The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-05-29

why, Lnou, was CDoTe uOV U tTuhsioh Va
property in the second case? BY what
right can the selfsame words be con-
strued in the second instance as con-
ventional, meaningless phrase, the APP
parent purport Of which may be repudi-
ated at any moment 1t would. them
be a violation Of fundamental justice,
say the Cardinals, for the French Parlia-
ment to take from Catholics tho owner
ship OF their churches. Finally, the ut
tention Of President LoUBET is invited
to the fact that the Concordat was a
contract which itself contained no pro-
visions for its abrogation. Consequently,
according to a primary principle Of the
French Code, 1t is dissoluble only with
the consent OF both parties.
How are these arguments answered7
NJ. BRAND, the reporter Of the Parlia-
mentary Commission, denies that the
money voted in the budget Of worship
should be considered in the light Of a
debt payable by the State to the Church
in compensation for the ecclesiastical
property taken over at the time Of the
Revolution. He maintains that the sal
aries in question have been donatives
made out Of good will by the State, and
in no sense by way Of indemnity He
goes on to say that, even II they could
be construed as indemnity, the pay
ments that have been made in the last
hundred years have far more than COW
cred the States indebtedness to the
Church; for in 1903 the budget of wor-
ship amounted to four million francs
while under the Empire the grant for
this purpose rose to fifty millions, and
even now Is more than forty millions. If,
then, the sums thus handed over to the
Church be added to the free use Of &C.
clesiastical buildings, the indebtedness
will be found to lie, not with the State,
but with the Church. As q matter Of
equity, however NJ. BRAND reminds
his opponents that the bill proposes to
provide for all existing clergymen 80
long as they shall live, and withholds
stipends only from those ordained here
after. The bill itself also gave the Church
the free use of cathedrals, churches and
parish houses for term OF two years,
and this concession has since been mate
rally augmented by an amendment.
M. BRAND has evidently found 1t hard
to explain how the Concordat. BIZ
lateral compact between France and the
Holy See, can be abrogated by an act Of
the French Government, which is only
one of the signatory parties. He un-
dertakes to draw a distinction between
the Concordat itself and the law by
which it was carried out in France; just
as in the United States distinction is
drawn between certain treaties and the
acts of Congress which are needed to
render operative the provisions Of those
treaties. The Concordat, NJ. BRAND
admits, is contract dissoluble only by
the consent Of both parties. The law,
however which carries it out was made
by the French Parliament, and therefore
can be unmade by it. Would it be right,
however, to repeal the law If the con-
tract is still binding? NJ. BRAND de-
MES that the contract is any longer OBJ
ligatory, because, he says, the Concordat
has been broken by the unilateral will Of
the Pope, who has 80 acted that the Gov
eminent of the Republic has Judged his
acts to be a deliberate defiance OF its
terms.
As the Cardinals, in their memorial
deny that any justification for the aboli-
ton of the Concordat can be found in
measures taken by the Pope, justice
would seem to require that the question
whether the contract is still technically
and morally binding should not be arbi-
trarily answered by one of the parties,
but should be referred to arbitration.