New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-05-25

the cOOny; no doubt on tue grounu vi tue cnsrso
then. and even now. urged against Catholics, that,
where tie interests of their Church are concerned,
tbsy can readily find priests to sbsoive them from
al other obligations. About l74, the Catholics
b,y;pp become considerably numerous in Philadel-
phia. mustered courage to build church; which no
sooner had they done, than good many Leading
persons in the city including the then Governor oil
the colony, were thrown into great alarm and trePl
dation, eyinced in diatrbes against this poor
Catholic church. similar 10 those lately uttered oy
ex-Mayor Lennon, of the City of Washington
against the school for colored females recently
established in that city. Governor Gordon was for
instantly enforcing against the Catholics the English
penal laws, just as ex.Mayor Lennox cries OUT Tor
putting into practice in the District of Columbia
the laws of Virginia and South Carolina against
colored schools. The Governor failed TO carry the
Council with him-an augury, we hope, Of exMayor
Lennoxs success, and so at the date of the Revolu
ton there was one and only one State in which the
Catholic worship was tolerated.
Nor did this prejudice against Catholics die out
with the Revolution. By the early State CoDstitu-
tons of New. Hampshire, New. Jersey, North Caro-
lima. South Carolina and Georgia, Catholics were
expressly excluded from the chief Offices of state.
Rhode Island and Connecticut went on with their
colony charters and laws. The Constitution of
Virginia treated Catholics precisely as it did the
negroes, by continuing the colony laws in force In
MARYLAND and Massachusetts, all oficeholders were
Obliged TO declare their belief in the christian
religion" under which class Court as stiff for
Professionalism as Taney's Court is for Slavery would
have little hesitation in saying that, taking the cur
rent sentiment of the coOnists into view, BY whom
Popery and idolatry were regarded as synonymous,
Catholics could not nationally be considered to be
included.
Now what would Mr. Chief Justice fancy say to
an argument which should treat him as an intruder
and interloper disqualified to sit upon the bench of
the Supreme Court, because he is Catholicl And
vet why should not he, did he happen to be put on
the spit to be roasted consent to be basted with the
sauce which he has himself mixed for the free Ne
groes9 What SAYS Mr.. Chief Justice Is this,
or is not one of the cases in which sauce for the
gander is sauce for the goose and if not, why mott
Perhaps our Chief Justice, thus in danger of be-
ing hoisted by his own petard, may appeal to that
clause of the Constitution of the United States
the only one We believe, in which any mention OF
religion is made-by which Congress is forbidden to
make any law respecting an establishment OF re-
lgion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof But
in bis own exposition of the true meaning both OF
the Declaration of independence and of the COnstitu
ton ITSELF be has taught short and easy method,
just as applicable to the case of Catholics as to
that of negroes
The Chief Justice quotes frem the Declaration of
Independence the following famous paragraph,
which Anti-Slavery men have so long triumphantly
relied upon, as if making on their side
1--WE hold these truths to be sef-evident: that all
men are created equal that they endowed by their
Creator with certain unaenable rights; that among
them are life liberty and the pursuit OF haPPine'si
that IN SECURE these rights established
deriving their just powers from the consent Oh the
governed"
This lannon's clause Mr. Chief Justice explains
away follows:
"The general words above quoted would seem to
embrace the whole human family; and II they were
used in a similar instrument at this day, would De
80 understood But it is too clear for dispute that the
ensa,ed African race Iah trckser, but the question
is not to enssved Africans but free Afroans were
not intended to be included Iney
-.
according to the then established doctrines and prnc
PIES and in the ordinary language of the day, and no
one misunderstood them. The unhappy black race
were separated from the white by indeible marks and
laws long before established and never thought
of or spoken OF except rs property.
With this precedent in his eye, Chief Justice
as rampant for religious exclusyeness and persecu-
ton as fancy is for Slavery might sxeaim,
Z" The word religion in the above cited clause OF
'the Constitution, might seem to include the Cath
Ole belief In similar instrument OF the pres
ent day. it would be so understood. But it is too
clear for dispute that it did not include the perse-
" cuted and DISTINGUISHED Papists. The trainers OF
" the Constitution must be supposed to speak ac-
cording to the established doctrines and principles
and in the ordinary language of the day. The
" unhappy Catholics were separated from tho Pro-
4" testants by indeble marks and laws long before
- established, and were never thought of or spoken
" of except as idOlaters."
To take another lesson in fence from olr practi-
cal Chief Justice: The fifth amendment to the
Constitution, which provides that "no person shall
" be deprived of life liberty or property without
" due process of law" has often been quoted as
an evidence that the Federal Constitution does not
tolerate Slavery. On the other hand, says our
sharp practitioner, that very clause sorbds Con-
gress to prohibit the introduction of Slavery into
the Territories, because that would DO to deprive
Shareholders of their property without due process
of law" So might it be said as to the sbovecited
clause about religion: Looking at the spirit and
feeling of the times and the then established doc
trnes and principles, evinced in the laws of the
States, the .rue intent of this restriction upon
Z" the power of Congress was to prevent them from
" ever passing or attempting to pass any laws BY
u. L har