its legal ownership belonged TO
is no question. that the institution was used
properly for the highe st purposes, and it IL not
Tor the individual benefit, when 1t is restored.
either OF the bishop or of the Sisters; it ia for
the bene Ut OF the orphan; and being consistent
with the laws OF war, and required by the laws
OF charity and kindness AMI m orality. I choose
to respond to the appeal that is made.
Mr. frelinghuysen do not look at this
those feelings and preiudices. look upon 1t
as proposition to take so much money out OF
the Treasury, and as guardians of ihe T-easu-
ry the question for us to determine is whether
it is our duty to vote it or not. Now, this is
eithe' o le ,al claim against the United States
or 1t ia o gr atuity. It is not Jth.
Mr.. Norris, Of Maine. II tile senator will
allow nae, he co nmttee put it 81 nply on tho
latter ground. that it is nothing more nor less
than gratuity.
Mr. FreIinghuysen. But the senator e.o
Indiana puts it partly on the one ground aud
partly on the other 1t is eth # the one
ching or the other. Is 1T o claim against this
government to pay for the bomb ,rdmon OF
property IN Charleston, OF all p aces In this
world for legal CLAIM to come from The
senator says that we re not forbidden by the
law to nay for the destruction OF ,nsti, uttons
or charity. Neithers are we forbidden by the
/ law to DIV for tSrlVata Y,rOnortv Vha rtuon-