Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1855-05-30

pie should De provided Dy proportionS Inc
second left every one to provide for himsclfs"
| Mr.. Chandler then continued as follows:
There are personal rights so sacred to every
man that even the form of protection is an
outrage There are things too sanctifed in
| fence so blended with the character of one
/ Government as to be imperative or offensive
in another, and yet above all assault from
abroad, as they are above all defence at home
las the Jewish ark brought disease and dis
| asters to the Philstines, who dared assault it,
| and death to the Hebrews who reached forth
| in its support That sanetity belongs to reli-
| gious creeds in our country, and is fully rec
| ognised in the Constitution. in the 6rst place
by Withholding from the Government the right
to apply any religious test to candidates for
office, and thus are the professors of any single
creed saved from the outrage of direct pros
cription And in the second place, it is pro-
| vided for in that sacred instrument that no
| legislation shall be had by which individuals
of any creed shall be especially favored, nor
any form of worship established or prescribed.
| While we admire the beautiful theory of the
Government which thus manifests itself in the
| fundamental law of the nation, we may, with
out inquiring into the neglect or violation of
these principles and provisions, look back and
find in the theory and practice of the first col
oniai Government of Maryland the only pre-
cedents for such provisions precedents I
mean, not merely in the idle defamation not
merely in pompous assertion, Utopian schemes
but precedents which rest on the plan and
ample fulflment of that plan by men who
knew that the theory which they promulgated
was questionable, who knew that while the
opposite plans of Government were excluding
| them from the protection and political benfts
of all the other colonies, their own plan was
exposing them to the imminent risk of perse-
cution and disfranchisement in their own col
ony.
It is to be remarked of the history of the
colonies of which our Union was formed, that
almost every one claims to have owed its exis-
tence to persecution at home, and almost
every one made intolerance leading feature
of its own Government And it is still more
remarkable that not one of those colonies was
formed by immigrants who had left their coun-
try on account of the intolerance Of Roman
Catholics Nor is this all while almost every
colony owes its existence to Protestant intol-
erance, none but Maryland, the only Catholic
colony of them all. attempted to practice reli-
gious liberty. She proclaimed universal lib
erty to every sect and division of sect that
professed belief in Jesus Christ. and knowing
that France had contributed to the amount of
our colonial population by the violence of a
Catholic Government against its Protestant
subjects. she opened her heart, and her fields
also to their ingress, and as the peculiarity of
their position might make them doubtful of
their welcome, she passed special law invi-
| ting fugitive Hugucnots to come and enjoy in
Catholic Maryland the freedom to worship
God, which bad been denied to them in
France.
At the present moment, when it is the object
of political proscriptionists to conceal or deny
the existence or display of virtues in members
of the Catholic Church, we hear it gravely as
serted that the tolerance, the Christian liberty
that distinguished the laws and government
of the Maryland colony, was due to the respect
which those colonists and the noble proprieta-
ry owed to the feelings and wishes of the
Protestant monarch of England. Ifsuch an
explanation of the motives of the various colo
nies with regard to tolerance intolerance
be admitted, it will prove to much. 1t may
indeed, deprive the Catholics of some portion
of the credit for voluntary tolerance claimed
in their behalf. but it makes it fairly inferable
that the Protestant Governments made it not
only sine qua non that Catholics should not
disturb Protestants, but that Protestants
should persecute Catholics as some of the
Protestant colonies enacted laws against sects
differing from the dominant religious party,
and most of them, even when little charita-
bic to Protestants of different views, fixed
their Cannons against Roman Catholics, and
some of the children of persecution themselves
assigned as reason for intolerance. the speci-
al hostility of the British Government to the
Papists. and the necessity of accommodating
themselves and their laws to the wishes of the
King and the home government
The Catholic colony, according to certain
class of modern commentators. was charitable
and tolerant out of fear of the KIM whiln the
pro.es.--. .::as ssS:ss Ssfs inioierant and prose-
cutting from love of the King admit of
neither. | demand that each colony be
Judged by its own acts, without any reference
to the imaginary wishes of the parent govern
ment, and do this the more earnestly because
know that, whenever it suits the purposes of
certain writers, they win make the state of the
British government and the British King,
during the early part of the seventeenth cen
tury the means and the motive for conduct
exactly opposite TO that imputed 10 the respec-
tive Catholic and Protestant colonies 1t Is
lust to all parties to allow TO each that amount
Of credit for motives which is fairly deducibie
from their acts, and In period Of much reli-
gious intolerance colony hedges itself about
with edicts of the most prosecuting character.
and inflicts penalties, pains and death on those
whose views of Christian requirements differ
from those of the majority, it Is but just to
suppose that they left the parent country with
DO disrelish for intolerance itself, but only as
It affected their non-conformity and it is DO
less fair to believe that colony which, leav-
inc an info]eranf countrv gives freedom 10