The Portland daily press., 1889-05-08


they are far isolated from the rest Of the sys-
tenn.
The Catholics In Colonial pavs.
On April 10Th, Bishop Healy issued to the
Catholics of Msine an address. in which he
made the following statements:
1t has been the policy of a certain class in the
United States TO ignore the services and sacrifices
OF Catholics In the war OF the Revolution, as well
as ip the late civil war; to decry them as disoyal
to the Republic; to attempt to deprive them of
their rights as citizens, and especially to attack
the sacred rights Of conscience and the authority
of parents In the education of their children. Ii
has come 10 be an annual fable to attribute the
idea and establishment u freedom Of conscience
10th to the Plritans OF New England or to the caya
Pennsylvania; whereas the plain and incontro-
yertible fact IS that Maryland, when first estab-
control Of the government was the sole and only
colony of the United States in which freedom of
li, conscience s ana liberty were established The
was the spot where, In remote corner of the
S1 word On n the banks Of rivers which as yet had
proprietary adopted religious freedom as the ba-
The fact is beyond question, and il is time that
Catholics should know their lust claims in this
matter and assert them What If public speakers
or mendacious school books have falsided this no
Bile record? Shall we renounee our birthright?
What II we are told that we are not devoted to
our country; that no Catholic can be loyal? Shall
ss,. we forget the names on record? Do our fellow
TO which the largest fortune was attached in sign
ing the Declaration Of independence, wss Charles
OF that glorious company?
The Press Of the Both. without any inten-
tion of attacking Bishop HeaIy or of aspers-
ing 1.-THE Catholics Of Maine, called attention to
what seemed inaccuracies in statement of
historical facts This it was right and pro-
per to do Bishop Healy IN public address
on public occasion extolled the Catholics of
the time OF the Revolution for their loyalty !;
and claimed for the Catholics as Catholics
the credit of first establishing freedom of
conscience and liberty on this continent,
quoting from Bancroft's account of the col
onization of Maryland to sustain his claim.
Ii history shows these claims to be unsup-
ported 1t was proper to point 1t cut; and the
PRESS showed from the pages of Bancroft
that they were unsupported. Bancroft dis.
tinctly states to begin with that the influence
of the Catholic church in the United States
during the Revolution was on the side of
England. Bancroft, who as is well known,
has given his long life to the study Of Amer
lean history, makes this assertion in the lat
est revision OF his great work. That work
was before the public for more than forty
years before the completion of the last re-
vision which was made with the greatest
care as Mr.. Bancroft's own words attest:
In the last revision, as in the first composition,
IS tne nrst purpose to secure perfect accuracy in
tne relation OF acts even to their details and their
cooring and 10 keep truth clear from the clouds
however brilliant OF conjecture and traditions
NO well founded criticism that has been seen,
whether made here or abroad with a good will or
pad one has been neglected.
Had he done an injustice to the Catholic
church II seems reasonable to suppose that
a correction would have been made. Bishop
Healy, who quoted Bancroft when Bancroft
seemed to sustain the Cath
olic claim, now attempts in another
column to discredit the value of
Mr.. Bancrofts maturely considered state
ment by bringing in some counter state
ments, made since the appearance Of the
PREss's editorial, by John Culinary Shea,
the Catholic historian. Our readers may de-
eide for. themselves between the two au-
thorities, and may reserve for themselves
the privilege claimed by a certain very
worthy and pompous school committeeman
In Maine city not long ago. A certain
divine, Rev. DR.. T. by name had preach
ed sermon at school commencement ex
ercise, extrolling Orpheus as one of the
greatest men that ever lived. In the course
OF the examination of a class In mythology
next day visitor asked one Of the young
ladies who Orpheus was. She replied that
DR.. T had said that Orpheus was one of
the greatest men that ever lived. The visi-
tor told her that If she would look in the
first volume of Grote's History of Greece she
xuoul1 ind hat fhok i
made Orrheus out only a mythical parsonage.
Thereupon the member of the school COM
mittee, who was an admirer of DIR. T,
Strengthened up and in stentorian tones pro-
claimed: "As between Grote and DIR. T
there might be a difference of opinion" :"
Those who don't want to. believe in Bancroft
will probably hold that as between Bancroft
and John Culinary Shea there may be a
difference of opinion.
Turning Bancroft over to the tender mer
cies Of Mr.. Shea,l Bishop Healy calls atten-
tlon to Rhode Island, which the PRESS cited
as colony where religious freedom prevailed
from the very first. Bishop Healy says in
his letter:
Ing granted "freedom Of religious liberty to ALI
refer you TO Hildredth's History vol. 1, page
461, A. ID. 1868. G.........'
Now there is not a word about Rhode Is
land in page 46i, vol cf Hildreth's History,
either In the editions OF the frst or second
series. There is something in that page
about intolerance in New Haven but New
Haven is not under discussion. Three
pages before, however, oD page 458, Hildreth
does discuss religious liberty in Rhode Is
land, but what Hildreth says not only does
not sustain Bishop uealy but absolutely re-
flutes him:
The inhabitants OF Rhode Island still FIN 1851
aahsred 70 the great principle of which Roger
Williams had been so conspicuous an adv, cate
not of federation merely, but Of religious freedom
and equality. "It is much in our hearts TO hold
forth lively experiment, that most fourishing
CIV, cvl STATE @ y may 5, stand and best be maintained,
they stated IN their petition for charter; and the
charter itself provided that no person within the
ed: called in question for any differences Of
opinion In matters Of religion who does not aetl-
ally disturb the civil peace: but that all and every
person and persons may at all times freely and
tully have and enjoy his and their own judgments
ano eonscences In matters of religious concern
mesnts s they behaving themselves peaceably and
quietly, and not using this liberty to centious-
ness and profaneness, nor to the civil injury and
outward disturbance of others"
IL does not appe4r that the people of Rhode
Island either desired to insert or were anxious to
enforce the dangerous and inconsistent proyiso
aoout righteousness ana profaneness-q quite suf-
ncent, indeed TO defeat the whole prior grant,
since II Is only under or the oIher of these pre-
lenses that opinions have anywhere been persecu-
TED Yet how difficult it is 20 act upto principle
IN the face Of prevailing prejudice and opposing
exampel The Rhode Island laws at first print
ca, many years posterior 10 the charter, contain
an express exclusion from the privileges OF free
men Of Roman Catholics and all persons not pro-
iessing Christianity. These laws had undergone
repeated reyivals, and is now Impossible to tell
wnen these restrictions were first introduced
tn2ugn probably not TIL after the English Revolu.
uon oi 1883 . However open 70 cavil, yet
tnese laws do not materially Diminish the credit
oI hnooe Island as pioneer 10 the cause OF reli
gious ireedom; for In which Of our statute books
cies to be found?
Even were the regulations against Catho-
lies enforced IL was mt ,n II,laro.h,s o,,r