Educational Amendment to tke Constitution Speech of Hon. F. T. FBELIN6HUTSEH, Of New Jersey, in the U. S. Senate, August —, 1876. AMENDMENT AS PASSED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. Resolved by the Senate and ITonee of Represen¬ tatives of the United States of America in Con¬ gress assembled, ( two-thirds of each House con¬ curring therein,') That the following be proposed to the several States of the Union as an amendment to the Constitution, namely: Article XVI. No State shall make any law respecting an estab¬ lishment of religion, or prohibitins the free excercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any ' State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect or denomination; nor shall any mouey so raised or lands so devoted be divided be¬ tween religious sects or denominations. This article shall not vest, enlarge, or diminish legislative power in Congress. AMENDMENT AS PASSED IN THE SENATE. That the following article bo proposed to the Legis¬ latures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when rati¬ fied by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, shall be valid as a part of the said Constitution, namely : Article XVI. No State shall make any law respecting an estab- '“^ishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under any State. No public property and no public revenue of, nor any loan of credit by or under the authority of, the United States, or any State, Territory, Dis¬ trict, or municipal corporation, shall be appropriated to or made or used for tho support of any school, ed¬ ucational or other institution under the control of any religious or anti-religious .sect, organization, or de¬ nomination, or wherein the particular creed or tenets of any religious or antj^eligious sect, organization, or denomination shalUrtftaught. And no such [(articu¬ lar creed or tejp^fs shall bo read or taught in any school or insljjfcftion supported in whole or in part by such revenue or loan of credit; and no such appro- priathm or loan of credit shall be made to any reli¬ gious or anti-religious sect, organization, or denomi- tialiofi, or to promote its interests or tenets, This article shall not be construed to prohibit the reading of the Bible in any school or institution ; and it shall not have the effect to impair rights of property al¬ ready vested. Sec. 2. Congress shall have power, by appropriate legislation, to provide for the proveniion and punish¬ ment of violations of this article. THE SCHOOL AMENDMENT. The Senate proceeded to consider the joint resolution (H. R. No. 1) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the pending question being on its passage. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Presi¬ dent, before the vote is taken on this meas¬ ure, I propose to state the principles in¬ volved in it, and to do so with great brevity. There are only two principles involved in this article for the amendment of the Con¬ stitution, as passed by the House or as now amended by the Senate : I. That there shall be no establishment of religion or prohibition of the free exercise thereof, and that there shall be no religions test as a qualification to office in the several States of the Union. II. That the people shall not be taxed to promote the particular creed or tenets of any religious or anti-religious sect or de¬ nomination. Let me remark that it is manifest that the people call for an amendment covering these two principles. This is manifest from the fact that the Representatives of the people of every religious'and political per¬ suasion, coming fresh from every section of the country, have by a vote of 166 out of 171, (only 5 negatives) declared that to be the will of the people. Further, sir; on the passage by the House of this amendment, which undertook to affirm and to protect these two principles, and which the people and the press, and which I assume the House of Representatives thought was ef¬ fective, great gratification was afiorded to the whole country, not only because of their wish that these principles should be incor¬ porated in our fundamental law, but also because this vexed question was to be re¬ moved from the arena of party politics. The great unanimity of the vote in the House shows how strong is the conviction of the Representatives of the people that this article of amendment to the Constitution is witiiin the legitimate province of constitu¬ tional amendments, and is also in accord with the best policy and the soundest in¬ terests of the nation. There is, sir, no room for two opinions on the two propositions that religion and conscience should be free, and that the people should not be taxed for sectarian purposes. The whole history of our coautry, from its origin to the present day, establishes and fortifies these positions. And nothing can be clearer than that these fundamental rights should be secured in a constitution ordained expressly to “estab¬ lish justice ” and to “ secure the blessings of liberty.” Mr. President, while the two principles of religious freedom and exemption from taxation for sectarian purposes are plainly asserted hi the article as it comes to us from the House, there are, unfortunately, in it defects and omissions, that were it accepted without amendment by the States would render it nugatory and invalid. And the House should be gratified that a more care¬ ful scrutiny has discovered and corrected these defects, and should be ready to concur at once in the amendment of the Senate. I 2 will point out these defects and their cor¬ rections. I. The fifth article of the Constitution re¬ quires that Congress when proposing amend¬ ments to the Constitution shall state to the people in what manner the amendment shall be ratified ; whether by the Legislatures of the States or by conventions in the States ; the fifth article is as follows: The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or on the application of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several States, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and pur¬ poses, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress. This article amending the Constitution as it came from the House failed to propose either mode of ratifying this amendment. It did not propose that it should be ratified by the Legislatures or that it should be rati¬ fied by conventions. Had the Legislatures ratified it, not being in conformity with the requirements of the Constitution, it would have been invalid. I call the attention of the Senate theto first alteration the House amendment makes in our Constitution. The first amendment to the Constitution, enacted shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, provides that— Congress shall make no law respecting an estab¬ lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This is an inhibition on Congress, and not on the States. The House article very properly extends the prohibition of the first amendment of the Constitution to the States. But the sixth article of the old Constitution also provides that— No religious test shall ever be required as a quali¬ fication to any office or public trust under the United States. This provision in such close harmony with the first amendment of the Constitution, the House article entirely omits, and it has very properly been inserted by the Senate and made applicable to the States. Nobody can object to the Senate amendment on ac¬ count of these two positions contained in it. Thus the article as amended by the Sen¬ ate prohibits the States, for the first time, from the establishment of religion, from* pro¬ hibiting its free exercise, and from making any religious test a qualification to office. II. Now, as to the second division of the proposed article amending the Constitution relative to the use of the public money for sectarian purposes, let me say that there are ■fix different modes by which the people can be taxed for sectarian purposes. 1. By appropriating money raised for school purposes to sectarian schools. 2. By appropriating money from the general Treasury to sectarian schools. 3. By appropriating public money to sec¬ tarian institutions other than schools, as theological institutions, sectarian colleges, monasteries, and nunneries. 4. By devoting schools or other institutions established by public funds, when so estab¬ lished, to sectarian purposes. 5. By making appropriations of public money to religious denominations, or to pro¬ mote their interests. 6. By appropriating public money to an institution to promote infidelity or for the benefit of an anti-religious sect. The amendment of the Senate guards against all these abuses, while the article as it came from the House only prohibited the first, to wit, the appropriation of public money, and only public money raised for schools,, to sectarian schools or dividing it among denominations. * -* * * * * * The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the resolution, on which the yeas and nays have been or¬ dered. The Secretary proceeded to call the roll. * * * * * * The result was announced—yeas 28, nays 16 ; as follows: YEAS—Messrs. Allison, Anthony, Booth, Bout- well, Bruce, Burnside, Cameron of W isconsin, Chris- tiancy, Clayton, Conkling, Cragin, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelingliuysen, Harvey, Joues of Nevada, Logan, McMillan, Mitchell, Morrill, Morton. Oglesby, Fad- dock, Patterson. Sargent, Spencer, Wadleigh, and West-28. NAYS—Messrs. Bogy, Cockrell, Cooper, Davis, Eaton. Gordon, Jones of .Florida, Kelly, Kernan, Key, McCreery, McDonald, Maxey, Norwood, Ran¬ dolph. and Stevenson—16. ABSENT—Messrs. Alcorn, Barnum, Bayard, Cam¬ eron of Pennsylvania, Conover, Dawes, Dennis, I'orsey. Goldthwaite, Hamilton, Hamlin, Hitchcock, Howe, Ingalls. Johnston, Merrimon, Ransom, Rob¬ ertson, Saulsbury, Sharon, Sherman, Thurman, Wallace, Whyte, Windom, Withers, and Wright—27. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Two- thirds of the Senators present not having voted to agree to the resolution, the same is not passed. The Senate amendment only carries out the principle and cures the defects of the article as it came from the House, but it does so effectually. Why, sir, provide that money raised for schools shall not be appropriated to secta¬ rian schools and leave it lawful to appropri¬ ate to sectarian schools from the general Treasury ? Why should we prohibit appropriations to sectarian schools, and yet permit schools established by the public money to be made sectarian ? Why prohibit appropriations to sectarian schools and permit money to be appropria- ted to sectarian institutions of another char¬ acter ? Why prohibit appropriations to re¬ ligious sects and permit them to be made to infidel sects ? There is no reason. And any one who could honestly and sincerely vote for the article as it came from the House should rejoice in the opportunity of voting for the Senate amendment. Not only does the article as it came from the House merely apply to the appropria¬ tion of money raised for schools to sectarian purposes, but it omits to give Congress any power by legislation to prevent or punish the violations of the article. The usual section conferring power on Congress by legislation to enforce an amend¬ ment is in these words: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. But as the committee were aware that some might argue that such a section would confer on Congress the power to interfere with public schools of the States, the com¬ mittee, to avoid all possible objection, have —though they were satisfied that an article so phrased would not have the effect claimed—reported a section which gives no affirmation power to Congress, but simply provides that— Congress shall have power, by appropriate legisla¬ tion. to provide for the prevention and punishment of violations of this article. This section takes the place of the strange • provision of the article as it came from the House, which is in these words: This article shall not vest, enlarge, or diminish legislative power in Congress. Some have called this House article the Blain£ amendment. No such provision was ever suggested by that distinguished man. He left the article to be enforced under the provisions of the original Con¬ stitution, which (article 1, section 9, placit 18) provides— That Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry into execution the foregoing powers and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any department or office thereof; and this article is to bo part of this Constitution. This article when adopted, by the very terms of the fifth article of the Constitution, becomes, in thellanguageof the Constitution, “to all intents and purposes a part of the Constitution.” Now the provision as it comes from the House prevents the provis¬ ion of the old Constitution which I have read from operating, for it declares that •‘nothing in this article shall he held to vest, enlarge, or diminish any legislative power in Congress.” So that Congress would have no more power over the subject after the passage of the article than it had before it was passed, while the section intro¬ duced in the Senate amendment limits the power of the old Constitution by making a specific provision that Congress shall have power over this subject so far as to prevent and punish violations of this article. Mr. President, it has been said that this amendment will prevent religious instruct¬ ion in our prisons and other institutions supported by the public revenue. The clause which is relied upon to maintain that position is this: Aud no such particular creed or tenets— That is, ‘no particular creed or tenets— of any religions or anti-religious sect or denomination shall be read or taught in any school or institution supported in whole or in part by gach— That is public— revenue. Sir, does that prohibit religious instruc¬ tion in prisons ? Does it prevent religious instruction anywhere ? If the visit to those who are sick and in prison is for the purpose of reading to them or of teaching them the particular creed or tenets of a religious or anti-religious sect or denomination, this art icle does interfere with it, and is designed to. Institutions supported by the money of all persuasions, even though they be prisons, are not to be made schools for teaching presbyterianism, or Catholicism, unitarianism, or methodism, or infidelity, or atheism, and this article says so. But this article goes no further. There is nothing in it that prohibits religion as distinguished from the particular creed or tenents of re¬ ligious and anti-religious sects and denomi¬ nations being taught anywhere. That pure and undefiled religion which appertains to the relationship and responsi¬ bility of man to God, and is readily dis¬ tinguishable from the creeds of sects ; that religion which permeates all our laws, which is recognized in every sentence against crime and immorality, which is invoked in every oath, which is reverentially defer¬ red to every morning at that desk and on like occasions at the capital of every State of the Union ; that religion which is recog¬ nized by our Presidents and governors every year in the thanksgivings of the peo¬ ple, to which one-seventh part of the cen¬ tury which has just closed has been devoted ; that religion which is our history, which is our unwritten as well as our written law, and which sustains the pillars of our liberty, is a very, very different thing from the particular creeds or tenets of either religionists or infidels. And this ar¬ ticle places no unhallowed touch upon that religion. While we punish the violations of the oath or other moral obligation, it would be monstrous by affirmative legisla¬ tion to restrict religious instruction. On this subject let me briefly quote from Story and Webster and Washington. Story says: 4 It is impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity as a divine revelation to doubt that it is the especial duty of government to foster and en¬ courage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one’s conscience. Webster says: i If we work upon marble, it will perish; if we work tipon brass, time will efface it; if we rear temples, they will crumble to the dust. But if we work on men’s immortal minds; if we imbue them with high principles, with the just fear of God and their fellow; - men, we engrave on those tablets something which no time can efface, but which will brighten and brighten to all eternity. Washington, in liis Farewell Address, says: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these purest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician equally with the pious man ought to respect and cherisli them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of "religious obliga¬ tion desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigations in courts of justice? And let us with caution"indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be con¬ ceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. Again, some one has said that he thought the Bible was a religious book. That re¬ mark arises, sir, from the provision in the arti¬ cle of amendment that sectarian creeds are to he excluded, but that this provission shall not be construed to exclude the Bible. Let me say that the saving clause in favor of the Bible is just, because it is a religious and not a sectarian hook. I have a few words more to say. There is one provision in the article to which I have not called attention. If the amend¬ ment to the Constitution is to answer any purpose, it is to exclude sectarian teaching from public schools, and this article says so. That expression might be perverted to effect the exclusion of the Bible, and the provission that it shall not be so construed was necessary to exclude that conclusion, so as to leave the Bible in its relations to the public schools and institution where it stands now. It says that, while Shakespeare and Ho¬ mer, Junius and Juvenal are not to he ex¬ cluded, the Bible shall not, by reason of this article, be excluded. The Constitution of this country will never treat that book with disrespect. No party will ever have it ta¬ booed. Who wants this article to exclude the Bible ? Not the Catholics. It is the rule of their faith and practice and they want more, not less, religious instructions. They were the first in this country when establishing the government of Maryland to provide in her fundamental law for religious freedom. The Protestants do not want it excluded, because it is their rule of faith. The Israelite does not want it excluded, because it is the guide to his conscience. The atheist does not want it excluded, for he recognizes no supe¬ rior ; he is a law unto himself. It is a mat¬ ter of indifference to him whether the Bible or Dabold’s Arithmetic or Hale’s History of the United States is used in the school, so far as his conscience is concerned. But then we are told that there are differ¬ ent translations of the Eihle. True, and yet there is but one Bible; that is the revelation from on High. There are various transla¬ tions, and the excellence of this article is that it prevents the exclusion of any. Noth¬ ing in this article shall he construed to ex¬ clude either the Douay or the King James version. I am for the broadest toleration, but I would never agree to a constitutional amendment that would exclude from the schools the Bible. The Constitution should neither say that it should or that it should not he read in the schools. To attempt either would be to mingle politics with relig¬ ion, which all would deprecate. Make the Bible a political ensign, and a party spirit such as clustered round the white and red rose would he aroused, in which perhaps there would be no more piety than there was in the spirit that animated Richard the Lion-hearted and his followers when they rallied around the cross, or Saladin and his Mohammedan hordes when they fought for the crescent. »: Into such a conflict, having forsworn all idolatry,,even though the Bible be on the shrine, I will not enter. “ Put up thy swoed, my kingdom is not of this worl l,”*is the in¬ junction of our religion. But this article of the Constitution must not exclude it unless we come to the* conclusion that the narrative of the creation, that the maxims of Solo¬ mon, that the logic of Paul, and those truths that have lighted up the future to unnumbered generations, are injurious to public morals! Mr. President, where shall we go for pub¬ lic morals? If you must exclude the Bible you must banish all our literature or expur¬ gate it, for it would be the height of folly to say that it is lawful to drink from the con¬ duits which human hands had made, but not from the pure fountain. Where shall we go? To the Koran? To Confucius? To the Morman Book of our Lord ? To the vain philosophy of the aneients? To mytho¬ logical fables ? No, sir ; the people of this country want that hook let alone. The Constitution must not touch it. It is to be forced upon no one and the Constitution ia to make it unlawful to read it nowhere.