74 - JAURÈS, Jean (1859–1914).

JAURÈS, Jean (1859–1914). Article published in *L’Humanité* on December 19, 1906, concerning the public practice of religion, during the debate on the law of January 2, 1907. Note: “The committee agrees with the government on the new bill concerning the practice of religion. It can therefore be voted on quickly. This is an excellent development: first, the law itself, despite its uncertainties and shortcomings, is sound. It grants Catholics the general right of association under the 1901 law, and it also makes the papacy’s resistance to a law that clearly enshrines freedom even more indefensible in the eyes of the nation. It requires them, for the exercise of the right of assembly as applied to worship, only one declaration per year, and it is no longer possible for the clericals to claim that this simplification of formalities can be taken away from them by a mere circular. Finally, by treating the priest within a religious building designated for worship as a “user,” the law grants him privileges and rights that will make the practice of worship easier for him. While the law demonstrates a great spirit of freedom and consideration toward believers, it also imposes the first necessary sanctions on Rome’s foolish and culpable intransigence by ordering the immediate transfer of property. By passing this law without delay or hesitation, the Republican majority will prove once again that it is as far removed from a policy of persecution as it is from a policy of weakness”… Etc. And Jaurès concludes, questioning the Senate’s attitude: “It is not, therefore, to bring down the government over an obstacle that we remind it that its duty is to commit fully before the Senate. The Senate’s political and social responsibility must be clearly put on the line before the nation. An immediate government crisis—brought about by the ministry’s resolve in putting the question of confidence before the Senate—would be preferable to the lethargy, discouragement, and mistrust that will overwhelm the Republican majority if the Senate blocks the passage of social legislation; Mr. CLEMENCEAU is in the habit of saying that he is in power to act. The true course of action now—the true mark of strength and foresight—is to lead the Senate to understand the social necessities of the new era. This is the absolute prerequisite for this legal evolution, which it is the very essence of radicalism to support.”