Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Resolved, That the Committee be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

The Senate of the United States adopted the following report:

In Senate of the United States, January 19, 1853, Mr. Badger made the following report:

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom were referred sundry petitions praying Congress to abolish the office of chaplain, have had the same under consideration, and submit the following report:—

The ground on which the petitioners found their prayer is, that the provisions of law under which chaplains are appointed for the army and navy, and for the two Houses of Congress, are in violation of the first amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which declares that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

If this position were correct,-if these provisions of law do violate either the letter or the spirit of the constitutional prohibition,-then, undoubtedly, they should be at once repealed, and the office of chaphin abolished. It thus becomes necessary to inquire whether the posi tion of the petitioners be correct.

The clause speaks of "an establishment of religion." What is meant by that expression? It referred, without doubt, to that establishment which existed in the mother-country, and its meaning is to be ascertained by ascertaining what that establishment was. It was the connection, with the state, of a particular religious society, by its endowment at the public expense, in exclusion of, or in preference to, any other, by giving to its members exclusive political rights, and by compelling the attendance of those who rejected its communion upon its worship or religious observances. These three particulars constituted that union of Church and State of which our ancestors were so justly jealous and against which they so wisely and carefully provided. It is true that, at the time our Constitution was formed, the strictness of this establishment had been, in some respects, and to a certain extent, relaxed in favor of Protestant dissenters; but the main character of the establishment remained. It was still, in its spirit, inconsistent with religious freedom, as matter of natural right to be enjoyed in its full latitude, and not measured out by tolerance and concession from the civil rulers. If Congress has passed, or should pass, any law which, fairly construed, has in any degree introduced, or should attempt to introduce, in favor of any church, or ecclesiastical association, or system of religious faith, all or any one of these obnoxious particulars,-endowment at the public expense, peculiar privileges to its members, or disadvantages or penalties upon those who should reject its doctrines or belong to other communions,-such law would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion," and, therefore, in violation of the Constitution. But no law yet passed by Congress is justly liable to such an objection. Take, as an example, the chaplains to Congress. At every session two chaplains are elected,-one by each House,-whose duty is

to offer prayers daily in the two Houses, and to conduct religious services weekly in the Hall of the House of Representatives. Now, in this no religion, no form of faith, no denomination of religious professors, is established in preference to any other, or has any peculiar privileges conferred upon it. The range of selection is absolutely free in each House among all existing professions of religious faith. There is no compulsion exercised or attempted upon any member or officer of either House to attend their prayers or religious solemnities. No member gains any advantage over another by attending, or incurs any penalty or loses any advantage by declining to attend. The chaplain is an officer of the House which chooses him, and nothing more. He owes his place not to his belonging to a particular religious society or holding a particular faith, but to the voluntary choice of the members of the House, and stands, in this respect, upon the same footing with any other officer so elected. It is not seen, therefore, how the institution of chaplains is justly obnoxious to the reproach of invading religious liberty in the widest sense of that term.

It is said, indeed, by the petitioners, that if members of Congress wish any one to pray for them, they should, out of their own means, furnish the funds wherewith to pay him, and that it is unjust to tax the petitioners with the expense of his compensation. It has been shown that there is no establishment of religion in creating the office of chaplain, and the present objection is to the injustice of putting upon the public this charge for the personal accommodation of members of Congress. Let it be seen, then, to what this objection leads. If carried out to its fair results, it will equally apply to many other accommodations furnished to members of Congress at the public expense. We have messengers who attend to our private business, take checks to the bank for us, receive the money, or procure bank drafts, and discharge various other offices for our personal ease and benefit, unconnected with the despatch of any public function. Why might it not be said that members, if they wish these services performed in their behalf, should employ and pay their own agents? Members of Congress come here to attend upon the business of the public. Many of them are professed members of religious societies; more are men of religious sentiment: and these desire not only to have the blessing of God invoked upon them in their legislative capacities, but to attend the public worship of God. But how are all to be accommodated in the churches of the city? And of those who belong to either House of Congress some have not the means to procure such accommodations for themselves. Where, then, is the impropriety of having an officer to discharge these duties? And how is it more a subject of just complaint than to have officers who attend to the private secular business of the members? The petitioners say, “A national chaplaincy, no less than a national Church, is considered by us emphatically an establishment of religion." In no fair sense of the phrase have we a national chaplaincy; in no sense in which that phrase must be understood when connected, as it is by the petitioners, with a "national Church." A national Church implies a particular Church selected as the Church of the nation, endowed with peculiar privileges, or sustained or favored by the public in prefer

ence to other Churches or religious societies. Of such a Church we have no semblance, nor have we any such chaplaincy. We have chaplains in the army and navy, and in Congress; but these are officers chosen with the freest and widest range of selection,-the law making no distinction whatever between any of the religions, Churches, or professions of faith known to the world. Of these, none by law is excluded, none has any priority of legal right. True, selections, in point of fact, are always made from some one of the denominations into which Christians are distributed; but that is not in consequence of any legal right or privilege, but by the voluntary choice of those who have the power of appointment.

This results from the fact that we are a Christian people,-from the fact that almost our entire population belong to or sympathize with some one of the Christian denominations which compose the Christian world. And Christians will of course select, for the performance of religious services, one who professes the faith of Christ. This, however, it should be carefully noted, is not by virtue of provision, but voluntary choice. We are Christians, not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits or to avoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education; and in a land thus universally Christian, what is to be expected, what desired, but that we shall pay a due regard to Christianity, and have a reasonable respect for its ministers and religious solemnities?

The principle on which the petitioners ask for the abolition of the office of chaplain, if carried out to its just consequences, will lead us much further than they seem to suppose. How comes it that Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, is recognized and respected by all the departments of the Government? In the law, Sunday is a dies non;" it cannot be used for the service of legal process, the return of writs, or other judicial purposes. The executive departments, the public establishments, are all closed on Sundays; on that day neither House of Congress sits.

Here is a nearer approach, according to the reasoning of the petitioners, to an establishment of religion than is furnished by the official corps to which they object. Here is a recognition by law, and by universal usage, not only of a Sabbath, but of the Christian Sabbath, in exclusion of the Jewish or Mohammedan Sabbath. Why, then, do not the petitioners exclaim against this invasion of their religious rights? Why do they not assert that a national Sabbath, no less than a national Church, is an establishment of religion? It is liable to all the obligations urged against the chaplaincy in at least an equal, if not in a greater, degree. The recognition of the Christian Sabbath is complete and perfect. The officers who receive salaries, or per-diem compensation, are discharged from duty on this day, because it is the Christian Sabbath, and yet suffer no loss or diminution of pay on that account. Why, then, do not these petitioners denounce this invasion of their religious rights, and violation of the Constitution, by which their money is applied to pay public officers while engaged in attending on their religious duties, and not in the discharge of any secular function?

The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. This is evident,—if not

from what we have said,-from this consideration, that from the beginning our Government has had chaplains in its employment. If this had been a violation of the Constitution,-an establishment of religion, -why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the Government, were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They were wise to discover the true character of the measure; they, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oaths, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing; and therefore we have the strongest reason to suppose the notion of the petitioners to be unfounded. Unfounded it no doubt is. Our fathers were true lovers of liberty, and utterly opposed to any constraint upon the rights of conscience. They intended, by this amendment, to prohibit "an establishment of religion" such as the English Church presented, or any thing like it. But they had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to send our armies and navies forth to do battle for their country without any national recognition of that God on whom success or failure depends; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy. Not so had the battles of the Revolution been fought and the deliberations of the Revolutionary Congress been conducted. On the contrary, all had been done with a continual appeal to the Supreme Ruler of the world, and an habitual reliance upon his protection of the righteous cause which they commended to his care.

What has thus been done, with modifications, indeed, to suit external circumstances and particular exigencies, but in substance always the same from the beginning of our existence as a nation; what met the approval of our Washington, and of all the great men who have succeeded him; what commands the general commendation of the people; what is at once so venerable and so lovely, so respectable and respected, -ought not, in the opinion of the committee, now to be discontinued. The committee, therefore, pray to be discharged from the further consideration of the petitions.

The House of Representatives of the Thirty-Fourth Congress, 1854, were for two months unable to organize by the election of a Speaker. The contest was protracted and exciting, and resulted in the election of Nathaniel P. Banks, of Massachusetts. In the midst of that long and fierce struggle for political ascendency, the House paused and passed the following preamble and resolutions:

Whereas, The people of these United States, from their earliest history

to the present time, have been led by the hand of a kind Providence, and are indebted for the countless blessings of the past and present, and dependent for continued prosperity in the future upon Almighty God; and whereas the great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it eminently becomes the representatives of a people so highly favored to acknowledge in the most public manner their reverence for God: therefore,

1. Resolved, That the daily sessions of this body be opened with prayer.

2. Resolved, That the ministers of the gospel in this city are hereby requested to attend and alternately perform this solemn duty.

The pastors of various churches in Washington City sent to the Senate of the United States the following proposition:GENTLEMEN:-The undersigned, ministers of the different denominations of Christians in Washington, respectfully submit to you the following statements and consequent proposal.

During the long delay in the organization of the present House of Representatives, several of our number were invited to officiate in prayer at the opening of the daily sessions. The suggestion was then made that the various clergymen of the city might discharge this duty permanently, in the place of a single chaplain, but doubt was expressed as to the readiness of the ministers of Washington to render such service.

An expression on our part seeming therefore to be called for, we beg leave to state to you our conviction that the established election of a chaplain from abroad by your honorable bodies had its origin in a necessity now no longer existing; that the plan adopted by many of our State legislatures, of inviting neighboring pastors to act as their chaplains, thus removing all objection to the associating religious devotion with their deliberations, would reflect more credit on Christian ministers, would conduce more to their individual acceptableness and general usefulness among members of Congress and their families, and would in every way promote the end had in view in the election of chaplains.

We therefore respectfully tender our services, offering to alternate in the weekly service of opening the two Houses with morning prayer, and in conducting divine service on Sabbath morning, with the distinct understanding that we decline receiving any remuneration for these services.

GEORGE W. SAMSON, Pastor of E Street Baptist Church.
BYRON SUNDERLAND, Pastor of First Presbyterian Church.
JAS. R. ECKARD, Pastor of Second Presbyterian Church.
T. A. HASKELL, Pastor of Western Presbyterian Church.
P. D. GURLEY, Pastor of F Street Presbyterian Church.
GEO. HILDT, Pastor of McKendree Chapel, M. E. Church.
GEO. D. CUMMINS, Rector of Trinity Church.

J. GEORGE BUTLER, St. Paul Lutheran Church.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »