SECTARIAN EDUCATION

ADDRESS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 1894

The Convention in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Charles H. Truax in the chair, having under consideration a report relative to the use of public moneys for sectarian education, Mr. Root said:

I

CAME to this convention, Mr. Chairman, in common with many of my fellow-delegates, expecting to vote to prohibit all state aid to any sectarian institution, whether educational or charitable. It is with regret that I have found an impression gaining ground in the convention that the attempt to prohibit such aid to sectarian charitable institutions might better be abandoned, and that a proposition made by the advocates of such aid might better be accepted, to the effect that there should be merely supervision of aid to charitable institutions, and not absolute prohibition. I now find, sir, that the very gentlemen who have been seeking to secure the acquiescence of this convention in leaving charitable institutions free from a prohibition, are insisting upon attaching to the proposition against state aid to sectarian institutions a proviso, which, in my judgment, if adopted, will send us out of this convention, not merely having failed to prohibit state aid to sectarian education, but having absolutely put into the constitution an authorization of such aid. There can be no mistake, Mr. Chairman, about the effect of the proviso offered by Mr. Lauterbach, from New York; no mistake as to effect of the proviso offered by Mr. Marshall, from Onondaga. They both mean, and both accomplish, so far as the subject I am now discussing is concerned, the same thing. After the clear and emphatic declaration contained in section four of the proposed article, that the money of the state shall not be used in aid or maintenance of any school or institution of learning wholly or in part under

the control or direction of any religious denomination, or in which any denominational tenet is taught, it is now proposed to say that this section shall not prohibit the appropriation of money for secular instruction, to the inmates of any orphan asylum or of any institution to which children may be committed by judicial process, if such education is incidental only; and that is, by the most friendly rules of construction, equivalent to putting into this proposition these words: We hereby authorize the use of public money for the maintenance of charitable institutions under sectarian control and for instruction in schools connected therewith, under sectarian and denominational control." That, sir, is the act we are now invited to substitute for the contemplated prohibition of all state aid to sectarian charities.

66

I, for one, sir, will never vote for an article which contains such a constitutional authorization of state aid to sectarian institutions, or for any constitution which contains such an article; and I believe, sir, that the great body of the people of this state will refuse to give their sanction to any such provision. It is unnecessary, sir, to accomplish the purposes of the gentlemen who offer it; for there is not a man in this convention who has suggested or will suggest that the section, as it now stands, in the slightest degree interferes with the use of the state money for the maintenance of any orphan asylum, or any house of refuge, or any charitable institution; or in the slightest degree interferes with the use of the money of the state for the support or maintenance of any inmate of any charitable institution, even though that institution may be under sectarian control, and even though instruction may be given in it. The proviso proposed can do nothing to accomplish any benefit for the institutions in which these gentlemen are interested, but it throws open the doors for the accomplishment of what we all of us here have agreed to avoid, the giving of state aid to sectarian instruction.

The gentleman from Jefferson calls it a small thing. I beg leave to say, sir, that it is the greatest question and most important principle which has come before this convention, or will come before it until its final adjournment. Your fathers, Mr. Chairman, came to this country from that heroic little land in which Spanish soldiers under the iron hand of Philip the Second and the Duke of Alva strove to impress the power of the State of Spain upon the consciences of William the Silent and John of Barneveldt. Mine left their English homes in the reign of Charles the First, to escape that controlling force of Church and State united, which forbade them liberty of conscience. They came to a barbarous and inhospitable shore; they fought and conquered the savage; they felled the forests; they cleared the land; they established a state; they secured their independence of foreign control. They set up a reign of law and order, of peace and prosperity; and then they opened their hands of welcome to the fathers of the gentlemen who propose this amendment; they opened their hands to the fathers of the gentleman from New York, to the fathers of the gentleman from Onondaga, to the fathers of the gentlemen upon the other side of the chamber, who are so anxious to have this proviso inserted; and they welcomed them, not to savage and inhospitable shores, not to wars with savage foes, not to privation and hardship, but to a peaceful and a happy land, where home and comfort met them at the threshold, and they gave to them the freest exercise of conscience; they welcomed their religions with them, forgetful of all the tyranny they themselves had endured; they welcomed Hebrew and Catholic alike; they imposed no hostile, or professional, or business, or social bar against the full exercise of religion and the full privilege of citizenship, upon religious ground; but, Mr. Chairman, there is one thing, and one thing only, which this people, generous, broadminded,

and liberal, said, have always said, and say today, that never in this state of ours shall be repeated that union of Church and State, which drove your fathers and mine from their homes in the old world. And that, sir, is the principle which we seek to embody in this constitution of ours by the declaration reported by the Committee on Education. It is the greatest principle which this convention has opportunity to declare. And, Mr. Chairman, it should be, it must be, it shall be, cut down, modified, affected by no proviso, by no limitation, to secure or protect any private interest. Therefore, I believe that every true American, of whatever religion, will be for this section as it stands now. It is not a question of religion, or of creed, or of party; it is a question of declaring and maintaining the great American principle of eternal separation between Church and State.

THE POLITICAL USE OF MONEY

ADDRESS OF SEPTEMBER 3, 1894

It is recognized in democracies, where public officers are elected and questions of government are passed upon by the people, that political campaigns become in a large measure educational campaigns, and that for this purpose considerable sums of money can legitimately and wisely be expended. At the same time, there is a tendency on the part of unscrupulous politicians to make an improper use of money. The difficulty is to draw the line of demarkation between the legitimate and the corrupt use of money in political campaigns, and by apt laws to proscribe the illegitimate use of money and by criminal proceedings to punish both violators and violations of the law.

In the constitutional convention of 1894, the following amendments were proposed to article 2 of the constitution:

Section 6. The legislature shall, by general laws, declare the uses which may be lawfully made of money or other valuable things by, or on behalf of, any person, to promote his nomination as a candidate for public office, and by or on behalf of a candidate to promote his election.

The use or promise of money or other valuable thing to promote the nomination for, or election to, public office of any person otherwise than is expressly authorized by law, is prohibited and the person by whom or for whose benefit, with his consent, connivance or procurement the same is so used or promised, if elected, shall forfeit his office.

Section 7. No corporation shall directly or indirectly use any of its money or property for, or in aid of, any political party or organization, or for, or in aid of, any candidate for political office or for nomination for such office, or in any manner use any of its money or property for any political purpose whatever, or for the reimbursement or indemnification of any person for moneys or property so used.

Every domestic corporation which violates this section shall forfeit its charter, and every foreign corporation which violates this section shall forfeit the right to do business in this state.

Both sections, as above, were adopted in the Committee of the Whole, but neither section was incorporated in the final draft of the constitution.

It is interesting to note that New York seems to have been the first state to enact laws against corrupt practices at elections. In 1890 the legislature passed a law requiring candidates to file an itemized statement of expenditures on penalty of imprisonment and loss of the office. In 1909, the legislature passed a law substantially in the words of the proposed amendment of 1894, prohibiting corporations, except political associations, from contributing to campaign funds or for any political purposes whatsoever.

While the two amendments above quoted were under consideration in the Committee of the Whole, on September 3, 1894, Mr. Root made the following addresses: