Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1921-07-25
ANTl-SECTARIANS SHOULD NOT
BLOCK NEW CONSTITUTION
Plenty Of Opportunity to Prevent
Breaking Down Line Between Church
and State Without obstructins
Needed ReXlsons


Breaking Down Line Between Church
and State Without obstrueting
Needed RevIslons
THE objections of the Anti Sectarian
l. Appropriation Association to the diver
sion of public money for the support of Sec
tartan institutions rest on the fundamental
American doctrine of the necessity for q
separation of Church and State.
This doctrine is formulated in the first
article of the so called Bill of Rights in
the Federal Constitution, which provides
that Congress shall make no law respect
ing an establishment of religion or prohibit
ing the free exercise thereof" 1t is re-
peated in the Constitution Of this State in
the Declaration of Rights, where it is de-
clared that no man can of right be com
PEELED to attend. erect or support any place
of worship" and that 'no preference shall
ever be given by law to any religious estab-
lishments or modes of worship" Then in
the article defining and limiting the powers
of the Legislature it is further provided
that mo appropriation shall be made
to any UNCONVENTIONAL or sectarian insti-
tuition"
Yet in spite of these provisions there grew
up the custom in this State of appropriating
money for the care of dependents in sectarian
institutions who would otherwise have had
to be cared for in institutions under public
control. 1t was justified on the theory that
the money was appropriated, not to Sec
tartan institutions. but to charitable insti-
tutions. The Supreme Court has recently
decided that this theory is untenable and
that no institution under sectarinn control
may receive public money under any pretext
whatsoever. And good lawyers agree that
the Supreme Court could have reached no
other conclusion.
Yet there is a plan afoot to oppose con
vention to revise the Constitution for fear
that the anti seCtarian provisions may be
modified or removed.
The Constitution needs revision in n hun
dred ways in order to bring 1t up to the
times. 1t is nearly fifty years since it has
been revised It is full of anomalies and
contradictions. The anti sectarian appro-
priation group is in danger of placing itself
in the position of preferring to have these
anomalies and contradictions continue rather
than to run the risk of having the elected
representatives of the people suggest or even
consider any change whatever in the section
forbidding the appropriation of money to
seCtaran institutions.
The fears of any radical changes in that
section are groundless. The objections to
any union of Church and State are as
strong now as when the Constitution was
first drafted. If the objectors believe they
can prevent the calling of a Constitutional
| Convention they must realize that they are
| strong enough to prevent any change OBJ
| jectionable to them in the matter of Sec
tartan appropriations. without blocking the
needed general revision OF the document.
But whatever the convention may do, the
new draft of the Constitution cannot be-
come effective until it is approved by the
voters The supporters of the anti sectaran
provision will thus have three opportunities
to prevent breaking down of the cOnsti-
tutional prohibitions. The first will be
when the delegates are elected. The second
will be when the delegates vote in the con
vention, and the last will be when the
revised Constitution is submitted to popular
approval. This ought to be enough to sat
| isfy the most exacting, especially as all that
| the objectors seek is a continuance of the
existing restrictions.
The danger of any modification of the
| Constitution in this respect is so slight
that it ought not to be allowed to stand in
| the way of revision of the other parts of
the Constitution.
There are other interests, however, op-
posed to any revision. They do not wish
| the status quo to be changed In any way,
| for they have adjusted their affairs to exist
| ing conditions. These are the hold backs
and reactionares. They will welcome re-
enforcement by the anti sectarians and use
| them in preventing. if possible, the mod
| ernization of the fundamental law. 1t Is
| possible that Il combination Of the worst
| kind of politicians and the INSCRIPTIONS
| kind of business men with the high minded
| citizens who fear the setting up of part =
nership between the State and religious
organizations may block the plans of revi-
sion. That would be regrettable
Objection to the convention is based on
distrust of the ability of the people to pre-
serve their own institutions and to protect
their own rights, n dstruSt which is as un-
| American as is a union between the State
| and religious corporations.
Ther2 is no issue which any genuine
American should be afraid to submit to the
judgment of his peers And it may be said
further that there Is no provision Of law
which has any validity when It is contrary
to the will of the citizens, for law in a
democracy is the will of the majority
| whether it be written in the statutes or in
the Constitution or whether it be observed
by general consent in the absence Of any