SPEECH OF JAMES O. PUTNAM, OF BUFFALO, ON THE BILL, PROVIDING FOR THE VESTING OF THE TITLE OF CHURCH PROPERTY IN LAY TRUSTEES. DELIVERED IN THE SENATE OF NEW YORK, JANUARY 30, 1855. For who knows not that Truth is strong, next to the Almighty; she needs no policies, nor stratagems ALBANY: VAN BENTHUYSEN, PRINTER, 407 BROADWAY. 1955. SPEECH. kind, this convention doth, &c., (declaration of free exercise of religion, here follows.) 39. And whereas the ministers of the gospel are by their profession, dedicated to the service of God and the cure of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of their function, therefore no minister, &c., (concludes with a declaration of their ineligibility to any civil or military office.) Mr. CHAIRMAN:-As I originally introduced, and subsequently reported this bill from the select committee, without stating at length their views, it seems proper that I should submit to the Senate the objects at which it aims, and the considerations which have induced my action. The bills seeks uniformity in the tenure of church temporalities. While my attention has, as a legislator, been called to the questions involved, I have been sensible of the importance of main- Thus it appears that at the very origin of our taining to all citizens of every shade of religious sen-State government, when was settled the policy timent, the constitutional guarantee of the "free which should exist for ages, with such modificaexercise and enjoyment of religious profession tions as a progressive civilization, and an advancand worship." While I believe this principle is ing sentiment of liberty might require, our in no measure violated by the bill proposed, I fathers recorded their experience of past oppresremember that even this guarantee, is made by sions under priestly rule, and declared it to be the fundamental law, subject to the condition, their conviction that the safety of the State "that it do not lead to practices inconsistent from "spiritual oppression and intolerance," with the peace or safety of the State." Salus depended upon the limitation of the authority populi, suprema lex, is the paramount idea of the of the clergy to what they might legitimately Constitution. This bill interferes with no belief, acquire in their office as spiritual teachers. it strikes at no general and long established po- Very soon after the adoption of the Constitution, licy of any church, or of any body of religionists. and in 1784, the Legislature was called upon to It simply provides for the vesting of the title of form a system of government of church tempolands dedicated to religions uses, in Trustees of ralities, and one was carefully perfected in entire the congregation enjoying the same, in accord-harmony with the theory of our political Instiance with a law and policy of the State which tutions. are almost co-existent with its incorporation into the Federal Union. It may lead us to a better appreciation of this subject if we refer to that policy, and to the motives which led to its adoption. The organization of New York, like that of her sister colonies, into a free and independent State, was the result of the triumph of the popular principle of the right of man to self government. That organization was the overthrow of all political power not emanating from the popular will, and of all undue prerogative on the part of a priesthood. New York, as she shared its labors and sacrifices, fully sympathized with the spirit of the Revolution, and has ever adhered to the Republican policy in all matters pertaining to Church or State. If the founders of our State government were careful to secure to the people the right of governing themselves, and to throw around the citizen the safeguards of a constitutional liberty, they were no less careful to confine the clergy within their legitimate sphere as spiritual guides. This jealousy of clerical influence is one of the most marked features of our first State Constitution. Let us look for a moment at the rock from which we were hewed. It is well, at times, to trace the stream back to its fountain. The preambles of sections 38 and 39, of our first State Constitution, which are declaratory of the free exercise of religious liberty, are as follows: Leaving the clergy to the service of God and the cure of souls,' they secured the independence of the laity, and the rights of conscience, by the most practical limitation of the power of the priesthood, which could be obtained by legislation. The act of 1784 "to provide for the incorporation of religious societies," and which is substantially the act under which all church property until very recently has been held, provided that the title of such property should be vested in Trustees elected by the church, congregation or society, occupying and using the same, for purposes of religious worship. Slight modifications of that act have been made to meet the practice of two or three denominations of Christians, but none of them yielding the great principle that the laity should have the substantial control of the property, through their representatives elected by the body of the church or congregation. This develops to us the policy of the State, and the constitution from which we have quoted, reveals the considerations which led to its adoption. It is a policy alike cautious and Republican It recognizes the justice of placing the control of consecrated property in the hands of those by whose sacrifices and bounty it was acquired. It manifests that jealousy of the power of the priesthood, not necessarily incident to their spiritual office, which their own experience, as well as the history of centuries of contest, between the clergy and the laity, could not but 38. And whereas we are required by the bene-awaken. This act secured the rights of conscience volent principles of rational liberty, not only to expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged man and the freedom of worship. It realized a central idea of the revolution-a separation of church and State. It was a practical embodiment of the American sentiment. "A PRIEST FOR THE PEOPLE, AND NOT, THE PEOPLE FOR A PRIEST." Under this act, al the religious societies of the State soon organized. Protestant and Catholic alike, availed themselves of its provisions, and the line of demarkation of power between the clergy and the laity contemplated by the constitution, and defined by this enactment, has been carefully preserved until the last few years. If it sometimes facilitated a change of dogmas in the faith of worshippers of a particular congregation, it has been supposed that what was lost to a self-claimed orthodoxy, was more than gained to the rights of conscience and the freedom of inquiry. Under this Republican policy, the different denominations of Christians have grown powerful in numbers and influence, without any abatement on the part of the people of respect for their spiritual teachers. On the contrary, by divesting the clergy of all power over church temporalities, and thus removing a cause of jealousy and strife, unhappy collisions have been avoided, and they have lived as the spiritual guides and the friends of their people, who in turn, have reposed in them that confidence, and yielded to them that esteem, which belong to consistent piety, and to useful lives. 4 table use belong to the bishop of the diocese; unless it shall be made to appear, and be confirmed by writings, that it was granted to some religious order of monks, or to some congregation of priests for their use." It This is no less than an act of confiscation. does not even recognize the right of property in those by whose bounty it was purchased, but it arrogates to the Bishops an actual proprietorship, and by absolute decree of this ecclesiastical council, so far as it could be enforced by persuasion or discipline, transfers the possession, control, and ownership, of millions of property, from the laity, to the clergy. This was a policy on the part of the Catholic clergy, no less bold in its antagonism to the whole theory of our government, than happily adapted to the objects of control at which it seems to have been aimed. It may be added, that this ordinance was submitted to, and received the approval of, the Pope of Rome. Immediately upon the promulgation of this new order, the bishops in their respective dioceses throughout the United States, commenced the effort to obtain the surrender of all corporate Within the last few years has grown up in this churches on the part of their congregations, and State, a system of rule entirely antagonistic to the transfer to them individually, of the titles to the system I have reviewed, and in violation of church property, cemeteries, seminaries of learnthe whole spirit of our constitution and laws.ing, hospitals, &c., &c. In most instances in This is its history. As early as 1829, it was discovered by the Prelates of the Catholic Church, that under American institutions, the system of committing the control of church temporalities to the laity, led to a degree of independence of the priesthood, not in keeping with the absolutism of the Catholic Hierarchy. Its tendency was to divide power with the clergy. To meet this difficulty, the following ordinance was passed in the Grand Council of Bishops, held at Baltimore, Oct. 1, 1829: "Council of Baltimore, Oct. 1, 1829. "Whereas lay trustees have frequently abused the right (jure) granted to them by the civil authority, to the great detriment of religion and scandal of the faithful, we most earnestly desire (optamus maxime) that in future no church be erected or consecrated unless it be assigned by a written instrument to the bishop in whose diocese it is to be erected for the divine worship and use of the faithful, whenever this can be done. "Approved by Gregory XVI, Oct. 16, 1830." This, it will be observed, was expressive of no more than an earnest desire. It was an appeal to the amiability of the Catholic congregations. That appeal failed of its purpose, and so much | were the people disinclined to comply with this policy, when not urged as a right, that another step was taken in 1849, at the seventh Provincial Council of Bishops of the United States held at Baltimore, when a measure of revolution was adopted, no less than the divesting of the Catholic laity of all power over Church temporalities, and its centralization in the hands of the priesthood. The fourth article of the ordinances of that Assembly, is as follows: "ARTICLE 4. The Fathers ordain, that all Churches, and all other Ecclesiastical property, which have been acquired by donations or the offerings of the Faithful, for religious or chari this State, it being made a test of good Catholicism, these transfers were made without protracted resistance. In other instances, among congregations imbued with the spirit of our free institutions, and who had learned to recognize as just, the division of power between the clergy and the laity, which our civil polity had established, this demand was resisted. The Catholic laity claimed that their rights did not exist by mere sufferance of the clergy. That having organized into Corporations in pursuance of our laws, they were bound as good citizens to abide by the policy of the government whose protection they enjoyed. When this resistance was protracted, it led to the most unhappy controversies. And wherever the congregations have finally refused to yield their franchises, and surrender their titles in obedience to the Baltipenalties which can, in this country, be inflicted more ordinance, they have suffered the severest upon the Catholic communicant. The church of St. Louis, in the city of Buffalo, is one of the congregations which have adhered to the policy of the State. This congregation is composed of a French and German population, most of whom have been for many years residents of the United States. Their petition to this body details an unhappy controversy of several years. The real estate upon which their church edifice was erected, was in 1829 conveyed for the use of a Catholic congregation to be thereafter organized, by the late Louis Le Couteulx, a man most honorably associated with the history of his adopted City and State. In 1838, the congregation was organized under the laws of this State, and seven trustees elected, in whom the title vested by virtue of the act in relation to religious corporations. Before the passage of the Baltimore ordinance, Bishop Hughes "attempted to compel the trustees to convey the title of this church property to him." After the Baltimore ordinance more |