Now, again, as men of intelligence, and not attorneys, what would you think of a man at that time making the objections that I have noted, and being satisfied with the Bill of Rights, if carried in reductio ad absurdum to this conclusion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," unless three-quarters of the states shall so order? "Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press," unless three-quarters of the states shall decide to do so? Or that no man shall be deprived of liberty or life, except by trial by a jury of his peers, unless three-quarters of the State shall decide that he may be so deprived? Is it conceivable that the other two states would have ever come in on any such reading? Would Patrick Henry have been silent? Would Washington have franked that? Would the fine old Benjamin Franklin have remained there and said "It is the best we can do?" It is not conceivable. And yet this whole country is rocking, from circumference to center, in its resentment of a mutilation of that covenant, that made you drink the health of a Christian President in cold water. (Applause.) This is a question that is not going to down. This is a matter that is never going to be settled until it is settled right. I sat in a group of ten men, not ordinary persons, except in so far as I reduced the average (laughter), one of them a great editor, with a string of papers and magazines; one was an administrator, in control of the physical communication between two continents; one a great artist-all men of that standingand there had come in the news from Illinois, where in an unruly county, a man had shot a prohibition officer for invading his house without a warrant One of these men with me said to the applause of the other nine, "That is the most encouraging thing that has happened since the embattled farmers of Lexington rebuked that delegation from Boston." They were all Americans. Now, that is a very dangerous state of mind to have abroad. Would they, those earlier Americans, have accepted the fact that a man under any circumstances should be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense? I spoke at the hearing for the repeal of the Mullan-Gage Law, and the fact that eight men in the United States had already been tried twice for the same offense, once by State authorities and once by Federal authorities, was one of the considerations that decided the Governor to sign the repeal. He was doing no violence to his oath of office, because he was carrying out a mandate of the citizens of his State, and following the action of the Legislature, but at that hearing he was asked not to do it, not to protect that Constitutional guaranty of the citizens, because the Federal Attorney, Mr. Hayward, who was there, said nothing like that would happen here in New York, because he and Mr. Banton had agreed that it would not! (Laughter and applause.) The Governor was solemnly asked to give up a constitutional guaranty on the amiable promise of two attorneys agreeing to violate their constitutional oath to enforce the law! You can not beat that. And when he had signed it, William H. Anderson, at the head of the Anti-Saloon League, threatened him with the displeasure of 5,000 Protestant churches in New York. Five thousand Protestant churches, squatting upon land, untaxed; protected by the arm of the State, upheld by taxes on other property, threatening the Governor of their State for signing a bill that secured a citizen only his constitutional right -and not a newspaper, as far as I know, in this State, raised an objection, and no Bar Association was horrified by the assault. Now, Gentlemen, the foundation of our government is there in our Constitution that is fading away; already with the attempt to establish religion; already with the double jeopardy in process; already with the trial by jury abandoned by the Van Ness Law in New Jersey-until it had gone up higher. when only by a divided court was the Constitution of the United States upheld. We common people, we laymen, believe that freemen being oppressed and that the government and its foundations are in danger. The President: Gentlemen, we adjourn. Whereupon, at 10:50 P. M., the meeting adjourned. |