Internet Payments

Secure & Reliable

Your data is encrypted and secure with us.
VeraSafe Security Seal

Bloomington Post Newspaper Archives

- Page 1

Join us for 7 days to view your results

Enter your details to get started

or Login

What will you discover?

  • 108,666,337 Obituaries
  • 86,129,063 Archives
  • Birth & Marriages
  • Arrests & legal notices
  • And so much more
Issue Date:
Pages Available: 2
Previous Edition:

About Bloomington Post

  • Publication Name: Bloomington Post
  • Location: Bloomington, Indiana
  • Pages Available: 561
  • Years Available: 1835 - 1839
Learn More About This Newspaper


  • 2.18+ Billion Articles and Growing Everyday!
  • More Than 400 Years of Papers. From 1607 to Today!
  • Articles Covering 50 U.S.States + 22 Other Countries
  • Powerful, Time Saving Search Features!
Explore Your Family History Now

View Sample Pages : Bloomington Post, May 25, 1838

Get Access to These Newspapers Plus 2.18+ Billion Other Articles

OCR Text

Bloomington Post (Newspaper) - May 25, 1838, Bloomington, Indiana ; vonnani wmB MUST : sé TOii. 3. mAWmiWTON, FRIDAl^ MAT EDITED AND FUBLtSKSIk XTSRY FRIDAt BY M. OFFICE ON MAIN CROSS STREET, FIE8T DOOR WEST OF KAJ. HIOUT'S. 8. IVO. 1«. 'iEKMS. Two dollar« in advance, two fifty in nix month« and three at the end ol tlie year. No paper will bo discoutinucd until ail arrearages tro I aid up. (^Avertisemevts of ten lin«s or less, w]ll be published thrro weeks for one dollar, and 25'cents for «ftoh »ddllional meertion. All aUvertiseitientfi must lie nnrkod with the num-•berofinsartions.or they will be iiiwortcd till forbid and charged accord i 11 g I y • The CAsn nmsi invariably accompany advertisc-nientii from a distance or tliey will not receive attention. All letters and communications addressed to the editor must be free of postage. No variation whatever need be ox|iected from ilw pe terms. LIST OF AGENTS. The following gentlemen are requestod and au-t'lorized to act as agents: to receive SnbFcriptions, Job Work, Advertising kc. and receipt lor lliosame. Thomas (,'. Johnson, Spencer, la. li. H. 'J'nr.oor, Mill Grove, la. Samuel 11. Smï^tii, l'ovvliii;;gieen, la. (tAMAI.iei. NIili-sats, Fairfax,la. \Vm. Herod, Eph. (."ohiml ns, la. K- G. Wayman, M.irtinfilmrf;, la. D. A. llAWLiMis, Now Ailiany, la. J. S. I/tu'i\, Louisville, Ky. Gf.oroe May, Parkeisburç, Monfgctnoiy Co. la. Wm. S. Roi;kkts, Ks<]., Na.-livi!le, la. Pr. 1. H. Maxweli., Frankfort, In. John Iîattkrton, (Jree;ic;«Plle, la. Geokue (Î. DfNX, E.-q. I cdford, liidiann. the laws authorising the Clergy to supercede the office of civil mngistrates in sanctioning the hiar-riage contract)" and for "the enaction of laws prohibiting the clergy from acting as inspectors [I'ub'iiihrd lnj rr(/«c,/.] CIlUUCIIKS-TllKSAlinATlI—Till': CÍJ;R(1Y AnoLiTio.v OF Cirtntcn anti State Tvuan.vv. /Ac llonornhlc llir I,riT,^l„;„re of tlir S/afc of Nrw York, in Scital:^ athl Aisriu Wi/ coiirciierl, Ihcmniio-rial iif the su/)irri!j: r-s-, inhnhitanls Uirrcof, llEHl'KCTFVI.L IÍKIMUCSKNT : 'I'liitt your nionioriiilists, having not'.c(;<I various uneijiial, oj)¡)re.-<si ve modes by which exclusive privilege*! ordoisor sticiion.s of llic cilizeiis ol" this State, arc ptirtially ninl uujcsily rcleascil from jiay-ing their jiist pro|K)rti()n of iho taxes, and oIIk-t sec-lions unjiisily di!|>rivc(l oflhuir "invaluable riylit nnd liberty" of piirsuiii;^ their business ami occupations for seven woeici mid three days annually, arc filled with profi)und asioniiliinciit that sitch^glaring outrages upon the rights of man shnuld bo tolci atcd in the present age in a rouniiy ivlio«« moilo is '•r.iBKKTV AM) EiiUALiTv"!! An imincnso f|Hantity of wealth is exeinpt from taxa.ion luercly Ucause owned niid employed by ciiirgyinen and religion « associations and' coi'poiatiuns. Siicl» e\i;iuj>iioii.s and unjust partiality arc virtually opiivalcnt to direct bounty to those clergymen, corporal ions and societio«> from the public treasury, auJ coiisiijiient ly violation of, and usurpaiion upon, liic rights - ('fall tax payers who iTgaifi iliuso iiistiruiious as public nuisances or w iiii indiUlMencc. Tim laws « hich make hoiicát iiidiisii y u ci iii>o, one day in every wcek,ure oppressive and iiiijustupon ;ill who regard every day alike as lo liolinoss; ami, by promoting indolence, as lo ilio same tiiníí íiick ise the opportuniiies and facilities to vice ami imnioraliiy. Vour m(M)U)riu!isls, tbeielbre, resluiclfully le-qncst, that your honorable boily will repeal without dcluy all e.xisting laws of this Kiaie cxc^mpling deiical or church pio|!orty Irom taxrilion,allowing exclusive privileges to any |)orson,s, corpoi aiions or nssociniions, on account of their religious occupations, crecds or opinions. Your memoriQlistsfurilicr rospoclfuily represent, that ihey also regard ihe laws authorising ibo clergy to ««yirm/c t ho tiilico of cifi/ mrigistra'.cs, in sunctioiimg llio marriage ronlract, as unconstitutional nnd improper, ami iheielore reipiost a repeal (hereof inmu'dialoly; and also ilie enaction of laws prohibiting the clergy Irom acting as inspectors of public school«!, or from e\<!cu!iug the duiies of any ||ltico whatever under the uniltoiity of the govern n>ont, as ihe constitution <lirects, until it shall be altered so as to allow ihem loilo so, ns ihey gener ally declaro their adhesion and ¡/rifrreticc to an an-cient^/brfi^fMcode oflaws OS j«//ví»íí>i//;/ to those of this átate, and accordingly cleiical iiispei-tors of «chooU have rejticled teachers for not holding the same »cniimcnis. Am! your memorialists w ill eve pray, until their righteous prayers, above, shull be lully cranio«]. AlfrcilOopuland, Jojcpii Profit, li. iihcarcs. Joseph Sibley, J.&lkirg, John S. Caldwell, ^ Wm.O. lírilfeii, Jumes Dultoii, Ira U. Kowe, Uufus M<>ech, ll.Carniichael, W. VV hitney, James P. Fitclf, C. (i. Cumings. INAssemblv, Mahch 13, 103«. llrj), rl of llir Coininitlce of the JtuHriary. Mr. SiHiman, iVtmi the ('ommiln o on tlio .ludicia-ry, to whom wus rereritd the above petition, ro- That the peliiioners in iluir memorial, which is CBliUcd".4U.itiion of Chun h and Siale Tyranny," complain of all law« tu bicli pr(diibii labor on the Buhbath, or n hich exempt from taxntion the property ofelergyinen, churches aud luligioua aiaocia-lions ond rurporaiions, as being partial and uiyutt ; hod ihòy sti^ that ihey'-aro filled with profound iiaUMiishioent (hat such glaring out rngo* upon the inf^tc of inan should lie lolerntrd in the present age, m À eóuniry whoM) mollo ia ''Liberty & Equality *tlM^rach e.Tenn|jil9a in ''««piiralent to • d)r««( bounty to thoie olttrgyowo, oor|>orMÌon« Mid tocieties. from tb* publioti«MAiry«and'Ooaii^UDnUrit violation of, and uéBrpalion upon, tht rifbttof aJl taxpayer«. who regard th^ InttJtutkmtM puwio nu-laancMor withJiMl^pnaei** and that «ich |>rohii>-« itation of indoiaoe«, at tba •ante time inéroaaM tno opportuni)ie« to vice and ftnnaorality.', Tbay fiirthor ask for a ^"repeal of public schools, or from e.\ecuting the duties of any office whatever under the authority of the government, as they generally declare their adhesion and preference to an ancient foreign code of laws as paramount to those of this State," dsc; ico. Your committee are unanimously of the opinion that the Ifgislation asked for is not necessary; that it would not be right in itself; and that it would never be sanctioned or tolerated by the people of this State. A dilTerence of opinion has existed in some parts of the State, whether under the provisions of the constitution,clergymen can act as inspectors oi common schools. That instrument ordains (Art. 7, sec. 4.) that "whereas ministers of the gospel are, by their profession, dedicated, to the service of God, nnd the cure of souis, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their functions; therefore, no minister of the gospel, or priest of any denomin ation whotsoever, shall at any time hereafter, un der any pretence or description whatsoever, bo eligible to or capable of holding any civil or military oiTice or place within this State." It has been supposed by many that it was not intended by this provision to prevent the clergy from performing the duties of inspectors of common schools; and it has occasionally happened that under these impressions, and from a desire to secure the services of compe-lent nnd educated persons in performing these duties, the people in some parts ofthe State have seen fit to elect clergymen, to that office, while in other parts they have been considered ineligible. Your committee, however, do not feel authorised to give the former instruction their sanction, but are satisfied that clergymen cannot legally hold the oifice in question. The langimge of the constitution is explicit, and, if these duties constitute ihe persons who are clerted to perform them "officers," then it would be erroneous to give to it any other interpretation than that which its letter would imply. Lexicographers define an "office" to be "o jiarticular duty, charge or trust, conferred by pub-liek authority and for a public purpose, a public cliargo or, magistracy." (Johnson, Walker and Webster.) The duties of inspectors bring them clearly within these definitions, which, being the ordinary and common signification of the term, must control our decision, there is something elsewhere in the law to (jualify it. Ii has also been supposed by many, that this station is not an office within the meaning of the constitution, because no otiicial oath is required by law of the incumbents. But in the judgment of your committee it is not ncccssary to constitute an ojfice that the person elccted thereto should take an oath before eniering on its duties. The constitution (Art. ft. sec. 1,) disiiiictly provides, that "members ofthe i.'gislaiure and all other officers e.^ecutive and judicial, cxcept such inferior oiHc-ers as may hy law be rxrmplcd, shall" lake ihc oath, the form of which is |)rescrib(j<l in the same section. It follows from this jirovision that some officers shall and other officers shall not take such oath, and that therefore the oath is not the criterion of what is or is not an op.ce. It should bo borne in mind, too, that the provision of the present constitution prohibiting clergymen from hoWing office, is not a now one; it is I bo same, and in precisely the same words, with the ;).')ili article of iho former consftitutiun, (that of 1777.) Moreover, under that constitution inspectors of common schools were required to take an oHicial oath until the passage of a law at the session of 10^1, which rendered it thereafter unnecessary. The mere abrogation of the oath has not changed the ollicinl duties of the inspectors, and does not render tbuir station any less an office than it previously had been. The language ofthe Revised Statutes is cxplic*' in regarding them as q^cer«. The statute respecting town meetings aud the officers to bo elected at them includes ins|)ectors among such officer?, (I K. S. p. 332, sections 1, 2, 4.) It is also provided, (I li. S. p. 310, sections 26,) that "any persons chosen or appointed to the/j^e of inspector or commissioner of common schools," who shall refuse to serve, shall forfeit to the town the sum of ten dollars. The saine expression is used in that part of the statute which relates to the duties of the ins|jcc-tors, (1 R. S. 4fi9,sec. -18.) The legislative construction, therefore, instead of qualifying, confirms theordinary import of the word ii^ce, as used in this cuse. When the convention which formed the constitution had the clause excluding clergymen from office under debate, it ap|)enrs (Uebales, p. 649,) that Mr. Hirdseye offered as proviso those words, "Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent any clergyman from being appointed to any office in any literary corporation, or to any office merely literary." Messrs. Munro and Van Burcn objected to its adoption, as being wholly unnecessary, the true exposition of the not excluding clergymen from offices merely literary." The proviso was not adopted, nnd had we no other information on the subject, the obiter remarks of Messrs. Munro and Van Ikiren could not be hold to be evidence of the sense of the convention on this point; especially in opposition tothe |duin import of the language of the clause, and to the explicit language of the statu-tes. Your committee, however, have bocu so fortunate as to procure information from the gentleman who offered the proviso above named, as to the reasons which induced the convention to rejaot it. They learn from him that its paasii|n was urfed at length by him on th«distinct grouBd that it was ioH portant that clergymen should be, eligiblt 1» lb* office of inspectoni of common «oboola, Uot^M io many districts ihey might often cbMuw lo bii Um only persons compaient lo diaeh«r|* tba dutiaa of that station. It appears alao, tbM Botwitbataadiag tha language above attributed to Maara. Muaro «M Van Duren, other inembitrs, wboae ramarka Mvaot reported, opposed the proviso ibr the axpreaa rm-•on that ministers ofthe goapal ought not to ba permitted to Kqld e?9n thN public office, add such, in the opinion of thsgeotfémen referred to, waa the motive of the cortvénnon in rejerting it. There would seem, therefore, to be no room for doubt on the subject. The true construction is, in the opin ton of your committee, that the constitution forbids clergymen from being elected or appointed to, or from holding any/»tWicrt^ce, the duties of whitíh are performed for public purpose, but that it does not preclude their being employed, like any othe citizen, in colleges, academies or any other corp^ ations or instructions created by authoiity of law It follows, therefore, If the foregoing views are correct, that the constitution already prohibits clergy men from acting as inspectors of common schools k that no legislation is necessary as to so much ofthe prayer of the petitioners as «iriís for their exclusion We have deenied it proper to consider this point thus at le^tbJferause much doubt and error hat prevailed in the Slate as to the true meaning of the constitutional provision. Your committee are quite ignorant as to any >Maws authorising the Clergy to supersede the office of civil magistrates, in sancáoning the marriage oontract." If such laws exist, they miut be within the exclusive knowledge of the petitioners, your committee having been unable, after a most careful and thorotigb search, to discover any such on the statute book. So far from "authorising (he clergy to supcri<ede civil magistrates,'^ the law expressly provides, that lor the purpose of being recorded and authenticated, marriages may be solemnized by L Ministers of the gospel and priests of every denomination: 2. Mayors, recorders and aldermen of cities; and 3. Judges ofthe county courts and justices ofthe peace. It would be difficult to devise a more liberal regulation than this, or one more tolerant towards all creeds and all tastes. The marriage rite, with almost every people, isa religious ceremony; and in Christian countries, especially, is itccompanied by solemn forma and observances. In all ages, and among all nations, whether civilized or barbarian, it has been sanctioned by some ceremonial. If the principles ofthe great mass ofour citizens induce them to invoke the solemnities of religion to invest marriage with a sacred character, it would be as gross intolerance to forbid them doing so, as it would be to compel those to adopt the same course who might prefer its secular ratification by civil magi.trates. It is enough that provision is made by law that those who regard religious institutions as "public ni'isances," may procure the "sanction of the marriage contract" by other persons than the ministers of religion, and that the laws of which the |)etii loners compinin,as "authorising the clergy to supersede the oflice of civil magistrales" in this respcci, e.xist only in the imaginatioas of the petitioners. Your CfuiMDittrc do nol appM-liond any of Ihe evils which the pe:i;ioaeis suggest as likely to follow from the observance of the Sabbath. There is nothing in the history of the past, or io the prospect of the future, which induces the belief that the laws on this subject will "promote indolence," or "increase the opportunities and facilities lo vice and immorality." Viewing the Sabbath merely as a civil institution, venerable from its age, consecrated as a day of rest by the usage of our fathers, and cherished by the common consent of niani<ind throughout thb nations of Christendom, we cannot concur with the petitioners in regarding the laws for its observance as "glaring outiages," nor participate in the "profound astonishment" with which they profess to be "filled" by reason ofthe "toleration of those laws in the present age." The petitioners may safely dismiss their fear that the influence of the tiahbath will be corrupting to the public morals; they need have no anxiety lest our citizens should cease to be an industrious people, because oftheir resting one day in seven; they may feel assured that "litorty and equality" are in no danger of being subverted by the regulated obeer-vanee of a day which witnesses, throughout this commonwealth, "the true exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or prefuience." ^Const. art. 7, sec. 3.) They will find, if they examme the sul^t, that the great cud ofoUr government is to secure, protect A perpetuate both civil and religious libeity, and that the legislature has no more power to violate those rights by treating churches and religious associa-tious as "public nuisances," than it has to treat literary societies or political meetings in the same light. When (ho people of this^State adopted the constitution under which we live, they ordained that "the free exercise and enjoyment of reli|{ious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall be forever allowed in ibis Slate to mankind; but the liberty of conscience hereby cured, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inoonaislent with the peace or safety of the State." (Constitution, art. 7. sec. 3.) But in thus protecting tbemaeivcs against the intolaranca of any one religious wet, it was by no means their otgeet to declara war against religion itself. On lha ooatrary, tb^ axpreaaly provided tbat even tbis freedom of conscianca, which is thus secured and aacrad, shall io ao casa permit any acts which ara Inentiou^ and tbarefore inconsistent witb that public morality whieh has the Chrisiiau religion alone for iu baíüa and aup-port. In all countriea some kind of religion or othar has existed in alt agas. Nopeopta oo thafawof the globe are not without a prtvalii^ Mtlopal religion. Magistratat have aougfal io many «MMirwa to strangthaa civil govaromaat hf an aUUMMtvUfc aoroa particular raligiMi» and an .iatokmiat tkolu-Sion of all othara. Bm tbofa who I»«« viaidad this formidabb ptmr have reodaf«4l| % M iaalaad of an auxiliary la tha ■ a Jbttar ataad of a arUpiian to tha righta ofoffiM^aaoo. With ua it h «Haoly or4ar«d iEm mm^ mHliii shall ba aataMiaNi hf lav, h«l tfc»t »a piMMa ahail be iaft Am i« thai^flMoaMd iIm&mo# of worship. 8tUV TVit n a OmAian katwh. NinflUjr'rtlttd hundredth, if not a htriter portitm ot' ou r whole p^ulalion, U^lieve iu the/{oneral doctrines ofthe Christiim religion. Our goverhnient depends for iu very being on the vlauo ol'the pooj pie; on that virtue wbloh has its foundation in the morality of the Oftristian réiigion, nnd that religion is tho common and prtfvailing faith uf the people. There are, it is tr«i», dxoftptions to this belief, but general laws are to be found, here and ihere, tlie world over, individuals #ho entertain opinions hostile to the common aenneof maiildnd, on subjects cf honesty, humanity, order end dooency, but ii would be a kind of republicadiam with which we are not acquainted in this country, which would require the great masj of mankind to yield lo, and be governed by, this few. It is quits unnecessary to enter into a detailed review of all the evidence tliut Ohrisliauity is the common creed of this nation. Mfe know it, and we feel it, as we know and feel any other unquestioned and admitted truth; the evidence is all around us, and before us, and with us. We know, too, lhai the exceptions to this general belief are rare—so very rare that they tiré sufficient only like other exceptions, to prove a general rule. Such being the case, the question arises whether laws and usages required by the principles and feelings of the vast majority should give way to the peculiar dogmas ofthe very few} whether Wey are oppressive on Ihe eonscience, or whether they operate as a greater restriction on the natural rights of the very few than is indispensable to the good of ao-ciety. It is obvious that a negative is the only answer that can be given to either of these inquiries. Our laws are entirely tolerant; they recognize no teata, disabilities or disctiminalions; there is no impediment to the free enjoyment, by every human beings of any religion whatever; there is no proacriplioo of those who do or do not belong w any particular sect, or to no sect—who believe in any particular religion, or no religion; all a.-e alike protected bjr the laws, and amenable to them. The desecration of the Sabbath by servile labor, sporting, jnming hunting and horse-racing, would in a slate oTsociety like ours, bean outrage on the féelings and peace ofthe people, and would be incompatuHe with the "exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship," guaranteed lo them by the constitution. Such acts, therefore, become positive oiTenoes, and are prohibited by law, and such prohibition is no more a restraint o{ the Mtural rights of the solitary few, than hundred« or oiherx in tbe statute book, or than is due lo the social righu ofthe community as a whole. Your committee desire to be understood as placing tliese laws exclu*irely on the ground of political and constitutional right. With the réligious obligations which inviduals are under io reverence Ihe Sabbath, we have nothing to do; those obligations are purely personal, not social; as to tbemev-ery^man is of right, his own judge. Aside from tbe usual considerations under which the people ^tbis country arc dis|wscd lo observe the SabbÉ^H tbero can be no question that, ns a mere civil institulion, none could be devised more salutary. If it had no oilier effect than lo promote the personal cleanliness and cessation from bodily labor, so essential to the health nnd |>hysical energy of a populatioo, it would be well worth legal protection. The experience of mankind has shown that occasional rest is necessary for ihe healih of the laborer and for bis continued ability to toil; that "the interval of relaxation which Sunday affords to tho laborious part of mankind, contributes grea:ly tothe comfort and satisfaction of their lives, both as it refreshes them for Ihe lime, and as it relieves their six days* labor by the prospect of a day of rest always approaching; which could not Le said of casual indulgences of'leisure and rest, oven were they more frequent than there is reason lo expcct they wo 'ld be if left to the discretion or humanity of interested laskmas-ters." (Paley, vol. 3. p. 292.) In the absense of laws prohibiting labor on Ihe Sabbath, all that portion ofthe people who are in the service of others, who are employed as cicrks, apprentices, in manufactories, as laborers, and otherwise, would be without any protaotion for their rights of worship'of rest; (bey would bo left at (be mercy of others» and subject (o the caprloe, cupidity or legalized immorality of their employers. The added loil of tho seventh day Would only reduce the price, and the "laborer himself who deserved and suffered moat by the change would gain nothing." Even the beasts that toil for man are entitled to their rest, and it is found that they tcK> can accomplish fmore by ccasing from their work one day in seven. Thus the dictates of humanity and the decree of nature alike require iho obsorvaneo of ihe Sabbath. If the laws forbidding labor of one kind were repealed, there would bo no reason why the repeal should not extend to all kinds; why courts should not sit; process issue; jurors be compelled lo serve and parties nnd witnesses attend on the Sabbath; why the militia should not be ordored out for parade and inspection; why town niiootings should not be held; in a word, iheru w Mi Id bo no reason why the people should not be at all time« liable to be interrupted io the con scient io<is discharge of their religious duties, and to a virtual prohil^iiion of "the free exercise and cnjoymenl of religious profession and worship." The humanizing eirect of ihe SiiblMih in promoting works of benevolence, charity, schools for iIki instruction of those who cannot obtain instruction elsewhero, and in strengthening the social rela-tiona of friends and neighbors, i» among its nKMU benign results. The principlee which are then in* ^euloatod in churches of all denominations, atrenglh-en that public moiyUiy, good onler aud obedtvuco lo the laws so essential to the securilj of the State. A black «l^er in the hi.'«tory uf (he French lev-olution fuflffiHIi* ns with a «noitiiory leasoii as th» r««llts^fl«.||V<Mtralio«oratlr«H(ria». ^Iiere h» «l^iag in tAoae eountr'i«« wheie iha" SebbMh ie ^Imgarded, to commend iheir example toeur Imi-talion. We are persuade^ that thé iwiitioi^ «i^M not, as good citixens, be wiU^ lo ei>e aii^* %htinx, horse-racing, ikoatricti axhililW^ |balt-haiiiQg, and other deoioralixing tad brulét disr t . J ;