Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1851-08-15
From the Richmond Dispatch.
Liberty of Conscience.

recent decision of the Secretary of War is no.
ticed with we'll deserved appreciation by the press.
This decision related to the liberty of conscience In
the army there regulations with regard to atten
ding Church, and it appeared that soldier at Fort
Columbus New York named James Duggan, Cath
Ollie, refused to comply with these regulations be-
cause the Church of the Fort Protestant. For
this he was court martiaed, and was sentenced to
forfeit IS per month Of his pay for six months, and
four months at hard labor with ball and chain to his
leg!
This sentence of the Court was, in part, approved
by General Wool. 1t seems to be extraordinarily
severe; but it was no doubt designed as a punish
ment for dSobedIence, and could hardly have been
imposed to crafty any sectaran zeal antipathies
which are not usual among those who have devoted
themselves to the art of war.
The was however, brought before Mr. Con-
rad and he promptly annulled the sentence. In his
letter to Gen Wool on the subject he says:
1t is doubtful how far officer has the right to
compel officers and men under his command to at
tend divine service it is evident however, that no
one ought to be compelled to attend church of
any other persuasion than that to which he be-
! longs.
Every means of persuasion should be employed to
| induce soldiers to attend some church, but they
should be permitted to select the one they prefer
And when they prefer to have conscientious scruples
about attending any particular church, all compul-
sorry measurs violate the gifts of conscience and
should be avoided.
|
Mr. Conrad's. expresses opinions
Every friend of civil and religious liberty will cor
daily respond the letter of the Secretary of War
He has viewed this act in its proper light and see
an example which we hope will be followed in all
future time We are of those who hold that sol.
der is bound to obey his superors in every thing
lating to order and discipline, but at the same time
we are totally opposed to the exercise of arbitrary
power in the matter of conscientious religious con
; viction. We believe that private Duggan has a.
much right to enjoy his religious convictions and
act up to them, any officer in the army, and tina
to punish for declining to give up to mis- Office
his religious belief is gross violation of law. Mr.
Duggan acted in accordance, not only with the con
stitution and laws of America, but with enlightened
public opinion. We are thankful to Mr.. Conrad fo
setting aside this uni ust sentence and for throwing
the weight of his name and the influence of his 20
sition on the side of civil and religious liberty
The CASE OF CoNsc1ENcE.-As we suggested, tn
fine imposed on Duggan was not merely for refusn.
to go to church, but for disobedience in refusing
ask his commander for permission to stay away from
9 church, and for leaving his company without per
mission General Wool, over his own name make
u this statement. The General states further tina
: the Court Martial was ordered by General Walbact
, and the finding was sent to him; but he declined t
Il act upon 1t, and sent it to General Wool and re
quested him to refer it to higher authority Thi
Gen. WOOL refused to do, unless Gen Walbach de
sired to have the question of compelling Catholi
n to attend Protestant church settled He, howeve,
+ took upon himself to remit the entire penalty i'm
posed on Duggan, with the exception of fine of S.
the letter of the Secretary of War which ha
been SO much approved, was received. This lette
not set aside the sentence as inferred by the Bo
ton Atlas, but merely gave some general instruction
touching the liberty of conscience in the matter
E religious worship among soldiers in future Ger
Wool disclaims all intolerant feelings on religion
subjects, and expresses very warm regard for Iris
Cathoncs, whom he considers as having suffere
'e more from oppression and bad government than an
other people on the globe Richmond Dispatch.