A Curious Correspondence.

actually arise . He says that the greatest theologians are divided on this question , some think No , because the slight probability of the possible wrong annuls the efficacy of the bad intention ; but others think Tes , because the evil intention renders the cause of the wrong , when it actually occurs , a voluntary cause . Gury does not decide which of the two opinions is preferable . Suppose , then , an individual sets poison or a snare in a locality- where his enemy , though very rarely , passes , with the express intention that he might perish if he should chance to come by , if death really ensues .

The conclusion of Gury is : Some theo- The conclusion of " Nemesis" is , " Gury logians think that under such circumstances teaches that no moral guilt attaches to him the murderer is not obliged to idemnification , who deliberately set the poison or snare , say , to the widow of the murdered ; others think he is obliged . Is that not suppression of truth combined with wilful misrepresentation on the part of " Nemesis . " In the second case Gury asks , whether a man who , by an indifferent or just action harms his neig hbour , say , by diverting a water-course , is bound to restitution on this question .

Gury distinguishes thus : " 1 st , He is not " Nemesis ' writes : " Gury justifies the bound to restitution when his act is a just owner of land , who diverts a watercourse one , and he makes use of his light WITHOUT WITH the express intention of injuring his the express intention of injuring his neighbour neighbour , provided the former can show ( ' nee agit animo nocendi altero' ) , although that it caused him some annoyance for such he may forsee the injury ensuing . Thus , an act , it is asserted , would be strictly within yon do not sin when you divert a water- his rights . " course which does harm to although

you , you forsee that it will do harm to your neighbour . 2 ndly , But he is bound to restitution , when he has no strict right to such an act . Thus you sin against justice , when you alter the watercourse , which does yon no harm , if yon ntend thereby to do harm to your neighbour . "

Again suppression of truth and direct falsification of Gury ' s text ! Being under the impression that " Nemesis " was only a plagiarist , who did not understand the enormit y of his guilt by using bad means for a bad end , calumny for destroying the good name the Jesuit Fathers possess in Bombay , I intended to refute the falsehoods contained in his first letter , of which I counted more than one hundred and fifty , besides twenty-five cases of truth

and virtue represented by him as untruth and vice , and many unworthy insinuations and exaggerations ; but having found him guilty of wilful falsification , I abandon him to the judgment of your readers , and of the public , since he is not manful enough to stand before a judge to claim his reward . Let him stud y Gury ' s Nr . 20 : "Every use of a bad means is bad . He who uses a bad means for a bad end is guilty of double malice ; " and let him stud

y Gury ' s Chapter on God ' s Commandments— " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour . "—Believe , etc . t L . MEOEIN , S . J ., Bombay , August 22 nd . R . C . Bishop .

XI . Sir , —I cannot let Bishop Meurin ' s last letter , in which he accuses me of false quotations and suppressions , remain unanswered . The following extracts will show what value is to be placed on his statement : — What " Nemesis " really said : — What Bishop Meurin makes " Nemesis " According to him { i the

. e ., Gury ) , more say : — accredited opinion is , that if death ensue in The conclusion of " Nemesis " is , " Gury consequence , no moral guilt attaches to him teaches that no moral guilt attaches to him who deliberately set the poison or the snare . who deliberately set the poison or the snare .