There is a good as well as an evil side to the great subject of "secularization." In England the word used is "disestablishment." In the United States, to-day, for our own government, the general sentiment of most of its inhabitants is in favor of what is meant by "secularization," though of course in many particulars the cases are quite different. In other words, it means the freedom of the Church from the control or help of the State. In such an important matter there is bound to be great diversity of opinion. Naturally, the church that is "disestablished" will be a most bitter opponent of the plan, as was the Church in Ireland, in Scotland, and in Wales. In England the "dissenters"--as all the members of the nonconformist churches are entitled--are practically unanimous for the disestablishment of the State or Episcopal Church, while the Episcopalians believe that such an act would "provoke the wrath of God upon the country wicked enough to perpetrate it." The same conflict--in a slightly different field--is that being waged in the United States to-day against giving aid to any church in its work of educating either white children or Indians in its own sectarian institutions. All the leading churches of the country have, I believe, at some time or other in their history, been willing to receive, and actually have received, government aid in the caring for and education of Indians. To-day it is a generally accepted policy that no such help shall be given. But the question at issue is: Was the secularization of the Missions by Mexico a wise, just, and humane measure at the time of its adoption? Let the following history tell. From the founding of the San Diego Mission in 1769, until about sixty years later, the padres were practically in undisturbed possession, administering affairs in accordance with the instructions issued by the viceroys and the mother house of Mexico. In 1787 Inspector Sola claimed that the Indians were then ready for secularization; and if there be any honor connected with the plan eventually followed, it practically belongs to him. For, though none of his recommendations were accepted, he suggested the overthrow of the old methods for others which were somewhat of the same character as those carried out many years later. In 1793 Viceroy Gigedo referred to the secularization of certain Missions which had taken place in Mexico, and expressed his dissatisfaction with the results. Three years later, Governor Borica, writing on the same subject, expressed his opinion with force and emphasis, as to the length of time it would take to prepare the California Indians for citizenship. He said: "Those of New California, at the rate they are advancing, will not reach the goal in ten centuries; the reason God knows, and men know something about it."