The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1876-04-30

| tionnl right under the federation clause,
! TO express the opinions charged TO he BIAS
| phctnOus. IL was held, however, that una
| hciously to rcvIlc Christianity through its
author, being an offence at common law
| in England, was an offence ut common law
here, Notwithstanding the Constitution.
| The court declared the Constitution fully
| satisfied by "a free aud universal federation,
| without any of the tests, disabilities, or
Determinations incident to a religious
establishment; but they denounced any
| construction of that instrument which
| should break down the commou-law bar
riers against licentious, wanton, and inn
pious attacks upon Christianity itself.
Nor are we bound, by any expressions in
the Constitution" said Chief Justice kent,
"as some have strangely supposed. either
not to punish at all. or to punish ndis-
criminately. the like attacks upon tho re-
ligion of MAHoMEr, or of the Grand
Lama; and this for the plain reason that
the case assumes that we are n Christian
people, and the morality of the country IL
deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and
not upon the doctrines or worship OF those
impostors."
This case of the People against RrGGLEs
excited great discussion afterward in the
Constitutional Convention of 1921, where
the decision was bitterly assailed as being
In violation of the religious liberty and
equality intended to be secured 10y the
Constitution. An amendment which pro-
hibited the judiciary from declaring any
religion to be the law of the land was pro-
posed; but IL was voted down by heavy
majority. Under this approval OF the de-
cisiou it would seem settled that our courts
have the constitutional power to try and
punish any malicious act concerning the
Christian religion, which was punishable
Mt common law in England. But they
have no such authority in regard to other
religious systems. Evil-dsposed persons
may freely aud lawfully revie not only
such divinitics as those OF Brahmanism and
Buddhism, hut the faith of the Mohan-
mctans. which recognizes supreme and
invisible God no less than our own. II the
question were new TO our tribunals. IL
might we'll be doubted whether this dis
stinctIon is not unconstitutional. True II
Is no hardship to Others to prohibit the ut
terance OF language which the Christian
regards ms plasphemous but do we really
maintain that enjoyment Of religious pro-
fcssion icihOW preference which is guai1in-
teed by our Constitution to all mankind,
when we enable the Christian to enjoy his
religious profession free from blasphcmy,
while we refuse TO the Mohamm edan, the
Buddhist, and the Hindoo within our bor-
, ders the same immunity under the law
from like couumelious rcproach
The Supreme Court Of Pennsylvania have
, held that malicious revling of Christianity
| IN, ,,,,,,tahn1,I, In, "a al
! common law, and statutes against bias
, phcmy have been sustained in Massachu-
, sets and Delaware. So far as this branch
Of the subject goes, the late Judge DrEH
:, of this city once declared in III, Superior
Court that the true and only sense of the
maxim that Christianity il part aud parcel
, of the common law, was that the law Will
not permit TIE essential truths of revealed
y. religion-meaning the Christian faith-tc
be ridculed and reviled. This correspond:
with the opinion expressed 10y Mr.. Justice
STORY in the GIRARD will case. that Chris
tianity was n part of the common law OF
PENNSYLVANIA in the qualified sense that III
. divine origin aud truth are admitted, nno
" therefore il is not to be maliclously reviled
; and blasphomed against. The decisions tC
b which we have referred, however, appear
, to have been induced not wholly by thi
" maxim from English Jurisprudence, bu
by the additional consideration that Chris
tianiiy is the acknowledged basis OF on
y civil society and system of morals, will
- which it is indissolubly interviewer, an'
also by the fact that it is in this countr.
- the religion of the majority.
n 1t Is perhaps less easy to maintain thu
p, constitutional validity of the laws agains
-. the decoration of sunday as the Christian
,o Sabbath, although these laws have re
ia ccivcd judicial approval in this state an
=, many others. The leading New York cas-
-, on the subject, that of LINDENMULLE
In agans: the People, arose in 1860, when tn
n defendant was tried for n msdemeanor /
giving theatrical exhibitions on Sunday
os contrary to tho statute enacted TO pre-
~, serve public peace and order on that da!
or He was convicted and the judgment wi
M affirmed by the General Term Of the 81
m preme Court, whose opinion was write
40 by Judge WILLIAM Il. ALLEN, now OF th
Cd Court of Appeals. He said IL wouI
eo not be difficult 10 show that Christianit
~ is a mart OF the common law of the Stat
sh TO an extent that entities the Chrislia
-. religion and its ordinances to respect an
n pIOttcllOn us tne Religion Oh tHc ptopi'
N. and he thought the Christian Sabbath,
d. belonging to that religion, might be pr'
~ tected from dissertation by such law
10 rs the Legislature deemed necessar
cd to secure undisturbed worship. al
Il not only that, but also outward r
ise spcct for the day itself. Tho cou
nh preferred, however, to base their iudgmel
ar upon the power of the Government
40 establish day of rest as II civil instit
81 ton, inasmuch rs the experience OF ma
~ kind demonstrates the wisdom, il not Il
90 necessity, OF setting apart one day in sev'
~, rs period of refreshment, when lab
'ho shall cease and the mind repose, A sin
lar statute has been declared valid by Il
, Supreme Court OF Pennsylvania on Ill
T., grounds; and California is said to be Il
49, only state in which such law has be-
49, adjudacd unconstitutional
has When the Sunday laws arc defended,
a. l. ..t,