The Constitution or a Theory — Which? people, has a right to decide that the mi nority shall accept the religious teachings of the Roman Catholic church, and, in com mon with the majority, contribute to its support. Aye, it may even decree that the minority shall furnish all of the funds for the support of the religious institutions of the majority, as a penalty for being in the minority. This is the logic of the initiative and referendum, and we have a right to as sume, in considering the merits of any ques tion, that the worst that may happen is likely to occur. The constitutional system, recognizing that " the pursuit of happiness" demands that the individual shall be free to choose his own religious teachings, and that to secure this right " governments are insti tuted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," wisely stipulates in the fundamental law that " con gress shall make no law respecting an estab lishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and as a guarantee that this clause will not be violated, and that the unalienable right of the individual to the "pursuit of happiness " will not be trans gressed, it institutes a co-ordinate branch of the government, with the power to set aside any act of congress which transcends the limit of delegated powers. It will be urged, by those who believe that systems directly hostile to each other may be made to operate in the same territory, that there is no disposition to reopen the religious controversies of the past; that no one wants to change this feature of the constitu tional system, and this is undoubtedly true as respects those who are urging the change, but we are dealing with a practical question of civil government, and one which compre hends, not alone the high-minded idealist, but the good, bad and indifferent of all the world, and any plan of government which fails to take notice of the frailties of man kind, is not calculated to meet the require ments of good government anywhere this side of the millenium. It will be noted,
481
moreover, that the limitation in respect to religious matters is a limitation upon con gress, not upon the people. The language is that " Congress shall make no law re specting an establishment of religion, orprohibiting the free exercise thereof," and though it will be conceded that this might be amended so as to prohibit the people from making such a law, such an amend ment would not only deny the doctrine of the initiative and referendum, that the will of the majority is law, but it would be utterly ineffective, for the reason that it is impossible for the courts to enforce their decrees against the majority. It would be absurd to expect a court, which might it self be abolished by a simple process, to declare void an act which had the sanction of a majority of the people at the polls, and, even shoiuld the court be true to the constitution, it would lack the force, being in the minority, to make its decree effec tive. What is true in matters of religion, is equally true in respect to the rights of property. What becomes of the constitu tional guarantee that private property shall not be taken for public purposes except upon the payment of just compensation? What court would undertake to enforce the rights of the individual owner, as against the declared will of the majority of the peo ple, when the same people, in the very heat of their excitement, might by the same pro cess not only remove the officer, but actu ally destroy the court. It is true, of course, that under ordinary conditions, there would be a disposition to do justice by the indi vidual, but it is not normal conditions with which government is called to deal. If mankind was always normal there would be very little need for government, and it is only for the purpose of dealing with abnor mal conditions that the expensive machinery of government is kept in motion at all times, and it is under these conditions that the individual stands most in need of pro
