MR. AUSTIN… . He did not agree with the chairman of the select committee who reported the resolution, that we had a right to demand this qualification. On the contrary he held that we had no right to demand it—that every one who contributes to the expenses of government and bears his share of the public burthens, has a right to be a candidate for popular favor. This was the general rule. He admitted there were exceptions. We have the right to demand the qualifications of age, property and residence, because they are necessary to insure the proper performance of the duties of the office. But this qualification related to opinions which do not bear upon the duties of government and are not connected with the public safety. This was the distinction—if we pass this line there is no place to stop. No one would say that a belief in Christianity was indispensable in legislators. If the laws would not be well made—if the government could not be carried on—if society would be in danger without a declaration of belief in the doctrines of Christianity, then this would be within the exceptions to the general rule. But it is argued that although it is not necessary for the preservation of civil society, it is necessary to show our respect for the institutions of Christianity. The first is a legitimate purpose, the other an unlawful one. If it was agreed that it was proper that all those who held public offices should believe in the Christian religion, he was willing to say that he held in little respect the judgment of any one who in the present enlightened state of society, and with the present means of information, should not be satisfied with the evidences of Christianity, and still less the integrity of any one who should disbelieve without examination. But this was merely his opinion as an individual. And who should judge the people—it is their right—let them judge—give them means of information. But place him who believes, and him who sneers at religion, side by side as candidates for office, and let the people decide between them. They may be trusted to decide correctly. This is the theory of our government. He proceeded to the question of expediency. Has the test a good tendency? The test was relied upon as a security, and the people have sometimes been imposed upon, because they supposed that the government would look to the object. But the test was evaded, and the laws brought into contempt. The Christian religion needs not oaths and tests to protect it any more than it does force. Its empire will be maintained and extended by neither the one nor the other, but the only aid which can be given to secure its triumph, is the diffusion of knowledge. It was argued that the test being a part of the present constitution, it ought not to be taken out. By taking it from the constitution we no more violate the principles adopted by the framers of this instrument, than they violated principles previously established. In 1631, it was ordained that no one should be a freeman, and have the right of voting, who was not a church member. This he contended was the true theory if we would have a religious test. We should go to the source—stand at the ballot box, and as each individual came with his vote in his left hand, require him to hold up his right, and swear to his belief in the Christian religion. This was the system of our ancestors, but it was afterwards abolished, and in 1651 they adopted a stricter rule of exclusion. They required that the voter should not only be a member of the church, but should believe in the Christian religion, as it was proclaimed by the orthodox writers of the day. At the time the constitution was adopted, by a belief in the Christian religion was meant an adherence to the orthodox church of the day. This interpretation would exclude very many whom at the present day gentlemen would not exclude. By taking out this provision of the constitution, we adopt the spirit of those who framed that instrument. It was not very discreditable to them, if, after forty years’ experience of the test, it should be found inapplicable to our present condition, and he did not think that in rejecting it we should show any disrespect to them or to religion itself. We only say it is unnecessary to mix the affairs of church and state… .
Not until December 20 was the report of the committee on the bill of rights taken up in committee of the whole. Debate immediately centered on the aggravating third article. After the delegates endorsed the recommendation to strike the antiquated provision empowering the legislature to enjoin attendance at religious worship, Leverett Saltonstall moved that except for two further amendments of a minor nature the third article be left undisturbed. The Salem attorney and legislator with an old Massachusetts name was a prominent member of the small eastern conservative group that dominated the convention. So too was Samuel Hoar, Jr., of Concord, who spoke in favor of Saltonstall’s motion. Enoch Mudge, a delegate from the incipient industrial center of Lynn, in Essex County, then explained why he opposed the motion.
The next day the motion was passed over in favor of Childs’s resolution, which would more clearly test the opinion of the convention on the basic issue. Henry Halsey Childs came from the Berkshire town of Pittsfield, long a center of religious liberalism and Republicanism. A physician by profession, he also served in the legislature from 1816 to 1827. The debate lasted two days. Many delegates spoke for the substitute. The remarks of a dissenting minister from Beverly, N. W. Williams, were particularly pointed. Saltonstall delivered the longest and most forthright speech against the motion. Soon after he finished, the question was called, the motion defeated.
MR. SALTONSTALL moved to amend the report by striking out the third and fourth resolutions, and substituting a resolution declaring that it is not expedient to make any further amendment to the third article of the declaration of rights than to substitute the word “Christian” for “Protestant,” and also to provide that real estate shall be taxed for the support of public worship in the town, parish or precinct in which it shall be situated.
MR. HOAR of Concord said it appeared to him, that the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Salem, must necessarily bring the whole subject of the third article into discussion. If it should be adopted, it would show that the committee were in favor of the article as it now stands, in preference to the substitution proposed by the select committee, or by the gentleman from Chester [Mr. Phelps], or from Pittsfield [Mr. Childs], and to any other which may be off ered. He was desirous that the present amendment might be adopted. He was on the select committee, but did not vote with the majority in reporting these resolutions. If they were wrong, therefore, he was not responsible for their defects, and if right, he was entitled to no part of the credit. He considered the alteration proposed by the report of the committee to be in substance pernicious. It was going to change one of the fundamental principles of our government. If there was in our constitution one principle more than another on which the public happiness and welfare depended, and which was entitled to greater favor, he thought it was this; and it was here peculiarly proper to call on gentlemen for an application of the rule so often brought forward, that before any principle in the constitution was changed, it ought to be shown clearly and decisively that experience had proved it capable of producing an ill effect on the community. If this was acknowledged to be an important and an operative principle and not a dead letter, and if the effect produced by it was not a bad one, but the contrary, it ought to be retained. He was unwilling to destroy the effect of this principle. We had had experience of its beneficial operation, not for forty years only, but for more than a century; and he would not exchange this experience for any theory however wise in appearance. Theory might deceive, but experience could not. And if any experience was useful, that of the particular community for which the constitution was intended, was to be preferred. Although other countries may have been able to do without this principle, it by no means followed that it would do no good here. He knew that a distinguished individual in Great Britain had professed his ability to make constitutions and laws for all latitudes, and all habits and manners that could be named; he should however give more credit to our own experience. If gentlemen who wish a change should show the operation of the third article to be prejudicial to this country, he should cheerfully vote with them; otherwise he should think it ought to be retained. He said it had been judicially determined that by the law of 1811, real estate, belonging to non-resident proprietors of a different sect or denomination, cannot be taxed for the support of public worship in the town where it is situated. This report proposes to extend to all Christians, the rights which were peculiar to persons of a different denomination from Congregationalists. It gives power to a Congregationalist, for any reason, to change his religious instructor, and prevents his being taxed in any place except
