ANSWER TO THE "GAZETTE

(The Gazette, Montreal, June 25.)

To the Editor of the Gazette :

Sir, — In your editorial of this morning (Friday, June 22nd) you have reproduced very nearly the same long category of historical, legal and canonico-legal inaccuracies with which a contributor to the Star favored the public in the issues bearing date of 19th 'May and J3th June.

As I had occasion then to remark, there is no easier task than that of heaping up gratuitous assertions, but it is a long one to classify and refute them. The Star, with that Anglo-Saxon fairness which I am only too willing to suppose, as I am myself an Anglo-Canadian, is the characteristic of every man who has English blood in his veins.

pu])lished my answer in the subsequent issues of May 26ih, June 2nd, 7th, 8th, 9th, i5lh and i6ih. 1 liave no reason to think that the Gazetik will be less courteous. I regret, however, that your editorial duties have not allowed you personally, nor the writer of the article, to take cognizance of the arguments and citations which have convinced other minds that I have not " whijjped uj) religious and race jealousiesv/ to base the liberty enjoyed by French Catholics in Canada upon the capitulation and the treaty," that I have much less had a recourse to •' vague tirades about treaty rights ;" but have quoted the best English authorities to sustain my position, and shown to every unbiased mind that the *' simple people mislead," and if you so put it, " prejudiced against the English Government" are no less personages than the then Premier of Great Britain, his solicitor and attorney-general, a lord high chancellor of England, and absolutely the entired body of those eminent men who have professedly written on the laws of nations, constitutional law, and the jjrerogaiives of the Crown, Josei)h Chitty himself included.

I am still waiting to see if any one can point out one single flaw in my reasoning. Until then I would be justified in allowing your editorial to go by unheeded. But behind you, Mr. Editor, is the e.xpectant public, composed, in great measure, of fair minded men who would not stand by and see an injustice done. Some may be prejudiced by early education against the Society of Jesus, but, whatever be their prejudices, they would, even where there is question of the much abused order, be ready to give the devil his due.

The attack made ujion the just claims of the society of Jesuits in your journal is derived ostensibly from two sources, canon and public law. There is, furthermore, an inter-mixture of false a|)precialions, historically speaking, and a latent but strong appeal to i)()pular prejudice ; and this in the way of presenting the brief of suppression.

I am loath to believe that your article was inspired by one who is of our own creed. My instinct, however, leatls me to ascribe it to somebody not unknown in the family circle of the contributor to the Stjr.

For the Protestant jniblic, whom 1 know to be fairly inclined to see justice done, I shall furnish suftkient proofs. For the Catholic public, I know the immense majority to be in synïpathy with the cause I sustain. Well educated Catholics, if they be at all familiar with the history of Europe of that i)eriod, know full well by what secret influences the supi)ression of the Jesuits was brought about, if not, it would be well for them to consult the fifth volume of Crelineau-Joly's History of the Society of Jesus. They know, moreover, what was the real mind of the Roman Pontiffs previous to the supi>ression, what thai of every

succeeding Pope until the present venerable occupant of the Holy See^ in the brief Dolem>is inter ^ gave back to the society all its privilegesafter having bestowed upon it unbounded praise.

The position of the Catholic, who assails the society of Jesus, as a body, is not an enviable one, even though he assail it under a non- Catholic mask. The words of Leo XIII., in the above mentioned brief, show that that Catholic is not in harmony of sentiment with the one he looks upon as Christ's vicar on earth. . '

The words of Gregory XVI. to Mgr. Affre, Archbishop of Paris, should be a warning. " We are aware that this society (of Jesus) is looked upon by the more prudent and fervent among Catholics as having deserved well of the Catholic cause, and for that very reason is it held in high esteem by this Holy See ; we are aware it is deemed of bad repute among those who are, unbelievers, or who have little sympathy with the authority of holy church, and who after this, Venerable Brother, might well boast the support of your name to accredit their calumnies against it."

As the proofs I have already given in the Star remain unshaken, and hold good also against what has appeared in the columns of the Gazette, I do not see why I should inflict a repetition of my answer on a patient public ; more especially as they will shortly be able to procure the whole correspondence in pamphlet Allow me, therefore, Mr. Editor, to change the form of my answer. I am ready, in your next issue, to make good what follows :

1. In principle, the assumed right of seizing the Jesuits' estates, and the actual seizure, in part or in whole, was unwarrantable, (See 3.)

2. And therefore, all subsequent acts concerning these estates, such as transfers, appropriations, donations or sales, based upon the same, are equally unwarrantable.

3. This assumed right, and in fact the actual seizures could be valid only

I. By right of conquest, (See 4) or IT. By right of escheat. (See 13, p.ige 9.) Now neither of these titles is valid in the case of the Jesuits' estates. (See 4 and 13.)

4. The title of Conquest is not valid in the matter of the seizure of the Jesuits' estates. (See 5 — 12.)

5. h.\-\Ci firstly \.\\t seizure is not valid by the general right of conquest ; (See 6, pages 9 and 22.)

6. For by natural law, and by the laws regtilating the mutual relations between Sovereign and subject, the right of properly of individuals and of bodies corporate and politic may not arbitrarily be invaded by the Sovereign (page 48).

7. P'or by the common accord of all authorities on the Laws of Nations, the general right of Conquest confers the right of sovereignty alone, and no others than those which the supplanted Sovereign previously possessed (pages 22 to 26).

8. Now, the Society of Jesuits was a body corporate and politic, legally recognized as such by

(a) France before and at the Conquest (pages 26, 27, 28), and by

(b) England at and after the Conquest (pages 29, 30).

9. And that furthermore such estates are church property (pages

(a) To which the King of France previously had and could have no legitimate title (page 33) ;

(b) And to which, consequently the Kingof England, who supplanted him, could have no legitimate title (pages 22 to 26, 44 to 48).

10. And that the general right of Conquest imposes the duty of maintaining the existing laws of property (pages ;^3y 24, 25; ;

la) And by these laws their estates were secured to them (27, 28, 33).

11. That fiirihermore, as a statute cannot render void a treaty, the clause in parenthesis in Art. \TII., of Act 14 Cieu. III., c. 83 (the *' Quebec Act ") is null and void, and moreover frustrated by its own Art. HI (j.aiies 34, 35).

12. And secondly the seizure of the J -suits' estates is not vaiid by the r'h^lit of this particuLir cofii/ui'sf as set forth, in the case of Canada, by the terms of the Ca[)itulalic)ns and Treaty (pages 36 to 47 .

13. Tlie title by cst/wnt is not valid, noi u.i> 11 ut^cu, m Ua- m.iticr of the seizure of the Jesuits' estates (i)age 47) ;

14. I'or by an unwarrantable proceeding the administration deprived them of the c hances of succession by inhibiting them from receiving new mtmbtrs (pages 48 to 50) ;

15. For by the right of conquest the King of England'acquireil the sole rights of the King of France, who could not, even by Airiy"/// escheat, become possessor or usufructuary of church property (No. 7a & No. çai.

16. What concerns vacant benefices in art. xxxv. of .\cl 31. Cicorge III., chap. 31, v" Constitutional Act") is at variance with the aforesaid principles of the laws of nations concerning the rights acquired

by conquest, and in direct contravention of the articles of the capitulation, and of the definitive treaty (No. 7 and No. 9a)*.

If, Mr. Editor, after I have made good what precedes, the writer of the article finds some link missing let him point it out, or state what else he would have me prove.

Yours, ets.,

Montreal, June 22, 1888.

[" U. E. L." is astray in his idea as to the writer of the article he criticizes. That, however, is an indifferent matter. His letter is inserted as a statement of the side of the case opposite to that taken by this paper. That we do not coincide in its views need not be stated, and we will take an early occasion to show wherein they are, as we see them, defective, and where " U. E. L." fails to establish the rights now claimed on behalf of the re-organized society. In the meantime attention is directed to the synopsis in another column of Hon. Mr. Mercier's resolutions before the Legislature which in some points bear upon " U. E. L's " arguments. — Ed. Gazette.]