The True Statesman

THE true statesman is a man of principle. He may be a man of great ability, and possess great wealth; but he "will employ neither of these to secure the adoption of measures that he knows will deprive any- citizen of his rights. As the object of good government is to secure to men their rights, not simply the rights of the strong, but of the weak against the encroachments of the strong; not simply to the many, but to all; so the purpose of

the true statesman, who is the representative of the Government, must be the same,—the protection of all in the exercise of their rights.

The eloquent speeches of Patrick Henry in the interests of American liberty, were but the natural outburst of long-suppressed feelings of outraged justice. The Declaration of Independence drawn up and signed by the fathers of our Republic, was but a simple statement of the principles that actuated them during the energetic struggles of the Revolutionary War. The Constitution of the United States, soon afterward adopted, was but the expression, in law, of equal rights for all citizens, and the assurance that all should have the equal protection of the law. The work of Benjamin Franklin, as minister plenipotentiary to France, so valuable to the

United States Government, was successful because he, in his labors, regarded the rights of all men as equal, and sought for justice only in the intercourse of nations touching the affairs of State. And during the severe conflict for the preservation of the Union after the emancipation proclamation, it is easy to trace in the bloody

strife, a struggle for the continued existence, in our national policy, of the principle of equal rights to all men, as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

All honor is due to the noble statesmen who, during the contests of the past, were wise enough to discern, and courageous enough to defend, these principles of right at all hazards. Such were true statesmen, and the esteem in which they are held by their countrymen is well merited.

The same principle is clearly seen underlying the work of the noble men who formed our national Constitution, and others who have since stood unflinchingly in its defense, against the demands for religious legislation. Very early in the history of the settlement of our country, in some of the Colonies, especially those of New England,

religious legislation was introduced. The results of .such legislation were seen by them to be inimical to the best interests of both the Church and the State; hence in Article VI. of the Constitution, and in Article I. of the Amendments, we have the following as safeguards against religious intolerance:—

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. . . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In defining the object of the Constitution, in response to questions from the committee of a Baptist society in Virginia, George Washington wrote, August 4, 1789 as follows:—

If I had the least idea of any difficulty resulting from the Constitution adopted by the convention of which I had the honor of being President when it was formed, so as to endanger the rights of any religious denomination, then I never would have attached my name to that instrument.

If I had any idea that the general Government would be so administered that the liberty of conscience would be endangered, I pray you be assured that no man would be more willing than myself to revise and alter that part of it, so as to avoid all-religious persecutions.

You can, without doubt, remember that I have often expressed my opinion that every man that conducts himself as a good citizen, is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

In 1830, memorials for prohibiting the transportation of mails and the opening of post-offices on Sunday, were referred to the Congressional Committee on Post offices and Post-roads. The report of the Committee was unfavorable to the prayer of the memorialists. It was adopted and printed by order of the United States Senate. The position taken in it in reference to religious legislation, is set forth in the following unmistakable language:—

The Committee look in vairi to that instrument for a delegation of power authorizing this body to inquire and determine what part of tune, or whether any, has been made holy by the Almighty.. . .

If Congress should declare the first day ,of the week holy, it would not convice the Jew nor the Sabbatarian. ...

If a 'solemn act of legislation shall in one point define the law of God, or point out to the citizen one religious duty, it may with equal propriety" define every part of revelation, and enforce every religious

obligation, even to the forms and ceremonies of worship, the endowments of the Church, and support

of the clergy. . . .

The frainers of the Constitution recognized the eternal principle that man's relation to his God is above human legislation, and his right of conscience inalienable.

Has this clamoring for religious legislation ceased? No; the cry is now more wide-spread than in the past for the State to unite, with the Church by placing certain "Christian laws, institutions, and usages of our Government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the land."

Have we any statesmen at the present, time so unwise as to sanction this un-American demand ?—It must be said to our discredit that a few such are to be found, who, yielding to the influence of misguided churchmen, are introducing into Congress Sunday-rest Bills and other measures which they think are in the interests of the Christian religion, but which, if adopted, would prove an open door to a union of Church and State, with religious persecution as the inevitable result.

Are there no statesmen today wise enough to foresee the evil of such legislation, and staunch enough to defend, as our fathers have done, the Constitution as it now stands ?—Yes; let it be published to our honor that the true statesman still lives, and in almost every State in the Union his influence is still felt sufficiently to preserve these principles of right against the encroachments of those who, disregarding them, would compel religious observances.

That the Christian religion, through its

influence upon the individual, is a benefit

to the State, is an undeniable fact; and

that all citizens should be protected in the

exercise of their religious rights is also

beyond question. But let religion not be

enforced. " God wants free worshipers

and no others," It is only those who

worship " in spirit and injfeith " of whom

it is said, "He seeketh siich to worship

him." Though believers in the Christian

religion, in the interests of. good government

we say, w^ith James Madison, "Religion

is not m the purview of human

government. Religion is essentially distinct

from government, and exempt from

its cognizance: a connection between them

is injurious to both." And with 'IT. S.

Grant we plead, "Leave the matter of

religion to the family altar, the Church,

and the private school supported" entirely

by private contributions. Keep the State

and the Chm*ch forever separate."—N. H.

L. A. Leaflet.