The times., 1899-09-15
arct,bfshon IreIana,s Position

If We could always take the public ut
teranees Of the Archbishop of St Paul
as merely expressing the private views of
an able and influential Roman Catholic
prelate. they would be of no more general
interest than their distinguished personal
source might suggest. 1t happens, how
ever. that when Monsignor ireland speaks
on questions affecting the internal or ex-
tSrnaI political affairs or relations of the
country, or discusses any subject of national
importance with a political bearing, it is
impossible for him to avoid being regarded
from the point of view of his position, rot
as a ehurehn-an, but as an active Repub-
Iican party worker.
In some connections Monsignor ireland
may object to this. but he can hardly com
plain that il is unfair. His energetic and
no doubt effective partisan labors in behalf
OF his national organization in 1892, and
again in 1895, are matters OF public no.
toTiety. We do not mean TO say that they
were in any way TO his discredit 1t is the
undoubted right of every American citizen.
be he soldier, sailor, layman. priest, Bishop.
or Cardinal, to take as much and as prac-
teal interest in local or national politics
as he may think proper. The question OF
taste in soma circumstances has nothing TO
do with that of right
Considering the Most Reverend John Ire
land, then, as merely a politician very
Administration, 1t strikes US that he has
committed an error of judgment in coming
cut as strongly as he has against the popu-
lar American sentiment Of indignation over
the Dreyfus verdict. As a matter of indi-
ViduaI opinion. 10 one can question his
right TO hold that public meetings in this
country for the purpose of protesting
against the unparalleled infamy at Rennes
are unjustifable and unfair to France"
But, to say the least, he must admit that
utteranees in that line for publication are
not calculated to help the political fortunes
of his friend and intimate associate Mr..
Mckinley
He and the country know under what
obligations he rests toward the President.
for the latter's earnest efforts to project
Philippine policy agreeable to the views
he urged when the peace protocol was
formulated. It seems ungracious in him
now TO adopt a public course, in conflict
with national sentiment. which must nee
essarily reflect more or less upon party
chieftain with whose general policy he has
been closely Identified.
! It is particularly unfortunate that Mon
signor Ireland should, in effect, denounce
the nearly universal opinion which un-
doubtedly, as he says. tends to face the
( verdict of the court, the moment that YER
dict has been declared. with the assertion
} that It is plainly against truth and that
the court from which it issues is guilty of
base injustice and sacriiegious perjury -
| Why he should criticise the logical and in
evitable conclusions he so clearly states, is
beyond cur comprehension. What others
could any intelligent friend of innocence
and justice reach after reading the record
of the court martial?
Are we justified in gathering from the
Archbishops published remarks that the
| Republican party in the Northwest is anti
Dreyfus? And is that sentiment to be a
factor in the political movement of the re-
gion? We sincerely hope not.