IN 1895 our ambassador to Russia, Mr. Clifton R. Breckinridge, was asked by Baron Osten-Sacken of Russia to "give him the language of our organic law in regard to religious liberty." The following communication is the answer to this request:—
"LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, St. Petersburg, June 25, 1895.
"YOUR EXCELLENCY: Referring to our recent conversation upon the subject of the exercise of consular or foreign jurisdiction within the limits of the United States upon matters respecting a religious establishment or belief, I now comply with your request for a statement of the language of our Constitution with reference to the power of the United States government itself to exercise such jurisdiction.
"I will just call your attention to the peculiar character of our Constitutional requirements.
"The States existed separately and independently before the general government existed. They created the general government. It is true that many new States have been admitted into the Union since the original States created the government, but this has been out of territory originally ceded to the general government by the States — land which at that time lay beyond the settled zone — or out of land since acquired by the general government by purchase or conquest, and in a way originally provided for.
"So when the States created the general government, they 'granted' and 'delegated' certain powers to it, as enumerated in the Constitution, and they retained all the other powers themselves. Our government has very great powers. It is supreme within the limits of those powers, but the point is that it can lawfully do nothing unless the power to do so has been granted to it.
"It is a very serious matter to us, then, when our government is desired to conform to a policy, if the power to do so has not been delegated to it. It can not assume the power or get it in any other way except by a change of the Constitution granting the government that power.
"The very great difficulty of effecting a change in the Constitution will be readily seen when it is stated that it takes two thirds of both branches of Congress or two thirds of the States to propose an amendment; and after it is proposed, it requires a majority vote in three fourths of the States to adopt it. Such is the difficulty that no changes have been made except at two periods of our history. The first was the period, just after the formation of our government, ending in 1804. Then there was no change until 1865, at the close of the civil war, when certain changes were made as the result of that great war.
"Although Congress has not been granted any power in regard to religious matters, so great was the fear of the States and the people that Congress might upon pretext attempt such legislation that the first of all the amendments, Article I, says, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'
"Thus you will see, my government is prohibited in the most positive manner by the very law of its existence from even attempting to put any form of limitation upon any of its citizens by reason of his religious belief."
In another letter the following month (July 8), directed to Prince Lobanow, Mr. Breckinridge endeavors to explain more fully the relation of our government to religion:—
"Our Constitution does not say that Congress shall not make a law simply prohibiting or authorizing a religious exercise or belief, as your excellency seems to understand; it says, 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Certainly if the law deprives any people or person of a certain faith, because of that faith, of all or of any part of the rights, privileges, and immunities enjoyed by other citizens or class of citizens, it is made 'respecting' that religion, and it militates against 'the free exercise thereof,' as much as if the sect had been mentioned in the title of the act, and the consequences had been named as pains and penalties for the conscientious belief and observances entertained and practised."
Mr. Breckinridge was well qualified to give this interpretation of the attitude of our federal government to religious matters. As a representative of the United States he was familiar with our fundamental law and our history; and, on the other hand, he was then sojourning in a land where there is a union of religion and the state. Before his eyes persons were being persecuted because of their religious belief. It was to avoid such a condition in America that the founders of our government sought to prohibit forever the meddling of our lawmakers with the religion of any citizen.
This information to the Russian baron is an interesting and important contribution to the cause of religious liberty, and if those principles are faithfully followed by our statesmen, our government will be preserved from treating any of its citizens as some of them are now being treated by Russia.