The American Sentinel, Vol. 5, No. 42
Commenting upon Mr. Crafts’s proposed Sunday legislation, the *Denver News* saysPage 1
Commenting upon Mr. Crafts’s proposed Sunday legislation, the Denver News says:— Religious freedom to the churches and church people consists in the right to be protected from annoyance, and to others in the right to enjoy Sunday rest according to their own judgment. . . . But according to the best estimate less than half the population of the United States have any kind of association with the churches. Would it not be just to consider the rights of the other half in formulating laws for Sunday observance? Is not this especially true if Mr. Crafts is correct in basing his proposed legislation wholly on civil authority? This is a pertinent question, but as usual Mr. Crafts ignores it. He wants only a civil Sunday law—but he wants it so framed and so enforced that it will incidentally contribute to the religious observance of the day. He says: “Take the religion out and you take the rest out.” And so he proposes that his “civil” law shall “incidentally” guard religion. A fine scheme truly! Who Are the Traitors?
By A. T. J.
A CORRESPONDENT of America, who signs himself “An American from Choice,” in reproving the Lutherans for their objections to the Bennett law of Wisconsin, says:— It is quite evident from this objection to the compulsory school law, that no amendment, short of a repeal of the compulsory feature, will satisfy the German Lutheran Committee, and that those same Lutherans do not consider the American public school adapted to the educational needs of a Christian family.
The Lutherans are not the only ones, by any means, who do not consider the American public schools, or any other public schools, adapted to the needs of a Christian family. He would be a queer kind of a Christian indeed who would consider it so. The American public school is not a Christian school. America is not a Christian nation. The education which it proposes to give is not a Christian education; and in the nature of the case it is impossible for it to give such education. Consequently the American public school never can be adapted to the educational needs of a Christian family. But the opponents of religion in the public school are not the opponents of the public school. On the other hand, they are the friends of the public school and the best friends it has; because just as soon as it becomes a settled thing that the public school shall undertake to supply the educational needs of a Christian family, or teach religion in any way, it ceases to be a public school and becomes but a mere sectarian thing, through which the power of the State is exerted to compel the people to receive the dictates of a certain class in matters of religion. Then the public school becomes of no worth whatever to anybody, but only a channel through which a religious despotism can be exerted. Therefore, those who favor the teaching of religion in the public school do, in fact, favor the destruction of the public school, and in that the destruction of the American State, that is, the free State; and the substitution for it of the European State, that is, a despotism. Yet, this correspondent admits that “the public school has not of itself an absolute claim upon the attendance of all children living within its jurisdiction.” But at the same time he argues that the private school shall be subject to public control, which virtually makes all schools public, and contradicts his admission that the public school has not an absolute claim on the attendance of the children; and he says that “from such control there shall be no exemption on any pretense whatever.” This is again a contradiction to the admission that he had already made, because if a public school has not an absolute claim upon all the children living within its jurisdiction, then what right has it to exert an absolute control with no exemption whatever? This is only to say that the State can exercise absolute control where it has no absolute claim. Next he argues that the public school is a part of the Government, and says:— If the public school is a part of the Government, then any sect or other body of men, denying that the public school is a place where their children can be educated without violating their consciences, must be considered as hostile to the Government—in this case, the people of the United States—and, if they claim citizenship in the United States, as traitors to their Nation.
Such despotic principles as these need no comment. They furnish their own comment. It would be well if those330“Americans from choice” would learn what American principles are, before they begin to assume the prerogative of asserting the despotic principles of the Government which they failed to leave behind them. A. T. J. “The right arm of the American Sabbath Union,” says Mr. Crafts, “is the promotion of the religious Sabbath; its left arm the preservation of the civil Sabbath. Those two things—the Christian Sabbath on the one hand, and the American Sabbath on the other hand—are as distinct as my two arms, that resemble and co-operate, and yet are by no means the same.” And as it is usually the office of the left arm to assist the right, so the office of the “civil Sabbath” is to assist in forcing the observance of a religious institution upon the American people. A CHURCH paper says: “There are ten million pupils in the Sunday-schools of the country. A better showing ought to be made in morals, but the fact is, thousands leave the Sunday-school for the saloon, and the downward path in other directions. There is certainly a failure somewhere.” Yes, there is a failure; and the reason is found in the fact that too many depend far too much upon the Sunday-school to give their children religious instruction. No school instruction can possibly take the place of the religious instruction that should be given in the home. State Aid in Alaska.
By C. P. B.
PROFESSOR WILLIAM WELLS gives in the Christian Advocate, of September 18, a very interesting account of mission and educational work among the Alaska Indians. We quote a portion of three paragraphs of his letter, as follows:— Alaska has been fearfully neglected in regard to its schools. It was a strange fact that while the real owner of the country did nothing for the education of its wards, Russia has continued to devote comparatively large sums for this purpose; but Russia did this for her church rather than for the schools, and as the United States could do nothing of the kind for a church, and nothing was done by the State, the whole matter remained for a long time in a state of total neglect. But at last the Government, by an appeal of the Alaskans, was spurred on to duty, and arrangements were made to establish district schools. A Territorial Board of Education was formed, and Dr. Jackson, of the Presbyterian mission work, was placed in the post of General Agent of Education in Alaska. He soon found that the only practical and immediate way of advancing the interests of the charge was to take advantage, so far as possible, of the work already accomplished by the missionaries, and to adopt, to a certain extent, the schools already established and in successful operation. And thus sprang up a system of assisted schools and contract schools, the former receiving a certain sum to aid them in their work on the condition of making it more general, and the latter taking a contract with the Government to perform a work aside from the mission, though in connection with it, that would impart to a certain number of children, or indeed young men and women, the elements of education and a teaching of the trades, etc. One hundred dollars annually given by the Government will support, clothe, and train pupils in these schools, only those being chosen who show an aptitude for the work. The great question now is, “How does the present system succeed, and what are its wants?” Dr. Sheldon Jackson, at the head of the work as agent, is a thorough worker and a most efficient official. There is naturally a complaint that as the leader of the Presbyterian mission work he will be partial in his patronage of the schools. But he is under the control of the Territorial Board, composed of the Governor and the chief officials of the capital, and accountable to our General Educational Commissioner, Dr. Harris, at Washington. This naturally ties his hands and keeps him within a line acceptable to these gentlemen. And so it seems that this purely secular Government, a Government which has no connection with any church, a Government whose fundamental law says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” has formed a partnership with several denominations in Alaska. And of this union, Rev. Nathaniel W. Conkling, D. D., a Presbyterian minister, who has just returned from a trip to Alaska, has this to say in a letter to the New York Observer, of September 11:— Our own mission at Sitka is the most important and flourishing of any of the others. Some one hundred and fifty boys and girls are in the schools, and are there trained for usefulness and good. The baneful feature of Government aid is here found, making a sort of union of Church and State. It is to be found not alone here, but also in connection with the whole Indian school system; it should be found nowhere. It would be well if the Presbyterian Church would decline to accept Government aid in connection with any of its Christian missions. Just what these evils are, Mr. Conkling does not say; but a remark from another paragraph of his letter gives a sufficient hint of what he had in mind. He says:— The spoils system extends its wonderful sway even to these far-off shores, and the lust of office induces men to leave their homes in the States and take petty positions in this distant and isolated country. Alas, alas! there are many abuses yet to be remedied before our country becomes what it should be in accord with its name and fame throughout the earth. So long as human nature remains what it is now, the abuses which the Doctor deplores are practically unavoidable to some extent, in civil government; but the Church might be kept comparatively free from them by keeping it entirely separate from the State. State aid corrupts the Church and does not improve the State, indeed, it corrupts both Church and State. The Purpose of Sunday Laws.
By A. T. Jones
In discussing the Sunday newspaper, Rev. George P. Hays, D. D., reveals the purpose of all Sunday laws. Dr. Hays says:— Now, the Sabbath was given to them for religious thoughts and spiritual improvement. When that Sabbath is taken for secular reading and business affairs, it is as distinctly perverted as if it were used for hoeing corn or spading the garden. These Christians go to church for the avowed purpose of hearing God's ambassador discuss moral and spiritual subjects for their religious improvement. What chance, however, can a minister have to reach a soul which has rusted itself all over with the affairs of this world, by the Sabbath morning's reading of the fluctuation of stocks, murders and robberies of the past night, and the schemes of politicians? Every thoughtful minister would very much prefer, so far as his opportunities of influencing his congregation are concerned, that his people should come to church from the hay-field or the work-shop rather than from the Sunday newspaper. They would not be so likely to have their minds filled with their physical labor to the exclusion of the sermon, as they are to have the sermon expelled in the sensationalism of the Sabbath journal. That shows plainly enough that all Sunday laws are directly in the interests of the church. The only earthly object in stopping men from labor is that they may go to church, and then when they read the Sunday newspapers that must be stopped also in order that they may go to church with minds fitted to receive the sermon. If these Sunday-law advocates be allowed to go so far as that, and men choose to read books or something else on Sunday, the next thing in order will be a law prohibiting them from engaging in any kind of reading at all on Sunday, except such as the American Sabbath Union demand, that is, only the reading of the word of God. But suppose the reading of the word of God should keep them from church, and especially should lead them to think differently from what the minister preaches, which in many things they will have to do in order to be right; and suppose they should thus be led to choose not to go to church; then will follow a law prohibiting even the reading of the Bible, and if after all that men still refuse to go to church and to be benefited by the sermon, the next thing will be a law to compel them to go to church. And all this is out of the abundance of the sympathy of the preachers for the workingman, and their anxiety that he shall enjoy physical rest and the benefit of a civil Sabbath! It is the same kind of sympathy that in the Middle Ages tormented men to death to save them from hell. The spirit of the Inquisition is inseparable from Sunday laws. A. T. J. NON-PARTISAN TEMPERANCE WORK.
Mrs. J. Ellen Foster, President of the Non-Partisan Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, of Iowa, spoke in Central Music Hall, Sunday, October 5, on the history of the temperance movement in this country, the principles on which it is now based, and the relation of the organization which she represents to that reform. She gave this, among other reasons, why the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union could not be partisan, that the organization was born of the Church, nourished by the Church, and could not consistently unite, as a body, with any political party any more than could the Church.331 In the course of her address, she had occasion to refer to majorities, in the following words, which show that she does not accept the prevalent idea of the infallibility of majorities: “Majorities when right are magnificent, but when wrong are dreadful.” Her address was characterized by a spirit of Christian fairness and honest conviction born of truth. A NOVEL and very interesting case is to be tried at the present term of the Illinois Supreme Court, which involves the question of compelling students in institutions of learning supported by the State, to attend the devotional exercises which precede the regular work of the day. A student of the University of Illinois, —established under the laws of Congress and the State of Illinois, in the years 1866 and 1867, “to teach in the most thorough manner such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts, including military tactics, and not excluding other scientific or literary studies,”—absented himself from the morning devotional exercises, for which absence he was expelled. He has brought action against the trustees of the University, and will rest his case on Sec. 3, Art. 2 of the Constitution of the State, which says: “No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.” THE BIBLE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
By A. F. BALLENGER
The following petition is now being circulated in the city, by the Woman’s Moral and Educational Union, and thousands of signatures are being secured:— To the Honorable Board of Education of the City of Chicago. Petition for the Reading of the Bible in the Public Schools. WHEREAS, the Bible is the great fountain of public and private morals, and contains the most exalted literature ever produced;—and, WHEREAS, the effect of reading appropriate extracts therefrom, to and by the pupils in the public schools, would be to elevate their minds, and strengthen their moral character, Therefore, The undersigned citizens of Chicago respectfully pray that the proper order may be made to require the reading of such extracts in the opening exercises each day, of all departments of the public schools in Chicago. The undersigned regard the claim that such reading would be an infringement of just personal or religious liberty, as wholly destitute of merit, and insist that such reading would still leave the mind and conscience of every pupil entirely free from any improper bias. At a meeting of the Methodist ministers of the city, held October 6, the movement was indorsed. Several prominent clergymen of the city are opposed to the movement, among them Rev. H. J. Jackson, of the Mansfield Avenue Methodist Church; Rev. William Lawrence, of the Independent Baptist Church; and Rev. John L. Withrow, of the Third Presbyterian Church. A committee waited on Archbishop Freehan to secure his indorsement of the movement. They took with them a copy of a book of Scriptural extracts, which read alike in both the King James and the Douay versions, used in the schools of Toronto, Canada, and asked the Archbishop if he would agree to such a compromise in Chicago schools. He replied that the conditions here were different and that he could not indorse the proposition. They called also on Rabbi Hersch, who refused to sign the petition and promised to give his reasons in writing. Some of the agitators are willing to select their quotations from the Old Testament only, in deference to the Jews. They go even further, and state that they are willing to confine the selections read, to the Proverbs, that both the Catholics and the Jews may be satisfied. No attention is paid to the views of infidels. Without doubt the majority of those who are agitating this question are actuated by the purest of motives. They see the moral degeneracy of the rising generation, and in casting about for a remedy they decide that the Bible read in the public schools is one, and not following the logic of the movement to its legitimate conclusion, they, with more heart than wisdom, enthusiastically set out to accomplish their object. That they are wofully in error concerning the province of civil government, is shown from the position taken by the president of the Union, in conversation with your correspondent. “I am opposed,” said she, “to teaching sectarianism in our public schools, but there is a national Christianity upon which all can agree. The Government establishes a standard of weights and measures, and for the same reason should establish a standard of religion.” Your correspondent is more than ever convinced that THE AMERICAN SENTINEL has entered upon its mission none too soon. These movements are but the vanguard of a large and rapidly organizing army, or as one of the editors of the Chicago Evening Journal stated it, “They are the ripples on the surface of a great sea.” We will speak of the agitation to close the World’s Fair on Sunday, in our next. He Tries to Fix It Up.
By W. A. Colcord
In a four-page leaflet entitled “Sunday Opening of the World’s Fair,” which Mr. Crafts has recently gotten out, he attempts to extract himself from the dilemma in which his Sunday-law theory involves him. When advocates of Sunday laws are informed that men are free to observe Sunday without Sunday laws, and hence, to enact such laws, for the purpose of giving men the privilege of keeping that day, is unnecessary, they feel that a damaging argument has been made against their Sunday-law-for-the-poor-laboring-man theory, and that it must in some way be fixed up. Mr. Crafts, it seems, has met with this argument, and hence, in his leaflet, he says:— If it be said that every man is at liberty not to work on Sunday, the answer is that the liberty is rather the liberty to give up his “job” when jobs are few and hard to get. He ought to give up his job rather than his conscience, but he ought not to be placed where he has to give up either. In reply to this it is necessary only to quote and carefully note Mr. Crafts’s own words in his work, “Sabbath for Man,” page 258. He here says:— It is not sufficiently emphasized that the Jew is left absolutely free to observe the seventh day. He can close his shop, he can refuse to work. Now, as every one knows, there is no seventh-day, or Saturday, law in this country; and yet Mr. Crafts says—and is correct in saying it—the Jew is left absolutely free to observe that day. All that is necessary for him to enjoy this freedom is that he have the privilege of closing his shop and refusing to work. Now, we ask, Cannot the Christian do the same, and be just as free to observe the day of his choice? Certainly. “He can close his shop, he can refuse to work.” This in the case of the Jew, according to Mr. Crafts, is absolute freedom. Are not the same privileges in the case of the Christian absolute freedom as well? And if so, is he not absolutely free to observe Sunday or any other day he may choose, and, consequently, in no more need of a Sunday law than the Jew is of a Saturday law? By refusing to work, the Jew may, of course, lose his “job;” yet he is “absolutely free to observe the seventh day.” Under such circumstances he will be obliged to decide between giving up his job or his conscience; still he is “absolutely free to observe the seventh day.” Now, who is not as free to observe the first day, or any other day, as the Jew is the seventh? He is absolutely free. What more than absolute freedom can any one ask? Says Mr. Crafts, “But he [every man] ought not to be placed where he must give up either” his job or his conscience. Will Mr. Crafts tell us, then, how he expects to fix things up so that the Jew will not be placed in just that position? The fact is, by this statement Mr. Crafts evidently means that the Sunday keeper ought not to be placed where he must give up either. But why discriminate thus, and legislate simply in favor of the Sunday keeper? Are the Sunday keepers the only ones entitled to the attention and protection of the Government? While protection of person and property is declared to be the paramount duty of government, it is a principle of this Government, and all good governments, that this shall be “impartial and complete;” that all laws of a general nature shall have “a uniform operation” they “shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens;” that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (See Constitutions of Georgia, Iowa, and the United States.) Are jobs any fewer or harder to get with the observer of Sunday than with the observer of the seventh day? Or is the conscience of one more sacred than that of the other? Manifestly, the making of such laws as Mr. Crafts would have enacted would be nothing more nor less than class legislation. The trouble with his whole argument and plea for a Sunday law for the working man is, it will not hold. Sunday laws are not made in the interest of the laboring man, neither are they wanted for the laboring man; they are religious laws, made in the interests of the Church. It is not the business of the Government to make laws to prevent a man, in living up to his convictions of religious duty, from being brought into a place where he must decide between giving up his job or332his conscience. Such laws, if made to apply equally to all, would require every man to shape his business affairs to suit the religious convictions of every other man, which would be an impossibility. If limited to a certain class they would be unjust, and would result in religious intolerance and oppression. Why should not the observer of Sunday be allowed to exercise his conscience as well as other men? What is his conscience for? Why should the Government see that he is shielded from pecuniary loss in following out his religious convictions, and not other citizens who may observe some other day in compliance with their religious views? If the Government undertakes to protect one class in this way upon this ground, it is bound, in dealing equally with all, to protect every other class in the same way upon the same ground. This, however, would be an undertaking implying, as we have seen, an utter impossibility in its adjustments. And such an undertaking is not contemplated by Mr. Crafts and his coadjutors. It is simply the observer of Sunday they propose now to relieve from making a choice between violating conscience and losing cash. We wonder if they never read the passage which speaks “of the trial of your faith being much more precious than of gold”? It would seem that they did not wish any one’s faith in Sunday keeping tried. They would want the Sunday keeper “carried to the skies on flowery beds of ease,” and let others get along as best they can. Our opinion of any Sunday keeping that comes from such inducements as this, is, that it will not count for much at the great tribunal above. If this be true, Sunday laws are not only superfluous in this world, but will insure no one a passport to the world to come, in which case Mr. Crafts might as well go home and hang up his “Damascus saw.” The proper solution of this question is, to let every man observe whatever day his religious convictions dictate, and whatever inconvenience or pecuniary loss this may cause him is a sacrifice he makes to his religion, and one which he should make and not another. For any one to seek to evade this is for him to ask that another bear the crosses of his religion, a thing which no true Christian will do. If a man wishes to observe Sunday, he must not engage in business or hire himself out to an employer requiring Sunday work. And every man is free not to do this. If the Government provides that one man must not be refused work or be discharged because he keeps Sunday, then, upon the ground of equality, it must likewise provide that no other man shall be refused work or discharged who keeps any other day. But how many Sunday-keeping merchants, bankers, and business men, would submit to a law compelling them to retain any employes who might turn Mohammedan and keep Friday, or seventh-day observer and keep Saturday? This shows the injustice of such a demand. The man who wishes to keep Friday must not engage in business requiring Friday work; the man who chooses to keep Saturday must not engage in business requiring Saturday work; and, likewise, the man who desires to keep Sunday must not engage in business requiring Sunday work. If he does, he alone is responsible for the use he makes of the day. Let this rule be carried out, and there will be no difficulty, no class legislation, no injustice, and no one’s rights infringed, in the matter. Religious profession and practice will be free, and capital and labor will stand upon an equal footing. May the State Rightfully Prohibit Polygamy?
By Frank William Howe
There are many people who oppose polygamy on what are commonly called moral grounds, but who are quite uncertain just how to frame their objection so as to justify the Government in suppressing it. They are conscientiously opposed to it, and yet cannot quite satisfy those same consciences that the State has an indisputable right to prohibit the institution. In other words, they are assured that polygamy is morally wrong, but feel unable to point out the exact basis on which the civil power may rightfully prevent or rectify this wrong. As it was in the days of slavery, so is it in these latter days in respect to the general uncertainty of opinion as to the right of Government to correct acknowledged and widely-extended evils. And as in those days the time came when men were obliged to take a positive stand, so the time now is when every intelligent man and woman should have clear-cut opinions upon this question. Some have already taken their position, and would seek to defend governmental interference with polygamy on the ground that the institution is disgraceful, and opposed to the spirit of progress and civilization. Others, more radical, would justify the State in prohibiting it on the specific ground that it is an absolute moral wrong. It may be freely granted that the objections of both of these classes appear to be direct and natural; but it is not so apparent that these objections are sufficiently strong in those characteristics which properly give it jurisdiction, to justify the Government in interfering with polygamy. The first objection is itself objectionable for the reason that it is too vague and irrelevant; the same theory would require the State to prohibit the use of tobacco on the ground that it also is a relapse into barbarism. There is no such thing as a spirit of progress of sufficient legal proportions to justify Government in interfering with what are held to be the private rights of conscience. The sooner men disabuse themselves of this idea, the fewer will be the evils arising from too much government. The same objection, in general, applies to the position of the second class of objectors to polygamy; though their argument deserves a more specific refutation. That a certain practice is absolutely wrong morally, is not an adequate reason why civil government should prohibit it. The prohibition must be made for other reasons, if the State maintains individual personal rights. Civil government can know no moral right or wrong; it takes cognizance of only civility and incivility, since it cannot look into the inner secret motives of an individual. This view is strongly opposed by a large number of people who would be pleased to see the Government made333sponsor for the moral and religious training of the individual; but that is only an additional reason why all patriotic citizens should be intelligent upon such questions as the subject of this paper. An act may be morally wrong, a sin, and yet be civilly permissible or it may be morally right, and yet civilly wrong and a crime. Any thinking person can readily suggest to himself numerous examples of each class of acts, or of the same act as being determined in each of these classes under differing circumstances. The sole distinction lies in those elements which characterize, or do not characterize, the act as a proper subject of governmental control. The State cannot know the individual motives to an action,—except as they may possibly be indicated by other acts—and hence it cannot judge of the absolute morality of a particular act or system of practice, nor pass prohibitive enactments based upon such judgments. The State is constrained by the impossibility of determining real moral conduct, and by the very spirit of free government. The originative principles of our republican system are expressed in assertions of these inalienable rights of the individual to be free from civil dictation in certain clearly defined particulars; and our Constitution specially and emphatically prohibits the Government from touching him in any of those relations which properly exist between man and his Creator, exclusively. No apology can be offered for reiterating and defending these principles were it not so popular, in many circles of society, to give at least a tacit acceptance to the growing theocratic and paternal idea in Government. The subject should be timely to every citizen who has not yet scrutinized his opinion upon it. But it cannot be concealed that polygamy is an institution which our Nation would gladly be rid of. Indeed, we are placed already—by the suppressive policy of the Government—under the logical necessity of offering a valid defense of our present national enactments against it. The ground of mere expediency is insufficient and unjustifiable. Is there, then, a highway along which the State may proceed, with honor to itself and justice to all its subjects, in sweeping this evil from our land? May the State rightfully prohibit polygamy? It is believed that there are consistent and just reasons why it should and must do so, and that the following paragraphs answer the question affirmatively. Marriage is a civil institution. It is divine only in the sense that it was instituted by the Creator, and is the expression of his will concerning the relation of man and woman as parents. It has this significance to all who believe in the obligation to obey the will of God as indicated in revelation, regardless of any constraint or liberty which the State may allow. But all do not recognize divine obligation, and it is the province of the State to compel men to be civil who will not voluntarily be moral. It is in this consideration that marriage is a purely civil institution, for the State cannot touch it in its divine relations. No interference or regulation can properly come to it from Government except through the channel of a strictly secular policy. This civil control must be wholly in the line of protection to the rights of the individual and of the State. In this matter, as in all others, the State cannot go into the realm of morals unless the moral act of an offender constitutes a crime, by infringing the civil rights of others. Even then, to be more accurate, the State does not overstep its own limits of rightful authority, but the criminal himself brings his act within the domain of proper civil jurisdiction. With these principles constantly recognized, the exact civil status of marriage can be unmistakably ascertained. The rights of marriage are natural and inalienable; and the individual cannot be deprived of them by another, nor by the Government, except as punishment for crime. The individual may not choose to assume these rights, or the despotic power of society, of parents, or of the State, may invade them; but when once acquired they cannot be destroyed, or surrendered, so that they no longer exist as rights. But polygamy, as practiced in our country, does interfere with these rights of the wife. The woman who must share the marriage relation with several other wives of the same husband certainly is not protected in her rights to the same degree that he is. Polygyny thrives only in conditions that assume the inferiority of women, and ought not to be tolerated for a moment in a government founded upon the equal rights of mankind. Our Government does guarantee this equality of rights to all its law-abiding subjects, and ought, therefore, to impose the same marital restrictions upon man as upon woman; and upon a man in one district of its domain the same restrictions that it imposes upon all other men in all other districts. It is a disgrace to the basic principles of our Government—rather, it is a cowardly abandonment of them—that the State did not long ago recognize its duty to suppress polygamy. But it may be asked, May the Government rightfully interfere in a community in which all the parties have voluntarily accepted the polygamous relation; where each wife freely consents to surrender the major part of her rights? To this it should be answered that the State cannot recognize any such surrender. To every citizen the State guarantees personal liberty in all things which do not infringe the equal rights of others. Personal liberty means freedom of choice in the pursuit of happiness. A man might voluntarily attempt to sell himself into irredeemable slavery, but if the deed should be accomplished, his freedom again to choose liberty would be gone; so the State sanctions no such surrender of the natural rights of the individual. That they are, indeed, incapable of being surrendered, is expressed in the fact that they are inalienable rights. The same protective principle which punishes the murderer also restrains the suicide. The Government can permit no violation of natural rights, whether the danger comes from inward consent or outward compulsion. Indeed, in the case of polygamy, a first wife might readily be forced to give a legal consent to the subsequent marriage of her husband with others. In justice to all, the State must prohibit relations which can exist only with violence to human rights. But again, it may be questioned, ought the civil power to interfere with a practice which is held as a religious right or duty? In the light of preceding principles, the answer should be direct and positive. Government cannot know the inner motive of an act, be it religious or otherwise; and certainly it cannot allow an avowedly conscientious motive to justify an act infringing others' rights, without throwing down all restraint to license of every description. Even if it were possible for human government to discriminate infallibly between hypocrisy and genuineness, it could execute no law based upon this faculty except by favoring one class of individuals above all others, and for religious reasons. This is not only contrary to the genius of our Constitution, but would result in the speedy annihilation of all just government. The only safe principle, both for the State and for the individual, is that which gives the civil authority jurisdiction over every act which constitutes a civil offense to the rights of all. The rights of conscience are never violated by a government which confines its operations strictly within this distinctly bounded sphere. The State long ago very properly assumed the regulation of monogamous marriage, insisting that it shall not be temporary, but permanent; both to preserve to each the individual rights of the parties entering into it, and to place upon them the responsibility of supporting their offspring. Any other course would inevitably impose upon the State the care of numerous minor subjects whose parentage would necessarily remain in legal uncertainty. The result would be the same if polygamy—which actually includes polyandry as well as polygyny—were legalized in our country. This were a consummation devoutly to be deprecated by all moral men; and all should unite in opposing the least introduction to its possibility, on the purely civil ground that it would impose upon the whole people burdens which parents alone should bear. So it may be clearly seen that, in every334phase, this disgraceful institution is more than a menace to the perpetuation of rightful civil authority. The ground of objection to it is as broad and solid as our Constitution. Our present national policy toward polygamy ought to be a source of gratification to every lover of government which conserves the inalienable rights of man.