seems a lighter load to carry on one's conscience than the virulent attacks made upon him.

But it is not for us to decide which one deserves a longer term in purgatory for the quarrels of long ago. Let us picture to ourselves instead these two great men reconciled in God, and smiling perhaps at our efforts here below to be perfectly fair to both.

66

At the same time M. Eugene Veuillot has yet to give us the last and decisive passage at arms between Catholics in regard to the Council. Only after this and by its light can we make out the balance sheet of the two parties. For one thing, we are even now convinced that if Louis Veuillot raised violent and sometimes bitter contentions amongst the faithful, there was decidedly much sympathy with his views, a sympathy leading to enthusiasm, or, still better, to profound gratitude and love. It is said that one day some exasperated adversary made the following remark: That Veuillot! He has none on his side but the Pope." Whether this was really said or not, it would be in any case but half the truth. Cousin said something even better than that: "Veuillot has the Pope on his side and grammar also." Now, we can be sure that, leaving grammar out of the question, the Catholic editor would have been satisfied to find himself alone with the successor of St. Peter against everybody else, with the man whose approbation means more than any other, because it is a surer guarantee of being God's also. And it is true that Pius IX was always for Louis Veuillot, or rather that Louis Veuillot had the honor and the happiness of knowing that he was always at one with the Pope; always blessed, helped, encouraged and approved by him; not in all his sayings, to be sure, but in the general trend of his thoughts and his polemic. He was even consulted at times, not of course as a theologian, but as a true and responsible witness of the false doctrines in vogue at the time, and the general condition of the popular mind. No one ignores to-day that as far back as 1852 Pius IX was planning a Syllabus or catalogue of modern errors, and that even at that time Louis Veuillot had been asked to contribute secretly his share of secular information towards this document. And in this way did the Head of the Church honor him whom a great many believers, and some notable ones amongst them, were accusing of being a disgrace and a plague to the Church. This alone no doubt was very comforting to him. (1)

(1) In the beautiful ending of the Parfum de Rome addressed to his brother, Louis Veuillot, who truly can never be accused of not telling the

But having the Pope on his side, he had of necessity those who were submissive to the Pope, and by his personal magnetism he increased and emboldened that body of Catholics especially. Some bishops did not like him, a few tried to crush him, but others again stood by him, even calling his work "a great Catholic institution." For a few priests who tried to hurt him with their pen, the great majority of the secondary clergy admired him, if not as a chief, at least as a standard-bearer. In making them prouder of their religion, he had, without trying to do so, made them prouder of themselves. If distinguished and honorable men fostered any suspicion or grudge against him, we need but look back on the days of our early youth to recall with what loud acclamations he was hailed as the champion of Truth. To inspire great love and intense hate is not given to every mortal; he was passionately loved, to his honor be it said, by those who loved the Church above all, above personal interest or party policy, and in that case do not let us pity him for having fought and suffered.

truth, sums up in the following words the decision of Pius IX on the two incidents spoken of in this article: To oppose all dangerous conciliators and show a generous equity towards the political power. "You know his words to us on several occasions. I have written them down as so many oracles and they have been our rule of conduct. If we have not been as mild in our policy as he might have wished, if we have failed in this sometimes unconsciously, sometimes under the stress of indignation and again through necessity, we never at any time adopted a course of action of which he would have disapproved. He does not blame us, thank God, for the two things most people accuse us of. He does not condemn our rebelling against the drift of the modern mind, the reconciliating thesis between Jesus Christ and Belial. Neither does he disapprove of our sincere acceptance of the political situation in 1851, and our great wish to see the two Powers at peace with each other. You know how he has asked me before this, not to be hostile without cause, with the one aim in view of winning worthless applause, a weakness which he called contrary to Christian loyalty, and he also told me to be careful not to conceal the good, but even to look out for a chance to praise . (Le Parfum de Rome, 3d edition, Vol. II, p. 326.)

Etudes.

GEORGES LONGHAYE, S.J.

EDITORIAL.

THE INDIANS' OWN MONEY FOR THE INDIANS' OWN USE.

IN the discussion which the Indian Rights Association has started about the right of the Indian, or rather of his guardian, the Secretary of the Interior, acting under the instructions of the President, to apply his own moneys to his own advantage, the following words of President Roosevelt leave no room for misunderstanding or cavil:

There was, in my judgment, no question that, inasmuch as the legal authority existed to grant the request of the Indians, they were entitled, as a matter of moral right, to have the moneys coming to them used for the education of their children at the schools of their choice. Care must be taken, of course, to see that any petition by the Indians is genuine, and that the money appropriated for any given school represents only the pro rata proportion to which the Indians making the petition are entitled. But if these two conditions are fulfilled, it is, in my opinion, just and right that the Indians themselves should have their wishes respected when the request that their own money-not the money of the public-be applied to the support of certain schools to which they desire to send their children. The practice will be continued by the Department, unless Congress should decree to the contrary, or, of course, unless the courts should decide that the decision of the Department of Justice is erroneous."

The discussion about this use of the Indian tribal and trust funds, though carried on with heat and a recrudescence of old-fashioned religious rancor, has served to clear away some of the confusion with which certain people feel bound to cover every question connected with the action of the Catholic Church or its agencies. Thus, it is now plain that the moneys in question are not public moneys; that they are not appropriated for sectarian purposes; that they may be given for education in mission schools without implying a union of Church and State, or without overturning any settled policy of our government. The whole question is simply this: Shall an Indian parent have the right to use his own money in the education of his own children in the school of his choice? The Bureau of

Catholic Indian Missions has always contended, in cases where Indian tribes have funds of their own, whether these be in the United States Treasury drawing annual interest, or appropriated annually by virtue of treaty stipulations growing out of lands or rights which the Indians have ceded to the United States, that the Secretary of the Interior, who is authorized to expend these moneys at his discretion for the benefit of the Indians, may, since education is of the greatest benefit to the Indians, expend such moneys for such purpose; that in so doing it is a matter of indifference as to whether he pay for the education of the Indian wards in a school-house that is painted red or in one that is painted white, that is situated on the north side of a public thoroughfare or on the south, in a school taught by teachers appointed by the Government or by teachers appointed by the Protestant Churches or by the Catholic Church. The Bureau has contended further that in cases where Indians desire to educate their children in mission schools, the Secretary of the Interior not only may, but should, in consideration of his wards' wishes, pay for the education of such children in mission schools out of the tribal funds. The greatest objection urged against this contention of the Bureau was that the Indian funds are held in common; but at the same time the admission is made that if the moneys were apportioned out to the individual Indian, then the individual Indian would be free to pay for the education of his child in whatever school he might desire to patronize. The position of the Bureau was that if the individual Indian after the apportionment of the funds, would be free to use such moneys for education in sectarian schools, the Secretary of the Interior had a right to use. a portion of the general fund for the same purpose while the funds were yet held in common. The President and the Attorney-General recognized the justice of the Bureau's contention, and accordingly the contracts which have so disquieted The Outlook were granted. As a matter of fact, the Indian Department has all along practically admitted the legality of such contracts, because even after the contract system properly so-called was discontinued. it has without interruption supported the two Catholic schools on the Osage Reservation out of Osage tribal funds. It seems strange that during all these years neither the Outlook, the Evening Post, nor the Springfield Republican has taken offence or alarm at what they please to term "a mischievous appropriation."

In the case of the Osages and the Quapaws, the Indians, by act