The weekly Mississippian. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1859-1864, 1860-02-22

manifestations, they will hardly undertake to
declare it an injury TO the State or to the
people. And even if you do SO think, you
have no right to compel your fellow-citizens
to adopt your opinions. The French Jacob
| ms and assassins, by law declared religion an
| injury to the State; but it has never been de-
clared so here neither by the constitution, the
legislature, or the Judiciary. On the contra
| nv, BY all these it is evidently held that reli-
gion is good thing, and that every man
should be free to follow his own convictions
in regard to it. s....
If then, religion, is good thing, religious
purposes" are not opposed to the public well
fare, what right have you to hinder citizen
from disposing of his goods for the advance
ment of them?
A man feels that religion has been his own
chief comfort in life-his strongest safeguard
against vice-and he satisfies himself that by
providing for the building Of a church, the
education and support Of preachers of the
| gospel, or the establishment of a seminary in
some town or neighborhood, he will be doing
good to his neighbors, to his posterity, and to
the State. He believes religion is benefit to
society, and TO established institutions that
is teaches men to respect the laws, to love their
neighbors, to shun dishonesty and vice, even
when there is no probability of human detec-
ton. A man has these convictions. Even
though you do not share them with him, you
cannot justly deny his right to act upon them.
Yet you have done so in the articles of your
code which it is proposed to repeal.
You would denounce the man as tyrant
or pity him as lunatic, who would propose to
forbid you from leaving your property to a
steamboat or turnpike company a club of
| Iauyaro accnoiafion If doctors What
an outrage is it on equality that you should
forbid him from disposing Of his means for
objects that he believes of far higher import
ance
There is yet loftier motive. If you ac-
knowledge at all the truth Of religion or Of
the scriptures, you must confess that the first
commandment Of the christian law is to love
God even above our feilow-men. Now, what
ever distinguished jurists or codiiers may
think Of that precept, if some one else feels
that all his temporal goods are gift of God,
and if, in gratitude and love for Him, he wish
es to devise them in way which he believes
will make God better known and beloved
among men, what right have you to prescribe
his views and defeat what he believes the no
.blest disposition of the gifts God has blessed
him with ?
THESE LAWS ARE WRONG TO TIE LEGATEES.
They make it impossible to leave any thing
. by will for charitable or religious purposes
This is simply the incapacitating certain per-
sons in the community from receiving the ben
eft of legacies us,reviying in this enlighten-
ed era and in this free country, the arbitrary
doctrines Of the bloOdiest period of English
, jurisprudence History has consigned those
enactments to everlasting infamy, and her pa
ges are alternately crimSoned with the crimes
they have produced, or draped in mourning for
afflicted humanity What right has the leg
slature Of free commonwe to make such
odious determinations between citizens, who
have committed no offence and manifested ne
evil disposition Have you the constitution
al power to make these determinations, unless
where the public welfare is clearly and une-
quiyocally involved? Imagine a law forbid
ding legacies for the benefit of the Agricultu-
raj Bureau, or for one of your railroad compa-
MES. Would not such law be promptly pro-
nounced unconstitutional, and be set aside p
: Now, for what crime are the orphans, OF the
> poor, or those engaged in religious teaching or
5 lninistration, singled out as objects of exclu-
sion? Why distinguish between them and
7 others? A bequest to an orphan asylum is
D really bequest to each of the individual Or
r phans, and each one among them has as good
G a right to receive by will, as the wealthieSt
e citizen of the State. And if the testator is
4 not acquainted with their names, or does not
choose to entrlst his legacy to multitude of
!, guardians, but of necessity or preference ap-
points some special friend to apply it for their
e benefit, what evil have those poor orphans
done that they should be deprived by law oil
e the common right to receive what a dying
friend chooses to beStow upon them, and
a through whatever hands he deems most suit
|. able
t And the same is to be said of requests fol
religious purposes. The sacred ministry is
4 to say the least, lawful calling, and those
who exercise it are no less freemen and citi-
e zens, than the rest Of the community. II
property be left to them for any purpose not
I immoral, why should they be excluded from
Eecexins and-aTagalsziaS -AAAaA GlGs-
! faulters are excluded from the honors of the
State, but even these, in this age of humani-
ty and justice, are permitted to receive by last
will and testament. The people of this coun-
Q try are now enjoying the Englishman, Smith
5 sons magnificent bequest fer the diffusion Of
]. worldly knowledge among men; but the laws
of this great and opulent commonwealth will
not allow one of its citizens to receive a be-
quest for the diffusion of the word of God
A man of VIGOROUSLY bad character receives
) legacy. He uses it to buy printing press,
and floods the community with a prostituted
and demoralizing literature in 'yellow papers,
, or he employs it to open some den of iniamy-
> some plague spot of society. 1t may be stipula-
, ted in the will that it shall be employed to keep
! up and embelish certain drinking saloon;
race track, or theatre, and your laws inter-
pose no prohibition. Because they are not the
dreaded charitable and religious objects" at
which your prohibitions are directed.
Another citizen, quiet and orderly man,
,, clergyman perhaps, a charitable person, is
left legacy. He employs it from his own
+ impulses, or according to the intentions of the
testator, in printing religious tracts; in making
the house of God more comfortable; in pro-
yiding for the wants and instruction of the
poor; in building retreat for infirm or super
: animated preachers. What crimes are these
that the law, instead of protecting him as it
protects his dissolute neighbor will institute
an inquistion to arrest his good works. and
oblige him to surrender his legacy. Should
great commonwealth, for imaginary evils as
, unsubstantial as phantoms, thus trample on
sacred trust, and rob the dying of one of their
greatest consultations On what principle of
equity or liberty, or Of sound policy, can such
odious determinations be supported
Let us reverse the case, and presume pro-
: hibition of legacies for commercial or manu-
featuring purposes or the fine arts. Who
would not exclaim the odious enactment ?"
What is the inherent wickedness, what the
palpable and established mischief of "charita-
BILE and religious objects, that they should be
put under ban which legislators would not
dare to proclaim against other objects .?
Such regulations may square very well
with the maxim of Danton, "de Paudace, de
paudace, toyours de raudace :" they may
harmonise with the response of Robespisrre,
who, when asked what proofs he had against
a prisoner, exclaimed: Proofs! l have no
proofs my suspicious are proofs. l have a
moral conviction of his guilt"
But the laws of all christian communities
are founded upon the divine precept, "do unto
others as We would they should do unto you;'
and certain it is, your code violates this sacred
sanction and this natural equity.
The most wise and equitable laws will
sometimes, by combination of circumstances,
lead to results which, in particular cases, are
not equitable. This is due to the imperfection
| of all human institutions. But the results
complained of are not consequence of the
imperfection, but rather of the thorough COM
pleteness of your arbitrary laws. They do
not arise from accidental combinations. But
the direct, avowed object Of the law is to pro-
hibit all requests for charitable and religious
purposes. 1t indirectly brands them as tEea-
sonable and infamous, leaving all other be-
quests, whether to good or bad men, for good
or bad purposes, to the operation of the gener-
al law as to last wills and testaments.
The prescription and the specific legislation
are unwise and unjust, and, most probably,
unconstitutional
What plea can be for them? Only that
they are intended to guard the testator against |
improper influences, and the public against |
abuses All the pleas resolve themselves into
this one To (which the answer is
LIST. That improper influences are not to be |
presumed in framing general laws; but are to |
be proved in courts of law, by the established |
rules of evidence.
I'd. In making laws against abuses, it should |
first be clearly shown that there are abuses
s-rnnk and rn,,, NOR. A