Fayetteville observer. [volume] (Fayetteville, Tenn.) 1850-1966, 1856-02-14
THE CASE sTRONGLYPUT.

THE CASE STRONGLY PUT.
Kuow-Nothings, when cornered on
the religious test, eyade the issue by
saying they want no law passed to
exclude Catholics. and that to refuse
to vote for Catholic or foreign born
citizen is no prescription. They are
taken up on these two points by Mr.
Keitt in the House, aud he clearly
shows, by reasoning the most con-
elusive and pointed, that the know
nothing creed seeks to do that which
the Constitution says shall not be
done, and thus, iu so doing, it estab-
fishes Ahigher law one above,
beyond and in opposition to the Con-
stitution. Listen to his plain yet ir-
resistible logic:
say to the gentleman from North
Carolina, Mr.. Reade. that, in my
judgment, his party--that is, the
American or know nothing party--is
guilty of civil and religious persecu-
ton. This | will show. The know
nothing party binds its members, |
understand, TO vote against all men,
bers of the Roman Catholic Church.
Is not this making a religious test?
and are not religious tests prohibited
by the Constitution? Let us exam
inc this.
What is suffrage? 1t is a polite
al continuance to collect and express
the public opinion and public will
Is the right Of suffrage a natural or
conventional right? 1t is the lat
ter, beyond a doubt. If so, from
what do you get it? From your or
ganic law. Now, as you get it from
your organiclaw, it is, of course, CIV
en- with all the limitations aud con-
ditions imposed by the Fundamental
law. What does that say? Why,
that there shall be no religious test?
The clause granting suffrage, and
the clause prohibiting religious tests,
must be construed in accord with
each other. Thus the organic law
imposes a restriction upon the exer-
else Of suffrage; and whoever makes
religious tests, violates that const;tu-
tional restraint.
But it has been argued that the
know nothing party does not contem
plate the enactment of a law eXclu-
ding Roman Catholics and naturali-
zed foreigners from all offices. II
this result is accomplished through
the agency fthe ballot.box, will it
not be as violative of the Constitu-
ton as if achieved through positive
enactments? II, through an instru-
mentality put into your hands by
the organic law, you accomplish the
subversion of the latter, is it not as
yiolatiye of all obligation and duty
as if you circumvented it by positive
statutory proyision9 To give an ex'
ample: The President Of the Uni
ted States is under the obligations Of
the Constitution, just as any voter
is. If he were to declare that be
would bestow Office upon no one who
is member of the Roman Catholic
Church, simply because be wasa Cath
Ollie, would it not be making reli-
gious test? Clearly so. How would
this be so? By determining the
qualification for office and station ac-
cording TO the religious convictions
of the candidate. The same is true
Of naturalized foreigners; yet, in this
instance, the circumvention of the
Constitution would be without any
positive law.
In answer to this view Of the cues
ton, it has been said that the voter
may vote as he pleases. Within the
limitations imposed by the Constitu-
tion, State and Federal, be may vote
as be choose, but if be votes over and
against these limitations, heis guilty
Of legal or moral wrong. Though
40 specific penalties may have been
defined, and no legal tribunal ,insti-
tuted to enforce them, yet the wrong
is not the less clear and disastrous.
This argument also implies an abso
Lutte and unqualified right ofproperty
in suffrage. If this right exist, why
cannot the vote be sold! 1t will be
answered because the law prohibits.
Exactly SO; but this proves that the
right is qualified one-that here are
restrictions upon its exercise This
Is all contend for. ] contend that