The Irish standard., 1908-05-02

Father Kohlmann was made by Will
liam Sampson, one of the Irish ref
ugees following the rebellion Of 17OS.
Another of the Irish exiles of that
period, Thomas Adds Emmet, was to
have appeared in the case on the same
side, but was prevented by imperative
engagements in another court. Both
these gentlemen were Protestants
The limitation of space will not ad
init of my dwelling on the able and
lengthy argument made by Mr. Samp-
son. nor can l present summary of it
for the same reason. Special interest
however, attaches to the decision of
the court, which was given by De Witt
Clinton, subsequently the famous gov
ernor Of New York.
''The question is,' he said, whether
Roman Catholic priest shall be COM
PEELED to disclose what he has received
in confession. in violation of his con-
science, of his clerical engagements
and of the canons of this church, and
with certainty of being stripped Of
his sacred functions and cut off from
religious communion and social inter-
course with the denomination to which
he belongs.
There can be no doubt that the
witness does consider that his answer
In fhic or ~
high handed offense against religion
that it would expose him to punish
ment in a future state, and it must be
conceded by all that it would subject
him to privations and disgrace in this
world.
ut is true, that he would not he
obnoxious to criminal punishment, but
the reason why he is excused where
he would be liable to such punishment
applies with greater force to this case,
where his sufferings would be aggra-
waited by the compunctious visitings
Of a wounded conscience and the
gloomy perspective of a dreadful here
after. Although he would not lose an
estate. or compromise a civil right, yet
he would be deprived Of his only means
Of support and suba btence, and, al
though he would not confess a crime
or acknowledge his infamy, yet he
would act an offense against high
heaven and seal his disgrace in the
presence Of his assembled friends, and
to the affliction of bereaved church
and a weeping congregation.
ut cannot, therefore, for a moment
be believed that the just and mild prin-
ciples of the common law would place
the witness in such dreadful predica.
ment, in such Il horrible dilemma. be-
tween perjury and false swearing. IT
he tells the truth he violates his &C.
clesiastical oath; if he prevaricates he
violates his judicial oath. Whether he
lies Or whether he testifies the truth,
he is wicked, and it Is impossible for
him to act without acting against the
laws of rectftude and the light OF con-
science.
"The only source is for the court to
declare that he shall not testify or
act at all. And court prescribing A.
different course must be governed by
feelings and views very different from,
those which enter into the composition
of a just and enlightened tribunal, that
looks with a rropitious eye upon the
religious feelings Of mankind, and
which dispenses with an equal hand
the universal and immutablc clements
of Justice
Later on the judge says: "But this
is great constitutional question,
which must not be decided by the
maxims Of the common law, but by
the priciples Of our government.
Let us now look at 1t upon more
elevated ground; upon the ground Of
the Constitution, of the social COM
pact, and of civil and religious lib
erty.
Religion is an affair between God
and man. and not between man and
man. The laws which regulate it must
enanate from the Supreme Being. not
from human institutions.
ut is essential to the free exercise
of religion that it's ordinances should
be adminstered-that it's ceremonies
as well as it's essentials should be
protected. The sacraments Of a relig-
ion are its most important elements
We have but two in the Protestant
church-Baptism and the Lords Sup
per-and they are considered the seals
of the covenant of grace. Suppose
that decision Of this court, or a law
of the state, should prevent the ad-
ministration Of one or both of these
sacraments, would not the Constitution
be violated and the freedom of religion
be infringed?