National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1886-05-15

MT. stewart. Right there let mo ask you
Question, ifyou Will permit the interruption.
You ask has Congress power to disestablish re.
ligion. is II disCstablishment Of religion for
Congress to repeal, or undertake to repeal,
chaTter granted by territorial legislature TO
any church, Is that n disostabllshment2 Arc
not the people still ut liberty to exercise their
religious right without any corporate righ2
Mr.. Chandler. II is in the power of the gov
eminent to incorporate church, but after II
has incorporateda church the contract between
the government in granting the charter Of the
Incorporation In church cases Is precisely the
same as contract granting charter in any
other instance, as for a college, &c. Now, there
is no doubt but q church is private charity,
and thnt has been decided in IL Gray and
several Massachusetts, cases by Judge IOar aud
others that church Is private charity, and
there Is no such thing as public church in
this country; that church Is not for tho pub.
lie at large, but for the benefit OF those who
contribute to It's established form of worship,
for the circle who conform to the requlro-
Pst for their fo own benefit and ihS1e
fore being such makes II n private CHAR
ity. In three cases In Massachusetts where the
attorney general undertook to intervene 10
correct what he alleged to be abuses OF such
charities, the Supreme Court dismissed the
case on the ground that the state had nothing
to 90 with them that they were simply
government and their own methods OF redress,
nndto those rules Of government aud methods
ofredress alone was The charity committed
This law cOntemplates interfering In some
measure with private charity. In Missouri,
after the war was over, the ST. Charles College
was taken possession Of by the state because
OF the war, and because of the fact that those
who were IN the confederate service, were
curators of the college, and they declared
vacancy ly statute for that reason and filled
II, and the supreme court OF Missouri the
members ofwhich were not at all In sympathy
with those people who were put out but In per-
feet sympathy with the state government as y
then was, held 10 the same doctrine as laid
down in the Dartmouth College case, and in
the other cases, that II was too well established
to be controyerted that private charity could
not le governed by the state, and me, By, by
ctirntors of the college and appoint Others
that the legislature could not declare vacancy
and III that vacancy when so declared; and
not legislative bodies OF a state government
remove curator, neither can court, unless
II Is ludiciGlly ,nscertained in proceeding
against him that he has violated the trust He
might be removed by judicial proceeding
npon that plea, and upon that plea alone, not
by the legislature but by the beneticiarics only
Is shown to the court By the bencfciarles that
he violated the terms OF the trust and did not
administer it according to its provisions.
And the courts have gone so far in
the authorities cited here as to hold
that If aICrson appointed trustee by the
court is not cordially In sympathy with the
objects and doctrines and purposes of the
authorize the court to remove him and appoint
somebody else.
lhls church is by implication declared 10 De
such religious body as IS protected by the
constitution. The constitution does not per-
init the passage OF any law in respect to the
establishment of rc!eion: The Mormon
a religious body. II II he religious body
then It is entitled to have the same protection
as amy religious body though It's doctrines
are not universally approved of. The declare
ton of the constitution of the United States Is
a declaration of neutrality of the federal gov
9rnment in respect Of religious, opinion. Il
does not matter whether man is Jew or u
Gentle, a Hindoo or q, worshiper of the sun.
Suppose citizens of the United States buy q
lot under the shade of this capitol and dedt-
Gated Il TO the worship Of the sun, has Congress
any jurisdiction over II? / say not. In the
controversy In the Senate over this bill II was
claimed that II Mohammedans should under
take TO establish chapel in this country they
thori2ed to descend into the interior of this
question and decide what is and what Is not
religion? You can punish overt acts that are
forbidden, no matter whether the violator DO q
Methodist a Baptist, or belong to the Hindoo
Church, but when you have done that you
have exhausted your power and you have no
authority whatever to determine the moral
difference or the theological difference between
set of Hindoo opinions and set of Catholic
opinions.
that II guarantees absolute freedom of opinion.
That was what II was meant to chronicle.
That was what was meant to be protected
deny that you can condemn this church be-
Ilindoo church because you would not join
Ilindoo circle of worshipers, or that you can
legislate against the .worshipers Of the sun,
because YOU hold In high derision their
Mir. Stewart To illustrate my idea, suppose
| the Hindoos came here TO some one of our
territories and by an act of the territorial leg
| stature Incorporated Hindoo church. Now,
while II might be true that the Hindoos would
| have the right to exercise their own private
belief, and TO associate together for the wor-
n q.
| would II necessarily be true that Congress
could not dissolve that organization us a cor
an interference with the exercise Of the per-
| sonal right of every individual in this country
to entertain and believe aud worship anything
SS Re saw So to SIS
him perfect freedom, ana In the other case
| you deal with an organization which derives
| It's existence directly from the territorial leg
| islntion. Now, DO you say that in case OF that
| sort that Congress has no power to dissolve
that body and leave them TO continue their
methods of worship, but not under corporate
| form?
Mr.. Chandler. That returns to the inquiry
| whether there isany legal sanctity in the char.
ter. II will not he contcnded that II the
church took title TO n quarter section of land
under the laws Of the territory, and In pursu.
ancc Of a law which Congress empowered the
legislature OF that territory TO enact, which law
would be equivalent in such case to Congress
enacting i itself that Congress could impair
the title aferward. Unless Congress, in granting
charters, reserves to itself the power to modify
or repeal the same, Congress cannot modify,
repeal, or change charters TO private charities
OF TO private property.
In the illustration which the governor
makes is involved the principle which hangs
over this case. We speak of Il Hindo) church.
Would the law be different in regard to a Hin
doc church? Because such church is less
POPULAR Than churches We esteem. Is there any
different rule OF lay to be applied to 1t than II
MIR, Stewart only put It in that way as an
illustration. | do not suppose 1t makes any
Mr.. Chandler. There is In this case uncon.
scously prejudice, the same as there would
be In the case of u Hindoo establishment. AS
hammed undertake to erect q church in this
| country 1t would be visited by consequences
| that we would not quite be willing 10 visit
upon church that stood high in our favor.
The Chairman. l agree entirely with you
upon that point, irrespective of the character OF
the religious belief But what want TO call your
attention TO Is this-suppose the territorial gov
eminent of Utah had passed an act incorporat'
| ing this Church Of Jesus Christ :of Latter Day
| Saints, and given them the privilege of hold
| ing n million dollars worth OF property In the
was asked by some other denomination of re.
| llgious people, could the law In favor Of the
| Mormon Church be held to be valid when an
equal privilege was denied TO every other de-
MFR. Chandler. by the legislature of Utah?
The Chairman. Yes, by the legislature; and
| suppose such an inequality was established,
destroy this and put all religions upon an
| equal fooing-because you remember the prln.
| ciple of mormain acts in England, as well as
| IN this country, to divest religious bodies OF
| their power to hold vast amounts of property,
| because OF The tendency OF establishing par.
ticu'ar religious opinion upon the part OF
| society or the government In other words,
while Congress could not forbid the free exer-
| else Of religious belief II did pass an act in
relation TO the Mormon Church, and Is not
that no taNto u respecting Of nm establishment
| OF religion, where II has given 70 one de-
nomination of religion All advantage IN the
matter Of holding property over any other!
| Mr., Game. There Is no such exception,
The Chairman, | ask the question, not for
| the purpose Of interruptlng Mr.. Chambers
| argument, but 10 direct his attention TO sub
| ject upon which have made mp no positive
| lIrhtCnCd.