172 



CONGEESS. (POLYGAMY.) 



Taylor. J. R. Thomas, 0. B. Thomas. Thompson, 

 Townshend, Van Eaton, Van Schaick, Viele, Wade, 

 Wadsworth, Wait, Wakefield, J. H. Ward, William 

 Warner, A. J. Weaver, J. B. Weaver, Weber, West, 

 Wheeler. A. C. White, Milo White, Whiting, Wil- 

 kins, Willis, Winans, Wolford, Woodburn, Worth- 

 ington 202. 



NAYS Barbour, Bennett, Bragg, Cabell, T. J. 

 Campbell, Carleton, Clardv, Collins, Compton, Cul- 

 berson, Daniel, Dargan, Dibble, Eden, Foran, Freder- 

 ick, Hale. Hall, Hill, Irion. J. H. Jones, Kleiner, Le 

 Fevre, Martin, Mills, Mitchell, Neece, O'Hara, J. J. 

 O'Neill, Outhwaite, Perry, Reagan, Skinner, W. J. 

 Stone of Missouri, Tarsney, Tillman, Turner, T. B. 

 Ward, A. J.Warner, Wilson 10. 



NOT VOTING Aiken, C. M. Anderson, Bacon, 

 Barnes, Bland, Boyle, Brady, W. C. P. Breckinridge, 

 T. M. Browne, Brumm, Burnes, Felix Campbell, 

 Candler, Cowles, S. S. Cox, Crain, Curtin, Daven- 

 port, Dougherty, Dunn, Ellsberry, Ermentrout. Ev- 

 ans, Evernart, Felton, Findlay, Ford, Eustace Gibson, 

 Glover, Green, Hanback, D. B. Henderson, Herbert, 

 Hudd, Kelley, Ketcham, King, Lawler, Libbey, Long, 

 Lore. Lovering, Lowry, Markham, McAdoo, Miller, 

 Milliken, Momll, Murphy, Negley, Norwood, Payne, 

 Payson, Phelps, Pidcock, Pmdar, Kanney, Rice, 

 Rockwell, Rusk, Sadler, Scott, Scranton, Snyder, 

 Spriggs, Charles Stewart, St. Martin, Swinburne, 

 Taulbee, Zachary Taylor, Throckmorton, Trigg, 

 Tucker, Wallace, Wellborn, Wise 76. 



The conference report came up for discus- 

 sion in the Senate, February 18. In opposition 

 to it Mr. Call, of Florida, said : 



"This bill, in my opinion, is an anomaly on 

 the statute-book of this country. It is the sec- 

 ond step toward the establishment of religious 

 persecution and intolerance. It is but a thin 

 disguise for the acute lawyers who have pre- 

 pared this bill, to assert that it is no violation 

 of the Constitution of the United States or 

 of the principles of civil liberty or religious 

 tolerance upon which this Government is 

 founded. 



"Mr. President, every law has a policy, has 

 a spirit. It is not to be determined by the let- 

 ter of the law as it is sought to be justified 

 here, and that is the very first thing a student 

 of the law learns ; and it is strange that in the 

 Senate of the United States the very original 

 and first principles of the profession in the in- 

 terpretation of law which have been handed 

 down for hundreds of years should be boldly 

 violated and the Senate should declare to the 

 professional opinion of the world that the car- 

 dinal principles of the profession have no force 

 or effect. Why, sir, the great commentator 

 upon law, when he teaches the student of the 

 laws of England the manner of interpretation, 

 cites the instance of the law in Venice, which 

 said that he who lets blood in the streets of 

 Venice shall be punished with death, and the 

 example of the man who, falling in the streets 

 with sudden illness, had his blood let by a sur- 

 geon, violating the letter of the law; but the 

 commentator declares that the law was not vio- 

 lated, because its spirit must determine its in- 

 terpretation. It was not violated because the 

 spirit and the purpose of the law was to pre- 

 vent the unlawful shedding of blood. 



" The acute sophists who have written this 

 bill do no credit to the intelligence of the age 



or the faculty of reason when they declare in 

 this bill that it is not violative of the Consti- 

 tution, that it is not a law ' respecting an es- 

 tablishment of religion,' that it is not an in- 

 tolerant proscription of religion, that it is not 

 an unjust denial and discrimination between 

 different citizens in their political rights, be- 

 cause the language of the bill carefully avoids 

 the open statement of any or all these things. 



" If the effect of a law if its object and 

 effect accomplishes these results, then it is 

 equally liable to the inhibition of the organic 

 law, and of an honest and wise public policy, 

 as if it reached these results by the use of 

 plain and direct language. 



"Now, take this act presented to the Sen- 

 ate, and I venture to assert that before any 

 tribunal, impartial and rational, it can not bo 

 justified in any single provision. What shall 

 we say of a law that undertakes to punish acts 

 which a particular religion or sect of men 

 worshiping God are prone to commit, viola- 

 tions of the laws which may, as this bill as- 

 sumes, be the result of their religious belief, 

 and that imposes penalties not demanded by 

 the universal good of the people, but because 

 they are committed by that particular sect of 

 men, and imposes penalties in excess of those 

 that are imposed for the rest of the commu- 

 nity for the purpose of affecting that form of 

 religious beliet, with the effect by accumulated 

 penalties of forcing that people to abandon 

 that form of religious belief. Suppose you se- 

 lect some one act which your law makes a 

 crime, which is prevalent among that people, 

 but not peculiar to them, but which with them 

 is a religious belief, and you impose on that 

 act committed" by them extraordinary penal- 

 ties. You make the methods of trial partial, 

 oppressive, and cruel. You make the pro- 

 cesses of summons and arrest revoltingly harsh 

 and arbitrary. You confiscate their church 

 property. You interfere between parents and 

 their children in their education, and yet you 

 ask honorable men to believe that you think 

 this is not legislating against a particular form 

 of religion. 



" Is that lawful ? Can you extinguish by 

 such legislation as that a form of religious be- 

 lief, and yet put up the alleged plea that the 

 letter of the law is complied with, that the 

 Constitution is not violated ? We punish all 

 men alike, but we accumulate on that particu- 

 lar sect and the offenses they choose to com- 

 mit penalty after penalty for the purpose of 

 affecting that form of religions belief. Why, 

 Mr. President, the subterfuge is unworthy of 

 reasonable men, and can have no place in logic 

 or in reason. ' The letter of the law killeth, 

 but the spirit maketh alive,' said a great law- 

 yer and an inspired man many centuries since, 

 and from that day to this the intelligence of 

 every age has sanctioned it. That to carry out 

 the spirit and purpose of the Jaw is to kill it, 

 and to carry into effect its letter is to keep it 

 alive; that when the letter of the law defeats 



