The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1876-06-26
The Reviewer Reviewed.

Editor Rutland Globe: 1t is hard af-
ter having frankly confessed TO good deal
of ignorance, TO have it so spitefully thrown
in my face by my indignant christian re-
viewer, the redoubtable LEX" Turning
to Webster's unabridged l find that len is
Latin for law, as "ler taliOniS, the law of
retaliation ler terra, the law of the land,'
etc. Which of these our "LeX" is, the
we are left to conjecture, judging from the
tone and temper of his communication he
is both. So | have formidable host to
contend with. But really, what is his COM
plant?
Why, that in quoting from the bill of
rights | did not quote the whole of'it! A
very grave charge certainly. But had my
reviewer been as attentive to the wording
of my article as lie was jealous to detect
some possible flaw in it, he would have no.
ticed that did not ''profess to give the
3D. article of the bill of rights" but simply
said that in the article ''the following Ian
guage may be found" And if that Ian
guage does not mean just what | claimed
for it, then | will confess | cannot see what
possible purpose language can subserve.
Nor can | see how the first and last clauses
in the article "destroy the conclusions
drew or even affect them at all and l i'm
agine it would puzzle any but an inspired
man to see it. But, says my reviewer, it
is expressly asserted that the right to wor-
ship, is to be regulated by the word of
God"
Well, that is what | should call forced
construction and a perversion of the real
meaning of the text and ''if made in good
faith it shows ignorance, most complete, of
the subject presented if done with a de-
signed purpose to mlsrepresent, it is most
detestable fraud" Now it seems to me
that, if l have natural and inalienable
right to worship Almighty God, according
to the dictates of my own conscience and
understanding as in my opinion shall be
regulated by the word of God, then there
is no outside person, power or thing has
any right to interfere in the matter, pro-
vided that worship does not unnecessarily
disturb my neighbors nor conflict with their
rights.
Equally strained and unwarranted is my
reviewers assumptions with regard to the
last clause of the article, since "Cught' in
its proper sense means something less than
must or shall. But, granting the article
did ''declare obligatory the observance OF"
the "Sabbath or Lords day." what has
that to do with the question of keeping up
religious worship in our public schools on
every day in the week? Consuming the
time allotted to instruction in the common
branches of education in useless, and to
a large shortly of the children, a mean
ingless and tedious ceremony, and all the
public expense. | repeat the entry once
made on our school register:
''wlth Indignation survey
The public money thrown away,
In thus compelling us TO pay
For Sectarlan, daily prayers.
'Twould make the district less expense,
TO teach the children common sense
Instead OF creeds and then dispense
With putting on these pious airs"
| But according to the astute "Lex' the
declaration ''that no man ought to, or of
| right can be compelled to attend any re-
| ligious worship, or erect or support any
place of worship" means just the reverse,
| or nothing at all ; the conclusions" drawn
from the language being destroyed" by
the first and last clauses of article third
| Well, constitutions can be of but little con-
sequence if they are so framed that one
| part destroys another. To have made this
grand discovery shows wonderful acute
ness in LEX" but is not very compliment
tarv to the trainers of the Vermont bill of
rights.
MY reviewers cavil about my quotation
from Mr.. Adams is scarcely worthy of no.
tice. My quotation is from his letter to Ii
Nj. Hoffman, superintendent of schools tor
the town of Brighton, and no other conclu-
sion can be drawn from that letter than the
one have drawn; no other is limited at.
SO decided was Mr.. Adams in his opinion
that he says in the letter. "The difficulty
| find 10 not so much in determining what
answer should be given to your interroga'
tory, as in COUGHING that answer In Ian
guage that shall not unnecessarily and un,
wisely tend to the arousing of spirit OF
religious propagandism," etc, thus clearly
indicating his position in the case as ex'
pressed in the language l quoted. Moth
ing can be palmer or more explicit, and hi'
reasoning is rrefutable. He acted for the
public good, whatever may have been hi
individual preferences. And he did mo-
"decide that there was no legal authority
for compelling the pupils of any school tc
read the Bible as school exercise" IL,
said to do so as an exercise in reading
"would be CONTRARY to law" and as al
exercise of worship would be "a violation
OF the bill OF rights" Is there any ambig
| ,,itv thereq The whola latter ia couched II