OCR Text |
Show .Conversations of nr Club , - ' By Orestes A. BrowtiSOtl "" riaving concluded the discussion regarding re-garding a protective tariff, the debaters debat-ers in last week's chapter of the conversations, con-versations, again took up the relationship relation-ship of politics and religion. This week the famous Dred Scott case is discussed, and the position of Chief Justice Taney, a Catholic, in giving a judgment that might have been in accordance ac-cordance with the law but was diametrically diamet-rically opposed to the tenets of his religion, is criticized. An interesting, but almost forgotten event happened about the time these conversations were published. The government of the United States applied ap-plied to the Canadian authorities for the extradition on a charge of murder of an escaped slave who had klliect one of his pursuers in his flight towards to-wards the free northland. Tne Chref Justice of Canada, in giving judgment refused to follow the Dred Scott case, as a precedent, and gave utterance to a remarkable criticism which created a great furore at the time. His concluding con-cluding words were: "We cannot look upon the Dred Scott case as good law. It seems to me that in signing that judgment the learned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, by a single stroke of his pen destroyed an otherwise other-wise illustrious reputation." Conversation VIII. (Continued.) "In so far as the civil order is concerned, con-cerned, I concede it," said Wihslow, "but the question, is -not there. The civil' order cannot call a man to an account for what it permits, but a man may, nevertheless, be accountable in the spiritual order for things done in the temporal. Mr. O'Flanagan says well, that there are two orders, each independent and supreme in its own order, but it does not follow from this that one order may not be dependent in relation to another and a superior order. The temporal order is inferior to the . spiritual order and is on all sides bounded by it. This is so not hv nositivo nrrlinsiHnn hnf in thf tpfv nature of things, and even God himself him-self cannot make it otherwise. This is the point which, it seems to me, some Catholics overlook. Erownson's Review, in controverting the opinion that free negroes; citizens of a particular partic-ular state, are not citizens of the United States, delivered by the chief justice in the Dred Scott case, says: 'We regret that in giving tne opinion of the court the learned judge did not recollect what he is taught by his religion, re-ligion, namely, the unity of the race, that all men by the natural law are equal, that negroes are men, and, therefore, as to their rights, must be regarded as standing on the same footing foot-ing with white men, where there is no positive or municipal law that degrades de-grades them.' To this a Catholic journalist jour-nalist replies, with apparently general approbation, 'that the reviewer would do well to remember that the chief justice occupies his seat to administer the law according to the constitution of the United States, not to execute the ordinances and decrees or the Council of Trent' That reply, if It means anything, means that. a Catholic Catho-lic judge is not bound in his official character by his religion. Nobody is silly enough to pretend that a chief justice of the United States has it for his official duty to execute the ordinances ordi-nances and decrees of the Council of Trent; but the question raised is, whether a Catholic judge can administer admin-ister judicially the civil law or sit under un-der a civil constitution that brings him into conflict with the ordinances and decrees, the doctrine and discipline discip-line of his church?" "It is not certain that the objection of the reviewer is well founded," rejoined re-joined O'Flanagan, "and it may be, that the opinion of the court is compatible com-patible with our religion. The Catholic Cath-olic journals argued well against the reviewer, that Chief Justice Taney, brought up a Catholic from his infancy, infan-cy, should be presumed to know and to respect his religion as well and as much as a recent convert, notorious for the eccentricity of his opinions, and the grievous errors of all sorts into which he has fallen in the course of his life." : "That was well argued on Protestant Protes-tant principles," replied Diefenbach, "but very badly argued on Catholic principles. ' Protestantism is based on the opinion of men, but Catholicity reposes re-poses on the word of God, and Catholics Catho-lics have an infallible method of determining de-termining what that word is, without drawing invidious comparisons between be-tween individuals, whether eminent or not. Neither Chief Justice Taney nor the editor of Browhson's Review is an authority in Catholic doctrine, and if the question arises, which of them represents rep-resents that doctrine truly, the appeal must be to a standard jurist, but "-it does not follow from that fact that he is an eminent theologian. There have been many able jurists who could not be accepted as authority in Catholic Cath-olic doctrine, such as Ulpian and Pa-pinian, Pa-pinian, Domat, Mansfield, Blackstone, Marshall, Kent and Story. A man may be eminent in one line without being eminent in every line. Count Boniface Boni-face was no doubt superior as a military mili-tary man to St. Augustine, but probably prob-ably several degrees below him as a theologian.. A man may have been a j Catholic from his infancy up, without being a father or a doctor of the church, and I have never heard that Chief Justice Taney has distinguished himself by his theological attainments or proficiency. The principle assumed by the journals is invidious, and opposed op-posed to that freedom of thought and criticism which our religion allows. It would Invest eminent jurists or civilians, civ-ilians, who may have devoted no special spe-cial study to theology, with papal prerogatives pre-rogatives and immunities with regard to all humbler or less eminent individuals. indi-viduals. It is an ungenerous and an unmanly attempt to silence every modest mod-est man by an appeal to the argumen-tum argumen-tum ad verecundiam, an argument seldom resorted to when other arguments argu-ments can be had." "I raise no questions," said Winslow, "between the chief justice and the reviewer. re-viewer. I do not censure or defend either. The question I raise is, as to the justice of the reply the Catholic journalist gave to the reviewer, which was, as I understand it, that a Catholic judge is not bound in his official character char-acter to consult the teachings of his religion, and may administer the civil law, although it conflicts with the doctrine doc-trine and precepts of his church. If we accept the principle of that reply, a Christian might have officiated as judge under Nero, Decius, or Diocletian, Diocle-tian, and doomed his fellow-Christians for being Christians to the amphitheatre, amphi-theatre, or to any of the various forms of torture and death authorized by the laws of the empire; or a Catholic might have sat on the bench under Elizabeth, and sentenced the priests of his church to be tortured, hung, drawn and quartered for daring to perform per-form the proper offices of their priesthood. priest-hood. That may be so, and it may be that it is because I am only-a convert, and too green as a Catholic to see its lawfulness, but as at present informed I cannot admit it It strikes me that no Catholic can hold an office .that requires re-quires him to act against his religion; and if the constitution and laws of the Union really do require the judge to go against his religion, the least he can do is to resign his seat, for under un-der a constitution and laws that really do that no Catholic can hold office." "The case made by the reviewer can be disposed of without raising the question as to the mutual relation of the two powers," said De Bonneville. "But not the case made by the Catholic Cath-olic journalist in his flippant reply to the reviewers," replied Diefenbach. "The chief justice is an officer of the ciyil, not of the ecclesiastical court, and his duty is to declare and apply the civil law, the law, of his own court, as he finds it," replied O'Flannagan. "The .. law by which priests were hung in England under Elizabeth, was a civil, and not an ecclesiastical law," replied Diefenbach. "Technically they were not sentenced and executed for performing . their priestly ' functions, but for treason, because the civil law made the performance of those functions func-tions treason against the crown. Treason Trea-son is a civil offlense, and punishable In all states by the civil authority. Tlie judge, therefore, in sentencing the priest sentences him directly for a civil civ-il offense, and only indirectly for performing per-forming the offices of his church. Could a Catholic judge plead that at the bar of conscience, in justification of his having, in fact, sentenced the priests of his church to be hung, drawn and quartered, for doing that which by the law of God is no offense but for them a right and a duty?" "The judge holds under the civil law, and his duty is to interpret it and apply it faithfully to the case before the court," rejoined O'Flannagan. "If the law is unjust, the legislative, not the judicial, authority is responsible." "I am not prepared to say as much as that," answered De Bonneville. "The judge is bound to take into consideration con-sideration the justice of the law, and to interpret it in accordance with natural nat-ural right, so far as he can without violence to the text. The reviewer did not complain of the chief justice that he did not follow the Council of Trent against the constitution, but that he did not remember, in interpreting interpre-ting the language, or more properly the silence, of the constitution touching touch-ing negro citizenship, what his religion relig-ion teaches him, and what as a Catholic Cath-olic he holds and must hold, namely, that negroes are men, that all men are equal before the law of nature, and, therefore, as men, negroes and whites stand on the same footing of equality, the legal presumption then must be In favor of equality, and therefore in favor fa-vor of negro citizenship. If negroes are men, and all men are equal as men, then free negroes and whites are. equal as citizens, unless the contrary is expressly ordained by the constitution. constitu-tion. Free negroes, citizens of a particular par-ticular state, are citizens of the United Unit-ed States, unless expressly excluded by the text of the constitution itself. Had the chief justice remembered the great doctrine of the unity of the race and the equality of all men before the law of nature, which the constitution constitu-tion left him free to do, and which his religion required him to do, he would have seen that the presumption in the case were in favor of equality, and, therefore, that he must decide in favor fa-vor of negro citizenship, because, as every one knows, there is, as a matter mat-ter of fact, nothing in the letter of the constitution against it" (To be continued.) r |