Untitled article by W. H. M.

Pacific Press Publishing Company · New York · June 12, 1890

FromThe American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 24

Some Statesmanship.

By W. H. M.

In the course of the discussion in regard to the admission of Idaho into the Union, in the House of Representatives, April 2, Hon. Joseph E. Washington, of Tennessee, as reported in the Congressional Record of April 6, said:—

Mr. Speaker: The gentleman from Idaho (Mr. DuBois) in defending the clause in the Constitution of Idaho which disqualifies Mormons from voting and holding office, says:—

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Washington) signs this report. Let us see what the Constitution of Tennessee says on the subject of franchise. By article 9, “Ministers of the gospel are forbidden to hold office, also persons who deny God, or fight duels.”

Yet, the gentleman from Tennessee signs a report which says:—

“We insist that in Idaho disqualifications for holding office shall result only from a conviction of crime.”

The people of Idaho say bigamists and polygamists shall not hold office in Idaho, the people of Tennessee say ministers of the gospel shall not hold office in Tennessee.

Now, sir, let me read you in full the parts of the Constitution of Tennessee referred to. (Art. 9. Sec. 1–3.) They are as follows:—

Whereas ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore no minister of the gospel or priest of any denomination whatever shall be eligible to a seat in either house of the Legislature.

No person who denies the being of God or a future state of rewards and punishments shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State.

Any person who shall after the adoption of this Constitution, fight a duel, etc. . . .

Sir, these disqualifications are very different from what the statement of the gentleman from Idaho would lead one to suppose. . . . Surely the gentleman cannot object to that clause of our Constitution which excludes from civil office the infidel who denies the existence of a God! How, forsooth, could such a person take an oath to support the Constitution? Upon whom would or could he call to witness the solemnity of his obligation? He could not swear by the earth, for it is God's footstool. He could not swear by any created thing, for it is less than the Creator, whose very existence he denies. . . .

But, sir, Tennessee does not stand alone among the States in excluding certain persons from the right to vote and hold office. On the contrary, she has fewer restrictions of this sort than almost any other State.

As the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Stewart) alluded to my State, let me read from the Vermont Constitution, chapter 2, section 12, which says each member of the Legislature before taking his seat shall make and subscribe to the following declaration:—

“You do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good, the punisher of the wicked; and you do acknowledge the scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the Protestant religion.”

This prohibits, if enforced, a Roman Catholic from becoming a member of the Legislature of the State of Vermont, and certainly excludes every infidel. I will not consume time by reading from the constitutions of all the States. . . .

I have cited these cases to show that Tennessee has done nothing cruel, unjust, unusual, or contrary to the spirit of a free and enlightened government when she placed a few restrictions around the right to vote and hold office, but on the contrary she has not gone to any such length as have the States which those who criticise her represent.

The congressman from Tennessee is in error as regards his quotation from the Vermont Constitution, for the clause which he quotes is to be found in the Constitution of 1786, but is omitted in the Constitution of 1793 now in force. However there are other provisions remaining which are, in almost equal measure, out of harmony with the true principles of civil government.

But the remarkable fact remains that after a century has elapsed for the development of the principles enunciated by Thomas Jefferson and his compatriots in the establishment of this Government, such views should be expressed unchallenged in the Congress of the United States; and the fundamental law of all the States be called to witness to their propriety and soundness.

Such incidents as this would argue it not amiss for our legislators to withdraw occasionally from the consideration of naval and military appropriations and tariff making, to the study of the primary principles of civil government, as found in the act for establishing religious freedom adopted by the Legislature of Virginia in 1785.

The following portion of that act would be of special value in such an exercise:— That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than on our opinions in physic and geometry; that therefore the prescribing any citizen as unworthy of the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow-citizens, he has a natural right, etc.

This act also provides that opinions and professions in matters of religion shall in nowise diminish, enlarge or affect civil capacities.

When in the discussion of a question of disfranchisement for a civil crime, such opinion as to what falls within the proper sphere of legislative cognizance are expressed, and things civil and things religious so inextricably commingled, there is, evidently, a wider field for civil service reform than has yet been dreamed of.

W. H. M.