Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1854-11-25
Unconstitutional.

| The refined and erudite editor Of the Wash
ington Union, has, on various occasions, pro-
nounced the organization Of Know othings
Unconstitutional" in which Pronanciaanentos
he has found support in the columns Of the
Pennsylvania, Richmond Enquirer, and other
kindred prints.
If unconstitutional, there must be, of course,
some clause Of the constitution which interdicts
such organizations. The government Of the
United States was intended to be ono Of limited
and defined powers, and all powers not granted
to the United States government were intended
to be reserved to the States or to the people.
What encroachments, If any, the United States
government has made upon States rights, Is
not now the subject of our inquiry.
The point Of inquiry is, Whether the consti-
tuition prohibits such organizations as ours ?
Or in other words, are they unconstitutional !?
That clause Of the constitution upon which
the learned doctors Of law in the Union Office
predicate their charge of unconstitutionality
against our organizations, reads:
The senators and representatives before
mentioned and the members Of the State Lcgis-
latures and all executive and judicial officers,
both Of the United States and of the several
States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation
to support this constitution; but
"No religious test shall ever be required as a
qualification to any Office public trust under the
United States"
Tho qualifications for Office unde the United
States Constitution are prescribed in that instru-
ment, with the above restriction. Upon whom
does the rcstrictian operate' and howe II
operates upon those who are charged with adj
ministcring the oath 70 support the constitution,
and inducing the person elected into the position
he is to occupy. The restriction is part and
parcel of the clause, requiring those who hold
Office under either the General or State govern
ments to swear or affirm that they win support
the Constitution Of the United States.
The test IL not prohibited, and If any were
adopted, would be made at the time and place
Of the party elected being sworn into Office.
The prohibition relates to the power Of Con-
gress, and that body can never, while the con-
stitution remains unaltcred, establish any re-
ligious test Let us here digrcss for moment
II will be observed that the restriction relates
entirely to officials "under the United States"
1t puposely avoids interfering with the action
Of the States, and hence New Hampshire, the
native State Of President Pierce, State al
ways heretofore largely democratic in its coun-
ellis, has continued to this hour the exclusion
Of Catholics from oficei Further let us add,
the time and place Of applying the test in that
State are whea and Where the elected party
seeks induction into Office. So IL must be Of
necessity, for there IL no other time or place
to apply such tests.
But, we return from this brief depression
this point no difference Of opinion can exist
Those charged with administering the osths Of
Office to persons elected thereto, have no right
to inquire Of them, whether they are jews or
Genties, Protestants or Catholics. There the
restriction ends and there it must end from q
sefeyidont necessity, for beyond this point there
is no power Of enforcing the restriction, and
no sensible reason for applying it We often
hear of free suffrage, and we understand there
by that voter may exercise his right Of suf-
ffage freely. He may vote for an idiot, or an
inmate Of the pcnitentiary II he chooses.
Nor can he be compelled to cast his vote ac-
cording to the wishes or whims Of others.
But, further: In most Of the States, voting
is done by ballot and none but the voter knows
how he votes unless he chooses to expose his bal
lot Thus, II any voter decides in his own mind
that he viii not vote for Catholic, simply and
only because he is a Catholic--or IL voter de-
termines, on the same grounds, that he win not
vote for Protestant is he prohibited By the
constitution from depositing his ballot for a
candidate Of opposite opinionsf II prohibited
how can it be preventedi Who knows what