CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



179 





Mr. Edmunds: "Archbishop Purcoll is not 



>pe." 



Mr. Whyte: " But Archbishop Purcell, I 

 SM;>]> HO, would not speak in opposition to the 

 d.-Mros of the Pope" 



Mr. I'Mnumds: " I do not know." 



Mr. Why to: "Anymore than some gentle- 

 111 i liere spoak in opposition to the will of 

 the Republican party. 



" I was about to say that the first amendment 

 t > :li Constitution prevents the establishment 

 of religion by congressional enactm3nt ; it pro- 

 hibits the interference of Congress with the 

 free exercise thereof, and leaves the whole 

 power for the propagation of it with the 



- exclusively ; and so far as I am con- 

 cerned I propose to leave it there also. 



"Called away from this Chamber, Mr. Presi- 

 dent, to discharge other duties for rny State, 

 and fearing that I may be absent when the 

 vote on this amendment is taken, I desire thus 

 p:i!ili;-ly to record my opposition to the pas- 

 sage of any such amendment, whether com- 

 ing from the Hous3 of Representatives or 

 emanating from the Judiciary Committee of 

 the Senate." 



Mr. Christiancy, of Michigan, said: "Mr. 

 President, I have already once called attention 

 to tli3 resolution as it came from the House. 

 Tiint resolution proposed to amend the Consti- 

 tution of the United States so as to prevent any 

 moneys rais3d for public schools, or lands dedi- 

 catad for public-school purposes, from being 

 under the control of any religious sect or denom- 

 ination, or from being divided among them, and 

 that is all there is of it. It did not propose to 

 prohibit any State or the United States from 

 raising any amount of money by taxation, or 

 from voting any amount of property for the 

 support of any religious sect or denomination, 

 or for any sactarian or denominational school, 

 but the diversion of money already raised for 

 public schools or the diversion of property 

 already dedicated to the support of public 

 schools is in the most solemn manner by this 

 resolution of the House declared by the House 

 nnd every man who voted for it a great public 

 evil ; not only an evil, but an evil of such mag- 

 nitude and of such imminence as to call for a 

 constitutional prohibition. Such is the clear 

 declaration which the House have made to us, 

 and every man who voted for that resolution 

 has made to us, of the evil to be guarded 

 against. What is this evil ? In what does the 

 evil consist? Certainly it is no greater evil to 

 do this wrong, for the resolution admits it to 

 be a wrong, indirectly than it would be to do 

 it directly. What, then, is the evil, and what 

 are the principles which would be violated 

 without this constitutional provision ? I take 

 it to be this : In a country situated like ours, 

 where the conscience is left free, where religious 

 toleration is universal, where the people are 

 divide:l into a great number of churches and 

 sects, with a very large proportion, if not a 

 majority, of the population belonging to no 



church or sect, and where oar public schools 

 could never be maintained unless placed upon 

 a footing of substantial equality among all 

 people who may choose to send to them, it 

 would be wrong to raise money by taxation or 

 to appropriate property belonging to the whole 

 people for the support of any one of those de- 

 nominations. That I take it is the real prin- 

 ciple upon which it becomes wrong to do this 

 very thing which the House proposes to pro- 

 hibit. The principles, it will be seen, therefore, 

 are much broader than the resolution ; and 

 what has been an enigma to me is that those 

 who can go so far as to admit the evil stop so 

 far short of a remedy. 



" Now, Mr. President, is the thing itself any 

 worse when done indirectly, by first raising 

 the money or devoting the property to public 

 schools and then dividing it among the various 

 sects for the support of their sectarian schools, 

 than if the same result were accomplished di- 

 rectly by raising the tax or appropriating the 

 money or property directly for the purpose of 

 supporting the same sectarian, or denomina- 

 tional schools ? If there be any difference, is 

 not the latter the more obvious and manifest, 

 and the one which would naturally first occur 

 to the mind of any man seeking by a constitu- 

 tional amendment to provide a remedy ? What 

 would be thought of the law-makers who 

 should provide carefully for the punishment of 

 aiders and abettors in a crime, but leave the 

 principal offenders to go free and unpunished ? 

 Able and honest minds, in attempting to pro- 

 vide an enactment against a direct wrong, or 

 one committed by direct means, do sometimes 

 from a failure to foresee the various methods 

 by which the same wrong may be indirectly 

 committed fail to make sufficient provision 

 against it when committed by indirect means. 

 But this is the most notable instance Avhich 

 has ever come under my observation where the 

 author of an important prohibitory provision 

 has so clearly seen and provided against the 

 wrong when attempted indirectly and has yet 

 been utterly oblivious of, and made no provi- 

 sion against, the same wrong when done or at- 

 tempted directly. But such is the fact. While 

 this resolution prohibits the division among 

 sects or for sectarian schools of any money 

 first raised by taxation for or property which 

 may have been devoted to public schools, it 

 leaves both tho national and State governments 

 at perfect liberty to raise by taxation any 

 amount of money and to appropriate any 

 amount of money or property directly to or for 

 the use of any such religious sects or denomi- 

 nations and for any schools or institutions un- 

 der their control or direction, though the main 

 or entire purpose of such schools may be in- 

 struction in and the propagation of the pecul- 

 iar denominational or sectarian system of re- 

 ligion or religious belief or catechism of such 

 sect or denomination. It does not prohibit 

 even the diversion or division to or among such 

 sects or sectarian schools of any money or pub- 



