The Irish standard., 1907-02-23

er Of Napoleon to accomplish. But
what was accepted as an equivalent
was agreed upon-the assumption by
the state of a part of the burdens
Of the church. And as u contract to
that end the Concordat has now stood
for over a. hundred years.
1t is from this settlement, this con-
tract between the authorities of the
state and the authorizes of he church
that has stood for q century, that the
state now withdraws; withdraws, too,
without d pretense of restoring to the
other party the right of property that
the contract that is abrogated was in
tended to replace. A withdrawal under
such circumstances is nothing less than
reputation. True, as some Of the apol-
ogists for the act of separation say, the
Concordat by it's terms was not per-
petual; but assuming that that fact
gives to the state. the right, with
drawa], it does not excuse the duty,
w11e1, the supposedarightee withdraw
al is exercised, OF ut least res ,oring
that for which the contract was in
tended as the equivalent. Could the
state the next day after tho contract
was signed, or IL year thereafter or
ten years thereafter, still keeping it's
grasp on tile property taken, have
withdrawn without guilt Of repudia-
ton? Why then in ten times ten
years? For it is not the lapse of time,
however, long, that gives the right to
withdraw. Tho sole basis of that right
whenever exercised, would be the res
toration to tho other party of what
had been originally taken-what we
call in law the restoration of the
statu quo.
True, too, as the apologists say, the
state has had now the legal title to
these properties for Il century. But by
what code of morals or justice does tho
possession of title for a period, how
ever long, accompanied by d burden
settled upon it as Il part Of the con-
| sideration upon which the title was
surrendered, entitle the party to throw
off at will the burden while holding
fast to the title? Besides, there is no
principle, either i'll morals or i'll public
law, that makes that right which orig
inally was wrong. No plea Of that
/! character can stand for an instant in
the court of public conscience.
But again it is said that the repeal
of the Concordat is only putting into
effect i'll France the principle of sep
ara,tion between church and state that
4, prevails i'll America. But what is there
in the American principle that de-
prives the church of the right to hold
the property that the church has
from time to time created. or that JUS
titles the taking by the public of that
property without full compensation
+, for the thing taken? Indeed, the
American principle contenplates that
the churches shall hold their own
| property, to be used according to their
own interpretations Of their religious
duties; and it prohibits the state. by
by the solemnity of constitutional
guarantees. from taking any property,
either church or secular. except upon
full compensation first made.
AS a final apoligy it is said that the
act of separation still preserves to the
people who reside in the vicinity of the
individual churches taken the contin-
ued enjoyment of such churches as
houses Of Worship; that all that these
several communities have to do is to
apply to the state for permission to
use the church buildings, whereupon
permission will be granted, as mat
ter of course, without charge.
The people who offer this argument
the speaker pointed out, fail to see
that the separation law is fatally de-
fective in failing to preserve the or
thodoxy of the proposed association of