*.
THE SHAKERS.
SPEECH
OF
TRO BERT WIC [ LIFFE.
IN THE SENATE of KENTUCKY—JAN. 183I.
'On a bill to repeal an act of the General Assembly of the
State of Kentucky, entitled, “an act to regulate civil
proceedings against certain communities having proper-
ty in common.”
Mr. W. said, that having been a member of the
Senate when the obnoxious bill passed, he did not
‘think it due to the Senate upon the former readings
of the bill now under consideration, to trouble the
Senate with any remarks upon the subject under dis-
cussion. And even on to-night, said Mr. W., when
the question was about to be taken on the passage of
the bill, I thought it only due to the Senate to ex-
plain the necessity of the repeal, and to express my
hopes that the bill would pass without opposition.
But this solicitude, briefly expressed, has drawn forth
the Senator from Barren, (Mr. Maupin,) and he has
called out the Senator from Nelson, (Mr. Hardin,)
and who has shared the hardest fate, the poor Shakers
or myself, will be difficult for the Senate to decide.
Their crime sir, is, that they have petitioned to be
relieved from unconstitutional oppression and outrage,
under the form and semblance of Legislative au-
thority; and my offending is, that I have, to-night, ex-
pressed the same opinions of that most exceptionable
2
measure of the Legislature, which I did in 1828, when
it was on its passage through this Senate. Yes sir, I told
you then that that bill was unconstitutional, and that
the Judges would so pronounceit to be; and I tell you
now, that it is not only unconstitutional, but a stain upon
your statute book, which this Senate, where it origi-
nated, should hasten to wipe off. What I then told
you, and what the gentleman from Nelson then de-
nied, has happened—the Judiciary has pronounced
the law unconstitutional and void.
But that gentleman now tells us, that if the Judge
has so pronounced upon the act, it only conduces to
convince him of what he has had suspicions for some-
time, that is, that the Judge is becoming a dotard.
Sir, this is an easy way to meet an argument. When
I told the Senate, three years since, that the law vio-
lated the Constitution and the rights of conscience,
and that the Judge who failed to pronounce it void,
would deserve to loose his office for his guilt or his
ignorance—that gentleman, and those associated with
him in forcing the passage of the bill, treated the idea
that any Judge would dare pronounce their bill un-
constitutional, as a figment of my fancy; and now,
sir, when what was then opinion is fact—when a
Judge has dared to do his duty and to sustain the
Constitution against your encroachments—why the
gentleman has an argument equally potent—the Judge
is in his dotage. Does the gentleman believe this!
It would not do for the gentleman to say the Judge
is no judge of the subject; that his opinion on all sub-
jects is too unimportant and trivial to entitle it to
weight on this; nor could its strength be impaired by
a reference to the character of the Judge as a jurist.
TNo, sir, the Judge to whom the gentleman has refer-
ence, has filled and adorned a seat in your Judiciary
for more than a quarter of a century, and if report be
true, is about to retire from the bench, to enjoy life
in virtuous retirement, whither he takes the just ap-
plause of his numerous friends and enlightened con-
temporaries.
Sir, it did seem to me a little surprising that the
3
gentleman from Nelson should attempt to defeat the
passage of this bill, by a personal reference to the
distinguished Judge who pronounced his law uncon-
stitutional. I can but think the remark inadver-
tent, and such as he will on reflection take back.--
Indeed, sir, were I to judge from the private opinion
of the gentleman of the learned Judge, from what I
have heard him say, from my knowledge of his ca-
pacity to judge of the fitness and ability of a lawyer,
I would sooner expect any thing from him than an
expression disparaging the opinions of Judge Broad-
max upon a point of law, and I will now appeal to
that gentleman's sober reflection and demand of him
whether any one Judge does or ever did preside in
our Circuit Courts, entitled to more or so much of the
gentleman's respect and confidence as a jurist.
Indeed, sir, I must protest against my friend the
Judge, being so soon consigned to dotage. I saw him
a few days since at this place, in all the vigor of bodi-
ly health and intellectual strength, for which he has
ever been distinguished; and sure I am, a suspicion
of his dotage cannnot arise from his age: if so, I may
also hold my peace. I do not know the Judge's age,
but I have more grey hairs than he has, and judging
by another standard of age, I am greatly his superior
in antiquity: I am a father and a grandfather, while
the Judge is yet in single blessedness. Indeed, sir, if
the number of grey hairs, or wife and children, and
children's children shall make the age of the dotard,
the gentleman from Nelson is not free from suspicion of
"dotage. No, sir, the gentleman will have to givesome
other answer to the high authority from the Judiciary
against this act of tyranny, than a replication that the
Judge is doting.
Equally objectionable is the attempt of the gentle-
pman to turn a grave subject, a question which in-
volves the rights of personal liberty, and the sacred
rights of conscience, into ridicule. The society of
religionists called Shaking Quakers, have with be-
coming dignity, and in decent language, laid before
the Legislature their grievancies and prayed relief.

4
This they have done, it is true, in little books, having;
as the gentleman from Nelson says, blue covers, and
this it is that is so peculiarly offensive to that gentle-
man, who states that he has for sometime seen Sha-
kers passing from room to room and treading on the
heels of members, but for his part he has held no
communication with them—that he has not read their
blue book, and never will read it.
Sir, said Mr. W., I regret extremely that that gen-
tleman has thought it his duty to thus treat these un-
offending petitioners. What have they done? As
human beings they have a right to petition; for, treat
them, sir, as you have done, and may do, they are
God's creatures, and, like every creature bearing the
image of the Creator, are susceptible of feeling pain,
sorrow, and oppression—and by your laws you have
oppressed them; yes you have not only oppressed them
by your unçonstitutional laws, but by such laws you
have attempted to deprive them of the rights of con-
science, set the pettifoggers to work upon them, and
sent constables, sheriffs, and catchpoles to take and
carry away from them the bread which they have
earned by the sweat of the brow. And it is pe-
titioning against these outrages upon the rights of
conscience, the rights of property, and the rights of
man, that has provoked the gentleman to apply in
such unmeasured strokes the keenest edge of his satire,
against this humbled and oppressed people. No one,
I am sure, could have listened to the arguments of
gentlemen against the repeal, and have imagined that
many of the remarks which have fallen from them are
applicable to the most inoffensive and unpretending
people under heaven, Indeed, gentlemen who on
other subjects, are exhaustless in metaphors and com-
parisons, seem on to-night to have exhausted their
usual stocks, great as they are. They have, I trust,
drawn from other sources some of their figures than
their own hearts—some that have at least novelty to
recommend them.
One gentleman is extremely distressed for a figure
to represent these Shakers; he, however, in the fer-

J
tility of his imagination, finds out that a society of
Shaking Quakers is just like rabbits in a brier patch.
[Here Mr. Hardin said he had not said the Shakers
were like rabbits in a brier patch..] I know, said Mr.
W. that gentleman did not say so, but he knows who
did; I did not allude to him, but the gentleman from
Barren, (Mr. Maupin.) That gentleman says you
might as well expect to catch rabbits in a brierpatch,
without traps, as these Shakers without this bill; and
the gentleman from Nelson, (Mr. Hardin,) says that
extraordinary cases require extraordinary remedies,
that without the bill this society would be insufferable
in the country.
To these remarks I am sorry to be compelled to
reply, that I do not consider the first a very appro-
priate one for either the Senator or the subject: and
to the latter remark, I can only say, that I feel aston-
ished that the Senator should have spoken in such
unqualified terms of the great public nuisance that
this society is or would have been but for this famous
act: an act that never has been executed and never
will be executed, before a competent and upright
Judge—an act that has answered no other purpose
but to feed the cupidity of pettifoggers and other
maintainers of suits, at the expense of the repose of
a religious and an unoffending society of Christians,
can scarcely have done the wonders ascribed to it by
the gentleman.
Sir, is it not a little strange that the gentleman
should have hazarded the assertion after he in the out-
set of his argument, boasted that he held no confer-
ences with these people—that he read none of their
“little blue books?” Whence, I would ask the gentle-
man, has he derived his certain knowledge, that the
society would, but for this act, be unsufferable? I re-
gret, and that sincerely, that the honorable gentleman
has not condescended to read one of these “blue books.”
If he had, I think he would not now oppose the pas-
sage of this bill. He would there have found, that
the causes which had given rise to this bill had been
considered by as able and illustrious men as ever pre-
6
sided upon a bench of justice, and had been decided
always in favor of the Shakers. He would have seem
too, that he has totally misapprehended the nature
and objects of these religious people, from whom he
apprehends such serious mischief, if the law be re.
pealed. From this book he would have learnt, sir,
that some of the lawyers of New York, New Hamp-
shire, Massachusetts, and Maine, as well as some of
those of Kentucky, have had a penchant for the goods,
chattels, lands, and tenements of the poor Shakers—
that the Judases among them there, as the Judases here,
have been stirred up to betray and sue this society as
communities, on claims for labour or property deposit-
ed in the common fund;—and he would have seen,
sir, that the learned Judges in those cases, gave to
the Lawyers and maintainers there, the cold comfort
Judge Broadnax has given them here. He would
have learnt another thing, sir, and that is, that these
people have existed in those States, as they do here,
for forty years, and that no such acts are found neces-
sary in any State but this. So far from it, sir, most
of the learned Judges in the very luminous opinions
delivered by them, pass the highest encomiums upon
the sobriety, industry and peaceable habits of these
people. I tell the gentleman, learned as he is, that if
he will only condescend to read the little book, it pos-
sibly may induce him to reflect upon another book a
little more, before he again comes to the rash conclu-
sion that he will not read a petition of any sort, offered
to him as a Senator, that is, a book which recommends
to us to hear “all things, but to hold fast to that which
is good.” I think, sir, that if that gentleman had read
that little blue book, he would have spared the Senate
his remarks about my heated zeal and sanguine tem-
per upon this occasion; and that instead of that gen-
tleman assisting to break down the rights of conscience,
and to oppress and ruin these people, they would
have had in his powerful talents, an advocate worthy
their defence.
But as the gentleman has chosen not to hear, and
can find no better apology for my feeble exertions in
7
behalf of these oppressed people, than a heated im-
agination and a too sanguine temperament, I can only
submit it to that gentleman to consider if he has not
permitted his own imagination, or that of others, greatly
to mislead him in the course of this debate.
The gentleman has told us that he was induced to
enlist himself with the friends of the bill, to force its
passage through this body, because he was informed
by a gentleman of high respectability, that this people
were traversing the country up and down inveighling
proselites to join them—separating husbands and
wives, father and child, brothers, sisters and friends;
and after thus seducing and stripping them of their
property, had reduced them to the condition of abso-
lute slavery. That they were in the habit of contrac-
ting debts, and that they even refused payment for the
common articles of marketting. Now sir, that the
gentleman was told all these things I have no doubt,
and that the honorable gentleman's informers believ-
ed what they commuicated; but that these tales are
highly exaggerated, and most of them wholly untrue,
I have as little doubt; and yet sir, I could admit them
all to be true, and still prove that they furnish no apology
much less a reason for the law, for which they are
made the pretext.
But, sir, as I believe that this law passed not only
with too little reflection, but that it has its foundations
in a spirit of prejudice and religious persecution, whol-
ly unworthy of the age we live in, I will not admit
what I do not believe to be the fact, even to hang a
prejudice upon my acquaintance with the history of
these people in Kentucky, Ohio, and elsewhere; and
my personal observations on them strongly negative
these rumours collectively and in detail. Our consti-
tution guarantees the right of conscience and the right
to not only found, but to preach new doctrines of faith;
and if it be lawful for all to do so, unless the gentle-
man can prove to me that the Shaker is not a human
being, the Shaker has this right. Do not Presbyteri-
ans, Baptists, Catholicks, Episcopaleans and Metho-
dists, in the language of the gentleman, range the
8
country up and down, diffusing their creeds, making
converts to their respective churches. And dare you,
sir, to pass such a law as thisto stop their proselyting?
A. Campbell has his particular faith. It is not long
since I witnessed him passing to and fro in quest of
proselytes, and although some pious christians in this
most pious town closed their churches against him, dare
they or you to propose such a bill as this, to stop him
from proselyting? No sir, no; we all know too well
where Sampson's strength lies—we had as soon catch
the forked lightning as to attempt such a measure
against any other religious society but the Shakers.
If one of those other religious societies asks us for a
charter to make patent right preachers, we have a scuſ.
fle for the floor, and he is the most furtunate that can
make the first and prettiest speech in behalf of reli-
gion and letters chartered together.—Yes, sir, your bills
incorporating such religious societies as ask for them
pass by acclamation. It is who shall first get the floor
to obtain leave to bring in the bill, and who shall then
be the fortunate mover to dispense with the constitu-
tional readings of the bill. But wo to him that dare
to doubt the constitutionality or propriety of permit-
ting a single church at a single point to have corpo-
rate existence and powers to sue and to be sued, de-
fend and be defended, and to acquire estates, so that
its rent toll does notexceed fifty thousand dollarsannual-
ly. Sir, can you tell how many patents you have gran-
ted to religious communities? How many have you
granted this session, by which you authorize them to
turn out Preachers, to range up and down, as the gen~.
tleman will have it, after converts.
It wasonce the case, Mr. Speaker, that the authority
to preach was declared to be derived from the master
of our religion, who when on earth, bid his disciples
to preach the gospel to all nations; and since his as-
cension, we believe that he spiritually commands
his disciples to do what he corporally commanded
when on earth. Pastors once ordained preachers of
the gospel by and under the authority of their heav-
enly master alone; but now sir, they have your char-

9.
ters to make patent right preachers for us. We out.”
do the yankees two to one. They plough and sow,
and make paper for Bank notes under patent rights.
We can do all this, and what is more, have our religion
taught, and then preached to us by patent right. Sir,
you know that this is the pitch to which you are bring-
ing the religion of the state, although you have dis-
guised and masked your charters to convents and syn-
ods, conferences and associations, under the title of
college bills. It is true the Baptists and Methodists
have not conte up to the full measure of the Presbyte-
rians and Catholicks yet, in obtaining charters for the-
ological schools; but they are not far behind them,
and a few more short years will place them side by
side with them. This is church and State, sir, in high
style for you.-What is an established religion but a
religion that works or operates under a charter from a
state? The charter granted by the act of settlement
of the English crown is not more a grant of exclusive
religious privileges than your grants to St. Joseph's
and Centre Colleges are. The sovereignty of the
State is pledged and granted away in every case, and
every religious sect that you have set to work under
such charters” as you have granted to Centre College
and St. Joseph's, will mortmain your real and person-
al estates to such an extent as, at no distant day, will
produce a severance between church and State, and
give to our descendants a lesson which we were taught
by our fathers, but which we have not had spirit to
profit by. g
One gentleman falls out with the Shakers because
they will not ask of you an act of incorporation. He
says he will give them one if they will accept of it.
Sir, that is what you have no right to do, although you
have done the same thing for other religious societies.
The Shaker denies that his society is associated for
the purpose of accumulating wealth, but contends that
they associate for objects of piety and benevolence;
*Charters have already been granted by the Legislature of Kentucky,
to not less than eight Colleges.
10
that they labour as the early apostles did to sustain
nature only, that the food and raiment when provided,
is like Peter's fish when taken from the net, for com-
mon sustenance and the property of no one. If this is
the Shaker's faith, well may he scorn your charter to
gather church wealth under. But if they are really
the mercenary wretches they are represented to be,
grant them your charter to accumulate property, give
them perpetual succession, give them the right to sue
and be sued, defend and be defended, in all courts;
and my word for it, they will in time, divide Mercer
county with Centre College, if they do not mort main
the whole of it. These people, with their habits of
industry would, thus chartered, be terrible, and soon
threaten the well being of society. And yet, gentle-
men wish to force Shakers to become incorporated
speculators, patented absorbents of the wealth and
substance of the state. This condition the Shaker re-
fuses; and you are attempting to force it upon him—
you tell him, that it is not politick and wise for Shakers
to hold property in common, and not sue and be sued
as a corporation. The Shaker replies, that Shakers
have no community of property, or property in com-
mon—that like the early Christians, they worship to-
gether and have all things in common; but that they
do not claim to hold as a community any thing. That
as the followers of Christ dwelt together in a lease-
hold or rented house, and worshipped together, and
worked for their daily food and raiment for the use of
themselves and such as were added to the church, so do
the Shakers. He will tell you what you all well know
—that as a community they have no rights. That a
devise or grant to the society of Shakers is absolutely
void. That the lands on which their churches stand,
and on which they labor for the common food and
raiment of the votaries of religion, are private pro-
perty, held by individuals as individuals, and not as
corporators, Sir, he will tell you that even the food
.*raiment earned by the labour of the hands of the
Shakers, are not the property of the community, nor
held by them as such; but that they are provided for
II
the society and such as shall be added to the church,
or sojourn among them; a fundamental principle of
his faith, he will tell you is, that the society as such,
is never to connect itself with the world, but that they
are to separate themselves from the world and its con-
cerns, deriving by their labours from the earth, food
and raiment.
These are the views and professions of these peo-
ple; and however strange and absurd, however foolish
it may appear to gentlemen, I would remind them
that all christianity, was once foolishness to the Greeks.
I admit, sir, that as far.as I can comprehend, the re-
ligious faith of these people, my mind rejects it. But
what have I to do with their religious faith? Who
made me a judge over any man's conscience, that I
should say to him, you do not worship your God ac-
ceptably or conformably to his word. This is a mat-
ter between the Shaker and his God. tººl
Let us not attempt, Mr. Speaker, to regulate this
matter by our Legislation; but, sir, even on this head,
these people have been greatly misrepreseuted. I sir,
once felt shocked at the thought that there was a
sect so far sunk in idolatry as to offer supreme worship
to Ann Lee, and great was my surprise when I recog-
nized among them, some whom I had once known as
learned and pious divines in other denominations.—
But sir, a better acquaintance with these people, satis-
fies my mind that they offer worship to God alone—
that they only ascribe to the founderess of their
sect the inspiration which other christians have done,
to distinguish lights in their churches. In their wor-
ship they have no barbarious rites or cruel sacrifices.
They pray to one supreme God, and sing night and
morning, anthems to him and his Christ. With the
religion of this people, I again repeat we have nothing
to do—over it we have no constitutional controul—
Tor have we a right to regulate the temporal economy
of the society, only so far as that may violate some
known law of the State.
They do not profess to hold property, real or per-
sonal, as a community. They do not profess to exist
#2
as a community—but for religious and pious purposes.
They deny that they constitute a company or a cor-
poration for any temporal purpose or end; they deny
that they have, by their religion or conduct, failed in
their allegiance to the commonwealth, and claim the
protection from the government, which is due from al-
legiance. They deny that they have, by their religion
or conduct, forfeited any one of their natural rights
of suing and being sued, of defending and being de-
fended, in all courts as other men are, and they com-
plain that you have, by your laws, interfered with their
rights of conscience, and deprived them of their na-
tural rights as citizens. They say that no one is au-
thorized by them to contract or be contracted with,
so as to charge them as a company or community.
That for all crimes, misdemeanors, or contracts, Sha-
'kers are responsible as other men are, and by the laws
of the land, should, when charged in court, have the
. opportunities afforded them of making' their de-
..I.EINC62,
Against these statements, neither of the advocates
for disfranchising these people has attempted a refuta-
tion. One gentleman says that a man may fraudulent-
ly conceal his property by transferring of it to the
Shakers or joining their society. The argument
founded on these suppositions must be unsound, when
the suppositions are not based on fact.
I have already shown that a transfer to the Shakers,
as a community, is absolutely void, and the property
would, notwithstanding such transfer, remain liable to
be taken by the sheriff. You may transfer property
to natural persons or artificial bodies, provided the
artificial bodies are created by charter, with power
to hold property. A transfer to the Shaker society
is void; but a transfer to Centre College is good. In
the first case the property would not, by the sale, be
covered from the sheriff—in the latter case, it would
pass to Centre College; because that College can, by
its charter, buy and hold property. It is not enough
that the law creats or allows of political bodies, to
enable such bodies to take by purchase. The char-
13
ter must enable the body to take and hold property.
This was fully proven in Peart's will. There F.
Peart devised his estate to the county of Woodford,
for the benefit of a school. The devise and the use
were declared by the Supreme Court to be void, for
the want of capacity in the county of Woodford to take
and hold lands. I appeal to the gentleman from Nel-
son to bear testimony to the Senate that this is the
law. I call upon him in candor to say that the Sha-
kers can neither hold property nor maintain suits as a
community—to admit that however great the outrage
may be, that shall be committed against the Society,
no action in the name of the society can be brought,
—to say, if a band of ruffians were to enter a Shaker
village and drive off every cow, hog and horse they
found in it, whether any action in the name of the so-
ciety could be brought for such outrage. The gentle-
+man knows that these people, as a community, have
for such outrages no redress. He knows too, that if
some swindler should inveigle these people out of
their entire property and stores or provision, by ex-
ecuting his bond to the community of Shakers, that
the bond will be void, and these people be without
redress. # w
When your laws do not allow this society to take
and hold property as a community, when the law does
not allow them the privilege of suing as a community
for any contract, however fair on their part, or
any outrage committed against their rights, howev-
er flagrant—is it not too cruel to be borne with, that
you disable them to defend as individuals in courts of
justice, and allow suits to be brought against them as
a community, and allow judgments upon such suits to
pass, on which not only the joint labor of the men,
women and Children may be siezed and sold, but the
individual property of both adults and helpless infan-
cy. Yes sir, your law, if it amounts to anything, en-
tails upon women and children, born and to be born,
debts to the extent of their joint interests in the com-
mon stock, and when * to the extent of their
th
&
t
14
property, which they may acquire by descent or pur-
chase as individuals, in any period of their existence.
There is another feature in the bill, sir, of still deep-
er and blacker malignity, from which it manifestly
appears, that its draftsman feared that the court of ap-
peals would get hold of his measure, in which he
most warily attempts to exclude the Shakers from pro-
secuting an appeal or writ of error against any judg-
ment obtained under this act. Do not understand me
as saying, that because a right to prosecute a writ of
error or an appeal is not given to the Shakers by this
act, that they will be without remedy for outrages com-
mitted upon them under cover of this law. I refer to
the fact, to test the motives which are displayed on
the face of the bill, and to expose its context to the
indignant frown of the Senate and the whole people
of the State. h
I will, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate may have a full
view of this act, read it: (here Mr. W. read the act,
and continued.) The first section, sir, provides that
a bill in chancery may be filed by any person having
a demand above $50 upon any contract, express or
implied against any of the communities of people eal-
led Shakers, &c. Now, sir, here is a plain and obvi-
ous deprivation of common right, by our law on most
contracts expressed or implied. The remedy is at
law, and not in chancery, where the defendant is not
made a witness against himself, and where he hath
the benefit of all legal pleas—and our boasted trial
by Jury—of these invaluable rights, dear to every
freeman the first section of this act deprives the Sha-
ker. The 2nd section is, if possible, still more insul-
ting and degrading to the feelings of freemen. The
process upon this bill is to be served by sticking a co-
py of it’to the door of the meeting house, and deliv-
ering another copy to some known member and read-
.ing it aloud at some one of the dwellings of the com-
munity. If this is doné, ten days before court, it is to
be a good service upon every man, woman and child,
if there be five thousand belonging to the society;
and will authorise a decree by default against all aid
15
each on a bill taken pro confesso. But the iniquity of
this law is yet to be unfolded in another provision. It
provides that all answers for and in behalf of the
community may be filed on the oath or affirmation of
one or more individuals of such community, who shall
moreover swear that he or they have been nominated
as agent or attornies for such community. Now, sir,
contrast the condition of these Shakers with all other
religious sects, and see if you find a parallel for this
act any where. |
By our law, by the universal law of nature, no manº
can be condemned unheard, and no man can be brought
before the Judge but by and through personal sum-
mons, or its equivalent. This, sir, is common law. If
two men are sued on their joint bond, or ten men on
their joint assumpsit or contract, personal service is'
required on all, and if some be infants, guardians are
necessary also, before judgment can be rendered; and
if it be rendered without service, it is, as to all on
whom process is not served, void, and as to those on
whom it is served voidable—because all proper par-
ties were not before the court.—But this act makes a
service on any member, male or female, adult or in-
fant, service on all, on which a decree passes against
all infants, feme coverts, and adults, in every other
case even where a free negro shall be a party, The
right of infancy is so far respected as to appoint a
guardian ad litem to defend. This law allows no such
right to the infant Shaker.
But the language of the act is still more insulting
to humanity and the rights of man. In the third sec-
tion the act prescribes the only possible mode of de-
fence to these people when attacked with this famous
bill in chancery. And what is that? Why that the
bill may be answered by agents or attornies, provided
such agents or attorneys shall do what the draftsman
of the bill—what this Senate know it is morally im-
possible for them, with truth, to do;-that is swear
that he or they have been nominated by the society
to answer. Now it is obvious if no answer is put in
that the bill is to be taken for confessed, and the debt
16
claimed decreed as matter of course, To’ produée
this state of case for the Shakers the draftsman has
rarefully forbid an answer in the usual way, and has
required that none but an agent or attorney shall be
permitted to answer, and that such agent of attorney
shall first swear, before the answer is received, thathe
or they have been nominated by the society. Sir, I
would ask how is this nomination to be made? Must
it be by each individual man, woman and child sign-
ing, sealing, and delivering a power, or will a major-
ity do? Is it to be done by writing or parol? Ought
not your act to prescribe some mode—some rule by
which the society can act and these agents swear, so
as to avoid a prosecution for perjury, or a decree pro
confesso? Surely it should. But your act blazes the
way plain and obvious, by which the creditor and
champerning lawyer are to reach the goods and chat-
tels, lands and tenements of the Shakers, and leaves
the Shakers in utter ignorance of what you mean
when you speak of agents and attorneys answering
for them by nomination. Sir, you use terms wholly
unknown to the law, or the vocabulary of the Sha-
ker, appointed by the community. Who made them
a community? Not your charter, not your constitu-
tion, not the Shakers, for they have no power if they
had the.wish, to establish a separate community from
the mass of the people. Civilly and politically, they
are no community—religiously they are a society of
Christians. Sir, no one will pretend to say, that the
decree is against the Shakers corporally or as a civil
body. Indeed I understand the gentleman to admit
that it is against them individually, and reaches their
individual property and partnership property, as a de-
aree against partners in trade in ordinary cases does.
Sir, what is the right of every partner when the firm
is sued? Is it not to defend for himself, to plead, an-
swer, ordemur, jointly with his otherpartners, or sepa-
rately for himself? And yet your act, although it pro-
ceeds on the idea of a partnership, refuses the partners
collectively or individually to appear and defend. It
provides that no defence be received for them but from
17
sworn agents or attorneys, who are, before they can
in safety take the oath, to have a power from every liv-
ing partner, infant as well as adult. I
Sir, I will not trouble the Senate with further re-
marks upon this act, to shew that it is in its letter and
design without its parrallel in error or iniquity—that
it is nothing less than a warrant and a cover to cham-
perners and maintainers to harrass, rob, and ruin these
unoffending people. I have shewn that it takes from
them their natural rights; I have shewn that it at-
tempts to make them corporators against their consent
—that it subjects them to suit and judgment without
giving them remedy for their rights, and that it at-
tempts to deprive them of a Writ of error or appeal
against the errors or oppressions of ignorant or preju-
diced Judges, practiced under the cover of this law.
I have shewn you beyond contradiction, that not only
adults but that even helpless infants, are deprived of
the privileges extended to every other class of citi-
zens, by this law, for no other cause, for no other crime
but that it has been their choice to profess the reli-
gion of a Quaker, or the lot of infancy to derive its
existence of Shaker parents. If any doubt that I have
shewn all these things, I would ask them, if this act,
apply to any but Shakers, would they consider them-
selves free and independent citizens, with their rights
fritted down, nay sir, taken from them as these people
have theirs?
Sir, with this view of this act, does a just and high
minded Senater need any other rule than his own
breast—does any friend to the equal rights of man, re-
quire a constitution to incline him to restore these peo-
ple to their equal rights as free men and free women?
if there be any such, I will now shew him that he is
bound to restore the Shakers to their rights, by the .
oath he has solemnly taken to support the constitution.
In the 3d section of the tenth art. of your constitution
it is among other things provided, that no human f
thority ought in any case whatever, to controul .
terfere with the rights of conscience, and by
section it is provided that * civil priviler
18
citics of any citizen shall in no wise be diminished or
enlarged on account of his religion. How dare any
Senator to stand forth, and in presence of his God,
say you have not diminished the civil rights and ca-
pacities of the Shakeron accountof his religion? None
has pretended to do so—but the effort, the feeble ef.
fort, is made to draw a distinction between the body of
the church and the individuals of the church. Sir, does
not this exist with all sects as plainly as it does with
the Shakers? The society of Presbyterians constitute
a body of christians, not a civil body—so does that of
the Methodist; as individuals, and not as a church,
they are sueable and able to sue. This privilege is
what you take from the Shaker, in express violation
of the 1st section of the 10th article of the constitu-
tion. O, but says the gentleman, these Shakers hold
their property in common. This I deny—and he on
reflection must see his error. They can by law hold
but as individuals; although as christians they may
partake in common, and.this partaking in common as
christians or religionists of the food and raiment of
the church is perceivable in every church that names
the name of Christ. In some they partake more, and
in some less in common. And no one ever until now
thought of making them corporators or partners. To
illustrate this difference between a common of pro-
perty civilly, and a partaking in common, you have
only to recur to the Lord's Table, where all commune
or partake, but none have either a joint or separate
property in the bread and wine. In the days of the dis-
ciples, not only did the christians partake in common
of the Lord's Supper, but in all things necessary to
sustain nature, The gentleman from Nelson, howev-
er, seems to rely on the right to deprive these reli-
‘gionists of their civil rights, upon the fact that, their
common stock goes beyond provisions, and that appa-
rel, manufactures and beasts of burden are used in
common, and that these people make for themselves
the civil disabilities of which they complain. Very
good, sir. If they are so disabled, why pass your
law? The answeris, that the very fact that you have
19
attempted to disfranchise them by your law, proves
that they have not disfranchised themselves. The
gentleman thinks that the privilege of thus acquiring
and using property ought not to be tolerated. I an-
swer, the law does not recognize this plan of life, but
it does not forbid it, and therefore leaves the votary
to pursue it or not. If the gentleman, or any other in
the Senate, is for putting down this primitive mode of
life among Christians, why not come out on principle?
Why not make the law general, to embrace all socie-
ties or communities that use property in common?
Why nail the poor Shaker with your bill?
Does not the gentleman know that even in his own
county, and in other counties in the State, there have
existed convents and nunneries, societies and commu-
nities of christians in the Roman Catholic church, noton-
ly working and accumulating and partaking incommon
but that many of the pious members of these societies
or churches have made vows which exclude them from
holding civilly any property whatever? And yet sir,
let any Senator attempt to force such a bill as this on
that portion of that gentleman's constituents, and we
would then see the difference between that gentle-
man's vote on a bill to disable Roman Catholicks hav-
ing property in common, and Quakers having proper-
ty in common. I know the gentleman's constituents
holding property in common have in some instances
obtained charters; but that they have done in every
instance but one, since the disfranchising law passed
against the Shakers, and convents and nunneries exis-
ted long before and at the time the bill passed, where
the votaries held, as far as I understand the matter,
precisely as these Shakers do. But they were parts
of a persuasion of christians, powerful in numbers,
wealth and talents, zealous of their civil rights, who
would have chastised through their right of suffrage,
any who had the temerity to propose a law so degra-
ding to them and violatory of their rights as citizens.
The Shakers are the poor and despised.—They exer-
cise no right of suffrage—they have no member here
to vindicate their rights—there is no proud aspirant af.
20
ter popularity, dreads their resentment; and hence it
is that we take from them their civil rights with as little
apprehensions of punishment, as we consign our free
negroes to the whipping post for keeping a ferry boat
or striking a white man.
If these Shakers would only vote sir, it would be a-
musing to see what wonderment, what concernment
our would-be-members of Congress and Governors
would express that such a bill as this ever passed. Na
sir, the worthy chief who signed the bill would have
sooner cut off his hand, than have committed such vio-
lence against the rights of man, of religion, and a-
gainst his own tender conscience.
Mr. Speaker, I will not further attempt to prove
that this bill is against the rights of man—against the
constitution. I think the majority of the Senate must
feel convinced that it grossly violates both. I can on-
ly then beg of gentlemen not to let a desire to banish
this sect—not to let their own pride of consistency, to
vote as they have heretofore done, prevent them, this
night from recording their votes on the side of justice,
in favour of the rights of conscience.
Let those that vote against the repeal not expect to
escape. The people will know and shall know, that
a spirit of persecution, in its most hedious form, has
manifested itself in the Senate, and that that persecu-
cution is persevered in, in despite of the constitution,
which declares that no citizen's rights shall be dimin-
ished on account of his religion. After any Senator
shall vote to sustain this bill, I trust he will never ex-
claim against the persecutions of the established chur-
ches elsewhere. "Sir, if the object of any gentleman
is to put down this religion because he believes it to
be idolatrous or fanatical, I beseech him to take his-
tory for his guide. When did persecution, when did
the contempt or cruelty of Legislation, ever banish
religious error? Do not be misled by the popular
feelings that may now exist against these people.
They are less than that of the Jews against the Sa-
viour. They are less than that which within half a
century raged against Anabaptists and Methodists-
2í
How long since poor old Craig, now scarcely cold if
his graven was incarcerated in the jails of Virginia,
for shocking religious sensibility with the doctrines of
the Anabaptists? How long since the Methodists were
driven from their meeting houses to private houses, and
from private houses to the woods, in a State that would
now shudder to pass such a bill as the one you havé
passed against Shakers. Do you believe that the
Methodist, Baptist, nay sir, that any of the great bo-
dy of christians, will allow of this encroachment upon
religious freedom with impunity? If you do, I think
you greatly deceive yourself. There is no one sect
safe if this bill be tolerated—and our country' may
yet be like Smithfield, smoking with human victims
for religion's sake. Every Roman Catholick, Epis-
copalian, Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist have a
deep interest in this matter, and surely they will not
be silent spectators of a crusade against the rights of
conscience, which, after sacrificing one religion be-
cause it is the weakest, will follow up its successes un-
til the Legislature will give to christianity itself
creeds or rules of faith. Until the passage of this
bill I treated all fears about established religions and
religious persecutions as idle dreams. *
Under this constitution, now violated on the sublf
ject of religion, I have seen the Catholick and the
Protestant enjoy equal civil and religious rights, and
their ancient prejudices disappear, until they mix and
mingle as christians should do. In fact among all the
sects there seemed to be pnly a laudable ambition to
extend and diffuse a knowledge of religious truths
throughout the world, when this bill first made its ap-
pearance, That it should have passed, at a time of
the greatest religious freedom and harmony, will be a
subject of curious history. All former persecutions
have had their beginning with the churches, but in
this the churches have had no hand. No, sir, I ad-
mit with a blush, that this persecution began with the
bar. Yes, sir, whatever there is in disgrace, and I
admit there is enough of it in this bill, attaches to the
profession. A disgraceful spirit ºf champerty and
22
inaintenance has, in the passage of this bill, triumph.
ed over all the generous and patriotic feelings
which in other times and on other occasions have been
manifested by the profession for the feeble and de-
fenceless against the march of tyranny and the venom
of persecution. t
Sir, the Shakers have by their trustees, acquired
lands, and have laid them out with their own hands in
beautiful cultivated fields, with peculiar care and skill.
They have built beautiful edifices and flouring and
other manufacturing mills—their warehouses and barns
overflow with plenty, and their pastures are whitened
with their flocks—all the reward of their sober indus-
try. These fields and these herds have been to a por.
tion of the profession what the conventicles of the
Jesuits were to Louis the 14th. There were already
Judases among these people ready to sell them for a
price. But the champerner wanted this bill, and you
know, that it was worded to answer his purpose fully
as it passed the Senate. The 4th section of the bill
was, according to my recollection, added after it pass-
ed the Senate, in the lower house; that section arrest-
ed the main design of the authors of this bill out of
the Legislature; they intended by giving actions
against the society to its discontented members, without
reserve, to strip it of every vestige of support, and di-
vide snacks with the discontented. That section has
given them trouble, but they are still pressing their
schemes, and to be relieved from their grip the Society
pray the repeal—pray to stand in courts of justice as
other men do, to be sued as individuals of other reli-
gions are. And pray, sir, why not afford them this re-
quest? Because sa gentlemen, they will make pro-
selytes. They º seduce wives and children into
their society contrary to the wishes of husbands and
parents. Well, now sir, will the learned gentleman
tell this Senate that this bill provides remedies for
these evils specifically? He certainly will not. By
depriving them of food and raiment it does; by expos. .
ing them to sharpers and swindlers, and depriving
them of the means $f defence in courts, it does, be-
f
23
cause without the means of subsistence the society
must dissolve, must leave their fair and pleasant fields,
and those beautiful edifices. The monuments of their
art must be desolate or pass to the champerners.
But gentlemen deny that the object of the law was
to break up the shakers by seizing their property. If
the object was to punish the crimes of seduction which
is now avowed, why does the bill only embrace con-
tracts express of implied? The man who has had his
wife or child seduced can’t sue upon a contract ex-
pressed or implied. This view of the bill and the con-
test between the Lawyer and the Shakers, ought to
satiſy the gentleman from Nelson that the bill was in-
tended for plunder, not to prevent crime. If a Sha-
ker, or if Shakers, seduce my wife or child to leaveme,
does not the law give me emple remedy by an action
for seduction, and the further remedy by indictment?
If a shaker swindle me of my property does not the
common law give me remely by action for the fraud,
and the commonwealth redress by indictment also?
And pray what more does yºur act do, as it regards
frauds and crimes? Nothing sir. But it seems to in-
volve in the same measure of retributive justice the
guilty and the guiltless. If your laws against seduc-
tions, frauds and swindling are not sufficiently penal,
make them more so. This will be right—it will be
just. But do not sayin yourbill, if a Shaker swindle
he shall be punished—the whole society of Shakers
shall be punished. This willbe unjust—it will be un-
constitutional. You have no right to punisha Sha-
ker because he is a Shaker. This is extending tooth-
er religions exemptions, and disprivileging Shakers on
account of religious opinions, bontrary to the 10th ar-
ticle of the constitution. The constitution and sound
policy require that your laws shall never take notice
of religious creeds and divisions. That you shall nev-
et say in your acts a religious society shall have the
right to sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded,
hold, possess and enjoy in perpetual succession, lands,
tenements, &c. &c. as you have done on the one hand,
and that another religious community or society shall
's
24
not have the common privileges of feemen, as you
have said on the other hand.
But gentlemen tell you that I º too much of a
small matter; that if the judges have decided the law
unconstitutional, why, there is an end of it—why not
leave the Shakers where they ought tº be in the courts
of justice? Mr. Speaker, said Mr. W. I do not pre-
tend to measure things by myself. If the measure
does not strike me as pregnant of great good or evil,
in my brief time and actiºn, I am nbt like some gen-
tlemen, who deem it bul a small matter. I have
learnt from history the dreadful efficts of church and
state joined together—the perniclous consequences
resulting to the well being of society from a govern-
ment mingling church and state together. I have,
thank God, lived in an age and under a constitution,
that has fritted down asperities, º sects not only
mingle in the ordinary º of life in friendly
intercourse, but many hold religious intercommunica-
tion. Itherefore dread, f not for myself, for my chil-
dren and country, a couise of º: which is to
set the sects at war, and which invites to a spirit of
cruel persecution. Sir, I experience enough daily of
political persecution and fanaticism, or proscription, to
make my soul sicken at the prospect of a like state of
feeling generated among the religious denominations.
Yet I think I see that tº an absolute certainty your
theological charters and Shaker bills will produce it.
Sir, as the gentleman from Nelson has been kind
enough to advise me not to make too much of a little
matter, I will in turn advise my friend to ponder well
his course this night. Yes, and if I had the assem-
bled people of my country, I would put one question
to him, and that is, how many generations does he
think will pass over before the people will have to
break down these theological charters and reclaim the
church lands? And yet sir, this branch of the subject
is as yet but a small matter: all mischiefs are small
in their commencement, compared with their results.
This is, to be sure, a smail matter: nothing but the
rights of conscience, the fights of property, and the


| 25
rights of persons are involved—why therefore make
a fuss about it? We do not strip the Shaker naked
and send him to the stake because he will not re-
nounce his faith, but wein mercy spare his life, if we do
strip him of all he has.
Mr. Speaker, I have shewn that the Shakers are not
a civil community; that they do not as such act. I
have, shewn that any contract made with them as such
... is absolutely null and void; that they can only con-
tract and be contracted with as individuals, and that
each and every individual is liable upon each and eve-
ry contract as other men are; that Shakerism gives
them no claims to.exemption from their contracts, and
ought not to deprive them of a single advantage or
civil privilege enjoyed by every other citizen of the
Commonwealth. But gentlemen seem to think that
there is something in their business that galls for a
separate code of laws from that of other people. Sir,
what temporal business do they follow? Their great
business is agriculture, mechanics and manufactures:
they are a body of farmers, mechanics and manufac-
turers, and are divided into families of men, women
and children, in separates, and distinct buildings, at
convenient distances—have common schools, and one
or more common places of worship, In agriculture
they excel every other portion of your State; and in
'architecture and featness, are exceeded by no people
upon the earth, Sir, your towns and villages bear testi-
mony every where of their skill in the mechanic and
manufacturing arts. The whole society live in unex-
ampled neatness, if not elegance—not a pauper
among them—all alike independent, and as happy as
that independence and innocence can make them (ex-
cept for your persecuting act.) Wh9 has visited one of
the Shaker, villages, that has not experienced emo-
tions of delight at the peaceful, harmonious, but in-
dustrious movements of the villagers? Who can look
upon the splendid edifices, the green pastures and gol-
den fields, the produce of their industry and art—who
can look upon their flocks of fat cattle and extensive
herds, and not admit that ºblems of a kind Proy-
26
idence rewards their innocent labors? None šir, none,
Let a stranger visit your country, and enquire at Dan-
ville, Harrodsburgh of Lexington, for your best speci-
mens of agriculture, mechanics and architecture, and
sir, he is directed to visit the society of Shakers at
Pleasant Hill. & u
Sir, if this society were idle vagabonds, without
houses or homes, living by lying or stealing, which
they cloaked under the garb of religion, you might
tax your brains with ways and means to avoid the 10th
section of your constitution, to break them up. But
it is not so with them: they are better off, live better
and wear better and pay better, than most of their
persecutors. To talk of a Shaker's debt, to prate
about their failing to pay for marketing, is worse than
mockery. You know otherwise; the whole people
‘know otherwise; your very wives depend on them for
brooms and vessels for their daries. Other societies
have their preachers passing from place to place, sub-
sisting upon the hospitality of the friends of religion;
not so with the Shakers; when they leave home they
carry their food or buy it—they lodge in their own
vehicles or pay for their lodging; nothing from your
missionary societies, nothing from your charity funds,
nothing from your tract societies, goes to aid Shaker-
ism. No sir, no: the Shaker by the blessing of hea-
ven and the strength of his own sinews, needs no such
aids; but his town is the refuge of hundreds of the
poor and naked of your land. No man ever entered
his town hungry and he gave him not meat—naked
and he clothed him not. How many poor, helpless wo-
men, when cast off by druken and worthless husbands,
have entered the village with their famished and na-
ked children, where they have been cherished, fed
and clothed, and the children educated and raised,
free of expense to the State. Go to Pleasant Hill sir,
and there see how many human beings have found
shelter from the blighting effects of your divorce laws,
and you perhaps will agree that the beginning of a
political error is not as great as its ending.
27
Sir, suppose to ascertain the extent of this nuisance,
that gentlemen are so anxious to get rid of, you raise
a committee to inquire how much Pleasant Hill was
worth when owned by old Samuel Woods, how much
revenue he paid for it, and then to ascertain how
much it is now worth, and what the trustees of the
Shakers now pay into the treasury and in county levies,
I presume the gentleman would hardly consent to test
the merits of their bill by experiment.
Sir, I have, I think, fairly put the Shaker upon trial.
I have before this Senate exposed his life and conver-
sation; I have interrogated his accusers, and wherey-
er they have alleged ought against him before this
Senate, I have"refuted the charge. I do not say sir,
that you ought to say as Pilate said, I find no fault
against this man. No sir, who but that divine prison-
ër was ever without his faults, If his frailties are
great, greater if you please than his accusers, yet he
has violated no law; no sir, not even violated the
peace of the sanctuary, as was alleged against the
Saviour of the world. The Shaker is no disputer in
the temple, no brawler in your streets. He has not
asked you for your capitol, or the sects of Frankfort
for their hº to make proselytes, to diffuse his
doctrines in. He has never begged charters to build
churches or schools of any—but in humble meekness
he renders to Caesar the things which are his, and in-
dustriously pursues the noiseless path of duty in the
even tenor of his way, And this is the kind of a man
chosen for a victim; this is the sect you have selected
as the object of your persecution. l
Mr. Speaker, if I could have anticipated the oppo-
sition to the repeal from the quarter it has come, I
would not have pressed the discussion at this late day in
the session, much less at this late hour of the night.
I have no interest in the question but whatevery friend
to the rights of conscience should feel. It may pass
as a light affair and be treated as such. If the Sen-
ate however do not retrace its steps this time, I shall
sincerely deplore it; and I think that I hazard little
in saying that some who hear me will live to repent it.

28
There is ohe further subject, that (late as it is) i
will not forbear to call the attention of the Senate to.
It is the high penalty imposed on those that join the
society of Shakers by the act of 1812. At that early
period of this society the spirit of persecution against
them seems to have aroused. By that act you make
it cause of instant divorce of man" and wife, if ei-
ther party should join the Shaker society, conferring
an ability of a second marriage on the party who does
not join them. . b. |
‘Against this act, in the very teeth of your constitu-
tion, the Shaker has not complained, and however un-
just and unconstitutional he may have viewed it to be,
he has left it to the Legislature and the persons de-
sirous of adopting Shakerism fo settle. Sir, suppose
you only look a little into the principles of this act,
while you are retrospecting your course of legislation
in relation to these people. By this act you make the
membership in the society a greater crime than sim-
p's cºſtery; drunkenness, and total abandonment;
you place thé proselyte upon the footing of a convict-
ad felon, sentenced and serving in your penitentiary.
A man can abandon his wife for any period less than
two years, and a woman her husband, any period less
than three whole years, and either may practice drun-
kenness or adultery their whole lives, and yºur. laws
give no dissolution of the marriage rights of the injur:
ãparty; but if a poor, wretched and abandoned wo:
manshââ find shelter for herself and her naked chil-
dren from a drunken and worthless husband, but for a
day, among the Shakers, she is placed upon the foot-
ing of an open adultress, who shamelessly avows her
adultery by living with her paramour; she is treated 3S
the convicted felon of your penitentiary—and so of an
afflicted husband, who seeks repose in the Christian COI)-
solation held out to him for the treachery of a wife to
his bed; your law places him upon the fºoting of the .
convicted highwayman or horse thief. In fact sir, you
endeavor by your bill to render a Shaker village as
odious as your penitentiary.
29
Sir, if a man abandons his wife to hunger and na,
kedness, you give him two years to reflect, repent, and
return; so, if a female abandon her husband, you, in
consideration of the weakness of her sex, allow her
three years to think of her husband and children, be-,
fore you grant a divorce. But if she or he for con-
science sake, but enter the threshhold of a Shaker
church, although the party without the church is nur-
tured and guarded by the party entering and the
whole society, during the membership, you allow no
time for reflection and repentance. The crime com-
mitted is more pregnant than that of horse stealing;
for in the one case the criminal may avoid a divorce by
flying from pursuit—the divorce depends on con-
viction; but with the Shaker, membership without
conviction, is a good foundation for a divorce. Sir,
suppose you were to attempt such a bill against the
Methodists, Presbyterians or Baptists—say by your
law that any who shall join either of these societies
shall forfeit all the marriage rights—who dare propose
such a measure!—None. And yet sir, this act is, as
it regards your constitution, and as it regards the
rights of conscience, as palpable a violation as such act
would be.
Sir, I cannot but see the parallel in your legislation
between these people and the free people of color.
If you attempt to put down the vice of gaming, to
punish blacklegs and swindlers, your very words and
thoughts are weighed in scruples. These nuisances,
say gentlemen, have their rights—take care of your
constitution, take care of the rights of persons. But
only introduce a bill to punish a poor negro, and it
would seem as if we had neither mercy nor constitu-
tion. Sir, there is something so debasing in the
thought of oppressing the weak, that my very soul re-
volts at it. These people are few in numbers; they
do not vote; and hence it is that you trample upon
them. * , ,
Sir, the charters you have granted to theological
seminaries and schools are a blending of church and
state together, against the mandates of the constitution
30
and thesolemn warnings of all history. Imean to draw.
no inviduous distinctions or irritating comparisons;
none of those venerable religious communities that
have obtained them, who know me, will believe that
I can ever feel otherwise than the deepest solicitude
for their wellfare and usefulness in diffusing light and
life to a sinful world, as it was taught by the divine
author of their religion. •
But see how different is the condition of all the
church property owned by these religious societies from
that of the poor Shakers. Their houses of God are
common property, and instead of the Legislature tor-
turing their ingenuity how to have them seized and
sold to pay debts, they are sacred from the profane
touch of lawyers, sheriffs and constables; no tax or le-
vy is paid for their church property: the laws guard
their worship by penal enactions from all intrusions.
Not so with the Shaker: his house of God is valued for
taxation, and the tax is paid to, the last cent upon it;
and his time and his house of worship made by the
odious law before me the place and the time for law-
ful intrusions by the sheriff and constables. The gen-
tleman from Nelson says that he sees no harm in ser-
ving process on their house of worship. Need I ap-
peal to all who feel as Christians, to duly appreciate
this feature in this bill. It is especially levelled at the
Shaker's religion and worship. Sir, when we go into
the house of God, to worship where our fathers wor-
shipped, and reflect that when we have passed off the
stage of life our children's children will worship the
same God at the same altar that we and our fathers
have, free from worldly and sinful intrusion, we justly
appreciate our condition in life, and feel gratitude to
heaven that'our lot of life is cast in a land where the
law interferes with religion no farther than to protect
its votaries from insult and intrusion by rendering sa-
cred their rights and places of worship.
But what share in this reflection, so consoling to.
frail humanity, has the Shaker? His worship is taxed
to support the government—the house he has conse-
crated to God you throw open to the intrusion of the
31
Sheriff. In your bill of rights he reads that all men
are born equal, but your Legislation tells him that this
does not include Shakers. Whence, Mr. Speaker,
arises this strange inconsistency in the action of the
Legislature upon these religious communities? Sir, I
am sorry to declare that it arises from cowardice. The
strenghth of Sampson is in his locks—free suffrage is
this terrible Sampson. The Catholics, Presbyterians,
Baptists, Episcopalians and Methodists vote at all your
elections, and this is the Sampson that you i. and
hence it is, that you have so repeatedly violated by
your acts of incorporation that portion of the lst sec-
tion of the 10th article of the constitution, which de-
clares, that no preference shall ever be given by law
to any religious societies or mode of worship.
I again repeat, that I have not referred to this deli-
cate and appalling question, with unfriendly motives
to any religious society, but with the sole view of pointing
out to the Senate its inconsistencies, and obtaining for an
unfortunate and oppressed people a restoration of their
rights as freemen. No, I trust that the day is not dis-
tant, when the enlightened votaries : Christianity
will voluntarily restore to the State those charters, as
inconsistent with both the constitution of the State and
the religion of the Saviour. If this is i. done, let all
have charters that ask for them, and the evils resulting
from the practice will soon be too manifest to be borne
with. They will in a few centuries call forth such acts as
those of Henry the 8th and Louis the 14th, and revive
the ancient statutes against mortmain.
But sir, there is another evil, still more tº: dread-
ed. These charters will divide your State into casts .
and clans, as hostile to each other as bordering tribes.
You are, by chartering religion and letters together,
instilling sectarianism and bigotry into your very chil-
dren. The child of the Baptist is educated to consider
the child of the Presbyterian its enemy and rival in
letters and religion. Sir, persevere in your untoward
course, and you revive the old war of Protestant and
Catholic. I therefore call upon you this night, as you


l
32
regard the repose of Society, and the sacred cause of
religion and letters, to retrace your steps.
The following is an extract from the opinion of £he Court, referred
to by JMr. Wickliffe.
“One great object of civil government is equal:
rights and equal privileges: and the constitution pro-
hibits the enactment of laws, which are unequal in
their operations. I say then, that any statute which
bears unequally is void, for its unconstitutionality.
“Whenever a legislative act involves certain great
natural rights, which are the birthright of every citi-
zen; if it impugn that right, it is a violation of the
constitution;–It is contended, that this law is un-
constitutional in another point of view. This commu-
nity of Shakers have no legal existence; and it seems
evident that they have no legal existence, because not
recognized by some law.—I have, then, come to the
conclusion that if the society have no legal existence,
they can neither sue nor be sued; both of which could
be done, if they had.
“All laws, to be constitutional, must be equal, and to
be equal, there must be a mutual reciprocity; There-
fore, waiving all other objections and difficulties, there
is no reciprocity in this Act and consequently it is un-
constitutional; because, if the whole Society can be
sued under this Act, it ought also to enable them to
sue. I am, therefore, fully persuaded, that for want
of reciprocity this law is unequal, and therefore uncon-
stitutional.”
A. G. Hopges, Printer-Frankfort, Ky.—1832.

- - - - /270 /