The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-12-02
CHURCH AND STATE.

1t has been, for years, popular belief
that there could be no union between
church and state-that Is, that there could
be no established church"--in this coun-
try, on account of constitutional inhibi-
ton and 30 far as the states, as nation,
are concerned 1t is true but, as ex-Speaker
Blaine In his recently published letter al
ready rererred to, explains, there is no
such prohibition as to individual states.
Each state can, IL 1t will. have an "estab-
"lished church"-unless the state constitu-
ton prohibits it-and Vermont at one time,
as we shall see, had something very much
like one, or, perhaps better, several of
them. The constitution as originally
adopted contained no provision relative to
religion, but in the first series of amend
ments proposed--and which were subse-
quently ratified and became part of the
constitution, by the vote of Vermont, No
vember 3,l791-it was provided that 'con-
gress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting
"the free exercise thereof" and, at the
same time by another amendment, that
the powers not delegated to the United
States by the constitution, nor prohibited
"by it to the states, are reserved to the
estates respectively, or to the people"
Taking these two provisions together, and
in the absence of anything else on the sub
ject, 1t follows that the states expressly re-
served to themselves the right to provide
for an establishment of religion" and to
regulate the exercise thereof.
Mr.. Blaine seems to think that these
amendments were adopted because the
fear was that congress might be a source
" of danger to perfect religious liberty"
but we hardly think he is correct in his
view. The power, undoubtedly, was taken
from congress, because the people of the
several states preferred to interfere with
"perfect religious liberty" themselves,
and they did not propose that congress
should interfere with the exercise of that
power. Nearly every state did. at that
time, interfere with perfect religious liber-
ty, and regulate, If not prohibit, the free
exercise thereof. The case of Vermont
illustrates this. From 1887 to 1907, the
affairs of the church were entirely man.
aged by the town. Injecting houses" were
located, built, altered and repaired by a
vote of the town, and the money therefor
was raised by taxation on the grand list.
The settlement, ordination and dismission
of clergymen was regulated by the inhabi-
tants of the town, in town meeting assem-.
bled, and the minister's salary was town
charge, and paid the same as other town
expenses by money raised by taxation.
The law declared that the inhabitants oil
each town or parish should be of, and con.
tribute to the support of, the leading re-
ligious denomination in town, 80 that all
whether they conceded in religious belize
with the majority or not, were compelled
to support the standing order"-in mos
cases, in this state, the Congregations
church.
The same was true of Massachusetts
and it is doubtful whether it would mo-
have still continued so there except for the
Unitarian controversy, in which, in many
of the larger towns, that denomination
gained an ascendency, controlled the towr
meetings, gained possession of the funds
devised for religious purposes, voted thu
taxes and compelled all to contribute to thu
support of their organization. The resul
was that the support of the Gospel wa
taken from the towns and given to socie
ties established for that purpose. In Yer
mont, no such controversy settled the ques
ton. There was, however, a long contro
versy over the matter. Legislature afte
legislature was appealed to, but in vain. Ii
1907, however, Aaron Leland, Baptis
clergyman, was speaker of the house 0
representatives, and Ezra Butler, also
Baptist clergyman, was a member of tn
council-he was subsequently governor o
the state-and by their strenuous exertiOn
and extended influence, they succeeded il
procuring the passage, by small majority
of law repeating all laws upon tile sub
ject, and since that time all laws regulatin
the support of the gospel have been abol
ished; and every person. tax payer or not
is at liberty to support, or withhold hi
support from, the preaching of the gospel
and each denomination is left to be sus
! tanned by its own particular friends an,
adherents. We have no idea that any a,
tempt will ever again be made to regulat
these matters, although what has been ma
be, and only refer to the subject as inter
esting In connection with Mr.. Blane's let
ter,