ILLUSIONS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.
THE New York Evening Journal, of May 23, has the following under the above head, which is worthy of note:— It is to be expected that foreigners coming to our country to become citizens, even foreigners of considerable education, should have mistaken notions of the Constitution of the United States. Most of them believe that the first twelve amendments are limitations on the States. When the first amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” they fancy that the States are bound by this inhibition. But the truth is that if, for instance, the State of Illinois should want to make Catholicism a State church, there is nothing whatever in our national Constitution to prevent her from doing it. The foreigners’ mistakes are excusable, but what shall we think when a scholarly New York morning paper asserts that “the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on a presentation or indictment by a Grand Jury,” and denounces the District-Attorney of New York for violating that provision in the Molineux case? Can it be an American who wrote that article? Is there an educated American who does not know that this provision applies exclusively to the United States courts? Should not a pretentious New York paper know that several States, notably California, have practically abolished indictments by Grand Juries, substituting informations by District-Attorneys in almost all cases? We would like to ask the Journal a few questions. If the State of Illinois should make the Roman Catholic Church the State church, presumably this union would be similar to such establishments elsewhere; fasts and feasts would be ordained by law; citizens would be required by law under penalty to adore “the host” as it would be carried along the streets in solemn procession; utterances against the State religion would be condemned and punished as blasphemy and treason; only Roman Catholic citizens could serve in public office; and other things, too numerous to mention, would obtain. Now, according to the Constitution, would Illinois7have the right to do all this? Amendment XIV., section 1, declares: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” Would it not be an abridgement of the privileges or immunities of a citizen of the United States to require him to support a State church in Illinois? Would it not, in the light of the First Amendment, be an abridgement of his privileges to require the observance of a fast day, or bowing before what to him was a mere wafer? These are pertinent questions these days. Is slavery of mind and conscience of less importance than physical slavery? We are not captious in this inquiry; we would be glad of a candid reply to these questions.