Year: 1875

terday touches upon great variety OF i'm
portant subjects, and on the greater part OF
them we are bound TO say that 1t delivers
sound or, at least, defensible views. But
there is one capital exception ; one subject
on which the recommendations of the
President are sheer folly. 1t un-
fortunately happens that the sub
iect on which the President is utterly
wrong is the one which he presses with the
most vigor and zeal. He is sound on the
| Cuban question sound in the main on the
sound and admirable on the question OF
cable monopolies discreet and even
wise ON the Mexican question; plau-
sible at least, if not right, on the
naturalization question. But on the COM
bined religious and school question, upon
which he lays his chief stress and emphasis,
he is wild, Quixotic and utterly absurd.
This attempt to introduce religion as con-
trolling element in our national politics, the
zeal with which he filings this firebrand and
tries to kindle theological animosities for
party effect, is the most mischievous and
monstrous violation Of fitness and propriety
ever perpetrated by President of the United
States.


The infammatory question which he thus
thrusts into the political arena is entirely
outside Of his constitutional duties, as he
virtually confesses by urging his recon-
mendations as amendments of the constitu-
tion. This is plain acknowledgment that
he is overstepping the limits of the constitu-
tion as it stands at present. 1t is well es
tablished principle that the President has
no official connection with amendments
to the constitution. The President ought to
act within the constitution, but not beyond
it. When Congress, by two-thirds majority
of each House, proposes amendments to the
constitution, their action does not require
the approval of the President as was judici-
ally decided by the Supreme Court at an early
period in our history. Amendments of the
constitution are entirely beyond the sphere
of Executive action. 1t is not denied that
the President can recommend changes In the
constitution if he chooses, but he ought not
to do it except on some urgent and manifest
necessity. But what is the urgency for such





all the fervency of bigoted zeal in this Mes
sage? There is none whatever. 1t is bold
and bald attempt to influence religious ami
mosities for party purposes, than which
nothing could be more inexcusably mis-
chievous, if the President thinks that Con-
gress will respect and indorse his views.


Slender as President Grants title may be
to rank as statesman, we must give him
credit for common sense, and if he has com
mon sense he must know perfectly well that
such amendments to the constitution as he
proposes will not be adopted by this
Congress. Such amendments could be
adopted only as a party measure, and
nobody knows better than he that
such measure could not be carried
through either House. 1t requires two
thirds majority OF both Houses to submit
constitutional amendment to the States for
their ratification, and the republican party
has not two-thiIds majority in either
branch Of Congress. President Grant must
know perfectly we'll that the democrats
of the Senate and the democrats of the
House will alike make a strenuous and
successful opposition to such amendments
to the constitution as he recommends. Even
if they could be carried through Congress,
which is quite impossible, they would be de-
feated in the States since it requires three
fourths of the States to ratify O constitu-
tional amendment, and a majority Of the
State Legislatures are at present controlled
by the democratic party. President Grant
is proposing, and he must know that
he is proposing, an utterly impracti-
cable measure. 1t is clear that he
does not expect the success Of his recommen-
dations and that he is only aiming to stir up
religious strife for mere party effect He
hopes to array the Protestant prejudice and
Protestant bigotry in political crusade
against the Catholic Church, and thereby
carry the Presidential election. This unex-
ampled attempt to enlist religious rancor on
the republican side as a makeweight in the
Presidential election is an act of political des-
peration which public opinion will condemn.


The taxing Of Church property is q sub
iect which may be safely left to the State
Governments, which have exclusive jurisdic-
ton over it as the federal constitution stands
at present. II, in any State, the exemption
of such property is oppressive, the people
have remedy in their State Legislatures.
It is a question which has no relation to
taxation for federal purposes. When
Church property is taxed the proceeds
20 into the State treasury; if it is exempted
nobody suffers but the taxpayers Of the State
in which the property is situated There is
no State in the Union in which the Prot
estant population is not in a majority Of six
or seven to one, or in which they cannot,
through their local Legislatures, easily
redress any injustice which taxpayers
~.