The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1852-03-28

pose ma, those scfupes-sneere have no doubtwhich
nave induced some senator's 10 oppose The BILL Will give
wayio better second thought and leave those who for
moment entertained them free 10 Join us in the vote
mat Will secure lis passage.
i Mr. BORLAND. As The remarks OF the senator from
Louisiana Mr. SoULEl seem to give direction 10 my re-
marks that had not intended they should have, | think
IT'S proper that should respond to them what My
suggestion TO the large OF money that we now
had IN the treasury related altogether did suggest
i as an objection to this blto the suggestion made
| oy The other senator from Louisiana, Mr. Downs ]
That that was reason why we might be liberal,
and Tor the purpose OF showing that far from that be-
ing consideration for lberaliy il should think
ing about The proprety OF modifying the system which
mas raised more money than necessary for the
nomical administration OF the government | did not
suggest as an objection TO this BILL but simply IN re-
sponse TO the suggestion OF the senator from Louisiana,
Mf souLE. ! am glad to see ,ha, the honorable sem
servatons against This bill and, from The explanation
which be has just made, of the hope that have
Just expressed will not be disappointed, and his vote will
/ BILL
! Mr.. BORLAND demanded the yeas and nays upon the
passage ~ OF ! the bill; which were ordered:
| Mr. BAYARD. AS have determined not TO vote for
the bill will state as distinctly can, without
py'ng The time OF the Senate, the for this deter
minaton The honorable senator from Louisiana, [Mr
SouLE understand, admits what understood his col
league Mr. Dowksl 10 deny-,hat is, that this is
ga1uiy 10 this religious society My objection 10 this
bill, then, is not answered by his Argument
| Mr.. SOULE Will the honorable senator allow me to
correct misapprehenson under which he seems to la
Dor! did not admit that il was gratuty. bu, |
sumed u as matter OF argument.
MT. BAY ARD Then The argument was based upon
assumphon; and II not admitted. the inference, think
ls irresistible that i is graiuty IT. in this case, sir
the bill proposed TO exempt article without refer
ence TO any particular institution or individual who
might make use Of ito exempt the article generally,
matter by whom imported, or whether it was gift or
notthen il would be gatnity but question OF gen.
eral legislation; but when the ground of exemption
from duty OF any particular article is that il is 70 be used
for the purposes OF religious society, then is clearly
gratuity to that society 10 make exemption Of that
from duty which is to be used by them.
But my objection is not that is grauity remission
OF dues TO Catholic society, or TO any other society,"
individual or association il s not on the ground that it
makes distinction between religious associations, but it
is on this principle. One OF the acknowledged principles
OF our government if understand them, is that the sup
port OF the principles OF religion and OF religious nstu
ions throughout this country, matter which s
tTely referred 10 the popular will and TO the voluntary
action OF the individuals constituting the society. In
case governmental support to be accorded 10 religious
institutions That constitutes my objection to this bill
Mr. President, you may disguise il as you please, the
passage OF this bill is governmental vote in support of
religious institutions. ask you if this is not OF the
h ose me
met shall In no case, or for any purpose give govern
mental support TO religious institutions, thus leaving the
question regards religion entirely 10 the voluntary
port OF the community in which exists Ii believed to
be better promotve of the vital interests Of religion il
is believed TO be more conducive to the advancement
its principles manifested in the purity OF the lives
OF It's professors that should be LETT un,rammeed and
uncorruped by any attempt any mode, OF the govern
That is principle Mr. President, which do not think
the argument Of the honorable seantor from Iousans
[Mr. SoULEl reaches at all His answer applied to The
objection arising from the fact that grant to any par
hcular society, any preference TO another
might create eaousies and divisions between the secis
Not My distinction applied 10 the general principles OF
our goyenment-thatg governmental support TO any species
OF religious institutions is foreign TO institutions.
That is the principal distinction between government
and that OF any other nation
| MIR. PRATT The senator from Delaware [Mr BAY
ARDl has spoken sensibly, as he always does. Now,
SIR the objection which he urges against the bill IS this
that IS an attempt TO apply The funds OF this government
TO the support of religion when the very accord
ing 10 my Judgment, the fact The government, by a
general law, has imposed upon this religious sect this
tax and the object OF this bill is 10 prevent the govern
ment from imposing tax upon religion II Is not TO ad-
any money for the purposes OF rel gon but simply
10 prevent the government from taxing religion that
il is the OF the proposition OF The honorable
ator from Delaware, Mr BAYARD,] according to my con-
structon OF the bill.
| Blu, would ask the senator, and would ask all the
senators who will do the favor to hear whether
not making distinction in this particular case II
refuse TO pass the bill upon your table have pointed
out some twenty cases OF variety oil religious denom
nations in which the government has uniformly hereto
fore RENTED the duties when they have been asked 10
do | would ask whether, if you commence now,
and refuse in this particular case, You do not make DIS
tncton in the OF this particular reglon' You have
always before RENTED such duties; and assert that no
senator can point out single case in which application
has been made by religious society Tor similar pur-
pose that Congress has not granted the application Now
il seems TO II would be making distinction against
tns cnuTcn Foies eApesseu
by against this bill, refuse TO grant them
this relief which we have so uniformly granted to other
| and similar institutions.
/ MIR. BAYARD The latter part of the argument Of
the honorable senator from Maryland Mr.. PRATT
seems 10 be easily answered. IL may be true that
various special bills have been passed renting The du
ties religious institution or another or 10 one So
cety another have no doubt that these facts that
the senator has related true; and although cannot
exactly agree with the distinguished senator from Mch-
gan Mr. CAssl that precedenis are entitled 10 no
weight ye, should be sorry TO consider myself bound
by such precedents OF special laws. would be most
dang species of legislation, that because you can
get one bill passed, fifty bills passed as special lave,
from the fact OF the defective principle attached TO them
not being contested, therefore you bound 10 carry on
the same principle BY other special laws
! hold, regards special laws. that no SPECIAL law
should ever form precedent upon which the decision OF
with regard general laws settled, the decis
ion OF the Senate of must be influenced tnereoy
But IL is entirely ont OF the question, and ADMIT no
authority obligation from special decision on par
tcuar case governing my action when any subsequent
case may up. striking illustration oil that - 70 oe
found in the fact that the amendment proposed oy tne
renaor from Maryland lMr PRATT was witharawnj
and presume II that amendment were before the senate
carrying out does, the general principle there woud
be no difficulty in that case.
As regards the other part OF the argument OF the sena
or from MARYLAND IN answer 10 nine-that when refers
IN The taxation OF these religious societies by govern
men,f think that he has mistaken the idea oi my agu-
ment The tax not against any particular society," bui
on all articles coming within that particular eiasshca-
other individual, please consume this article or not
they must take with this burden as part OF the price,
and If they exempted the ground oil their Indlyd-
ual character il is clearly gratuiiy 10 them