"I follow party where the Constitution and principle lead; and when men attempt to take their place, I halt." — Congressional Globe, April 14, 1836, p. 284.

Inasmuch, however, as the President himself was urging the passage of the measure to which we have referred, the United States Senate had appointed a select committee, of which John C. Calhoun was chairman, to examine into the proposed act and to report upon it. On Feb. 4, 1836, this committee submitted a report, written by the chairman, of such a nature as to put an end for many years to the agitation for legislation of this kind. The bill under consideration did not propose to forbid publication, but only to shut out of the mails certain matter.

Report of a Senate Committee

Touching this proposal a Senate committee said:

"It must be apparent that to prohibit publication on one side, and circulation through the mail on the other, of any paper, on account of its religious, moral, or political character, rests on the same principle; and that each is equally an abridgment of the freedom of the press, and a violation of the Constitution. It would indeed have been but a poor triumph for the cause of liberty, in the great contest of 1799, had the Sedition Law been put down on principles that would have left Congress free to suppress the circulation, through the mail, of the very publications which that odious act was intended to prohibit. The authors of that memorable achievement would have had but slender claims on the gratitude of posterity, if their victory over the encroachment of power had been left so imperfect. .

Interference With the Press Unconstitutional

"The principle on which the Sedition Act was condemned as unconstitutional, was a general one, and not limited in its application to that act. It withdraws from Congress all right of interference with the press, in any form or shape whatever; and the Sedition Law was put down as unconstitutional, not because it prohibited publications against the Government, but because it interfered, at all, with the press. The prohibition of any publication on the ground of its being immoral, irreligious, or intended to excite rebellion or insurrection, would have been equally unconstitutional; and from parity of reason, the suppression of their circulation through the mail would be no less so." "U. S. Senate Documents," First Session Twenty-fourth Congress, Vol. II [118].

94

Freedom, Civil and Religious

Liberty to Speak and Publish of Prime Importance

True, there are considerations that at times would appear to justify in some measure certain restrictions upon the liberty of the press; but these seem to have been considered by our forefathers, and to have been swept aside as of little moment alongside of the priceless boon of freedom of expression. One writer said in 1804:

"The truth is that such is the just estimation of the utility of the press that the founders of our Constitution would fain have exempted it from all control whatsoever; as, however, the great end of all government is to afford protection to persons, property, and reputation, even the press must yield to this object. It must yield to the superior right of obtaining redress through the Constitutional tribunal of a jury.". Essays on The Liberty of the Press," by Marcellus, 1804, p. 7. In 1801 the Hon. John Thompson said this:

66

"The liberty of speech and press, being of the first importance to mankind, ought to be guarded with the most jealous vigilance. No pretenses or excuses ought to be adduced by the government, or admitted by the people. The same duty which obliges the people to yield a prompt and willing obedience to constitutional laws, directs them to oppose every one of an opposite kind." An Inquiry Concerning the Liberty and Licentiousness of the Press," by John Thompson, 1801, p. 30.

66

Press Responsible but Not Subject to Censorship

The late Mayor Gaynor, of New York, wrote:

"It has hitherto been the understanding in this country that no censorship can be established by law to decide in advance what may or may not be lawfully printed or published. Ours is a government of free speech and a free press. That is the corner-stone of free government."

Harper's Weekly of Jan. 13, 1915, said:

"Freedom of speech and publication is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States and in the constitutions of practically all the States. Unjustifiable speech or publication may be punished, but cannot be forbidden in advance."

Again we quote the Hon. John Thompson (1801):

"All the opponents of the liberty of the press have sheltered themselves behind the specious veil of preserving the public peace. They say licentiousness must be suppressed. Dangerous opinions in politics and religions must be guarded against, otherwise the social order of society will be endangered. What, it may be asked, would have been the situation of mankind at this moment, had the subjects of religion and politics

never been investigated? 'Orthodox' and 'heterodox' are words of very doubtful meaning. What is orthodox at Constantinople, is heterodox at Rome; and what is deemed sacred and indisputable by the Conclave, is termed superstition at Geneva.” —“ An Inquiry Concerning the Liberty and Licentiousness of the Press," 1801, p. 77.

A still more recent opinion from an American educator should not be omitted:

Shackle the Press: Endanger the Nation

"Freedom of speech is of interest not merely to the press. The press is but the outpost which, attacked and captured, permits the citadel of the new order, the walls of the nation, to be taken. Preservation of the ideal of Western civilization means the preservation of unpolluted news sources, of the freedom of the press, of the right of criticism, of individual opinion, of deliberate consideration of public questions.” Prof. Walter Williams, dean of the School of Journalism of the University of Missouri, quoted in the Manufacturers' Record, Baltimore, Md., Oct. 14, 1920.

But while we are quoting these opinions, it should be remembered that principles are greater than men. Freedom of speech and of the press rests not upon opinions, however high their source, but upon the claims of inalienable rights, and the guaranties of the Constitution. Men may go wrong, but right principles are as abiding as the everlasting hills, and as strong as truth itself.

It may be asked in this connection, Is the press to be absolutely free? Are men who may be traduced and slandered to have no redress? We. reply, The press must be absolutely free, but not irresponsible. Men must be held responsible for what they speak, write, and publish, just as they are held responsible for what they do. But our laws against libel are ample. Under them men may be mulcted in financial penalties or even imprisoned for the abuse of the liberty guaranteed them under the Federal Constitution and State constitutions, but there can be no censorship, and no persecution for opinion's sake, whether religious or political. Only in so far as our Constitutional guaranties of freedom of expression are respected and maintained can we as a people justly claim to be free.

But while we thus stress liberty of speech and of the press as vital to both civil and religious liberty in the historical sense, let us not forget that, in the words of Cowper,

"He is the freeman whom the truth makes free,
And all are slaves besides."

Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, from the Committee on the
Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the petition
of E. G. Goulet and others, asking Congress for "an acknowl-
edgment of Almighty God and the Christian religion" in the
Constitution of the United States, having considered the matter
referred to them, respectfully pray leave to report:

That, upon examination even of the meager debates by the fathers
of the Republic in the convention which framed the Constitution,
they find that the subject of this memorial was most fully and care-
fully considered, and then, in that convention, decided, after grave
deliberation, to which the subject was entitled, that, as this country,
the foundation of whose government they were then laying, was to
be the home of the oppressed of all nations of the earth, whether
Christian or pagan, and in full realization of the dangers which the
union between church and state had imposed upon so many nations
of the Old World, with great unanimity that it was inexpedient to
put anything into the Constitution or frame of government which
might be construed to be a reference to any religious creed or doc-

trine.

And they further find that this decision was accepted by our Christian fathers with such great unanimity that in the amendments which were afterward proposed in order to make the Constitution more acceptable to the nation, none has ever been proposed to the States by which this wise determination of the fathers has been attempted to be changed. Wherefore, your committee report that it is inexpedient to legislate upon the subject of the above memorial, and ask that they be discharged from the further consideration thereof, and that this report, together with the petition, be laid upon the table.

1 Report of the Judiciary Committee of Congress upon the question of the acknowledgment of God and the Christian religion in the United States Constitution, submitted to the House of Representatives, Feb. 18, 1874.

THE LIMITATIONS OF CIVIL AUTHORITY

THERE is only one all-powerful ruler-God. Even He has withheld from Himself the prerogative to violate the principles of justice or to invade the citadel of the soul to force the individual conscience in matters pertaining to the spiritual life. God made all men free moral agents, and endowed them with certain privileges and immunities that are inalienable and irrevocable so long as God is a God of justice and man a free, responsible agent.

Likewise, there are limitations that the civil authority cannot exceed without doing violence to justice in its relation to the people and their rights. An unlimited monarchy may claim absolute authority over the bodies and souls of all its subjects, and may invade natural rights, but justice still confirms them. A republican form of government, as contrasted with an absolute monarchy, by right cannot exceed the powers delegated to it by the people, nor can the majority invade natural rights nor regulate the duties of the minority on purely religious questions and obligations.

God Vindicates Loyal Obedience

Civil government is not the custodian of religion nor of the soul of man. Civil authorities rightfully cannot regulate a man's religion nor prescribe his duties to God. Time and again God has vindicated the course of those who, in their loyalty and devotion to Him, have refused to bow the knee and render obedience to unjust mandates of civil authorities, which were in conflict with the law of the moral Governor of the universe.

The true sphere of civil government was well defined by our forefathers in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

This same principle of equal rights was enunciated by Jesus Christ when He said: "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Matt. 7:12.

Civil Government Ordained of God

When the Lord said in Eden, "It is not good that the man should be alone," His words evidently included not only Adam's future