Borgess, Caspar H., Bishop of Detroit, Detroit, Michigan, to Archbishop John Baptist Purcell, of Cincinnati, Ohio, 1873 April 2

The case of Lebel-Bunbury does need an explanation and Borgess is sure that Purcell will sanction his cautious proceedings in the interest of the disputing parties. The congregation claim they are not indebted to Mr. Patrick Bunbury, who in turn claims that St. Augustine's Church and congregation owe him $9,500 and interest for which he became the security on promissory notes of Father I. A. Lebel . Borgess told Bunbury that he could do nothing unless it was proved that the money had been applied for the benefit of St. Augustine's Church in Kalamazoo, Michigan. When Purcell dedicated the Church he was informed that the entire indebtedness of the Church was only $6000, but this has been increased several times and claims against the church amount to some $19,000 more than can be accounted for. He gives an itemized account of the various expenditures and revenues of the church during the years since its dedication. On Feb. 22, 1856 Bishop Peter Paul Lefevere appointed Lebel to the spiritual charge of the congregation of Kalamazoo, a copy of the authorization being in the Archives of the diocese. There is no mention that he was to be the temporal agent of Lefevere and according to the Laws of the Plenary Council of Baltimore, the Prov. Council of Cincinnati, and the Statutes of this diocese, such an agency or authorization does not exist unless expressed in writing. Therefore, it is not true that Borgess told Bunbury, either tacitly or expressly that his claim was just. He does not believe that the Bishop of the diocese should be held for the agreements existing between two parties in open violation of the Laws of the church and the statutes of the diocese. All the courts were open to Bunbury to which he could appeal in sustaining his claim against the congregation, as he did. However, that does not mean that he had a right to do so in justice of his claim or as a member of the Catholic Church. As a citizen he availed himself of the privilege of withdrawing his appeal to the civil law, exercising his liberty in the one and the other instance. :: II-5-f A.L.S. 4pp. 8vo.