The Theory of Our Constitution Is the Right Theory.
By John L. Rupe
THE present theory of our Government is, that the Government recognizes the natural rights of man, as they exist in a state of nature and in the law of reason, and that the State only imposes that degree of restraint upon his action which is necessary to the uniform and reasonable conservation and enjoyment of private rights; that civil and religious liberty go hand in hand, and are the natural and absolute rights of the citizen, which no Government or human agency has power to question or deny. All laws, therefore, regulating the acts or conduct of the citizen are made in harmony with these broad general principles. The citizen is dealt with in view of his relation to society. The laws, therefore, regulate his conduct only so far as that conduct does, or may, affect society. Such laws are, therefore, prohibitory. There is no purpose in the penal laws to prevent or prohibit acts to be done, because the doing of them is morally wrong, having reference only to the person doing the act; but the purpose is to forbid the act, to protect society. To illustrate: The statute forbidding murder is not founded in any purpose to teach the moral wrong or sin of murder, but to protect society against the vicious. The penal laws are not intended to teach moral lessons. In any act the citizen may do which affects only himself, the laws do not interfere. A man may take his own life, burn his property, may injure himself in his person and property in many ways, and from a vicious spirit, but so long as his act affects only himself the State does not interfere. The law punishes intoxication in a public place because it affects the public, but a man may become and remain intoxicated in his own house at his pleasure and it is no offense, because then the act affects only himself. Thus it is that all our penal laws are prohibitory, and based upon the principle that it is the province of the State to interfere only when the act of the citizen affects the rights of others. The other principle is that in the regulation of men's moral conduct the power of the State extends no higher than to require respect for those moral laws which the reason and judgment of mankind have approved as necessary and proper in well-ordered society, and distinguishing such moral laws as those relating to the temporal well-being of society, and entirely disassociated from man's spiritual nature or his religious duties or obligations. Under this theory of government embodied in our Constitution the lines are clearly marked and the citizen has a guarantee of enjoyment of both civil and religious liberty. If the amendment as advocated by the Reform Association should be adopted, and other provisions of the Constitution made to harmonize with it, so that it would become operative, a different theory of government would be introduced. The Christian religion would become a part of our fundamental law, and the State would thereby become empowered to pass any laws regulating the conduct of citizens in conformity with it. Laws would be authorized requiring the citizen to attend the church or observe any religious rite or ceremony. The Sabbath might be made by law a day of gloom and chill, and indeed almost anything concerning men's conduct (bounded by the Christian religion) which fanaticism might invent, or the religious enthusiast devise, would find a warrant in our national Constitution. Such a theory is entirely incompatible with religious liberty, and if carried to its logical results would eventually overthrow our system of government entirely; liberty of conscience would be without any guarantee of existence, and, if denied, civil liberty could not long survive. One of the most eminent commentators upon our American laws has said that civil and religious liberty are so closely allied that either cannot long survive if the other be denied. The glory of our American Nation to-day, and that which commends it most strongly to the enlightened judgment of mankind, is that universal civil and religious liberty it guarantees to its citizens. And any suggestion of change in our fundamental law which would make it possible to trench upon either should be spurned by the people and the church as an unmixed evil.
Let us imagine the condition which might arise with the adoption of an amendment in general terms engrafting the Christian religion upon our Constitution; or the adoption of Senator Blair's amendment requiring the principles of Christian religion taught in the public schools. What would be held to be the principles of Christian religion? and who should determine it? If the court called to determine the question should be Catholic in religion, it might well determine that the principles of Christian religion were189those taught by that church; and this would manifestly not conduce to great harmony, but the decision would be given in that jurisdiction, and the Protestant would be taxed for the privilege of sending his children to the public schools to be there taught the principles of the religion of the Catholic Church. If the decision should be the other way, the Catholic, the Jew, and the unbeliever would be taxed for the privilege of having his children taught a religion he did not believe. In either case the exaction would be unjust, against natural right, and wholly subversive of religious liberty. Such a condition could not fail to breed discord and discontent and produce a disorderly state of society. What is the trouble with our state of society and system of government as it now is? I affirm that there is no trouble except that which arises from a disposition of impracticable people to make men better by legislative enactment; to reform men by law. If a man, because of vicious disposition, or because of unbelief, will not observe the moral laws of the Christian religion, it is their assumed religious duty to compel him to do so by law. No man was ever made better in his nature because of his being required by penal law to do a particular thing, or to refrain from any immoral act. Men are not reformed with clubs. The State can deal with men only by the law of force; and through the agency of force reformation is impossible, because of man's very nature. Every intelligent being has a spiritual nature, and in all matters relating to his moral conduct, with a view to reformation, and in all matters of religion, he must be reached through this higher and better nature. The moving power of Christianity is the law of love. The man who is impelled to acknowledge Christ through fear of eternal punishment is not a Christian. As the church has advanced with the intelligence of the people, and brought itself to the full recognition of this universal law of love, which is the foundation of the Christian religion, it has advanced in power and influence, and has a firmer hold upon the hearts and affections of the people. Laws which assume to regulate men's conduct in accordance with the moral laws of the Christian religion are not respected or enforced when enacted. It may not be known to all of you that we have now, and have had for many years, a law to prohibit profanity. The law in substance is as follows: “Whoever being over fourteen years of age profanely curses, swears, avers, or imprecates by or in the name of God, Jesus Christ, or the Holy Ghost, is guilty of profanity and shall be fined three dollars.” It will be seen that the law prohibits swearing in private as well as in public. If the good citizen in the privacy of his own wood-shed, strikes at the nail in his hand, and hits the nail attached to his thumb, and, under the impulse of the moment, gives utterance to the words which first suggest themselves to him, he may be fined. This law has been in force since 1855, and its enforcement has been so generally omitted that its existence as a law is not generally known. It would hardly stand a constitutional test, but it has not been questioned, presumably because it has never been in anybody's way. If the fines for all violations of this statute could be collected for only one day immediately succeeding any general election, there would be little use for any provision for school funds by direct taxation. Notwithstanding the general violation of this law, there has never been any general demand for its enforcement, and it seems to me the reason for this may be found in the recognized fact, that such law is not in harmony with our system of penal laws and the theory of government upon which they rest; that profanity is a sin against God, and that it is an offense affecting the person offending, and for which he should be held answerable to his God, and not to the State. . . . The national character will correspond with the character of the people composing the Nation, and if there is a tendency away from religious observance in public affairs; if there is too little regard for moral and Christian character in the selection of the officers chosen to administer public affairs, the fault is not in our system of government or in our laws, but is in the Christian people of the country who fail in their duty in, and attention to, governmental affairs. I have no sympathy with religious teaching, which is entirely ethereal, and removes a man from active participation in the affairs of this life, but I am a believer in that kind of religion which takes hold of, and gives character to, all the affairs of life; that requires the same punctuality in the observance and performance of his duties as a man and citizen as in the duties pertaining to his spiritual life. If the good Christian people will repudiate the idea that politics is a dirty pool, which contaminates all who enter, and will, with Christian intelligence, exert the power to which their numbers and influence entitle them, in all affairs of government, there will be no doubt as to the national character, and there will be no difficulty in impressing the religious character of the people upon our laws and public observances, and there will be found ample room for all advancement in the character of our laws and those who execute them, which can be demanded by the intelligent Christian sentiment of the country within the wise limits placed in our fundamental law for the equal liberty and protection of all.—Hon. John L. Rupe, Richmond, Ind.