{ title: 'Auburn weekly American. (Auburn, N.Y.) 1855-1859, February 07, 1855, Page 1, Image 1', download_links: [ { link: 'http://www.loc.gov/rss/ndnp/ndnp.xml', label: 'application/rss+xml', meta: 'News about NYS Historic Newspapers - RSS Feed', }, { link: '/lccn/sn90066102/1855-02-07/ed-1/seq-1/png/', label: 'image/png', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/sn90066102/1855-02-07/ed-1/seq-1.pdf', label: 'application/pdf', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/sn90066102/1855-02-07/ed-1/seq-1/ocr.xml', label: 'application/xml', meta: '', }, { link: '/lccn/sn90066102/1855-02-07/ed-1/seq-1/ocr.txt', label: 'text/plain', meta: '', }, ] }
Image provided by: New York State Library
t t j b i j h ) J O e e l j l j f t h i e H c q i ) , P U B L IS H E D E V E R Y W E D N E S D A Y —BY— W I L L I A M J. M O S E S . Office, Corner of Genesee and State Streets, AUBURN, N. Y. J. STANLEY SMITH, Editor. TERMS.—g l , 50 per annum, in advance, in all ° T u n D aily A merio w , pnMi-di\ at the earnc office, j •will be furnished to guhscviht rs a t $3,00 p e r annum, payable q iA rtcrly in advance. ! These papers having a large circulation among nae- * ehairies and nusiru-ss men, a rc an excellent m edium for ; advertieiD:?. I The Book anti General Job P rinting Office o f the Proprii t. ir of this paper is in the A dvocate Btiildin ' C la rk street, w h e re h e will he pleased to re ceive the calls o f his friends and the public. | Special Notices. T o t l i o s e w l i o a r e A f f l i c t e d w ith Dyspepsia, ! W eakness of the Stomach, H e reditary or M ercurial taints of the Blood, we would say read carefully the ad- | vertisem e n t of “ R ich's A m ' rican Compound\ in ! another column. Its high character and rccommenda- ! tions, m a r k i t as //' • errat sprcifir for th e diseases for i w h ich it w a s compounded. A form u la1 is being furnish ed to rhysicians, w h ich takes away the objection to or dinary patent medicines, secresy. T i r e W o r l d o i l F i r e I—Geology and chem istry prove a s conclusive, and even m o re irrefutably th a n tho holy w rit, th a t the destruction of this groat world in course of tim e m u s t come by fire. The bowels of the earth are now one vast carter of fire, and although w e cannot alter it, y e t wo have th e consolation, w h e n w e h a v e a cough or cold, o f being soon cured by using Bryan's Pulm o nic W afers, only 25 cents a box.— Sold by all D ruggU ts in A u b u rn. T u ttle Sc, Moses, A u b u rn, General Agents. L e c t u r e s . —A course of F o u r L c c tur s on Turkey, Syria, Pal Stine, E g y p t, tec., will be giv n in Stanford H all in th is city, b y R v. W . S. BAT.CII of N e w Y o rk, com m encing on T iv s d iv e-.eriing, F i ’>. oth. These lec tu r e s h a v e bet n r**Ceivi d w ith very great l’avor where- ever they have b een d> liven d, and it is believed they J will give em inent satisfaction to all our citfz.-ns who I m a y h e a r them . Tickets for a single lecture one shil- j ling each; for the whole course 50 c. nts. F o r sale*at | Hewson & W illiam s, the Express Office, and a t the door i o f thg-H a lh | I i i oTi-x* C o l u m n s iiMV l*r found the advertisem ent ! of thut m tu m l and luy-t-. Panacea, known as the * A M E R ICA N ' M E D IC IN A L OIL. Becoming cele brated for its success in c u ring rm.r.y of tile diseases to w h ich we a re subject! d, it a ttracts the universal attm - tiuri, not only of th e nu dieal profession, hut of the plii- lanthropi-t end the whole public. T h e Oil u n d o u b ted ly is w h a t it pretends to be. T h e analysis show n us, an d as m ay be seen in the udvertiseim nt, show s i t to be oie* o f X i t u r ’s own compounds, and w o rthy of the fa vorable eonsidt ration ot the afflicted. R o c k R o s e . —Tlie many excellent me licinal v irtues o f the plant Rock Rose, is becoming generally and fa- vor.vl»Iy km»\7n, ajuonjf eminent Physician*, and to use tin* language of Dr. Tyler, of N ew Haven, the plant h a s been too m ncli neglected. Myers’ E x tr a c t of Rock Rose is one of the safest and m \ 't eilieaeious remedies for the cure o f Scrofula, Salt Iiheum , Dyspepsia, Liver Complaint, Bilious Diseases, Canker, N u rsing Sore M o u th, Sick Headache a n d General Debility. T h e fact th a t Myers' E x tract of Rock Rose is a cure for th e above nam ed diseases, is no fiction, os thousands w h o have u*ed it w ith success can testily. Obtain pam p h lets of our agents (gratia.) T U T T L E &. MOSES, Auburn, General Agents. A T J B UK N C I T Y D I R E C T O K Y i . T i m e o f C l o s i n g t l i e M a ils* F irst E isterx M ail for Syracuse, Utica, A lbany and N e w York, will he «*l>>-»ed daily, except Sundays, at fe . l S ffclcn-l:, A . AX. S e c u x p E asts : :: n M ail fur all Offices E a st, at 1 . 1 5 u'cluck P . 31. T h ird E a s t e r n M a il Train- for Albany and Eastern S tates, w . 0 0 . 'eiuek P . 31. F i r s t W e s t e r n M a il i t Geneva, Canandaigua, Roch ester, Buffalo, um.l W estern C-tates, will be closed daily, except Sundays, at 7 .OH o’clock v. m. Second W e s i l r n M a il for all Office* W est, a t 5 . 3 5 o'clock r . ji. Kellogsrsville Mail, daily, except Sundays, at 12.30 p. M. Ith a c a Mail, via Fleming, daily, except Sundays, 7.00 A.M. Ith a c a Mail, via (favuga Lake. 44 “ 7.0S a . m . W o lcott Midi, daily, “ u 1.30 p . m . P o rt Byroa Mail, daily, ’’ \ 2.00 p . m . M oravia Mail, daily, ‘4 “ 7.00 p . m . Skaneateles Mail, daily, 44 4\ C.OO a . m . C' >rtlaiid v ia M> T.ivia, T uesdays, T h u rsdays and Saturdays, at 7.00 a . m . Oswego Mail, via Cato, Mondays, W ednesdays and Fridays, 0.00 a . m . Oswego Mail, via Sterling, Mondays W ednes days and Fridays, . . . . 2.00 p . m . A u relius Mail on Tuesdays, T h u rsdays and Sat urdays, S.00 A.M. South Lansing Mail, on Tuesdays, T h u rsdays and Saturdays, 8.15 a.m. E s f Office open daily, from 7 o’clock A. jr. to S o’clock p. M., except on Sundays, when it w ill, he open from 7 o’clock to n o’clock a . M. and from 11.45 o’clock to 12.45 o’clock p. m . , E . P. ROSS, P ost M a s t e r . A u b u rn, Feb. 1, 1855. T i m e o f C l o s i n g ; t h e E x p r e s s . G o ing E ast , at - - - - - l.no r.M. 44 W est , at 4.00 p . m . ________________ -T. L. D OTY, A gent ._ A r r i v a l a n d D e p a r t u r e o f C a r s . G O I N G E A S T . No. 1. Express, a t . . . 9.30 A. si. 44 2, Freight, a t - - - 4.10 p. M. 41 3, Mail; at - - - - 2.55 r . m . 14 4, Freight, a t - - - - 8.25 p. M. 44 5, Accommodation, a t - - 12.05 A. M. *4 0, Sunday Mail, 9/25 P. si. G O I N G W E S T . No. 1, Freight, at - - - 2.55 A. m. 41 2, Accommodation, a t - -V/t A. m. 41 Freight, a t HMD A. M. 41 4, Express, a t 2.25 p. M. 44 5, Mail, a t 0.47 p. m . R a il Road Tim e is 12 m inutes faster th a n A u b u rn time. A r r i v a l a n d D e p a r t u r e o f S t a g e s . Skaneateles, leaves dally at 7.00 A. jl , arrives a t 1 p. sr. Ithaca, 44 44 7.30 5 r . M. Moravia, 44 14 7.39 “ 44 “ 5 p. m . P o rt Byron, arrives 12.00 M. Loaves at 3 p. m . b'pri v g p o rt. 44 44 12.00 A. M. 44 44 3 P. M. It c l 'Tvillc. 44 41 11.00 A. M. 44 44 2 V. 31. M o n tezum a , - 44 11.00 A. M. 44 *; 2 r . M. Oswego via W eedsport, leaves Mondays, \y cdnefldays am i Fridays, at 7.30 a . m . A rrives the intermediate dav*. Oswego via P o rt Bvron, leaves Tuesdays, T h u rsdays, and Saturdays, a t 7.30 A. M. A rrives at 5, th e interme diate days. B a n k s . O p en Daily, from 10 A. M, to 3 p. m . CA Y U G A CO U N T Y B A N K , G e s e s e e - st r e e t . N . B eardsley , President, J . N. S t . vrin , Cashier. A U B U R N C IT Y BA N K , S tanford B lock , N ortii - st . A c g i s t i s H owland , F ro s t, G. W . L eonard , Cashier. B A N K OF A U B U R N , G e n c s e e - str e e t . J . S. S eymour , President, O. H. M ekriman , Cashier. A UBURN SA Y IN G S ’ IN S T IT U T IO N , G e n e s e e - st . 0 . P. W o o d , Secretary. C i t y O f f i c e r s . JO S H U A BU R T , M ayor . W . G. Simpson, L. A. Paddock, Aldermen, I s tW a r d . P N. Smith, David Madden, 44 2d 44 •Tno. Curtis, Isaac Lewis, 44 3d 44 Dan’l W. Thorp, W m. Shapcott, “ 4th “ r e d e r k k P r in c e , Clerk. D a n iel A ndrcs , A ttorney. VOLUME I. AUBURN, N. I . , WEDNESD AY, FEBRUARY 7, 1855. NUMBER 1. CHURCH PE0PEETY QUESTION. S p e e c h o f H o n . J . 0 . P u t n a m , i n S e n a t e , J a n u a r y 3 0 , 1 8 5 4 . M r . C hairman : As I originally intro duced, and subsequently reported this bill from the select committee, without statins; at length tlieir views, it seems proper that I should submit to the Senate the objects at which it aims, and the considerations which have induced my action. The bill seeks uni formity in the tenure of church temporalities. While my attention has, as a legislator, been called to tlie-questions involved, I have been sensible of the importance of maintaining to all citizens of every shade of religious senti ment. the constitutional guarantee of the “ free exercise and enjoyment of religious pro fession and worship.” While I believe this principle is in no measure violated by the bill proposed, I remember that even this guaran tee. is made by the fundamental law, subject to the condition, “ that it do not lead to prac tices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State.” salus popidi, supremo, lex, is the paramount idea of the Constitution. This bill interferes with no belief, it strikes at no general and long-established policy of any church, or any body- of religionists. It simply provides for the vesting of the title of lands ded icated to religious uses, in Trustees of the con gregation enjoying the same, in accordance with a law and policy of the State which are almost co-existant with incorporation into the Fed eral Union. It may- lead us to a better appre ciation of this subject if we refer to that policy, and to the motives which led to its adoption. The organization of New-York, like that of her sister colonies, into a free and independ ent State, was the result of the triumph of the popular principle of tlie right of man to self-government. That organization was the overthrow of all political power not emanating from the popu lar will, and of all undue prerogative on the part of a priesthood. Xew-York, as she shared its labors and sacrifices, fullv sympa thised with the spirit of the Revolution, and has ever adhered to the Republican policy in all matters pertaining to Church or to State. If the founders of our State government were careful to secure to the people the right of governing themselves, and to throw around the citizen the safeguards of a constitutional liberty, they were no less careful to coniine the clergy- within tlieir legitimate sphere as spiritual guides. This jealousy- of clerical in fluence is one of the most marked features of our first State Constitution. Let us look for a moment at the rock from which we were hewed. It is well, a t times, to trace the stream hack to its fountain. The preambles of section 38 and 30, of our first State Constitution, which are declarato ry of the free exercise of religious liberty, are as follows: 38. And whereas we arc required by- the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, hut also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intoler ance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes- have scourged mankind, this convention doth. &c., (declaration of free exercise of religion, here follows.) an appeal to tlie amiability of the Catholic i have obeyed the laws, to interpose between congregation4 That appeal failed of its purpose, and so much were the people disinclined to comply with this policy, when not urged as a right, that aaother step was taken in 1849, at the seventh Provincial Cotmcil of Bishops of the United States, held at Baltimore; when a measure of revolution was adopted, no less than the divesting of the Catholic laity of all power over Church temporalities, and its centralization in the hands of the priest hood. The fourth article of the ordinances of that Assembly are as follows A r t . IV. The fathers ordain, that all Churches, and all other Ecclesiastical proper? ty, which have been acquired by- donations or the offerings of the Faithful,, for religious or charitable use belong to the bishop of the diocese ; unless it shall be made to appear, and be continued by writings, that it was granted to some religious order of monks, or to some congregation of priests for their use. This is no less than an act of confiscation. It does not even recognize the right of prop erty in those by- whose bounty it was pur chased, but it arrogates to the Bishops, au actual proprietorship , and by absolute decree of this ecclesiastical council, so far as it could them and these ecclesiastical exaextions. Has the State a duty to perform in view of these tacts ? What, Sir, will the State answer to the church of St. Louis, and other congregations sympathising with it, whose sufferings for adhering to our laws are so forcibly depicted in their petition, to say nothing of the great principles involved in this question, on which side should he found the sympathy of the government? W ith those who seek to es tablish a policy- a t war with its own system, or those who would respect your policy and obey your laws ? Should it he with that ab solutism that tolerates no freedom of speech, no license of opinion, and which can grow strong only at the expense of your vigor, and can become dominant only upon tho ruins of republican liberty I Or shall that sympathy he extended to tliose, who, cherishing the Catholic religion, would mould its policy to the theory of our government, and would submit their syTstem of rule to that modifica tion which it must receive from contact with institutions like ours ? I cannot, as a legis lator. nor would I have the State look with indifference on a controversy like this. On the one side is priesthood, panoplied with all its power over the pockets and consciences of its people, armed with the terrible engine- be enforced by persuasion or discipline, trans- i vy the Y atiean, seeking in open defiance of fers the possession, control, and ownership, I the policy and laws of the State, to wrest ev- of millions of property, from the laity to the j erJ i n .c h of yacred ground from the control of clergy-. the laity-, property- secured by their sweat This was a policy on the part of the Cath- i ;ul(t sacrifices, and to vest it in the solitary olic clergy, no less bold in its antagonism to hands of a single Bishop, that lie may- close the f-.4 whole theory- of our government, than B o a r d o f H e a l t h . W A L T E R G. SIM P S O N, M A T H E W SIT T Z E R , H A R M O N W O O D R U F F , C. W . BOYCE, C ity Physician. F i r e D e p a r t m e n t . O L IV E R W . W H E E L E R , C h ief Engineer. R O B E R T P E A T , F irst A ssistant. C. FURGU S O X, Second Assistant. B A R N A B A S BA K E R , Forem an No. 1. JA R E D CO N K L IN , 44 4 4 2. W M HOW . 14 “ 3. IR A S W IFT , 41 44 4. J . W A L D R O N , Forem an Hook and Ladder. T h e Alderm en a re F ire W ardens in th e ir respective D istricts. S T A T E S T R E E T , N E A R G E N E S E E - S T . , MAKTFACTURERS OF TIN, BRASS, COPPER, SHEET IRON WARE, &o., &c., &c., -TT’-H O L E S A L E A N D R E T ATI., and Dealers in YY Stoves, Furnaces, Hollow W are, &c. Feb. 1,1855. [d& w tf J N E I V S ! N E W S ! ! BASSETT & HOW, ■\ t E W S EM P O R IU M , Genesee St., opposite o f the A A u b u rn Bank. T h e undersigned will keep con stantly on h a n d a n assortm ent o f S T A T IO N E R Y , a n d a fuU assortm ent o f CHEAP PUBLICATIONS. Also all the Principal N e w Y o rk D aily Papers, and Boston and N e w 1 o rk Weeklies, and A u b u rn Daily a n d W eekly Papers. N E W P U B L I C A T I O N S Received a s soon as out. Harper. Peterson, Putnam , Graham , Godey, National, Ladies' W r ia ’h, F r a n k Leslie's Gazette o f Fashion, Illustrated Alaguzine o f Art, Ballou's Dollar Monthly, and N e w York Journal, F u rnished by the y e a r o r single N u m bers a t subscription prices, and delivered i f desired, free of charge. W e w ill deliver N ew Y o rk D a i l y P a p e r s to Sub scribers a t I S cents a week, payable ill advance. DISMOKE'S RAIL-ROAD GUIDE RECEIVED MONTHLY. THO M P S O N ’S R E P O R T E R received semi-monthly. N. B. - W e have connected w ith th e News Room a ToI> S hop fbr Binding Magazines, Pam p h lets and News papers which will be done w ith neatness a n d dispatch. AH o rders promptly attended to. Please give us a call. B A S S E T T & H O W . _ f e b l ________ __________ _____ W O N D E R E U L D I S C O V E R Y ! I T IS D ISC O V E R E D East. W est, N o rth and S o n th, th a t J . P. Ham ilton does continue to e x tract T E E T H w ithout the slightest p ain by the use of Chloroform for th e last 9 y ears—but not w ithout the p atient h a s a w it ness to accompany them o r some person in the office a t th e time: and also ail other D ental operations in the m o st modern style. Rooms in th e n ew Iron Colonade Blook, No. 110. feb l d2w JN O . P. H A M ILTO N . E X T R A F h O C R ! A t T H E “ P E O P L E ’S FLO U R A N D F E E D D E P O T ’ on Dill Street, may be found, E x tr i W h ite W h e a t Flour, Red w h e a t Flour, Buckwheat Flour, an extra quality of G raham F lour from W h ite W h e a t, a n d all th e varieties o f mill feed usually kept at a mill or feed store. A superior quality of fine CO R N M E AL, &c. A ll of w h ich w ill b e dealt o u t in lots to s u it p a trons of the establishment. T h e subscriber h aving been engaged in th e business for tho last five y ears, flatters him self th a t he will be able to please a ll who a re willing to be pleased. feba C A. nUTCHINS. 39th. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are by their profession, dedicated to the service o f God and the cure of souls and ought not to be diverted fr o m the great duties oj their function, therefore no minister, &c., (concludes with a declaration of their ineli- gibity to any civil or military- office.) Thus it appears that a t tlie very origin of our State government, when was settled the policy which should exist for ages, with such modifications as a progressive civilization, and an advancing sentiment of liberty might require, our fathers recorded their experience of past oppressions under priestly rule, and declared it to he their conviction that the safety of the State from “ spiritual oppress ion and intolerance,” depended upon tlie lim itation of the authority of the clergy- to what they- might legitimately- acquire in their office as spiritual teachers. Very soon after the adoption of the Constitution, in 1784, the ■Legislature was called upon to form a system of government of church temporalities, and one was carefully perfected in entire harmo ny with the theory of our political institu tions. Leaving the clergy “ to the service of God and the cure of souls,” they- secured the in dependence of the laity, and the rights of conscience, by the most practical limitation of tlie power of the priesthood, which could be obtained by-legislation. The act of 1784 <4 to provide for the incorporation of religious societies,” and which is substantially the act under which all church property until very recently has been held, provided that the title of such property should be vested in Trustees elected by the church, congregation or society, occupying and using the same for purposes of religious worship. Slight modi fications of the act have been made to meet the practice of two or three denominations of Christians, hut none of them yielding the great principal that the laity should have the substantial control of tlie property, through their representatives, elected by- the body of the church or congregation. This develops to us the policy- of the State, and the consti tution from which we have quoted, reveals the consideration which led to its adoptit n. It is a policy- alike cautious and Republi can. It recognizes the justice of placing the control of consecrated property in the hands of those by whose sacrifices and bounty it was acquired. It manifests that jealousy of the power of the priesthood, not necessarily incident to their spiritual office, which their own experience, as well as the history of centuries of contest, between the clergy- and the laity, could not hut awaken. This act secured tlie rights of conscience and the free dom of worship. It realized a central idea of the revolution—a separation of church and of state. It was a practical embodiment of the American sentiment. “ A p r i e s t f o r THE PEOPLE, AND NOT, THE PEOPLD FOR A PR IEST.” Under this act, all the religious societies of the State soon organized. Protestant and Catholic alike, availed itself of its provisions, and the line of demarcation of power be tween the clergy and the laity contemplated by the constitution, and defined by this en actment, has been carefully preserved until w-ithin the last few years. If it sometimes facilitated a change of dogmas in the faith of worshipers of a particular congregation, it has been supposed that what was lost to a self-claimed orthodoxy, was more than gained to the rights of conscience and the freedom of inquiry. Under this Republican policy, the different denominations of Christians have grown powerful in numbers, and influence, without any abatement on the part of the people, of respect for their spiritual teachers. On the happily adapted to the objects of control at which it seems to have been aimed. It may lie added, that this ordinance was submitted to, and received the approval of, the Pope of Rome. Immediately- upon the promulgation of this new order, the Bishops of their respective di oceses throughout the United States, com menced tho effort to obtain the surrender of i all corporate churches on the part of their congregations, and the transfer to them indi vidually, of the titles to church property, cemeteries, seminaries of learning, hospitals, lie., Ac. In most instances in this State, it being made a test of good Catholicism, these transfers were made without protracted re sistance. In other instances, among congre gations imbued with the spirit of our free in stitutions. and who had learned to recognize as just, the division of power between the clergy and the laity, which our civil policy had established, this demand was resisted.— The Catholic laity claimed that their rights did not exist by- mere sulfrauce of the clergy-. That having organized into corporations in pursuance of our laws, they were bound as good citizens to abide by the policy of the government whose protection they- enjoyed. When this resistance was protracted, it’ led to the most, unhappy controversies. And whenever the congregations have finally- re fused to yield their franchises, and surrender their titles in obedience to the Baltimore or dinance, they have suffered the severest pen alties which can, in this country, he inflicted upon the Catholic communicant. The church of St. Louis, in the city of Buffalo, is one of the congregations who have adhered to the policy of the State. This congregation is composed of a French and German popula tion, most of whom have been for many-years residents of tho United States. Tlieir petition to this body details an un happy controversy of several years. The real estate upon which this church edifice was erected, was in 1829 conveyed for the use of a Catholic congregation to he thereaf ter organized, by the late Louis Le Couteulx, a man most honorably associated with the j history of his adopted City and .State. In j 1838, the congregation was organized under ; the laws of this State, and seven trustees | elected, in whom the title vested by virtue of the act in relation to religious corporations, before the passage of the Baltimore ordi nance. Bishop Hughes ‘‘'attempted to com pel the trustees to convey- the title of this church property- to him.” After the Balti more ordinance, more vigorous measures were set in operation by the Bishop of that dio cese to compel the transfer of the title. ’ A sou of the grantor of the land made a visit to the head of the eliurch at Rome, to obtain an equitable adjustment of the controversy. The result was, tlie deputation of Arch Bish op Bedini, a Nuncio of the Pope, to visit the Church, and if possible, settle its difficulties. The Nuncio refused any terms except those which had been previously made by- the Bishop, in compliance with the Baltimore or dinance and transfer of title. In September last, the Bishop made his final proposition for an adjustment, which was rejected. For this adhesion to our laws on the part of the St. Louis congregation, their trustees have been excommunicated. Every- sacra ment. every- sacred privilege most dear to the sincere Catholic, have been denied the mem bers of the congregatipn. In their petition they s a y : “ F or no higher offence than simply refu sing to violate tlie Trust Law of our State, we have been subjected to the pains of ex communication. and our names held up to infamy- and reproach. For this the door of the sanctuary, put out the fires upon its altar, and scourge by- his di-ciplina- rv lash, every- communicant from its sacra ments, ordinances and worship, who dares think a thought independent of his Spiritual Master. On the other hand, we see a band of men who have lived long enough intheiradop- tcd country to have the gristle of their liberal opinions hardened into bone, men devoted to the church of their fathers, hut who love the State to which they- have sworn allegiance, and who respect its institutions, we see them resisting, with a heroi.-m which would honor the age of heroes, unitedly unwaveringly in de fiance of hulls of excommunication, from Bi shop, Legate, and the Pope, every attempt to override your laws, and to establish on the soil of freedom, the temporal supremacy- of a priesthood. Sir, the Muse of History has rarely- trans cribed to her records, an act of heroism, sur passing that which was enacted in the church of St Louis, in Buffalo, on the 10th of Sept., 1854, when, after years of painful controver sy with the highest authorities of the Papal church, its congregation met its Bishop, to decide upon his ultimatum. That ultimatum was, that the congregation should elect trus tees, to he selected by himself. In other words, he would allow the congregation to he the throne, hut lie was to he the power behind it! How did they meet this ultima tum ? As martyrs, refusing to y-ield tho tithe of a hair from their original position.— And there stands to-day, a proud monument of tlie devotion of that people to a true citi zenship, that magnificent edifice, as fur five years it has been, under the curse of the Bi shop. There, still floats over its tower, the black flag, symbolical of the darkness which envelopes the altar, over which it waves, bearing the significant inscription, “ Where is our Shepherd ?” That church is the po litical Thermopylae of the age. Sir, these Catholic citizens of Buffalo, to day- appeal to the State through their repre sentative, for protection in this, their fidelity-. Urged to violate their oaths of allegiance to your laws, they have kept them inviolate.— On which side, again I ask, shall the State be found—will it be with that power which ex alts its head above the State, which makes obedience to you the signal for excommuni cation and the fatal interdict ? Aside from the question of justice, has the State no dig nity to maintain ? Were the question never so insignificant, it would be its duty to vindi cate its authority, and to hedge it up by leg islation, against its indirect violation. When it ceases to he sovereign, it sinks in to contempt. No free State should tolerate nor can it long survive, an imperium in im- pi.vio, which lives defiant of the civil power. I propose, Sir, to submit a few considera tions, why we should not second the policy of the Baltimore ordinance. To say nothing here of the political antagonisms of the Ro mish policy to our institutions I would remark, that no clergy of any denomina tion or faith, should he vested with the pow er, contemplated by that ordinance. I yield to no man, in a due respect for the spiritual office, hut there is to be found in its very- nature, a reason why it should not he associated with temporal power. It was tlie result both of his observation and his histor ical research, which led Lord C l a r e n d o n to say, that 44 of all mankind, none were so ill fitted for the management of affairs, as the clergy.” Whenever invested with civil pow er, or with those elements of control outside of their influence as spiritual guides, which operate upon the consciences and pockets of men, they have as a class been the enemies cause, too, have the entire congregation been placed un der ban. To our members the holy rites of baptism and of burial have been denied.— The marriage sacrament is refused. The P riest j fuundjn the history of the is forbidden to minister at our altars. In , sickness, and at the hour of death, the holy j consolations of religion are withheld. To the I Catholic churchman it is scarcely possible ; to exaggerate the magnitude of such depri- j vations. i We yield to none in attachment to our re- j ligion, and cheerfully render to the Bishop that obedience, in spiritual matters, which the just interpretation of our faith may re quire ; hut in respect to the temporalities of our church, we claim the right of obeying the laws of the State, whose protection we enjoy.” While the Bishops have been securing the transfer to themselves of the title of Church property consecrated at the time of the ac tion a t Baltimore, they have taken in evqpy instance in this State, so far as I can ascer tain, the title of all property which since that action has been purchased for church, educa- sional or charitable purposes, in connection with the Catholic communion. In the coun ty of Erie .alone, nearly sixty different con veyances of lands, have been made to John Timon, the Bishop of the Buffalo diocese, during the last seven years, and the value of this property is estimated at over one mil lion dollars. This property consists of sites of churches, cathedrals, hospitals, and educa tional establishments, besides a large amount of yet vacant lands. Some estimate may he formed of the vast aggregate of property now vested in the three Catholic Bishops of New York, from this statement in relation to a single county which contains b u t one city, and that having h u t seventv thousand inhab- contrary, by divesting the clergy of all pow- | itants. The legal effect of this proprietor- er over church temporalities, and thus remov- ship in the Bishop, is to vest the absolute ti- ing a cause of jealousy and strife, unhappy , tie in him as an individual, so that were he collisions have been avoided, and they have , to die intestate, it would go to his heirs.— lived as the spiritual guides and the friends . B ut it is presumed that he lives withanexe- of their people, who in turn, have reposed in ( culed will, which devises this property to them that confidence, and yielded to them j his successor in office, thus practically crea- that esteem which belong to consistent piety, . ting a close corporation sole, in the Bishop of and to useful lives W ithin the last few years has grown up in this State, a system of rule entirely antagon istic to the system I have renewed, and in violation of the whole spirit of our constitu tion and laws. This is its history. As early as 1829, it was discovered by the Prelates of the Catholic Church, that under American institutions, the system of committing the the diocese This then is the present position of this question. Our constitution and policy are republican. The State guarantees the free dom of worship and the liberty of conscienco to all its citizens. As a part of its policy. * and to prevent that undue influence of the priesthood over the people which is alike in- compatable with the personal freedom of the of toleration, and when forming a part of the civil power of the State, the defenders of its abuses, and of its efforts to crush dissent and independency. Not to Catholic States alone need we go for the proofs—they are to be English Church, from Henry VIII, to tho present century, and to every other era of clerical domination. The “ Convocation,” an assembly of the es tablished clergy, even after the Revolution of 1088, claimed to he independent of Parlia ment, and dictated to it a policy destructive of all toleration, save for the doctrines of the establishment. Great as is the debt of grat itude due from the Christian world to W i l l i a m of Orange, for no one act of that great statesman and true friend of civil liberty, is it more indebted, than for hif final proroga tion of that body. The Corporation and Test Acts, which so long disgraced the Statutes of England, and the acts relating to Catholic disabilities, al ways found defenders in the established cler gy. When Fox and Burke led the attacks in the British Parliament against these oppres sive statutes, mitred Bishops entered the lists to oppose them, as if religion could not exist out of the Church. K Episcopacy may fail, but religion exist f was Jhe noble reply of B u r k e , and to a Protestant laity is Eng land indebted for the great triumph of relig ious liberty, secured by the repeal of those acts. Clergymen naturally feel that they have charge of the most important of all pos sible interests, the souls of men. Confident of the truth of their owii dogmas, and looking upon schism and dissent as fatal heresy, they are easily led to the belief that it is their highe: I duty to bring all the enginery of the Church to and the State, to crush out the first appearance of a revolt from their Church formulas and Church economies. If it he said that this argu ment holdsgoodonly with the clergy of an es tablished church, Ianswer it is bcause an estah’ lishment caninvoketheaid of the civil power to compel conformity, and embarass dissenters. The same element of intolerance, allow it de- velopement, exists in the bosom of every spi ritual teacher. But, I answer further, that in permitting a powerful church to obtain the control con templated by this ordinance, which, where it may, invokes the civil arm to crush out all dissent from its faith, we cherish one of the control of church temporalities to the laity, j citizen, and with the safetv of the State, it led to a degree of independence of the priest hood not in keeping with tho absolutism o f 1 the Catholic Hierarchy. Its tendency was j to divide power with the clergy. To\ meet j this difficulty, the following ordinance was passed in the Grand Council of Bishops, held at Baltimore, Oct. 1,1829. Council of Baltimore, Oct. 1, 1829. has engrafted the popular element upon the system of rule in church property. The State finds a counter policy in the Catholic church. Its democratic system is met and antagonized by the absolute element, of a spiritual power defiant of all our usages and laws. It finds millions of property, wrested from most dangerous evils of an Establishment. An Establishment is a constituent element of the State, and aids in the formation of its laws, and gives tone and shape to its policy. So far as it can bring the co-ordinate branch es of the government to adopt its views, so fiir, it is felt as a power, for weal or for woe. The danger to liberty, and the injustice to non-conformists, and to dissenters, consists in the pover to control, and it is only danger ous, as it possesses that power. But here. Sir, in the bosom of this free State, we find a Hierarchy, having no sympathies with our institutions, hut in direct antagonism to the , . principles on which they rest, admitting no su- “ Whereas lay trustees have frequently , the hands of congregations, and concentrated premefealty tothecivilpowcr,hutactingunder abused the right (Jure ) granted to them by individual ecclesiastics. the impulsive energy of its Italian centre the civil authority^to the great detriment of 1 religion and scandal of the faithful, we most earnestly desire (optamus ma.rfme.') that in future no church be erected or consecrated unless it he assigned by a written instrument to the bishop in whose diocese it is to he erected for the divine worship and use of the faithful, whenever this can be done.” Approved by Gregory XYI, Oct. 16,1830. This, it will he ohsprved, was expressive of no more than an earnest desire. It was impulsive energy and head, not as a co-ordinate p a rt of the ’ government, but exalting itself above the ! State, and regulating its millions of church J property, utterly defiant of our policy, and our laws. It stands before us naked of apol- : ogy and Can plead nothing, hut the sic roto, of an usurped prerogative. To favor the despotic control over the consciences of vast masses of our citizens, 1 and consequently over their action, which It finds a priesthood, not content with the legitimate influence which belongs to their character as spiritual guides, securing a pow er over timid Consciences, little less than ab solute. through their control over every con secrated place. It finds this system of rule creating h itter dissensions between priest and people, dan gerous to the peace of society. It finds itself called upon by Catholic con gregations, whose only crime is, that they . the Baltimore policy would concentrate in a score or two of Bishops throughout the United States, leads to many of the evils of a union of Church and State. Our govern ment seeks the disintegration of this power. The theory of the Catholic Church is, that it must he a unit, a unit in doctrine, a unit in practice. The Catholic priest, under the most liberal of systems, has a vast influence over liis charge, by virtue of his _ office.— Superadded to this, when he is invested with the power which the absolute proprietorship of all sacred places can give him, when the altar belongs to the priest, when the church and the cathedral are his, where the Catho lic hopes to worship while living, when the Cemetry is his, securing to him the keys of the consecrated grave, when the hospital is his, admission to whose charities is up on the terms he shall dictate, when the Catholic Colleges, and other seminaries of learning, are his, when the tens of millions of property, the donations of tho Faithful, are all the absolute proprietorship of the priest, have you not the elements of a “power in the State,” whose harmli^sness rests only in its forbearance ? Is it said this power will not he exercised ? That if templed by some future Cataline to conspire against the liber ties of the people, it will spurn the offer — Is this the lesson of history ? So judged not our fathers, who framed the first State Con stitution, ami who declared in letters which should be graven upon the American heart, as with “a pen of iron,” that in founding the basis of a free Empire, they “were” required to guard against “that spiritual oppression, ami intolerance wherewith the bigotry w d ambition of weak and wicked priests, have scourged mankind. ” Distrust of pow er, is written all over our Constitution and our laws. The elements of power, most provoking this distrust, were the spiritual, * and the money power. The one it paralized, so far as was necessary to render it harmless, by establishing the freest license of religious sentiment, the right of dissent from any or all dogmas, the right of revolt from all church economies, leaving responsibility for his faith, to the conscience of the citizen, and to his God. Every new sect diminished this pow er, and thus schism became an element of political security. Thus were drawn the teeth of the spiritual power. The money power was rendered harmless by our statute of distributions and of inheritance, by pro hibiting the entailing of estates, by prevent ing accumulations in corporations, by the process of distribution of that power rather than of its concentration. Our statute in relation to Religious corporations, is one of the most marked and happy illustrations of this principle, where every member of each separate congregation, who contributes to the support of worship, has a voice in the Control of the Church property, and a re cognised proprietorship therein. The Baltimore ordinance is the antago nism of all this. It abhors the policy of dis integration, ami seeks the absolute control over the laity, by the concentration^ of the spiritual ami temporal power, in the priest hood. Two millions of Catholic communi cants in the United States, and probably thirty millions of consecrated property, and all. under the absolute control of perhaps fif ty Bishops, and they, acknowledging allegi ance to a foreign and absolute Cotentate!— Continue this policy for fifty years, when the Catholic population shall he twenty-five millions, and the property of the fifty Bish ops, almost beyond computation, and I ven ture to say, that the Church, represented in its ecclesiastics, will be stronger than the government, and will dictate, the terms of its existence! The crushing weight of such a power can he lifted only hv the strong hand of Revolution. All tlie statutes of Mort main, which English Parliments could de vise, did not save tho necessity of the con fiscation of the estates of the Catholic Cler gy, to save the ascendency of the Crown.— France affords another illustration. It was a corrupt priesthood, enriched at the ex pense of labor, which bolstering up the Bour bon throne, with it, as an ally, ground the million masses to powder. Church exactions and State oppressions, wore the wrongs, whicli exorcised from the deeps of popular rage, the Genius-of Revolution, which swept, as with iron hail, every vestige of regal, and ecclesiastical rule from the land. The Tri umvirate rode tho whirlwind, and for a time, guided the storm, b u t they did not create them. They were the natural offspring of abuses in Church and in State. Mexico is to-day a living illustration of the tendency of Church accumulations, when unrestrained by law. It is almost literally, the proprietorship of the Catholic church.— And there, the hearings of one revolution, have hardly subsided, before we feel the con vulsive throes of another. New York is not without her experience of the evils of large landed estates, acquired before the Revolution. The original crown grants to Trinity Church, and which, if vested rights cannot he dis turbed, are constant objects of jealously and distrust. Even now the question of submit ting their titles to judicial scrutiny is urged to the legislature as a great measure of pub lic policy. The large landed estates in some of our Eastern counties, have in late years, led to revolutionary excesses, alike reproachful and perilous. So much opposed are they to the spirit of our institutions, that their proprie tors have felt compelled to compromise their legal rights, and to take steps looking to an entire surrender, upon considerations agreed upon by parties interested, of their feudal tenures and policy. Our last State consti tution, has cai’eftilly guarded against the possibility of the introduction into the State, of this system of tenantry. There is another reason of State, why the control of church property should he in the laity. Our government is anomalous. It depends for security, upon the development of the higher elements of the individual man. It places upon him, the responsibility of rule. If he he the slave of a priesthood, the first political allegiance of his heart, whether he he a native or an adopted citizen, will he else where than to the government which pro tects him If he surrender a portion of his franchise to his spiritual teacher, he will soon be prepared to surrender all his judgment, all his political individuality, to the same ambition. The consciousness of that independence of spiritual control, which proprietorship in sa cred places creates, is one of the processes of development of individual manhood, which the State cannot afford to surrender. Pro perty is power. The State has a positive in terest in retaining that element of influence in hands, where its possession will lead to attachment and fealty to its government.— The people should trace their right to wor ship in consecrated places, built by their own sacrifices, to the government which would, by its beneficence, win the affections of its citizens, and not to an ecclesiastic, who will make blind submission to hils authority, the terms of spiritual consolation, and of admis sion to consecrated ground. There is another consideration, why the clergy should not step out of their sphere as spiritual teachers, affecting themselves. The purity of the clergy, depends upon their sep aration from the secularizing tendencies of politics and power. There can be no just respect for that office, when associated with secular affairs. They are not above the reach of temptation. Their preservation from de moralization, depends upon their seclusion from the paths of ambition. We are not without examples which should ever he as a waving sword between them, and the ave nues to temporal power. “I have chosen you twelve,” said the Savior of the world, “and one of you is a devil.”— Mammon. “ T h e least erected spirit th a t fell F rom Heaven” was the Seducer of Judas. The thirty pieces of silver have paved the road to infamy, for many of the successors of the betrayer of his Lord. The Romish Church is not without its dis tinguished examples of spiritual death, through the influence of a grasping ambition! — Wolsey. “T h a t once trod the ways o f g lory, A n d sounded aJl the depths and shoals o fhonor,” on the exposure of his schemes to compass the power of the throne, and “gain the Pope dom,” uttered to his faithful Cromwell a sen timent which the poet has invested with the charm of his genious. h u t without the slight est addition to its truth or its power, “f’ro m v d l, T charge thee, fling aw ay ambition. By th a t sin fell the angels’. H o w can m an, then, T h e imago o f his M aker hope, to w in by i t ! ” W hat wondei, th a t this poor Cardinal, who was glad to beg a little earth for chari ty, that he might lay down his weary bones and die, should exclaim in view of his fall, ------------4lO Cromwell, Cromwell, Hafl I b u t served m y God w ith h a lf the zeal I served m y K ing, h e could not in m ine age, H a v e left me, naked, to m ine enemies.” It is the history of the Church in every age, that its purest examples, and most eminent piety, were among those who literally went “about their Master’s business,” entirely sep arate from the objects of ordinary ambition. The general argument I have pressed, would hold good in relation to any body of ecclesiastics, the evils of the policy of placing this power in a priesthood, are incident to the system, whatever may be the spiritual character or relations of the clergy, who may he vested with tlie power I have deprecated. But- there is another view of teis subject to be taken, which looks to the peculiar danger to our Institutions, which will grow from the union of the spiritual and temporal power, in the Catholic priesthood. And that I may not be misunderstood, I wish here to say, that all I have said, or may say hereafter, in relation to the Catholic policy, and the dan ger involved in it, is confined entirely to the politics of that Church, and not to its mere doctrines of religious faith. With them I have nothing to do, 1 have no controversy with a man who worships saints, and believes in the “real presence.” 1 have no doubt there is a road to heaven through the Catholic Church. I may think much or little of a Congress of Bishops from the ends of the world, who shall meet in the seven hilled ci ty, and sit for days at the feet of the Papal See, resolving the “immaculate conception of the Virgin.” It may not accord with my views, of what themes should, in the middle of the 19 th century, occupy so wise a body, but certainly it is a harmless discussion, and maj he a harmless faith. I have to do with a pol icy, other than mere dogmas of this charac- ’ ter. A law which shall prohibit the accumula tion of property in the hands of the Catho lic Bishops, I deem vitally necessary as a measure of safety to our political institu tions. We cannot neglect to impose th e s e legisla tive restraints, and take care that the State suffer no detriment. A popular government may still be an experiment, and tim e , under the* happiest influences that human wisdom can devise, may prove their fatal tendency to decay, and dissolution. But we, Sir, as a people, are committed to this experiment. All our character as a nation, all our pride in past achievement, all our confidence in present security, all our hopes of future glo ry, are concentrated in the hopeful capacity of intelligent man, for self-government. We are hound to give this experiment a fair trial, to protect it in all constitutional ways, against every influence adverse to its success. The political theory of the Catholic Hierarchy, ! is in direct antagonism to the republican principle. Its theory is, that the individual man is absorbed in the Catholic religionist, and the religionist in the head of the Church. The first allegiance of the true Catholic, ac cording to the theory, is to the Papal power, his allegiance to human governments, entire ly subordinate. This doctrine is as boldly avowed in this country as it is in Rome. One of the most carefully written papers of Mr. Brownson, in his Catholic review, a gentleman of high endowments, and who has recently, in an appointment to a Professor ship in a Catholic University, received the highest evidence of Catholic confidence, in speaking of this doctrine of allegiance, em- ployed this language.: “If tlie Church should direct the Catholic citizens of this American Republic to abolish the Constitution, the liberty, and the very existence of their country, as a sovereign state, and transfer it to the crown of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, they are hound, by a divine ordinance, to obey. “We are not aware of a single Catholic sovereign in modern history, that has regar ded religion in any other light than as a branch of the police, although several of them have been personally pious. As princes, they have asserted the total separation of the two orders, and in their public and official con duct, have looked upon the Church merely as the auxiliary of the government, and re ligion as subordinated to the interests of State. It is to this fact, that we must at tribute the frightful scandals of Catholic Eu- ropejbr the last two centuries. The revolt and opposition of the Protestant nations of Europe, in the sixteenth century, and the wars which followed for over a hundred years, enabled the Catholic sovereigns to as sert their independence, in temporals, of the spiritual power, to suppress the estates and to establish their absolute power.” This principle and its most natural illus tration is found in a recent number of the Civila CatalUca, published at Rome, and the immediate organ of the Pope. That paper of date 5th August, 1854, submits the fol lowing to the world. “That excommunica tion by the church has, as an unavoidable re sult, the dissolution of the tie of subjection and of the oath of fidelity.” I take the liberty of quoting the language of the New-York Tribune, commenting upon the declaration, and which well says, “ac cording To this, if a Pope lay his ban upon the government of the United States, Catho lic subjects of that government would be come, ipso facto, absolved from all fidelity thereto.” This, sir, is the theory, and in accordance with it, is all their discipline, even their oaths of office, pledge to this policy all their spirit ual teachers. Now, what is the position of affairs in this country ? We have two million Catholics, ministered to by hundreds of priests. Who are these Catholics ? The great mass of them are foreigners, many of them from the most absolute governments, governments in which the Catholic religion is the religion of the State, where the political education of the church has been that blind submission to the spiritual and the political power is the duty of the true Catholic. Through this mutual support of the Hierarchy by the government, and of the government by the Hierarchy, through its control over the Catholic con science, the absolute element in European politics has been maintained. Revolution has slumbered, the church has administered the narcotics. Who are the spiritual teach ers of our Catholic citizens ? A native cler- necessary to retain the absolute ascendancy of their priesthood over the Catholic com munion, Nothing short of this Concentra tion of power and influence could retain in blind subservience a generation of Catholics born under our government. He would be comparatively a wise man who should hope to press down with the palm of his hand the lieavmgs of the volcano, or by a word to ap pease the spirit of the storm as it rides forth on the blast, to him who should hope for the birth and education under our republican system of a generation of men of a foreign parentage who would bear the yoke of priest ly rule as tamely as did their fathers. There is contagion in the spirit of liberty. Un doubtedly that “abuse,” spoken of in the Baltimore ordinance, which consists in a claim on the part of the laity to be repre sented in the temporal power of the church, and to seek its adaptation to our own gene ral system of rule, did exist, even as early as 1829. That it now exists, to a degree which threatens to weaken the power of the clergy over matters not legitimate to them, is evi denced by the struggle between the laity and the priesthood in almost every State in the Union. Not in the Church of Buffalo alone is found this spirit of protest against the ab solute claims of the clergy. The Church of St, Peters, of Rochester, is in the same con troversy, and other congregations, I under stand, in the city of Troy, and New-York, in Cincinnati, in Louisville, in Detroit, indeed all over the country, either covertly or open ly, are to be found in the Catholic mind, the workings of the republican leaven. I do not mean by this, that any revolution is in pro gress in relation to mere theological ques tions. I believe there are none; the conti’o- versy is purely in relation to questions of control, and of limitation of tho clerical power to their office as spiritual teachers. But the church will answer me, that un less the Priest control the altar there is dan ger of schism, and that it will invite their people to protest against church dogmas and church polity. I would reply that this is the land of dissent, that its institutions tol erate and invite dissent, that they were found ed by those who were said by England’s most philosophic statesman to have embrac ed a religion which was the very “dissidence of dissent,” and that its government cannot employ itself in forging chains for the hu man mind, or fetters for the conscience. On the contrary, it encourages research, it is hopeful and not fearful, of schisms growing out of enlightened inquiry, in all questions of policy or faith. Its distrust is of the in dividual. Its confidence is in the species. In an early day, when were urged to Parlia ment the same reasons for forbidding the publication of dissenting opinions. M il t o n , that G reat orb of song, uttered a sentiment, worthy of him. and of liis age, and which is expressive of the confi dence of the spirit of American democracy. When the cheerfulness of the people is so sprightly up, that it lias not only wherewith to guard well its own freedom and safety, but to spare, to bestow upon the solidest and sublimest points of controversy, and new invention, it betokens us not degenerated, nor drooping to a fatal decay, by casting off the old and wrinkled skin of corruption to outlive these pangs, and wax young again, ntering the glorious ways of truth and pros perous virtue, destined to become great and honorable in these latter ages. Was it not our country, upon which the prophetic vision of his mind rested, in that sublime rhapsod3r, when even his genius was kindled with unwonted fires. “Methinks I see in my mind a noble, and puissant nation, rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks. Methinks I see her as an eagle, mew ing her mighty youth, and kindling her un dazzled eyes at the full mid-day beam, purg ing and unsealing her long abused sight, at the fountain itself, of heavenly radiance, while the whole noise of timorous and flock ing birds, with those also that love the twi- The first section seeks to invalidate future conveyances to priests and bishops, in their official character. It would prevent the evils of permitting ecclesiastics to become in fact, corporations sole, with power to ac quire lands in perpetuity. The second section invalidates all future c o n v e y a n c e o f l a n d s c o n s e c r a t e d o r a p p r o - p r o p r i a t e d o r i n t e n d e d so t o b e , t o p u r p o s e s of religious worship, unless made to a relig ious corporation organized under our laws. This is to prevent the future acquisition of that class of property in the hands of indi vidual priests. The third section seeks to execute a moral - trust, wherever such a trust exists in the hands of individuals, by declaring that prop erty, of the character named in the second section, shall be deemed to be held in trust for the benefit of the congregation using the same, and shall vest in their corporations after the decease of the person holding the legal title. In this respect, it is analagous to our statute of Uses and Trusts, by turn ing a trust estate into a legal estate, and vesting the absolute title in the party hav- | ing the equitable interest. Section four declares that the property shall escheat to the State, on the decease of the party holding the legal title, unless the congregation shall so far conform to our sys tem and laws, as to organize into a corpora tion. Section five recognizes this estate so vest ing by escheat in the people, as a morel trust, and provides for the conveyance of the prop erty to the trustees of the society using the same, whenever the society shall organize into a corporation. The whole object of these latter provisions, is to compel bishops and priests, of whatever denomination, Protestant, if such there be, or Catholic, to permit the incorporation of their societies, in order to protect their titles. If they will not obey the laws of the land, will not conform to its policy, they are with out the pale of, and have no claim on its pro tection, in relation to this class of property. I would, in passing, remark that even’with the free consent of their congregations, tlie State ought not to permit so insecure a trust of so vast possessions. The want of a sub scribing witness to a will, or some other stat ute informality, not to name the impossibility of an intentional error, would transfer the entire consecrated property in the diocese in : Catholic connection, to the next of kin to the bishop. The remedy of so great an outrage, would exist only in the free will of thosc^in whom the laws of inheritance should vest the title. This is not novel legislation. Both i t and its occasion, have their counterpart. Let us lo o k f o r a m o m e n t into the iron visage of the gy? No, sir, the native is the exception to the rule, almost universal. The Cataolic priesthood of this country are generally for eigners, educated in the most absolute doc trines of Papal supremacy, who have no faith in human progress, who regard the doctrine of individual independence as heresy. From necessity they are the enemies of Republican institutions. Why is this? Republican in stitutions favor the right of private judg ment. They invite the individual to break away from a blind submission to his spiritual guide, and to repose his conscience in the keeping of his God. They deny the supre macy of the Pope, and demand to the gov ernment the first political allegiance of the citizen. Hence their whole policy is to dis integrate that power, which the church is permitted to wield, in despotisms. Should the State look with indifference upon this foreign control of this vast mass Of of mind, educated in this doctrine of blind obedience to a power that assumes to be su perior to the State? Whatever of influence the clergy can re tain through their! office as teachers, whili acting in conformity with our systems of po lity, which are themselves adapted for gene ral safety, is well. But it is madness in the State to permit a policy, the antagonism of its own, to-obtain, and which tends to weak en the tie of citizenship, while it builds up an overshadowing power of money and influ ence, all of which is under the control of the most absolute Potentate on the earth. W hy was this ordinance of Baltimore en acted, transfering the consecrated property of two millions American citizens to a half hundred foreign priests? W hy was this pol icy adopted for free America., which can exist no where except with, the most absolute governments of Europe? Sir, i t was a stroke of policy worthy the conception of a Hilde brand, far-seeing, appreciative of the conta gious character of our institutions, and of their influence on the American Catholic mind. No wonder it met the. approval of the Roman Pontiff. That policy, perhaps the confession is indiscreet^ b u t I do n o t purpose any concealments in what I have to say, was light, flutter about, amazed at what she means, and in their endless gabble, would prognosticate a year of sects and schisms.” No sir, the Catholic Hierarchy cannot ask our government to aid in perpetuating its venerable dogmas of faith, or its hoary polit ical abuses. The day has passed in all gov ernments embodying in any considerable de gree the popular element, which regards the plea of prescription in behalf of ancient opinions, errors, or systems. The age is a living demurrer to this defence. Our government has but one reply to this cry of alarm that in republieanising the sys tem of rule, over Church temporalities, we weaken tlie tie between the priest and the people, and invite to independency and dis sent. Being a government of dissent, and popu lar in all its theory, it cannot be moulded to meet more absolute systems of rule. It ad mits the transplantation to its soil of every exotic, spiritual or political, that can find it genial to its nature. -Whether they are so, and can hear the transplantation, or whether t hey languish and die, is of no interest to the genius of American Democracy. Its office is spent, when it has taken care that the State suffer no detriment, and that there spring up in its midst, no hostile element of power. I know the Catholic priesthood have no sympathy with these sentiments, nor with the spirit of the age which generates them.— They as stoutly deny tl*e rights we claim for their people as they did under the iron rule of the Gregories. Upon every other system which has come in contact with modern civ ilization, more or less impression has been made, modifying their severe features, and conforming them to the more liberal policy of the age. But the Procrustean bed of Catholic politics remains unchanged. In the crucible of the Centuries, its system of rule has undergone no transmutation. It took Anglo Saxon Protestantism hut about one century to work out its illiberality and in- tollerance. It did not spring like Minerva from the head of Jupiter, a complete creation from its birth. In Old England and in New, its origin was marked by the sentiment of a persecuting age, and blood was found upon its garments. But it bore within itself the ele ments of its own purgation, and to-day it stands before the world regenerated from Its intolerance, and full panoplied in all the ele ments of a liberal civilization. It has a free press, and open Bible, an universal education and a tolerant government. It takes strug gling humanity by the hand and leads it up to the heights of personal character. It leaves not man a blind worshiper at the outer door, h u t invites him to the inner shrine of great Nature’s Temple, and to be himself, as a priest in the services of T ruth and of God. Such is in the middle of the 19 th century, that Genius of R e v o l t a g a i n s t abuses of Church and of State, named P r o t e s t a n t i s m . One more general view of this subject. Catholic States, consistent in their theory that heresy is crime, and should be crashed out by penalties and by death, close the doors against all protest, and even banish to exile or to death all who defy the omnipo tent authority of the Church. It is to be re membered, that while Spain and Portugal are Catholic countries, that ours is a P rotes tant country, and in its highest sense a Pro testant government. I know the State as such, recognizes no religion as peculiarly its own. But in its sympathy, in its tone, in its spirit, and in its origin, i t is Protestant.— W hat constitutes a country ? Surely not that alone which belongs to its physical, h u t that which pertains to its moral, its social, its intellectual, and its political character.— It is found in its civilization, in its senti ments, in its heart enthroned prejudices which have themselves become principles, guiding stars of a people’s thought, and the impelling power to a nation’s action.— Judged by this standard, our’s is a Protes tant country, and a Protestant government. Protestantism for the most part formed its early settlement. Protestantism, laid the basis of our State and National institutions. A Protestant laity, independent in political action of priestly control, infused into all our’ policy that liberal leaven which.Iias_ giv en the utmost freedom to religious opinion and worship, and enabled even the Catholic Hierarchy, to grow so dominant in our midst. The Catholic clergy and their Italian head have no claim upon our country, to sacrifice a national policy to a trans-Atlantic system, the direefc antagonism of our ow.m _ I t is proper before concluding ipy remarks, to analyze a little more particularly, the bill undqr consideration. . . . Past, and see it in the reflex image of our Pres ent. The spirit of English liberty was ever ealous of priestly prerogative. Having the sole control over spiritualities, the Catholic clergy were in the middle ages, as now, active in securing the same centralization in them selves, of temporal power. They understood the philosophy of human nature well enough to know, that the possession of physical wealth of the State, would greatly facilitate their attainment of all other desirable influ ence. Through this, the church could con trol the consciences of the people, and the policy of Kings. Hence it was, that in the darkest hour of the middle ages, when the English throne scarce had a being, save a t the p l e a s u r e of the Roman Pontiff, nearly one half the real estate of the kingdom was ab sorbed in the Catholic church. The church was everything, royalty but its shadow.— The spirit of English liberty, whenever it in cited revolt against abuses, attacked the grasping element of the Papal Hierarchy, and it never felt that it had achieved a sub stantial victory which did not diminish that overshadowing power—and prevent its ac quisition of real estate. So vital was this regarded, so essential to the liberty of the citizen, that it was provided in magna charla itself, the great bill of rights of Englishmen, that lands should not thereafter be given in mortmain to religious houses—that is, to re main forever from ordinary use and alienation. This statute was evaded bv the clergy through the system of leasing lands, to pre vent which, was passed the statute of 1 Ed ward de viris religionis, (concerning priests) which forfeited to the crown, lands taken in mortmain. Tlie following is a copy of this provision: “No person, religious or other whatsoever body politic, ecclesiastical or lay, sole or ag gregate shall buy or sell any lands or tene ments, or under the color of gift or lease, or by reason of any title receive the same, or by any other craft or engine, shall presume to appropriate to himself, whereby such lands may in any wise come into mortmain, under pain of forfeiture of the same. And within the year after the alienation, the next lord of the fee may enter. And if he do not, then, the next immediate lord from time to time to have half a year, and in default of all the mesno lords entering, the king shall have the lands so alienated forever, and shall enfeeoff others by certain services.” This was again evaded by false actions, and judgments obtained by collusion, whence titles called common recoveries, which -was met by another statute in the same reign.— The next device to evade the statute, was by convejdng lands in trust for tlie use of the clergy, to meet which, Parliament passed an act ot forfeiture in the reign of Richard II, unless held by consent of the King. The compulsory feature of nearly- all the English acts of mortmain, consists in the forfeiture of lands to the Crown, which were grasped by the clergy in violation of the policy, and law of the land. The last general English statute on this subject, passed in the reign of George II as well as the statute of 43 Elizabeth, specially designates what grants and devises should be lawful for charitable uses, and invalidates every conveyance and devise not authorised by those Acts. To watch the clergy has been the business of Parliaments, to save their lands, from mortmain, the business of the people, for centuries past, well is it, if i t be not so, for centuries to come. The great end to be attained b y this bill, as I have argued at length, is to divest the clergy of the power of control over Church temporalities. The only modification of this bill I have heard suggested, authorizes the Bishop of the Diocese to appoint three trus tees, should the congregation decline to avail themselves of their legal privileges of incor poration. This would, in my judgment, leave the evil almost untouched. The result would be, that that discipline which has compelled so many congregations to surren der their charters, would be brought to bear upon them, to compel them to waive their rights under the bill, and allow the Bishop to select his own trustees. This was the very point which Bishop Timon was at last prepared to yield to the Church of St. Louis. Of course the Bishop would in every instance select the most facile instruments, who would be invested with a nominal authority, but leaving the control still absolute in himself. To resist his will would require as much for titude then, as now, and how few congrega tions, b u t would endure almost any privation rather than suffer as all resisting Catholic congregations have suffered. I take the lib erty of reading an extract from a letter ad dressed to me by an eminent Catholic, and a trustee of the Church of St. Louis in Buffalo, bearing witness to these persecutions. He says: “In the United .States of late years, the Arch Bishops, and Bishops setting their will above the laws, met in a synod a t Baltimore, and adopted a decree by which no Church was to be consecrated, if not previously deeded to the Arch Bishop or Bishop in whose Diocese it was situated! Not satisfied with that awful step, they declared an unre lenting war against all the incorporated Catholic congregations, and by incessant de mands, threats, all kinds of religious depriva tions, and lastly by excommunication, suc ceeded in destroying those lawful associa tions.” “In Buffalo, there is now biit the St. Louis Catholic Church, which is incorporated, but to what religious deprivation have they not been condemned by their Bishop, fo r their resistance to his will ? Their priests taken away from their Church, the congregation deprived of religious marriage, the sick of the holy sacraments and their trustees excom municated! Indeed, i t is no wonder, after so much suffering, that so many Catholic con gregations should have submitted to their Bishops in annuling their charters and deed ing their Churches to them.” Says the Nuncio,. Bedini, in his farewell letter to the churchof St. Louis, “The Bishop does n ot ask for himself the administration, he is ready to place i t in the hands of mem bers of your owncongregation, b u t appointed by h i m ” - In his farewell letter to Bishop Timon, in alluding to the “obstinacy” of the congrega tion, he -foreshadows the awful denunciations
