Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1860-11-23
LEGISLATURE OF VERMONT.

Y ~ OA hiAC-'As
[Condeased from Walton's Daily Journal.1
Tuesday, Nov Il.
Debate on the bill in relation 20 religious So
cieties"
HoUsE-The House took up the bill in addition
to chan IS :, in relation 10 religious societies
This bill provides that any religious society may
assess upon the pews Of their church or meeting
house, according to the valuation Of such pezs as
determined By the society, sums Of money for the
support of public worship, the insurance and re-
pairs of the church, and other contingent expen-
ses Of the society, when the consent Of all the
pew owners is obtained, or that Of two-thirds Of
them at regular meeting called for that purpose
1t provides also for the sale of the pews of such
persons as do not consent to such taxation, at an
appraisal made by three disinterested persons.
The rest Of its provisions concern the manner in
which these taxes shall be assessed and collected.
Various amendments reported by the committee,
which do not affect the main provisions Of the bill,
were made.
Mr.. Denison Of Royalton believed that the bill
had great merits, although be had special in
terest in it. Although on the face Of it it seemed
to be bill that was Objectionable, in its amended
form he could find no objection 10 it, 1t permitted
religious societies to do as they pleased, which
they could not do now. Who could object TO this -!
What reasonable ground for objection was there
Mr.. Child Of Hydepark remarked that in many
instances, there necessity for such 4 law TO
sustain religious worship, even keep a church
from falling into decay The pews fell into the
hands Of those who, from lack Of interest or from
other Unwillngness, left a small minority COM |
PEELED TO pay the entire expense. TIL provisions
of it calculated to secure fair end equitable
distribution Of the expense Of 4 society. II any
pew holder was not willing TO pay his snare, pro-
vision made for the sale Of his property at a |
fairly appraised value He believed that the bill |
ought to pass.
Mr.. Field of Newfane thought h9 snelt coercion /
in the BILL and he was that account opposed 70 |
it. 1t contrary to the spirit of our cOnsttu-
ton and our institutions. 1t was entire sban-
Comment Of the voluntary system which havo |
SO long lived under Our churches have been
built and public worship has been sustained by |
purely voluntary donations. There Is no trouble
u0w in laws, but in the spirit q the people, |
which induces the building of more churches than
there ought to be; this leads to feeble and inei-
cient societies.
Should man be compelled to support worship
that he did not believe in Should coercion be
employed 10 compel to violate the dict ted
IF his own conscience No sir, it Is not wise II Is
not wise, it is not juticious to 90 so. tt is not
just and in accordance with our sense Of Justice.
Who would force hard she'll Baptist to support
a methodist agains, his wish or the member of
any sect to support some other denomination? Ii
vas repuguant to our best feelings 70 attempt 70
10 this. But this what this Dill contcmplares.
1t ought not 10 uecome law, II was wrong, en-
rights. Il unjust and deserved to fall.
Mr.. Child Oh Il ydepark said il was easy for
member 10 bring up some constitutional bugbear
when be wished to kill any bill. He argued that
the provisions Of the bill did not coutrovert those
OF the constitution AMI the bill Of rights referring
70 the authorities which were cited il the report
o the CON. t. sustain the principles Of the bill.
The truth the practical exigencies and neces-
stiles in the organization Of religious societies de-
manded tIe passage Of bill like the present one,
IN order 70 insUre their permanent and successful
operation. The constitutional objection all
a humbug. No ones rights are infringed. 10
permitted the society, two thirds Of it, 10 pur
sue such a as seemed to them most juiici0us
Was there anything so fearful in this as had been
portrayed Certainly not.
Mr.. Myers of Jamaica moved TO amend by
striking out those sections that -aTs the bill It's
peculiar character and efficiency, which in fact
killed the bill.
NJ. Noyes Of Burlington hoped that the gen
tlemsn from Jamaica would withdraw bis motion
10 amend, so that the discussion might proceed on
tie merits Of the bill.
Mr.. Field Of Ne7faue read from the C0nstitl /
ton Of Massachusetts,, and argued that that docu-
ment differed from that Of this State that It's pro-
visions in respect 70 the support of religious /
worship unlike those in cur bill Of rights
and constitution. The rr visions Of the former
warranted such measures as the present one
those Of the latter forbid it. Tie argument
drawn from Massachusetts, authorities would not
hold.
Mr.. Myers Of Jamaica said had been remark
cd tnat his proposed amendment would kill the
bill IF that were so, he would say amen TO it
ne mad no esire TO return 70 adoption Of the
oAhecilcut Blue Laws. &c should be slow 10 wed
-aureh and state 10 such bonds as were once in
existence lie would not return TO the uroseriu-
i've and compulsory laws of an earlier and ruder
age He would not 60 backward, and coatravene
the cred rights which had been guaranteed BY
1ur bill Of rights.
Mr. ToIman Of Greensboro remarked that the
. siltutlonal objection a serious one if we'll
ounded. But be did not put that cousc ruction
lpon It which had been given to it, He interpre-
ed 1t TO mean that man had the power 70 select
ne denomination he would support lie exercised
ms power IN accordance with the dictates Of his
WI conscience. But the principle Of his support
nS some religious society was distinctly indic4t-
%. The present bill did not contravene this How
ans the man in the society What did he Join ?
{ Tor unless 1t was TO help support and main
ain the society in all its necessary functions and
perations. Was not all this dJae in accordance
nth the dictates Of the individuals clnscience-
.at should the man who had thus med the | C
luTch or the society, choose to refuse to perform
hose duties that are incumbent on him as such d.,
lemoer; If be viii do nothing but stands still in
-u0o0rn obstlnacy, as has been said, like the dog
J the manger; ought there not to be some o wer Z
} compel him This conscience question that II
ouoled gentlemen so much had less influence %
ian their pockets. lie read the provisions of the Il
t, and argued that ones ri "a we're iafringed a
lat the fears and objections that were entertained
exc IDLE; that there was sound objection 70
e Dill, but many reasons that were c5gent and 81
-gent for its passage. a:
Ar. NOyes, OF Burlington, regarded the consti- :
tIonal objection that had been raised 10 the meas. "
Re as Of little weight. lie concurred with the "
ntleman from Greensboro in lis intermediate n,
the Constitution, SO far relates to religions ~
cleties anu worship. 1t was fair common sense -
Instruction o. It, 1t was the true construction as =
ldenced by the practice Of our fathers. who en- 10
ted law taxing all persons for the maintenance "a
religious worship. The choice of the denonin
ION or OF the society that he would support was ri
ely granted 70 eacl lad vidual, but he was tax =.
any way. lie examined tue implied contract ~
persons who formed society aud deiuceI the !"
lc'usions tna- there were other and hirhcr Oh ! c.
atoms than to bald house of wood, stone or Of
OK; there was Obligation t. maintain It
saching, to support public worship. The moral Of
legation rose ABOVE the legal one. Mr.. Moves SCI
ltinu TO enforce his views in favor Of the pas th
-e, with earnestness and force. nv
The debate was continued by Nessrs GI,ei -
~ and folman. and the bill was faally dis
ssed cet
The New York Herald is in an awful furry -.
:.