The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-01-16
WEDNESDAY. JANUARY 1s, 1901
CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES.


'.rl7e Virginia Constitutional Conyen
tio7 ara lis Possibilities is the :itle of
a pamphlet recently issued by the :. P.
Ben Jra.. CT Lynd1burG. The ;s-tllor is
NJ :. T. Thomas. Of that city. an es-
tesncd friend os Tf.e Times, and we have
fot.ni his pamphlet most entertaining and
.nstructivc. although rye are not prepared
to agree v,ta some Of The changes in the
organic law of The State which Mr..
Thomas suggests.
His first recommendation has to do With
tha right OF the press and freedom OF
speech. He would add to HE present
guarantee the following: when any per-
soa. or persons shall be called into qnes-
ton fo- Tie abuse of the liberty of speech
a.. OF the press they daal! be duly tried
by law By jury of their peers, except
when the crime charged has been ccn-
1l!teea in open court
THIS is a modification ot the anti-injunc-
tton plank CT the Chicago platform and
nc are. oDaoscd TO it Every judge should
have absolute power 10 protect The dignity
of his court Under tie provision which
Mr.. Thomas proposes vicious or indiscreet
persons r:igtt presume TO interfere with
case on trial involving life and death.
In such an event it would be no sufficient
remedy Cor such person 10 be tried by
a jury ana punished for his offease. The
mischief would have heen done
and would be beyond recall! and beyond
tee power Of the jury 10 remedy IL In
ali such cases ii is preventive rather than
cure that is needed. Take away from
the courts Of the land the power of in
junction ana we take away the very life
OF The Judiciary. The courts pawe: CT
,self-rrs seI,vation should be absolute.
In lie next place Mr.. Thomas says
that he would omit the word Christian
in ttle Eighteenth article of the bill Of
r..ri.t-. The Constitution should not make
1t The duty Of the citizen. says nc, to
practice Christian fohearance. Mr.
Thomas argument is that there arc mary
gooa citizens who lay no claims TO Chris
tian!ly. who do not profess its creeds
nor subscribe % its dognas, and, there
fa,e. d not and will not submit to envy
restrictions of tllei- rights of free GRIN
ion in matters Of speculative theology.
That is all true, and If il were meant
by this expression That The Government
assumed The right TO dictate in this re-
sYec1 10 any citizen. TO interfere with
religious freedom, we should join in Mr.
Thomas protest ana insist upon having
The word CHRISTIAN stricken out. But
jr3n "a
EXPRESSED or implied IN the term Chris
tian Sorhearance" a man may practice
Christian farbearance without being a
Christian. In point or fact many such
persons do practice Christian forbear-
anee, This Is notably The case With the
,.3ess. They are not Christians, but they
practice Christian foroearance IN their
daily life. Christian forbearaace in this
sense means that fori,earance which IS
taught in the Bible, and as truly in the
Old Testament Scriptures as in the New
Testament Scriptures. 1t is simply e
Term Of designation end we cannot see
how ans person car reasonably object 10
it. The Term is certainly not applied in
any spirit OF religious intolerance.
MIR Thomas Is also opposed 20 the eN-
e.nptaon from taxation of property used
for religious purposes. The principle
upon watch must DC justified the exenp-
ton Of this class of property says he,
will sustain the contention that the
State saculd support the religious organi-
cations OF the State
This question has been discussed time
and again From Mr., Thomas point OF
view. such exemption cannot be justified,
and there is strong argument against it
Exemption from taxation is the same
thing as an appropriation from the State
treasury TO each and every church in
tie State, and so ts,ose taxpayers who do
,leS believe in The religion, either of the
5ew or the Gentle, must pay whether
Or not ,aetr part OF the appropriation.
ssae whole scheme Is contrary 10 our set
tied policy OF complete separation of
church and State. But the great majority