66

of the Commonwealth. In the Constitution of 1790, we have the sacred principle established: "That no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry "against his consent, that no human authority can, in any case whatever, "control or interfere with the rights of conscience." No man therefore can be compelled to any particular form of worship, or to support any which he does not conscientiously believe to be right. The Constitution of 1790, contained no such clause as the present. Mr. D. here made a reference to the memorial of the Friends, to show that in its language it entirely harmonized with that of the charter of privileges, and that therefore no objection could be urged against it, to which the charter itself was not liable. To sustain that position, he read an extract from the memorial of Friends.

Now he would ask, what was the conscientious practice; what the conscientious persuasion of the society of Friends? He spoke in reference to the Friends alone, because his argument would equally apply to any other sect, or to every other individual holding conscientious scruples. If then every individual in the community, no matter how low his station, since this colony was settled, had been considered as deserving of such regard, and had been protected in his conscientious privileges and practice, were we now about to retrace our steps to those dark and barbarous ages when no human right was recognized, except the right of the strongest? He trusted there was no such disposition in this body. If there were any who entertained conscientious scruples, he hoped these scruples would be protected and respected, unless they should come in competition with the public safety. He made this exception, because he felt free to admit that the public necessity was superior to all law. Conscientious scruples, in times of public danger, must give way to public necessity. The principles of toleration which he had explained was not only to be found in the Legislative history of Pennsylvania, and in her Constitutional code, but in the Constitution of every State, even where the society of Friends were scarcely, if at all known, those who enter. tained concientious scruples had been exempted from military duty. There was but one instance to which he would refer, which would, he believed, convince the committee, if any thing would, of the propriety of continuing this principle of toleration. In Tennessee, where perhaps there was no such person as a Quaker known, it had been thought necessary, by a special provision in her Constitution, to make it imperative on the Legislature to exempt those who had conscientious scruples on the subject, from the necessity of bearing arms. The 8th article of the Constitution of Tennessee, contained this clause on the subject: "Legisla ture shall pass laws exempting citizens belonging to any sect or denomination of religion, the tenets of which are known to be opposed to the bearing of arms, from attending private and general musters.'

Thus it would be seen that the Constitution of Tennessee did not even leave it discretionary with the Legislature, but made it imperative on that body to pass laws exempting from muster such persons as entertained religious scruples. This was going as far as any other Constitution had gone, if not farther. In many of the books he saw this principle of toleration recognized, although in our Constitution, it is coupled with a clause-a dark spot in our organic law-compelling the Legislature to

The Constitution of Maine, article 7, section 5, runs thus:-" Persons of the denomination of Quakers and Shakers, justices of the supreme judicial court, and ministers of the gospel, may be exempted from military duty, but no other person of the age of eighteen, and under the age of forty-five years, excepting officers of the militia who have been honorably discharged, shall be so exempted, unless he shall pay an equivalent, to be fixed by law."

Are

Here the language makes it imperative, or at least holds out a strong invitation to the Legislature to make such exemption: but when such exemption is made, there is nothing said about an equivalent. Thus, Maine and Tennessee have adopted the same broad basis In Maine too, there were Quakers, and Shakers and ministers. Perhaps only the Quakers and Shakers entertained conscientious scruples. But it was not left at the discretion of the Legislature to inflict any equivalent. Most of the other States recognized the principle of conscientious scruples, but required an equivalent. It was not his purpose to go further than was proposed by the amendment of his colleague, (Mr. Bell) to exempt those who professed scruples from actual service, and from paying an equivalent in time of peace; and, in war, from personal service, but requiring the payment of an equivalent, because no scruples could then be permitted to interfere with the public safety. Look one moment at the equivalent required. What was it? An equivalent in time of peace, when only one or two days training was required! What did it amount to? He wished it to be laid down as a principle, that the conscientious scruples of individuals should be respected, unless some over-ruling circumstances rendered it necessary that these scruples should be disregarded. What were the services required in this case? To attend militia musters once or twice a year, under officers like the notorious Colonel Pluck. these the kind of services to be required of our citizens? The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania stands alone in the folly of her Legislature on this point. Did any one ever hear of an equivalent for standing in the street sholdering a corn-stalk? What was originally intended was that an equivalent should be given for actual service, when such service was required. The militia laws had, on this point, never been in conformity with the Constitution. The Legislature had exempted some in disregard to the provision touching conscience, and had made others liable to service. Never, until they came to the point of arming and disciplining the militia, did the Legislature strictly comply with the provision in the Constitution as it now stands. There ought to be made evident some positive good-some over-ruling necessity, before we ventured to violate the conscientious scruples of any man. Gentlemen had told the committee of the exploits of militia in Europe, as well as in our country. He was astonished to hear the army of the great Napoleon designated as militia. He believed it to be a fact that Napoleon himself had said that the militia were only fit to stop a bullet until the regular troops could be brought up to action. He had therefore heard with astonishment that the whole army of Napoleon was merely militia. But it was not his purpose to take away the merits of any. In his part of the country there were no militia, there was no military spirit. He would now turn to an authority which he considered to be as great as that of Napoleon with every Amenican. Generalal Washington, in his letter to Congress, in 1778, in the midst of

66

"To place any dependence upon militia, is assuredly resting upon a "broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestic life; unaccustomed to the din of arms; totally unacquainted with every "kind of military skill; which, being followed by a want of confidence "in themselves; when opposed to troops regularly trained, disciplined "and appointed; superior in knowledge and superior in arms; makes "them timid and ready to fly from their own shadows. Besides, the "sudden change in their manner of living, particularly in their lodging, brings on sickness in many, impatience in all; and such an unconquer"able desire of returning to their respective homes, that it not only produces shameful and scandalous desertions among themselves, but "infuses the like spirit in others."

66

66

Again, speaking of his preference for a standing army over the militia, he says: If I was called upon to declare upon oath, whether the militia have been most serviceable or hurtful, upon the whole, I should sub"scribe to the latter."

With such evidence before us, he would ask, in the name of common sense, if to support such a system, the conscientious scruples of any of our citizens ought to be disregarded? Whether the right conferred by the Constitution ought to be violated to keep up an annual muster of men with corn-stalks? But it had been said by the gentleman from Franklin over the way, that if we open the door, we shall allow the worthless to shield themselves from the duty of serving their country by setting up conscientious scruples, and thus make room for the escape of all who are cowards. It would be a singular spectacle to present to the world an army of cowards and traitors who, if they could, would shield themselves under the plea of conscientious scruples. It had been uniformly the military practice to drum such characters out of the corps. The argument therefore, defeated itself. The gentleman from Luzerne, (Mr. Woodward) had also said that the gentleman from Franklin, had placed this question in a clear and unanswerable point of view. But was it likely that any one, merely to avoid the musters, would become a disciple of a creed which he did not believe, and affect scruples which he did not feel? Was there any evidence of many having had resort to such fraudulent means to avoid service in time of war? But supposing it to be true that if we tolerated the scruples of one, we should open the door to others. Such a result was barely possible, but, because a few cowards or traitors, or both, might possibly shield themselves under such a pretext, was such a trifling and doubtful evil to be allowed to weigh against the feelings and religious opinions of so large and respectable a portion of our fellow citizens? All partial evil should be made to give way to a positive and a general good. He did not believe that this would be an evil at all. He did not think that it would be found to be the case that any citizens of Pennsylvania would shield themselves under the plea of conscientious scruples, unless they seriously and religiously felt these scruples. It had been also said, that if we allow this exemption, it would be creating a privileged class among our citizens. But was this the fact? If so, your Legislature have already created a privileged class, because it is enacted that all who refuse to swear by the book may be allowed to affirm. Now was not this creating a privileged c ass? Why are they

death, or important questions as to property, to evade the solemn form of an oath? Was not the exemption from this obligation erecting them into a privileged class? The only object now prayed for, was a proper respect for these religious scruples, which had been recognized and respected every where and at all times.

The gentleman from Luzerne had remarked upon a truism that, in time of peace, it was proper to prepare for war; and that it was also proper that taxes should be levied equally on all for the support of the war. He (Mr. D.) granted this position, that the tax should be levied equally; but had we ever heard of any individual in the community refusing, on account of his conscientious scruples, to pay a tax for the support of the government? No, it was not that this sect claimed any exemption from the ordinary burdens imposed on others. They had always been found among the best and most peaceable of our citizens; he would not say, they were the best. They were always ready to pay their due proportion of the burdens of the government. It was certainly true, that some of the money in the treasury might be applied to the purchase of arms for the defence of the country; but that money was levied by a general tax; it was not exclusively a military tax, and it was this alone to which they objected-namely, to levying a tax which was exclusively military-or to compelling them, against the scruples of their conscience to bear arms, either in time of peace or war, or to pay an equivalent for personal service in time of peace. This, and this alone, was what the Friends objected to.

On a view of the whole case, he hoped that the Convention would act on the broad principle of human rights, and with a liberal respect for the rights of conscience in others; because no man should claim for himself what he is not willing to grant to others. He hoped that the Convention, feeling the force of the amendment, would this day affirm by its vote the sacred principles which was to be found in every Constitution in the United States, recognizing and favoring the sacred rights of conscience.

Mr. BIDDLE said, that he probably owed an apology to the committee for again trespassing on their patience; but he trusted that that apology might be found in the deep and absorbing character of the matter under consideration. The question on which the committee was now called on to determine, was not a question at all perplexing in its character; it was simple, plain and unambiguous. It was simply this-whether in times of complete and entire peace, we should compel that portion of our citizens who entertain conscientious scruples against bearing arms, either to perform military duty, or to pay an equivalent for that performance. The question, then, was one resting on a foundation, which he confidently trusted, we should never disturb; that foundation which was the right of every man to worship Almighty God in his own manner and according to the dictates of his own conscience, uncontrolled and unmolested by any human authority. He proposed now to consider some of the objections and arguments which had been raised against this exemption. He should do it as briefly as possible. And, he should, in the first place, and, probably, almost exclusively, direct his attention to the ingenious arguiment which had been presented to the committee on yesterday, by the gentleman from the county of Luzerne. That gentleman had said, and

it was proper to prepare for war. But he (Mr. B.) would ask, on whom did the duty of preparing for war rest? Had that gentleman forgot the peculiar character of our nation? Had he forgot that our government consisted of a General Government and a State Government? Was it not the Government of the United States which was invested, not only with the power, but with the duty of preparing for war and of protecting our territory against aggression? It had been well said by the gentleman from Allegheny, (Mr. Forward) that the General Government alone could declare war, and that all the immediate power in relation to that matter was the peculiar province of the General Government. Had we not yearly expenditures to fortify our harbors and to protect our western country? Was it 'to be proposed that the States should enter the field of competition against the United States, and here have a national force and there a Pennsylvania force? Was it proposed that we should go still further and raise troops? The Constitution of the United States forbids us. And was it now proposed that we should not only have frowning battlements and roaring cannon, but that we should also have a military

array to garrison them? This it was in time of peace to prepare for war. It had never been intended that the whole yeomanry of the country should be taken from their peaceful pursuits, that they should be turned into the tented field, and there, with generals and all the array of military titles, that they should be made soldiers of; and simply for the reason that, at some future day, war might threaten, or an enemy might invade us; and, therefore, that the great portion of our lives should be spent as soldiers, to the utter disregard of all those charming and social duties of peace which make us good men and good citizens.

Then, continued Mr. B. the duty of preparing for war is the duty of erecting forts and raising and disciplining armies. The militia are intended for the spontaneous defence of the country; each man to stand forth from his house or his hut, to defend the one or the other-but it is not intended to be a trained force against a future, contingent, and probably very distant war. I think then, Mr. Chairman, that I have abundantly shewn that, true as it is that in time of peace we should prepare for war, still that that duty, by the happy organization of our government, complicated as it is, yet harmoniously and happily performing its different functions, belongs to the General Government-the General Government protecting us abroad, and the State Governments taking care of, and fostering us in the arts of peace-spreading intelligence, and knowledge and improvement among us, and uniting us together in one harmonious family. This government, thus harmonious and happy in its structure, has selected the General Government as the depository to which should be confided the power, in time of peace, to prepare for war.

But, Mr. Chairman, it has been asked, should any class of the people of this country refuse to pay a tax for a great public purpose? Should they enjoy the blessings which are diffused among us, and refuse to give back their poor pittance towards the maintenance and support of that government which bestows all these blessings upon them? Sir, it appears to me that the learned gentleman, in his ingenuity, has mistaken the nature of duty imposed on the militiamen. The law requires that they shall parade at certain periods of the year for a certain length of time, and that, if they do not comply with the requisition of this law, they shall pay