Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-03-11
Those For and Against the Proposed
Constitutional Amendment.
CHARACTER OF TEE ARGUMENTS
Both Parties about Evenly Divided
as to Representation.
SOME ESTIONS PUT

| " WV NUNS tcudy TlVuse commit
tee on the judiciary iistered to a spirited
| discussion for and against the proposition
that the United States government is found
| ed upon Christian principles and that the
| fact should be SO stated i'm the Constitution
| Those taking part in the discussion We're
| mn listers OF the orthodox church, agnos-
| ties, free thinkers, sp.ritualsts and others.
| Inc proposition was stoutly advanced and
| just as vigorously resisted. A large audi
| ence was present, and the two sides of the
question seemed to be near.y equally repre-
| sented. The audience divided itself into
| opposite sides of the room, and vigorously
| applauded the speakers of the respective
| sides Of the question at issue.
| The matter came before the committee I'm
the form Of joint resolution introduced by
| Mr.. Morse Of Massachusetts, proposing an
| amendment to the preamble of the Consti-
tuition Of the United States, as follows:
| I'VE, the people Of the United States fac-
knowledging Almighty God as the source Of
| all power and authority in civil govern
| ment, the Lord Jesus Christ as the Ruler
| of Nations and His revealed will as of SUI
| preme authority in civil affairs) in order 10
| form more perfect Union, establish JUS
| tice insure domestic tranquility, provide
for the common defense, promote the gen.
eral welfare. and secure the blessings of
| hDer.y TO ourselves and TO our posterty, do
| ordain ard establish this Constitution for
| the United States of AE.crica."
| The Two CONVENTIONS,
The affirmative of the proposition was
! maintained by a delegation of the Ma
| t!onal Reform Association, consisting of
| Rev DIR. Stockton, moderator of the Pres
| byterian synod of Pennsylvania; w c.
! Hubbard Of Cleveland, president of the
| Peace Association of Friends; Mr. c. J.
Vail Of Philadelphia, Rev. DIR. McAn.ster
of Pittsburs. Rev. w. j. Coleman of Allie
| sheny and Rev. II. H. George of Beaver
| Falls. Pa.
| The opposition was represented by Mr..
w. W a. Croffut' Gen Birney. Mr.. Louis
| Abra hams and F. c. Woodbury. of this
| city, Rev. A. H. Lewis of Plainfield " j.;
| Rev. jenkins Lloyd Jones of Chicago and
Mr; 5. Z. Putnam of the American Secular
| Union and Mrs. j. III. Hale.
Inc contention of those favor.rg the
amendment was that the United States is
pre-emnently Christian nation, that it
| wis founded upon Christian ideas and it
| is necessary to accentuate this fact by in
Guiding in the Constitution a declaration
to that effect. The opposition held that
| tianity, and that to put such a proposition
into the Constitution would be to unite
| church and state and to do injustice to a
| great many worthy people who could NOT
| accept such a Constitution as that hut
| who otherwise would be just as legitimate
| American citizens as any one else.
Opponents of the Resolution.
| Mr.. w. A. Croffut quoted the famous
| Tripolitan treaty negotiated in the time of
| George Washington, and Endorsed by Jonn
Adams, as evidence that this government
is not founded on Christian principles. that
\ treaty setting forth such a statement He
| said the United States government is not
| founded on the Bible, but rather that the
| Bible is founded on the United States gov
ernment. The Bible has taken on new
reading since the foundation of this ma
tion 1t has been taken out of the sky and
placed on the book cases of men as a book
for the guidance of humanity.
Mr.. S. p. Putnam presented to the COM
mittee petitions which he said contained
| the signatures of 10000 people against the
| adoption of the amendment. He held that
| the amendment is revolutionary in char
| acter and that it absolutely changes the
| whole foundation and principle of this gov-
| ernment.
| Mr.. F. c. Woodbury. of the National Spir-
| nuaiists Association said he represented
| l1.oV0 people who protest against the
! amendment. He said God had not been put
| in the Constitution because il never was
| determined which God should he put in.
| To change the Constitution in the manner
! proposed would be to place in power a
| class of people whose palms had been Itch
| ing for temporal power, and whom the
| founders of this government never intended
| should be connected with affairs of state
1 Rev. A. H Lewis OF the Evangelical
| Church opposed the amendment on the
| brosd ground that he did not wish the
question of religion brought into politics
| and be kicked about a foot ball from
| ward primaries to national conventions.
| Rev. jenkins Lloyd Jones, a Unitarian
| ment, he said, .'in the interests of cam
| dor and honesty" In case it was deter
mined to adopt the amendment, how did
| the advocates intend to characterize God?
,n6 Hal,
Brahma or Jehovah?
! Gen. Birney discussed TIE legal aspect of
the proposition, and held that it was not
| tenable; that the committee as a set Of
| lawyers, could never put into law such a
| solecism as the very words of the amend
| ment conveyed.
| brew, he said, but as an American citi-
| zen, in opposition to the amendment. He
| referred sarcast.cally to the divisions exist
ing in the Christian church, notably he
| tween the Catholics ard Protestants and
| suggested that until they should come to
| some understanding between thea they had
| better let the Constitution alone.
Those Advocating the Proposition.
The Rev. Mr.. Coleman Of Alleghany and
| Rev. Mr.. McAliister of PIttsburg were the
most strenuous advocates of the amend
| ment. Their line of argument was similar,
| and the main point eluc.dated was the as
sertion that a great majority Of the peo-
| PIE of this country are Christians church.
going people, and that they should be al
lowed to say whether in the opinion OF
| the majority this government is or is not
based upon Christian principle as founda-
| tion.
IF this amendment is adopted" said a
member of the committee "ald Moham-
medan were elected to Congress- could he
| take the oath Of office and swear to sup
port the Constitution
"No, he could not" responded Mr.. Cole
man. For myself L would not accept the
Constitution OF the United States without
| its acknowledgment of God"
Then if ycu were elected to Congress
| now, you would not accept because you
could not take the oath," suggested the in
Quirer.
"Yes. would have to refuse to accept"
assented Mr. Coleman.
The committee listened patiently to the
arguments of the two sides AMI the ortho-
dox clergymen were very closely cross
questioned, the trend of the inquiries indi-
eating a desire on the Part of the commit
tee to draw from the advocates of the prop
| osition their idea upon the legal point Of the
question.