The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1903-07-11

priests salaries in the national debt,
they We're taking Il solemn pledge and
considered such salaries as an in
demnity paid for the confiscated prop
erty. 1t is this pledge that the Con-
cortlat of 1901 changed into Il recip-
rocal contract In fact, clause IA of
the Concordat declares that "the gov
clnment will ensure the bishops and
priests suitable salary" Before
examining the legal consequences
which might follow the abolition of
the Concordat, it may not be out of
j, place to answer the objection of those
who pretend that it is unjust to COM
pei the adhcrcnts of 'I.'Eylise Re-
forlncc de France" or the Jews to con-
tribute to the maintenance of priests
belonging to Il religion which is not
theirs
Far from the French taxpayers pay
ing one farthin" for keeping up the
catholic Church or its priests, it is the
Catholic taxpayer who has to pay for
the maintenance of the Protestant
clergy. the rabbits. and their churches
and Synngogues. for the Catholic
Church property which was put at
the disposal of the nation" in 1880
more than covers the general cost of
religious worship. This assertion is
based on Il not sufficiently we'll
Known historical fact. \ decree of
the "AsScmblir Consttuantc" ordered
that all property contiscated from
French llugrnots should he restored
to the rightful owners. This was one
hundred and six years after the con-
| tiSc;ltion. Thus the ".\Ssrmbic Nh
| tonhlr WaS coniiSc1lting the Catholic
| Church property and the ".\Sscmblir
CONSTITUENCIES returning the Protest
amt Church property contiScatcd under
| the old form of government. We're
| the C"ncordat to he cancelled what
would Il" the legal consequences of
this act: They are given by an old
Republican, lawyer in Il study he
'''"NtH VI NV expenditure lof WOr-
ship in Franco: "larlinmrnt cannot
without violating the charters Inv
which we are ruled. deal with the
church property question" he writes.
for il is Il question of property rights.
Magistrates alone have II right to de-
eide whether what has been confiStut-
| ed by our ancestors under fixed con-
ditionS must he restored or not. Ii
is most likely that even packed mnyis-
tr;llrS or socialist Judges would decide
that til" stat" must pay Il debt which
il Voluntarily contracted.
II will indeed he "a question of
honor which they will have to settle.
and in the face of such problems every
good fr"lrlnln. whatever be- his
opinions. must respectfully bow to Il
| courts decision" There is ALWAYS n
humorous side to the most serious
Indebted for the frightening touch to
Il Slnnrl Republican,. NJ. Henry Marrt
editor of the "RHdic,l" 'Whrn
WAS Il member of the Budget Com
mit,rr. he writes IL said to my col
Leagues: You want to separate tho
| churches from the state? one OBJ
| Starl" faces you, namely. the law of
| lIll ON church property The State
owes to the Catholic Church the inter
est ON the capital il appropriated. But
| since you are 50 anxious to make Il
trial of separation why don't you do
so on conditions possible for YOU, and
| with Churches to which the State
owes nothing! II owes nothing to the
| l'rutcStantS and the Jews, and the
| State pays the PASTORS and the rabbits
salaries. Why don't YOU put Il stop
to such disbursements? Although my
observation was. in my opinion. per-
| frctly just my colleagues never gave
| IN" amy answer" The French Par
! Lament may vote the pronunciation of
| the tnnror,l;lt. but il will not solve tho
question of property. This can only
he solved l'y the courts. ana every one
knows that Il law suit may last for
! ever .....