26 1.7 14- a Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates https://archive.org/details/addresstopeopleoOOevan DOCUMENT XIX. FOR THE United States of America. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK CONCERNING THE SO-CALLED “ FREE- DOM OF WORSHIP" BILL, BEFORE THE LEGISLA TORE OF 1885. NEW YORK : 32. Bible House, Astor Place. 1885. George F. Nesbitt Cl Co., Printers, eor. Pearl and Pine Sts., N. Y. DOCUMENT XIX. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE ST A TE OF NEW YORK CONCERNING THE SO-CALLED “ FREE- DOM OF WORSHIP" BILL, BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE OF 1885. NEW YORK : 3Z Bible House, Astok Place. 1885. NEW YORK: GEORGE F. NESBITT & CO., PRINTERS, Cor. Pearl and Pine Streets, 1885. £&/.? GVI'/ol ROOMS OF The Evangelical Alliance for the United States of America. New York City, N. Y., July , 1885. To the Citizens of the State of New York : We bespeak your candid, loyal and intelligent consideration of the following statement of facts. We beg you to look below the surface of things and do your own thinking regardless of political affiliations. The purpose of the movements hereinafter described, is the utter destruction of our unsectarian institutions, including our public school system, and the annihilation of the motives for private beneficence. For the seventh time the Roman “ Catholic Union” of New York City — a politico-ecclesiastical order under Jesuit control — has caused to be introduced into the Legislature of the State a bill for the ostensible purpose of securing “ freedom of worship” for the inmates of penal or reformatory institutions, supported in part or in whole by the State. Once, in the course of ten years, substantially the same bill passed both houses of the Legislature, but met with a prompt and logical veto from Gov. Cornell. In his first message to the Legislature Gov. Hill said that “ any proper enactment having for its true purpose the enforcement of the inviolable right of religious liberty and freedom of worship will receive prompt executive approval ;” and in harmony with this sentiment the same familiar measure came to the front on the first day of the Sen- ate’s session this year. The name of the bill was deceptive, naturally so because of its Jesu- itical origin. It falsely assumed that freedom of worship is denied to the inmates of the institutions to which it refers. The bill was first brought forward in 1875 ky the “ Catholic Union,” because, as it boldly asserted, the Managers of the House of Refuge for the Reformation of Juvenile Delinquents (including Chief-Justice Daly and Mr. Nathaniel Jarvis, both Roman Catholics) unanimously refused to change the un- sectarian character of the institution, and allow a priest, approved by the Archbishop of New York, to act as chaplain, celebrate mass every Sunday, have daily access to the inmates, and have confessions in the sacrament of penance. The demand also included that “ Sunday-school shall be held at appointed hours, at which members of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul shall be allowed to teach the Christian doctrine to the Catholic boys, and some Sisters of Charity to Catholic girls.” The founder of the Society which controls the above-named order. 4 declares that “ our chief object is not to assist the poor — no, that is for us only a means. Our object is to keep them steadfast in the Catholic faith, and to propagate it among others by means of charity.” The highest authorities of the Roman Catholic Church deny that the right of freedom of worship can exist ; nevertheless to deceive the people of a republican State by appealing to their sense of fairness, the Jesuits now come to the front as the pretended champions of freedom of wor- ship. This attitude, though specious, will not deceive any but thought- less citizens and innocent politicians. They are so zealous for freedom of worship that they have threatened “ the political damnation of any man or party” that should refuse to vote for this bill, and boast that, “ we have already marred the political future of more than one bigot, and we advise all others to note the fact.” This is the same style of argument that these same guardians of the people’s rights employed in the public-school controversy, when they declared that they would soon be strong enough to “ force the State Legislature to give them their proportion of the pub- lic schools supported at the public expense.” The Roman Catholic Church now has lavish support from the treasury of the city of New York for its profitable Protectory, its Found- ling Asylum, and various schools, and this bill seeks to bring wholly or partially under control of the priesthood the reformatories of the State. In 1885 there is appropriated on State grants, out of the New York City treasury, and from the Excise Fund, about $1,600,000. Of this amount about $224,000 goes to non-sectarian institutions ; about $92,000 to Hebrew institutions ; about $3 56,000 to Protestant institutions ; about $933,000 to Roman Catholic institutions. Is this a just distribution of funds, based upon the proportion which each of these various bodies contributes by taxation to the public treasury ? No State in this republican nation intrusts the training of its infant wards to any sect or Church, with their ‘‘ services, rules, and discipline ;” and New York in this era of civilization will certainly not take the initi- ative in pronouncing the banns of the “ union of Church and State,” as these measures covertly propose. It would be a dangerous marriage that not even law could make sacred. We are learning in this country the lesson, long since learned in the Old World, to distinguish between Jesuitism and general Roman Catholicism. We wage no war on the equal rights of Roman Catholics with all other Denominations to free- dom of worship and religious liberty, nor deny their rights, but the rather would vigorously defend those rights, under the State Constitu- tion, to the “free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and 5 worship.” But we will war against any attempt to invade with sec- tarian teaching the absolutely unsectarian beneficiary institutions of the State, whether they be the public schools or the penal and reformatory institutions. All such bills ought to be defeated : Because they are deceptive in their purpose, and would be destruc- tive of the interests they pretend to desire to promote in their enforcement. Because they would destroy the character and overthrow the work of one of the oldest and most useful unsectarian institutions under the care of the State — the House of Refuge — by rendering discipline and moral instruction impossible because of the admission of sectarian religious teachers not subject to the control of the Managers. Because they attempt to accomplish by a simple enactment a change in State policy of so fundamental a character that it amounts to a con- stitutional amendment. Because it is neither just nor proper for the State, in any case, to assign children to religious classes, and it is clearly impossible to classify into sects juvenile criminals or delinquents, or the children of criminal or neglectful parents. Because no other Denomination than the Roman Catholic asks the State for the legal privilege of proselyting. Because, if their provisions should be literally carried out, it would open for the admission of Jesuits Protestant asylums supported and controlled by private beneficence, and threaten every private charitable institution with a similar outrage. Because they are not designed to secure freedom of worship, but to suppress it. Such bills are favored by the Jesuits and their adherents alone, and assented to by other Roman Catholics who do not appreciate their origin nor understand their import.* The provisions of the Bill as last revised, threaten to expose chari- table institutions generally to the intrusion of clerical members of the same faith as that which on one pretense or another might be attributed to their juvenile inmates, and in one institution alluded to by the coun- sel of the House of Refuge, Mr. Robinson, where this thing of arbitrary religious classification of minors had been introduced without law, when pretenses failed they classified the children by alternate numbers ; so that the great question of their life, whether they should be trained as Roman Jesuits or as American citizens, was made to depend as purely upon chance as if each one’s number, as they stood, happened to be odd or even. This feature of the Bill giving power to intrude and inter- 6 meddle, called forth an earnest protest from the managers of the great Christian and Hebrew charities of the City of New York, who assem- bled for its consideration at St. Luke’s Hospital, founded by that Christian philanthropist. Dr. William Augustus Muhlenburg, whose large charity had embraced the sick of all creeds, with no thought of so disastrous a result to the institution. Careful reflection resulting in a conviction of the danger immediately threatened by the Bill, a far-sighted appreciation of its aim and tendency, of its menace to the supremacy of the civil power, and to the integrity of American institutions, has led to the organization of a Central Committee under the management of influential gentlemen “ for the protection and securing of the com- plete separation of Church and State.” While the views and methods of this central association may differ on some points from those of the Evangelical Alliance, there is harmony in the aim and object of the two representative bodies, in resisting this assault upon the Freedom of Worship ordained by the Constitution. And it is hoped that the friends of this Alliance will heartily co- operate with the citizens engaged in that movement, a chief object of which will be to learn the true sentiments, on the subject, of candidates for the State Legislature. The project of the Bill is thus opposed by the boards of management of the institutions liable to be affected by their provisions ; by the Evan- gelical Alliance of the United States, composed of members of the various Christian Churches in the Republic ; by almost the entire Protestant, and Jewish, and non-sectarian community; and by a large number of thoughtful Roman Catholics who do not forget that at the same time they are American citizens. The contest against this last unjust assault upon our civil and religious liberties has been a violent and critical one, as you will discern from the following quotations from the Report of the Chairman of the Com- mittee appointed by the United States Evangelical Alliance to oppose the so-called Freedom of Worship Bill before the last Legislature. “ On January 6, 1885, immediately after the assembling of the Legis- lature of this State, the so-called Freedom of Worship Bill was intro- duced in the Senate by Senators Gibbs and Murphy, and referred to the Committee on Cities, consisting of the following Senators : Gibbs, Daggett, McCarthy, Lansing, Daly, Cullen and Thatcher. The following is the text of the original bill : An Act to secure to the inmates of institutions for the care of the poor. Freedom of Worship. Section i. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession 1 and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall be allowed to all persons in the next section of this Act mentioned. Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of the managers of every house of refuge or society for the reformation of juvenile delinquents, or protectory, and of every institution for the support of the poor receiving public aid, except asylums for the insane, to permit, at all reasonable hours, the inmates thereof to be visited by clergymen of the denomination to which they, or if infants, their parents or guardians belong, and the religious services of such denomination to be had according to its rules and dis- cipline, and to afford all proper facilities for such visits and services, but without expense to the managers thereof, and subject to such reasonable regulations as they shall prescribe. Sec. 3. This Act shall apply to all such institutions as care for persons who would otherwise become a charge upon their respective counties, as blind, foundlings, and orphans, and also to the institutions to which prostitutes or fallen women, or juvenile delinquents may be committed, or in which they may be cared for. Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect on the first day of July, 1885. Your Committee immediately prepared a protest of twenty-six pages in pamphlet, and mailed it to every member of the Legislature, and to all the Evangelical clergymen of the State, accompanied by a form of remonstrance ; and a postal card form for returns, to be mailed to the Secretary of the Alliance. These postal card reports showed that some scores of thousands of signatures of citizens had been secured and forwarded to Senators and Assemblymen from all parts of the State. The Chairman of your Com- mittee ascertained that these remonstrances were being withheld by- certain members of the Legislature. He accordingly went to Albany, and compared the returns in his possession with the records of the Leg- islature, and notified delinquent representatives q f the people of their duty to respect the sacred right of petition, and the remonstrances were then and thereafter promptly presented. The Bill in the Senate was amended in several particulars, but every amendment left untouched the offensive and unjust features. Senators, whom we ought to have been able to depend upon for support in our righteous cause, were so thoroughly committed politically to the Jesuit power, that no argument could avail, and the Bill passed the Senate in the following form, and was sent over to the Assembly, and there sub- stituted for Mr. Husted’s bill (which had been introduced early in the session), and referred to the Committee on the Affairs of Cities ; 8 An Act to provide for the better security of the freedom of religious worship in certain institutions. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows : Section l. All persons, including those who may have been, or may hereafter be, committed or taken charge of by any of the institutions mentioned in this Act are hereby declared to be, and are, entitled to the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship without discrimination or preference. Sec. 2. This Act shall be deemed to apply to every incorporated or unincorporated society for the reformation of the inmates of houses of refuge, protectories, or other reformatary or penal institutions contin- uing to receive for its use either public moneys or a per capita sum from any municipality for the support of the inmates. Sec. 3. The rules and regulations established for the government of the institutions mentioned in this Act shall recognize the right of the inmates to the free exercise of their religious belief, and to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, and shall allow and provide for holding religious instruction and for private ministration to the inmates in such manner as may best carry into effect the spirit and intent of this Act, and be consistent with the proper discipline and management of the in- stitution ; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to authorize any additional expenditure on the part of the State; and the inmates of such institutions shall be allowed spiritual advice and spiritual adminis- tration from some recognized clergyman of the denomination or church which said inmates may respectively prefer, or to which they may have belonged prior to their being confined in such institutions ; such advice and ministration to be given within the buildings where the inmates are required by law to be confined, in such manner and at such hour as will be in harmony, as aforesaid, with the discipline of the institution, and secure to such inmates the free exercise of their religious beliefs in ac- cordance with the provisions of this Act. Sec. 4. It shall not be lawful to compel any of such inmates to attend any religious exercise not conducted by a clergyman of the denomination to which such inmates may belong, or may have belonged at the time of their reception ; and in all matters pertaining to religion, the rights of conscience of such inmates, and the free exercise thereof, shall be care- fully respected. 9 Sec. 5. The wilful violation of any of the provisions of this Act shall be deemed a misdemeanor. Sec. 6. This Act shall take effect immediately. The Bill passed the Senate by the following vote .* Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Campbell , Cullen, Daly , Davidson, Fassett, Gibbs, Jacobs , Kiernan , Lansing, McCarthy, Murphy, Nelson , Ncwbold, Otis, Plunkitt , Thacker , Titus and Van Schaick — 18. Those who voted in the negative were. . Messrs. Comstock, Daggett, Ellsworth, Esty, Gilbert, Low, Robb, Robinson, Thomas and Vedder — 10. Affirmative: Democrats 12 “ Republicans 6 Total . . . , 18 Negative: Democrats 1 Republicans 9 Total 10 Present and not voting : — Messrs. Baker and Bowen. Absent : — Messrs. Arkell and Coggeshall. Governor Hill having in his inaugural message promised in advance to sign a bill of this character, we realized that the pivotal battle must be fought in the Assembly. We therefore immediately commenced the personal canvass of the Assembly. The specious name of the Bill seemed to deceive the aver- age Assemblyman, and the result of the first canvass indicated that if the Bill should come to a vote, it would pass by an overwhelming majority. The limits of this report will not permit any adequate state- ment of the amount of personal argument and other legitimate pressure brought to bear upon the individual members of the Assembly, to induce them to act and vote intelligently upon this question. We were con- fronted by a well-disciplined Roman legion under Jesuit leadership. The representatives of the “ Catholic Union,” headed by their Presi- dent and a force of lawyers, priests and laymen, for weeks at a time hung about the Assembly, whispering in the ears of members, and employing a great variety of arguments, the tabulating and footing up of which would undoubtedly require figures as well as letters. Such was the * Republicans in small capitals ; Democrats in italics. 10 brazen influence of these men, that some of our friends whom we supposed to be tried and true among the Assemblymen, came to be greatly em- barrassed lest they should be seen by their new Jesuit allies conversing with a representative of the Evangelical Alliance. But we persisted in embarrassing them, and trust that the culmination of this embarrassment will occur when the ballots for members of the Legislature are counted the coming Fall. The Committee on the Affairs of Cities consisted of the following named gentlemen : Mr. Barnum, of New York, Mr. Hendricks, of Onondaga, Mr. Taylor, of Kings, Mr. Williams, of Chautauqua, Mr. Myers, of Kings, Mr. Shea, Mr. Hawkins, of Erie, Mr. Demers, of Rerinselaer, Mr. Windolph, of New York, Mr. Haggerty, of New York, Mr. McCann, of Kings, of New York. Messrs. Barnum, Williams, Meyers, Hawkins and Windolph, were neither ashamed nor afraid to be counted right in all matters pertaining to this Bill, either in Committee or in Assembly. The first hearing before this Committee, for a single hour, was had on April 14th. The torrid friends of the Bill in the Committee at- tempted to choke off further hearing. But asking no privileges and de- manding our rights, we succeded in securing another hearing on Tuesday evening, April 21st. The hearing was had in the Assembly Chamber, and it is believed that a majority of the members of the Assembly were present, as well as a large outside constituency of both the friends and opponents of the Bill. Your Committee was represented by its Chair- man, who was also permitted to represent the Committee of the United Charities of this city, who were present at the hearing in the persons of a goodly delegation from their number. On April 24th the Bill was reported for the consideration of the House without recommendation, and took its regular order on the calen- dar. But being so far down, it could not be reached in its regular order during the session of the Legislature. And to take it out of its order would require a two-thirds vote. By an unholy combination with the friends of another bill, the measure was made the special order for Wednesday, April 29th. On the day set for its consideration we placed on the desk of each Assemblyman a pamphlet edition of the speech of your Chairman de- livered before the Committee on Cities, and the action of the Committee representing the charities of this City. We also placed in the hands of our friends in the Assembly, a form of a Constitutional Amendment to 11 be proposed as a substitute for the Bill, in case it should reach the stages of debate and vote. We also issued a circular to the Evangelical cler- gymen of the State, stating the facts concerning the nature and position of the Bill, and closed the address in the Circular with the following : “ Whether this bill passes or is defeated, will you not on Sunday , May 3, 1885, preach or speak on the aggressions of Jesuitical Roman- ism upon Civil and Religious liberty and its efforts to destroy our un- sectarian institutions ? Let every evangelical pulpit in the State on May 3, 1885, strike a blow against the union of Church and State” We also secured through the Associated Press the publication of the substance of the above appeal in the entire newspaper press of the State. The returns from this appeal show that it was heeded by a majority of the evangelical pulpits in the State. When the Bill was called up, on the 29th, the opponents of the Bill demanded the enforcement of the following ninth joint rule : “ No bill which shall have passed one House shall have its final reading in the other in less than two days thereafter, without the con- sent of two-thirds of the members thereof present ; and whenever ten or more bills shall be in readiness for final reading in either House, such House shall forthwith proceed to the final reading ” of such bills, under the order of “ third reading of bills, and continue the same from day to day, until all such bills then in readiness for final reading shall have been read, unless this order of business shall, by the vote of two-thirds of the members present, be suspended or laid on the table. All such bills shall have their last reading in each House in the order in which the same shall have been ordered to a final reading in such House, unless the bill to be read be laid on the table. In all cases where a bill shall be so ordered to lie on the table, it shall retain its place in the order of the final reading of bills, but shall not be called up for consideration unless by a vote of a majority of the mejnbers present.” The friends of the Bill claimed that the special order did not permit the enforcement of this rule. The Speaker ruled justly in our favor. Thus a two-thirds vote was again necessary, in order to bring the bill where it could be considered. On the motion to lay all orders of busi- ness on the table, for the purpose of taking up the special order, the vote stood as follows : * Those who voted in the affirmative were — Arnold, Brennan , Byrne , Cantor , Coffey , Connelly , Church , Clark , W. B. f Cutler , Decker , Demers, Driess , Eiseman , Ely , Farrell , Felter , Finn t Gerety , Giese, Greene , Hagan , Haggerty ^ H., Haggerty, J. y * Republicans in small capitals ; Democrats in italics. 12 Hardenburg , Hardin , Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Hopkins, Horne , Howe, W., Husted, Ives, Jackson , Johnson , Kenny, Kunzenman, Lindsay , Lodewick, McCann, McClelland, McGoldrick, Murray, Nagle, Niles , Oliver, O’Neil, Osborne, Reilly, Roche , Roesch, Rosenthal, Shea, Sherman , Smith, C., Snyder, Steber, Taylor, Wajer — 58. Those who voted in the negative were — Andrews, Bailey, Baker, A. H., Baker, C. D., Baker, C. K., Barager, Barnes, Barnum, Bartley, Berry, Briggs, Budlong, Burnham, Carlisle, Cartwright, Cole, Curtis, Dibble, Far- num, Garbutt, Grippen, Haskell, Hawkins, S. S., Hawkins, W. M., Heath, Hogeboom, Horton, Hotaling, Howe, H. C., Hubbell, Kilby, Kruse, Livingston, Lowing, McEwen, Meyers, Nash, Olin, Owens, Priddy, Raines, Rockefeller, Scott, G., Scott, K. M., Seeber, Shoemaker, Smith, C. E., Smith, T. A., Storm, Sweet, Tappan, Tynan, Van Allen, Van Buskirk, Whitmore, Williams, Windolph, Speaker — 58. Affirmative : Democrats 46 “ Republicans 12 Total 58 Negative: Democrats 2 “ Republicans 56 Total 58 There were absent, or did not vote, the following Republicans : — H. R. Clark, Liddle, Palmer, Tuck and Van Deveer ; and the follow- ing Democrats: — Earl, Gould, Hooley, O’Hara, Sheehan, Tumilty and Whiteman. People generally thought that this was the death of the Bill, and were resting in false security. Those of us who have watched the progress of this contest, and taken part in it, discovered that the portion of the press controlled by the Jesuits, with great unanimity declared the Bill to be dead, and we suspected that the object of this apparently meek and unanimous submission was to throw us off our guard while they continued to wage the battle. Our suspicions were well grounded. Our tried friends in the Assembly, and our employed private represent- atives at Albany, notified your Chairman by numerous letters and tele- grams of what they believed to be a new and imminent peril, and we went to the seat of war again, to remain until the close of the contest. 18 When the Assemblymen returned to their homes to spend the Sunday, May 10th, many of them were visited by priests and politicians, who sought by intimidations, and pleadings, and pledges, to secure their votes to either bring the bill forward, or to aid in its passage. A new combination was formed, and another effort made to advance the bill on Wednesday, May 13th, with the following results: * Those who voted in the affirmative were — Messrs. Arnold, C. D. Baker, Brennan, Burnham , Byrne, Cantor , Coffey, Connelly , Church, Cutler , Demers, Driess , Earl , Eiseman, Ely, Farrell, Eelter, Finn } Gerety, Giese, Hagan, Henry Haggerty, James Haggerty, Hardenburg , Harding, Hasbrouck, Hendricks, Hooley, Hopkins, Horton, Horne, Walter How, Hubbell, Husted, Ives, Jackson, Johnson, Kenny, Kunzenman , Liddle, Lindsay , Living- ston, Lodezvick , McCann, McGoldrick , Murray , Nagle, Niles, Oliver, O’Neill, Osborne, Reilly, Roche , Roesch, Rosenthal, Shea, Sheehan, Sherman, Charles Smith, Snyder, Steber, Taylor, Tumilty, Van Duser, Wafer, Whiteman — 66. Those who voted in the negative were — Messrs. Andrews, Bailey, C K. Baker, Barager, Barnes, Bar- num, Bartley, Berry, Briggs, Budlong, Carlisle, Cartwright, Cole, Curtis, Decker, Dibble, Farnum, Garbutt, Grippen, Haskell, S. S. Hawkins, Wm. M. Hawkins, Hotaling, H. C. Howe, Kilby, Kruse, Lowing, McEwen, Myers, Olin, Owens, Palmer, Priddy, Rockefeller, George Scott, Kidder, M. Scott, Seeber, Shoemaker, Clark E. Smith, Thomas A. Smith, Sweet, Tappan, Tuck, Tynan, Van Allen, Van Buskirk, Whitmore, Williams, Windolph — 49. Affirmative : Democrats 48 Republicans 18 Total 66 Negative: Democrats 2 4< Republicans 47 Total 49 * Republicans in small capitals; Democrats in italics. 14 There were absent, or not voting, the following Republicans : A. H. Baker, H. R. Clark, Heath, Hogeboom, Nash and Raines; and the following Democrats ; Gould, Green, and McClelland. It is claimed that some of the Assemblymen who voted to bring the Bill forward out of its regular order, would have voted against the Bill when it was put on its passage. This may be so, but the opponents of the Bill thought the interests at stake too great to be imperilled by questionable combinations to bring it to the front, especially during the exciting, and sometimes apparently irresponsible, days of the close of the session. And unless the promoters of the Bill either miscalculated or misrepresented, there were times when they could have commanded, under pressure of intimidation, the requisite sixty-five votes. Here is what the last issue of The Catholic Review (May 23, 1885) says : # “ ‘The cowardly Assembly ’ of New York, as it was well designated by one of its members last week, adjourned without daring to meet the issue on the Freedom of Worship Bill. The Catholic Review believes that there were more than enough members willing to vote for it, if it could be brought to a vote, but parliamentary law requiring a two- thirds vote to advance it from its low place in the calendar, it was smothered. Freedom of Worship crushed to earth will not stay there, which, perhaps, is more than can be said of bigots who fell upon it. Although retarded, the measure is to-day ten years nearer passing than it was last year, and the educating influence the agitation has had on torpid Catholics and misinformed Protestants is almost worth another year’s delay. Catholics need to be awakened and honest Protestants enlightened. We believe our demand for justice will do this double ser- vice. There may be delay, but there can be but one ending to this struggle.” Thursday, May 14th, was a great and pivotal day in the controversy. On Wednesday evening a strong and boastful combination was formed between the friends of the Freedom of Worship Bill and the friends of other bills (bills in which a powerful and moneyed lobby was interested) to bring them forward. We discovered the combination, which even threatened to obstruct all legislation unless the Bill was brought forward, and during the morning and the afternoon of Thursday, the Speaker, Mr. Erwin, all honor to his name and courage, held the House steadily to its legitimate business — the third reading of bills. Finding that an evening session was inevitable, and that it might extend through the night, with great peril as to the result, we succeeded in securing the passage of a resolution, that confined the business of the 15 evening session to the third reading of bills on the calendar, and the reception of messages from the Senate. The session extended until midnight; various desperate efforts were made by the Jesuit represen- tatives to pet recognition from the Speaker to bring up the Bill in con- nection with others, but he held them steadily to the transaction of the business required by the resolution fixing the session. The final session of three hours on Friday, May 15 th, was so crowded with the necessary business immediately preceding adjournment, that with a just and firm presiding officer, and vigilant friends upon the floor, no successful effort could be made to bring forward the Bill, despite the fact that it only required, on the final day of the session, a majority vote to take it out of its order. The Legislature of 1885 is dead, and so is the infamous so-called Freedom of Worship Bill. And one more effort of Jesuitism to destroy our unsectarian institutions is thwarted. But we would express the con- viction, in closing this report, that the Protestantism and the thoughtful citizenship of the State of New York will deserve to be brought into subjection to the Papal power, if they shall supinely wait until this battle is again upon us, while the sleepless enemies of civil and religious liberty carry on a continuous and aggressive warfare. We stand pledged before the people of the State to move for a Con- stitutional Amendment, that shall stop this constant trifling with the unsectarian institutions of the State, and take the question out of the Legislature and out of politics. Publia sentiment is now aroused and has rallied grandly to our support. Shall we go on from this vantage ground, or shall we continue to fight this battle at disadvantage and with raw troops i” We ask all loyal citizens to aid in this movement for the eternal sepa- ration of Church and State, regardless of party affiliations. This is a good year for thoughtful men to vote for members of the Legislature upon conviction and not upon party prejudice. The principle we pre- sent for your consideration is the chief one now demanding the con- scientious consideration of high-minded citizens of the State. While we ask your active co-operation in sending men to the ensuing Legislature who will vote against all deceptive so-called Freedom of Worship Bills in the immediate future, we ask you also to promote the advancement of a Constitutional Amendment, that will forever put an end to this provoking and uncalled for controversy. But a Constitu- tional Amendment is a matter requiring at least three years work, before 18 it can be incorporated in the original law of the State, and meantime we ask the exercise of your vigilance against measures that would secure unjust legislation before the desired Amendment can be secured. Already the Superintendent of Prisons, without warrant of law, has granted privileges that give sectarianism a hold in the prisons of the State. We appeal to you, the sovereigns, to make your representatives under- stand that they are servants, not masters. Committee of the Evangelical Al- ) liance on Legislative Action. j Rev. JAMES M. KING, D.D., Chairmav. Rev. S. IRENAEUS PRIME, D.D..,* Rev. J. M. BUCKLEY, D.D., Rev. R. H. McKIM, D.D., Rev. MERRITT HULBURD, Wm. E. DODGE, Esq., ex-officio. * Since the above document was prepared, Dr. Prime has died. He had read and approved of its publication, and therefoie his name is appended. The Evangelical Alliance, and all Evangelical Christendom, have lost in Dr. Prime a trusted, gifted, and most useful friend and advocate. Organized January , 1877. Incorporated June, 1885. BOARD OF MANAGERS. Rev. W. W. Atterbury, Cephas Brainerd, Esq., Rev. Arthur Brooks, Rev. J. M. Buckley, D.D., Rev. S. D. Bukchard, D.D., Rev. A. H. Burlingham, D.D., Rev. J. S. Chadwick, D.D., Rev. L. T. Chamberlain, D.D., Rev. Henry B. Chapin, Ph D., Edward Colgate, Esq., Rev. Geo. R. Crooks, D.D., Rev. C. F. Deems, D.D., LL.D., Wm. E. Dodge, Esq., Hon. E. L. Fancher, E. B. Finch, Esq., Bishop W. L. Harris, D.D., LL.D., J. C. Hayemeyer, Esq , Rev. Merritt Hulburd, Hon. John Jay, Morris K. Jesup, Esq., Rev. J. M. King, D.D. , Rev. R. S. MacArthur, D D., R. R. McBurney, Esq , Rev. R. H. McKim, D.D., John Paton, Esq , Rev. S. I. Prime, D.D., Rev. E. A. Reed, D.D., Bishop A. A. Reinke, D.D., Caleb T. Rowe, Esq., Rev. W. T. Sabine, Rev. G. W. Samson, D.D , LL.D., Rev. P. Scuaff, D.D., LL.D., S. B. Schieffelin, Esq., Rev. G. L. Shearer, D.D., John D. Slayback, Esq., Rev. C. A. Stoddard, D.D., Rev. Roderic Terry, D.D., Rev. O. H. Tiffany, D.D., Rev. A C. Wedekind, D.D., Rev. Geo. U. Wenner. OFFICERS FOR THE YEAR 1885-1886. President . William E. Dodge, Esq. Hon. John Jay, Hon. Joseph Allison, Rev. Galusha Anderson, D.D., Rev. Thomas Armitage, D.D., Charles J . Baker, Esq , !- Presidents . Rev. Moses D. Hoge, D.D., Gen O O. Howard, U. S. A., Bishop JonN F. Hurst, D.D., Morris K. Jesup, Esq., Rev. R S. MacArthur, D.D., 18 Bishop Thomas Bowman, D.D., Rev. Edware Bright, D.D., Hon. Joseph E. Brown, Hon. Felix R. Brunot, Rev. J. M Buckley, D.D., Rev. J. A. M. Chapman, D.D., Hon. William Claflin, Hon. Robert H. Corbett, Rev. Geo. R. Crooks, D.D., Hon J L. M. Curry, LL. D., Rev. J. F. Elder, D.D., Gen. Clinton B. Fisk, Bishop Cyrus D. Foss, D.D., Hon. F. T. Frelinghuysen, Rev. Hervey D. Ganse, D.D., Hon. Grant Goodrich, Bishop J. C. Granberry, D.D., Rev. John Hall, D.D., LL.D., T. P. Handy, Esq., Rt. Rev. Samuel S. Harris, D.D., Bishop Wm L. Harris, D.D.,LL.D., Rev. R. D. Hitchcock, D.D.,LL.D., Rev. James McCosh, D.D., LL.D., Bishop H. N. McTyeire, D.D., H. Thane Miller, Esq., Bishop W. R. Nicholson, Rev. S J. Nichols, D.D., Rev. Wm. Ormiston, D.D., Hon. Peter Parker, M.D., John E. Parsons, Esq., Bishop D. A. Payne, Rev. E. N. Potter, D.D., Bishop A. A. Rkinke, D D., Rev. H. B. Ridgaway, D.D., Rev. Wm. T. Sabine, Hon. Jacob Sleeper, Hon. George H. Stuart, Rev. Roderic Terry, D.D., Rev. J. H. Vincent, D.D., Rt. Rev. F. McN. Whittle, D.D., Rev. J. Leighton Wilson, D.D., Hon. Robt. C. Winthrop, LL.D., Hon. Wm. Woodward, Rev. Theo. D. Woolsey, D.D. ,LL.D. Honorary Secretaries . Rev. Howard Crosby, D.D., LL.D., Rev. G. W. Samson, D.D.,LL.D., Rev. C. F. Deems, D.D., LL.D., Rev. Wm. M. Taylor, D.D., Rev. R. H. McKim, D.D., Rev. O. H. Tiffany, D.D., Rev. E. A. Reed, D.D., Rev. A. C. Wedekind, D.D. Hon. Corresponding Secretaries. Rev. S. Iren^eus Prime, D.D , Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. Corresponding and Recording Secretaries. Rev. Henry B. Chapin, Ph.D., Rev. George U. Wenner. Treasurer. Caleb T. Rowe, Esq. Executive Committee. Rev. James M. King, D.D., Chairman, R*w. R. S. MacArthur, Rev. Merritt Hulburd, R. R. McBurney, Esq., Hon. John Jay, John Paton, Esq., Rev. C. A. Stoddard, D.D. The President, Honorary Secretaries, and Treasurer, ex-officio members. DOCUMENTS OF THE United States Evangelical Alliance. Doc. I. DEPORT OX THE STATE OF BELIGTON IX THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, niu.de to the Fifth General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance, at Amsterdam, Holland, 1867. By Henry B. Smith, D.D No. of Pages. 43 REPORT UPON THE CONFERENCE AT AMSTERDAM. By S. Irenleus Prime, D.D., 1867 8 Doc. II. FIRST ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLI- ANCE, for the United States of America 15 Doc. III. CONFERENCE OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE, Novem- ber 4th and 5th, 1869. Report of Dr. Schaef on his Mission to Eu- rope in behalf of the General Conference 39 Doc. IY. SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLI- ANCE for the United States of America, 1869 15 Doc. Y. THIRD ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLI- ANCE, for the United States of America, 1870 18 Doc. VI. REPORT OF THE DEPUTATION OF THE AMERICAN BRANCH OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE, appointed 10 Memoralize the Emperor of Russia in behalf of Religious Liberty, 1 87 i 32 Doc. YII FOURTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLI- ANCE for the United States of America, 1871 18 Doc. YIIT. FIFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLI- ANCE for the United States of America, 1872 20 Doc. IX. SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLI- ANCE for the United States of America, 1 873 36 Doc. X. SEVENTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL AL- LTANCK for the United States of America 1H74. 22 Doc. XI. EIGHTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLI- ANCE for the United States of America, 1875 22 Doc. XI r. NINTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLI- ANCE for the United States of America. 1876 6 Doc. XIII. TENTH AND ELEVENTH ANNUAL REPORTS OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE for the United States of America, 1877 and 1878 15 Doc. XIY. REPORT ON CHRISTIANITY IN THE UNITED STATES, prepaied for the Seventh General Conference of the Evangelical Alliance, held iu Basle, Switzerland, September, 1879, by Philip Schaff, D.D 67 1 Doc. XY. TWELFTH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE EVANGELICAL ALLI- ANCE for the United States of America, 1879, including Reports on the Third Biennial Meeting at St. Louis, and the Seventh Gen- eral Conference at Basle 32 Doc. XVI. ACTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND BRITISH ALLI- ANCES on the death of Hon. Wm. E. Dodge ; Acceptance of the Presidency by Hon. John Jay; Protest of the United States Alli- ance against the “ Freedom of Worship ” Bill 24 Doc. XVII. CELBR \TION OF THE FOUR HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BIRTH-DAY OF MARTIN LUTHER— November 13, 1883. W i 1 h the addresses of the Hon. John Jay, Rev. Wm. M. Tay- lok, D.D., Rev. Phillips Brooks, D.D 49 Doc. XYIII. THE DISCORD AND CONCORD OF CHRISTENDOM. Report on the Eighth General Conference, held at Copenhagen, September, 1834, and on the Scandinavian meeting held in New York, Novem- ber 17th, 1884. With addresses 52 Doc. XIX. ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, concerning the so-called ‘-Freedom of Worship” Bill, before the Legislature of 1885 18