The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1906-02-24
Studiously Avoided Making Honest INQUIRY.
but Relied Upon Accounts Given
by Protestants.
The Report Of the Commission Contains
Positive Calumnies and Malicious
lnSinuatlonS.

by contract. They are extortcd from
the native chiefs, who dare not refuse.
and 1t Is by positive. though secret re-
straint that they are retained on these
rural FARMS" Thus far the report"
OF the State Commissioners.
To these accusations the Jesuit Faith
ers give the following answer in the
Revue des Missions: ut Is really tliff,-
cult to say what surprises us mbst in
this picture. The description given is
absolutely false: 1t contains posltiye
culumnieS against the missionaries.
and is full of malicious insinuations,
1t is evident that the Commissioners
have never tried to form an idea by
personal examination of what :, rural
chapel really is. It is clear that they
have relied for their information on
accounts given by Protestant mission
aries Of those Colonial establishments
which have done SO much for the CIV
ilizatlon of the natives, and which
have been SO highly praised by such
impartia! witnesses as NJ. Oh. Bulls and
NJ. Rene Vaut'.er 1t is also evident
that they cannot have taken the
trouble. before drawing up their ere
port" to read the memorandum ad-
dressed to them by Fathers Van Hen
oxthoven and Gus. after having failed
to obtain an audience from tho Com
missioncrs. This document contains a
most clear and circulnstantial dcscrip-
tton of the nature and workings of the
rural chapels. 1t would be to insult
the Commissioners to suppose them
capable of publishing such Il mislead-
ing and libellous description If they
had read tho memorandum Of the Jesuit
Fathers" "Sincc the beginning Of our
mission" says the memorandum "Our
manner of proce cding has always been
the following: We begin by visiting
the village and asking the native chief
to have house built and to install the
children in II. A native catechist in
structs them and looks after their agri-
cultural education. We ask no conces-
sion OF land for ourselves; in fact, we
should not know what to do with it:
both house and farm remain the prop
erty Of the natives. We have acted
thus with full knowledge and perlnis-
sion Of the authorities in a great num-
Der of cases, and up to this we have
never received any observations on the
subject. Lately the disposition Of the
government in our regard seems to
have undergone q change although, OF
course. they don't exactly go SO far as
to contest our, right to establish rural
chapels. This right Is really too mani
fest. Let us examine the facts; the
natives living at these farm chapels
are in their own homes; their children
are with them at home; when we go
to visit them 1t is at home in their own
village that they receive us. They
may have their children educated as
they please, they can give hospitality
and lodging to whdmsOever they
please. Let US add that we rarely OBJ
tain the chiefs permission to establish
a rural chapel without Offering him
presents. 1t is the missionary himself
who must undertake the construction
Of the chapel and surrounding resi-
dences at his own expense. 1t Is he.
also, who, ut his own expense. must
furnish the implements. seed and
young stock TO commence operations.
If after this he were to expect to re-
ceive part Of the farm produce for
the support of the children boarded
and fed at the Central Mission entirely
at his own expense, who could blame
him? Nevertheless he does not re-
ceive q penny from the rural chapels.
It is not from government aid. but
through aims received from home that
the missionary is enabled to be 30
generous. The capital accruing from
the sale of the crops and stock. in
fact. all the receipts remain the prop-'
erty Of the natives and are divided
amongst them. should the missionary
wish to buy any farm produce suchsl