The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1903-06-06
Conversation VII. Continued.


burst of Indignation from one end of
the Union to the other, and which is
incompatible with the very existence
of government"
mo man who denies the higher
law" replied Father John, has or can
have the right to open his mouth in
favor of liberty, whether civil or re-
ligious. There is, if there be any
truth in reason or revelation, higher
law than the will of the people, or the
convention. Mr.. Seward did not err,
but uttered great truth, when he
boldly proclaimed it in his place in
the senate. 1t is the only basis of lib
erty, whether civil or religious. The
error of Mr.. Seward was not in pro
claiming the higher law, but in making
each individual his own judge of what
it enjoins, and in tacitly implying that
the constitution of the United States
requires one to do things against it.
The constitution requires nothing of
any one incompatible with the higher
law, whether the natural law or the
revealed law, and not the individual,
but, in the civil order, the supreme
court is the tribunal for interpreting,
declaring, and applying it. The great
danger to liberty in our own country,
! it cannot be too often repeated, is
from the tendency to assert the abso-
lutte supremacy of the state, and in not
recognizing the fact, that no will or or
dinance even of the people in conven-
ton assembled, and ratified by popu-
lar vote, is or can be law, or be rightly
treated as law by the courts, if it con-
travenes the law of justice. The exist
ence and Well-being of society depend
on the wise and prompt administra-
ton of justice, which is anterior to
the convention, and is it's law. This
justice is that higher law, which is
created by no human convention or
Legislation, but is enacted by God him
self, as the transcript of his own eter-
nal law. The tribunal for determining
this law is not, as Mr.. Seward would
leave us to infer, the individual for
himself, but the supreme judiciary. So
understood, it involves nothing an
archial, or restrictive of the just free
dom and authority of the political
power"
But the supreme court is not infal-
lible, and may err in it's decision as 1t
is contended Chief Justice fancy actu-
ally has done, in deciding in the bred
Scott case, against negro citizenship"
rejoined O'Flanagan. What security
have we, then, that the courts will
maintain justice, or that they will not
make unjust decisions? If they do
make unjust decisions, what is the
remedy? If the decisions of the court
bind both the individual and the polit-
zeal power, what right will any one
have to declaim against them, or to
demand their reversal?"
1.-THE difficulty is theoretical rather
than practical" answered Father
John. I'm practice, the courts, if pure
and Independent, will seldom err as to
natural justice. Their decisions, fur
thermore, bind only in the temporal
order, and one is obliged to obey them
only in his civil capacity, and is, con-
sequently, free to criticise the decis-
ion, if he see cause to do so. Even
the error of the court in the bred
Scott case, if err it did, was not in re-
lation to the points actually before it
for adjudication; and the criticisms
which | should allow myself, are not
on it's decisions, but it's obiter dicta,
Hthink the opinion wrong that denies
negro citizenship, because l hold that
the presumption under our system is
in favor of equal rights, and negroes
are citizens, the same as others, il
not expressly excluded. But l do not
think the presumption is in favor Of
negro suffrage, for suffrange is not a
natural, but a conventional, right
and can never be presumed. Tho
right to vote in elections is trust
positively conferred, and must be
strictly construed"
"The Supreme Court is the SUI
preme tribunal in the civil order, but
the civil order is not itself supreme,
added Diefenbach; and the Supreme
court is itself bound to take the Law
of justice, as eXpounded by the SUI
preme tribunal of the supreme or spir
itual order, which enlightens con
science in regard to absolute justice
and interprets supremacy for it the
law of God The Supreme court, af
ter all, is civil court, and within the
SlN4i OAdOl. IL ID q UIdnCn vi In6 ClNl
government, and it's decisions, though
civilly are not absolutely infallible
unless on the moral and spiritual re
: lations of the case it borrows its ligh
: from the spiritual order, or the cour
} which is instituted, not by man, Blu
by God himself, to interpret, declare
and apply the higher law for con
science. This is wherefore politica
5 atheism is necessarily hostile to tru
r liberty, as not recognizing, and no
being able to declare infallibly the lay
of natural justice, which is the basi
and sanction of all human law. Thi
t shows, Also wherefore Catholics car
s not mean what they say, when the
. assert that their religion has nothin
to do with their politics, as MI
O'Flanagan is so fond of saying"
D Undoubtedly" replied Father job,
D the spiritual order is superior to tn
: temporal, and thus the church inter
prets the natural law for the state
and not the state for he church. Blu
l. this she does by her ordinary teach
o ing, not ordinarily by formal judicia
decisions, by informing the mind an
conscience of the il1dgns and rrlar