VersusLaw Research Database

CHURCH HOLY TRINITY = v. UNITED=20 STATES., 12 S. Ct. 511, 143 U.S. 457 (U.S. 02/29/1892)

[1]	SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED = STATES
[2]	No. 143.
[3]	12 S. Ct. 511, 143 U.S. 457, 36 L. Ed. 226, 1892.SCT.40086=20 = <http://www.versuslaw.com>
[5]	CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY v. UNITED=20 STATES.
[6]	ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN = DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
[7]	Mr. Seaman Miller for plaintiff in error.
[8]	Mr. Assistant Attorney General Maury for defendant in error = submitted=20 on his brief.
[9]	Author: Brewer
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 457]
[10]	MR. JUSTICE BREWER delivered the opinion of the = court.
[11]	Plaintiff in error is a corporation, duly organized and = incorporated=20 as a religious society under the laws of the State of New York. E. = Walpole=20 Warren was, prior to September,
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 4581887]
	, an alien residing in England. In that month the plaintiff in = error=20 made a contract with him, by which he was to remove to the city of = New=20 York and enter into its service as rector and pastor; and in = pursuance of=20 such contract, Warren did so remove and enter upon such service. = It is=20 claimed by the United States that this contract on the part of the = plaintiff in error was forbidden by the act of February 26, 1885, = 23 Stat.=20 332, c. 164, and an action was commenced to recover the penalty = prescribed=20 by that act. The Circuit Court held that the contract was within = the=20 prohibition of the statute, and rendered judgment accordingly, (36 = Fed.=20 Rep. 303;) and the single question presented for our determination = is=20 whether it erred in that conclusion.
[12]	The first section describes the act forbidden, and is in these=20 words:
[13]	"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the = United States of America in Congress assembled, That from and = after the=20 passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company,=20 partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay = the=20 transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation = or=20 migration of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, = into the=20 United States, its Territories, or the District of Columbia, under = contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made = previous=20 to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner = or=20 foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United = States,=20 its Territories, or the District of Columbia."
[14]	It must be conceded that the act of the corporation is within = the=20 letter of this section, for the relation of rector to his church = is one of=20 service, and implies labor on the one side with compensation on = the other.=20 Not only are the general words labor and service both used, but = also, as=20 it were to guard against any narrow interpretation and emphasize a = breadth=20 of meaning, to them is added "of any kind;" and, further, as = noticed by=20 the Circuit Judge in his opinion, the fifth section, which makes = specific=20 exceptions, among them professional actors, artists, lecturers, = singers=20 and domestic
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 459]
	servants, strengthens the idea that every other kind of labor = and=20 service was intended to be reached by the first section. While = there is=20 great force to this reasoning, we cannot think Congress intended = to=20 denounce with penalties a transaction like that in the present = case. It is=20 a familiar rule, that a thing may be within the letter of the = statute and=20 yet not within the statute, because not within its spirit, nor = within the=20 intention of its makers. This has been often asserted, and the = reports are=20 full of cases illustrating its application. This is not the = substitution=20 of the will of the judge for that of the legislator, for = frequently words=20 of general meaning are used in a statute, words broad enough to = include an=20 act in question, and yet a consideration of the whole legislation, = or of=20 the circumstances surrounding its enactment, or of the absurd = results=20 which follow from giving such broad meaning to the words, makes it = unreasonable to believe that the legislator intended to include = the=20 particular act. As said in Plowden, 205: "From which cases, it = appears=20 that the sages of the law heretofore have construed statutes quite = contrary to the letter in some appearance, and those statutes = which=20 comprehend all things in the letter they have expounded to extend = to but=20 some things, and those which generally prohibit all people from = doing such=20 an act they have interpreted to permit some people to do it, and = those=20 which include every person in the letter, they have adjudged to = reach to=20 some persons only, which expositions have always been founded upon = the=20 intent of the legislature; which they have collected sometimes by=20 considering the cause and necessity of making the act, sometimes = by=20 comparing one part of the act with another, and sometimes by = foreign=20 circumstances."
[15]	In Margate Pier Co. v. Hannam, 3 B. & Ald. 266, 270, Abbott, = C.J.=20 quotes from Lord Coke as follows: "Acts of Parliament are to be so = construed as no man that is innocent or free from injury or wrong = be, by a=20 literal construction, punished or endamaged." In the case of the = State v.=20 Clark, 5 Dutcher, (29 N.J. Law) 96, 98, 99, it appeared that an = act had=20 been passed making it a misdemeanor to wilfully break down a fence = in the=20 possession of another person. Clark was indicted =
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 460]
	under that statute. The defence was that the act of breaking = down the=20 fence, though wilful, was in the exercise of a legal right to go = upon his=20 own lands. The trial court rejected the testimony offered to = sustain the=20 defence, and the Supreme Court held that this ruling was error. In = its=20 opinion the court used this language: "The act of 1855, in terms, = makes=20 the wilful opening, breaking down or injuring of any fences = belonging to=20 or in the possession of any other person a misdemeanor. In what = sense is=20 the term wilful used? In common parlance, wilful is used in the = sense of=20 intentional, as distinguished from accidental or involuntary. = Whatever one=20 does intentionally he does wilfully. Is it used in that sense in = this act?=20 Did the legislature intend to make the intentional opening of a = fence for=20 the purpose of going upon the land of another indictable, if done = by=20 permission or for a lawful purpose? . . . We cannot suppose such = to have=20 been the actual intent. To adopt such a construction would put a = stop to=20 the ordinary business of life. The language of the act, if = construed=20 literally, evidently leads to an absurd result. If a literal = construction=20 of the words of a statute be absurd, the act must be so construed = as to=20 avoid the absurdity. The court must restrain the words. The object = designed to be reached by the act must limit and control the = literal=20 import of the terms and phrases employed." In United States v. = Kirby, 7 Wall. 482, 486, the defendants were = indicted for=20 the violation of an act of Congress, providing "that if any person = shall=20 knowingly and wilfully obstruct or retard the passage of the mail, = or of=20 any driver or carrier, or of any horse or carriage carrying the = same, he=20 shall, upon conviction, for every such offence pay a fine not = exceeding=20 one hundred dollars." The specific charge was that the defendants=20 knowingly and wilfully retarded the passage of one Farris, a = carrier of=20 the mail, while engaged in the performance of his duty, and also = in like=20 manner retarded the steamboat General Buell, at that time engaged = in=20 carrying the mail. To this indictment the defendants pleaded = specially=20 that Farris had been indicted for murder by a court of competent = authority=20 in Kentucky; that a bench warrant had been issued and =
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 461]
	placed in the hands of the defendant Kirby, the sheriff of the = county,=20 commanding him to arrest Farris and bring him before the court to = answer=20 to the indictment; and that in obedience to this warrant, he and = the other=20 defendants, as his posse, entered upon the steamboat General Buell = and=20 arrested Farris, and used only such force as was necessary to = accomplish=20 that arrest. The question as to the sufficiency of this plea was = certified=20 to this court, and it was held that the arrest of Farris upon the = warrant=20 from the state court was not an obstruction of the mail, or the = retarding=20 of the passage of a carrier of the mail, within the meaning of the = act. In=20 its opinion the court says: "All laws should receive a sensible=20 construction. General terms should be so limited in their = application as=20 not to lead to injustice, oppression or an absurd consequence. It = will=20 always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended = exceptions to=20 its language which would avoid results of this character. The = reason of=20 the law in such cases should prevail over its letter. The common = sense of=20 man approves the judgment mentioned by Puffendorf, that the = Bolognian law=20 which enacted 'that whoever drew blood in the streets should be = punished=20 with the utmost severity,' did not extend to the surgeon who = opened the=20 vein of a person that fell down in the street in a fit. The same = common=20 sense accepts the ruling, cited by Plowden, that the statute of = 1st Edward=20 II., which enacts that a prisoner who breaks prison shall be = guilty of=20 felony, does not extend to a prisoner who breaks out when the = prison is on=20 fire, 'for he is not to be hanged because he would not stay to be = burnt.'=20 And we think that a like common sense will sanction the ruling we = make,=20 that the act of Congress which punishes the obstruction or = retarding of=20 the passage of the mail, or of its carrier, does not apply to a = case of=20 temporary detention of the mail caused by the arrest of the = carrier upon=20 an indictment for murder." The following cases may also be cited. = Henry v.=20 Tilson, 17 Vermont, 479; Ryegate v. Wardsboro, 30 Vermont, 746; Ex = parte=20 Ellis, 11 California, 222; Ingraham v. Speed, 30 Mississippi, 410; = Jackson=20 v. Collins, 3 Cowen, 89; People v. Insurance Company, 15 Johns. = 358; Burch=20 v. Newbury, 10 N.Y. 374; People v. N.Y.
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 462]
	Commissioners of Taxes, 95 N.Y. 554, 558; People v. Lacombe, 99 = N.Y.=20 43, 49; Canal Co. v. Railroad Co., 4 G. & J., 1, 152; Osgood = v. Breed,=20 12 Mass. 525, 530; Wilbur v. Crane, 13 Pick. 284; Oates v. = National Bank, 100 U.S. 239.
[16]	Among other things which may be considered in determining the = intent=20 of the legislature is the title of the act. We do not mean that it = may be=20 used to add to or take from the body of the statute, Hadden v. The = Collector, 5 Wall. 107, but it may help to = interpret=20 its meaning. In the case of United States v. Fisher, 2 = Cranch,=20 358, 386, Chief Justice Marshall said: "On the = influence which=20 the title ought to have in construing the enacting clauses much = has been=20 said; and yet it is not easy to discern the point of difference = between=20 the opposing counsel in this respect. Neither party contends that = the=20 title of an act can control plain words in the body of the = statute; and=20 neither denies that, taken with other parts, it may assist in = removing=20 ambiguities. Where the intent is plain, nothing is left to = construction.=20 Where the mind labors to discover the design of the legislature, = it seizes=20 everything from which aid can be derived; and in such case the = title=20 claims of degree of notice, and will have is due share of = consideration."=20 And in the case of United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat, = 610, 631, the same judge applied the doctrine in this way: = "The=20 words of the section are in terms of unlimited extent. The words = 'any=20 person or persons' are broad enough to comprehend every human = being. But=20 general words must not only be limited to cases within the = jurisdiction of=20 the State, but also to those objects to which the legislature = intended to=20 apply them. Did the legislature intend to apply these words to the = subjects of a foreign power, who in a foreign ship may commit = murder or=20 robbery on the high seas? The title of an act cannot control its = words,=20 but may furnish some aid in showing what was in the mind of the=20 legislature. The title of this act is, 'An act for the punishment = of=20 certain crimes against the United States.' It would seem that = offences=20 against the United States, not offences against the human race, = were the=20 crimes which the legislature intended by this law to punish."=20
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 463]
	It will be seen that words as general as those used in the first = section of this act were by that decision limited, and the intent = of=20 Congress with respect to the act was gathered partially, at least, = from=20 its title. Now, the title of this act is, "An act to prohibit the=20 importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract = or=20 agreement to perform labor in the United States, its Territories = and the=20 District of Columbia." Obviously the thought expressed in this = reaches=20 only to the work of the manual laborer, as distinguished from that = of the=20 professional man. No one reading such a title would suppose that = Congress=20 had in its mind any purpose of staying the coming into this = country of=20 ministers of the gospel, or, indeed, of any class whose toil is = that of=20 the brain. The common understanding of the terms labor and = laborers does=20 not include preaching and preachers; and it is to be assumed that = words=20 and phrases are used in their ordinary meaning. So whatever of = light is=20 thrown upon the statute by the language of the title indicates an=20 exclusion from its penal provisions of all contracts for the = employment of=20 ministers, rectors and pastors.
[17]	Again, another guide to the meaning of a statute is found in the = evil=20 which it is designed to remedy; and for this the court properly = looks at=20 contemporaneous events, the situation as it existed, and as it was = pressed=20 upon the attention of the legislative body. United States v. Union = Pacific=20 Railroad, 91 U.S. 72, 79. The situation which = called=20 for this statute was briefly but fully stated by Mr. Justice Brown = when,=20 as District Judge, he decided the case of United States v. Craig, = 28 Fed.=20 Rep. 795, 798: "The motives and history of the act are matters of = common=20 knowledge. It had become the practice for large capitalists in = this=20 country to contract with their agents abroad for the shipment of = great=20 numbers of an ignorant and servile class of foreign laborers, = under=20 contracts, by which the employer agreed, upon the one hand, to = prepay=20 their passage, while, upon the other hand, the laborers agreed to = work=20 after their arrival for a certain time at a low rate of wages. The = effect=20 of this was to break down the labor market, and to reduce other = laborers=20 engaged in like occupations to the level
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 464]
	of the assisted immigrant. The evil finally became so flagrant = that an=20 appeal was made to Congress for relief by the passage of the act = in=20 question, the design of which was to raise the standard of foreign = immigrants, and to discountenance the migration of those who had = not=20 sufficient means in their own hands, or those of their friends, to = pay=20 their passage."
[18]	It appears, also, from the petitions, and in the testimony = presented=20 before the committees of Congress, that it was this cheap = unskilled labor=20 which was making the trouble, and the influx of which Congress = sought to=20 prevent. It was never suggested that we had in this country a = surplus of=20 brain toilers, and, least of all, that the market for the services = of=20 Christian ministers was depressed by foreign competition. Those = were=20 matters to which the attention of Congress, or of the people, was = not=20 directed. So far, then, as the evil which was sought to be = remedied=20 interprets the statute, it also guides to an exclusion of this = contract=20 from the penalties of the act.
[19]	A singular circumstance, throwing light upon the intent of = Congress,=20 is found in this extract from the report of the Senate Committee = on=20 Education and Labor, recommending the passage of the bill: "The = general=20 facts and considerations which induce the committee to recommend = the=20 passage of this bill are set forth in the Report of the Committee = of the=20 House. The committee report the bill back without amendment, = although=20 there are certain features thereof which might well be changed or=20 modified, in the hope that the bill may not fail of passage during = the=20 present session. Especially would the committee have otherwise = recommended=20 amendments, substituting for the expression 'labor and service,' = whenever=20 it occurs in the body of the bill, the words 'manual labor' or = 'manual=20 service,' as sufficiently broad to accomplish the purposes of the = bill,=20 and that such amendments would remove objections which a sharp and = perhaps=20 unfriendly criticism may urge to the proposed legislation. The = committee,=20 however, believing that the bill in its present form will be = construed as=20 including only those whose labor or service is manual in = character, and=20 being very desirous that the bill become a law before the = adjournment,=20 have reported the bill without
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 465]
	change." 6059, Congressional Record, 48th Congress. And, = referring=20 back to the report of the Committee of the House, there appears = this=20 language: "It seeks to restrain and prohibit the immigration or=20 importation of laborers who would have never seen our shores but = for the=20 inducements and allurements of men whose only object is to obtain = labor at=20 the lowest possible rate, regardless of the social and material = well-being=20 of our own citizens and regardless of the evil consequences which = result=20 to American laborers from such immigration. This class of = immigrants care=20 nothing about our institutions, and in many instances never even = heard of=20 them; they are men whose passage is paid by the importers; they = come here=20 under contract to labor for a certain number of years; they are = ignorant=20 of our social condition, and that they may remain so they are = isolated and=20 prevented from coming into contact with Americans. They are = generally from=20 the lowest social stratum, and live upon the coarsest food and in = hovels=20 of a character before unknown to American workmen. They, as a = rule, do not=20 become citizens, and are certainly not a desirable acquisition to = the body=20 politic. The inevitable tendency of their presence among us is to = degrade=20 American labor, and to reduce it to the level of the imported = pauper=20 labor." Page 5359, Congressional Record, 48th = Congress.
[20]	We find, therefore, that the title of the act, the evil which = was=20 intended to be remedied, the circumstances surrounding the appeal = to=20 Congress, the reports of the committee of each house, all concur = in=20 affirming that the intent of Congress was simply to stay the = influx of=20 this cheap unskilled labor.
[21]	But beyond all these matters no purpose of action against = religion can=20 be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is = a=20 religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of = this=20 continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this = affirmation. The commission to Christopher Columbus, prior to his = sail=20 westward, is from "Ferdinand and Isabella, by the grace of God, = King and=20 Queen of Castile," etc., and recites that "it is hoped that by = God's=20 assistance some of the continents and islands in the =
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 466]
	ocean will be discovered," etc. The first colonial grant, that = made to=20 Sir Walter Raleigh in 1584, was from "Elizabeth, by the grace of = God, of=20 England, Fraunce and Ireland, queen, defender of the faith," etc.; = and the=20 grant authorizing him to enact statutes for the government of the = proposed=20 colony provided that "they be not against the true Christian faith = now=20 professed in the Church of England." The first charter of = Virginia,=20 granted by King James I in 1606, after reciting the application of = certain=20 parties for a charter, commenced the grant in these words: "We, = greatly=20 commending, and graciously accepting of, their Desires for the = Furtherance=20 of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty God,=20 hereafter tend to the Glory of his Divine Majesty, in propagating = of=20 Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and = miserable=20 Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in = time bring=20 the Infidels and Savages, living in those parts, to human = Civility, and to=20 a settled and quiet Government; DO, by these our Letters-Patents,=20 graciously accept of, and agree to, their humble and well-intended = Desires."
[22]	Language of similar import may be found in the subsequent = charters of=20 that colony, from the same king, in 1609 and 1611; and the same is = true of=20 the various charters granted to the other colonies. In language = more or=20 less emphatic is the establishment of the Christian religion = declared to=20 be one of the purposes of the grant. The celebrated compact made = by the=20 Pilgrims in the Mayflower, 1620, recites: "Having undertaken for = the Glory=20 of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of = our King=20 and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern = Parts of=20 Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the = Presence of=20 God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into = a civil=20 Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and = Furtherance=20 of the Ends aforesaid."
[23]	The fundamental orders of Connecticut, under which a provisional = government was instituted in 1638-1639, commence with this = declaration:=20 "Forasmuch as it hath pleased the Allmighty God by the wise = disposition of=20 his diuyne prudence
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 467]
	so to Order and dispose of things that we the Inhabitants and=20 Residents of Windsor, Hartford and Wethersfield are now cohabiting = and=20 dwelling in and vapor the River of Conectecotte and the Lands = thereunto=20 adioyneing; And well knowing where a people are gathered together = the word=20 of God requires that to maintain the peace and union of such a = people=20 there should be an orderly and decent Government established = according to=20 God, to order and dispose of the affairs of the people at all = seasons as=20 occasion shall require; doe therefore associate and conioyne our = soleus to=20 be as one Publike State or Comonwelth; and doe, for our soleus and = our=20 Successors and such as shall be adjoined to vs at any time = hereafter,=20 enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and = pressure the liberty and purity of the gospel of our Lord Jesus = which we=20 now profess, as also the discipline of the Churches, which = according to=20 the truth of the said gospel is now practised amongst = vs."
[24]	In the charter of privileges granted by William Penn to the = province=20 of Pennsylvania, in 1701, it is recited: "Because no People can be = truly=20 happy, though under the greatest Enjoyment of Civil Liberties, if = abridged=20 of the Freedom of their Consciences, as to their Religious = Profession and=20 Worship; And Almighty God being the only Lord of Conscience, = Father of=20 Lights and Spirits; and the Author as well as Object of all divine = Knowledge, Faith and Worship, who only doth enlighten the Minds, = and=20 persuade and convince the Understandings of People, I do hereby = grant and=20 declare," etc.
[25]	Coming nearer to the present time, the Declaration of = Independence=20 recognizes the presence of the Divine in human affairs in these = words: "We=20 hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created = equal, that=20 they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, = that=20 among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." "We, = therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in = General=20 Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world = for the=20 rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name and by Authority of = the good=20 People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare," etc.; = "And for=20 the support
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 468]
	of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of = Divine=20 Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our = Fortunes, and=20 our sacred Honor."
[26]	If we examine the constitutions of the various States we find in = them=20 a constant recognition of religious obligations. Every = constitution of=20 every one of the forty-four States contains language which either = directly=20 or by clear implication recognizes a profound reverence for = religion and=20 an assumption that its influence in all human affairs is essential = to the=20 well being of the community This recognition may be in the = preamble, such=20 as is found in the constitution of Illinois, 1870: "We, the people = of the=20 State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, = political and=20 religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and = looking=20 to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit = the same=20 unimpaired to succeeding generations," etc.
[27]	It may be only in the familiar requisition that all officers = shall=20 take an oath closing with the declaration "so help me God." It may = be in=20 clauses like that of the constitution of Indiana, 1816, Article = XI,=20 section 4: "The manner of administering an oath or affirmation = shall be=20 such as is most consistent with the conscience of the deponent, = and shall=20 be esteemed the most solemn appeal to God." Or in provisions such = as are=20 found in Articles 36 and 37 of the Declaration of Rights of the=20 Constitution of Maryland, 1867: "That as it is the duty of every = man to=20 worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, = all=20 persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious = liberty;=20 wherefore, no person ought, by any law, to be molested in his = person or=20 estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or = for his=20 religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall = disturb=20 the good order, peace or safety of the State, or shall infringe = the laws=20 of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious = rights;=20 nor ought any person to be compelled to frequent or maintain or=20 contribute, unless on contract, to maintain any place of worship, = or any=20 ministry; nor shall any person, otherwise competent, be deemed = incompetent=20 as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief: = Provided, He=20
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 469]
	believes in the existence of God, and that, under His = dispensation,=20 such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be = rewarded=20 or punished therefor, either in this world or the world to come. = That no=20 religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for = any office=20 of profit or trust in this State other than a declaration of = belief in the=20 existence of God; nor shall the legislature prescribe any other = oath of=20 office than the oath prescribed by this constitution." Or like = that in=20 Articles 2 and 3, of Part 1st, of the Constitution of = Massachusetts, 1780:=20 "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society = publicly and at=20 stated seasons, to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator = and=20 Preserver of the universe. . . . As the happiness of a people and = the good=20 order and preservation of civil government essentially depend upon = piety,=20 religion and morality, and as these cannot be generally diffused = through a=20 community but by the institution of the public worship of God and = of=20 public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to = promote=20 their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of = their=20 government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest = their=20 legislature with power to authorize and require, and the = legislature=20 shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several = towns,=20 parishes, precincts and other bodies-politic or religious = societies to=20 make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution = of the=20 public worship of God and for the support and maintenance of = public=20 Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality in all cases = where=20 such provision shall not be made voluntarily." Or as in sections 5 = and 14=20 of Article 7, of the constitution of Mississippi, 1832: "No person = who=20 denies the being of a God, or a future state of rewards and = punishments,=20 shall hold any office in the civil department of this State. . . . = Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good = government, the=20 preservation of liberty, and the happiness of mankind, schools and = the=20 means of education, shall forever be encouraged in this State." Or = by=20 Article 22 of the constitution of Delaware, 1776, which required = all=20 officers, besides an oath of allegiance, to make and subscribe the = following declaration: "I, A.B., do profess
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 470]
	faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and = in the=20 Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge = the Holy=20 Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine=20 inspiration."
[28]	Even the Constitution of the United States, which is supposed to = have=20 little touch upon the private life of the individual, contains in = the=20 First Amendment a declaration common to the constitutions of all = the=20 States, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an=20 establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise = thereof," etc.=20 And also provides in Article 1, section 7, (a provision common to = many=20 constitutions,) that the Executive shall have ten days (Sundays = excepted)=20 within which to determine whether he will approve or veto a=20 bill.
[29]	There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a = universal=20 language pervading them all, having one meaning; they affirm and = reaffirm=20 that this ia a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, = declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances; they = speak=20 the voice of the entire people. While because of a general = recognition of=20 this truth the question has seldom been presented to the courts, = yet we=20 find that in Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 11 S. & R. 394, = 400, it=20 was decided that, "Christianity, general Christianity, is, and = always has=20 been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not = Christianity=20 with an established church, and tithes, and spiritual courts; but=20 Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men." And in The = People v.=20 Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294, 295, Chancellor Kent, the great = commentator on=20 American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of = New York,=20 said: "The people of this State, in common with the people of this = country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity, as the = rule of=20 their faith and practice; and to scandalize the author of these = doctrines=20 is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, = even in=20 respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of = decency=20 and good order. . . . The free, equal and undisturbed enjoyment of = religious opinion, whatever it may be, and free and decent = discussions on=20 any religious
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 471]
	subject, is granted and recurred; but to revile, with malicious = and=20 blasphemous contempt, the religion professed by almost the whole=20 community; is an abuse of that right. Nor are we bound, by any = expressions=20 in the Constitution as some have strangely supposed, either not to = punish=20 at all, or to punish indiscriminately, the like attacks upon the = religion=20 of Mahomet or of the Grand Lama; and for this plain reason, that = the case=20 assumes that we are a Christian people, and the morality of the = country is=20 deeply engrafted upon Christianity, and not upon the doctrines or = worship=20 of those impostors." And in the famous case of Vidal v. Girard's=20 Executors, 2 How. 127, 198, this court, while = sustaining the will of Mr. Girard, with its provision for the = creation of=20 a college into which no minister should be permitted to enter, = observed:=20 "It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part = of the=20 common law of Pennsylvania."
[30]	If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life as=20 expressed by its laws, its business, its customs and its society, = we find=20 everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth Among other = matters note=20 the following: The form of oath universally prevailing, concluding = with an=20 appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all = deliberative=20 bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of = all wills,=20 "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of = the=20 Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and = the=20 closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public = assemblies on=20 that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in = every=20 city, town and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations = existing=20 every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary=20 associations, with general support, and aiming to establish = Christian=20 missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other = matters=20 which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to = the=20 mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the = face of=20 all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United = States=20 intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to = contract=20 for the services of a Christian minister residing in another = nation?=20
[ 143 U.S. Page=20 472]
	Suppose in the Congress that passed this act some member had = offered a=20 bill which in terms declared that, if any Roman Catholic church in = this=20 country should contract with Cardinal Manning to come to this = country and=20 enter into its service as pastor and priest; or any Episcopal = church=20 should enter into a like contract with Canon Farrar; or any = Baptist church=20 should make similar arrangements with Rev. Mr. Spurgeon; or any = Jewish=20 synagogue with some eminent Rabbi, such contract should be = adjudged=20 unlawful and void, and the church making it be subject to = prosecution and=20 punishment, can it be believed that it would have received a = minute of=20 approving thought or a single vote? Yet it is contended that such = was in=20 effect the meaning of this statute. The construction invoked = cannot be=20 accepted as correct. It is a case where there was presented a = definite=20 evil, in view of which the legislature used general terms with the = purpose=20 of reaching all phases of that evil, and thereafter, unexpectedly, = it is=20 developed that the general language thus employed is broad enough = to reach=20 cases and acts which the whole history and life of the country = affirm=20 could not have been intentionally legislated against. It is the = duty of=20 the counts, under those circumstances, to say that, however broad = the=20 language of the statute may be, the act, although within the = letter, is=20 not within the intention of the legislature, and therefore cannot = be=20 within the statute.
[31]	The judgment will be reversed, and the case remanded for further = proceedings in accordance with this = opinion.

18920229 =

=C2=A9 1998 VersusLaw Inc.=20