CHAPTER VI. RELIGIOUS RIGHT INVADED

Although religious right was so carefully, so explicitly, and so completely, excluded from the cognizance of the national government by the people when that government was made, yet it is a fact that the national government, in all its branches, has directly and explicitly assumed cognizance of religion, instead of allowing religion to remain as the fathers and the Constitution left it-“avowedly the attribute of man, and not of a corporation.” The government of the United States has once more made it avowedly the attribute of a corporation and not of man. Instead of maintaining the “new order of things” to which by its great seal the nation stands pledged, the government of the United States has gone back to the old order of things which it was the purpose of our governmental fathers to escape. In other words, and in short, there has been wrought a counter-revolution.ROP 109.1

This counter-revolution was accomplished in a. d. 1892. It began, and in principle was consummated, in the Supreme Court of the United States in a decision rendered February 29, 1892.ROP 109.2

The said decision came forth in this way: ^{9See the decision in full at end of this book, Appendix C.} In 1887 Congress enacted a law forbidding any alien to come to this country under contract to perform labor or service of any kind. The reason of that law was that large contractors and corporations in the United States would send agents to Europe to employ the lowest of the people whom they could get to come over and work. They pay their expenses to this country, and, because of this, require them to work at so much the smaller wages after they arrived. This was depreciating the price that Americans should receive for their labor, and therefore Congress enacted a law as follows:-ROP 109.3

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia, under contract or agreement, parol or special, expressed or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia.”ROP 110.1

Trinity Church corporation, in New York City, employed a preacher in England to come over here and preach for them. They contracted with him before he came. He was an alien, and came under contract to perform service for that church. The United States District Attorney entered suit against the church for violating this law. The United States Circuit Court decided that the church was guilty, and rendered judgment accordingly. An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States, upon writ of error.ROP 110.2

The Supreme Court reversed the decision, first upon the correct and well-established principle that “the intent of the lawmaker is the law.” The court quoted directly from the reports of the Senate Committee and the House Committee who had the bill in charge when it was put through Congress; and these both said in express terms that the term “laborer,” or “labor or service,” used in the statue, was intended to mean only manual labor or service, and not professional service of any kind. For instance, the Senate Committee said:-ROP 110.3

“The committee report the bill back without amendment, although there are certain features thereof which might well be changed or modified, in the hope that the bill may not fail of passage during the present session. Especially would the committee have otherwise recommended amendments, substituting for the expression ‘labor and service,’ whenever it occurs in the body of the bill, the words ‘manual labor’ or ‘manual service,’ as sufficiently broad to accomplish the purposes of the bill, and that such amendments would remove objections which a sharp and perhaps, unfriendly criticism may urge to the proposed legislation. The committee, however, believing that the bill in its present form will be construed as including only those whose labor or service is manual in character, and being very desirous that the bill become a law before the adjournment, have reported the bill without change.”-6059 Congressional Record, 48th Congress.ROP 111.1

Such being the plainly declared intent of the law, by those who made it, and at the time of the making of it, there was nothing left for the Supreme Court to do but to give effect to the law as it was intended, by reversing the decision of the court below. And in all reason, when the court had thus made plain the intent of the law, this was all that was necessary to the decision of the case.ROP 111.2

But instead of stopping with this that was all-sufficient, the court took up a line of reasoning(?) by which it would reach the same point from another direction, and then, as the result of each and of both, decided what the true intent of the law was, and reversed the decision of the lower, court accordingly. And never were the aptness and wisdom of that piece of advice which Abraham Lincoln once gave to a friend, “Never say what you need not, lest yon be obliged to prove what you cannot,” more completely illustrated than in this unnecessary line of argument which was pursued by the Supreme Court of the United States in this decision of February 29, 1892.ROP 111.3

The court unanimously declared that “this is a religious people,” “a religious nation,” and even “a Christian nation,” and that such is “the voice of the entire people.” In support of these declarations the court offered considerable argument, which will be noticed presently. But the first thing to be noted is that, whether the court supported the declarations with considerable argument or with none at all, it had no shadow of right to make any such declarations.ROP 112.1

By the whole history of the making of the Constitution, by its spirit, and by its very letter, the government of the United States, and, therefore, the Supreme Court as a coördinate branch of the government, is precluded from declaring or arguing in favor of the Christian religion, or any religion whatever. Let it not be forgotten that James Madison, in persuading the Virginia convention to ratify the Constitution, gave the assurance that “there is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation.” ^{10Page 106 of this book.} Whereas it is certain that in the declarations set forth, in the argument conducted, in the citations made, and in the conclusion reached, in this decision, the Supreme Court did “intermeddle with religion,” and in so doing did that which it had “not a shadow of right” to do.ROP 112.2

The first words of the court in this line are as follows:-ROP 112.3

“But beyond all these matters no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, State or national, because this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour there is a single voice making this affirmation.”ROP 112.4

Every citizen of the United States knows that it is not true, either historically or otherwise, that this is a religious people. Not even a majority of the people are religious. There is not a single city in the United States in which the people are religious-no, not a single town or village.ROP 112.5

That is to say, this was so up to the time of the rendering of this decision, February 29, 1892. Since that of course the people are religious, because the Supreme Court says so. To be sure, some of our neighbors, and many other people whom we meet, do not know that they are religious people, as they have never chosen to be so, and do not profess it at all; but all that makes no difference. The Supreme Court of the United States has by, unanimous decision, declared that they are religious people, and it must be so whether they know it or not.ROP 113.1

Nor is this all. The court not only declares that this is a “religious nation,” but that it is a “Christian nation.” The people, therefore, are not only religious but they are Christians-yes, Jews, infidels, and all. For is not the Supreme Court the highest judicial authority in the United States? and what this court declares to be the law, is not that the law? and when this court lays it down as the supreme law-as the meaning of the Constitution-that the people are religious, and are Christians, then does not that settle the question?-Not at all. The very absurdity of the suggestion only demonstrates that the court can have nothing at all to do with any such matters, and shows how completely the court transcended its powers and went out of the right way. No; men are not made religious by law, nor by judicial decision, nor by historical precedents.ROP 113.2

The statement that “from the discovery of this continent to the present hour there is a single voice,” making the affirmation that this nation is a religious people, is equally wide of the mark, for at the time of the making of this national government there was a new, fresh voice heard contradicting the long, dismal monotone of the ages, and declaring for this new nation that it “is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion,” and that it can never of right have anything to do with religion-that it has “not a shadow of right to intermeddle with religion,” and that “its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation.” And this voice it was which gave rise to the “new order of things” for this country and for the world. Let the reader think for only a moment of the history presented in the preceding chapter, and then explain, if he can, how the court could make such a statement as this which we have quoted and commented upon-remembering at the same time, too, that “every case is discussed by the whole body [of the court] twice over-once to ascertain the opinion of the majority, which is then directed to be set forth in a written judgment; then again, when that written judgment, which one of the judges has prepared, is submitted for criticism and adoption as the judgment of the court.”-Bryce, American Commonwealth, chap. 22, par. 4.ROP 113.3