Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

it be before the other is offered up a sacrifice? I believe, said Mr. Merrill, that the right of conscience is as sacred a right and as perfect a right as any other; while at the same time, it is less capable of being protected, and more liable to abuse then any other. It is a perfect right and is to be enjoyed as we enjoy all other rights. In time of peace there should be full and free toleration of these scruples; in war, those who profess them and those who do not, must share alike the common hazard. In this way, all will be put on a common footing. Every thing will be tolerated in peace; but in war, all must partake of the common burden and hazard. Is it not fair and proper, that we should put this matter to the Friends, in this way? They can ask no more; we can offer no less. I have no doubt, sir, said Mr. M. that the conscientious scruples of the Friends are as great in time of war, as in peace; perhaps much greater; but we say to them that, in that emergency, you must partake with us in the common danger.

The gentleman from Susquehanna, says, that granting them this is put ting them on a different footing from our other citizens. This he denied. He had no idea of placing them on a different footing, and did not ask it, and he would not grant it. He would tell them that in time of peace, their conscientions scruples should be regarded; but in time of war, he would tell them that they had a stake in the community, and that they must help to maintain it, or lose it: he would tell them that they received equal protection with all other citizens, and they must return equal services to the country; therefore, this was only securing equal and exact justice to all our fellow citizens. Then, if the scruples of these people are honest and sincere, which none can doubt, we will regard then when the exigencies of the country does not require their services. Could we do less than this? He thought every consideration demanded this of us. They at one time were the inheritors of this land, and they practised toleration to all mankind; we are now in the majority and we ought to practise toleration to them-they had a right to expect this. When they were in the majority in this State, they might have excluded the Presbyterians and Lutherans and other religious sects, but they did not do this. We came here by their indulgence in the first place, perhaps by their invitation, he did not know, but we enjoyed their indulgence and their protection, and now when we are in the ascendency, we should practice the same kind of toleration to them. He was sorry to hear the truth and sincerity of the professions of these people doubted. The first doubt in relation to their conscientious scruples was raised by the gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward.) He could not understand the conscientious scruples of the society of Friends-they were totally incomprehensible to him. Why, other men may not understand his conscientious scruples; and does he expect all other men to give way to him. Certainly not. He does not allow his word to be doubted in relation to any matter-why then does he doubt the word of others, when they tell him they have conscientious scruples. But he does not understand their conscientious scru ples, therefore, he would allow them no liberty at all. Why, where would this thing lead us to if carried out. The king of Babylon could not understand Daniel's conscientious scruples; He could not see the necessity of any man's praying three times a day-and therefore he threw Daniel into the lion's den. Charles the fifth, could not understand the consci

Let

stand any body's conscientious scruples, who did not profess the same faith with himself, let that be what it might; and the government of England at one time could not understand any man's conscientious scruples, who would not contribute to their church; and how many ministers were sacrificed, and how much ruin was brought upon that country, because many individuals would not conform to this doctrine. He might not be able to make the Quakers understand why he preferred the Presbyterian church or the Lutheran church, to theirs. You, Mr. Chairman, might not be able to make the Episcopalians understand why you preferred the Presbyterian church, but that did not say that his doctrine was any the less correct, because they could not understand it. His duty was a matter with his own conscience, and he was not to be controlled or driven from his belief, because others could not understand it. Again, gentlemen might recollect that in Scotland, Knox and a large portion of the reformers of that day, wished to appropriate certain lands to the education of the children of the kingdom-but those in the possession of them could not understand any such doctrines, so they divided them among themselves. The laws of England required every man to pay tythe for the support of the established church, and the rulers of that country could not understand the consciences of any person who was not willing to do this. They must pay tythes to a church which they never enter. Suppose such a law was to be passed in this country, would not gentlemen have conscientious scruples about paying it? Would not they ask to be relieved from this burden? There would be no difficulty then in understanding where gentlemen's consciences were. All he asked then of gentlemen now, was to do what they would expect to receive under similar circumstances. us go one step further. If conscience is a thing that is to be judged of by other men, those who are least informed and take least pains to examine into matters of conscience are to be the judges and those who take great pains to come to right conclusions, are to be the victims. All any man has to say is, that he dont understand another man's conscience, and on this principle you can justify every persecution, which has ever been practised in the world. Are we to follow the example of the dark ages of Europe, or are we to be governed by the light of modern reform? Are we to go back to those ages when no man could understand the coscience of those who did not believe with him, or are we to practise upon the blessed doctrine of toleration to all? It is right and proper that every man should be left to judge for himself, in relation to conscience; and if gentlemen who could not understand the consciences of others, would examine their own breasts, they would see that this should be the case. It was to be observed that they who had but little sympathy for other men's consciences, had generally a very great determination to stand by their own, and not yield it up to any person or on any occasions. The Presbyterians when the attempt was made to force Episcopacy upon them, were most strenuous in resisting it. Their consciences would not permit of their receiving the doctrine; they could not come to the same conclusion, and they rejected the doctrine. This matter then, of judging of the consciences of men, is a dangerous matter, for it will always happen that the less informed, the more ignorant, and those who have never taken any pains to inquire into the scruples of conscience, will be the judges. It has been objected to this amendment, that it will raise up privileged

exemptions from a general law. Why, there are more exemptions now from this militia law than any other general law in the State; all who are over forty-five years are exempted; all who have served seven years in a volunteer corps are exempted; and men are exempted by name or title. Judges of courts, ministers of the Gospel, justices of the peace, postmasters and others are exempted. Then this argument that there must be no exemption from general law, went for nothing.

He wished now to say a word with regard to the cry "exemption from taxes," which are levied for the support of the government. Now it was easy to call every thing by a name, but he wanted to have every thing called by its right name. Moneys demanded and collected from men for a failure to perform certain duties, was not a tax, it could not be looked upon as a tax. It was declared in the law to be a fine, and to turn round and say it was a tax, and say that the Friends ought not to be excused from paying this fine, because it was a tax, was a perversion of terms. It was wholly absurd to eall these fines a tax. It is true that both takes money from the purse, and in this light alone could it be viewed as a tax. But were they both for the same object? No sir; one is in aid of the government, and the other is a penalty for a delinquency in the performance of certain duties. It was nothing more nor less than what it professed to be, a fine. Now he would ask whether by any implication in the world there was any ground to suppose, that when conscience would not allow a man to do one thing, it would allow him to do another in precisely the same form. He could see no reason for any such supposition. He himself had none of these conscientious scruples, nor did he know that he had a half dozen of constituents, who had; or who desired this change to be made; but he desired to grant the Friends this right. He had no doubt that they had conscientious scruples; it was not to be doubted by any one-no man could doubt it. Do you suppose if they had no conscientious scruples about paying an equivalent for personal service, that they would allow their property to be levied upon to pay this fine? Would they allow their most necessary furniture to be taken and sold? Would they allow such men as the collector of fines referred to by the gentleman from the city, (Mr. Cope) to enter their houses and take away their property, when they had the money in their pockets to pay the fine. Would they subject themselves to the scoffs of ruffians, if they were not conscientiously scrupulous against paying this equivalent. It was not to be doubted then for a moment, that they were sincere in their pretentions. All their acts prove it, and we have not the least room to doubt it. He then asked gentlemen to consider this matter solemnly and seriously, and endeavor to remove all prejudices from their minds, before they give their votes. He would ask the gentlemen to examine themselves and see if they were not acting on this matter from some selfish consideration; whether it was not possible that some political feeling, some old grudge, something which may have existed in their minds for years, might improperly influence them in this matter. He would ask gentlemen to view this question in all its bearings, and examine well the danger of disregarding the right of conscience. If we do not hold the right of conscience sacred, we have nothing to recommend our institutions to the oppressed of other nations. On it rests our only hope, and if it is given up, there is nothing in our

by the freemen of America, if we would recommend republican institutions to the rest of the world.

Mr. WOODWARD, moved that the committee rise, which motion was negatived-yeas 35, noes 46.

Mr. SHELLITO hoped gentlemen would not force a vote at this late hour, and in the condition in which the committee was now in. If the question is one of importance, it is important that we should have every vote that can be obtained. He hoped therefore that the committee would rise.

Mr. FORWARD Concurred entirely in opinion with the gentleman who had just taken his seat, he hoped the committee would rise.

On motion of Mr. FORWARD the committee then rose; when,
The Convention adjourned.

THURSDAY, OCTOCER 26, 1838.

Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, submitted the following resolution, which was read a second time and adopted:

Resolved, That a minute be made on the journal of to-day, of the omission to insert among the nays on the minutes of the committee of the whole, on page one hundred and forty of the printed minutes, the name of Mr. PORTER, of Northampton, who voted in the negative, and his name omitted by mistake in the printed journal, although found on the original minutes.

SIXTH ARTICLE.

The Convention again resolved itself into a committee of the whole, Mr. Chambers in the chair, on the report of the committee to whom was referred the 6th article of the Constitution.

The question being on the amendment offered by Mr. BELL, as modified, to read as follows, viz: "Those who conscientiously scruple to bear arms shall not be compelled to do so, nor, except in times of exigency or war, to pay an equivalent therefor."

Mr. PURVIANCE, of Butler, said, that as he intended to vote in the affirmative on this question, he would ask the indulgence of the committee for a few moments, while he assigned, if not what may be considered reasons by those who heard him, the views which influenced his opinion, and which might be satisfactory to those whom he had the honor in part to represent. It appeared to him that the report of the committee, if adopted, would leave the proposition of the gentleman from Chester unobjectionable. The report proposed to strike from the Constitution the present objectionable feature which imposes on the Legislature an imperative

by the introduction of the word "when." If we adopt the report of the committee, which he hoped the committee would, it would read thus: The freemen of this Commonwealth shall be armed, organized and disciplined for its defence, when and in such manner as the Legislature may hereafter, by law direct." What was the motive of the proposition of the gentleman from Chester-and what the objection? It proposes that no one shall be compelled to bear arms, "nor, except in times of exigency or war to pay an equivalent therefor." Was the request on which this proposition was founded, which emanated from a most respectable society in the Commonwealth, a reasonable one, and such as ought to be granted? What was the objection to it? The gentleman from Fayette, (Mr. Fuller) and the gentleman from Centre, (Mr. Smyth) seemed to be peculiarly sensitive on the subject of the militia. There was one objection to the amendment only which they had suggested which he would examine. They say that the militia system should be supported because it stimulates volunteers. It was a costly stimulant. We are to pay the enormous amount of 24,000 dollars a year for supporting a system which is admitted to be an object of ridicule, in order to keep up, what the gentleman from Fayette and the gentleman from Centre, call a stimulant to volunteers.

Mr. BANKS here inquired who on the other side, had admitted the militia to be an object of ridicule.

Mr. PURVIANCE said, he did not name the gentleman from Mifflin. But he would merely ask whether that position was, in point of fact, true? Were persons driven from the ranks of the militia to those of the volunteers on account of disgust? Was it in point of fact correct? As far as his experience would enable him to decide, the volunteers were more in the habit of giving up and falling back into the militia. And how was that? Was the reasoning of gentlemen on this point sound? If it was necessary to keep up a portion of our military system in a position to provoke ridicule and contempt, for the purpose of stimulating another portion of it, viz: the volunteers-the argument might be carried out, and gentlemen might urge that it was necessary to keep up vice for the purpose of promoting virtue-to keep up a ridiculous system for the purpose of warning you from it-to keep up, in this government a positive vice in order to point your steps to the opposite virtue. This was the argument of gentlemen. Was it sound? If this position was not true in fact, or sound in reason, it was the only one offered to justify these annual parades of militia which had led to so much abuse and ridicule. He proposed to add a little to the statement already made as to these trainings, and to ask if they were necessary to the disciplining of the citizens. He was ready to admit that this was the object of the framers of the Constitution. They had declared that the freemen of this Commonwealth shall be armed and disciplined. Has the present militia system effected that purpose? Where did you find subordination in the militia? The system was only productive of insubordination, and habits are acquired in the militia from which those who gained them can never be divested.

When a service of years is required, habits are acquired which can never afterwards be thrown aside. Place men in the militia where they obtain habits of insubordination, and they can never afterwards be disci

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »