CALIFORNIA'S POSITION THE TRUE ONE.
By W. N. G.
During the recent discussion in the Congressional House of Representatives on the subject of appropriations for religious institutions, Mr. Johnson, of California, voiced the position of his state in a very emphatic utterance. We take the following from his remarks, as they appear in the Congressional Record of April 2:— “I voted with the majority of the House, some weeks ago, in favor of striking out sectarian appropriations, not because I was opposed to any particular religion, for I am not, nor because I belong to any political society, for I do not, but because I believe in the complete divorcement of church and state. I regard any appropriation to one religious association as equally wrong with any other, and shall and will consistently so vote. . . . I care not what religion is taught, I am unalterably opposed to the appropriation of any public money to any sectarian institution. I do not follow those who make war on only one religion and except all others. They are not true to the noble American doctrine that church and state must be forever divorced in our country; they are mischief makers. The only salutary rule is to oppose giving public money to any and all sectarian institutions. I believe in the doctrine laid down in the constitution of my own state of California, that no public money shall be appropriated for sectarian institutions.” “Section 22 of article 4, constitution of California, contains these words, namely:— “And no money shall ever be appropriated or drawn from the state treasury for the use or benefit of any corporation, association, asylum, hospital, or any other institution not under the exclusive management and control of the state as a state institution, nor shall any grant or donation of property ever be made thereto by the state. . . .” “And section 30 of the same article 4 of the constitution of California contains the following words, namely:— “Neither the Legislature nor any county, city, and county township, school district, or other municipal corporation, shall ever make an appropriation or pay from any public fund whatever, or grant anything to or in aid of any religious sect, church, creed, or sectarian purpose, or help to support or sustain any school, college, university, hospital, or other institution controlled by any religious creed, church, or sectarian denomination whatever; nor shall any grant or donation of personal property or real estate ever be made by the state, or any city, city and county, town, or other municipal corporation, for any religious creed, church, or sectarian purpose whatever.” “The state reserves the right to grant aid to institutions ‘for the support and maintenance of minor orphans or half orphans, or abandoned children, or aged persons in indigent circumstances,’ with the condition that the state has the right to inquire at any time into the management of such institutions, and that reports shall be made to the Legislature and published with the laws at each session.” “These are noble words; they express the true doctrine; they voice the sentiment of the people of California. They should be adopted by the people of every state in the Union. They act as a safeguard to the treasury and a protection from religious zeal, which often runs to bigotry. We had a long and hard fight to get that incorporated into our Constitution. We carried it by a large majority.” The first occasion to which Mr. Johnson refers was the action of the House in striking out all appropriations for Catholic Indian schools, while the special matter under consideration at the time this speech was made was an appropriation for Howard University, a Congregational institution at Washington. The pertinence of his remarks, as of the speech of Mr. McRae, of Arkansas, published last week, is accentuated by the fact that Congress denied the Catholic appropriations, while the Congregational allowance was granted. This action bids fair to force a religious sentiment into the next congressional elections, if not into the coming presidential campaign. Already it has been resented by certain members of Congress, Mr. Fitzgerald, of Massachusetts, having made a speech designed to emphasize the inconsistency of the House, and charging the adverse action in regard to the Catholic appropriations directly to the influence of the American Protective Association, commonly known as the “A. P. A.” In the course of his remarks the9speaker introduced the following, which he alleged is the oath taken by every member of the association:— “I do most solemnly swear that I will not allow any one a member of the Roman Catholic Church to become a member of this order, I knowing him to be such; that I will use my influence to promote the interests of Protestants everywhere in the world; that I will not employ a Roman Catholic in any capacity if I can procure the services of a Protestant; that I will not aid in maintaining or building by my resources any Roman Catholic Church or institution of their sect or creed whatsoever, but will do all in my power to retard and break down the power of the Pope; that I will not enter into a controversy with a Roman Catholic upon the subject of this order, nor will I enter into any agreement with a Roman Catholic to strike or create a disturbance whereby the Roman Catholic employees may undermine and substitute the Protestant; that in all grievances I will seek only Protestants and counsel with them to the exclusion of all Roman Catholics, and will not make known to them anything of any nature matured at such conferences; that I will not countenance the nomination in any caucus or convention of a Roman Catholic for any office in the gift of the people, and that I will not vote for nor counsel others to vote for a Roman Catholic, but will vote only for a Protestant; that I will endeavor at all times to place the political positions of this government in the hands of Protestants. To all of which I do most solemnly promise and swear, so help me God.” These things give evidence that Congress, having once committed itself to the principle of church and state union in even a limited degree, will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to let go.