Wichita eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1886-1890, 1889-01-17
THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.
Who Drew 1t and What Does It Mean


iigion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof, or abridging the freedom O
speech or of the press. or the right of the
people peacably to assemble and to peti
ton the government for redress O.
! grievances.
There is 10 ambiguity to be found il
the statements Of these six PROPOSE
tons, and the first two have always beer
considered the buIwark of religious lib
erty in this country.
One hundred years later there is pro
posed III the senate Of the United State:
the Sixteenth amendment" which
reads as follows:
ARTICLE I.
Sec. 1. No state shall ever make OF
maintain any law respecting IN establish
nent of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.
Sec. 2. Each state in this Union shall es
| tabliSh and maintain system OF free
public schools adequate for the education
of all the children living therein between
the ages of six and sixteen years, inclusive
in the common branches of knowledge,
and in virtue, morality, and the principles
| Of the Christian religion. But no money
raised by taxation imposed by law, or any
money or other property or credit belonging
! to any municipal organization, or TO any
| state, or to the United States shall ever be
appropriated, applied or given to the use OF
! purposes of any school, institution, cor
| poration or person, whereby instruction OF
! training shall be given in the doctrines
! tenets belief, ceremonialS or ObservanceS
| peculiar to any sect, denomination, organ
| ization or society, being, or claiming to be,
religious in its character; nor shall such
peculiar doctrines, tenets, belief, cere-
monial or observances be taught or lncul-
Gated in the free public schools.
Sec. g. To the end that each state, the
United States and all the people thereof,
may have and preserve governments re
publican in form and in substance, the
United States shall guarantee to every state
and to the United States the support and
maintenance of such system OF free pub
lie schools as herein provided.
Sec 4. That congress shall enforce this
article by legislation when necessary.
What is the purpose of this last amend
ment? Has not the first sufficiently pro-
tected religious liberty in this country
for one hundred years? From what
state has he cry Of religious persecu-
ton come to the earss6f congress requir-
ing the re-enactment of the first amend
llCill, NoBCSlSSiiy CPONiIy w pbettS
shall be- etc." that the individual states
may cease from their oppressive relig-
ious legislation? Nevertheless, section /
of this amendment is repetition of the
religious liberty clause Of the first, with
the variation that whereas it says in the
first congress shall make no law, in the
second it reads: mo state shall ever
make or maintain any law, ETC." But if
it were the noble desire and praiseworthy
intention of this amendment to strength
en- the foundation stone Of religious
liberty upon which our fathers estab-
lished this government, why not stop
there? How unwise to add to this une-
Quivocal statement ''Section 2, which
says just as unequiyocally, though par
TALLY lost IN some phases of verbage,
that leach state shall establish and main
tain schools adequate for education in
religion and having with such careless
oversight cOntradicted the spirit of the
section in the second, it goes on in the
next sentence of the second section to
threaten the cutting Off of our school
fund by declaring, NO money raised by
taxation or belonging to any municipal
ity. organization, state or United States,
shall ever be applied or given to any
school-whereby instruction shall be
given in the neutrality-suspicious. to any
sect or denomination religious in its char
acter." This section provides that each
state shall have free public schools ade-
quate for instruction III religion, but il
they teach doctrines belonging to any
sect or denomination being or claiming
to be religious, they shall have
no share in the public money.
But there is another clause to
this section which says: Nor
shall such peculiar doctrines be taught
in the free public schools::' Conset, uent-
ly each state shall provide schools ade-
quate to teach religion, but the schools
shall not exercise this capacity on pain
of losing their support from the public
funds. Section provides that the
United States guarantee to every state,
and to itself, the support and mainten-
ance of this system of free public schools
which shall be able to teach religion but
shall not. And the last section declares
THAT congress shall enforce this article
by legislation when necessary.
What is it that congress will do: 1t is
perfectly clear what congress must do
according to this amendment: it must
see that no state enactS laws respecting
the establishment of religion or prohibit
ing its free exercise; and enforce its own
guaranty of schools which can teach re-
l!gion but do not The maZes of these
antiquities have then been successfully
followed.
But no" the objection comes up from
the supporters of this amendment, the
consideration of one very im0ortant
word here has been Christ
ian, Christian religion" How is tins?
There is no clause i'll the first amend
ment or in section one of this amend
ment saying-"No provision of this ar
ticle shall be construed as in any wise
applying to the Christian religion But,
say they, in the second section it reads
in the principles of the Christian re-
ligion." Certainly, there it is, the re
strictive word Christian but it must
have been inserted unintenrionally. 1t
cannot be possible that these honorable
men, who are so anxious for the relig-
ious condition of the teachers in the pub
lie schools that they desire the United
States to guarantee their religious ac-
QuirementS, would stoop to deceive the
people by such sophistry as the substi-
tutlon in the second section Of the par
ticular term Christian religion, for the
general term religion in the first. But
again they say the word peculiar" in
the expressions peculiar TO any sect t.
peculiar doctrines not been
given its proper force. Is IL
possible, not heing content with having
led us so far astray from the broad and
universal negative proposition with
which they fiattered our hberry-lovinE
patriotism at the start. that they viii
particularize still further upon the par
ficuiar affirmative Ditfau with which