Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1883-07-14

CannOG tulOTCe tuo tIusbs 1uelI eouls aIe,
it is said, intended as the bene6ciaries.
But the soul of one dead has no legal
capacity to take an interest in the property
left behind, nor ia the immortal soul
in any sense subject to the juris.
diction of a human Court. A Court
of equity protects the living, and, adds
the Court, with grim solemnity that has
about it tinge Of humor, nevertheless,
cit cannot extend its Jurisdiction to be-.
ings which cannot be apprehended within
the boundaries of the realm" But, says
the Court, and here comes in by no mans
the least strange part of the ruling, the
trust failed for want of beneficiary, and
a resulting trust therefore arises by impli-
cation ef law in favor of the next of kin,
and go to the plaintiff the defendant must
account. This decision, so far as it holds
that there was no beneficiary, is IN line
with the decisions OF the Courts, and is IN
doubtedly good law, but we beg to submit,
in the lsyman's view, when applied to this
case, it lacks reason, for in our view there
Was gift by which Mrs. Gilman parted
with the legal title to the money, and the
| failure of the condition did not defeat that
title, and that being SO there is no power to
restrain the holder OF the fund from having
masses said as the donor desired, and from
paying the altar fees from the money to
! which he had legal title, and equity will
not raise an implied trust for another to
defeat him. Then, too, it ia by no means
frivolous question to ask why the priest
who says masses by the direction of the
donor is not, in one sense, beneficiary
under the fund, since the donor directed
against law, and not opposed to public
| policy? Was not this pious use? The
| Court says pious use is one under a trust
for sc the dissemination of moral or relig-
ious teaching, or the promotion of public
worship or morality" Now we submit
that, in the Catholic view, the saying of
masses is an act of public worship, OF dis.
seminating religious teaching, and for the
promotion of morality. All public prayer
is worship, whether it be prayer for the
| dead or the living. The Catholic doctrine
of purgstorY is as essential part of
that religion as is any other dogma of
any other religion. The institutions and
laws of this country guarantee to every
person the right to worship as conscience
shall dictate. This carries with it the
right of disposing of property for the pro-
motion of that worship. Under the Con-
stitution of the United States, giving
these guarantees, the rules of law that
Judge Freedman invokes to defeat
the desire of Margaret Gilman to
dispose of her own after death, as she
might have done before death, should be
silent The fundamental principle upon
which this Government is founded,
| freedom of conscience, is opposed to any
and all decisions of law under rules de-
scended to us from chancery practice in
a monarchy where state religion obtains,
| by which the right of one TO worship ac-
cording to any given form not inconsistent
with public policy and morality may be
defeated. The policy of the law is to
encourage public worship, rather than dis
courage it, and the saying of
masses is form of public worship. If
Margaret Gilman could direct her friend to
use money given him by her to build a
fanciful monument over her grave to her
memory land which direction the same
Court holds to be valid), or TO set painted
window in church to her memory, let us
ask who is the beneficiary under such a
trust q? And why shall not the law permit
her pious desire to have prayers said for
the repose of her soul, since that was an
essential, in her view, to her enjoyment of
the right guaranteed her in life under re-
publican form of government, and which
we must be permitted to say, in our view,
should be as sacredly respected when Mar.
Sset OliLlau Is ueau as Wneu Margaret
Gilman is living? We do not wonder that
the Catholics Of New York are indignant
at the decision, nor that, through the
press of that city, they lift their voices in
protest, for the ruling OF the Court
amounts to this: 1t is an arraignment Of
the doctrine of purgatory by Court of
the land, the laws of which guarantee to
any one to believe in that doctrine, and to
worship, or direct worship to be performed
for them, according to that belief, living or
dead.