Obrázky na stránke
PDF
ePub

under any circumstances, against any person in society. If I do testify, says the priest, in such a case, I lose my salary. In one way or other every one might be excused from testifying. Suppose a witness declines to testify, because he belongs to a society, which is bound, under oath, to take the life of any member who shall in any case testify against a fellow member, and he verily believes his life will be taken if he does would he be excused? Nay, would the law permit the priest to lose his salary, because he had displeased them by obeying the law? Or his office? Would not a mandamus restore him? But he would have, no hearers-he would be infamous." How infamous? In whose es timation? His infamy would consist in obeying the laws, and in the estimation of those who deem such obedience a crime. To be hated, to be despised is not infamy. To do wrong, is infamy. To disobey the public law, is infamy. Obedience to authority is the first of virtues, / and among the highest of the christian duties.

The right of exemption, on the score of infamy or interest, rests on this principle, giving it the broadest basis. That a witness shall be excused, where the facts he discloses, convict him of moral turpitude, or prove him unintitled to life, liberty, or property. But, to say that a society to which he belongs will deprive him of support, if he becomes a witness at all, and to appeal to the law to say, that this society may be indulgéd in preventing him from being a witness, by such means, would be, to make the law establish a power superior to itself. It is very evident, that a society of mere laymen, adopting such an article in their constitution, so far from finding protection under it, would, and

G

justly too, be considered as guilty of an original conspiracy against society. Is the case altered because a religious society has done this same thing? The true principle, it is apprehended, in our happy state of religious equality is this: every man shall be allowed to reconcile himself to his maker in the way he may think most ef fectual; and seeing that none can pretend to greater certainty than his neighbour, so, to no one of the various sects shall be given the privilege of dictating to others. their course of religious worship. Thus, all stand equal; no one pretending to the right of dictating to the others. But whenever any one shall claim to do what may justly offend the others, he claims an unequal, and so an unconstitutional "preference." Thus, the jew may keep his own sabbath, but he shall not violate that of the christian. Under a religious tenet, no sect would be permitted to indulge in what society deems cruelty, dishonesty, or public indecency, for it would offend the rest, though the worshippers might deem themselves engaged in a holy rite. Nor ought any be allowed to conceal, when called upon in courts of justice, matters pertaining to the safety of the rest-for if they are so, allowed, they make for themselves a rule of evidence, contrary to a pre-existing principle of law, involving the safety of the whole community. If they say, our religion teaches us this, society replies all religions are equal-none shall be disturbed-each one may seek. heaven as seems fit to its votaries, this is the toleration society has "granted" to all-but still society is superior to them all, and not, nor ever could be supposed to have granted to any, the right of silence, when its own interest and safety may be jeopardized by that silence.

The common safety, is the common right-and any pretension, whether of a religious or social institution, which claims the right to withhold from society the knowledge of matters, relating to its safety, soars above the level of the common equality, and demands such an unreasonable "preference," as society would be false to itself to allow.

Finally the constitution has granted, religious "profession and worship," to all denominations, "without discrimination or preferance:" but it has not granted exemption from previous legal duties. It has expelled the demon of persecution from our land: but it has not weakened the arm of public justice. Its equal and stea dy impartiality has soothed all the contending sects into the most harmonious equality, but to none of them has it yielded any of the rights of a well organized govern

ment.

When Mr. Gardenier closed it was near the usual hour of adjournment, and the Court assigned the follow. ing morning to hear the reply.

Wednesday, June, 9.

PRESENT AS BEFORE.]

MR. SAMPSON IN REPLY.

May it Please the Court,

[ocr errors]

Before I enter on debate, let me be permitted on behalf of the Clergy and Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church, to discharge a debt due to the District Attorney for his liberal and manly conduct in this cause. That it may proceed and end, as it has began, in the spirit of peace and good will. When Mr. Gardenier proposed to enter a nolle prosequi, his motives were no doubt highly commendable. He knew that religious discussions, often, too often, ended in bitterness, and were pernicious in their result. He did not then so fully know, in how mild a spirit this question was pressed upon him. And it was not till he was strongly solicited, by those I have the honor now to represent, that he consented to bring it forward. His right to follow the course he first proposed was not disputed. His motive for that he has pursued will best appear when I shall have laid before the Court the written request addressed to him.

Mr. Sampson then read the following paper.

New York, Court of General Sessions,

The People,

vs.

Daniel Phillips and wife.

On an indictment for receiving stolen goods.

Whereas it has been represented to the board of Trustees of St. Peter's Church in the city of New-York, that

the Reverend Dr. Kohlmann, the pastor of said church has beeen called as a witness, to testify therein, and that thereupon he declared he knew nothing touching the matter enquired of him, but what had been communicated to him in the administration of the sacrament of penance or confession, in which he avowed himself to be bound both by the law of God and the canons of the Catholic Church to a perpetual and inviolable secrecy. That the knowledge thus obtained cannot, be revealed to any person in the world, without the greatest impiety, and a violation of the tenets of his religion. That it would be his duty, according to his religious principles, to suffer death, in preference to making the disclosure, and that this hath been the uniform faith and doctrine of the Catholic Church. That he was advised by counsel, that the enlightened and liberal provisions of the constitution of this state protected him in the silence which his faith enjoins upon him, and therefore he respectfully requested the court to protect him in the exemption which he claimed.

And whereas, for the purpose of maturely considering the question, the District Attorney consented to delay the trial of the cause, until a future sitting of the

court.

And whereas the Board of Trustees, sincerely consider the free toleration of the Catholic Religion, involved in maintaining the exemption claimed by the reverend pastor, and cannot but feel the deepest solicitude that a doubt should exist upon the subject, they therefore, respectfully request the District Attorney to bring the cause to trial at the next sitting of the court, to the end that a judicial determination may be had which shall ensure

« PredošláPokračovať »