The matter was therefore argued before the Commission, pro and con, from time to time between July and October, 1900, and the conclusions announced January 5, 1901. The ecclesiastical authorities took the position that the college is "truly an obra pia, that its trusteeship has always been vested in the Church, as represented by its legal agents either through the Society of Jesus, the kings of Spain as ecclesiastical patron, the clergy of the cathedral, or the university of Santo Tomás, under the direction of the archbishop." The ecclesiastical argument is that the college "is essentially a religious foundation and therefore the United States have not the right to claim it as public property nor to intervene in its management, since they cannot succeed to the Spanish ecclesiastical patronage, they having proclaimed the separation of Church and State." It is impossible also for the state to secularize the institution, an act which would be paramount to confiscation. [63] Archbishop Nozaleda argues also that the college "is an ecclesiastical obra pia, founded by Esteban Rodriguez de Figueroa, with all the canonical and civil formalities demanded by the legislation in force at that time for such foundation." [64] Again, he says: "The college of San José is an ecclesiastical obra pia, and as such belongs to the patrimony of the Church." An ecclesiastical obra pia he defines as "any foundation made through motives of religious piety, or with the purpose of exercising Christian charity, with the approbation and authorization of the bishop." [65] Against this Dr. T. H. Pardo de Tavera and others argued before the Philippine Commission that the college of San José was primarily of royal foundation; [66] Felipe G. Calderon, a Filipino advocate, and the chief adversary of the ecclesiastics, in his pamphlets, also argued that the college of San José is official in its origin: [67] their conclusions being that the civil government has power to intervene in the management of the college. [68] The commission, being careful not to intimate any opinion that "should be used by either side in the case to be argued and decided as authority in that tribunal [i.e., the Philippine Supreme Court]," expressed "no other definitive opinion than that the petitioners [i.e., Pardo de Tavera, et al.] have presented a case of sufficient dignity and seriousness to warrant its full consideration by a court of justice." In the words of the commissioners: "In order to decide the merits of this case, we should probably have to consider and settle a nice question of canonical law, and investigate and discuss the historical and legal relations of the crown of Spain to the head of the Catholic Church. Neither of these questions do we feel competent now to decide with the materials which are before us and with the time at our disposal nor do we need to do so. We are not a court. We are only a legislative body. It is our expressly delegated function in