public worship; the consequence will be, that all lands of non-resident proprietors will be exempted from taxation for the support of religious worship in any place. Was not this a great evil? He could name towns in which one third part of the land was owned by citizens of different towns, and was assessed for the support of public worship in the towns where it was situated. Deduct this portion of the taxes, and in many towns it would in a great degree derange their system of supporting public worship. It might be supposed that this evil would be remedied on account of tenants being liable to be taxed. But there were a great many towns to which he referred, where the lands were not occupied by tenants, but used by the non-resident owners merely as pastures for cattle. Another inconvenience and injustice would arise from adopting the report that these lands would escape all taxation, as the assessors in the towns where the owners lived would not know of lands so situated, or would be ignorant of their value. For this reason alone, the report ought not to be accepted, and it was incumbent on those in favor of it, to show something equivalent to the derangement to the system of taxation. But although this inequality would be created by the report, yet this was but the dust of the balance, compared with the rest of the consequences… . Mr. H. spoke of the detriment which would happen to that class of society who depend for their religious instruction on public worship. He spoke only as a citizen and not as a divine. He considered religious instruction, in a political point of view, to be as necessary as literary instruction. It might be said that religion would be supported voluntarily. He wished for better evidence of the fact than he had had; and if true now, it might not be hereafter. Much had been said about inalienable rights; he asked if this meant that society could not do what was most for its good? If a man could not give up any rights for his greatest benefit? No interference with the rights of conscience was intended or felt from the first article. To say that the Legislature shall not regulate anything relating to religion, was to say that they shall not encourage any virtues or punish any vices or crimes. If we could trust to anything in history, it was to this, that our prosperity, and what most distinguishes Massachusetts, is owing to our provision for the support of religion and morality. He considered these a great support of civil society. He believed the only alternative was, to support it by religion and morality, or by a standing army. The proposition of the gentleman from Salem, was only to leave the constitution where it was before. It was not to repeal the law of 1811, which he considered as a bad law, but only to leave the Legislature the power, if necessary, instead of tying up their hands for all future time. He compared the provision for religious worship to that for town schools: those who have no children pay as great a tax as if they had; and if any person, having children, is not satisfied with the schoolmaster appointed by the town, he takes away his children, but never thinks of withholding his money from the support of the town schools; and yet the principle is the same; it is in fact a stronger case; for a man may withdraw to any religious society, and pay his money where he pleases, only he must pay somewhere… .
MR. MUDGE was opposed to the adoption of the amendment of the gentleman from Salem [Mr. Saltonstall], because it would tend to introduce great confusion and evil. It proposed to give power to societies to tax real estate. Persons of all denominations have made that provision for the support of public worship which they think necessary. They do not wish to incur the trouble and expense of assessing taxes, that they may draw them out for the support of religious worship which they have already provided for in other modes. The arguments which the gentleman who had last spoke had used were precisely those which he would have used, to show that the provisions of the constitution ought not to be retained. He could show in every part of the Commonwealth instances in which great injustice and oppression had been suffered by individuals; he could point to an individual on the floor who had had his property taken from him to the amount of 300 dollars for the support of public worship in a form which he did not approve. But who shall be entitled to the right of taxing the whole property of the Commonwealth? In the town to which he belonged there were five distinct religious societies. Which of them should have the right to impose this tax? Some of the denominations of Christians were conscientiously opposed to the right of imposing any tax for the support of religion. The right therefore of taxing would operate unequally. The Episcopalians, the Baptists, the Friends, had never exercised the right. None he believed but the Congregational denomination had exercised the right. It was therefore granting to them an exclusive right. It had been contended that it was necessary for the support of religion. He did not agree that it was necessary. He contended that it was not. He found that all religious communities, besides supporting their own religious teachers, contributed large sums to the extension of the knowledge of Christianity to other countries. It was not necessary for securing the maintenance of the ministry, and it had a tendency to produce strife and contention. Persons were taxed in societies, who were accustomed to attend religious worship in other societies, and this produced jealousy, strife, ill feelings towards each other. The ministers in many instances do not wish it. They had rather labor with their own hands for their support, than that the stock and property of their flock should be taken and sold for their maintenance. He wished to strike from the constitution a provision that was not necessary for the support of religion, and which tended to produce strife and jealousy. It would reduce all the religious communities to a level, and would introduce a spirit of harmony and emulation for the support of religion, and he believed in a short time the amount of voluntary contribution for religious purposes, would be greater than can now be raised by the hand of power. If we would attend to the subject in its operation on religion, we should find it would have a good effect, to remove all restrictions, which operate to give exclusive privileges to a particular denomination. He wished to have the constitution so amended that there should be no inconsistency in it, and that each religious community should be entitled to equal privileges… .
… MR. CHILDS stated as a general principle, that the right of every individual to worship God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience, was one which no government could interfere with. Whenever government had undertaken to exercise an authority in this respect, it was an usurpation, and when this usurpation had been submitted to, the worship rendered was not sincere. In our own government, unless it could be demonstrated that it was necessary to the support of government, and clearly for the interest of the community, it could not be fairly exercised. He would call the attention of the committee to the argument of the gentleman from Boston. He would not admit that he or any other gentleman who would support the report of the select committee felt a greater interest in the support of religious institutions than gentlemen who would advocate the resolution which he had proposed. The gentleman had said that the committee were unanimously of opinion that the support of institutions for religious instruction and worship were essential to the happiness of the people and the good order of society, and therefore ought to be supported by legislative provision. He, Mr. C., would draw a different conclusion from the same premises. He argued that because religious instruction and worship were essential to the happiness of the people and good order and preservation of government, they ought to be left to the free support of every individual, according to the dictates of conscience. He contended that this was the only mode in which religious worship could be properly supported, and the mode in which in practice under the constitution it had been actually supported. The principles of the third article in the declaration of rights had been abandoned in practice, and the resolution before the committee did not deviate from what had been the practice for many years in the Commonwealth—what had been recognized by the Legislature—and from the general sentiment of the people. He believed there was no state where there was so much refinement—so much instruction, and so great a regard for religion as were to be found in this Commonwealth. He was willing to go as far as any gentleman in this eulogy of the character of the people in all parts of the State. But he would not admit that this character was to be attributed to the inefficient and inoperative recognition of a principle in the constitution. It was to be attributed to the general support of common schools—they were the primum mobile of improvement in the Commonwealth. He appealed to the example of the town of Boston where this principle of the constitution had no effect, and yet there was nowhere to be found a higher degree of improvement. The example of Rhode Island had been appealed to as a case to show the necessity of some constitutional provision for the support of religion. But Mr. C. said that the low state of morals and improvement in that state could not be attributed to the want of a compulsatory provision for the support of religion, but to their want of common schools. In Providence, where
