Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1911-06-06
yet been conclusively settled that it
mt u-o11 tokou -

yet Deen COnCluSlVely Settlou tudl IL
was not we'll TAKEN"
Judge Story asserts that the Chris
tial religion of liberty and may we'll
be regarded as the true basas of our
popular form Of 90 ,rnment: and that
at the adoption of the constitution.
and the amendment to it which pro-
vides that congress shall pass no law
respecting an establishment of reHg-
ion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. it was probably the univer-
sal sentiment in America that Chris
tianity should receive the support of
the state, so far as was consistent
with the general freedom of COM
science and religious worship. The
real object of the amendment respect
ing religion was to prevent the estab-
lishment of hierarchy which would
control the exclusive patronage of the
government: and it may we'll be
conceived that proper recognition of
the prevailing faith, supported by no
compulsory acceptance of its doc
trines or attendance upon it's rites,
would still be within constitutional
limits, as the amendment to the fed
eral constitution embodies the idea
embraced in the constitutions of the
states. Story on the Constitution,
Sections 1873, IA and 1877.
In New York and some other states
it has been held that Christianity is
a part of the common law of the state
and entitled to recognition and pro-
lection by the temporal courts.
People VS.. Ruggles, 8 Johnson 291;
Videl VS.. Gerard, Howard 1913, Pa.)
ShO err VS.. State, supra; Sedgwick's
Statutory constitutional L. IA. Judge
Cooley was of the opinion that while
the religious freedom of the people is
protected and defended by the Ameri-
can constitution. there is no prohi
bition against the solemn recognition
! by the authorities of experimenting
Providence in public transactions and
exercises; and no principle of const-
tutional law is violated when thanks
giving days or fast days are appoint
ed. when chaplains are designated for
the army and navy, and legislative
sessions are opened with prayer or
by the general exemption of houses Of
religious worship from taxation. I'm
State VS.. Amba, supra, the court said:
1--WE must regard the character and
condition of the people for whom our
organic law was made. 1t appears
to have been made by Christian men,
and shows on its face that the Chris
tian religion was the religion OF it's
trainers. The convention that adopt
ed it sat under Sunday law, adjourn
ing in obedience to it. and in the con-
clusion OF the instrument it is solemn
ly affirmed by its authors that their
signatures were attached thereto, A. D.
1920, a form adopted by all Christian
nations in solemn public acts
And Lindenmuller VS.. People, supra,
was a cause sustaining conviction
for violation of a city ordinance pro-
hibiting theatrical performances on
Sunday. and holding it valid on the
ground that Christianity was the basis
of our free institutions. the conserv-
iator of the peace, ORDER morality and
social welfare of the commonwealth;
and that the compulsory observance
of the Lords day was not only CON-
patible with the constitutional pro-
visions prohibiting the enactment Of
any law interfering with religion or
restricting the free exercise thereof,
but conducive to every need of good
government; that the act was passed
in Difference to prevailing sentiment
that could not be ignored and that.
as no religious test was set up and
no religious rite or ceremony, ex-
acted. it was we'll within the restric-
tions of the state constitution. Lin
denmuller vs.. People was approved in
Neuendorff vs.. Duryea. SO N. Y. 557;
People VS.. Moses, 40 N. Y. PA and in
People VS.. Havnor. 149 N. Y. 1875, and
perhaps in later cases, by the New
York courts, and is leading case on
the subject.
1t is in the light of these considera-
tons that such laws must be con-
Istrued. Chapter of the Penal Code
.. this state is the first chapter of
that code in the order of chapters
classifying crimes, and is entitled:
Grimes against Religion and Con-
science" and includes definitions of
the crimes of blasphemy, profuse
swearing. obscene language and Sab
bath breaking. If we may judge of
the sentiments of the legislature en-
acting our Penal code by the order
of procedure given the different
classes of offenses treated therein, it
would seem that they considered this
among the most important. They
begun with crimes against religion
and conscience and followed in the
order named with crime against the
elective franchise. against the execu-
tive power of the state, against the
legislative power. against public JUS
tice, etc. Our penal code was en-
acted by the Territorial legislature, on
the 18th day of January, 1865. and the
title of this chapter has remained un-
changed and no material alterations
have been made in it's text. When
our constitution was adopted, in 1889,
Article 4, supra, was taken literally
from the constitution of California, of
1879, and ex parte Burke, SO Cal. s,
shows the construction of the highest
court of California of it's provisions,
prior to its adoption into our consti-
tuition. 1t sustains the validity of a |
law of that state Furnishing the trans !