Chapter LX: Section 30: , Title 3, of the CONSTITUTION OF NORWAY (2)

In the view of a good many critics who are not of a captious
disposition, the conduct of the Government of the United
States in these transactions was not as unquestionable as it
appeared to President Roosevelt. Professor Coolidge, of
Harvard University, in his candid and broadly studied work on
"The United States as a World Power" (prepared originally in
the form of lectures delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris),
remarks that "to forbid the landing of Colombian troops was to
stretch the meaning of the old American right to maintain
order along the line of the railway to an extent hardly
justifiable in dealing with a friendly nation, and the haste
with which the administration at Washington recognized the
independence of the new republic and concluded a treaty with
it appeared to many people indecent. The truth was the
Americans did not feel that they were dealing with a friendly
nation."

PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1904-1905.
Beginning and Organization of the Work of Construction.

"The treaty between the United States and the Republic of
Panama, under which the construction of the Panama Canal was
made possible, went into effect with its ratification by the
United States Senate on February 23, 1904. The canal
properties of the French Canal Company were transferred to the
United States on April 23, 1904, on payment of $40,000,000 to
that company. On April 1, 1905, the Commission was
reorganized, and it now consists of Theodore P. Shonts,
chairman, Charles E. Magoon, Benjamin M. Harrod, Rear-Admiral
Mordecai T. Endicott, Brigadier General Peter C. Hains, and
Colonel Oswald H. Ernst. John F. Stevens was appointed chief
engineer on July 1 last. Active work in canal construction,
mainly preparatory, has been in progress for less than a year
and a half. During that period two points about the canal have
ceased to be open to debate. First, the question of route; the
canal will be built on the Isthmus of Panama. Second, the
question of feasibility; there are no physical obstacles on
this route that American engineering skill will not be able to
overcome without serious difficulty, or that will prevent the
completion of the canal within a reasonable time and at a
reasonable cost. This is virtually the unanimous testimony of
the engineers who have investigated the matter for the
Government. The point which remains unsettled is the question
of type, whether the canal shall be one of several locks above
sea level, or at sea level with a single tide lock. On this
point I hope to lay before the Congress at an early day the
findings of the Advisory Board of American and European
Engineers, that at my invitation have been considering the
subject, together with the report of the Commission thereon;
and such comments thereon or recommendations in reference
thereto as may seem necessary.

"The American people is pledged to the speediest possible
construction of a canal, adequate to meet the demands which
the commerce of the world will make upon it, and I appeal most
earnestly to the Congress to aid in the fulfillment of the
pledge. Gratifying progress has been made during the past year
and especially during the past four months. The greater part
of the necessary preliminary work has been done. Actual work
of excavation could be begun only on a limited scale till the
Canal Zone was made a healthful place to live in and to work
in. The isthmus had to be sanitated first.

See (in this Volume)
PUBLIC HEALTH: PANAMA CANAL.

This task has been so thoroughly accomplished that yellow
fever has been virtually extirpated from the Isthmus and
general health conditions vastly improved. The same methods
which converted the island of Cuba from a pest hole, which
menaced the health of the world, into a healthful place of
abode, have been applied on the Isthmus with satisfactory
results. There is no reason to doubt that when the plans for
water supply, paving, and sewerage of Panama and Colon and the
large labor camps have been fully carried out, the Isthmus
will be, for the Tropics, an unusually healthy place of abode.
The work is so far advanced now that the health of all those
employed in canal work is as well guarded as it is on similar
work in this country and elsewhere.

"In addition to sanitating the Isthmus, satisfactory quarters
are being provided for employees and an adequate system of
supplying them with wholesome food at reasonable prices has
been created. Hospitals have been established and equipped
that are without superiors of their kind anywhere. The country
has thus been made fit to work in, and provision has been made
for the welfare and comfort of those who are to do the work.
During the past year a large portion of the plant with which
the work is to be done has been ordered. It is confidently
believed that by the middle of the approaching year a
sufficient proportion of this plant will have been installed
to enable us to resume the work of excavation on a large
scale."

_President's Message to Congress,
December 5, 1905._

PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1905-1909.
Prosecution and progress of the work.

Mr. John L. Stevens was in charge of the work on the Canal, as
Chief Engineer, until April 1, 1907, when he resigned, and it
was then determined by the Government to place it under the
direction of an army engineer. The officer chosen for the
service was Lieutenant-Colonel George W. Goethals, of the
Engineer Corps, with Major Gaillard and Major Siebert as
assistant engineers, and this arrangement has been justified
amply by results. At the same time a final determination was
arrived at, against the placing of any part of the work under
contract; and this, too, has been approved by experience in
the undertaking since. Shortly before the occurrence of these
changes Mr. Shonts had resigned the chairmanship of the Canal
Commission, to take the presidency of the Interborough Co. of
New York, and Colonel Goethals became Chairman of the
Commission as well as Chief Engineer.

{471}

In June, 1906, the original design of a sea-level canal
throughout, with no locks, was dropped, after much
consideration and under weighty engineering advice. As
described very tersely and clearly by an English writer on the
subject, the new plan for locks is worked out as follows:

"Beginning at deep water in Limon Bay, on the Caribbean coast,
there will be a tide-water channel 500 ft. wide and 6.70 miles
long to Gatun. At Gatun there will be the vast dam, the ascent
of which will be effected by means of two flights of locks. In
each flight there will be three locks, each 1,000 ft. long,
110 ft. wide, and 41.3 ft. deep on the sills. These will give
access to a lake formed by the impounded waters of the Chagres
river, with a surface level 85 ft. above mean tide level.
Through this lake will extend a channel from 500 ft. to 1,000
ft. wide for 23.59 miles to Bas Obispo, the entrance to the
Culebra cut. Thence through that cut there will be a channel
300 ft. wide for 8.11 miles to Pedro Miguel, the surface level
being the same as that of the lake. At Pedro Miguel there will
be a dam with twin locks, side by side, by which descent of 30
ft. will be made to a smaller lake 55 ft. above tide-water.
This lake, only 0.97 of a mile long, will be traversed by a
channel 500 ft. wide to Miraflores, where there will be
another dam, with twin flights of locks, two locks in each
flight, bringing the canal down to tide level; and from
Miraflores a channel 500 ft. wide will extend 8.31 miles to
deep water in the Bay of Panama. The channel will nowhere,
save on the lock sills, be less than 45 ft. deep, and the
locks at Pedro Miguel and Miraflores will be of the same
dimensions as those at Gatun."

This altered plan received much persistent criticism,—so
persistent that, in January, 1909, after the election of Mr.
Taft to the Presidency of the United States, but before his
assumption of the office, the President-elect, who, as
Secretary of War, had been the responsible administrator of
the undertaking, went to the Isthmus with a selected committee
of engineers, who were asked to examine and report on the
plans and methods of the work. Their reports, made in
February, endorsed both. In communicating them to Congress the
President characterized them as showing that "the only
criticism that can be made of the work on the isthmus is that
there has sometimes been almost an excess of caution in
providing against possible trouble. As to the Gatun dam
itself, they show that not only is the dam safe, but on the
whole the plan already adopted would make it needlessly high
and strong, and accordingly they recommend that the height be
reduced by twenty feet, which change in the plans I have
accordingly directed." Of the engineers who made the report he
remarked that they "are of all the men in their profession,
within or without the United States, the men who are on the
whole best qualified to pass on these very questions which
they examined." The membership of the committee or board was
as follows: Frederic P. Stearns, James D. Schuyler, Arthur P.
Davis, Isham Randolph, Henry D. Allen, John R. Freeman, and
Allen Hazen.

The engineers reported that "as the Gatun earth dam was the
central point of discussion, they gave it under instructions
from Mr. Taft first consideration in the light of all new
evidences," and they added "that the type of dam under
consideration is one which meets with our unanimous approval."
Dams and locks, lock gates and all other engineering
structures involved in the lock-canal project, are "feasible
and safe," according to the engineers, "and can be depended
upon to perform with certainty their respective functions."

Considering the cost and time of construction of a sea-level
canal as compared with the lock type, they held that "most of
the factors which have operated to increase the cost of the
lock canal would operate with similar effect to increase the
cost of the sea-level canal, and at the present time there are
additional factors of even greater importance to be considered
as affecting the time of completion and cost of a sea-level
canal." One of these they found in the Gamboa dam. If work on
this were to be started as soon as possible, they asserted it
"could not be completed until after the time required for the
completion of the lock-canal." Further than this, they said
that "a change in the type would result in abandoning work
which represents large expenditure." They claimed that by the
change the river Chagres and the rivers on the Isthmus
tributary thereto, "instead of being allies, would be enemies
of the canal, and floods in them would greatly interfere with
the work."

Replying to the criticism that "the canal region is liable to
earthquake shocks, and that a sea-level canal would be less
subject to injury by earthquakes than a lock canal," they
asserted that "dams and locks are structures of great
stability and little subject to damage by earthquake shocks,"
but that even if they could regard earthquakes as a source of
serious damage to any type of canal on the Isthmus, "their
effect upon the dams, locks and regulating works proposed for
the sea-level canal would be much the same as upon similar
structures of the lock canal."

Finally, they said: " We see no reason why the canal should
not be completed, as estimated by the chief engineer, by
January 1, 1915; in fact, it seems that a somewhat earlier
date is probable, if all goes well."

PANAMA CANAL: A. D. 1909.
Prohibition in the Canal Zone.

See (in this Volume)
ALCOHOL PROBLEM: CASUAL OCCURRENCES OF SALOON SUPPRESSION.

PAN-AMERICAN EXPOSITION.

See (in this Volume)
BUFFALO: A. D. 1901.

PAN-AMERICAN RAILWAY:
Resolution of Third International Conference
of American Republics.

See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

PANICS, Monetary, of 1903 and 1907.

See (in this Volume)
FINANCE AND TRADE: A. D. 1901-1909.

PAN ISLAMISM.

See (in this Volume)
SENUSSIA; also _Egypt_: A. D. 1905-1906.

PANKHURST, MRS. EMELINE.

See (in this Volume)
ELECTIVE FRANCHISE: WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

PANLUNG, THE CAPTURE OF.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).

PAN-LUN-SHAN REDOUBT, CAPTURE OF.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1904-1905 (MAY-JANUARY).

{472}

----------PAPACY: Start--------

PAPACY: A. D. 1902.
Secession of the Independent Filipino Church.

See (in this Volume)
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS: A. D. 1902.

PAPACY: A. D. 1903 (July-August).
Death of Pope Leo XIII.
Election of Pius X.

The Papal seat became vacant by the death of Pope Leo XIII. on
the 20th of July, 1903. The Conclave of Cardinals for the
election of his successor assembled on the 31st of the month,
and its choice of Cardinal Sarto, Patriarch of Venice, was
made known on August 3d. The new Pope assumed the name of Pius
X.

PAPACY: A. D. 1904.
Papal Prohibition of Civil Interference with
the Election of the Roman Pontiff.
The Civil Veto, in all forms, denounced.

In the first year of his pontificate, on the 20th of January,
1904, Pope Pius X. pronounced the following denunciation and
prohibition of every kind of intrusion of civil authority or
influence in the election of a Roman pontiff: "When first, all
unworthy as we are, we ascended this chair of Peter, we deemed
it a most urgent duty of our apostolic office to provide that
the life of the Church should manifest itself with absolute
freedom, by the removal of all extraneous interference, as her
divine Founder willed that it should manifest itself, and as
her lofty mission imperatively requires.

"Now if there is one function above all others in the life of
the Church which demands this liberty it is certainly that
which is concerned with the election of the Roman pontiff;
_for when the head is in question, the health not of one
member alone but of the whole body is involved_ (Gregory
XV. Constit. Aeterni Patris in proem).

"To this full liberty in the election of the Supreme Pastor is
opposed first of all that civil _Veto_ which has been
more than once brought forward by the rulers of some states,
and by which it is sought to exclude somebody from the supreme
pontificate. If this has happened sometimes, it has never been
approved by the apostolic see. On the contrary the Roman
pontiffs, in their enactments on the conclave, have been in
nothing perhaps more emphatic or more earnest than in their
efforts to exclude the interference of all extraneous powers
from the sacred senate of the Cardinals summoned to elect the
pontiff. …

"But, and experience has shown it, the measures hitherto taken
for preventing the civil _Veto_, or _Exclusive_,
have not served their purpose, and on account of the changed
circumstances of the times the intrusion of the civil power in
our day is more clearly than ever before destitute of all
foundation in reason or equity, therefore we, by virtue of the
apostolic charge entrusted to us, and following in the
footsteps of our predecessors, after having maturely
deliberated, with certain knowledge and by our own motion, do
absolutely condemn the civil _Veto_, or _Exclusive_
as it is also called, even when expressed under the form of a
mere desire, and all interventions and intercessions
whatsoever, decreeing that it is not lawful for anybody, not
even the supreme rulers of states, under any pretext, to
interpose or interfere in the grave matter of the election of
the Roman pontiff.

"Wherefore, in virtue of holy obedience, under threat of
divine judgment and pain of excommunication _latae
sententiae_ reserved in a special manner to the future
pontiff, we prohibit all and single the Cardinals of holy
Roman Church, and likewise the secretary of the Sacred College
of Cardinals and all others who take part in the conclave to
receive, even under the form of a simple desire, the office of
proposing the _Veto_ or _Exclusive_, or to make
known this _Veto_ in whatever manner it may have come to
their knowledge, to the Sacred College of Cardinals either
taken as a whole or to the individual fathers Cardinals,
either by writing, by word of mouth, whether directly and
proximately, or indirectly and through others. And it is our
will that this prohibition be extended to all the
interventions above mentioned, and to all other intercessions
whatsoever, by which the lay powers, of whatsoever grade and
order, endeavor to intrude themselves in the election of the
pontiff.

"Finally we vehemently exhort, in the same words as those used
by our predecessors, that in the election of the pontiff,
_they pay no attention whatever to the appeals of secular
princes or other worldly considerations_ … but solely with
the glory of God and the good of the Church before their eyes,
give their votes to him whom they judge in the Lord better
fitted than the others to rule the Universal Church fruitfully
and usefully. It is our will also that these our letters,
together with the other constitutions of the same kind, be
read in the presence of all in the first of the congregations
wont to be held after the death of the pontiff; again after
entrance into the conclave; also when anybody is raised to the
dignity of the purple, with the addition of an oath binding to
the religious observance of what is decreed in the present
constitution."

PAPACY: A. D. 1904.
Amenities between the Vatican and the Quirinal.

See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1904.

PAPACY: A. D. 1904.
Increased Participation of Catholics in the Italian Elections.

See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1904 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

PAPACY: A. D. 1905.
Relaxation of the Withdrawal of Italian Catholics from
Political Action.

See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1905-1906 .

PAPACY: A. D. 1905-1906.
The Separation of Church and State in France.

See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1905-1906.

PAPACY: A. D. 1906.
Anti-Clerical Movement in Spain.
Proposed Associations Law.

See (in this Volume)
SPAIN: A. D. 1905-1906.

PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (February).
Encyclical "Vehementer Nos," to the Prelates, Clergy, and
People of France, concerning the Separation Law.

The following are passages from the Encyclical known, from its
opening words in the Latin text as "Vehementer Nos," which
Pope Pius X. addressed to the French nation on the 19th of
February, 1906, after the adoption of the Law separating the
Church from the State:

"To the Archbishops, Bishops, Clergy and People of France. …
Venerable Brethren, Well-Beloved Sons, Health and Apostolic
Benediction.

{473}

"Our soul is full of sorrowful solicitude and our heart
overflows with grief when our thoughts dwell upon you. How,
indeed, could it be otherwise, immediately after the
promulgation of that law which, by sundering violently the old
ties that linked your nation with the Apostolic See, creates
for the Catholic Church in France a situation unworthy of her
and ever to be lamented? That is, beyond question, an event of
the gravest import, and one that must be deplored by all
right-minded men, for it is as disastrous to society as it is
to religion; but it is an event which can have surprised
nobody who has paid any attention to the religious policy
followed in France of late years. For you, Venerable Brethren,
it will certainly have been nothing new or strange, witnesses
as you have been of the many dreadful blows aimed from time to
time at religion by the public authority. You have seen the
sanctity and inviolability of Christian marriage outraged by
legislative acts in formal contradiction with them; the
schools and hospitals laicised; clerics torn from their
studies and from ecclesiastical discipline to be subjected to
military service; the religious congregations dispersed and
despoiled, and their members for the most part reduced to the
last stage of destitution. Other legal measures which you all
know have followed—the law ordaining public prayers at the
beginning of each Parliamentary session and of the assizes has
been abolished; the signs of mourning traditionally observed
on board the ships on Good Friday suppressed; the religious
character effaced from the judicial oath; all actions and
emblems serving in any way to recall the idea of religion
banished from the courts, the schools, the army, the navy,
and, in a word, from all public establishments. These measures
and others still which, one after another, really separated
the Church from the State, were but so many steps designedly
made to arrive at complete and official separation, as the
authors of them have publicly and frequently admitted.

"On the other hand, the Holy See has spared absolutely no
means to avert this great calamity. While it was untiring in
warning those who were at the head of affairs in France, and
in conjuring them over and over again to weigh well the
immensity of the evils that would infallibly result from their
separatist policy, it at the same time lavished upon France
the most striking proofs of indulgent affection. It had then
reason to hope that gratitude would have stayed those
politicians on their downward path, and brought them at last
to relinquish their designs. But all has been in vain—the
attentions, good offices and efforts of our predecessor and
ourself. The enemies of religion have succeeded at last in
effecting by violence what they have long desired, in defiance
of your rights as a Catholic nation and of the wishes of all
who think rightly. …

"That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis
absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on
the principle that the State must not recognize any religious
cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to
God; for the Creator of man is also the founder of human
societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our
own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a
public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, it is an
obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the
action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during
this life only, which is but the proximate object of political
societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea
that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object, which
is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have
run its course. …

"When the State broke the bonds of the Concordat and separated
itself from the Church it ought, as a natural consequence, to
have left her her independence and allowed her to enjoy
peacefully that liberty granted by the common law which it
pretended to assign to her. Nothing of the kind has been done.
We recognize in the law many exceptional and odiously
restrictive provisions, the effect of which is to place the
Church under the domination of the civil power. …

"With the existence of the association of worship, the Law of
Separation hinders the pastors from exercising the plenitude
of their authority and of their office over the faithful, when
it attributes to the Council of State supreme jurisdiction
over these associations and submits them to a whole series of
prescriptions not contained in common law, rendering their
formation difficult and their continued existence more
difficult still; when, after proclaiming the liberty of public
worship, it proceeds to restrict its exercise by numerous
exceptions; when it despoils the Church of the internal
regulation of the churches in order to invest the State with
this function; when it thwarts the preaching of Catholic faith
and morals and sets up a severe and exceptional penal code for
clerics—when it sanctions all these provisions and many others
of the same kind in which wide scope is left to arbitrary
ruling, does it not place the Church in a position of
humiliating subjection and, under the pretext of protecting
public order, deprive peaceable citizens, who still constitute
the vast majority in France, of the sacred right of practising
their religion? …

"In addition to the wrongs and injuries to which we have so
far referred, the Law of Separation also violates and tramples
under foot the rights of property of the Church. In defiance
of all justice, it despoils the Church of a great portion of a
patrimony which belongs to her by titles as numerous as they
are sacred; it suppresses and annuls all the pious foundations
consecrated, with perfect legality, to divine worship and to
suffrages for the dead. The resources furnished by Catholic
liberality for the maintenance of Catholic schools, and the
working of various charitable associations connected with
religion, have been transferred to lay associations in which
it would be idle to seek for a vestige of religion. In this it
violates not only the rights of the Church, but the formal and
explicit purpose of the donors and testators. It is also a
subject of keen grief to us that the law, in contempt of all
right, proclaims as property of the State, departments or
communes, the ecclesiastical edifices dating from before the
Concordat. True, the law concedes the gratuitous use of them
for an indefinite period, to the associations of worship, but
it surrounds the concession with so many and so serious
reserves that in reality it leaves to the public powers the
full disposition of them. Moreover, we entertain the gravest
fears for the sanctity of those temples, the august refuges of
the Divine Majesty and endeared by a thousand memories to the
piety of the French people. …

{474}

"Hence, mindful of our Apostolic charge and conscious of the
imperious duty incumbent upon us of defending and preserving
against all assaults the full and absolute integrity of the
sacred and inviolable rights of the Church, we do, by virtue
of the supreme authority which God has confided to us, and on
the grounds above set forth, reprove and condemn the law voted
in France for the separation of Church and State as deeply
unjust to God, whom it denies, and as laying down the
principle that the Republic recognizes no cult. We reprove and
condemn it as violating the natural law, the law of nations,
and fidelity to treaties; as contrary to the Divine
constitution of the Church, to her essential rights and to her
liberty; as destroying justice and trampling under foot the
rights of property which the Church has acquired by many
titles, and, in addition, by virtue of the Concordat. We
reprove and condemn it as gravely offensive to the dignity of
this Apostolic See, to our own person, to the Episcopacy and
to the clergy and all the Catholics of France. Therefore, we
protest solemnly and with all our strength against the
introduction, the voting and the promulgation of this law,
declaring that it can never be alleged against the
imprescriptible rights of the Church."

_Pope Pius X.,
Encyclical Letter
(American Catholic Quarterly Review, April, 1906)._

PAPACY: A. D. 1906.
Commands forbidding French Catholics to conform to the
Separation Law or the Associations Law.

See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906.

PAPACY: A. D. 1906.
Pacific Relations between State and Church in Mexico.

See (in this Volume)
MEXICO: A. D. 1906.

PAPACY: A. D. 1906 (March).
Declaration of the new French Ministry on
the Church Separation Law.

See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906 (JANUARY-MARCH).

PAPACY: A. D. 1906-1907.
The Separation of Church and State in France.
Further Measures and Proceedings.
The Encyclical Gravissimo.

See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1906-1907.

PAPACY: A. D. 1907.
Effects of the Separation Law in France.
The Catholics lose all Legal Organization.

See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1907.

PAPACY: A. D. 1907 (September).
Mandates of the Encyclical on Modernism.

The following passages contain the essential mandates of the
Encyclical on Modernism, issued on the 8th of September, 1907:

"The office divinely committed to us of feeding the Lord’s
flock has especially this duty assigned to it by Christ,
namely, to guard with the greatest vigilance the deposit of
the faith delivered to the saints, rejecting the profane
novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so
called. There has never been a time when this watchfulness of
the supreme pastor was not necessary to the Catholic body;
for, owing to the efforts of the enemy of the human race,
there have never been lacking ‘men speaking perverse things’
(Acts xx., 30), ‘vain talkers and seducers’ (Tit. i., 10),
‘erring and driving into error’ (II. Tim. iii., 13). Still, it
must be confessed that the number of the enemies of the
cross of Christ has in these last days increased exceedingly,
who are striving, by arts entirely new and full of subtlety,
to destroy the vital energy of the Church, and, if they can,
to overthrow utterly Christ’s kingdom itself. Wherefore we may
no longer be silent, lest we should seem to fail in our most
sacred duty, and lest the kindness that, in the hope of wiser
counsels, we have hitherto shown them should be attributed to
forgetfulness of our office.

"That we may make no delay in this matter is rendered
necessary especially by the fact that the partisans of error
are to be sought not only among the Church’s open enemies;
they lie hid, a thing to be deeply deplored and feared, in her
very bosom and heart, and are the more mischievous the less
conspicuously they appear. We allude, venerable brethren, to
many who belong to the Catholic laity, nay, and this is far
more lamentable, to the ranks of the priesthood itself, who,
feigning a love for the Church, lacking the firm protection of
philosophy and theology, nay, more, thoroughly imbued with the
poisonous doctrines taught by the enemies of the Church, and
lost to all sense of modesty, vaunt themselves as reformers, …
not sparing even the person of the Divine Redeemer, whom, with
sacrilegious daring, they reduce to a simple, mere man.

"Though they express astonishment themselves, no one can
justly be surprised that we number such men among the enemies
of the Church, if, leaving out of consideration the internal
disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge, he is
acquainted with their tenets, their manner of speech, their
conduct. Nor, indeed, will He err in accounting them the most
pernicious of all the adversaries of the Church. For, as we
have said, they put their designs for her ruin into operation
not from without, but from within; hence the danger is present
almost in the very veins and heart of the Church, whose injury
is the more certain, the more intimate is their knowledge of
her. Moreover, they lay the axe not to the branches and
shoots, but to the very root; that is, to the faith and its
deepest fibres. And having struck at this root of immortality,
they proceed to disseminate poison through the whole tree, so
that there is no part of Catholic truth from which they hold
their hand, none that they do not strive to corrupt. Further,
none is more skilful, none more astute than they in the
employment of a thousand noxious arts; for they double the
parts of rationalist and Catholic, and this so craftily that
they easily lead the unwary into error; and since audacity is
their chief characteristic, there is no conclusion of any kind
from which they shrink or which they do not thrust forward
with pertinacity and assurance. To this must be added the
fact, which indeed is well calculated to deceive souls, that
they lead a life of the greatest activity of assiduous and
ardent application to every branch of learning, and that they
possess, as a rule, a reputation for the strictest morality.
Finally, and this almost destroys all hope of cure, their very
doctrines have given such a bent to their minds that they
disdain all authority and brook no restraint; and, relying
upon a false conscience, they attempt to ascribe to a love of
truth that which is in reality the result of pride and
obstinacy.

{475}

"Once, indeed, we had hopes of recalling them to a better
sense, and to this end we first of all showed them kindness as
our children, then we treated them with severity, and at last
we have had recourse, though with great reluctance, to public
reproof. But, you know, venerable brethren, how fruitless has
been our action. They bowed their head for a moment, but it
was soon uplifted more arrogantly than ever. If it were a
matter which concerned them alone, we might perhaps have
overlooked it; but the security of the Catholic name is at
stake. Wherefore, as to maintain it longer would be a crime,
we must now break silence, in order to expose before the whole
Church in their true colors those men who have assumed this
bad disguise.

"But since the modernists (as they are commonly and rightly
called) employ a very clever artifice, namely, to present
their doctrines without order and systematic arrangement into
one whole, scattered and disjointed one from another, so as to
appear to be in doubt and uncertainty, while they are in
reality firm and steadfast, it will be of advantage, venerable
brethren, to bring their teachings together here into one
group, and to point out the connection between them, and thus
to pass to an examination of the sources of the errors and to
prescribe remedies for averting the evil. …

"Against this host of grave errors, and its secret and open
advance, our predecessor, Leo XIII., of happy memory, worked
strenuously, especially as regards the Bible, both in his
words and his acts. But, as we have seen, the modernists are
not easily deterred by such weapons; with an affectation of
submission and respect they proceeded to twist the words of
the Pontiff to their own sense, and his acts they described as
directed against others than themselves. And the evil has gone
on increasing from day to day. We therefore, venerable
brethren, have determined to adopt at once the most
efficacious measure in our power, and we beg and conjure you
to see to it that in this most grave matter nobody will ever
be able to say that you have been in the slightest degree
wanting in vigilance, zeal or firmness. And what we ask of you
and expect of you we ask and expect also of all other pastors
of souls, of all educators and professors of clerics, and in a
very special way of the superiors of religious institutions.

"I.
In the first place, with regard to studies, we will and ordain
that scholastic philosophy be made the basis of the sacred
sciences, it goes without saying that if anything is met with
among the scholastic doctors which may be regarded as an
excess of subtlety, or which is altogether destitute of
probability, we have no desire whatever to propose it for the
imitation of present generations (Leo XIII. Enc. ‘Aeterni
Patris’). And let it be clearly understood above all things
that the scholastic philosophy we prescribe is that which the
Angelic Doctor has bequeathed to us, and we, therefore,
declare that all the ordinances of our predecessor on this
subject continue fully in force, and, as far as may be
necessary, we do decree anew and confirm and ordain that they
be by all strictly observed. In seminaries where they may have
been neglected let the Bishops impose them and require their
observance, and let this apply also to the superiors of
religious institutions. Further, let professors remember that
they cannot set St. Thomas aside, especially in metaphysical
questions, without grave detriment.

"On this philosophical foundation the theological edifice is
to be solidly raised. Promote the study of theology, venerable
brethren, by all means in your power, so that your clerics on
leaving the seminaries may admire and love it, and always find
their delight in it. For in the vast and varied abundance of
studies opening before the mind desirous of truth everybody
knows how the old maxim describes theology as so far in front
of all others that every science and art should serve it and
be to it as handmaidens. …

"With regard to profane studies, suffice it to recall here
what our predecessor has admirably said: ‘Apply yourselves
energetically to the study of natural sciences: the brilliant
discoveries and the bold and useful applications of them made
in our times, which have won such applause by our
contemporaries, will be an object of perpetual praise for
those that come after us’ (Leo XIII. Alloc., March 7, 1880).
But this do without interference with sacred studies, as our
predecessor in these most grave words prescribed: ‘If you
carefully search for the cause of these errors, you will find
that it lies in the fact that in these days, when the natural
sciences absorb so much study, the more severe and lofty
studies have been proportionately neglected; some of them have
almost passed into oblivion, some of them are pursued in a
half-hearted or superficial way, and, sad to say, now that
they are fallen from their old estate, they have been
disfigured by perverse doctrines and monstrous errors (_loco
cit_.). We ordain, therefore, that the study of natural
science in the seminaries be carried on under this law.’

"II.
All these prescriptions and those of our predecessor are to be
borne in mind whenever there is question of choosing directors
and professors for seminaries and Catholic Universities.
Anybody who in any way is found to be imbued with modernism is
to be excluded without compunction from these offices, and
those who already occupy them are to be withdrawn. The same
policy is to be adopted towards those who favor modernism,
either by extolling the modernists, or excusing their culpable
conduct, by criticizing scholasticism, the Holy Father, or by
refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its
depositories; and towards those who show a love of novelty in
history, archaeology, Biblical exegesis, and finally towards
those who neglect the sacred sciences or appear to prefer them
to the profane. In all this question of studies, venerable
brethren, you cannot be too watchful or too constant, but most
of all in the choice of professors, for as a rule the students
are modeled after the pattern of their masters. Strong in the
consciousness of your duty, act always prudently, but
vigorously.

"Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and
selecting candidates for holy orders. Far, far from the clergy
be the love of novelty. God hates the proud and the obstinate.
For the future the doctorate of theology and canon law must
never be conferred on anybody who has not made the regular
course of scholastic philosophy, if conferred, it shall be
held as null and void. The rules laid down in 1896 by the
Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the clerics,
both secular and regular, of Italy, concerning the frequenting
of the universities, we now decree to be extended to all
nations. Clerics and priests inscribed in a Catholic institute
or university must not in the future follow in civil
universities those courses for which there are chairs in the
Catholic institutes to which they belong. If this has been
permitted anywhere in the past, we ordain that it be not
allowed for the future. Let the Bishops who form the governing
board of such Catholic institutes or universities watch with
all care that these our commands be constantly observed.

{476}

"III.
It is also the duty of the Bishops to prevent writings
infected with modernism or favorable to it from being read
when they have been published, and to hinder their publication
when they have not. No book or paper or periodical of this
kind must ever be permitted to seminarists or university
students. The injury to them would be equal to that caused by
immoral reading—nay, it would be greater, for such writings
poison Christian life at its very fount. The same decision is
to be taken concerning the writings of some Catholics, who,
though not badly disposed themselves, but ill instructed in
theological studies and imbued with modern philosophy, strive
to make this harmonize with the faith, and, as they say, to
turn it to the account of the faith. The name and reputation
of these authors cause them to be read without suspicion, and
they are, therefore, all the more dangerous in preparing the
way for modernism.

"To give you some more general directions, venerable brethren,
in a matter of such moment, we bid you do everything in your
power to drive out of your dioceses, even by solemn interdict,
any pernicious books that may be in circulation there. …

"IV.
But it is not enough to hinder the reading and the sale of bad
books: it is also necessary to prevent them from being
printed. Hence, let the Bishops use the utmost severity in
granting permission to print. Under the rules of the
Constitution ‘Officiorum,’ many publications require the
authorization of the ordinary, and in some dioceses it has
been made the custom to have a suitable number of official
censors for the examination of writings. We have the highest
praise for this institution, and we not only exhort, but we
order that it be extended to all dioceses."

_Pope Pius X.,
The Doctrines of the Modernists
(American Catholic Quarterly Review, October, 1907)._

See (in this Volume)
TYRREL, FATHER GEORGE.

PAPACY: A. D. 1907-1909.
Revision of St. Jerome’s Latin Translation of the Bible,
known as "the Vulgate."

"In May, 1907, an announcement was made of the Pope's
intention to revise the Latin Bible, and the work has already
made such progress that the time has come to record not only
the main lines upon which the revision is being carried out
but also the actual completion of its preliminary
preparations. … Pius X. … offered the honourable though costly
and arduous task to the learned Order of the Benedictines, by
whom it was accepted. A commission of revision was appointed,
with Abbot Gasquet, the President of the English Benedictines,
as its head, and the International College of the Order at San
Anselmo in Rome was chosen as the headquarters of their work.
It is here that Abbot Gasquet and his fellow-workers have
already made a good start upon the vast labour which their
Order has undertaken.

"The object of the Commission, according to the Pope’s
definite instructions, is to determine and restore as far as
possible the original text of St. Jerome’s Latin translation
made in the fourth century. How far St. Jerome’s translation
represents the Hebrew or Greek is another question which may
be the subject some day for future criticism and another
commission. … Pius X. has made it clear to the Commission that
he desires their work of revision to be conducted on the most
modern and scientific lines, and that neither money nor labour
should be spared to make it as thorough as possible. An
exhaustive search will be made through all the libraries of
Europe in the hope of finding hitherto unrecognized
manuscripts of the Vulgate. Already there are 15 collaborators
at work in different centres, collating the best-known and most
important manuscripts with the Clementine text, while another
commission, with its assistants, is making a thorough
examination of the libraries and cathedral archives of Spain
in search of fresh material. …

"The method of work is as follows. For the purpose of
collation copies of the Clementine text have been printed;
each page being left blank for two-thirds of its surface, the
text being printed on the remaining third with no capital
letters, no stops, no word divided, so as to resemble
manuscript as far as possible. When a reviser wishes to
collate any manuscript he has only to correct this print like
an ordinary proof-sheet and so reproduce every difference of
the manuscript before him.

"The printing of these copies of the Vulgate, which are to
form the basis of the collations, with the preparation of the
texts and correction of proofs—no light matter—has been the
work of the first year. Three hundred and sixty copies have
been printed in all, one hundred upon the best hand-made
paper, two hundred upon ordinary book paper, and sixty upon
thin paper for the purpose of postage abroad. The Pope himself
has defrayed the rather heavy cost of this production. Besides
the printing of this Bible considerable progress has been made
during the past year with the preparation of a hand list of
all the Latin Biblical MSS. in the libraries of Europe, which,
when completed, will be of great use to the revisers. As the
collators finish their work in the various libraries or
archives where Biblical manuscripts are found, they send their
annotated copies to San Anselmo, where they are bound up and
added to a collection which, when complete, will form a vast
library of all the different versions of the Bible. Seven
important collations have already been made, and at the
present rate of work the number of these Volumes will increase
very rapidly."

_Rome Correspondence of the London Times,
July 21, 1909._

PAPACY: A. D. 1908.
The new Apostolic Constitution of the Curia.

A change of far-reaching and great importance in the
ecclesiastical constitution of the Roman Church was decreed by
Pope Pius X. this year, by the promulgation of a new Apostolic
Constitution of the Curia. It reorganized the numerous
Congregations or departments of the Vatican Government which
had exercised the judicial functions of the Curia for some
generations past. The Pope now restores these functions to an
ancient ecclesiastical court, the Rota, which had fallen out
of use. The Rota is constituted as an international court,
before which questions between priest and bishop, bishop and
diocese, and the like, will have their hearing, and from which
there is appeal to a tribunal of last resort, the Segnatura,
composed of Cardinals alone.

{477}

The reorganization of the Congregation of the Propaganda by
this new Constitution removes from that body the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction it has exercised heretofore over
the Church in Great Britain, Holland, the United States,
Canada, and some other countries, thus taking them out of the
Roman category of missionary lands.

PAPACY: A. D. 1908.
The situation of the Church in France.
No Organization that can hold Property.

See (in this Volume)
FRANCE: A. D. 1908.

PAPACY: A. D. 1909.
Increased Participation by Catholics in the Italian Elections.
Their Gain of Seats in Parliament.

See (in this Volume)
ITALY: A. D. 1909 (MARCH).

PAPACY: A. D. 1909.
Church Movement of Agricultural Labor Organization.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: ITALY.

PAPACY: A. D. 1909.
Demonstration against the Religious Orders in Portugal.

See (in this Volume)
PORTUGAL: A. D. 1909.

PAPACY: A. D. 1909 (April).
The Beatification of Joan of Arc.

The ceremony of the Beatification of Joan of Arc was performed
at St. Peter’s, in Rome, on the 18th of April, 1909.
Proceedings which began about ten years before were brought by
this ceremony to the end of their first stage, beyond which
they must still be continued for possibly many years, before
the Canonization of "the Maid" as a Saint becomes complete.
The question of the Beatification had been under consideration
in the Congregation of Rites for several years. The grounds on
which that question is decided, in every case, were explained
by _The Catholic Union and Times_, in connection with its
account of the ceremony now referred to, as follows: The
Congregation of Rites "may decide that the life of the person
was a very worthy and very holy one, but they require much
more than that. It must be proved to their satisfaction that
‘miracles’ have been performed. The Congregation of Rites
requires evidence of not fewer than three miracles. In the
case of ‘miraculous cures’ it must be shown that doctors have
pronounced the cases hopeless, or that diseases have been
cured which doctors call incurable. Usually the report
contains particulars of a number of ‘miracles,’ from which the
Congregation of Rites may make a selection. The three chosen
among those attributed to Joan of Arc relate to the curing of
nuns belonging to different communities, who are said to have
obtained relief from their diseases by her intercession. One
of these nuns had suffered for years from cancer and was on
the point of death when, it was claimed, she was instantly
cured by a prayer of Joan of Arc. When the Congregation of
Rites has been satisfied as to the authenticity of three
miracles they prepare their report, which is submitted to the
Pope, who considers it. There is then a gathering at the
Vatican, to which the public is admitted. Cardinals and
bishops are present, and a lawyer of the papal court reads out
the decision. After this, the ceremony of beatification
generally takes place within a few months."

In January, 1910, it was announced in Paris that the
ecclesiastical process for the Canonization would begin on
February 9.

PAPACY: A. D. 1909 (May).
Vote in British House of Commons for removal of remaining
Catholic Disabilities.

See (in this Volume)
ENGLAND: A. D). 1909 (MAY).

----------PAPACY: End--------

PAPER TRUST.

See (in this Volume)
COMBINATIONS, INDUSTRIAL: UNITED STATES:
A. D. 1901-1906, and 1909.

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1901-1906.
Participation in Second and Third International
Conferences of American Republics.

See (in this Volume)
AMERICAN REPUBLICS.

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1902.
A nearly bloodless Revolution.
Deposition of President Aceval.
Elevation of the Vice-President.

The following, translated from the Montevideo (Uruguay)
_Dia_, of January 10, 1902, appears in the annual report
of "Papers relating to the Foreign Relations of the United
States," 1902, as transmitted by the United States Minister to
Uruguay, and is probably an authentic account of the
revolution described:

"Yesterday, at 10 o'clock in the morning, a revolutionary
movement occurred in Asuncion del Paraguay, without bloodshed,
without noise of arms, which immediately resulted in the
imprisonment of the President of the Republic, Dr. Emilio
Aceval, in the artillery barracks. A strange case—the chief
magistrate of Paraguay has fallen, at least for the moment, on
account of a revolution, inspired and carried into practice by
two of his own ministers, Colonel Juan Antonio Escurra and
Señor Fulgencio Moreno, who, although belonging to the same
Colorado party as the President, differ in opinion at present,
the former considering that a radical policy should be adopted
against the liberals or civic accordists, Dr. Aceval not
sharing this opinion, but being in favor of conciliatory
measures, although this did not win for him the help of his
traditional adversaries, who looked unfavorably on him, as is
usually the way with those belonging to an opposite party."

In his note transmitting Montevideo newspaper reports,
Minister Finch wrote of the occurrence: "It was, as will be
seen, a bloodless affair; but out of it grew a discussion in
the Paraguay Congress which was followed by shooting, one
person being killed and several wounded."

PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904.
Successful Revolution.

The beginning of a successful revolution was reported to
Washington by the American Consul at Asuncion, in a despatch
dated August 11, 1904, as follows: "I beg to confirm my
telegram of to-day, stating that a revolution has broken out
in this republic. … Revolutionary forces on the river and
those of the Government have fought. … The Government forces
were defeated, the Minister of the Interior, who led the
forces, being taken prisoner. The state of siege as declared …
places the entire country under military laws, and the
Government, is amassing a large number of troops to suppress
the revolution. It is impossible at present to say whether it
will be of long or short duration. The revolutionary forces
are proceeding up the river in boats, and the Government has
placed or erected defenses along the river near the capital.

{478}

"Upon inquiries as to the cause of this revolution I am
informed that the opposition to the Government is that the
party in power is endeavoring to exclude entirely the liberal
element from participation in the administration of affairs,
assigning that said party, which is in power, which is
denominated ‘Colorados,’ have not sufficient persons prepared
for the administration of the Government. On the other hand,
the ‘Colorados’ assign that the revolution is due to ambitious
persons who form an opposition and are classed under the name
‘Azul,’ colorados meaning ‘reds’ and azul ‘blues.’"

It was not until four months later that the Consul could
announce the return of peace, secured by the triumph of the
revolution. The president, Colonel Ezcurra, was compelled to
resign, and Señor Juan Gauna was elected in his place; the
army was reorganized; a general amnesty was proclaimed.

PARDO, PRESIDENT JOSE.

See (in this Volume)
PERU.

PARKER, Alton B.:
Nominated for President of the United States.

See (in this Volume)
UNITED STATES: A. D. 1904 (MARCH-NOVEMBER).

PARKER, Edward Wheeler:
On the Anthracite Coal Strike Arbitration Commission.

See (in this Volume)
LABOR ORGANIZATION: UNITED STATES: A. D. 1902-1903.

PAROLE SYSTEM.

See (in this Volume)
CRIME AND CRIMINOLOGY.

PARSONS, CHARLES A.

See (in this Volume)
SCIENCE AND INVENTION, RECENT: TURBINE ENGINE.

PARTIES:
Agrarian Socialists.

See (in this Volume)
FINLAND: A. D. 1908-1909.

PARTIES:
Anti-Revolutionnaire.

See (in this Volume)
NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1905-1909.

PARTIES:
Azul.

See (in this Volume)
PARAGUAY: A. D. 1904.

PARTIES:
Blues (Conservatives).

See (in this Volume)
COLOMBIA: A. D. 1898-1902.

PARTIES:
Boshin Club.

See (in this Volume)
JAPAN: A. D. 1909.

PARTIES:
Cadets.

See (in this Volume)
RUSSIA: A. D. 1905-1907.

PARTIES:
Catholic Peoples’ Party.

See (in this Volume)
AUSTRIA-HUNGARY: A. D. 1904.

PARTIES:
Center, or Centrum.

See
GERMANY: A. D. 1906-1907.

PARTIES:
Centro Catolico.