The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1877-03-19

CHING THE ,IJTL POTTER TO mrs
am AGAINST ms BISHOP.
The History Of n Remarkable Controversy
Father Stack. Dismissal Men of Great
Learning ~ Mitncsscs-A waiting ~ Deci-
sion that win Probably End the Litigation.

sion that win Probably End the Litigation.
WLLrAMsPoRT, Pa, March 1G.-Intercst
In the famous Stack-O lfara controversy will at
once b. revived throughout this diocese. James
Gamble the presiding Judge Of this district. is
about to render his decision upon the masters
report. which he has held in reserve so long.
This casc Is remarkable one. md presents
The first instance in the history OF the country
where the civil courts have been invoked in aid
NJ n Catholic priest In opposition TO the decrccs
oi his Bishop. Some very important questions
hang upon the issue of this contest which has
once been in thc Supreme Court Of Pcnns,l-
wanna. Father Michael z. Stack. an freshman.
now about 81 years old. Of good presence strong
mental development. and II fair speaker. was
educated mt the Seminary OF st. Charles Bor-
romeo. near Philadelphia. Having received all
ihe orders Of tho priesthood. he was sent, in
1857, 10y Archbishop Wood to Williamsport, at
hat time I'm his diocese Before 1866 there had
been only one Catholic congregation. composed
Of both the ENGLISH and the Grrman-s p aking
Catholics Fathor Stack was placed in charge
u the non-Gcrman worshippcrs. and separate
church was organized and u now building was
crested. In 1868 the city Of Wilamsport fell
within The territorial limits Of the ncwly-con-
sttuied episcopal diocese of Scranton and
Bishop OlIara became tho spiritual governor
in charge of his church until November. 1871.
when he received the following from the Bishop:
SCRANTON. Sow q, is7i-E,c Filsr Tr,k-h and D,ir
ST. ionr Administration Of the aisirs connected with
compelled TO remove you and leave the church vacant
rv 10 .,y ra W. Any ny .s'. ,l s uys
viii call ON me a. my residence an scranton. aud Will
Tray yoSrs u.s. v oiiSH,. B.GooIp Of seer,sn,on
This most extraordinary letter. the Bishop
says was dictated 10y his sense Of duty and he
and his counsel have always claimed that no
more particular explanation of his motives
could be demanded Of him. for these motives.
b. says, rcpose within the conscience OF the
Bishop. acting for the good Of his people.
Father Stack saws that this letter fell upon him
like thunderbolt without reason and without
warning. and that the cause of the removal has
never distinctly transpired. hut It may be sus-
pe9ed from the tenor OF "a letter which the
Blshop wrote ON the same day to the Rev.
rather Hooper. pastor of the Germaa Catholic
congregation in this city. This letter directed
Father Keeper 10 take charge temporarily of the
Churrh OF the Annuncution. aud contained
m"n'y tor MN 70 pay certain debts against the
church. upon which an execution had been is
sued. IL was Lhereiorr inferred 10y some that
charg" was his Incorrect or eAtravagant mnn-
agcment Of the financial affairs of the church.
Father stack went 10 scranton, leaving his
churg' with Father Keeper. and had an inter-
Wow with the bishop. The young priest on his
return. wrot. 10 Father Keeper that "all had
gone woll with him at hcadquart"rs. and the
Bishop had promised him a mission free Of
delt. as hg was tired 81 engaging himself with
hrlck and MORTAR Thus. again. did the suas-
X -tion come up that the cause of his removal
arose ont OF financial matters. This has been
generally accepted us the TACT. but neither the
bishop nor his counsel have assigned any cause
tor the Bishops action. taking the ground that
NJ cause WIS within the Conscience Of the
bishop and that the civil courts have no right
10 inquire into the motives which led to the
CONSCIENTIOUS action.
Within three weeks after Father Stack wrote
a. 10 - mott an
Of the Bishop he filed bill in equity in the
Court OF Common Pleas Of Lycomlng. praying
70 be- restored to his position as pastor of the
church OF tho Annun station. and e. tn" enjoy
mont Of all the rights Of the pastorate Of which
be mad been deprived, as he alleged. by illegal
removal 10y his Bishop. be asked for "a prcllm-
mary injunction against the Bishop 10 restrain
MN from Interfering with his position as pas
tor. One sunday he went into the church and
preached. This brought him under the CEN
sure OF the Bishop. and. II is understood. led TO
his being communicated. Eight of his parish
Toners were Joined with him rs plaintiffs in the
bill, on the ground that they were pewholders
and were damaged by his removal. But before
the argument on the motion all Of these parish
toner's. 10y AFFIDAVIT Withdrew their names rs
plaintiffs saying that they had been mised and
De used as cOuntenanclng any civil n ton
against the Bishop. Father Stack himself az
knowledged that he used their names as parties
plalntili solely IN consequence OF having their
signatures TO paper authorizing him to use
tngir names In his trouble with the Bishop.
III" motion Tor preliminary Injunction was
argued The Judge decided in favor Of Father
stack. mainly resting his decision on the
ground that no man ought to be condemned
without a hearing; that he was entitled to a
trial AS of common right. The Judge virtually
took the ground that this removal was a pun
ishment, although the Bishop, by his counsel
denied that 1t was punisnmtpt. and said that
u was simply a change n the administration Of
Church giving the Bishop power To remove
priests from one charge and appoint them 70
another. AZ he thought fitting for the good Of his
people. An appeal was taken TO the supreme
Court Of Pennsylvania. and the decision Of
Judge Gamble was reversed (per curiaml and
ting injunction dissolved.
Pending these legal proceedings the church
had remained closed. but upon the decision of
the Supreme Court the Bishop opened the
church. and the Rev. Eugene Garvey took
charge Of IT, Nothing moro was done for n year.
Father stack whose duty II was 70 move next,
with mouny whi,h mak1s The iaweo. Bnt alter
n year Of innNion tn. Bishop was ruled 10
The answer Of tho Bishop was fini bv his conn
sci substantially alleging that the Bishop had
acbsd within ihe lazy Of the church.. and was not
by any church ludicutory required 20 institute
n trial. He denied also tho jurisdiction Of the
civil courts over the question raised hy the bin.
Testlmnny upon bill and answer was then takon
before Examiner b. =. Bentley. Jr. Tho Bishop
tex his testimony in Philadelphia. Archbishop
~ %, JH N a. JoI2I,n itoie1-or IN Ne
Kirrnan, and the Rev DR.. Cantwell of Phiadel-
phla We're examined as experts ON the canon
fnAer sucks testimony raised q question
~ roulici between the general canon law Of
-" church and the legislation of the Church
,.ounnll 81 TINS county. II admitted that by
We legislation Ol tho Second llenary Council at
XIV more ia 1866 at which were present all the
iishgps Archbishops, and Wears Apostolic Of
the Church IN this country, the Bishops We're
gwen the right 10 remove Priests and appoint
Lor But FRer 'H stasR eaicd IN t hat
=" was parish priest in the fun canon
ioai sens OF the term, and that the
A. strictly Catholic countries. gave the right u
v2eill'y To an parish priests. Ihr TO-