Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1906-12-20
GIBBONS SENDS REPLY
Cardinal Asserts That France is
Bound by Concordat.
RIGHT IS NOT MIGHT
State Has No Reason for Not Assum-
ing Responsibility.
LAPSE OF TIME NOT AN EXCUSE
Action on French Spoliation Claims
and the Pious Fund Cited as Ex-
amples Of Contracts.
LAPSE OF TIME NOT AN EXCUSE

BALTIMORE, December 20.-A statement
signed by the Rev. William T. Russell sec
| rotary to Cardinal Gibbons. was given out
| at the archiepiscopal residence last evening.
| 1t is. in part as follows:
I'm an editorial of the New York Times of
| the 18th instant the writer informs US that
| the concordat Is "a musty parchment-an
| obsolete formulary.' therefore it has not
| the binding force which his eminence would
attribute How many of your thoughtful
| readers will take this as right reason and
sound ethics2
Honest men do not hold that they have
acquitted themselves Of their obligations
| by letting their due bills run till they are
dusty and grimy with age. Neither do they
question that the legitimate heirs of their
creditors succeed to the lawful rights of
| their testators, and as right-minded moral
| lists do not set up one code Of conduct for
private individuals and another for public
| functionaries; they hold that the law Thou
shalt not steal applies to states as well as
citizens. This higher view Is just the one
which the French government took Of their
obligation as embodied in that solemn form
Of bilateral contract known as the concor-
dat.
"Varied as has been the fortune OF
France in the matter of government during
the century and more since she entered
into this compact with the church, whose
existence she has not been able to ignore
no, not even in this hour when she would
gladly do so-she has never till quite recent
ly dreamed Of repudiating the obligations
she then contracted.
"And in this she has simply been taking
the view which all Christendom has taken
Of such compacts. Is not this the way our
own country regarded the question lately
raised regarding the friarS lands in the
Philippines and Of church property in Porto
Rico? Seeing that we had succeeded to the
rights Of Spain in these islands, we did not
balk at assuming her responsibilities along
with them.
Nor do our legal authorities consider that
such claims are extinguished by lapses of
time. Witness what we have done anent
the French spoliation claims. Though the
action on which these claims are based
antedates the concordat between France
and the holy see by some years. yet our
Congress passed an enabling act in 1886 al
lowing the plaintiffs to apear before the
Court of Claims That this proceeding
meets the approval OF our countrymen is
evidenced by the fact that the legislators
of the thirteen original states have all at
various times passed resolutions directing
their senator's and asking their represent
atives to take favorable action In behalf
Of the claimants. and all this though the
original claimants have long since nodded
into dust. ~ s-.-.i---...-.-.
The Pious Fund.
ION the same lines was the conduct of
our government regarding the disburse-
ment Of the Pious fund. This was as is
well known. q religious endowment intrust-
ed by Spain to the Mexican government for
the purpose Of certain missions which were
once Spanish possessions but now form part
of the United States. Mexico default1ng
case was at length appealed to the highest
court of equity in Christendom-that of The
Hague-and a decision was handed down in
favor Of California missions The United
States authorities did not hesitate to lend
their good offices in executing the decree
Of the court.
Nov. not unlike this is the case which
the French government presents By their
own acknowledgment they find themselves
trustees of fund which they have solemnly
guaranteed to administer In favor Of a
church organization, the identity of which
they do not pretend to mistake. For CEN
fury or more they discharged their obliga-
lions more or less faithfully, without ever
questioning its justice. At given moment
they see fit to repudiate.
lon what ground? That there was no con-
sideration in the contract or that they could
not find the legitimate representation Of the
creditor? No. not at all. They merely do
not see fit to pay it any longer. Hence
forth they will not only not pay interest
but will retain the principal and seques-
trate (namely, confiscate) what other prop
erty their helpless creditor may have &C
quired.
An Analogous Case.
'In view Of it's decision in the Pious fund
case think you The Hague tribunal would
support tne1n were Lnelr case brought under
Its cogniza nce? We think not.
1.-THE disestablishment of the Irish church
by the English parliament is not parallel
case When the disestablishment Of the
Irish church took place, January 1, 1871 the
representatives Of the church remained in
possession of the churches and Of all the en-
dowments obtained from private sources
from 1900.
A more analogous case would be to sup
pose that the New York legislature passed
a bill confiscating without compensation
Trinity Church, with its valuable endow-
to do to justify their act. according to this
writer, would be to remind the rector and
vestry that their charter was granted by
government long since superseded by our
own and to beneficiaries long since mol
dered into dust
The fault which the cardinal finds with
the present minister of public instruction
in France is not so much his bad taste in
using language which every Christian must
reprobate with the manner in which he
and his colleagues have suited the action
intention Of continuing to do SO in the flu
ture. 1t is not justification Of their conduct
to say that they have a majority Of the
votes at their back, even If 1t were true,
which is far from being admitted by many
who are in q position to judge intelligently
of the case, that their majority means pre-
cisely a sanction of their measures. 1t
must be borne in mind that there Is a law
higher and holier than that of the greater
number. Might does not make right. A
majority can play the tyrant as well as an
autocrat.