time exercise the slightest control or influence over any religious society, sect, or institution.

This is what I understand by the complete severance of church and State, that the State shall not patronize the religious bodies, and the religious bodies shall not be subject to the State either as the condition of grants of money made to them or for any other reason whatever.

Mr. President, if you appropriate money to a school set up and controlled by a religious society, you virtually appropriate that money to the general purposes of that society and not to the school alone. If the State takes upon itself the support of a sectarian school, it releases the funds of that society for their other purposes, for the publication of books, for missionary service in the propagation of their faith, and for all the other purposes upon which a religious society enters; so that it is impossible to discriminate between the one object and the other in the appropriation of public money. You might just as well appropriate your money in a given case to the publication of sectarian books and to the payment of missionaries to propogate that faith as to appropriate it to the schools of the society. It is simply a question of the distribution of the funds which that society may have under its control, whether derived from the State or from the contributions of its own members.. Therefore, there is no possible rule except a complete separation of the State from the pecuniary operations and action of the religious societies. The State ought to be connected in no way whatever with their performance, either as the patron of such a society or as the controller of the society in its operations.

There is but one additional point that I care to state, and it is this: There is a necessity for this proposed section. Already particular societies are found at the doors of the Legislature of this State, and the appropriations which they have obtained and are likely to obtain are open to great objections upon other grounds besides those already stated. In the first place, these appropriations will be capricious; one society will get them and another will not. The society that can command political influence, that has votes behind it, will pierce your treasury and obtain money; another society that does not enter or propose to enter into political action, that is not formidable as a political instrument, will get none of your money; and you will have favoritism

and gross inequality in these appropriations.

What comes next? Religious dissension and bitterness all over this State between the different religious societies, one getting more than its share and another justly indignant at the favoritism exercised by the Legislature of the State; and after a little, you will find a struggle going on constantly in both Houses of the Legislature between members belonging to different religious societies in the obtaining of appropriations for home purposes for their own communion and resisting those of others; and this thing is likely to become a scandal in future years. It has become so already in other States. In the State of New York, at every session of the Legislature now, prolonged and bitter debates, such as were indicated by some talking on this floor this morning, are becoming common there, a struggle after the moneys of the people of the State of New York for religious institutions in different parts of the State, and particularly in the city of New York.

Here is a necessity, then, for this provision in the Constitution. Let us say here in the fundamental law to the religious societies: "The Legislature has nothing to do with your charitable or your educational institutions; they can give no money to any of your respective organizations or associations in this State; they are confined to those institutions which are of a general educational or charitable character."

Now, sir, this section does not prohibit the Legislature from exercising the largest and widest liberality. They can appropriate all the moneys that can be spared from the public treasury, and they will not supply the demands of education and charity outside of the limitations of this section. They are to supply all our State institutions at Harrisburg, at Philadelphia and at Pittsburg. They are authorized, and they do now appropriate hundreds of thousands of dollars to nonsectarian institutions of charity in this city and in Pittsburg. None of those appropriations are touched upon by this section. The liberality and the charity of the people of this State can have free course through their Legislature hereafter as they have had in past times. Our appropriations for those objects through the Legislature are magnificent. They are to the honor and credit of our State; and if we retain this chapter of liberality and yet confine it to legitimate and non-secta

rian purposes, it will be the source of unbounded blessing and advantage to our people in the future.

I join heartily with the committee in their general object, though I desire to strike out the words to which I refer. This prohibition of appropriation to any person does not seem to me to mean anything unless it is to a person to hold in trust for a sectarian purpose. That is covered by the words I propose to insert, "or for the use of." The office, therefore, of that term is completely filled by the amendment which J propose.

Then the prohibition of appropriations to any community seems to me to be unreasonable and unwise. If a particular town of your State is burned down so that the last roof within it is consumed, will you compel the Legislature to enforce the payment of all the taxes upon the property consumed for the year in which the destruction takes place? Will you prohibit the Legislature from authorizing the county treasurer to refund that portion of the taxes which has already been paid upon this consumed property for the year? Nay, sir, in a case of extreme calamity and suffering will you prohibit the Legislature, in extraordinary cases of this kind, from extending partial relief in other forms? I hope not. I hope that will be left to the discretion of the Legislature.

Mr. J. S. BLACK. As the gentleman from Columbia is apparently desiring to be very precise, I should like to understand from him what he regards as a sectarian institution. Of course he does not mean to say that this prohibition is confined merely to the churches. Now, suppose that a charitable institution, a school, an hospital, anything that it is desirable and proper in all respects for the State to promote by an appropriation of money, should turn out upon inquiry to have been established under the auspices of some religious society; will he say that for that reason alone, because it has been already patronized by a church, therefore it shall not be patronized by the State? Do I under stand that that is what he means by a sectarian institution? I suppose it is, as he is silent.

preceding section. Every word that would have that effect standing alone would of course have that effect when what I propose to have stricken out is stricken out. How he can say that the words standing alone would come in conflict with the preceding section when they would not come in conflict without these words attached, I do not understand.

Mr. BUCKALEW. I do not understand this section to prohibit appropriations to an educational institution nor to a charitable institution the members of which belong to some religious society, but whose operations are entirely distinct from those of the religious society.

Mr. J. S. BLACK. What sort of a connection must the religious society have with the benevolent association in order to bring it within the prohibition of an appropriation by the State?

Mr. BUCKALEW. It ought not to have any with the society.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. May I inquire, before the vote is taken, if the amendment offered by the delegate from Columbia (Mr. Buckalew) was accepted?

The PRESIDENT. No amendment was offered by the delegate from Columbia. The question is on the amendment offerred by the delegate from York (Mr. J. S. Black.)

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. BUCKALEW. Now I offer my amendment, to strike out, in the third line, the words "any person or community, nor to," and to insert "or for the use of." I ask that the section be read as proposed to be amended.

The Clerk read as follows:

"No appropriations (except for pensions or gratuities for military service) shall be made for charitable, educational, or benevolent purposes to, or for the use of, any denominational or sectarian institution, corporation or association."

Mr. HARRY WHITE. I simply wish to make one remark, The amendment offered by the delegate from Columbia will eviscerate the whole purpose of the. section, and I hope it will not prevail. I will not enlarge upon the absolute necessity of having some constitutional provi

Mr. AINEY. I move to amend the amendment by adding the words "person or community," so as to make the section read, if amended as proposed:

"No appropriation (except for pensions or gratuities for military service) shall be made for charitable, educational

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the delegate from Philadelphia (Mr. Cuyler.)

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. DUNNING. I offer the following as a substitute for the section

very likely to vote for any proposition that will build up a sect in opposition to themselves.

Now, sir, the great purpose in this entire measure is to put it out of the reach of any sectarian body to vote these ap

Mr. DUNNING. I move then to strike out all that follows the words "Section 19," and insert in lieu of the matter the following:

"No appropriation shall be made to any denominational or sectarian institution, corporation or association."

This seems, sir, to be a question that exercises the minds of members of this Convention to a greater extent, perhaps, than almost any other question that has been before us for a number of days, and it is one in which the people of this Commonwealth are all deeply interested. We have been told by the gentleman from Philadelphia (Mr. Woodward) this morning that the people of this Commonwealth are sectarian, and that sectarian institutions exist all over this State and all over this country, a truth that is so apparent that nobody, in this enlightened day, for a moment would controvert it. The object of the substitution I propose for the section is to have in plain language a provision that will prevent the possibility of any sectarian denomination in the State of Pennsylvania at any time, under this Constitution, passing any law, if by chance they should have a májority in the Legislature, that would discriminate in favor of any particular sect or denomination in this State. I do not believe that it is the province, the duty, or the right of this Convention to put in the fundamental law anything that would allow one sectarian denomination to have advantages over another, and if we would prevent that, as we cannot tell from the standpoint that we occupy to-day what sectarian denomination, in ten, fifteen or twenty years to come, in the development of affairs in this State, may be in the majority, I do not believe we ought to put anything in the Constitution that would permit any body of sectarians to pass, by legislative enactment, any law that would give them advantages over other sects.

It has been well said here this morning that sectarianism exists and it will exist, and it is a well known fact that the party which has the majority will vote for those appropriations which look to the building up of their own sect. Individuals are not

an or religious body. It makes very little difference to me what the sect is which it is proposed to assist by such appropriations; they are entirely wrong in principle. My friend from Philadelphia (Mr. Woodward) has spoken very learnedly upon the subject of the sects and the different organizations of religious bodies. I listened to him with great attention; but I believe he could speak much more learnedly in regard to what is written by Coke and Littleton and Blackstone than he could upon subjects like this. Certainly he did not go back far enough when he undertook to state the time when one denomination was established. I do not know anything about Alexander Campbell's system; I believe he came from Kentucky; but when the gentleman spoke of the origin of the Christians, known by that name, I recalled to mind that I once read in a book that "they were first called Christians at Antioch," when that was a very distinguished city, a great many years ago. But that has little to do with this question. The point in which we are more interested thon any other is to be careful that we put into this Constitution nothing that shall give any preference to any religious body, that shall enable it to step into our Legislature and because it happens to have a majority of the members, as may sometimes occur, allow it to control the appropriations that shall be made. We want to avoid that. Why, sir, if by. chance any religious body in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should have a majority in the Legislature, do you suppose they will go back upon their own ideas and upon their own sect? We do not want to leave the fundamental law in such shape that they may vote to themselves appropriations and vote down appropriations for every other religious body or sect.

1 think, if we adopt the proposition which I have offered, we shall have in this Constitution exact justice. The section as I propose to make it read, in connection with the section preceding it, will assert the great principle which a Constitution of the Commonwealth like ours should assert.

The PRESIDENT. The question is on the amendment of the delegate from Luzerne (Mr. Dunning.)

The amendment was rejected.

Mr. HAY. I desire now to renew the amendment of which I gave notice this morning and which is now lying on the Clerk's desk, to strike out all the words of the section and insert what is lying on the desk.

The PRESIDENT. The words proposed

to be inserted will be read.

The CLERK read as follows: "No appropriation shall be made for any denominational or sectarian purpose, or to any institution, corporation or association created or maintained for objects limited or restricted by any particular religious, denominational, or sectarian

views."

Mr. HAY. Mr. President: I desire to state in a single word the difference between the section under consideration and the amendment. The section forbids aid to any denominational or sectarian institutions whatever, no matter what may be their object or how general may be their benevolence. The amendment proposes to permit the Legislature to grant aid to institutions which are managed and controlled by different church organizations, provided that their objects are not limited in any way by the religious views of the founders and maintainers of the institution. That is the main difference between the section and the amendment. I ask that the yeas and nays may be taken on this amendment.

The PRESIDENT. Is the call for the yeas and nays seconded?

Messrs. Calvin, Wherry, Cuyler, Sharpe, MacVeagh, Cochran, Curtin, Hunsicker, De France, Church, Purman and M'Clean rose to second the call.

The PRESIDENT. The yeas and nays are ordered.

Mr. HARRY WHITE. I will make a single observation with respect to this amendment. We have already voted on the proposition, and it has been voted down, and I will only remark that it leaves out entirely the words, "person or community."

Mr. HAY. I omitted the words, "person or community," in order that the amendment might not be embarrassed by the consideration of the question which is raised by those words. If the Convention desire to have those words added hereafter when this amendment is voted upon, if adopted, they can add them. 19-Vol. V.

The PRESIDENT. The question is upon the amendment of the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. Hay,) upon which the yeas and nays have been ordered.

The question being taken by yeas and nays resulted: Yeas, thirty-five; nays, sixty-three, as follows:

YEAS.

Messrs. Armstrong, Biddle, Bigler, Black, J. S., Brown, Church, Clark, Cochran, Curtin, Cuyler, Edwards, Ellis, Gilpin, Guthrie, Hay, Hazzard, Hunsicker, Lamberton, Landis, Littleton, MacVeagh, M'Clean, Mott, Palmer, H. W., Purviance, John N., Runk, Russell, Sharpe, Smith, H. G., Smith, Henry W., Smith, Wm. H., Temple, Wetherill, J. M., Wetherill, John Price and Wherry-35.

NAYS.

Messrs. Achenbach, Ainey, Alricks, Andrews, Baily, (Perry,) Baker, Bannan, Bardsley, Bartholomew, Bowman, Boyd, Brodhead, Broomall, Buckalew, Calvin, Campbell, Carter, Corbett, Corson, Craig, Cronmiller, Curry, Dallas, Darlington, Davis, De France, Dunning, Ewing, Finney, Funck, Hanna, Horton, Howard, Lawrence, Lilly, MacConnell, M'Culloch, M’Murray, Mann, Mantor, Minor, Newlin, Palmer, G. W., Parsons, Patterson, D. W., Patterson, T. H. B., Purman, Read, John R., Reed, Andrew, Reynolds, Rooke, Ross, Stanton, Struthers, Turrell, Van Reed, Walker, White, David N., White, Harry, White, J. W. F., Woodward, Wright and Meredith, President—63.

So the amendment was rejected.

ABSENT.-Messrs. Addicks, Baer, Bailey, (Huntingdon,) Barclay, Beebe, Black, Charles A., Carey, Cassidy, Collins, Dodd, Elliott, Fell, Fulton, Gibson, Green, Hall, Harvey, Hemphill, Heverin, Kaine, Knight, Lear, Long, M'Camant, Metzger, Mitchell, Niles, Patton, Porter, Pughe, Purviance, Sam'l A., Simpson, Stewart and Worrell-34.

Mr. ALRICKS. Mr. President: It seems to me that this section requires amendment. There are words here which are not words of limitation, and it can be improved and shortened by striking them out. The intention of the Convention is that the Legislature shall be limited and shall not make appropriations for any such purposes, whether charitable, religious or otherwise. I move therefore to strike out the words "charitable, educational or benevolent," and to insert in the first line before the word "appropria