Note 7 — USURPATION OF INDIAN LANDS BY FRIARS
Reading edition
The pernicious character of the religious corporations, as an evil to society, is sufficiently proved; for even Catholic France is expelling them from her bosom. It only remains, then, to decide whether the prohibition of their existence is opposed to the principle of the separation of Church and State. To conform to the principle that the welfare of the people is a supreme law, and in virtue of that to deny legal existence to such associations as are hostile to the said principle, is not to fail in [loyalty to] the separation of the Church and the State, inasmuch as the prohibition has nothing to do with religious dogmas or ecclesiastical discipline; and, in order to be just and thoroughly impartial, it does not oppose itself to any specified community or sect, for it entirely sets aside the religious character of the corporations, considering them simply as groups of human beings in their relation to the general good. The State, in this case, legislates without passing beyond the bounds of its proper and exclusive jurisdiction, and does not invade the attributes of the ecclesiastical power.
Some will say that by prohibiting the existence of religious corporations liberties are restricted. To this I answer, that that liberty which causes harm to society ought not to be understood as liberty; and, [using the term] in this sense, the United States would not be disloyal to their Constitution in adopting restrictive measures in regard to the “trust,” Chinese immigration, and the association of persons dangerous to peace, order, and the sanctity of the home.
As for the estates of the friars, Señor Sumulong was quite right, to judge from the facts in this royal decree, in asking for an ample and complete investigation of the legality of the titles to property which the friars could bring forward. It is to be observed that there was no opportunity here for [ascertaining] the real right of prescription, for it was impossible to protest against usurpations if one did not wish to be deported or shot as an anti-Spaniard or a filibuster.—“Ambut.”
An interesting commentary on the above opinions is found in the recent action (December, 1906) of the French government in regard to the Roman Catholic church in France, the separation of Church and State there, and foreign interference with the proceedings of that government.—Eds. ↑