Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1863-03-07

our Government had not thrown around the
citizen this irrevocable guaranty, when it is
remembered, that so many of tho trainers of
the Constitution must have been familiar with
the acts of the British Parliament against
non-conformists' and had witnessed the in
Justice and hardship resulting therefrom.
They had seen men of the most exalted abil-
tiles and virtues excluded from places Of pub.
lie trust for no other reason than that they
would not subscribe to all Of the dogmas of
church established by law. They had wit
messed, at the same time, other men of the
most questionable integrity and morality
clothed in the robes OF prelate and bishop.
Exacting without stint or mercy enormous rev.
enues from an unwilling people, and expend-
ing the same in the pursuit of an unholy am
biti m and in luxury that better befitted
some Eastern satrap than the followers of The
"meek and lowly Jesus" on whom they PRO-
fcssed to believe. In the light of their last
experience, and inspired by the great primal
truths of the Declaration " ndefeasible rights
of man to the enjoyment of life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness" still sounding in
their ears, they founded Government OH the
basis of religious liberation, before unknown
to mankind. This could not well have leen
otherwise. from the very nature of things. 1t
was the inevitable corollary that proceeded
from the premises and thus was it, that re-
ligion was left u matter between man AMI his
Maker and not between man and thy GYern-
ment.
But here arises 4 most important question,
a question perhaps that has never yet been
asked or fully answered in this country
how far does the right of conscience extend
Is there any limit to this right and, if so,
where shall the line of demarkation be
drawn, designating Mat whieA isnot forbid
den fiom Mat uhich is? This is indeed a
most important inquiry. and from the tenden-
cy of the times, must sooner or later be an
swcred. cannot and will not OH this occa-
sion pretend to answer this question, but will
venture the suggestion that when it is ans
swered the same rules will be adopted as if
the freedom of speech and Of the press were
involved in the argument.
Let us refer to this provision of tho Con-
stiution it is found in tie first article of
laws respecting the establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or
abridging the freedom Of speech or of the
press" Can we logically infer from the
above provision that these rights is of more
importance to the citzns than another, and
that his duty in their free exercise" is not
the same! think rot.
Let us briefly examine this proposition.
Because "the freedom of speech and Of the
press" guaranteed. can the citizen thereby be
allowed to speak slanderously and falsely of
his neiglbor? Can he write and print libel
with IMMUNITY! Ho certainly cannot; and
his folly would almost amount to idocy if he
should appeal to the Constitution to shield
him from the consequences of his acts. But
they question may be asked-why not The
answer is at hand. Simply because he is not
allowed to abasc these rights. IT, upon a
prosecution for SANDER or libel, the defendant
should file his plea setting up that provision
of the Constitution as a matter Of defense,
the plea would not only be bad on the demur-
as n very bad lawyer. Will any one inform
me why the same parity of reasoning should
not apply as well in one case as the other2
That if an act, in violation of law and re-
pugnant to the civilization in the midst of
which that act has been committed, should be
followed by prosecution, could it be justified
under the guaranty of the Constitution secur-
ind tho free exercise of religion" more than
in the case above cited e! shall pause for an
answer. There can DO no limits beyond
which the mind cannot dwell, and our
thoughts soar in their aspirations after truth.
We may think what we will, believe what
we will, and speak what we will, on all sub
jects Of speculative theology. We may be-
leve with equal impunity the Talmud of the
Jew, the Bible of the Christian, the Book of
Mormon, the Koran, or the Veda Of the Brah-
min. We cannot elevate other than by moral
forces, the human soul from the low plane Of
Ignorance and barbarism, whether it worships
for its God, the Lama of the Tartars, or the
Beetle Of the Egyptians. But when religious
opinions assume new manifestations and pass
from mere sentiments into Orert acts. no mat
ter whether they be acts Of taiM or not, they
must not outrage the opinions Of the civilized
world, but, on the other hand, must conform
to those usages established by law, and which
are believed to underlie our civilization.
But the question returns-1s there any
limit to "the free exercise of religion?" If
there is not, then in tho midst of tho nine
teenth century, human victims may be sacri-
feed rs an atoncment for sin, and widows
may BE- burned alike on tho funeral pile" Is
there one here, who believes that such shock
ing barbarisms could b. prscticed in the name
of religion, and in "the free exercise thereof
in any State or Territory Of the United
States? If not. then there must be limit
to this right under consideration, and it only
remains for the proper tribunal at the proper
time to fix the boundaries, as each case shall
arise involving that question.
IL The Walla Walla Statesman says that