p * 
 
 s»° of 4c fe ".' 
 
 &> * * o 9 *$ v ©^ * # 
 
 .a. v. «p 
 
 
 .0" 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 "^rtf 
 
 
 -o5'^ 
 
 «4- 
 
 ft Or # 
 
 <2. 
 
 *r^. a"* *• 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^ ^ • St 
 
 • O o * % *'?»^? / *«, *:^ 
 
 
 
 
A.V \L,/>*> > 
 
 <■> v • * * ° 
 
 - ****** .-isSfefc W 
 
 ' ^ v 
 
 
 
 •- *w °*^w- ^ oV v 
 
 
 y** i 
 
 iP vL*^'* > 
 
 
 • / % •???»:.• / %. --.sir.- y 
 
 "oV* 
 
 <• *** V 
 
 
 
 **•<* 
 
 
 \s 
 
 
 t^^ n '-^lEiill^* A>*^ 
 
 v ^ *;t?t* .a. <• 
 
 * * \ 
 
 
 
 
 ^Cr 
 
 <?. ♦o*©' .^, 
 
 
 *bV 
 
 
 y o> r 
 
 >0 
 
 ,4q 
 
 
 %f 
 

f 
 
 CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE REPUBLIC. 
 
 BLAIR AMENDMENT TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 
 
 Too many amendments to the Constitution are contemplated, 
 and it is not clear that too many have not already been made. 
 
 The first eight amendments, which may be called the Nation- 
 al Bill of Rights, were of doubtful necessity or utility. Alex- 
 ander Hamilton who, on account of his consummate wisdom, 
 and because of his tact and skill in carrying the grand work 
 through some of its most difficult stages, has been called "the 
 Father of the Constitution," thought, that as the very purpose 
 of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty, 
 this declaration was a better recognition of popular rights than 
 that contained in the elaborate declaration of rights in every 
 State Constitution. The same idea is embodied in the reason 
 given in "The Federalist," why the Constitution had not given 
 a bill of rights; because the reservation of powers without a 
 bill of rights, was larger than a reservation of powers with 
 a bill of rights. 
 
 Several of the States however, were fearful that too much 
 power would be claimed and exercised by the new government 
 which was being formed. They insisted upon amendments, 
 which should guard the rights of the States and of the people 
 against encroachments of federal power. Such amendments 
 were proposed by several of the States, and though they were 
 not made conditional to the ratification of the Constitution, 
 there was a general understanding that those of them which 
 were considered of most importance, would be adopted. 
 
 (141) 
 
^ 
 
 -3 
 
 142 The Chicago Law Times. 
 
 In New York, au effort was made to make the amendments 
 conditional, and was only defeated by a vote of 31 to 27. 
 
 After the first eight amendments, constituting- the Bill of 
 Eights, had been tacitly agreed upon, it was feared that the 
 very adoption of these might raise an implication that they 
 contained all that the people would insist upon as against the 
 Government; hence a ninth was thought necessary, as follows: 
 
 "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be con- 
 strued to deny or disparage others retained by the people." 
 
 To this was added a tenth, as follows: 
 
 "The powers not granted to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
 prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to 
 the people." 
 
 These ten amendments were, at various times, from 1789 to 
 1791 ,adopted in a body. 
 
 The eleventh Amendment was occasioned by the decision of 
 the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Chis- 
 holm, Exr. v. Georgia, 2 Dallas' Rep. p. 419. 
 
 This was a suit brought by a citizen of South Carolina 
 aeainst the State of Georgia; and the question was, whether 
 the Supreme Court had jurisdiction in case of a suit brought 
 against a State by a citizen of another State. 
 
 The question was argued at the February Term, 1793, and 
 decided by five judges to one, in favor of the jurisdiction. 
 
 The decision caused a good deal of excitement. Hence the 
 Eleventh Amendment, as follows: 
 
 "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend 
 to any suit in law or equity, commenoed or prosecuted against one of the 
 United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any 
 foreign State." 
 
 This was proposed by Congress in 1794, and was declared in 
 force January 8, 1798. 
 
 The occasion of the Twelfth Amendment was, the bitter 
 struggle in Congress to determine who should be President, 
 after the presidential election of 1800. The excitement which 
 had been caused by the long contest in the House, resulting in 
 the election of Jefferson, had made apparent the necessity of a 
 change in the mode of electing President. 
 
Conspiracy against the Republic. 143 
 
 The Amendment was proposed December 12, 1803, and pro- 
 claimed September 25, 1804. 
 
 Then eame a long period of quiet so far as constitutional 
 changes were concerned; a quiet which lasted over sixty years. 
 Not until about the close of the civil war was there any fur- 
 ther amendment. 
 
 The Thirteenth Amendment, proclaimed ratified, in Decem- 
 ber, 1865, declared that neither slavery nor involuntary servi- 
 tude, except as a punishment for crime, should exist within 
 the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 
 
 The word slave was not in the Constitution, and though 
 slavery existed in this country when the Constitution was 
 formed, it was expected that the Slave States would soon adopt 
 measures looking toward gradual emancipation. The incon- 
 sistency of slavery with the fundamental law, was felt and fre- 
 quently adverted to. By general consent the Constitution was 
 so framed that when slavery should be abolished, the charter of 
 •our government would be found perfectly adapted to the new 
 order of things, and posterity would look in vain into the 
 Constitution for any evidence that such a system as slavery had 
 existed. 
 
 Such being the case, the Thirteenth Amendment, except as 
 a sanction of the Emancipation Proclamation rendered necessa- 
 ry by the war, and as a guaranty that it should be carried into 
 effect, would not have been necessary. 
 
 The suffrage amendments introduced a new departure in the 
 relation of the States to the general government. 
 
 The theory of our government in its organization was, that 
 the regulation of the suffrage and the conditions upon which 
 it should be exercised, should, with certain exceptions, be left 
 to the control of the States. In each State the citizen may 
 contend and justly contend that suffrage is a right of citizen- 
 ship ; that as a citizen of the State he is entitled to the suffrage 
 as a matter of right, subject to uniform regulations in common 
 with other citizens. But this contention is between him and 
 the State government; between him and the electors in his 
 own State. As a citizen of the United States, all the right he 
 had, previous to the war, in regard to the suffrage, was, to 
 
144 J 1 }^ Chicago Law Times. 
 
 claim the benefit of the second section of the fourth Article 
 of the Constitution, and the right, under the second section of 
 the first Article, to vote for Congressmen. 
 
 The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, having been 
 adopted as a part of the reconstruction measures rendered nec- 
 essary by the war, introduced a radical change in this respect 
 in our form of government. The Fourteenth, declared ratified 
 in the summer of 1868, prescribes a penalty for denying the 
 suffrage to certain classes of citizens, while the Fifteenth, pro- 
 claimed in March, 1870, substantially guaranties the elective 
 franchise to those classes in all the States, at all general elec- 
 tions, State as well as national. 
 
 From this brief history of the amendments made up to the 
 present time, it will sufficiently appear that the first ten were 
 substantially a part of the original Constitution, while the 
 last five have been made to meet certain exigencies in the his- 
 tory and administration of the government. 
 
 The civil war rendered necessary the exercise of extraordina-' 
 ry powers on the part of the general government, for its own 
 preservation. But it did not entirely change our form of gov- 
 ernment, nor did it destroy the autonomy of the Southern 
 States. Their continued existence as States was implied in the 
 very term "reconstruction." 
 
 No Eepublic with a single government — what may be called 
 a centralized republic — has ever endured for any considerable 
 period of time, except San Marino, a Republic of 22 square 
 miles in extent, and containing about eight thousand inhabi- 
 tants; and no federative or non-centralized republic has en- 
 dured for any great length of time ; those now in existence be- 
 ing all of comparatively recent formation. 
 
 The republican form of government is, therefore, still upon 
 trial. 
 
 Of the federative republics which have perished, the two 
 most notable examples have been, the Grecian States under 
 the Achaian League, and the Hanseatic Federation. While 
 other things contributed to the downfall of these republics, no 
 candid inquirer can fail to come to the conclusion that one 
 of the most potent causes was the difficulty of maintaining 
 
Conspiracy against the Republic. 145 
 
 a proper balance of power between the general and local gov- 
 ernments. 
 
 The Fathers of our Republic studied carefully this balance of 
 power, and guided by the light of history, they placed such 
 safeguards against encroachments of federal jurisdiction on the 
 one hand, and against usurpation of power by the States on 
 the other, that the mixed government thus established has, for 
 a hundred years, commanded the respect and admiration of 
 the world. There is every reason to believe that the perpe- 
 tuity of the Republic depends largely upon the preservation of 
 this balance of power. 
 
 To say that the Federal Government is one of delegated 
 powers, is simply to repeat what every student well under- 
 stands. But the powers of the State Government are inherent 
 in the people of the State, and in the State Legislature, as 
 representing the people. There are certain limitations placed 
 upon the exercise of that power. Some of these limitations 
 have been established by the people of the United States in the 
 Federal Constitution — some by the people of the State in the 
 State Constitution — others necessarily result from a republican 
 form of government. But within these limitations the States 
 are sovereign. They possess what has been well designated by 
 jurists as quasi-sovereignty : while as to foreign States or com- 
 munities, the people of the United States, represented by the 
 Federal Government, constitute the State. 
 
 This State sovereignty, except as limited in the manner de- 
 scribed, should be sacredly respected. It is just as dangerous 
 for the Federal Government to. encroach upon the rights of the 
 States as it would be for the States to usurp the power of the 
 general Government. Every disturbance of this balance of 
 power is fraught with danger to our institutions. 
 
 The motto of Illinois is, "State Sovereignty— National Un- 
 ion." But the States can maintain their sovereignty only by 
 acting in concert. Let, therefore, the motto of Kentucky be 
 added, "United we stand — divided we fall." 
 
 Every amendment to the Constitution is a change in our form 
 of government; and every change tending to the centralization 
 of power, is a blow at the liberties of the people. Under our 
 
146 The Chicago Law Times. 
 
 form of government, the rights and liberties of the citizens can 
 only be preserved by maintaining the rights of the States. 
 Let the people once become habituated to surrendering the 
 rights of their States to the general Government, and they will 
 soou reconcile themselves to the surrender to the same power, 
 of their rights as individuals. 
 
 The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, taking jurisdic- 
 tion over subjects which, under our system of government, 
 were, with the exceptions stated, under the control of the 
 States, could only be justified by the condition of the country 
 after the war, and should not be regarded as precedents for the 
 still further derangement of our federative system. 
 
 The Blair Amendment, proposed in a time of profound peace, 
 is a plain encroachment upon the rights of the States, and is 
 not called for by any such emergency as gave rise to the other 
 amendments. The right to legislate upon the subject of ed- 
 ucation, is in that vast reservoir of rights which are reserved to 
 the States, not only by the 10th Amendment but by our very 
 form of government. 
 
 The original Constitution gave to Congress no power over 
 the subject of religion or of education. The Blair Amendment 
 proposes for the first time to give Congress such power. 
 Where is this encroachment upon the rights of the States to 
 stop? 
 
 The joint resolution introduced by Senator Blair, proposing 
 his Amendment, provides, that 
 
 "Each State in this Union shall establish and maintain a system of free 
 public schools adequate for the education of all the children living therein, 
 between the ages of six and sixteen years, inclusive, in the common 
 branches of knowledge, and in virtue, morality, and the principles of the 
 Christian religion." 
 
 What are the principles of the Christian religion? If the 
 question could be determined by reference to the teachings of 
 Christ, there would be less difficulty attending the matter. 
 But Jesus had far less to do in establishing the Christian religion 
 than Paul ; and Paul said, "If any one preach any other gospel 
 unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." 
 Is this one of the principles of the Christian religion? It was 
 the hypocrites whom Jesus denounced ; but Paul denounced also 
 
Conspiracy against the Republic. 147 
 
 those who honestly differed with him in opinion. 
 
 In some respects Paul was one of the most remarkable men 
 that ever lived. In his moments of enthusiasm and of spiritual 
 exaltation, he gave forth some of the grandest utterances re- 
 corded in the pages of history. Nevertheless he was a persecu- 
 tor, by temperament and practice. Before his conversion he 
 had persecuted the Christians, making havoc of the church, 
 entering into every house, haling men and women, and com- 
 mitting them to prison, (Acts 8. 3), pursuing them relentless- 
 ly, even unto death. (Acts 2b\ 10.) 
 
 There is sufficient reason to believe that in this respect his 
 nature, after conversion, was essentially the same as before. 
 He hurls his anathema at heretics, not only in the passage cited, 
 (Gal. 1. 8, 9), but in various others. In 1 Cor. 16. 22, he 
 says, "If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him 
 be anathema maran-atha." In 2 Thess. 1. 8, he pictures the 
 Lord Jesus as "taking vengeance" on those who obey not his 
 gospel. In 1 Tim. 1. 20, he says that Hymeneus and Alexan- 
 der, who had departed from the faith, he had "delivered unto 
 Satan." In 2 Tim. 4. 14: "Alexander the coppersmith did me 
 much evil; the Lord reward him according to his works." In 
 Titus 1. 11, referring to those in the church who were unruly, 
 and vain talkers and deceivers, he declares that their "mouths 
 must be stopped," and in Galatians, 5. 12, he says, "7 would 
 they were even cat of, who trouble you." 
 
 An attempt has been made to break the force of this passage, 
 by claiming that the apostle meant only that the offenders 
 should be cut off from the church ; but that he had power to di- 
 rect. This is something which he "would" could be done. 
 The Greek verb is apokopsontai, from kopto, "to strike, smite, 
 cut." Apokopto, "to cut off, to hew off." It is manifest 
 that the words "I would that they were even cut off," had 
 a deeper significance than mere expulsion from the church, com- 
 ing as they did, from one who had been accustomed to perse- 
 cute even unto death, those holding a different religious faith 
 from his own. 
 
 This disposition of Paul must have been well understood by 
 the author of the story related in Acts 13. 8-11, where the 
 
148 The Chicago Law Times. 
 
 apostle is represented as punishing with blindness that "child 
 of the devil," Elymas, who withstood Paul, seeking to turn 
 away the deputy from the faith. 
 
 The inquisition, which did its bloody work for so many hun- 
 dred years, like every thing else, had a cause. It found at 
 least some excuse in the fierce denunciations of heretics by 
 Paul, and in the reported killing of Ananias and Sapphira 
 at the word of Peter. As late as the middle of the present 
 century, an approved Catholic historian commented upon this 
 transaction in the following - terms : 
 
 "The sudden death with which they [Ananias and Sapphira] were smitten 
 at the feet of the prince of the apostles, demonstrated to the faithful, that 
 they could not with impunity deceive the ministers of the Lord." — (Darras, 
 Hist. Cath. Ch. vol. 1, p. 31.) 
 
 The History of the Church by Darras, was indorsed by Pope 
 Pius IX, August 8, 1855. 
 
 The inquisition found still further support in a document 
 in general circulation in the early ages of the church, and then 
 considered of high authority. It was called the Epistle of 
 Clement to James; and a translation of it may be found in the 
 1.7th volume of the Ante-Mcene Christian Library. 
 
 In this epistle Clement describes his ordination. He says 
 
 when Peter was about to die, the brethren being assembled, 
 
 (at Rome), he laid his hands on Clement, as the Bishop, and 
 
 communicated to him the power of binding and loosing, etc., 
 
 and as to him who should grieve the President of the truth, 
 
 after declaring that such a one sins against Christ, and offends 
 
 the Father of all, Peter proceeded as follows: 
 
 "Wherefore, he shall not live : and therefore it becomes him who presides, 
 to hold the place of a physician ; and not to cherish the rage of an irration- 
 al beast." 
 
 When, afterward, the Church, having grown strong and 
 dominant, found itself possessed of civil power, or safe from in- 
 terference, what more natural than that it should undertake to 
 rid itself of those making trouble in the church by employing 
 the means for which it found such sanction? 
 
 The Spanish inquisition of the 15th century was the successor 
 of the Dominican inquisition of the 13th century. This in 
 its turn was the legitimate outgrowth of the papal and episcopal 
 
Conspiracy against the Republic. 149 
 
 persecutions of the preceding ages, which had been continued, 
 with but little interruption from the edict of Constantine in 
 316, against the Donatists, and that of Theodosius, in 382, 
 against the Manichaaans, who were punished with confiscation 
 and death. Thus has persecution been a handmaid of the 
 Church for fourteen hundred years, commencing at a period 
 but little removed from the time of the apostles. No other re- 
 ligion, in the history of the world, has been attended with 
 so much persecution. 
 
 Nor has it been confined to the Roman Catholic Church. 
 Nearly every sect of the Christian religion has sought to defend 
 and strengthen itself by persecution, whenever it has found it- 
 self armed with the sword of civil authority. The bloody per- 
 secutions of the Catholics by Protestants in Great Britain and 
 elsewhere, are well known to every student of history. Equal- 
 ly well known are the persecutions of the Baptists, Quakers 
 and others in this country. 
 
 Among the laws of Connecticut of 1650, are the following: 
 
 "If any man or woman be a Witch, that is, hath or consultcth with, a fa- 
 milliar spiritt, they shall be put to death." — (Exodus 22. 18, Levit. 20. 27, 
 Deut. 18. 10, 11.) 
 
 "If any man after legal conviction, shall have or worship any other God 
 than the Lord God, bee shall bee put to death;'— (Deut. 13. 6—17. 2, Ex. 
 22. 20.) 
 
 Among the laws of Massachusetts (General Laws of Ply- 
 mouth, published in 1658), is one reciting that "of late time the 
 Quakers have bine furnished with horses, and therby they have 
 not onely the more speedy passage from place to place, to 
 the poisoning of the inhabitants with theire cursed tenetts, 
 but alsoe therby have escaped the hands of the officers that 
 might otherwise have apprehended them;" it was therefore en- 
 acted that the horses furnished them or which were brought in- 
 to the country by them should be forfeited to the Government. 
 — (Brigham's Compact etc. of New Plymouth, Boston, 1836, 
 p. 127.) 
 
 If any person should permit a meeting of Quakers in his 
 house, he was to be publicly whipped, or pay £5. — (Ibid. p. 
 131.) 
 
 The ministry were supported by taxation. — (Ibid. p. 186.) 
 
150 The Chicago Law Times. 
 
 The following may be taken as a specimen of the laws en- 
 acted under a religious rule: 
 
 If any man had a stubborn or rebellious son 16 years or more 
 of age, he or the mother could bring him before the magistrates, 
 and "such a son shall be put to death." — (Deut. 21. 20, 21.) 
 See Conn. Blue Laws of 1650. 
 
 Here was a cruel and inhuman enactment of a distant land, 
 thousands of years old, brought to this country and put into 
 the form of law, because it was found within the lids of a re- 
 ligious book. Could any thing more vividly illustrate the 
 danger of religious legislation? And having once accomplished 
 the divorce of Church and State, shall we now take the back 
 track, with such beacon warnings before us? 
 
 In the "Establishment of Civil Government by the free 
 planters of the Colony of New Haven," June 4, 1639, it was 
 enacted, 
 
 "That Church Members only shall be free Burgesses, and they only shall 
 chuse magistrates," etc. — (Conn. Code of 1650, p. 18.) 
 
 What guaranty have we that this law of suffrage will not 
 be re-enacted, if the Church gets control of the State? 
 
 That we have no such guaranty is manifest. Listen to an 
 exponent of the national reform religion, writing in the Chris- 
 tian Statesman of November 1, 1883: 
 
 "What effect would the adoption of the Christian Amendment, together 
 with the proposed changes in the Constitution, have upon those who deny 
 that God is the- Sovereign, Christ the Euler, and the Bible the law? This 
 brings up the conscience question at once. * * The classes who would 
 object are, as 'Truth Seeker' has said, Jews, infidels, atheists and others. 
 These classes are perfectly satisfied with the Constitution as it is. How 
 would they stand toward it. if it recognized the authority of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ? To be perfectly plain, I believe that the existence of a 
 Christian Constitution would disfranchise every logically consistent infi- 
 del." 
 
 In the Statesman of February 21, 1884, Mr. J. C. K. Milligan, 
 writing upon the same subject said : "The worst result will be 
 to disfranchise them." 
 
 Those who are endeavoring to establish a National religion, 
 do not admit that they are working for a union of Church and 
 State, but at the same time they advocate the supremacy of 
 the Church over the State. They avow their purpose to bring 
 
Conspiracy against the Republic. 151 
 
 the whole land under the control of a religion the principles of 
 which would have to be authoritatively determined. 
 
 President Seelye, of Amherst College, in an article published 
 in the "Forum," for July, 1886, entitled, "Should the State 
 teach Religion?" (a question which he answers in the affirma- 
 tive), after stating that religious instruction of a people is 
 indispensable, and that the family would not and could not 
 provide it, also that "the Church is confessedly not doing this 
 work, and unless you give it the ubiquity and power of the 
 State, the Church neither will nor can do it," said : 
 
 "The State should provide for instruction in the Gospels for its own pre- 
 servation; if the conscience of its subjects approve, well ; if not. the State 
 will be cautious, but courageous also, and if it is wise, it will not falter." 
 
 The word "subjects" was well chosen by President Seelye to 
 designate the citizens of a free country, whom he proposes 
 to bring under his religio-political despotism. 
 ~ In a speech in Kansas City, Sam Small, a prominent worker 
 in this movement, said : 
 
 "I want to see the day come when the Church shall be the arbiter of all 
 legislation, State, National and municipal; when the great churches of the 
 country can come together harmoniously and issue their edict, and the 
 legislative powers will respect it and enact it into laws." 
 
 In March, 1884, Rev. J. W. Foster, in the columns of the 
 Christian Statesman, said: 
 
 "According to the Scriptures, the State and its sphere exist for the sake 
 of and to serve the interests of the Church. * * The expenses of the 
 Church in carrying on her public aggressive work, it meets in whole or in 
 part out of the public treasury.'" 
 
 What is this in fact but a union of Church and State, ex- 
 cept that the Church instead of the State is to be in the as- 
 cendency? The change of conditions would be far from being 
 an improvement. 
 
 The editor of the Statesman does not advocate' union of 
 Church and State; but says: 
 
 "It is the duty of the State, as such, to enter into alliance with the Church 
 of Christ, and to profess, adhere to, defend and maintain the true religion." 
 
 The spirit of the inquisition is not yet extinct, nor are its 
 methods entirely foreign to the purposes of many of those en- 
 gaged in this religious crusade against the Constitution. Their 
 
152 The Chicago Law Times. 
 
 hearts are filled with bitterness and hatred toward those who 
 differ with them in opinion in religions matters. They would 
 fain strike them to the earth as Peter was supposed to have 
 struck Ananias and Sapphira. 
 
 Rev. E. B. Graham, one of the Vice Presidents of the Na- 
 tional Reform Association, an organization whose special ob- 
 ject is to secure an amendment to the Constitution, making 
 Christianity the national religion, said in an address delivered 
 at York, Nebraska, reported in the Christian Statesman of 
 May 21, 1885: 
 
 "If the opponents of the bible do not like our government and its Chris- 
 tian features, let them go to some wild, desolate land, and in the name of 
 the devil, and for the sake of the devil, subdue it, and set up a government 
 of their own on infidel and atheistic ideas; and then if they can stand it, 
 stay there till they die." 
 
 At Lake Side, Ohio, in August, 1887, Dr. McAllister said: 
 
 "Those who oppose this work now will discover, when the religious 
 
 amendment is made to the Constitution, that if they do not see fit to fall in 
 
 with the majority, they must abide the consequences, or seek some more 
 
 congenial clime." 
 
 In a speech in a Convention of the same National Reform 
 Association, held in New York, in February, 1873, Rev. Jona- 
 than Edwards, D. D., said: 
 
 "We want State and religion — and we are going to have it. It shall be 
 that so far as the affairs of State require religion, it shall be revealed re- 
 ligion, the religion of Jesus Christ. * * * The atheist is a dangerous 
 man. * * Tolerate atheism, Sir! There is nothing out of hell I would 
 not tolerate as soon. * * Atheism and Christianity are contradictory 
 terms. They are incompatible systems. They cannot dwell together on 
 the same continent." 
 
 The spirit here exhibited is the same as that which left its 
 footprints in the "Blue Laws" of several of the American 
 Colonies. It is inherited from the inquisition, and turns for its 
 justification or excuse to the teachings of those who founded 
 the Christian religion. 
 
 Those animated by this spirit, can even coolly contemplate 
 the contingency of a war, to be prosecuted for the establish- 
 ment of the Christian Religion. Said Rev. M. A. Gault, in the 
 Statesman of April 1, 1886, "It cost us all our civil war to 
 blot slavery out of our Constitution, and it may cost us another 
 
Conspiracy against the Republic. 153 
 
 war to blot out its infidelity." 
 
 In reference to this phase of the subject, a timely warning 
 was given by Mr. Abbott, editor of the Index, in a protest 
 against the movement, which he was permitted to present at 
 the National Convention of the National Reform Association, 
 held in Cincinnati in 1872: He said: 
 
 "I make no threat whatever, but I state a truth fixed as the hills when I 
 say, that before you can carry this measure and trample on the freedom of 
 the people, you will have to wade through seas of blood. Every man who 
 favors it votes to precipitate the most frightful war of modern times." 
 
 To accomplish their purpose, the fanatics who are engaged 
 in this enterprise, are willing to unite with those whom they 
 and their ancestors have been abusing for centuries — the Ro- 
 man Catholics. 
 
 "Whenever" said the Christian Statesman of Dec. 11, 1884, 
 "they [the Roman Catholics] are willing to co-operate in resist- 
 ing the political progress of atheism, we will gladly join hands 
 with them."' 
 
 In the Statesman of August 31, 1881, Rev. Sylvester F. 
 Scovel said: 
 
 "We may be subjected to some rebuffs in our first proffers, and the time 
 has not yet come when the Roman Church will consent to strike hands 
 with other churches as such; but the time has come to make repeated ad- 
 vances, and gladly to accept co-operation in any form in which they may 
 be willing to exhibit it. It is one of the necessities of the situation." 
 
 Said Dr. A. A. Hodge, of Princeton, in an article in the 
 Princeton Review, for January, 1887 : 
 
 "All we have to do is for Catholics and Protestants— disciples of a com- 
 mon master — to come to a common understanding with respect to a com- 
 mon basis of what is received as general Christianity; a practical quantity 
 of truth belonging equally to both sides, to be recognized in general legis- 
 lation, and especially in the literature and teaching of our public schools." 
 
 Said the Christian Union, of the 26th of January, 1888: 
 
 "It is quite possible that the time may come when the real issue will be 
 between the theist and the atheist. * * Whenever that time comes, the 
 Protestant and the Catholic will stand side by side in a common defense 
 of those common beliefs which have been their mutual possession these 
 many centuries." 
 
 At the Saratoga National Reform meeting, August 1.0-17,. 
 
154 The Chicago Law Times. 
 
 1887, a motion was adopted requesting- the National Reform 
 Association to undertake to secure a basis of agreement with the 
 Roman Catholic authorities. And these newly made friends 
 are already working together in Washington, to forward the 
 religious legislation there pending. 
 
 Now who are the atheists, who, by this grand religio-politi- 
 cal combination of orthodox Protestants and Roman Catholics, 
 are to be driven from the country? 
 
 Cousin, the eclectic philosopher, maintains, with a good deal 
 
 of force, that properly speaking, there cannot be, in the last 
 
 analysis, any such thing as atheism. He says: 
 
 "It is sufficient for you to have the idea of the imperfect and the finite- 
 in order to have the idea of the infinite and the perfect, that is of God ; 
 though you may not thus name him ; though you may be able to express in 
 words the spontaneous convictions of your intelligence, or for want of 
 language and analysis, they may remain obscure and indistinct in the 
 depths of your soul." — (Hist. Mod. Philosophy, vol. 2, p. 420.) 
 
 This simple and beautiful explanation of Cousin, who, im- 
 bued with the spirit of charity, would deny the possibility 
 of atheism, is not acceptable to the religionists of the day. 
 They must have atheists, and they must have the privilege of 
 defining an atheist. An atheist is one whose idea of the Infi- 
 nite is different from theirs. Or, an atheist is one who does 
 not believe in a personal God. Or, an atheist is one who does 
 not accept "Our Christ." Whatever may be the definition 
 finally agreed upon — and it would have to be settled eventually 
 by a Supreme Court chosen in the interests of the national re- 
 ligion — an atheist, thus defined, is to be placed outside the 
 Constitution ; is to be no longer entitled to the benefit of its 
 provisions. He is to be disfranchised and outlawed, and driven 
 from the country. Even those who did the most in founding 
 our government, would not, if living, be permitted to partici- 
 pate in its blessings. 
 
 It is time the people arouse to a sense of the danger which is 
 menaced to their free institutions, and realize the attempt 
 which is being made against their liberties. 
 
 Some of the religious journals oppose the movement; among 
 others, the ably conducted American Sentinel, published at 
 Oakland, California. The only considerable national organi- 
 
Conspiracy against the Republic. 155 
 
 zation which is effectually making opposition, is the American 
 Secular Union. 
 
 It is a question that interests the so-called atheists not only 
 — it interests all classes. For no sooner will the Constitution 
 be placed under the control of the Christian religion by the 
 combined forces of Protestants and Catholics— and it can be 
 done in no other way — than the question will immediately 
 arise, which of the allied armies best represents the Christian 
 religion? The Catholics have the older title, having them- 
 selves made the bible, and it may turn out that they will 
 vindicate their right to control the Constitution. In that 
 case those who originated the movement may find themselves 
 called upon to drink of the cup which they had prepared for 
 the atheists. 
 
 If, on the other hand, the Protestants should prevail, the 
 next question will be, which branch of them, or which denomi- 
 nation, or sect, or combination of sects, is best entitled to speak 
 for the Christian religion, and therefore best entitled to say 
 what shall be taught in the public schools under the amended 
 Constitution? 
 
 It is no answer to say that the Blair Amendment provides 
 that no public money shall be expended for instruction or train- 
 ing in the doctrines of any religious sect, and that such pe- 
 culiar doctrines shall not be taught. The fact would still re- 
 main, that one sect or combination of sects might say what 
 should be taught, and with such power in their hands, this 
 provision of the Amendment would be of but little practical 
 value. 
 
 Nor does it essentially detract from the dangerous character 
 of the proposed Amendment, that the author has the incon- 
 sistency to declare, in the first Section, that "No State shall 
 ever make or maintain any law respecting an establishment of 
 religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This is a 
 mere subterfuge. What more efficacious law respecting the 
 establishment of a religion could its votaries desire, than an 
 Act requiring the principles or doctrines of that religion to be 
 taught at the public expense; thus compelling those who do 
 not believe in such religion to pay for promulgating its doc- 
 
 
156 The Chicago Law Times. 
 
 trines- to the youth of the country? 
 
 The ecclesiastical power has already lost its hold upon the 
 reason and conscience of the masses. This attempt to get con- 
 trol of the Constitution, is a desperate effort to bring the aid of 
 the civil power to the support of a "lost cause." 
 
 The attempt should meet with a prompt and merited rebuke. 
 Let Church and State remain forever separate. Let us heed 
 the maxims and warnings of the founders, the defenders, and 
 the preservers of the Republic — of Madison and Hamilton, of 
 Washington and Paine, of Jefferson, of Lincoln and of Grant. 
 Let not a spirit of persecution worthy only of the middle 
 ages, find sanction and encouragement under the stars and 
 stripes, which have been dedicated to liberty. Let the Con- 
 stitution remain what our fathers intended it to be, the com- 
 mon heritage of a great, a generous and a free people. 
 
 Charles B. Waite. 
 
 [This pamphlet is printed from advance sheets of "The Chicago Law 
 
 Times," and is copyrighted. Copies may he obtained from the publishers» 
 on the following terms : 
 
 10 copies, 30 cts. 
 
 40 " .$1.00 
 
 100 " " 2.00 
 
 400 " 5.00 
 
 1,000 " 10.00 
 
 Address C. V. WAITE & CO. 
 
 96 Ashland Block, Chicago.] 
 
 v\ 
 

 vv ?^fHl&c V*» 
 
 
 
 J o •' 
 
 
 ^o 
 
 
 
 
 .0 .♦"-•« O, 
 
 
 *0 V 
 
 
 
 • 4 * ^HUs^*^ " 
 
 °A ••' -A <*\ * • ' *^ V 9*. * * e A *>.» ' ' " 
 
 
 
 * * o^ > V 
 
 '° ^ A^ **« 
 
 °^ ••??• A© ♦ V 
 
 

 
 * *a 
 
 > » • * * *>. rt>V , » * 
 
 ^* "life- V* -A %«♦* •»- V* • • 
 
 
 
 
 0* * 
 
 °*~'*~<» A " 5 % 
 
 
 
 
 * * . * • ^ v °^. * * - ° a° *> • " * ^ ^ * * - ° a 
 
 »..- /\ <. 'TXT* o* &. *••»• A <, *«T7? 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 HECKMAN 
 
 BINDERY INC. 
 
 mk NOV 85 
 
 N. MANCHESTER, 
 SS£^ INDIANA 46962 
 
 
 
 i"i » . * • a . 
 
 t •• , '/-v