The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-16
ledge Ills all idle to talk Of the abstract ,gbt 81 o

ernments to rule they please within their dOmn
ions and to ssadopt tn r constitution and lawsD
IL Is truism indeed VIII oh questions abused a.
the power often is But beyond this right there Il
another equally unquestionab that Is the right OF
tbe rreat community OF the world to set IN on
the conduct of It's various members acting By the
ofpublc opinion and OF free press, and the also OF
the governments Of the earth to remonstrate with
another in proper spirit, whore their people are
concerned when the subject falls within the pale
municipal, rather than OF national law. have such
apprehension as Archbishop Hughes manests lest
presentations like the one proposed should produce
torts the unacceptable because unanswerabe For
my part know no awkward questions which the Gran1
Duke Of Tuscany, other potenae in the interest
his subjects residing here could ask the executive
about the liberty of conscience in this countryn which
he would DO puzzled TO answer and whether liberty
OF conscience is recognized unlimited in the United
States nc. But to place, Archbishop Hughes does,
the penal laws against worship and the prosecu
tions to which they give rise in tn. category
acts resulting from popular ebulton prohibited by the
laws that kind Of socal and political intolerance"
which makes itself felt by exclusive intercourse Is to
parallel between objects different in their princi
Piles in their consequences " Is there any practical
difference" these the words which are put into the
mouth of the Tuscan ruler in the dialogue TO which
have alluded with government, for the purpose Of
elimination Of recrimnaton, do not exactly com
prehend which perhaps both-"Is there any practical
difference between the social intolerance which prevails
in your country, where there many religions and
but one 20 The Archbishop, like dexterous dalecti
clan, by the insertion of little word practical"
changes the whole bearing of the discussion This turns
upon principle upon the relative rights of governments
and OF the communities subjected to them, and not
at all upon social usages, whether the result Of pro-
priety or of prejudice. He who confines his business
his intercourse to members OF his own faith,
" who drives away servants because they will not,
against their conscience join the domestic religion of
State'-(Quere: What these words domestic reli-
gon of Stae0whcn their fancy has made exclusive"
who dinherits his own offspring for other cause
except that OF practising their religion deserves
the contempt and reprobaton of every right minded
1t is abuse Of terms to call the motives that
govern him religious convictions They are blind and
bitter and wicked preudices nowhere taught in the Cos
pelo of Rut they belong that class of social
duties beyond the reach Of positive laws and must be left
to their consequences An attempt To control them
would lead to endless and inextricable difficulties
For myself sir heve not the least intention Of under
taking the task Of pointing out the into which
Archbishop hughes has fallen In relation to this topic
desire, however, to say, that doubt but that
acts of social intolerance ke those he audes and
justly censures may have occurred in this country but
trust and believe they and know they
not chargeabe to any particular denomination but may
happen well to members of the Catholic faith to
those of the various sects of Protcstants and know
still more that they less likely to happen in this
country than in any other under heaven from the very
nature of social condition and of political organ
zaton which hostile to sectarian prcudices, and
insure their being visited by public condemnation.
But to the question to be put by Grand Ducal lips,
whether there is practical difference between
social intolerance and the legal intolerance Of other
countries, yes-a the difference the world
as well theoretical as practical If the law is inole
rant society becomes necessarily ntoerant Also though
the of the proposition would be logical here
sy The government that reduces religion its will
makes the worship of God the subject of legal regula
tionwhatever may be the conviction of those under its
authority The government which that religion
s matter between man and his Creator, and avoids all
interference with it, leaves the human conscience free
and the modest attribute of natureo do its own
work The of secular power is not interposed to
direct to restrain and to punish AS 1t Is where rulers
presumpuously undertake to substitute their will
for the will OF God Every in country of religious
freedom has the same rights and mmunities every
other, and that is all that Justly be demanded Of
civil governments. But the prescription Of social
intolerance game at which oil may play. Unreason
able prejudices may be encountered by preiudices
Iy undn nUraa tharl in
this unworthy contest But 1t is contest which can
nowhere endure for any length Of time, be felt to
any considerable extent where the
neutal position and protects each from the actual in
reference Of all II Protestant will not have Catholic
servant, Catholic Protestant one servant
master whose faith differs from his own, each suit
himself by seeking such as may please him in the mem
bers Of his denomination, and this is practically
far better than that of sects should be the do
mnant one judging not only ITSELF but all others
and enjoying its freedom at their EXPENSE prescribing
ALL not only by social intolerance, but by legal power
and by terrible punishments So much for this question
SO emphaticaly put.
Archbishop Hughes in the appeal he makes from on,
to practice in continuation of the Tuscan
rebuke to be administered to government remarks
that other violations Of liberty of conscience 10 diff
erent paris of the country, are by in
to reisr to the burning Of religious buildings
Philadelphia which have already introduced in con
nection with another branch OF this inquiry he ha
just before referred to the lamenabe destruction Of
convent'in Charesown, Massachusetts,. Mr.. President
these instances of lawlcss violence have Legitimate
place IN TINS inquiry They are introduced by way OF OH
set against the Madia persecution and to warn tina
we are not so quieess a. to find ourselves justified IL
throwing the first stone It is commended that the Nadia
we're punished for possessing and reading the Bible
While Archbishop Hughes Indignantly denies this charge
he brings against character and institutions this
cusation, Of equal greater intolerance which
ahoud forecose from complaint animadyersion.
am indeed amazed ut this reference for any such pur
pose. That cause must be weak, indeed, which needs
support like this The Archbishop has left unnoticed II
not unheeded the real principles which separate these
American and Italian acts OF intolerance by vast dis
share Of reprcach for deeds NJ volence against the law
but punishment by the law while the share Of the other
is the responsibility of bad laws, uniusy administered
and striking ct the very foundation OF religious freedom
All people less accountable for the
Of crime among them, but this is very different
countabity from that which attaches to tho commission
OF great moral Offences like the oppression of the human
conscience, through the pstrumentaty Of tho The
fanaiica riots in London in 1880 reproach to the
English character not because they sanctioned by
the government but because the had the
energy or the power to prevent them. The atrocous
destruction OF religious edces in country,
justify even pallate; but they deeds
which bring other public responsibility with them
than what attaches TO negligent feeble lmnistration
The actors in them exposed themselves heavy punish
ment and presume some of them, at least, met IL,
though have not Inquired into the fact But certain
is, the courts were open to prosecution, .na with
ample power, and, doubt not disposition, to visit
these offences with the full severity of the law As to
the failure TO make compensation for the scenes at
Charlestown of which the Archbishop complains mus.
confess have wished the most ample uneration
had been provided by the Legislature of the state
think the circumstances OF nature to render this
not act Of justice merely but of feeling and Of wis
DOM But STILL as question of naked right it must rest
upon the general laws of the State, and not upon any
popularity in the transaction itself If those laws pro-
vide for making good, at the public expense, losses in
CARED by acts of violence then the claim for pecunary
satisfaction could not have bcen resisted take it that
political community is under any obligation to make
compensation for injuries resulting from awles violence
Whether they win do in any case, and II in what
case practical questions for municipal determine
ton. II is Obvious they cannot do IL in all
Notwithstanding the evident conviction in the mind Of
Archbishop Hughes that the made to the
Tuscan the subject Of the persecution OF
the Madai family would be barren of any useful result
fortified he must have considered his position by the
considerations presented In the official dialogue prepa red
by Notwithstanding all this, the doors of their pri
house have been thrown Open and those victims OF
an unjust Law have been released from its penalties
rejoice at 81 is proof OF the efficacy OF that great
ing and ayengng power, public opnioncspecily after
such bold experiment upon the feelings OF the 1t
i good sign in the great contest going between ruth
and ntolerapce and, IL not promise, Is Mt least
curry Of better things for the futurean augury which
viii not fail unless eberal governments OF the world
foil in their duty sit tin inery, instea OF watch
ing he progress of things and doing, whsn national
deeds are proper, and when they not by making
known their opinions by representa- not TO be mis-
understood, nor likely TO be rsshly disregarlel.
And fatrf Ina Ia s.,f Ia,