New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-09-28

penalties. Public accommodation was spoken
of, but this remedy was not put force The
bishop and priest have now determined to Boycott
the offenders. This they seek to do by refusing 10
accept their offerings to reet the seats now
cupIed the current quarter expires. 1t
is sad that n solemn public function should be ee-
graded by snch a scene as took place last Sunday.
The inside of a church is not the place for Donny-
brook fair; but such the struggle between
of the donors and the collector that hand to-hand
scrimmage took place. in which the head of the one
and the collecting box of the other in violent
contact. The sound of vibrating emptiness was
heard all the church. OF it the
box that was empty. Determined not TO be out
DONE the members of the law committee walked up
to the altar and deposited their aims. After the
service they had an interview with the priest and
were informed thai these steps were taken by the
bishops orders.
1t looks pretty much as il the bishop, instead of
depending upon his spiritual weapons had con-
suited shrewd attorney. who had advised him that
the money these members had contributed being in
the light of a gift they had right to account,
but that their position seat holders still gave
them hold the parish priest and that if they
could be evicted and their offerings refused a de-
murrer would lie to the bill Oh the ground of want
of equity. The whole proceeding is extraordinary
thar if the chief actors not Irshmen should
be lost in amazement that disgraceful
shoult' be possible in a church. Under the English
comm". law every has right to the minis
tratio If the national Church, and n mandamus
will Ii to compel the clergy to administer the rites
of rel ion to a parish:uner The poorest villager
can d. pand a seat IN The parish church, and may
proce' against the wat lens if they do not find him
one 'ere the law interferes in strictly
ecclesiastical squabbles. and the question is
whether the givers fave personal right against the
bishop lor an account on the ground that he
stands fiduciary position toward them. The
law Is full of finely spun distinctions. 1t seems
that II money has been given for a definite purpose
the donor has right to call the receiver TO show
thai II has been daily applied. But if small sums
are subscribed to general fund the disbursement
of when rests entirely within the receivers discre-
lion, the law will no. interfere unless prima facts
case OF fraud Is shown Ii might have been ex-
pected that the bishop and clergy would be only too
glad to acquit themselves of the charge of misap-
propnatlng money, but they may have been ad-
vlsed that to do so would admit right not other
wise existing. So far there has been allegation
OF fraud. The money has in all probability been
mudded away by mismanagement. What the
committee want to know is where and how it has
gone. Possibly the Introduction of some lay bust
ness capacity might show how some OF it could be
recovered.
Let the law committee at all events hold on to
their seats. AS stockholders they have present and
tangible rights. They cannot he elected without
notice, as the taking seems clearly an annual con
tract and may be construed into tenancy from
year to year at the will of the tenant At all events
shall then see how the Irish priesthood who are
such opponents of eviction in Ireland. will act in
America when the boot happens to be on the other
leg.