Private Belief Should Not Weigh
judge and jury, whose sworn duty it is to hear impartially the evidence adduced, to weigh it carefully, to admit for consideration only such as is relevant and of undoubted impartiality, and to render a verdict solely on the merits of the case as thus brought before us. The question that is to be determined, as I understand it, is simply whether a member is a good citizen, an honest man with character and all the attributes which command confidence and respect. These sterling qualities of citizenship should, I think, be demanded of all who aspire to the great honor which a seat in this body confers. What may be his private belief in religious matters should have no weight in making up public opinion regarding him. The same section of the Constitution that provides for the right of petition to Congress also prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of the same. We should not regard a Huxley disqualified for a seat in the United States Senate because of his attitude toward questions of religion. However much we might regret that attitude, we should still acknowledge his great qualities of mind and heart and willingly accord to him that profound respect which devotion to truth exacts. So with the numberless shades of religious opinions which exist among mankind. Were we to take note in politics of religious beliefs, we should, in my opinion, retrace our steps to the period when religious differences gave rise to the most cruel of all the wars which have devastated the earth, and which revealed the spirit of Christianity in efforts to exterminate certain forms of religious belief. Our noble system of government is built upon a foundation which is the more secure because it takes no account of religious opinion. Freedom of conscience is one of the surest guarantees of the Republic, and I am sure no action can be taken which will abridge in the slightest degree that right. In my opinion, eligibility to a seat in either house of Congress in no way depends on religious belief, and objections on that score seem to me to be barred both by the spirit and letter of the Constitution. In case of opposition to the seating of a member of either house, it seems to me that the governing consideration should be as I have stated—whether or not a man is a good citizen, of unimpeachable character, honest and conscientious in the performance of his duty as an American citizen, and with no obligation to church or other organization that can interfere or conflict with his fealty to the Constitution and laws of our country. I have offered these thoughts of the subject at this time that my position may be understood by the good women of California, for whom I have the most profound respect, and whom I have also the honor in part to represent in this honorable body. Immediately following these remarks by Senator Perkins, Senator Patterson, of Colorado, presented a petition “from several thousand of the women of Colorado expressive of their wishes with reference to the exclusion of Hon. Reed Smoot from the Senate of the United States,” and stated that he, too, had been requested to say something in connection with the petition. He said that all he desired to say was “that there are grave constitutional questions connected with the disposition of the matter involved in the proceedings against Mr. Smoot, and, as far as I am concerned, I intend, by any vote I shall give, to be governed by the constitutional rights of the individual against whom the proceedings are being had.” This, of course, is not exactly the attitude that is desired on the part of senators by those who are petitioning and campaigning for Smoot’s exclusion. One or two other senators have also indicated by expressions in the Senate that they are not altogether in agreement with the attitude assumed in this campaign for the exclusion of Smoot.